Liberal Christians

Major1 said:

Agreed!

I also think that you would agree that the job of the Church and Christianity itself IS NOT to reform the world and government.

The mission of the church is to get out the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ so that men will here it, believe it and get saved and then they will be able to do the work need for social reform.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

It depends a bit on what is meant by reform the government. Neither Christ nor Paul forbade us from participating in politics. I think as a believer we have a right just like any other citizen to participate in politics. It's not our job to force people to believe as we do not to pass laws forcing people to believe the same as us. But I do not find a prohibition on us to participate in a political process. Yes our primary mission is to share the gospel. But we are not forbidden from politics.

redleghunter said:

Christians can (and do in many cases) great work in their local communities in the US.

Click to expand...

True.

Before social welfare, paid for by redistributive taxation, it wasn't enough.

Major1 said:

I here you. Since that is your thinking, I do need to ask you your thoughts on several Bible quotes.

Matt. 12:31-32 is of course the so called "unpardonable sin"..............
“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

Does that indicate that some sin is worse than another by the words......"Every sin & blasphemy".

1 Corth. 6:18..........
"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body."

That seems to me to be saying sexual sins are different than "other" sins.

John 19:11............
"Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

Does that validate your thinking or contradict it???

Matthew 7:3 ....................
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

The idea that "all sins are equal in God's eyes" comes from the idea that any one sin will lead to death. If we commit a single sin, we are as guilty (in God's eyes) as if we had committed the worst sin--regardless of which sin we committed.

It's based on the idea that God's holiness is so extreme, that even one transgression is greater than he can accept. This idea is supported with two key verses

James 2:10 ................
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it".

Romans 3:23 ............
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

The argument goes, therefore, that if even the smallest sin prevents us from attaining the perfection that God calls us to seek, then that one single sin is as great as the worst sin.

We can reconcile these two seemingly opposing viewpoints: we can clearly see that some sins are greater than others, but that any sin will prevent us from going to heaven without the saving grace and sacrifice of Jesus.

Essentially, any one sin is sufficient to keep us from God, but all sins are not the same.

Can one sin be worse than another sin, or are all sins equal?

Click to expand...

I agree. There are sins that are worse than others. But as you said any sin great or small will prevent us from heaven without the saving grace of Christ. So to the unbeliever it matters not what sins he has committed. So we are in agreement here.

Vicomte13 said:

It is.

Click to expand...

Please quote scripture to support that.

Vicomte13 said:

True.

Before social welfare, paid for by redistributive taxation, it wasn't enough.

Click to expand...

Our 21st century government is quite inefficient which leads to much of the suffering. American poor do not hold a candle to Somali poor. An American living at or below the poverty line could live like a king elsewhere.

Major1 said:

You are correct............believe as you wish to believe. Forget the Scriptures and do want you want to do. There for a moment I forgot that you are a Catholic believer so that is what you do anyway.

But for everyone else, the fact is that we CAN NOT KEEP the 10 Commandments..............
However we are certainly supposed to try. There is the rub.

It is true that the Law does not save anyone, and the Law never saved anyone, however the 10 Commandments apply to ALL people because Jesus taught us clearly that He came to FULFILL the Law right down to every little dot and comma.

There is always someone raising that stale old argument that the Law is a sign only for the Jews.

But even when it is pointed out that Law can not be only for the Jews when there were no Jews when the Ten Commandments were given. There were in fact no Jews in the world for at least 2,000 years after creation so it is in fact impossible for the law to be only for them.

Well, enough said. As my friend said, "Believe as you wish".

Click to expand...

And showed, God destroyed nations for acting contrary to its laws, though they were not under them as enlightened covenant people, but while the Law expressly defined sin, in essence they knew the moral law, and violating it, including acting contrary to the principle behind ceremonial law (such as separation from evil) was sin, and thus Paul spoke of1.
natural revelation with the innate sense of morality:

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: (Romans 1:20)

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (Romans 2:15-16)

Thus all are under the Law in the sense of either knowing the express revelation of His Law, which was reception of greater grace, or whatever valid sense of morality one had (which is easily defiled), the validity of which was based upon the Law in its fullness, with Christ this being the ultimate Judge. And as no one keeps the law, then all stand in need of redemption on Christian expense and credit, by His sinless shed blood.

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Romans 3:19)

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. (Romans 3:24-27)

Glory to the most high God in the highest.

rjs330 said:

Well that may be true, particularly to a believer. That is a different discussion. However, the sinner is lost regardless of his category of sinfulness. A serial killer is no more lost than the man who does not kill and lives a typical life committing sins such as lying or taking the Lords name in vain. They are equally lost and equally guilty before God. A homosexual is no more lost that the man who lies.

