Christian Politics: A Biblical Perspective

My Christianity is political and my politics are Christian

Basically: I believe that Jesus Christ is left-wing

At least by our contemporary standards

Sure, you may disagree with me but allow me to have my say!

I believe that the words of Jesus are recorded in Holy Scripture, which I believe is inspired by The Godhead

And I believe that Jesus Christ is an element of The Godhead - that Jesus Christ is "God"

I can show that he is left-wing by referring to Holy Scripture, in God's own words.

First of all:

“Love your neighbour as yourself” - Mark 12:31

Here to “love” means to treat others with compassion, respect, and concern – as though their wellbeing is important, worthy, and valuable to you

It doesn't mean kissing and/or holding hands!

And “neighbour” means your fellow humans, those who live in the same community as you. Be it your street, your town, your country, or the universal human family

Humans come in Communities. Humans are made out of Communities and Communities are made out of Humans. That is I believe a fundamental truth about human nature that we should keep in mind when doing politics.

Jesus clearly calls on us to be involved concerned members of our community and to love our fellow humans, he says it plainly

Question: Are you concerned about your own wellbeing? – if so, then Jesus commands you to be just as concerned about the wellbeing of others!

This is backed up by:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” - John 13: 34

And clearly, Jesus loved his disciples, and loves us!

To show how concerned The Lord is for we humans Jesus carried out various acts of public healing, to demonstrate both his compassion and his powers, so as to amplify the impact of his ministry, to make it resound down the ages:

He heals blind people (John 9:1–12)

He heals lepers (Luke 17:11–19)

He heals paralysed people (Mark 2:1–12)

Jesus is also a pacifist. He said:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” - Matthew 5:9

If Jesus is on the side of the peacemakers, then that means he is against the warmongers, this is clear proof that Jesus values peace over conflict

Simple logic, really

Clearly God loves peace and hates war - Those who want to be Godly should I think have that in mind, before dropping bombs, launching missiles, or firing shells....

Jesus is also on the side of those who lack power and those who are poor:

“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.” - Matthew5:5

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” - Luke 6:20

And here's the thing: If Jesus is on the side of the poor and the powerless then that means he is against the rich and the powerful

That is simple logic

Scripture shows us that Jesus (who is God) is clearly not on the side of the warmongering establishment. He is clearly against those who have power, who are rich, and who wage war. This is clearly spelt out in the bible, yet a great many people carry on as though it isn’t in there, when it clearly is...

Further evidence that Jesus is on the side of the ordinary people rather than the rich and powerful, the billionaires:

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” - Luke 16:13

Currently, the majority of world leaders clearly do love money and clearly do serve it, everything they do is about increasing their own personal wealth. Although yes, this goes for some more than for others.

Well…. Jesus is against all that, he is not with such people. Sure, he loves them. But in Earthly politics he is not on their side.

The way I see it, no politician who is a millionaire, who has lots of properties and capital can be a servant of God. If they don’t believe that, then fine. If they want to love money then that’s fine, too. But at the end of the day, such people cannot really be men of God and it would be dishonest of them to pose as men of God. And we would be foolish to take them as being men of God.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with being comfortable financially. Having financial security, a nice house, a nice car, foreign holidays. A big TV. But being obsessed about it and hoarding stupid amounts that you could never spend is I think both unhealthy and against the teachings of God – and as concerned citizens, those of us who value the teachings of Jesus Christ should take all that into consideration when deciding who to support politically

Here's the thing: I think that all people should contribute to the good of the community, through either taxation and/or charity - based on their ability to pay. The rich should pay a larger portion than the less rich, and the destitute should not be taxed.

And I think that those who want to serve God should be more concerned about the plight of the world's poor, and seek to make our planet more developed. A better place to live for everyone. I think it would be better to spend our money on improving the standard of living on our planet for all people, rather than blowing things up and shooting people. I believe that is the Christian way: to prioritise international development (and domestic social policies) over bombs and bullets.

Hospitals and schools, not aircraft carriers and tanks! - That is I believe the Christian way. Although of course, we still need militaries to defend ourselves with. But the aim should be peace, not war. There is a difference between being able to defend yourself and going out and waging wars.

Basically: In my opinion, Christians should be out to make the world work better for all the poor people, at the expense of the super-ultra-mega rich. In my mind, this would involve some measure of redistribution. 

And I also think that God would like to see the link between wealth and power to be finally broken. Once that happens, humankind will flourish.

However, we shouldn’t be horrible to the rich and powerful, we shouldn’t guillotine them, or anything like that, because Jesus says:

“But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” - Matthew 5:44

And of course, God loves the rich as much as he does everyone else

But they should be much less powerful and they should pay their fair share towards the welfare of the community - and no, I do not mean confiscate all their money and just hand it out, that would be stupid. Wealth is not the problem, poverty and inequality are. Don't let them confuse you!

I think the best course of action is to just not vote for the candidates backed by various sectional interests who only value money and not goodness or loving their neighbours and to vote for those who favour peace and who would rule in the interests of the ordinary people, not the elites

But I'm not going to say what policies I personally would favour based on all this, because it is not my job to do that. All I'm doing is showing you the scripture, the rest you must do for yourselves

And finally, I believe that God approves of multi-culturalism and does not want us to hate immigrants. Which I think is a very relevant thing politically, in both the USA and the UK:

^“When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself” - Leviticus 19:33-34

This doesn’t mean God favours open and unlimited immigration, but it does mean that he doesn’t want people to be hate-filled about people of different origins, from other lands and other cultures. By “resides among you in your land” I think this scripture mean s “being lawfully present in your nation”.

The word “resides” is doing a lot of lifting here. But the point is, hating immigrants (indeed any hatred) is not at all the Christian way, and it would be better for people to channel their energies into other things. There are more important issues, and the issue of immigrants is I think very much used to distract people from what I think is the right way to go about things.

Anyway, to conclude. In my opinion (and of course, I am not claiming to be infallible or to speak for God, I am only quoting scripture):

1. God wants us to live together in a community, looking after each other and valuing others as much as we value ourselves. The word here is "love".
2. God wants world peace and wants us to find peaceful solutions to our various conflicts.
3. God is on the side of the powerless and the poor, and therefore against the powerful and the rich. I don't think that it is a huge leap to go from this to believing that poverty should be abolished and the rich should not be unduly powerful.
4. Be mindful that if a person is very focused on money and acquiring wealth then they will be less focused on God and doing what's right. But don't do anything awful to them.

Do with this as you will

It is not my job to tell you what policies or parties such an approach would favour. Although I think that all of the above has a biblical, scriptural basis. If I didn't think this I would never have wrote this.

Christianity + Democracy = my politics

Politically, I am now a Christian Democrat

That is how I identify

My world-view is Christian

And I think society should be run democratically, that the political system should be a democracy

Christianity + Democracy = my politics

More about this to come........

First party political post: Reform UK and our NHS

This is the first party political post on Madaba.info

I don't normally tend to get involved in party politics but I want to vent so here we go!

In short, I believe that Christianity demands universal health care, free at the point of use.

I think that Reform UK are against this, and to me that makes them anti-Christian. 

Read the gospels and you will see that Jesus Christ clearly has an interest in healing the ill, and did so out of compassion and concern, not for money

He healed all, asking for nothing in return

Christianity is all about being concerned for the welfare of your fellow humans and about building up a caring community

That is what Mark 12:31 is all about: "love your neighbour as yourself"

In 2012 the current leader of Reform UK, Nigel Farage said:

“I think we are going to have to move to an insurance-based system of healthcare”

Which would mean abolishing the NHS as we know it

Let’s have a bit of a closer look

Who are this “we”?

It does not mean “we” the British people, that’s for sure

Abolishing the NHS would be objectively bad for us and make our lives worse

It means Nigel Farage’s chums in the Financial Class, of which he is clearly a part

The Financial Class would profit greatly from privatising the NHS, as they do in the USA where people pay through the nose for health coverage which very frequently never pays out and does not care about pre-existing conditions

Of course those people would like us to privatise our NHS, they would profit greatly from that by “providing” us with health insurance!

Also, what does he mean by “have to”?

If the meaning of life is to line the pockets of the Financial Class at the expense of the ordinary people then yes, we do have to do that – but thankfully it isn’t!

A vote for Reform UK would be a vote for national self-harm

Nigel Farage will try and distract the electorate with riots, minorities, "wokeism", boat people, indolent verminous dole scum and the like – but at the end of the day, our health and our health service would not be safe in his hands

In my mind, Nigel Farage not being fully committed to the principles of the NHS means he is unfit to be our Prime Minister. I believe that his views about the NHS are counter to both the views and interests of the British people

References:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/12/film-nigel-farage-insurance-based-nhs-private-companies

A Review of The Beatles third studio album, "A Hard Day's Night" (1964)

Today I have listened to The Beatles third studio album, A Hard Day’s Night, from 1964

I enjoyed this album as much as I did With The Beatles, and more than I enjoyed Please Please Me – so I’m going to give it two and a half stars out of five. It is slightly more interesting and less samey than With The Beatles, but not significantly better

I was already familiar with two songs from this album, Can’t Buy My Love and A Hard Day’s Night – and these are easily the two stand-out tracks on this album

