Republican and Christianity

[tango]

Nobody can get authorization to change Scriptures so "bible lawyers" do it through false interpretations. They do it very well though, talking of all sorts of little details that change meanings and references, cut 'n paste text games, and just completly ignoring passages that would dispute their preferred doctrine. It becomes a nightmare trying to discern the true meaning of certain doctrines or answer certain questions by looking up references in commentaries because of the abundance of different interpretations. In the end, one has to realize that it takes personal involvement, prayer, and study to reach what we need to know.

You make a very good point, people on all sides of the political spectrum and all walks of life seek to confirm their preconceived ideas using Scripture. I'm constantly reminded of the quote (which I think was originally from Oscar Wilde) in which he used the analogy of a drunkard using a lamp-post, more for support than illumination.

It was for good reason that the Thessalonians were told to "test all things, hold fast what is good". If something is true it will withstand scrutiny; if it is not true then sooner or later either it has to be rejected or something has to be twisted or overlooked to sustain it.

That said it seems there are more people who would rather use the Bible as a means to support what they already believe, than use the Bible as a means of testing what they believe with a view to throwing out that which does not withstand scrutiny. It just becomes another form of a candy-coated gospel.

[Boo]

I find it very interesting that Jesus gave up all His rights, both as God and as a Human, yet we believe it is ok to kill and demoralize others to secure ours.

Nice one-line introduction to an opinion. Care to share what it really means?

[Boo]

You make a very good point, people on all sides of the political spectrum and all walks of life seek to confirm their preconceived ideas using Scripture. I'm constantly reminded of the quote (which I think was originally from Oscar Wilde) in which he used the analogy of a drunkard using a lamp-post, more for support than illumination.

It was for good reason that the Thessalonians were told to "test all things, hold fast what is good". If something is true it will withstand scrutiny; if it is not true then sooner or later either it has to be rejected or something has to be twisted or overlooked to sustain it.

That said it seems there are more people who would rather use the Bible as a means to support what they already believe, than use the Bible as a means of testing what they believe with a view to throwing out that which does not withstand scrutiny. It just becomes another form of a candy-coated gospel.

Yes, and as I pointed out in another post; many never actually search the scriptures to see if they really buy into the doctrines taught in the denomination of the church they attend. They just accept them as true - without ever checking the scriptures and determining of the doctrine is true.

People like to follow people - not scripture. It is easier and there is little conflict if you hang around those who have agreed to believe in a church doctrine.

[tango]

Yes, and as I pointed out in another post; many never actually search the scriptures to see if they really buy into the doctrines taught in the denomination of the church they attend. They just accept them as true - without ever checking the scriptures and determining of the doctrine is true.

People like to follow people - not scripture. It is easier and there is little conflict if you hang around those who have agreed to believe in a church doctrine.

I must admit your post made me smile. For all we appeared to disagree on most things political, the moment Scripture came into it we fell almost instantly into agreement. So I guess that's a good sign

This is one of the things that has prompted a lot of soul-searching for me recently. It's very easy to turn the more esoteric aspects of our faith into soundbites that might appear very spiritual, they sound informed even to the point of being lofty, but frequently don't actually mean anything. Once I got into asking "what exactly does it mean to..." the process continued.

Curiously it largely started out following a challenge from a self-proclaimed atheist that libertarianism and Christianity weren't compatible on the basis that, in his words, libertarianism meant I got to "be a good person on my own terms". Subsequently I rejected that argument, the simple reasoning (short version!) being that when I stand before God to be judged I sincerely hope I can say more than "well I obeyed all the laws". But it got me thinking, and I'm convinced that where our own "sacred cows" are concerned it's a good thing to have a barbecue every once in a while.

I would tend to list doctrines much like any other human regulations in three groups rather than two. There are those I can agree with (i.e. they align with my understanding of Scripture), those I disagree with (i.e. they clash with my understanding of Scripture), and those I have no view on (i.e. they are either compatible if not totally aligning, or relate to matters I don't consider important). Since the thread is about political things, if our pastor voted for a party I couldn't stomach I'd regard that as his choice to make; if he openly spoke about why he supports the party I'd consider his reasoning; if he preached sermons saying they were the only party anyone who called themselves a Christian could support then I'd have to consider whether he was right, and if not would look to challenge him over it.

[nimblewillsgrace]

Nice one-line introduction to an opinion. Care to share what it really means?

