Political Activism, Serving the needy, etc. Are we doing enough?

[ppar3566]

Woven I think you may have missed an important distiction. There appears to be different comands for judging chrisitans verses non-chrisitians. This cuts to the heart of the arguement. I think we need to be much more strict with ourselves and with our fellow Chrisitans. I think the point is that if we are spending time getting our own life right we don't really have time to judge non-chrisitans.

There is also a practical and psychological point to be made here:
Practically going around judging non-chrisitans for their action on the whole does not lead them to be more accepting of the gospel message. In fact i would argue that it quite frequently does the opposite.

I also think there is often a deeply personal motive for judging homosexuals and abortion etc that is not wholly worthy (i don't think this is you btw I write this as others may use your words as justification for this issue). I think many people judge because it is easy, especially when you don't have to if you don't want to interact and put yourself in the place of such people. Thus chrisitans often judge because they can get their fix of satisfaction from "building God's Kingdon', without ever doing anything practical or difficult. Trust me i once judged every homosexual I could find and tell them they were wrong. It made me feel good and i never had to connect with their world. Now that i have homosexual friends i see that what I did was hollow and hurtful and done for my own gratification. I tell my friends what i believe but only when they ask and i do it in as loving a manner as possible. Mainly i aspire to show them there is something to this whol;e christian thing by the way I live. I hqave found this more difficult and painful but infinitly more effective.

 

[Woven]

QUOTE]At the risk of getting into a heated discussion in a forum I am not a meber of, i wanted to make a few points.[/QUOTE]
First the easy one: Welfare can be destructive . Yes it can but this is a political position and should not be confused with Christian moral positions.[/QUOTE]

Huh?? You can't divorce the 2. Immorality is immorality regardless of what profession it's tied to.

To wrap political positions in Christian rhetoric, where different positions can equally and justifiably be taken by different Christians, is I believe to misrepresent the gospel.

We compare worldly ideas with the biblical world view, rightly devided, and judge accordingly.

On a side note we have had government funded health care, psychology care, welfare, and tertiary education for decades and we have among the highest life expectancies, quality of life, GDP, and economic strength of any country in the world

.
Life expectancy is not quality of life. And You might want to revisit those stats you are citing. Our public education system is broken. We are constantly hearing about kids committing mass murder and suicide..some in the name of "Survival of the fittest".. or our teachers molesting kids, young girls and boys being perpressured into destructive behaviors that end in harm..all in the name of moral relativism. As to our economy...material wealth doesn't equal righteous behavior. The former doesn't always come from the latter. Wicked nations also produce wealth. Our economy is getting close to a break down.. Our society is morally broken.

reckless safely nets tend to produce reckless behavior and the more money we take form one segment of society and give to another is the less that segment will want to contribute back and create prosperity. Some people are stronger thou than others and overcome the handicap of welfare we seduce them with. Why should they do anything if their neighbor is going to be forced to pay much of their bills for them? Why work? If food, clothing and healthcare is free? The welfare system is broken and needs reformed. Paul said, "If a man doesn't work, he shall not eat" We actually reward people for becoming alcoholics and getting sexual diseases. It's not loving.. and it's why some Americans who are on welfare, hate themselves and their nation. They know it doesn't care about them, but is just interested in political power. Love would help someone help themselves.. not just steal money from one person and recklessly hand it out to people who should not get it.

Abortion is murder.
Homosexuality is unhealthy and destructive.

On these points I don't necessarily disagree but I do disagree with confronting non-Christians with this in a judgmental and unloving manner. We need to take into account that non-Christians do not share the same basic beliefs that we do and thus to tell them these things are wrong without a context, may make us feel good "that we have stood up for God" but it is hardly effective.

Who said anything about telling them it was wrong in an arbitrary manner? Secondly, they already know it's wrong. We are just reinforcing what they know (Romans 1) and are trying to suppress. And that's suppose to feel good emotionally when we love our neighbors enough to sacrifice their initial "like" of us. I'm not looking to be hated, it's just a job occupation. But sometimes people repent..and turn away..from their self hate... It's worth the risk..Name one Biblical person of God that did not protest the wickedness of their day.

For many non-Christians abortion and homosexuality are not indorsed because it is easy, because it is convenient, or because they want to be liked by others. They generally believe that supporting such actions is right in a deeply moral sense. For such people I believe judgmental arguments against these beliefs are futile.

I disagree. I agree with Romans 1. They know it's wrong, because if someone tries to murder them, they will protest. "God has reveled it IN them". They know it's wrong before and after the act. And the recompense that human beings receive for sexual immorality confirms it. Both emotionally and physically. Whereas.. a marriage of man and a women, in love, faithfulness doesn't produce sexual diseases, child killing or premature death. I'm pretty sure if God really is "Love" then..he would advocate a healthy structure for sexuality. And he has. We should have the courage to do the same. But often we shrink back because of sin in our own lives that we do not want to be judged over. "How can I help them if I have the same sins".."How can I tell an alcoholic he is destroying his life if I'm doing the same.." Well, you can't. You need to work on you first and spend some time "Renewing" your mind in Christ (Word of God)

Thus I believe that it is more important to focus on spreading the Gods gospel of unconditional love.

What do you make of John 3:36? Have you ever told an unbeliever this? And did Jesus preach "Repent" or "You are already forgiven I'm just here to tell you this"? That love you speak of is why God, and the Godly men of Biblical times often rebuked, apposed wicked behavior. Remember what Paul said, "Let your love be without hypocrisy- Hate evil"? How can I tell my neighbor I love him and not appose the very thing destroying Him? Or even support it..

It is worth noting that if you take a narrative reading of the bible rather than a systematic view that Christ and others in the New Testament repeatedly confronted the religious leaders who had the law and thus should have held similar moral beliefs to Jesus. On the other had the New Testament is full of stories of Jesus loving the sinners and the down-and-outers not with messages of judgmental condemnation but of unconditional love.

I agree with this much. The full scope of the Bible shows that God is righteous and at times He is harsh when it's called for and at other times he is tender. And it depends on his audience (generally speaking) He was not just harsh with the "Religious" hypocrites because they were apart of a sect. His issue with them was their opposition to God, same issue he had with the common person who was in opposition. However he was especially harsh with them because they were in a position of authority and were not keeping the law of Moses rightly and persecuting those attempting to turn to Christ.
The best way to read the Bible is to read it yourself and not let others filter it for you. I'm not sure why people run to commentators even more than scripture. I guess it's because the Bible is a huge read.

Again I am not discounting your moral beliefs Woven but rather the efficacy of pushing those beliefs on others who equally and passionately believe they a morally correct.

Everyone is "Pushing" something. I don't know any Biblical men of God who did not "push" truth onto others, especially when asked. And sometimes they had success sometimes they did not. Sometimes they were harsh, sometimes they were not. My moral beliefs are Biblical. Though I may fall short of them at times. I did not make them up. And it's not possible to make a wrong right. I don't believe in gray areas, only Godly ignorance and apathy of which I am guilty of some.. Every time we break a moral boundary of God, we break ourselves that much more.. and in the end it's not those boundaries that lay broken. I think you agree that God revealed them and wants us to follow them because of love, right? He did not say, "Thou shalt not murder" because he hates people.

Anyways that is my 2 cents worth.

Thanks for chiming in

Danny

 

[Woven]

Woven I think you may have missed an important distinction. There appears to be different commands for judging Christians verses non-Christians. This cuts to the heart of the argument. I think we need to be much more strict with ourselves and with our fellow Christians. I think the point is that if we are spending time getting our own life right we don't really have time to judge non-Christians.