If I Fell and And I Love Her both landed for me, I think these are good songs

I also liked Tell Me Why – I think this one is all very jangly and twee but good, jangly and twee done well, perfecting that particular sound which is present in this album and the other two that came before it

Any Time At All was good too – captivating and lush, it has a good intro and chorus, it’s very generic, but a good example of its kind, this one is also jangly and twee done well

Tracks that did not work for me:

I’ll Cry Instead

Things We Said Today – I found this one dull and tedious

When I Get Home – a bit shit really and uninspired, not very interesting

You Can’t Do That – childish, I didn’t like it

I’ll Be Back – cutesy and annoying, generic but not done well

I think this album has its ups and also its downs, but I don’t rate it massively high although I do recognise that culturally it is very significant, an important and historically significant album. So it qualifies as “great” whilst being mediocre in terms of overall quality. The good bits cancel out the bad bits but the bad bits also cancel out the good bits. So I think it’s not so bad but also not really very thrilling

But were I listening to this in the 1960s, with the same culture in me as people had in the 60s then I would be raving about this album, I would be very enthusiastic about it and probably be a Beatles fan! – but I am not of the 1960s and those days are long gone, so right now for me this album is nothing special and not particularly good, in my opinion!

But I still rate it as a creative success, it is by no means a failure. It is just not in any way outstanding in terms of how good it is.....

So yeah, two and a half stars out of five, I think that's reasonable and fair

Listening to The Beatles Albums - "Please Please Me" and "With The Beatles"

I have decided to listen to every album by The Beatles, in the order in which they were released

Yesterday I listened to their first album, Please Please Me

I think that all these songs were very very similar

I think they sounded generic, all very similar in tone and spirit

But the thing is, back in the 60s they'd have felt fresh and novel, and would have hit differently

And of course, The Beatles contributed greatly to the sound that we recognise as being 1960s-ish

In my opinion Love Me Do and Twist And Shout are the two stand-out tracks on this album

The others don't stand out and are all a bit samey

So I think this album should get some points for being historically significant but based simply on how good the tracks are as tracks I'd have to give this album two stars out of five

Today I listened to their second album, With The Beatles

This basically has the same sound, but it is done much better, and with more character and presence, the tracks on this one sound more substantial than on Please Please Me, it is a much better album as the tracks are much better, even though they are very similar to both themselves and the tracks on Please Please Me

I think they have noticeably improved since Please Please Me, this one is a much better effort

It Won't Be Long is a cracking song as is I Wanna Be Your Man

Please Mister Postman and Roll Over Beethoven also stand out, and feel very 60s-ish but I think a part of this may be because that we associate those songs with 60s pop music - I'd say that they are iconic and of their time more than they are good

Devil In Her Heart also sounds very well crafted, and I like the guitar riffs in it

But the other tracks are very much like the tracks in Please Please Me and don't really stand out and are not particularly memorable

I gave Please Please Me 2 stars out of 5. I think I will award With The Beatles 2.5 stars out of 5, as it is marginally better than Please Please Me but still very similar

It's not really The Beatles at a later stage of development, but it is clearly an improvement on Please Please Me - they are definitely a better band on their second album and I think the improvement is very noticeable

Also, the vibe of this album hits differently, it sounds like they took the whole thing more seriously than they did Please Please Me, and it is less twee and jangly and a bit more mature - they come across as young men, rather than as boys (as they did in Please Please Me)

In these two albums their tracks are I think formulaic, all their tracks sound alike even though some of them do stand out more than others, but not massively

The sound in With The Beatles is clearly from the same place as the sound carried on Please Please Me even though it is slightly more mature and sophisticated

I think that with Please Please Me and With The Beatles the tracks are all a bit hit and miss but more miss than hit I'm afraid - but at the time they'd have felt better

Hold Me Tight is definitely a miss for me, it just doesn't work for me

You Really Got A Hold On Me also isn't too good in my opinion. It most certainly didn't get a hold on me!!!!

Till There Was You is also nice I think, it is pleasant and rather chilled and sounds sweet and nice

But I do like their use of a harmonica in some of their tracks on both albums!

Also: I enjoyed With The Beatles much more than I did Please Please Me - so that's got to count for something, if it was more fun to listen to, and also more memorable too I'd say!

Tomorrow I will listen to their third album, A Hard Day's Night!

"regulates", not "controls"

Today I explained to someone what Madaba does

I told them that Madaba "regulates" the Noosphere

I think this is a much better word than "controls"

"Regulates" sounds less hands-on than "controls" and implies that Madaba's activities are more about sustaining and facilitating than guiding or superintending

Madaba does not rule or control

Madaba facilitates

I am The Madaba

I am The Madaba

And this is my blog

Solutions to some of the world's many problems coming soon.............