Faith vs politics

[Sasquatchit]

I don't tend to let my religious views influence my politics. I would not want to force anybody to follow my faith so my political views veer toward giving people the freedom to do as they decide.

So u would support abortion and gay rights, knowing that these are wrong?

 

[gord44]

But it's ok to break these moral laws if you accepted JC into your heart, and keep asking for forgiveness.

I think you are over reaching there. It's not really 'ok'. The jist of that idea is if you can mess up and still be forgiven. To intentionally break commandments would lead one to consider if one's salvation is truly there and to some theologies show a 'falling away'.

 

[BaconWizard]

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Matthew 7:7
Keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you.

Yeah. Er.. wow.


James 1:22

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.


Titus 1:16

They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.


1 John 2:4

Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,

It really should be simple eh? Do THIS and not other stuff..


A DISGRACEFUL fail, tbh

 

[Sasquatchit]

i try to avoid politics altogether. My politics I suppose is to not get involved in politics based on religious reasons.

I don't blame u!

 

[BaconWizard]

So u would support abortion and gay rights, knowing that these are wrong?

I can't speak for LoAmmi, and indeed we may disagree about this issue. But I'm serious. What makes you so certain that the only interpretation is that gay rights and abortion are wrong?

Since you are a CHRISTian, let's see you cite Christ on this issue. And not the OT. Since the entire point of CHRISTianity is a new covenant between God aka CHRIST and man, rather than the OT covenant, yeah?

 

[BaconWizard]

But it's ok to break these moral laws if you accepted JC into your heart, and keep asking for forgiveness.

Do you REALLY want me to list the things that this apparently makes moral, for comparison with those things that we all know simply by birth, to be immoral?

 

[gord44]

I agree with your sentiment, and am a staunch secularist. I just don't think it is genuinely possible.

I think Jesus would frown on anyone involved in politics (not having politics but being involved in the state. it's hard to not really have 'politics'). i think he would disapprove of any Christian politician. he was an anarchist and an extremist but a peaceful one.

 

[dazed]

Do you REALLY want me to list the things that this apparently makes moral, for comparison with those things that we all know simply by birth, to be immoral?

Please and thank you.

 

[BaconWizard]

Do you REALLY want me to list the things that this apparently makes moral, for comparison with those things that we all know simply by birth, to be immoral?

Please and thank you.

For Christians:

Not worshiping God,
Having another god,
Idolatry,
Failing to keep sabbath,

I include the above for your sake alone...

Meanwhile, for everyone:

Rape
Killing,
Adultery,
Theft,
Bearing false witness,
Coveting your neighbor's goods.

And I add:
enforcing thought-crime,
Slavery
Violence beyond that which enables survival


Which part of this is not a total fail?

 

[BaconWizard]

I think Jesus would frown on anyone involved in politics (not having politics but being involved in the state. it's hard to not really have 'politics'). i think he would disapprove of any Christian politician. he was an anarchist and an extremist but a peaceful one.

I assume you are using the term anarchist in terms of the early French Revolution?

 

[Arthra]

In the Baha'i Faith we acknowledge we live in a world that is currently divided by partisanship and so generally we avoid partisan politics altogether. But we still have our own principles and beliefs. We don't register in a political party but are "independents". We do vote in elections as independents. Baha'is can be involved in non-partisan committees or activities that can serve society.

Given the above we also have our own perspectives on social life and have views about how a future society should be...such as eliminating prejudice...equality of men and women...reducing the extremes of wealth and poverty and a representative world parliament that can resolve international issues.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I find it obvious that society should make laws to minimize harm done to individuals. I don't need any religious grounding to make this determination. Stealing, murder, assault are all things that I find obvious to make laws to stop.

What then would you say to someone that disagreed with your personal morally detatched assessment of something as harmful? Is your opinion about what is harmful the only possible one? Incidently, it did not seem obvious to the Aztecs that human sacrifice was harmful nor did it seem obvious to the Nazis that genocide was harmful. It seems to me that exactly what is and is not harmful is not obvious at all unless one insists that their own biases are the measuring stick.

 

[ContraMundum]

Is it possible to separate politics and/or social status from theistic faith?

Same question re religious doctrine.

I believe so, but not in the case of Islam or Medieval Christianity as far as I can tell.

 

[LoAmmi]

Would you say that morality is not necessarily a function of religion then?

I think that religion can provide a good framework for morality but morality is not the sole possession of religion. I am not a person who would rob people or kill them, but what does that mean? What are the boundaries of those concepts? The law in the United States provides some of that, but I will use Judaism to fill in the rest.

So u would support abortion and gay rights, knowing that these are wrong?