Do you have any Biblical proof text?
We are called to do both, judge with our actions and words. And part of our growth is our interaction with unbelievers. Jesus sent believers out to call unbelievers to repentance after he had taught them for a time. I definitely agree we should not go out in total ignorance and try to handle topics we are not prepared for. But the gospel message is simple. That Christ is the cure for the self-hate within us all for transgressing the law written on our hearts. That we can truly be forgiven justly by the one we are ultimately responsible to. And can stop punishing ourselves and others for the sin that Christ was punished for.

There is also a practical and psychological point to be made here:
Practically going around judging non-Christians for their action on the whole does not lead them to be more accepting of the gospel message. In fact I would argue that it quite frequently does the opposite.

Did Jesus know this? Because..he was confrontation..some believed, some did not. The idea that we should never rebuke or be confrontational (Depending on the audience) is foreign to the Bible. Unbelievers or believers who are doing wrong, are already doing it. If we appose it and they rebel against God all the more, that's not our fault. We are responsible to be faithful to God and that's our success. I would agree that we need to make sure our tactics are appropriate for the situation though. But not that we should be held captive or manipulated into approaching pal on their terms.

I also think there is often a deeply personal motive for judging homosexuals and abortion etc that is not wholly worthy (I don't think this is you btw I write this as others may use your words as justification for this issue). I think many people judge because it is easy, especially when you don't have to if you don't want to interact and put yourself in the place of such people. Thus Christians often judge because they can get their fix of satisfaction
from "building God's Kingdom's, without ever doing anything practical or difficult. Trust me I once judged every homosexual I could find and tell them they were wrong. It made me feel good and I never had to connect with their world. Now that I have homosexual friends I see that what I did was hollow and hurtful and done for my own gratification. I tell my friends what I believe but only when they ask and I do it in as loving a manner as possible. Mainly I aspire to show them there is something to this whol;e christian thing by the way I live. I hqave found this more difficult and painful but infinitly more effective.

Yes, you should not judge with the primary motive to make yourself feel "Righteous". I don't think the Biblical men, who were approved by God in their tactics..who at times were harsh or rebuked, had the same motives you did. You should simply judge rightly. If someone is making it known that they are in a destructive lifestyle (Deathstyle) it's not hate, but love that apposes that world view. I think perhaps you have the wrong view of what I'm saying. I'm not a hide and huddle Christians who thinks we should not engage the world. I'm a Christian who knows we should not partake, or give the impression that we, as ambassadors of Christ, support the very things destroying them. The worst failure for a believer is when an unbeliever they know feels better about their opposition to God, for having been around that believer..who makes them feel comfortable in the very thing that is destroying them.

Really the heart of this issue is it ever appropriate for believers to judge and at times to do so harshly. The sum total of the Bible makes it clear that it is.
Sometimes a soft word of encouragement is all that's needed.. Other times..disfellowship of a believer is justified and needed.. Other times cutting off a worldly friend lets him know just how much you do care.. The loving opposition can sometimes be exactly what they are yearning for.. I think people, deep down, want healthy boundries and friends that hold them accountable.. But even if they don't...that's what they will get from me..at least it's my goal..and I expect the same from them.

Danny

 

[Woven]

Thul said:

You pretty well lost me when you said "Christians like me".

I didn't want this to turn out this way, and I'm sorry.

Thul please stop being overly emotional. Why are you sorry? For what? You didn't do anything wrong. Nor did I.

My statment if you read it all, "Christians like you" has to do with the Biblical world view on judging/love you present, vs. "Christians like me". who differ. "Christians like you" as you have said, don't incorprate wrath, rebuke, anger into "God is Love" where as Christians like me do. Love embodies many things Am I wrong to catagorize your beliefs this way? Did I misread something?

Correct me if I did, give me a slight rebuke, I can take the judging as it appears pretty much to me to be ongoing. I'm not infalable. Or defend your position. Or we can disengage if you like. But if you respond I'd appreciate a robust scriptural response.

I have to get off here now, thanks for the on-going talk from both posters.
I will check back in when I have time,

Take care,
Danny

 

[ppar3566]

Thanks for the reply. I will try to responed to most points but I may not be able to keep track. If I miss something forgive me. I must say I am enjoying this and if at anytime you feel you are offended by anything I say please note that it is not my intention. Also note that for the most part we are in agreement and that most of this is going to be an exercise in futility when the core of our beliefs are shared.

1. The seperation of church and state is a conerstone of many countries. Might i add that i recently watched a video of persecuted Chinese christians who said that they would die to protect the speration of church and state. It is in essence the only way to ensure that christianity can maintain itself as relavent and central to the lives of all and does not become distorted as a means to control and survalliance by the government. I find it problematic when christians tend to present their political views as if they were the very words of God. I refer to a recent interview that I saw with a women who made apprins with a pocket for a gun and a pocket for a bilble. It was implicit that she was pushing her view of the right to carry arms as central to her christian beliefs.

2. I don't live in America i live in Australia and so the stats i am quoting are for Australia. We are much further down the line of what many on these forum have called socialist welfare policy. Though I dare say no Australian would see it that way. It is funny to think that some of the policies that the likes of H. Clinton and B. Obama are seen as efforts to introduce solialist ideals into US society, when they have been a feature of our society so long that efforts to remove them are seen as whooly left wing.

3. It seems to me to be hugly assumptive to suggest people know it is wrong to be a homosexual, etc. If we claim that they know it is wrong and they are just hiding it we enter the relm of the ridiculous. What do we do if they show their conviction that they believe they are right. Surely, we can not go around claiming people know what they do is wrong they just don't know it. Are we to claim that we are only one that can see the"elephant" and that all others are blind to there own throughts, morals, beliefs, and emotions. I think not. In addition Romans 1 is refering to Sin which is the setting oneself up as God in their own minds th sins that Paul lists are illustrative of the symptoms of the problem. Secondly, Chapter two goes on to say that we are all guilty of these things and thus we are not to judge. The whole point of the first few chapters of Romans is to show the we are all the same in sin.

4. Repentance must be internally motivated rather than externally forced. And again individuals must become convienced that their sin is the desire to reject God and set themselves up as God. Repentence of the symptoms of these sins must as a matter of course come later (for those interested google "two ways to live" as an excellent illustration).

5. You claim that your moral beliefs are biblical and you are correct to a point. I think it is essentially that we are read the bible through the lenses of our social, cultural, and life history which inevitably colour how we interprate the bible and what we attend to. To claim "we know" and all other are wrong is dangerous, especially when we do not acknowledge our own biases in the way we read, interprete, and attend to the word of God. Indeed, this is the heart of non-judgemental living. If we acknowledge that our intepretations may be wrong, we are less likely to try to force them on others and will be more interested in ensuring our beliefs are displayed and supported by our actions.

My claim is not that we should not push the truth (double negative I know) but that we should be concerned about pushing truth that is central to chrisitan beliefs. It would seem foolish to me to incorporate a overly focused interest in specific sins. Especially when we are so selective on the sins we focus on. I mean when was the last time that a right wing christian got up and requested that people turn and repent for not being more concerned about how their manafactered goods are produced [i.e. are they produced by slave labour -srry this is my bandwagon]. Yet i see such sins as far more relavent to the lives of others than constant banta about the horribleness of homosexuality. Why do we do it then? I believe that for the most part it is easy to produce a tyrad on homosexuality as it has little relavence to most christians struggle with sin. We don't hear more from chirstians about poverty and hatred as they are too close to home. I think it is far more important that we push the truth that Jesus is Lord of your life not you (the you i am refering to is anyboady who will listen).

As an aside, it is interesting to note that i think the movie Juno has done more to convince people not to have an abortion than all the right wing christian political retoric could. The reason is that it was a movie that was positively focused on the benifits of keeping a baby than on judgemental proclomations that abortion is evil and from the devil (just an observation).

 

[FiremanThul]

Your response upset me, and I found myself wanting to tear you down for the things you said. As I'm making a huge effort these days to not do that, I'd rather just disengage.

 

[Woven]

I appreciate the honesty.