Its not an opinion that Jesus gave up His rights and its not an opinion that we (Americans) for the most part believe its ok to go to war to insure our rights. Not sure what you see as an opinion. We are simply not willing to give up our rights and are willing to fight for them. The opposite of what Jesus did.

[Bandit]

Its not an opinion that Jesus gave up His rights and its not an opinion that we (Americans) for the most part believe its ok to go to war to insure our rights. Not sure what you see as an opinion. We are simply not willing to give up our rights and are willing to fight for them. The opposite of what Jesus did.

I think Jesus had a purpose in giving up the things He did. But would Jesus have us give up our right to stand for moral decency, like in standing for the causes of those whose voices are being silenced, perhaps like the unborn? Being a Christian should not mean that one must stand aside on moral issues.

[Boo]

Its not an opinion that Jesus gave up His rights and its not an opinion that we (Americans) for the most part believe its ok to go to war to insure our rights. Not sure what you see as an opinion. We are simply not willing to give up our rights and are willing to fight for them. The opposite of what Jesus did.

I want to know what your opinion of those "rights" are.

Jesus didn't give up his right to speak. He didn't give up his right to eat, to sleep, to travel, to preach, or to do the work of the Father in Heaven. He was so busy doing the Father's work that he did not have a job or raise a family or any of those things He preached about and taught us about. He knew that the people were doing what the father wanted them to do, and he never denied them those rights to do so.

What "rights" are you speaking of that we should not defend? Those that God gave us?

[nimblewillsgrace]

I want to know what your opinion of those "rights" are.

Jesus didn't give up his right to speak. He didn't give up his right to eat, to sleep, to travel, to preach, or to do the work of the Father in Heaven. He was so busy doing the Father's work that he did not have a job or raise a family or any of those things He preached about and taught us about. He knew that the people were doing what the father wanted them to do, and he never denied them those rights to do so.

What "rights" are you speaking of that we should not defend? Those that God gave us?

Which rights do you think you have that are more important than another person's right to life. Is freedom of speech or freedom of religion more important than another person's right to live. Jesus gave up His right to be God! I really don't know what that means. Should we have the right to kill abortion doctors?

[Reynolds357]

Which rights do you think you have that are more important than another person's right to life. Is freedom of speech or freedom of religion more important than another person's right to live. Jesus gave up His right to be God! I really don't know what that means. Should we have the right to kill abortion doctors?

Study history my friend. When one begins to take away rights, the ultimate right that gets taken away is the right to live. It starts with minor inconveniences and ends in the Nazi death camps. We must stop the loss of liberty when it is still minor if we wish to preserve life and liberty for our children. Should we have the right to kill abortion doctors? Due to "Caesar" saying it is illegal to kill them, we do not have that right. We should take our government back, change the laws to again make abortion murder, then "Caesar" will execute them if they continue to murder the innocent unborn.

[Boo]

Which rights do you think you have that are more important than another person's right to life. Is freedom of speech or freedom of religion more important than another person's right to live. Jesus gave up His right to be God! I really don't know what that means. Should we have the right to kill abortion doctors?

Now you are not speaking of rights; you are speaking of responsibility.

We have a responsibility to our government - both to obey it and to be good stewards of it. Our government defends itself and its allies through political and physical means. When people threaten us, they give up their right to be safe from harm. If they want to be safe, they should remain within their own borders and be good stewards of their own governments.

It is quite a stretch to make that into the murder of abortion doctors. I don't think anyone has promoted that idea just yet.

[A Seeker]

Now you are not speaking of rights; you are speaking of responsibility.

We have a responsibility to our government - both to obey it and to be good stewards of it. Our government defends itself and its allies through political and physical means. When people threaten us, they give up their right to be safe from harm. If they want to be safe, they should remain within their own borders and be good stewards of their own governments.

It is quite a stretch to make that into the murder of abortion doctors. I don't think anyone has promoted that idea just yet.

Not on this forum. But it does happen. Prayer and action news. Army of God. ACLA. People are attacked, and even murdered in Jesus name.

[Boo]

Not on this forum. But it does happen. Prayer and action news. Army of God. ACLA. People are attacked, and even murdered in Jesus name.

Yes, I am aware that it has happened. I was, of course, referring to the people in this forum.

[A Seeker]

Good O.

Abortions are wrong, even when the fetus is 2134 weeks post gestation and working in a clinic.

[dan]

Good O.

Abortions are wrong, even when the fetus is 2134 weeks post gestation and working in a clinic.

You can murder a murderer? Show me that in scripture.