Who is more gullible?

by avidbiblereader 22 Replies latest jw friends

  • Brother Apostate
    Brother Apostate
    In other words, you're more gullible for putting faith in God than voting for someone based on a false promises.

    I'd have to disagree with that one. Politician's promises, especially over the last few decades, have been nothing but false promises, whereas God's promises in the Bible, it can be argued, are yet to be fulfilled. Based on that, I would say that putting faith in Christ's promises is less gullible than putting faith in modern-day politician's promises. "Gullible" derives from "gull" (seagulls), which will swallow anything. Christ's promises have not been fulfilled yet, while politician's promises have not been fulfilled during their term in office. There is a difference. Time will tell, ultimately the wisdom of belief in Christ's promises. I, for one, choose to have faith in them (Christ's teachings). That doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for a politician, however. BA- Puts faith in Christ. PS- Mark Twain, as well as a few other wise men, had a thing or two to say on this subject: Look at the tyranny of party--at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty--a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes--and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction; and forgetting or ignoring that their fathers and the churches shouted the same blasphemies a generation earlier when they were closing their doors against the hunted slave, beating his handful of humane defenders with Bible texts and billies, and pocketing the insults and licking the shoes of his Southern master. - "The Character of Man," Mark Twain's Autobiography

    In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination. -Mark Twain

    And, he gave it for his Opinion; that whoever could make two Ears of Corn, or two Blades of Grass to grow upon a Spot of Ground where only one grew before; would deserve better of Mankind, and do more essential Service to his Country, than the whole Race of Politicians put together. - Jonathan Swift (1667–1745)

    O Lord, may I never want to look good. O Jesus, may I always read it all: out loud and the very way it should be. May I never look at the other findings until I have come to my own true conclusions: May I care for the least of the young: and become aware of the one poem that each may have written; may I be aware of what each thing is, delighted with form, and wary of the false comparison; may I never use the word "brilliant." — Theodore Roethke

  • avidbiblereader
    avidbiblereader

    Well put and thanks for the quotes BA, great substance from some very intelligent people who most likely seen the thick of politics.

    I guess with this thread it is as Will Rodgers said

    "the difference of opinioin makes horse racing and religion'

    abr

  • AlmostAtheist
    AlmostAtheist

    >>and yet seem to throw that away for mere men and false promises and the world sinking ever deeper into a morass of helplessness.

    There is a certain amount of black/white, either/or thinking in this phrase and in the thread itself that I think needs addressed.

    I don't think that ex-JW's that vote would agree that they have exchanged their faith in God's Kingdom for a new faith in "Man's Kingdom". You either have faith in god or you don't. You either vote, or you don't. The two are not linked.

    I may believe that God will one day rid the world of poverty. But if there is a ballot measure out there that I believe will help poverty today, I may well vote for it.

    Also in the black/white arena, I don't think people put the same sort of "faith" in political figures that they do in gods. Gods are usually held to be perfect, whereas men are known not to be. So it would be very possible to have complete faith in god, and still vote for a guy that you thought had half a chance of success.

    But to your original point about gullibility, I don't think it's fair to try to lump "faithful to god" folks in one big heap, "voters" into another heap, then try to compare their aggregate gullibility's. Some people vote for the stupidest reasons -- "He has an honest face" -- but others carefully weigh their vote before casting it. (That both votes count the same is a discussion for another day!) Likewise, some people believe in the same god their parents did, without so much as single question. Others have searched high and low before settling on what they think is the right god for them. There is gullibility of varying levels within both heaps.

    Dave of the "atheist non-voting but still gullible" class

  • avidbiblereader
    avidbiblereader

    AlmostsAtheist

    I don't think that ex-JW's that vote would agree that they have exchanged their faith in God's Kingdom for a new faith in "Man's Kingdom". You either have faith in god or you don't. You either vote, or you don't. The two are not linked.

    Well I appreciate your thoughts but don't you either put your trust in men or God? Dont you either put your hopes and wishes in one or the other?

    Respectfully,abr

  • Brother Apostate
    Brother Apostate

    AA,

    There is gullibility of varying levels within both heaps.

    Indeed, very succinct and true are those words.

    BA

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    Believing in God and getting involved in politics are not two incompatible activities as the isolationist JWs claim. Politics is just another natural human activity and it depends what one makes of it just like photography for example it has good and bad uses.

    One should try to influence politics to move in a benign direction.

  • Brother Apostate
    Brother Apostate
    Well I appreciate your thoughts but don't you either put your trust in men or God? Dont you either put your hopes and wishes in one or the other?

    Perhaps a different view will get you thinking about your comment:

    When you go to work, do you put faith in your supervisor(s) that they will make the right decison? You are putting your trust in men, then, are you not?

    Likewise, one who chooses to vote is choosing to put some level of faith that their candidate will make a "better" decison than the opposition.

    In office politics, you don't get to vote, but in real politics, you do.

    Perhaps it is the underlying responsibility that you have issue with?

    Politics and religion- the two are not mutually exclusive, imo.

    BA

  • avidbiblereader
    avidbiblereader

    BA

    When you go to work, do you put faith in your supervisor(s) that they will make the right decison? You are putting your trust in men, then, are you not?

    Usually at work I don't have a choice of who want to run a particular position and many times it is a matter of them 'proving' that they are the "right" ,man/woman for the job.

    But when discussing about a voluntary descision to put a man/woman in to office to run an entire country's affairs, is a different issue with me, personally.

    respectfully,abr

  • Brother Apostate
    Brother Apostate

    Abr,

    Allow me to play Devil's Advocate:

    If all believed as you do, that we should not vote, who would lead?

    How would leadership be attained?

    One need only to study history to learn conclusively that violence, and occasionally popularity, is the ascender to the throne.

    That being the case, until Christ's promises are fulfilled, mankind will continue to try to better their conditions by whatever means are at their disposal, whether it be voting or revolution.

    BA- Puts faith in Christ- lives in the here and now.

    PS- More quotes to get you thinking:

    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

    William Shakespeare, "Hamlet", Act 1 scene 5 - English dramatist & poet (1564 - 1616)

    We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two, because one and one are two. We are finding that we must learn a great deal more about "and." ~Arthur Stanley Eddington

    The charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consist in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different. ~Aldous Huxley

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." attributed - Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos
    Christ did not involve himself with this world and this is the stance I take.

    Well, at least your definition of "this world" as referring (mostly) to politics seems to be highly dependent on WT interpretation.

    In the NT the idea of being "no part of the world" occurs mainly in two contexts, John and James. In the former it is opposed to a religious/spiritual notion, being (born) from above; in the latter it is opposed to an ethical attitude, that of respect for, and solidarity with, the poor and destitute -- which btw is not devoid of political overtones, cf. James' symmetrical charges against "the rich".

    In neither case an attitude of "political neutrality" is even hinted at. Btw neither Jesus nor any of the apostles would have had the opportunity to vote for the next Roman emperor, so whether they would have done it or not is pure guesswork

    But what about the policies that go in to affect and one may be responsible for, such as war?

    Does not ones voting advocate or support the affects of the elected politican policies?

    Well, if you are against all wars you could join an anti-militaristic party; but are you really? Do you think WWII, Vietnam, Iraq, interventions in Rwanda, Bosnia or (possibly) Darfur are morally equivalent? At a realistic level, choosing a possible candidate knowing why and how s/he might lead your country to war, or not, may be morally more important than keeping yourself "clean".

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit