Republican and Christianity

[BrianW]

Be a little careful using the argument about "society demanded it", unless you're willing to stand by the same argument if worshipping God becomes illegal on the basis that "society demands it".

It is both a statement of fact based on past precedent and an argument that American society as a whole can decide these things as they have in the case of gay marriage in the 31 (I think) states that have put it to a vote.
If it ever becomes illegal to worship God in America then so be it. I would just conduct myself as the apostles and early Christians did. How could I do any less?

No worries here.

[Boo]

Now, that was an interesting set of reponses!

If I say that our votes should reflect what God teaches us, people say that my statement is "vote Republican." Wow? Did I say that? I can't extract that out of my phrase at all. Are there only two choices on all of your ballots: Republican and Democrat? We have many more down here where I live.

If I post scripture that says that Jesus threatens to condemn a church that allows a false prophet to lead them into imorality, then I am "missing the point entirely?" Gulp! Did I? Applying those verses into how we think and act is "missing the point entirely?" Not wanting to be lead, as a nation, into accepting immorality worse than we already have is misinterpreting the lessons of scripture?

What language do we speak here? Do I need a Rosetta Stone course to post here and be understood?

[BrianW]

Hey, I'm still waiting for someone to step up and take the Pepsi challenge and tell us which policies of the republican platform directly contradict the teachings of our Lord and Savior.

I'm amazed that a thread that was started with a false premise has even lasted this long.

[tango]

If I say that our votes should reflect what God teaches us, people say that my statement is "vote Republican." Wow? Did I say that? I can't extract that out of my phrase at all. Are there only two choices on all of your ballots: Republican and Democrat? We have many more down here where I live.

Saying "our votes should reflect what God teaches us" opens up a lovely big can of worms. In the US I believe (I don't live there so I can't be sure) you can write in any name you choose on your ballot papers? Or you can vote for much smaller parties, such as Ralph Nader in the 2000 elections (just like you can here in the UK).

That leads into all sorts of issues. Let's say you regard the Democrats as baby-killers, or the Republicans as warmongerers and can't in good conscience vote for one or the other (I'm deliberately taking more extreme viewpoints here to make a point rather than to attempt to define either party). For the sake of argument let's take the first viewpoint, so you can't sleep at night if you vote Democrat. The only party that can viably keep the Democrats out is the Republicans. You might vote Libertarian or some other party but they aren't going to win in what is essentially a two-horse race. But what if you can't vote Republican in good conscience because you see them as warmongerers? Do you vote for warmongerers in an attempt to keep the baby killers out of power, or do you vote for a minor party and effectively not let your vote count, knowing that you could have done more to keep one side out of office but chose not to do so?

If I post scripture that says that Jesus threatens to condemn a church that allows a false prophet to lead them into imorality, then I am "missing the point entirely?" Gulp! Did I? Applying those verses into how we think and act is "missing the point entirely?" Not wanting to be lead, as a nation, into accepting immorality worse than we already have is misinterpreting the lessons of scripture?

There is a concept of using an appropriate Scripture for a situation. If we were talking about what career path someone should follow as they were considering going into metalworking it would be utterly useless to quote 2Ti 4:14 as a reason to avoid becoming a coppersmith.

There is a world of difference between a church tolerating false teaching within itself and a church expecting to impose its own values upon those outside the church using the force of law. If people live an apparently holy life simply because they are legally compelled to do so, do they gain anything? I seem to recall the Pharisees did that kind of thing and Jesus had some choice words for them.

I don't expect the church to tolerate open and flagrant sinfulness within the congregation. I equally don't expect the church to start browbeating those outside the church, those who cannot be expected to live a Godly life because they don't accept God at all. Why would someone who does not accept Jesus be interested in living the life that Jesus calls us to live? If someone regards the Bible as being no more relevant to them than the text of Moby Dick why would we expect them to live in accordance with Biblical principles, and how does it help anyone to use the force of law to impose our own selected Bible verses upon them unless we truly believe that what the world needs is a few more whitewashed tombs?

What language do we speak here? Do I need a Rosetta Stone course to post here and be understood?

Not sure what you're trying to say there. A point can be made in perfectly coherent English without being even the slightest bit relevant to the discussion. Likewise a point can be entirely relevant to the discussion even if it is made in English so mangled it's barely comprehensible.

[tango]

It is both a statement of fact based on past precedent and an argument that American society as a whole can decide these things as they have in the case of gay marriage in the 31 (I think) states that have put it to a vote.
If it ever becomes illegal to worship God in America then so be it. I would just conduct myself as the apostles and early Christians did. How could I do any less?

No worries here.

Even this doesn't really resolve any issues.

If it becomes illegal to worship God in America we say we would continue to worship anyway, in defiance of the law, because we follow a higher law. In other words we say our calling is such that we would defy the laws that our society has demanded. But at the same time we expect others to obey the laws they find abhorrent, even though the same society has demanded them.

From our perspective it might appear entirely consistent insofar as we are following God's laws. But how would we expect others to accept such a stance when it is so easily summarised as us looking to impose our views on others while not allowing them to impose their views on us?

[Free Indeed]

Hey, I'm still waiting for someone to step up and take the Pepsi challenge and tell us which policies of the republican platform directly contradict the teachings of our Lord and Savior.

I'm amazed that a thread that was started with a false premise has even lasted this long.

I'm not sure if anything in the actual platform does, but the actions of Republican leaders do. For example, the Bush Doctrine directly contradicts Matthew 5:38-39. This is just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more examples.

[BrianW]

I edited the post to not be so snarky. My apologies.

I don't believe that Jesus put that forth as a mandate for how governments should operate. If he had and America and Europe did follow that mandate then we would all be speaking German or Japanese right now and America and Europe would not exist as we know them today.

In fact America most likely would have never even come to be in the first place.

[Reynolds357]

man, this is super weird...your criticism is that the GLBT community should take on fights for every conceivable oppressed group....nope you couldn't be saying that because that's blatant nonsense. Perhaps you are wondering why the GLBT community doesn't combine forces with other groups of people who are oppressed for their particular sexualities...But on that end, I think the GLBT community pretty much does try to cover that ground. I mean it seems like they have a reasonable scope based on some pretty logical and obvious similarities homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered people. Seems you want them to become a more general group...idk like the ACLU, but that exists already, and I'm sure it has its share of GLBT people who champion more general causes within that organizations scope. I think fundamentally you are complaining that a group has a focus, One could ask why aren't policemen also firefighters and paramedics, they all deal with public safety and there is definite overlap....sometimes it just makes sense to focus on something, otherwise you're a jack of all trades and a master of none right? anyway this isn't really your problem with them is it?

Not saying members of the Gay community should take on the fight. I am saying outsiders who are sympathetic to and participate in their "cause" should likewise take up the cause of all other similar groups of people.

[Reynolds357]

What I see, in the issue of gay marriage at least, is an awful lot of what seems like little more than semantic nitpicking.

In the UK we have a civil partnership option for gay couples which, as far as I can tell (I haven't researched in any detail as it's not relevant to my life), offers the same secular benefits as marriage but still there's the push for a gay couple to be called "married". As far as I can tell those in favour are arguing over terminology insofar as they have all the benefits except the use of a specific word, and those against are arguing over terminology on the basis the relationship is legally going to be much the same even if it is called a "marriage".

I wouldn't expect the gay community to fight the fights of others, they have their own battles. In terms of other "oppressed" people I'd just come back (as always) to the issue of informed consent. Usually what comes up at times like this are paedophiles and the like, in which case there is a definite issue on the basis that a child cannot give informed consent. For good measure that one comes with legal tangles relating to the legal age of consent, which in turn feeds back into the question relating to the age at which an individual can be deemed to make an informed decision for themselves.

If "informed consent" is the standard by which we operate, then every action that has no direct victim would be legal. Heroin, Cocaine, Meth, etc. etc.
This nation was founded on legislating morality. Our oldest documents legislated Christian morality and the concept of "not legislating morality" is modern and not at all based in our founding documents or the actions of our founding fathers.

[A Seeker]

Not saying members of the Gay community should take on the fight. I am saying outsiders who are sympathetic to and participate in their "cause" should likewise take up the cause of all other similar groups of people.

That's not logical. By that rationale one could not donate money to ANY charity unless one donates to ALL charities.

[Boo]

Saying "our votes should reflect what God teaches us" opens up a lovely big can of worms. In the US I believe (I don't live there so I can't be sure) you can write in any name you choose on your ballot papers? Or you can vote for much smaller parties, such as Ralph Nader in the 2000 elections (just like you can here in the UK).

That leads into all sorts of issues. Let's say you regard the Democrats as baby-killers, or the Republicans as warmongerers and can't in good conscience vote for one or the other (I'm deliberately taking more extreme viewpoints here to make a point rather than to attempt to define either party). For the sake of argument let's take the first viewpoint, so you can't sleep at night if you vote Democrat. The only party that can viably keep the Democrats out is the Republicans. You might vote Libertarian or some other party but they aren't going to win in what is essentially a two-horse race. But what if you can't vote Republican in good conscience because you see them as warmongerers? Do you vote for warmongerers in an attempt to keep the baby killers out of power, or do you vote for a minor party and effectively not let your vote count, knowing that you could have done more to keep one side out of office but chose not to do so?



There is a concept of using an appropriate Scripture for a situation. If we were talking about what career path someone should follow as they were considering going into metalworking it would be utterly useless to quote 2Ti 4:14 as a reason to avoid becoming a coppersmith.

There is a world of difference between a church tolerating false teaching within itself and a church expecting to impose its own values upon those outside the church using the force of law. If people live an apparently holy life simply because they are legally compelled to do so, do they gain anything? I seem to recall the Pharisees did that kind of thing and Jesus had some choice words for them.

I don't expect the church to tolerate open and flagrant sinfulness within the congregation. I equally don't expect the church to start browbeating those outside the church, those who cannot be expected to live a Godly life because they don't accept God at all. Why would someone who does not accept Jesus be interested in living the life that Jesus calls us to live? If someone regards the Bible as being no more relevant to them than the text of Moby Dick why would we expect them to live in accordance with Biblical principles, and how does it help anyone to use the force of law to impose our own selected Bible verses upon them unless we truly believe that what the world needs is a few more whitewashed tombs?



Not sure what you're trying to say there. A point can be made in perfectly coherent English without being even the slightest bit relevant to the discussion. Likewise a point can be entirely relevant to the discussion even if it is made in English so mangled it's barely comprehensible.

I made my point. It was simple and didn't require nearly as many words as yours. The fact that a couple people seemed to see words that weren't even in my post is what surprises me.

The idea of not accepting those who would lead us into immorality is pretty plain to me. I am surprised it seems elusive to you.

If having two bad choices on the ballot is what we are driven to, we still must decide based on what we have. In your example, choosing between baby-killers or enemy-killers, I think I can make that distinction. There are many more issues than those two, however, and all must be considered. I will never vote for baby-killers or gay-marriage advocates. After that, my choices require more thought.

[A Seeker]

How about enemy baby killers?

Thing is, for all the passionate debate, the abortion rate does not correlate with which party is in power. So really it's not so much the "baby killers" as "people who don't criticise the baby killers so much.

[Reynolds357]

That's not logical. By that rationale one could not donate money to ANY charity unless one donates to ALL charities.

That is logical. There is a huge demonstration of hypocrisy with the supporters of the gay rights movement.

[oscarkipling]

Not saying members of the Gay community should take on the fight. I am saying outsiders who are sympathetic to and participate in their "cause" should likewise take up the cause of all other similar groups of people.

Hmm, I really dont understand why you think this changes anything. I mean just from a time management standpoint this is probably unworkable by anyone who also has to work for a living and if they have children or personal hobbies and interests on top of that... anyway I suppose maybe you mean that GLBT supporters and sympathizers should make an effort, even if its only academic to support and sympathize with every similar group. As I intimated before, it is at least plausible that many GLBT supporters believe that the GLBT label does cover all "similar" groups. Then there are the people who do consider GLBT issues to be the same as the plight of racial inequity, economic inequity,polygamy, incest and even as tango mentioned pedophilia and bestiality or heck probably stuff you and are entirely unfamiliar with. For many of these things I think that arguments can be made for and against with people who fall all along the spectrum and are honestly compelled by whatever arguments they find convincing. There is also a matter of exposure, A person that was abused as a child might take on the cause of stopping child abuse as an adult. Are they a hypocrite because they didn't take up the more general cause of domestic abuse? What if they specifically focused on child sexual abuse, are they hypocritical for not also focusing on malnutrition, beating and verbal abuse? I think that you have a belief or set of beliefs about what is similar and dissimilar (in regard to glbt issues), and you are confident enough in it to assume that any honest and rational person would agree with you...this just isn't the case, and this along with other things I've written here demonstrate why at the very least, you should reconsider your position.

[tango]

If "informed consent" is the standard by which we operate, then every action that has no direct victim would be legal. Heroin, Cocaine, Meth, etc. etc.

Yep. What's your point?

This nation was founded on legislating morality. Our oldest documents legislated Christian morality and the concept of "not legislating morality" is modern and not at all based in our founding documents or the actions of our founding fathers.

The fact somethign was set up a certain way doesn't make that an inherently good way. It's ironic that legislating Christian morality tends to produce the results that Jesus was so vocal against in the Pharisees.