Take care Mike,
Danny

 

[Woven]

Thanks again ppar for the response. My wife and I have 2 days off, so I'm going to enjoy them with her I will followup with you in a few days.

Take care,
Danny

 

[Berstromme]

I've been reading this thread with great interest. Mike, Danny and Ppar good discussion. Hopefully nobody is taking things personally. For others reading the thread but not wanting to post hopefully it has challenged your thoughts and got you thinking about your faith and what you believe. A useful thing.

Pardon me for a quick aside before I get back on point. A few of you know I'm Catholic and in the military. Early on in my career I was stationed in Georgia and when my wife and I arrived we were asked by many "Have you found a church yet?" An odd question I thought to myself (there was only one Catholic Church in town and seemingly and endless supply of other Christian Faith communities. Most of our neighbors and those that I worked with were Baptist and had lots of "Catholics aren't really Christian you know" kinds of questions. We were offended at first, but then took it as an opportunity to study and examine our faith and what we believe and why more deeply. We are both better Christians and Catholics today because of it and hopefully we were able to share that there are more similarities than differences amongst us Christians.

Ok so back on topic... Your guild officers struggle with this question all the time. "Judging" guild members behavior, guild bank issues, how folks interact with one another. Mind you the guild is made up of believers and these issues are infrequent and rare. We had one instance though that was very concerning to all about one member. I'm not going to provide details that isn't really the point, but we had the discussion of what to do? Were we judging? On what basis and why?

My counsel was based on Jesus' instruction in Mathew if I remember correctly, paraphrasing a bit here: "If your brother sins against you go and tell him and him alone and if he listens to you, you have won your brother back. If he does not listen take others with you so that they can all give witness to testimony. If he refuses to listen to them tell the Church, if he refuses to listen then treat him like a Gentile or tax collector."

I think we have a responsibility to help each other live the life that Christ calls us to. I'd agree it needs to be done from Love, but Love should challenge you to be a better person. Yes "judgement" is still involved, but so is recognition of our sins in what we do or fail to do, and resolution to not sin again with this comes God's forgiveness and as we are instructed forgiveness for one another not once or twice or seven times...

Sorry this post rambled a bit, not sure if I'm exactly making my point or offering my thoughts exactly how I intend. I'd love to continue to explore the topic if others are interested.

Mike

 

[ppar3566]

Sorry this post rambled a bit, not sure if I'm exactly making my point or offering my thoughts exactly how I intend. I'd love to continue to explore the topic if others are interested.

Mike

No i hear what you are saying and I agree. The point I think though is that there is a distinction between the way we hold our brothers accountable for their actions and the way that most Christians believe they are the moral police of the world. Again there is also a distinction to be made between holding people accountable for actions that Christian or not somebody should hold that person accountable. This means I think that there need to be different approaches depending on the issue and on the position of the person. For, Christians I think we have an obligation to hold our brothers accountable for their actions not just in relation to the Law in general but also in matters where our faith suggests such actions are unacceptable for a follower of Christ. The reason for this distinction is that Christians should hold the same basic moral tenants that we do and Christians like us are the representatives of Christ on earth and should thus act as is appropriate to that position. For non-Christians I believe we have a responsibility to point to where there actions are against the law and are considered by all as morally wrong. The distinction though is that we do this not as moral policeman but as fellow citizens. The argument against their actions should also be based on a rational explanation of how their behaviour is offensive as a fellow human being. The question that will come to mind for many is whether this distinction is important or merely semantics. I believe that it is important. First, the accountability i refer to in both cases comes from a position of shared values rather than a perceived position of power where the Christian tells the non-Christian what they have done wrong from on high, arguing from values, morals, and beliefs that are not shared. Secondly, this distinction is consistently made in the New Testament, where, for instance the issues in Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, as well as the passage you have referred to above are directed towards Christians. I feel Christians have heard the metaphor that "once you put one the police uniform you have the responsibility and power that come with it, not because of who you are but because of who you represent". I think this is misplaced, I do see a requirement for us to be examples of the right way to live but i rarely see anything in the scriptures that indicates we have the right to tell people how to live outside of the confines of the law. Importantly, the rules for Christians found in the bible remain unchanged (once of cause we have accounted for the historical, literary, and occasional context of the scriptures). But the law changes and thus if we follow the message of the bible the things for which we hold or do not hold non-Christians must acknowledge this. On a side note I used to spout that crap that Catholics are not Christians until I actually had meaningful contact with them. I have since found that many Catholics beliefs are more in common with mine than I had been lead to believe. I have now had the pleasure as a non-catholic of attending world youth day and hearing the pope speak which has been on of the more memorable moments of my life so far. So us protestants don't mean to be rude we are mainly just ignorant and take the few wacko Catholics as representative of all.

 

[Woven]

Mike, I would agree with your approach with regards to how you dealt with this other believer in this case. Sometimes private rebuke is required and other times.. as Paul told timothy, "Those that sin rebuke before all", is also justifiable and loving: "So that others may fear".. The goal is to reinforce healthy boundaries out of concern. Being a deterrent to future bad behavior and reestablishing to the offender and the nonoffenders that God is love.

Paul did not only judge believers: "disfellowshiping with them" 1Cor 5:6. "Warning others not to fellowship with them if they were waking disorderly in various ways" 1Cor 5:11 He also judged unbelievers. Paul also demonstrates what Jesus said, "To he who has been given much, much is expected," In that He makes a distinction between those who have a greater knowledge of Godliness vs the world that only has some. In that he tells us in the same chapter we don't need to separate ourselves completely from the "World". You can't be an ambassador for Christ by avoiding unbelievers and you can't be an ambassador for Christ without reinforcing, relating to them the good judgment of God. Preaching the gospel is a judgment. You have to communicate to the unbeliever that he is guilty before God, reinforce what Paul says he already has some knowledge of (Romans 1 and 2) and telling someone they are wrong is of course a judgment. So you see..the gospel can't be preached with out some level of judging. Paul judged unbelievers. Peter judged unbelievers..who "Murderered" Christ. For example all of Romans 1 and parts of Romans 2, Paul is using Godly judgments about them. And those on Mars Hill who were not believers, Paul was passing along the judgments of God to them. In part calling them names.."Superstitious".. And Paul did not claim to be without sin. So either he was violating Matthew 7 and was a hypocrite, ( I might add Romans 2 (On hypocritical judging is the same teaching as Matthew 7), or Paul was rightly demonstrating the correct interpretation of it.

Ppar3566 I plan on giving you a robust response to all your points in post #25 Friday 26th.

Take care,
Danny

 

[Berstromme]

Danny,
I'm following your logic just fine, I think I was trying to take a smaller step first. Going back to the counter argument against "judging". I was trying to lay out another passage that in effect tells a believer to tell another when they have sinned against you. We all agree I think that nobody is without sin save Adam and Eve (before the fall), Mary and Jesus; yet Jesus is providing clear instruction on how to judge a fellow Christian when they sin against you.

I agree with the thought process that going forth and spreading the Good News is an act of "judgment". I think that how this is done is key and perhaps where Christians develop a sense of aversion to judging others when the very Gospel they believe acknowledges that they are imperfect sinners as well. On some level a fear of being a hypocritical judge of others or adopting a "Holier than thou" attitude is a sin we are repeatedly cautioned against which I think is what Mike B's concern was/is. Perhaps I'm not quite fully understanding his perspective.

The challenge for us as Christians I think is balancing Righteousness with Compassion and Knowledge with Humility (there are probably other things too) when judging or correcting others.

The Catholic Church teaches of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit that enable us to live a holy Christian life:

1. Wisdom - desire for the things of God, and to direct our whole life and all our actions to His honor and glory
2. Understanding - enable us to know more cleary the mysteries of faith
3. Counsel (Right Judgement) - warn us of the deceits of the devil, and of the dangers to salvation
4. Fortitude (Strength) - strengthen us to do the will of God in all things
5. Knowledge - enable us to discover the will of God in all things
6. Piety (Reverence) - love God as a Father, and obey Him because we love Him
7. Fear of the Lord - have a dread of sin and fear of offending God

These gifts are to be used for the betterment of others. Paul talks of the Body of Christ (we the Church) using our individual gifts in accordance with has been given to us for the betterment of all. (I'm thinking of Paul's letter to the Romans, Chapter 12 here).

So you all got me to open my bible and read, I stumbled along this on passage from Paul Romans 15:14 "I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to admonish one another." This is possible through the Holy Spirit.

So are we doing enough? Was I think essentially the original title of this post. Clearly I think we are challenged by our faith in Christ to walk a righteous path and proclaim the good news and encourage one another to do the same. Doing this from a position of Love and Humility as opposed to self-righteous hypocrit would...

 

[Woven]

Yes, the passage in Matthew you posted is another passage on "How to judge rightly". I was agreeing with you and reaffirming the open rebuke part of that passage by adding the Timothy passage. "Those that sin rebuke before all". And I posted already that judging is/needs, can be a product of love. I think if you read any of my posts here you would see I agree with your motives on judging also. I also agree with your take on why many believers don't feel comfortable judging and I will add 2 more reasons why: 1) They are taught it's wrong, via some churches, pastors, schools. They have not thourghly looked into the issue for themselves. 2)We might sometimes be selfish..and unloving..fearful of being excluded by the world.

I do not agree with you that Mary was without sin. I've read the Bible from cover to cover a few times and not only do I not see this teaching, I see teaching that contradicts it. While I am not a Christian that believes that just because one is Catholic they are not saved, (Ridicules) I do not agree with much of the Catholic teaching. Some of it I do, some of it I absolutely do not. But I don't agree with all protestant denominations either.

I've read much of the catechism and I'm aware of the RCC's History, fundamental teachings, practices. I simply disagree with much of it's teachings and practices as well as some of protestant history, teachings and practices. My fundamental belief is that to many have cast off personal Bible study in favor of Religious ritual, cliché. I went through this stage myself, long ago. And that we can fall into a practice where we measure Biblical truth by what our denomination, Pastor, Church, school teaches. Rather then the Bible being the foundation to judge the others.

But this is getting a bit off topic.. If you want to explore my beliefs on Catholism and share your own, I'd be happy to do that in another thread, or perhaps in private with you.
I followed what the other Mike was saying just fine, but addmitted I "May" have misunderstood him and gave him an opportunity to clarify. I simply disagree with his arguments. With regard to the original topic of "Doing enough" it's irrelevant if we can't judge. The real issue is "How we judge". Not, "Can we". and "Is it God's wisdom/judgment or our own".

But I'm thrilled that you understand and practice "right" judging because you care about others. Many believers teach you can't judge period, then when it's pointed out to them that, that in and of itself is a judgment against those who do judge..they finesse things, when that fails, they change the argument to, "It's ok to judge believers, just not sinners". If there original logic of not being able to judge is because we are all sinning equally and that renders it hypocrisy, why doesn't that logic apply when they judge other believers?

I've read the bible through a few times and I can't recall a single Godly character that did not ever judge. Rather, they were sent out to do just that. The prophets, disciples..were persecuted and or killed for judging. Think about King David.. or any of the Godly kings.. Did they judge? Of course they were required to. Yet none of them were without sin.

Take care,
Danny

 

[Woven]

My response to ppar3566s post #25.

Quote:

1. The separation of church and state is a cornerstone of many countries. Might I add that I recently watched a video of persecuted Chinese Christians who said that they would die to protect the separation of church and state. It is in essence the only way to ensure that Christianity can maintain itself as relevant and central to the lives of all and does not become distorted as a means to control and survalliance by the government. I find it problematic when Christians tend to present their political views as if they were the very words of God. I refer to a recent interview that I saw with a women who made apprins with a pocket for a gun and a pocket for a bilble. It was implicit that she was pushing her view of the right to carry arms as central to her christian beliefs.

Answer to point 1

ATP1) My standard of right and wrong is the word of God rightly divided, not what various countries practice or laws written by men. The Bible is implicit that we are to hold all men (Ourselves) and others to a healthy, loving standard. It doesn't matter what profession they choose. (In terms of being held accountable, of course some professions are immoral in and of themselves)

Christians who present their "Political" "World Views" should be presenting them as from the Word of God. "When the righteous rule the people rejoice". To me it sounds like you are trying to say that when it comes to politics Christians should not be engaged. As if we are to cast off our roll as ambassador's for Christ in the realm of "politics". You will need to make a biblical, not cultural argument to support this claim. For believers, grouping other people under the banner of "politicians", does not negate the fact that they are people first. And we don't take off our Christianity just because someone chooses a career in politics. We want a Godly Gov that fears God and protects the innocent. And we need to hold people running for leadership accountable. What we do not want is an ungodly Gov dictating the pulpit as it is now attempting to do in various nations. Where speaking out against homosexuality is criminal. The question I would ask the persecuted Chinese believers is this, "Do you want to influence your leaders for Christ?" "If you could choose, would you want a Godly or worldly communist Gov, that persecutes believers"?


Quote:

2. I don't live in America i live in Australia and so the stats i am quoting are for Australia. We are much further down the line of what many on these forum have called socialist welfare policy. Though I dare say no Australian would see it that way. It is funny to think that some of the policies that the likes of H. Clinton and B. Obama are seen as efforts to introduce solialist ideals into US society, when they have been a feature of our society so long that efforts to remove them are seen as whooly left wing

.
(ATP2)"Woe unto those who call evil good and good evil". I do agree that liberals and their world view are becoming the new Christian conservatism. Many over here are attempting to hijack the words of Christ to win votes amongst Christians. And since we can't judge..who can say they are wrong? I've already given my position on welfare in a previous post.


Quote:

3. It seems to me to be hugely assumptive to suggest people know it is wrong to be a homosexual, etc. If we claim that they know it is wrong and they are just hiding it we enter the realm of the ridiculous. What do we do if they show their conviction that they believe they are right. Surely, we can not go around claiming people know what they do is wrong they just don't know it. Are we to claim that we are only one that can see the"elephant" and that all others are blind to there own thoughts, morals, beliefs, and emotions. I think not. In addition Romans 1 is referring to Sin which is the setting oneself up as God in their own minds the sins that Paul lists are illustrative of the symptoms of the problem. Secondly, Chapter two goes on to say that we are all guilty of these things and thus we are not to judge. The whole point of the first few chapters of Romans is to show the we are all the same in sin.

ATP3) I'm sure you are not shocked when a person at the age of accountability (God conscious) lies are you? They wouldn't attempt to justify their sin, even in the light of evidence would they? Does a rapist know that what he does is wrong? Does a murderer know that what he does is wrong? Does a child molester know that what he does is wrong?. People who do wrong, know truth. Paul, in Romans 1, claims mankind is without excuse, because they know right from wrong & homosexuality is one of the wrongs he lists. We have an intuitive sense of His morality and boundaries which convicts and leads to guilt associated with violating them as Paul says, "Knowing (What do they know? That their homosexuality as well as other sins is wrong) that those who commit such things are worthy of death" Paul proclaims that sinners have a certain level of knowledge about right and wrong that renders them guilty. They are in open rebellion towards God. Homosexuals have the evidence of their God conscious side and the fruits of their sexual practices. You say it's ridicules to tell homosexuals they know that what they are doing is wrong and I say it's ridicules to believe they are ignorant of the truth. Everything form conscience, to physiology, to the drug abuse and the Dr. visits and premature tortured deaths..witness to them and reaffirm..what they already know. If anything..the world and even some believers are helping them with their self deception.

Commentary on Romans 1) 2)


Quote:

In addition Romans 1 is referring to Sin which is the setting oneself up as God in their own minds the sins that Paul lists are illustrative of the symptoms of the problem.

I agree with you, but you are contradicting a bit of what you say above about the ignorance of sinners. You say homosexuals don't know they are doing wrong, but here say they are trying to set themselves up as God in their own minds. And the text goes on to say that they are not ignorant of God. If so, Paul can't say "Without excuse", because that's a pretty good one: Ignorance of Godliness. "They did not like to retain God in their knowledge" (Godliness)

Quote:

Chapter 2 goes on to say that we are all guilty of these things and thus we are not to judge. The whole point of the first few chapters of Romans is to show the we are all the same in sin.

It doesn't say that. Chapter 1 is mankind in general, in opposition to God. Not Believers in Christ. It speaks of those who are in rebellion towards God. It speaks of unbelievers, not believers.. Chapter 2 speaks about unbelievers in general who only have the law written on their hearts, as apposed to those Jews who were given the extended version written in ink. Paul is contrasting hypocritical judging from unbelievers with Godly knowledge and righteous judging, which He is wielding. And Paul the believer is judging mankind (Unbelievers) in general and without hypocrisy, because he is in Christ, using Godly judgment and is not a murderer, homosexual, hater of God etc etc.

Chapter 2

Rom 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. Rom 2:2
But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. Rom 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

It's similar to Jesus in Matthew 7. That speaks against hypocritical judging, but goes on to say how to judge rightly.

It speaks of those unbelievers from Chapter 1 who judge others apart from Godly judgment and condemn themselves, because they do the same. Chapter 2 goes on to speak about mankind in general..and their accountability towards God, given the information He has given them about right and wrong (Jews with the written law, Gentiles with the law written on their hearts) How could you think Romans 2 teaches people not to judge at all..when Paul just judged mankind and homosexuals in Romans 1? I mean..right there in Romans 2 ..Paul is judging people..who are hypocrites in their judging. Was Paul without sin? How is it that it's ok for Paul to judge but it's not ok for the average Christian? Paul also judged the unbelievers on Mars hill.. He sure did judge allot for someone who should have known better. (Both believers and unbelievers)

Chapter 1

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

The wrath of God from heaven? Where's the love? Love love love..how can wrath and love coexist?
I seem to recall Jesus in John 3:36 saying something about God's wrath being on those who don't believe in him.. Where is the love in that? Again, the truth is our preaching of the Biblical world view needs to be balanced. God loves mankind enough to send his son and in his death justify our forgiveness, (John 3:16) but if not, God's wrath abides on them. (John 3:36)

So what wrath is it that has been reveled? Every word, every action of God's disapproval. Whether it's intuitive morality violated that leads to painful consequences or God's direct actions through out human history (Pre and post work with Israel) God has made his wrath manifest, His anger know..because of His love.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
In them? God hath shown it to them IN them? Yup. Intuitive sense of right and wrong as Paul goes on to say.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Hm.. the invisible things of Him..clearly seen...understood..by the things that He made.. even.. His eternal power..and Godhead.... No excuse.
.
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Clearly..Paul is judging homosexuals here, specifically, that it's another symptom of the refusing to "retain God in their knowledge" or "suppressing" the truth. And when it says "God" gave them up. It's saying there is cause and effect involved. If you reject light, you reap the rewards of darkness. Our world view, our actions have consequences attached. If you don't retain God in your world view, actions..there are consequences in practicing things that are out of harmony with Him.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

So Paul says "They" and this includes Homosexuals, know that what they do is wrong. Because also, as Paul says in Romans 2 those without the written law have parts of it written on their hearts.

Quote:

4. Repentance must be internally motivated rather than externally forced. And again individuals must become convienced that their sin is the desire to reject God and set themselves up as God. Repentence of the symptoms of these sins must as a matter of course come later (for those interested google "two ways to live" as an excellent illustration).

ATP4) And how does the Bible proclaim that we are to internally motivate others to repentance? "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God". Peter's listeners were pricked in their hearts when he blasted them for being the murderers of Jesus Christ. God sent men out..to preach..with word and deed. You can't force someone to "truly" love God. Although unbelievers sure try hard to force believers to accept their world view.

Quote:

5. You claim that your moral beliefs are biblical and you are correct to a point. I think it is essentially that we are read the bible through the lenses of our social, cultural, and life history which inevitably color how we interpreter the bible and what we attend to. To claim "we know" and all other are wrong is dangerous, especially when we do not acknowledge our own biases in the way we read, interpret, and attend to the word of God. Indeed, this is the heart of non-judgemental living. If we acknowledge that our interpretations may be wrong, we are less likely to try to force them on others and will be more interested in ensuring our beliefs are displayed and supported by our actions.

ATP5) Social, cultural and life history does not determine my interpretation of God's word. God's word determines my social, cultural and life view. It is true that people can bring wrong interpretations to the Bible to justify w/e they want to believe. The Bible convicts and reaffirms for us where our life, social and culture is out of harmony with what is right. We might come to it with a an unhealthy bias, but if we continue on and are sincere, any destructive world view beliefs will be exposed. It's up to us afterwards to be humble or not. The Bible actually reaffirms what God (as Paul wrote in R1 R2) has written and engraved on our hearts. He reaffirms this with ink. God has been preaching truth before any ink ever hit any pages. And there is no such thing as "non-judgmental" Christianity. God Himself has failed to attain to this level of perfection and spirituality. All the prophets failed, the disciples etc etc. I do not, nor should any Christian ever acknowledge that "Maybe I'm wrong about homosexuality being wrong..or murder or "slave" labor" being wrong. It might make us feel better in our apathy and fears of being excluded by the world to believe truth is relative, but the truth is, it's not. Should we evaluate our tactics and see if our heart is right? You bet, and our standard is God's word and examples there in *rightly* divided.

You conclusion:

Quote:

My claim is not that we should not push the truth (double negative I know) but that we should be concerned about pushing truth that is central to Christian beliefs.

This is a very odd statement to me..Can you please list a Biblical character, approved of by God who did not push truth central to Christian, Godly belief?Perhaps I am completely misunderstanding this statement.


Quote:

It would seem foolish to me to incorporate a overly focused interest in specific sins. Especially when we are so selective on the sins we focus on. I mean when was the last time that a right wing Christian got up and requested that people turn and repent for not being more concerned about how their manufactured goods are produced [i.e. are they produced by slave labour -srry this is my bandwagon]. Yet i see such sins as far more relavent to the lives of others than constant banta about the horribleness of homosexuality. Why do we do it then? I believe that for the most part it is easy to produce a tyrad on homosexuality as it has little relavence to most christians struggle with sin. We don't hear more from chirstians about poverty and hatred as they are too close to home. I think it is far more important that we push the truth that Jesus is Lord of your life not you (the you i am refering to is anyboady who will listen).

You are simply listing destructive behavior here and prioritizing them in terms of your opinion on which is more destructive. (which by the way seems to contradict the cliché that, "All sins are equal") We should be apposed to all ungodliness, not just some of it. It's like saying, "There are worse things in this world to be against!" I'm not as focused on pie thieves as I am on murder or unhealthy sexual behavior. Of course some things are worse then others, but what they have in common is that they are all wrong. Yet, if what you say is true about Romans 2 and that none of us can judge because we are all hypocrites, you can't judge those who are involved in "Slave" labor.


Quote:

As an aside, it is interesting to note that I think the movie Juno has done more to convince people not to have an abortion than all the right wing Christian political rhetoric could.

That's your opinion, but what evidence do you have? The biblical record does not reflect the world view that says, "Never judge others under any circumstance that they are doing wrong, only point out the positives of doing right". Both are intertwined with one another. And both are pointed out in the Biblical record. We need to have a balance, again it depends on the audience and their level of resistance.

