I see political discussion is alive and well on MennoNet.Judas Maccabeus wrote:AfD is downright scary. I was in Germany during the sunup to the last election, and almost all of their posters were anti-immigrant, in one case coming out and saying we don't need these people.Szdfan wrote:I had to chuckle.Swiss Bro wrote: Even if there are quite a lot of Catholics in Switzerland, the party is dwindling and they think it is because of the C so they do not want that label anymore. They are going to drop the C and will be called Die Mitte (the middle) now.
Following the end of East Germany, the former ruling
Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (SED) became the Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus (PDS) and are now called “Die Linke.” (The Left)
Since WWII, German politics had been rather mild, dominated by the center-right CDU and center-left SPD. That’s changing now, as memories of WWII fade an extremist parties emerge like the anti-immigrant, islamophobic ARD.
J.M.
Christian parties in Europe
-
Josh
- Posts: 24760
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
- Location: 1000' ASL
- Affiliation: The church of God
Re: Christian parties in Europe
0 x
-
PetrChelcicky
- Posts: 783
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:32 pm
- Location: Krefeld, Germany
- Affiliation: none
Re: Christian parties in Europe
It is not simply a political discussion. It is also a discussion about the word "Christian", its usage and meaning. For me, "Christian" is a comprehensive term for all human members of the family which has its roots in the small Jesus movement in the First Century. The members do not accord about everything, so obviously not all of them interpret the ideas in the same right way, but errors don't make them "non-Christian".
It is also, as I see now, a discussion about one of the central questions of our time: Have Christians to be self-sacrifying or can they be self-realizing and self-expressing (for instance, expressing themselves in institutions)? This seems to me the question behind Bootstrap's idea that Christian parties "aren't about the Gospel, they do protect some Christian institution" - as if the Gospel and the institutions were distinct things which have nothing to do with each other.
Now, from a purely humanist approach, I think no man should be persuaded to sacrify himself and every man ought to be persuaded to realize and express himself, to create and afterwards protect his institutions.
The difference is imho only that we, as citizens of heaven, can more easily abstain from earthly possessions and also institutions, if it needs to be! But this is not a goal in itself - there is no internal value in destruction of one's institutions or possessions or creations or oneself.
It is also, as I see now, a discussion about one of the central questions of our time: Have Christians to be self-sacrifying or can they be self-realizing and self-expressing (for instance, expressing themselves in institutions)? This seems to me the question behind Bootstrap's idea that Christian parties "aren't about the Gospel, they do protect some Christian institution" - as if the Gospel and the institutions were distinct things which have nothing to do with each other.
Now, from a purely humanist approach, I think no man should be persuaded to sacrify himself and every man ought to be persuaded to realize and express himself, to create and afterwards protect his institutions.
The difference is imho only that we, as citizens of heaven, can more easily abstain from earthly possessions and also institutions, if it needs to be! But this is not a goal in itself - there is no internal value in destruction of one's institutions or possessions or creations or oneself.
0 x