Click to expand...

A person drowning 1,000 yards offshore is in need of rescue just as a person 100 yards off is. Both are helpless and need a savior who can swim.

DZoolander said:

Out of curiosity, do you have the same types of feelings about the costs incurred on society by fat people?

Click to expand...

To a degree yes, and never commend it but counsel against it, this being perhaps the single most common cause of reduced life expectancy. But I realize that some have a harder problem due to metabolism than others, and may not be eating out of lust at all (or because the clock says its time), but for strength. However, that is not the norm, and in any case it is not to be promoted (as homosex is).

Vicomte13 said:

It is true: everybody's free will IS being violated, to an extent, in order to feed everybody. Christianity had 1600 years as the official, established religion everywhere, and nowhere did Christians ever voluntarily give enough to stop the hunger and stop the penury. .

Click to expand...

I am not disagreeing with all you said, which was a lot, but the above statement is not wholly true except on a wide scale outside one community. For under exceptional, manifestly holy and wise men of God:

And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:31-35)

And [after the supernatural execution of lying deceivers] by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them. And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.) (Acts 5:12-14)

That was not that norm, but the start of the original organic community. Later,

Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. (1 Timothy 6:17-19)

Tetra said:

If everyone chose to follow God, the world would be great. That's different than forcing others through governmental policy to adhere to what you think the Bible says.

Click to expand...

So instead you believe in forcing others through governmental policy to adhere to what someone else or class of people think? Whether we like it or not, that is how it works, and with both liberals and conservatives being for liberty for many things and contrary to liberty for others, with both accusing each other of being anti-liberty, while the issue is the substance and scope.

In a constitutional republic, the founding documents and laws reflect what the writers thereof believed, which have sources. For some Scripture was supreme while at the least they overall affirmed its basic moral authority and none were atheists.

But the Constitution is open to some degree of interpretation, including what can be extrapolated out of it based upon its principles, and directly or indirectly the those who provide this interpretation are the electorate, which choices reflect what they truly believe. At one time Christianity was held to be the "civil religion," and as the French (Catholic) political thinker and historian (best known for his two volume, “Democracy in America”) attested,

The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God...Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same...

In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth...

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live...

Thus religious zeal is perpetually warmed in the United States by the fires of patriotism. These men do not act exclusively from a consideration of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause. If you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to hear them speak so often of the goods of this world, and to meet a politician where you expected to find a priest. " (Democracy in America, Volume I Chapter XVII, 1835; Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 17)

Thus what they believed had an effect, we can expect, insofar as their voting actually reflects what they profess, that they would be for liberty for many things and contrary to liberty for others, with different degrees of depth of conviction vs. preferences.

But cultures and the overall "civil religion" that of general ideology can change, and which thus is reflected in the governance and laws, from slight changes to revolution, all reflective of what people believed, and both being for some liberties and against others. Even anarchist are so, as they can be against making laws (except by their own).

Thus we cannot escape being both for liberty (except perhaps if you are a Stalin or Kim Jung Un) and against it, and the issue is upon what based our judgments are made, and the benefits vs costs of them.

The sexual revolution worked to cast off the censure against traditional values such as fornication (which always was a problem, but shameful) and respect for authority and the traditional family (even to the point of trying hard to raise a chimp as much like a human - as per liberal college ideas - and thus be like a human as they could), and the concept of the right to benefits by merit, versus the victim-entitlement mentality

But this freedom has had great costs.

DZoolander said:

Gotta admit - the whole email server thing never really resonated with me as an issue.

Probably because I work with computers, and I set up and run my own private email server too. Heck, give me $100 for the half hour of work, and $20.00 mo, and you can have your own, too. lol So for me having one just feels like "big whoop".

Then you get into the fact that it must have been the worst kept secret in Washington. I mean, it isn't like people were emailing her at a state.gov address - and it was surreptitiously being routed to her server. Rather - people were emailing her at clintonemail.com. Every time you sent her an email - there it is. There ya see it...right in front of your eyes on every email! What did ya think that was? Clintonemail.com? Of course that's a private email server...and if it was such a risk or concern...why didn't ya make a huge stink about it when it was actually happening?

Click to expand...

Here you made a cogent, valid post.

FireDragon76 said:

PbJ, I hope you do come to realize those arguments are inherently tired and lame.

Click to expand...

You mean according to your inherently tired and lame dismissal in lieu of an argument.

The issue being debated is mostly about people that want to get married and lead relatively invisible vanilla lives.

Click to expand...

Really? I see it as being not being about monogamous marriage (which most male homosexuals do not engage in) but under that smoke scree being about how what the homosexual movement fosters negatively effects the lives of others, with liberals imagining it does not.