I have evidence that ARTL has saved hundreds of babies every year, protesting at abortion clinics, telling mothers that they will love them and their kids. And that they don't have to kill their babies to be loved or excepted. Many are made to feel that if they don't kill their babies..they will be shunned or they are doing something wrong. ARTL shows the brutal truth of what is about to happen to their kids.
Quote:

The reason is that it was a movie that was positively focused on the benefits of keeping a baby than on judgmental proclamations that abortion is evil and from the devil (just an observation).

Once again, it's not one or the other. It's both. Jesus did both, the prophets did both, the disciples did both. "Abortion is Murder". and "Here are the benefits of not killing your kids". It depends on your audience, how you judge and with what measure you use. If someone is saying, "Abortion is not murder" you don't say "maybe you are right".. I'm all for portraying motherhood in a positive light. It's a positive thing not to kill your kids. If, for example, a women comes to me and says she is considering "abortion" It would depend on her attitude about it as to how I would proceed. If she is broken..humble..sorrowful..distressed.. I can be more tender.., encouraging..etc etc.. She doesn't need a strong rebuke, it would be wrong. A women who is trying to justify it however does not need further euphemisms, but a frank, honest discussion. I would not throw my Bible at her and beat her down. I would however be honest with her and not do anything to help her guilty conscience that God is already at work on, feel better.

My observation since I've been dealing with this issue for years.. is that Christians who claim to be"non-judgmental" judge all the time and have been in this forum. And that as Churches become more liberal, the writers of the Bible themselves would be kicked out for speaking against Homosexuality and other sins.

The issue is right judging vs. wrong judging. And if a believer says all judging is wrong, he is wrong to judge, even that.
The Bible shows by word and deed that we are to possess and wield good judgment, measured, temperate, depending on the level of resistance of our audience and how they manifest it.

Take care,

Danny

 

[Berstromme]

Speaking of abortion and this increasing view by many that it is wrong for Christians to impose their morality on a "woman's right to choose" or that their is uncertainty as to when Human Life begins and that we cannot know this therefore we cannot deem abortion wrong is appalling to me. Several pro-abortion Catholic politians have been in the news lately with their views justifying their position or lack of action in ending the legality of this murderous act. The US Conference of Bishops is finally starting to lead on this issue. Here are a couple of key guides for the direction to tackle this issue:

1. We need to continue to teach clearly and help other Catholic leaders to teach clearly on our unequivocal commitment to the legal protection of human life from the moment of conception until natural death. Our teaching on human life and dignity should be reflected in our parishes and our educational, health care and human service ministries.

2. We need to do more to persuade all people that human life is precious and human dignity must be defended. This requires more effective dialogue and engagement with all public officials, especially Catholic public officials. We welcome conversation initiated by political leaders themselves.

3. Catholics need to act in support of these principles and policies in public life. It is the particular vocation of the laity to transform the world. We have to encourage this vocation and do more to bring all believers to this mission. As bishops, we do not endorse or oppose candidates. Rather, we seek to form the consciences of our people so that they can examine the positions of candidates and make choices based on Catholic moral and social teaching.

4. The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

5. We commit ourselves to maintain communication with public officials who make decisions every day that touch issues of human life and dignity.

Some of the added emphasis is mine, some from the Bishops. The point I think we as Christians regardless of denomination need to do is to inform ourselves on the issues of human life and dignity by studying the Bible, through the teachings of your faith and prayer. From this position of wisdom and understanding you can do what Danny I think has made the strong Biblical case for: Go forth to enlighten, teach, and yes judge the beliefs and actions of others on this and other issues that are so central to the Truth of Jesus' Teaching, God's Plan, and as the Holy Spirit is trying to guide us.

Here is a link to a video that outlines the effort and focus of the US Council of Bishops: Faithful Citizenship: A Matter of Conscience

 

[ppar3566]

Hey Danny,

My quick responses are these:

1. You have continued to suggest that your view against welfare is biblical and not political. I don't see this. Indeed you have claimed that those who believe in welfare are evil and have used a bible verse to suggest this claim. Indeed this is a perfect example of what I was talking about. There is no indication that your view on welfare has anything to do with biblical right or wrong it is in essence a political debate. We know that many Christians strongly take the view that welfare is important and needed (me for one). I don't know if we have gotten our welfare system right but the idea that those who have failed to adapt to the current world need some help and I for one do not want to step in the way of a government that wants to do this. Am I evil, according to your last post I would be. Do I think you that is what you meant...no. My problem with what you are saying is not whether your opinions are right or wrong, they may be right in your context, but your desire to post them as if they are the only possible views a good Chrisitan could take is in my opinion disrespectful. You are in effect squashing any real debate by making people feel that if they do not support your views you will deem them to be against the will of God. This can, and has in many cases, be used by powerful others to control the minds and views of the people and to silence anybody who has an alternate point of view. This is why so many have argued for the important of a seperation between church and state.

2. I think it is great that you clearly know you bible well (better than me in most cases) and your desire to back up your points of view from a biblical standpoint is important. However, my concern is that at no point have you seemed to take into account the historical, literary, or occasional context of the scriptures. Without reference to this anyone can take small snippets of scripture to support what ever they want, it becomes a free-for-all where whoever can find the most snippets wins. "If he does not work he should not eat" (1 for those against welfare) "and they shared all they owned so that no one was without" (1 for those for welfare). "Judge not least ye be judged" (1 against judging) the passage where Jesus tells the disciples to shake the dust from their feet if nobody in the town should believe (1 for judging). See without reference to context the whole debate becomes one of who can find supporting snippets the quickest and it usually results in the Simpsons episode where Krustys father and Lisa have the arguement where one says "is it not written....." and the other responds "is it not also written....."

3. I have never claimed we should become disengaged with politics and sit in the corner waiting for the end of the world we should be active and we must fight for the rights of the poor, destitute, and lonely. But it needs to be done by holding people accountable not by being judgemental. I know this may should like a battle of semantics (and that would be relavent if semantics were not important) but I think that an important distinction is required.

Judgemental = Refers to the placing of oneself in a position of power over another and determining how they should live. I think this is wrong because it does not respect the free-will and agency that is God's gift to all. If people want to live in a certain way within the confounds of the law we have no place to demand that they live our way. This flies in the face of the free will God has given them. I think judgement is wrong as it sets us as above those who we judge which is to misplace our position in the kingdom of God. This may come from a position of love but it is a position of love that is similar to the one for parent to child. (Anybody with some knowledge of transactional analysis here will know how futile the efforts of parent to child relationship can be when they are between two rational adults)

Accountable = Refers to holding peers accountable to the law and standards of society that they are required to live under as fellow citizens. This means we must be passionate in insuring the laws of the land are adequate and protective of all people and provide an allowance for everyone to exercise the free will God has given them without fear or intimidation. From the position of peer we are free to give an answer to anyone who asks, fight for the rights of others, and to provide a detailed defense of our beliefs should they be judged by others. But it all must come from the position of PEER not from the position of JUDGE. Again this is a position of love but one that is more befitting of a peer to peer relationship (in the words of Ben Lee "Religion, it is a big decision, but we are all in this together")

4. Finally, the point I have tried to make in previous posts is not one of the rightness or wrongness of judging but about the efficacy of judging. Some things are not wrong but if they don't serve to bring people to Christ they may not be worthwhile. I am strongly of the belief that we will win more to Christ by living up-right lives, by taking our position of peer very seriously, and by love motivated by a peer to peer relationship. My problem with judging is that it is a love that is devoid of respect that should come when we are addressing individuals who are no different from us except for God's love. Respect rather than telling will win more souls than judging and controlling.

Phil

 

[Woven]

Hey Danny,

My quick responses are these:

1. You have continued to suggest that your view against welfare is biblical and not political. I don't see this. Indeed you have claimed that those who believe in welfare are evil and have used a bible verse to suggest this claim.