Why would I think gay rights are wrong? I assume you mean the freedom of homosexuals in the United States to live the life they choose to live and not be legally discriminated against. Don't you wish to live the life you choose and not be legally discriminated against? Jewish expression: Is your blood redder than theirs? What if theirs is redder than yours? In other words, why do you put yourself above them and believe you are entitled to choose your life while they must conform to you?

Would I want my synagogue to perform a gay marriage? No, I believe that violates the Torah. But I cannot find a reason to say that the state, an entity without religion, cannot grant a gay couple a wedding license.

Abortion is more complicated. Judaism says that abortion is actually demanded when the life of the mother is at stake. I follow that and express that opinion, but I cannot in good conscience look a woman in the face and tell her she must carry a child to term and that her body is not hers. As I said, it's complicated.

What then would you say to someone that disagreed with your personal morally detatched assessment of something as harmful? Is your opinion about what is harmful the only possible one? Incidently, it did not seem obvious to the Aztecs that human sacrifice was harmful nor did it seem obvious to the Nazis that genocide was harmful. It seems to me that exactly what is and is not harmful is not obvious at all unless one insists that their own biases are the measuring stick.

We already have disagreements over morality even if it's based upon religion. Even among Christians there are a multitude of ideas and opinions on what is moral and what isn't. TG, on this forum, is a pacifist and is so much one that he finds it immoral for people to carry out violence even when they are in danger. Other Christians disagree with that position. So, everybody has their own measuring stick.

The Aztecs believed they were sacrificing to their gods. They were religiously motivated in their actions and didn't believe them immoral. The Nazis believed that Jews didn't qualify as humans and didn't believe their actions immoral. The Nazis had some religious motivation considering how many of them were Christians; Jews were "Christ-killers" in their eyes and that view had been crafted over years of Christians believing such things even if it isn't official doctrine.

Was it moral for HaShem to command all men, women, and children be killed in the various cities conquered in Canaan in your eyes?

 

[RDKirk]

Is it possible to separate politics and/or social status from theistic faith?

Same question re religious doctrine.

Daniel and Mordecai did.

 

[RDKirk]

I can't speak for LoAmmi, and indeed we may disagree about this issue. But I'm serious. What makes you so certain that the only interpretation is that gay rights and abortion are wrong?

Since you are a CHRISTian, let's see you cite Christ on this issue. And not the OT. Since the entire point of CHRISTianity is a new covenant between God aka CHRIST and man, rather than the OT covenant, yeah?

It always amazes me when non-Christians insist that Christians must be more hardcore fundamentalists than even Fundamentalists.

 

[RDKirk]

I think Jesus would frown on anyone involved in politics (not having politics but being involved in the state. it's hard to not really have 'politics'). i think he would disapprove of any Christian politician. he was an anarchist and an extremist but a peaceful one.

Jesus was not an anarchist, he was a monarchist. His view on His ambassadors of Heaven being involved in the political process of another nation is the same as any king's view on his ambassadors being involved in the polticial processes of the host nation.

Would the president of the US approve of his ambassador to Britain running for the British parliament?

 

[gord44]

Jesus was not an anarchist, he was a monarchist. His view on His ambassadors of Heaven being involved in the political process of another nation is the same as any king's view on his ambassadors being involved in the polticial processes of the host nation.

Would the president of the US approve of his ambassador to Britain running for the British parliament?

I doubt he was a monarchist. God wasn't a huge fan of monarchs either is what I get from 1 Samuel. If you are implying that by saying God is a persons king somehow makes them a monarchist, I disagree. A monarchist is someone who thinks they should be ruled by an earthly king. Jesus wasn't down with that.

 

[dazed]

Yeah. Er.. wow.


James 1:22

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.


Titus 1:16

They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.


1 John 2:4

Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,

It really should be simple eh? Do THIS and not other stuff..


A DISGRACEFUL fail, tbh

So, how would one square these quotes with John 3:16 and Mark 7:7? I'll be a rich man if I got $1 every time a Christian tried to convert me with these quotes.

I read your quoted verses and they do not indicate that I can't go to heaven. John 2:4 would eliminate 99.9999% of professed Christians.

I think heaven is already occupied by detestable murderers and liars. Dalmer, Jimmy Bakker.... What you will not find in heaven are: Ghandi, Dalai Lama, and 100% of people living in North and South Americas and Asia before the arrival of Christian missionaries.

 

[BaconWizard]

It always amazes me when non-Christians insist that Christians must be more hardcore fundamentalists than even Fundamentalists.

Oh! So following Christ would be a hardcore fundamentalist type of Christianity now, would it?