Not people that hookup on Grindr with people they barely know so they can have meaningless sex. Few people, gay or straight, consider that a great way to live.

Click to expand...

Then see what happens when you try to hinder it after decades or it being speciously sanctified in the name of "love."

Have you stopped to consider one of the reasons that so many gay men get AIDS is because they have been shunned by society and ostractized from community institutions?

Click to expand...

Have you stopped to consider that is overall propaganda, at least in most major cities, and to the contrary, speaking (let alone acting) in any way that a homosexual voices as offensive (which can very easy charged as being so) immediately places one at risk of losing his job (by force of pressure or termination) if it comes out in public.

Whether is be the resignation of Mozilla's CEO for his $1,000 contribution to Proposition 8 (versus against nit as Jeff Bezo) or the highly regarded Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran due to authoring a Christian book in 2013 that described homosexuality as a "sexual perversion" or the Detroit firefighter fired for bringing watermelon to the fire station as a introductory gift (most members were black, and who stuck up for him) and multitudes more, it is the conservatives (and not meaning white supremacists) who face censure and punishment far more than homosexual or black racial activists.

I dare say thee two classes are the two most protected classes of people in the West. Which as a mere observational statement (which it is) would be enough to to result in the charge of being homophobic and racist (even if a black person said it). No go ahead and tell me how you think i personally treat either.

If you've been told you are dirty, filthy, and perverted often enough, you start to believe it.

Click to expand...

Where do you see this as being widespread, versus being called homophobic and racist by the media or the vocal majority of the population? And basically blacklisted if a public figure?

People that have little to live for but pleasure do engage in riskier behaviors that put them at risk of HIV. Self-hatred does horrible stuff.

Click to expand...

That actually can be taken as a slur, since it would categorize the majority of college students, where promiscuity abounds as mentally ill (not saying many should not be), as well as multitudes of others who do not engage in such due to self hatred, but out of love for pleasure and self.

But then there are laws against preventing conversion therapy.

"Protected classes"... do I sense resentment? Read the parable of the Prodigal Son some time, and see where that gets you.

The 'protected classes' of the world are not protected by Yahweh.
He sees things much differently from the world/ men/ mankind.
(as high as heaven is above the earth, in fact).

Likewise, (for previous topic in the thread)
the instructions from Yahweh and from Yeshua (Jesus) are quite
clear about not getting involved in the world's politics. (it is widely disclosed in Scripture and online - not worth going into here)

PeaceByJesus said:

I am not disagreeing with all you said, which was a lot, but the above statement is not wholly true except on a wide scale outside one community. For under exceptional, manifestly holy and wise men of God:

And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:31-35)

And [after the supernatural execution of lying deceivers] by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them. And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.) (Acts 5:12-14)

That was not that norm, but the start of the original organic community. Later,

Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. (1 Timothy 6:17-19)

Click to expand...

I will grant that the post-resurrection Jerusalem Christian community, which lived communally, with community property, all as described in Acts, is an example of how well mankind can, and ought to, live. I will also notice that the non-compliance of Christians themselves with the model in the very early church resulted in two people, a husband and wife, being directly killed by God in the church, at the feet of Peter demonstrating a great many things, and standing as a (largely unheeded) warning.

rjs330 said:

Please quote scripture to support that.

Click to expand...

Why?

redleghunter said:

American poor do not hold a candle to Somali poor. An American living at or below the poverty line could live like a king elsewhere.

Click to expand...

That is because of over a century of public education, and 85 years of social welfare. Poverty has been substantially mitigated in America. Dust Bowl Era Americans, before social welfare, were as poor as any Somali.

rjs330 said:

I agree. There are sins that are worse than others. But as you said any sin great or small will prevent us from heaven without the saving grace of Christ. So to the unbeliever it matters not what sins he has committed. So we are in agreement here.

Click to expand...

Wonderful...........there is ONE sin which can not be forgiven and that is the sin of "Unbelief".

That is the Unpardonable sin!

Vicomte13 said:

That is because of over a century of public education, and 85 years of social welfare. Poverty has been substantially mitigated in America. Dust Bowl Era Americans, before social welfare, were as poor as any Somali.

Click to expand...

Now think about that.

The people of the dust bowl got into their trucks and cars and moved away.
The dust bowl was NOT from social injustice or religious persecution or even war or government intrusion. It was because men did not cultivate their land correctly.

The people in Somali just lay there and die.

It just does not seem like a well thought out thesis to me.

Vicomte13 said:

Why?

Click to expand...

So that we can see if it is A Bible teaching or simple YOUR opinion.

We all have opinions and most are uselly incorrect.