Please post where I said those who believe in welfare are evil. I said there is destructive welfare, and healthy welfare. To which you had said, "I agree welfare could be destructive".

Indeed this is a perfect example of what I was talking about.

You are talking about Christians who hold to views you do not agree with who want to influence the leaders of our day. You are fine, as you say below, if they attend themselves to the issues you believe are important. Yet you are the one who has not made a biblical case that believers should check their Christian beliefs at the political door, as if we couldn't possibly know even the fundamentals of Biblical truth. You have not proven my or their Christian ideas wrong. What determines your political views? What determines your support or lack thereof for a particular candidate?

There is no indication that your view on welfare has anything to do with biblical right or wrong

Not true."No indication?" My view on the American welfare system or any welfare system that takes "Bread" from me under threat of punishment and gives it to my neighbor, who will not work, is wrong, unloving, unhealthy for us both. Paul indicates I'm right and Jesus said, "Thou shalt not steal".

2Th 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for naught; but wrought with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: 2Th 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves a pattern to you to follow us. 2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 2Th 3:11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busy-bodies. 2Th 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

it is in essence a political debate.

It is always a moral debate, you can't separate the two. You keep affirming that a person is free from moral accountability when they enter politics. And you are suggesting that we can't hold them accountable, because we can't know right from wrong. They already know fundamental right from wrong, we are simply reaffirming it to them. Calling it political doesn't strip it of it's moral obligations. Political debates are moral debates of right vs. wrong. Healthy ideas vs. unhealthy ideas. And that is what the word of God entail. You seem to think that absolute truth either doesn't exist or stops at the political door. It's like asking, "Is thou shalt not murder a biblical, moral or political issue"?

We know that many Christians strongly take the view that welfare is important and needed (me for one).

Many Christians also strongly take the position that Judging is wrong period or that we should only judge other believers. (You for one) As well as many positions that are not correct. Many Christians also believe the law of man justifies all behavior. (You for one) (Except of course Christian political activism)

I don't know if we have gotten our welfare system right

Can we know right welfare? What would make it wrong?

but the idea that those who have failed to adapt to the current world need some help and I for one do not want to step in the way of a government that wants to do this.

I'm not apposed to helping people, just not on your terms. But hey what happened to your "Freewill" argument? It appears it's only valid when your world view is being forced on others.
Don't ..I have free will? What right does the Gov have to "Force" it's beliefs onto me under threat of law? Is that not, under your idea of free will, disrespectful to me and God? You are free to take your money and sell your material possessions and help whoever you like. You are not justified in taking mine and rewarding people for destroying their lives or seducing them into being lazy. Let me ask you this, would you give it away without healthy standards or boundaries set for the recipient? And what would your healthy standards be based on? I have no problems with healthy welfare. Our Gov standards are destructive and unloving.

Am I evil, according to your last post I would be.

If you are advocating something you know is wrong, then that is sinful.
Sometime it's sincere ignorance and people can simply be misguided.
They mean well and are not intentionally trying to harm others.

Do I think you that is what you meant...no. My problem with what you are saying is not whether your opinions are right or wrong, they may be right in your context, but your desire to post them as if they are the only possible views a good Christian could take is in my opinion disrespectful.

"Good Christians" are often wrong. But "thou shalt not murder" is not an opinion. It's not an opinion of mine that homosexuality is wrong or that rape, molestation etc etc is wrong. Absolute truth exist and it's knowable for the most part, the fundamentals are knowable. Consequences are real and our silence doesn't make them any less real. With regards to being disrespectful. I don't respect moral relativism or those that teach it. It's not respectable.. Sincere ignorance is an entirely different matter. Homosexuality is wrong in any context.

So, Politician A says, "Vote for me and I will legalize slavery, keep abortion legal and I will legalize killing Jews" "As long as we legalize it, it shall be deemed respectable and God's will"

Is it wrong for a believer to rebuke A on Biblical grounds and advocate, appose him, warning Him and others not to support such wickedness? Yes or no please.

You are in effect squashing any real debate by making people feel that if they do not support your views you will deem them to be against the will of God.

"Thou shalt not murder". Is that my world view or Gods?
Is Paul's rebuke of Homosexuality "His" world view or Gods?
Maybe all the Prophets and disciples were just giving us their opinions on right and wrong. If a person supports abortion or homosexuality, it's not my opinion that they are outside the will of God. They are.
If a person says it's wrong to judge period, whether it's in rebellion or sincere ignorance that view is not in the will of God.
I have not squashed your alternate point of view, you are still sharing it.
And is it wrong for me to read your "judgments" of me and reconsider my own view of godliness? If I come under conviction because of something you write and find myself outside of the will of God in something I believe..is that good or bad?

This can, and has in many cases, be used by powerful others to control the minds and views of the people and to silence anybody who has an alternate point of view.

Welcome to liberalism and "Judge not". Which has been used (effectively) to "Silence" Christians with an alternate view.. Pro aborts tell Christians they are out of the will of God because they judge abortion as wrong. Your own words used back at you "This can, and has in many cases, be used by powerful others to control the minds and views of the people and to silence anybody who has an alternate point of view"
This is exactly what some have accomplished with "judge not". Some people seek to influence others rightly, some have malicious ulterior motives. Paul blinded a sorcerer for his "alternate" opinion. But persecuting the believers and killing them for their "alternate" facts, was wrong.

This is why so many have argued for the important of a separation between church and state.

The only thing you are arguing for is separation from my views (and others who share them) and state. Your views and state are fine.

"When the righteous rule the people rejoice". Does God argue for Christians to be separated, not apart of the leadership of a nation, from the Gov? Who are the righteous, as you see it? You claim we should not influence our leaders with Christian values. (Well, my Christian values, yours are fine) That's the antithesis of Biblical teaching. What we should not allow is a wicked Gov to influence the pulpit. But if Christians who should know fundamental truth are silenced and mind controlled by the "Judge not" crowd, it's more likely not less that this will happen. And that's what we are seeing in America. Since believers have been compromising on the fundamentals..our nation has become more and more liberal, with our approval.. You seem to think we can't know enough truth to determine even fundamental right and wrong. Yet it seems you are qualified to make a Biblical judgment that Christians are wrong to believe they have justification to bare arms.

2. I think it is great that you clearly know you bible well (better than me in most cases) and your desire to back up your points of view from a biblical standpoint is important. However, my concern is that at no point have you seemed to take into account the historical, literary, or occasional context of the scriptures.

This is not true. I've been putting scripture into context. I've taken the "snippets" from others and expanded on them, biblically. And I've demonstrated that others have not (Chiefly on "judge not") I believe here you are guilty of what you "judge" me guilty of. Please show me where I've taken any verses out of context. It's up to you to counter my argument with your own verses and commentary. So please put any verses I posted out of context, back in, rather than alleging I'm guilty of contextual errors.

Without reference to this anyone can take small snippets of scripture to support what ever they want, it becomes a free-for-all where whoever can find the most snippets wins. "If he does not work he should not eat" (1 for those against welfare) "and they shared all they owned so that no one was without" (1 for those for welfare). "Judge not least ye be judged" (1 against judging) the passage where Jesus tells the disciples to shake the dust from their feet if nobody in the town should believe (1 for judging). See without reference to context the whole debate becomes one of who can find supporting snippets the quickest and it usually results in the Simpsons episode where Krustys father and Lisa have the arguement where one says "is it not written....." and the other responds "is it not also written....."

I've been broadening the context from verse, to paragraph to whole chapters. Maybe you forgot, but I'm the one that said "Judge not" is out of context and I'm the one that expanded the context to include the rest of Christ's discourse, which puts "judge not" into it's right context. You have been saying it's wrong to judge. Wrong to judge unbelievers. Ok to judge believers. Yet the reason you say it's wrong, "we are all hypocrites" (Romans 2) doesn't stop you from judging believers. Why doesn't the same reasoning constrain you when it comes to believers?

3. I have never claimed we should become disengaged with politics and sit in the corner waiting for the end of the world we should be active and we must fight for the rights of the poor, destitute, and lonely. But it needs to be done by holding people accountable not by being judgmental. I know this may should like a battle of semantics (and that would be relevant if semantics were not important) but I think that an important distinction is required

You are contradicting yourself. Separation of church and state has been your argument, but I suppose only when we advocate against abortion and homosexuality, right? Or in support of baring arms. As long as we stick to advocating welfare for the poor and some type of companion program? for lonely it's ok. If you want to help the poor, find someone near you and help them help themselves. Would be healthy to break into your neighbors house, steal his good and go give them to the guy down the street holding up the sign, "Will work for food"? I was driving home from my wife's work one day and there was a guy holding up a sign that said.."Will work for food". So I pulled over and offered to take him for a job application where my wife works, what do you think his response was? "WOOHOO A JOB!"? a no.

Judgmental = Refers to the placing of oneself in a position of power over another and determining how they should live.

And every good parent does just that. You say we shouldn't determine how others should live, Yet you say below one should live within the confines of w/e law man conjures up. It appears to me that you don't mind being the wielder of that power or the law giver, as long as it's laws you feel comfortable with.

I think this is wrong because it does not respect the free-will and agency that is God's gift to all.

Clearly this is ridicules.. It is the epitome of respecting another to tell them the truth and as God says, "Don't hate your neighbor in your heart, thou shalt surely rebuke him and not suffer sin upon him". Because God has not given mankind absolute freedom from the consequences of their actions, nor the responsibility of us to love our neighbor.

Freedom? Yes. Freedom in the confines of Godly law, yes. Absolute freedom from correction, restraint, consequences, punishments, no.
And it's not good law to justify homosexuality or abortion, no more than you would say it's good law to justify slave labor.

If people want to live in a certain way within the confounds of the law we have no place to demand that they live our way.

Wow..this is just plan sad.. Sure..if the slave masters want to own blacks and it's "In the confines" of the law..who are we to demand..anything of them..? If the nazi's want to slaughter Jews within the confines of the law..who are we to demand..that they live God's way?
And if the law allows mother's to kill their own kids and same sex marriages..well now..who are we to say it's wrong..

Man made laws cannot justify immoral behavior or make a wrong right, they simply give permission.
Authority flows downhill, from God to man. Not uphill from man to God.


Danny

 

[ppar3566]

Quote by Woven:
Many Christians also strongly take the position that Judging is wrong period or that we should only judge other believers. (You for one) As well as many positions that are not correct. Many Christians also believe the law of man justifies all behavior. (You for one) (Except of course Christian political activism)

You have claimed that your beliefs are correct and mine are wrong. I clearly think the opposite and thus we are at an impass.

I thank you for the discussion for my part it has revealed to me that I do not hold to my own beliefs. Since the beginning of this discussion I have found that I judge many people frequently for all sorts of nonscence including how they dress etc. For that i am thankful to you and I believe this discussion with you will encourage me to be a better Christian.

I hope others have found the discussion useful but I see no fruit in continuing in a discussion where positions are so polarised and set in stone. I said earlier that this discussion was somewhat futile as we essentially believed the same things at the core.

Danny, I respect what you have had to say here and I hope that you remain strong in your will to spread the good news to others and I only wish you the best in those endevours. Should you find that some of your positions do not work I only ask that you return to this discussion, as I most certainly will when my efforts meet with failure, to continue to ensure that we are most effectively reaching the most amount of people.

To everyone else to paraphrase Leo Tolstoy "The orthodox believe that they along hold the truth of the scriptures and believe anyone whose beliefs do not meet theirs are not real believers....the same position is held by the Catholics and the Protestants ". Let us never forget that there are lots of diffirent christians who hold views that will not match ours let us not forget that they are never-the-less the Children of God whose position deserves respect and consideration. In this thread are two very different opinions expanded in detail. I hope that you find the discussion useful. I am sure that the truth of it lies somewhere in the middle but use what resonates with you leave what doesn't.

Quote by Woven:
Wow..this is just plan sad.. Sure..if the slave masters want to own blacks and it's "In the confines" of the law..who are we to demand..anything of them..? If the nazi's want to slaughter Jews within the confines of the law..who are we to demand..that they live God's way?
And if the law allows mother's to kill their own kids and same sex marriages..well now..who are we to say it's wrong..

Man made laws cannot justify immoral behavior or make a wrong right, they simply give permission.
Authority flows downhill, from God to man. Not uphill from man to God.

response:
On the basis of this quote and to see my arguemnt in a single simple address I think it is important for me to clarify my position. My position has two parts:

1. I have not said that as christians we should lie down as meek as a mouse and never say anything. I am mainly concerned about the idea of power relationships. What i am trying to say is; say what you like, campaign for the rights of others, but do it from a position of equal. I am advocating a peer to peer position of power when holding others acountable. Woven I think you are holding a Parent to child type relationship in that I read your ideas of judgement to suggest that Christians are in a position of power over the non-christian and thus has the right to tell them what to do. I for one disagree with this power relationship when it is between to rational adults. This also does not discount the fact that we will hold other power relationship where we will have the right to tell people what to do as Woven has said good parents tell their children what to do. What I am saying is we need to be careful to respect the boundries of those power relationships i.e when that Child has become an adult the power relationship should change where the parent begins to treat the child as an adult. Likewise, I am saying that when two people, one Christian and one non-chrisitian, who are both rational adults are relating to each other it must be done on the base of equals.

2. The second part of my arguement is related to efficacy. Just because we can do something does not mean we should. I think as Christians we need to learn the age old adage of "Choose the hills you die on". I feel Chrisitans try and die on every hill and thus have lost much respect in the eyes of the community. I believe that had we focused more on the rights of the oppressed rather than the ills of homosexuality we would have maintained much more respect and had greater influence than we do now.

Finally, I wanted to say I am sorry to Danny took my previous post to suggest you were simply tearing snippets out of the bible to support your views without any refernce to the surrounding passages. I have tried not to become emotionally involved and to that end i have failed. This was not my intention. While I do feel that you have not accounted for the historical and occassional context of the scriptures you use, you have done nothing but show the upmost respect for the bible and I do not want anything i have said to suggest you have not.

 

[Woven]

I will make my closing post in a few days. I have some things to catch up on including a "honey do" list that has gotton rather long

 

[Kahless]

Hello all, first time using this, so bare with me.

Gay Marriages, my view on that is, it's wrong, but I can't be judging them for their actions. Not my place, all I can do is love them, and show them the LOVE of Jesus Christ. Now having the Government telling who one can and can not marry, in my opinion gives the Government too much power.

Abortion, my view on this is, it's sad that it happens as a get out of having a kid card. It hurts cuz, my wife and I have been married for seven and a half years and we haven't been blessed with a child yet, a misscarriage, yes but not a child to hold and watch grouping up. Abortion should be used as a LAST resort messure <i.e. threatens life of mother, rape, or insest.> Other measure are there, carry the baby to term and have an adoption agentcy take over, or take to a place that will accept the child and find a good home for it.

Help for the less fortunante, In my opinion, helping the needly is good, but not all wants to be helped and wants everything to be given to them and not earned. I see alot of pan-handlers out there on the side of the road and I don't give them money; especially if they are smoking. If you can afford to smoke, you can buy food. Sure if I have an extra bottle of water or extra food, I will give, but most won't take it, cuz they want money for buy drugs, booze, or ciggerates. And most of the time, I don't carry cash, or have extra to give. The way this economy is going, I may end up on the streets. Granted, as of right now, I can pay for my bills and put food on the table, but that is provided by the Grace of God, not by my works or labors.

There is my 10¢.

-Kahless_