• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Liberal Christians

Discussion in 'Christian Philosophy & Ethics' started by Violet Edge, Nov 28, 2017.

  1. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +5,021
    Anabaptist
    Who are you replying to ?
     
  2. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,368
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    In answer to YOUR questions: the law against murder was given to all mankind in the time of Noah, and reiterated quite fully for all mankind by Jesus. So very clearly we are prohibited from committing murder, by God, both before and after the Ten Commandments.

    That does not mean that we are subject to the Ten Commandments. The law of the United States, and of the state in which you reside, prohibits murder. That's why you will be punished in this life if you commit murder.

    The law of Russia also prohibits murder, just like American law. So, are you subject to the law of Russia?
    No. If the law of America did not prohibit murder, you would not be subject to prosecution for murders in America. The Russian law does not apply to you: you're not Russian and you're not living in Russia.

    But that's me speaking. I've asked two of you a very simple and direct question, in answer to your earlier assertion regarding "forced charity" (government welfare): Are you subject to the Ten Commandments, yes or no?
     
  3. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,368
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Me. He was replying to me.

    I've replied to him, and asked the same question of you: are you subject to the Ten Commandments, yes or no?
     
  4. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +1,455
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    So then by your own words, WE ARE in fact subject to the Laws of God!

    Now are we subject to the 10 Commandments in so far that we are judged innocent or guilty if we break them the answer is NO!

    However, that does not mean we are to ignore them and do what ever we choose to do. That is absurd!

    We are not living in the age of the Law but the age of Grace.

    The Law did not save one single person. It was not intended to be a vehicle of salvation. Salvation has always been of FAITH not works and still is today.
     
  5. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,368
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Of course we are subject to the Laws of God. We are prohibited from murder because of what God said to Noah, and what Jesus said to mankind, NOT because of what God said to the Hebrews at Sinai.

    It is rather important. We were not released by Jesus from the Saturday Sabbath (one of the Ten Commandments), nor released from the prohibition on eating bacon. Neither of those things were ever given to us as law. Those things, along with the business about statues, and washing, and not having sex within a certain amount of time after our wife's period, and being circumcised - all of those myriad laws were not things that Jesus released us from. He released the Jews, just them, from those laws. We were never under any of them in the first place.

    We were under the Laws God gave to mankind generally, through Noah and afterwards. And we are under the laws that Jesus gave. If you line the Torah up next to what Jesus said, you will find a bit of the Torah there, but not most of it. You will also find a lot of things in the Law of Jesus that are not in the Law of Sinai.

    Most importantly, the Law of Moses does not promise everlasting life, or even life after death. There is no eschatological reward in the Old Testament. The only reward promised is promised to the Hebrews, in THIS life: a secure farm in Israel. THAT is the only thing God promised anybody for following the whole Law of Sinai.

    To find everlasting life, you must follow the Law of Jesus - he is the only one to offer life in Paradise after death. The Old Testament law promises nothing at all in the afterlife.

    So, what happens if you follow the Law of Moses perfectly? Well, two things: first, you don't get everlasting life, because Jesus added other important things that aren't in the Law of Moses. Secondly, you waste a huge amount of time, because you will have given up a great number of things in the hope of a secure farm in Israel that you will never be granted, because God's law of Sinai says that it ALL has to be followed in order to get that farm, and by destroying the Temple and the priesthood utterly with the Roman ARmy in 69 AD, God made it literally IMPOSSIBLE to carry out all of the requirements of the law. And, as Jesus said, the law cannot change - so those things that God made impossible to do are STILL mandatory. Which means that no, it is no longer possible, no matter what you do, to get the secure farm in Israel that God promised at Sinai. God has removed the possibility from the earth by making the conditions impossible to fulfill. It IS possible to go BUY a farm in Israel and own it, but it will not be under any guarantee of security.

    The only law that can be followed and a reward received, in the next life, is the Law of Jesus. That has the laws against killing, violence, abuse, sexual immorality, lying, cowardice, charity - all that - in it. It's JESUS we are following when we don't kill, not Moses. Moses gave us no applicable law. The Old Testament, for US, is a HISTORY book only, it is NOT a lawbook. For the ancient Hebrews, it was a lawbook. We're not ancient Hebrews, and we were never under that law. We're under the Law of Jesus. The Gospels are our law book. And Jesus, by his crucifixion, did NOT free us from the commandment to follow HIS law. Indeed, he asked, pointedly: what good does it do you to say you follow me if you do not keep my commandments.

    THAT is the proper structure of the law in the Scriptures. The OT Law is a terrible red herring, and it is rendered all the more confusing by the fact that Paul, James, Peter, John - all of them but Luke - were all Jews, and the Temple was still up when they wrote, so BOTH the Mosaic Law and the Covenant of Jesus applied to them. They obviously struggled with reconciling the two, and the New Testament gives us the account of that struggle.

    WE don't have that struggle, because WE are not Jews, and WE never were under the Old Testament. God is the source of all law. For US to know the law, all we need to do is read the Gospels, the opening portions of Acts (when Jesus was still among the Apostles), and Revelation, when Jesus spoke.

    The Epistles address problems of churches and struggles to understand. They do not add law, because God alone can make divine law for us.

    I think you have to agree with all of the above, because it's true.

    So tell me, do you?
    Or do you insist that, no, quite independent of Jesus and his commandments, the Ten Commandments apply directly to us, and have applied to everybody in the world since YHWH gave them to the Hebrews from Sinai's height.

    What say you?
     
  6. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,368
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Which Law? The Law of Moses, or the Law of Jesus? When Paul spoke of "The Law", he was speaking of the Law of Moses, but that was not a law at all for Gentiles. Jesus' commandments ARE law for us, though not called "THE Law" in the Scriptures.
     
  7. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +5,021
    Anabaptist
    Correct!....
    I think you're posting to someone I can't see. A few months or years ago, the only way to have peace and joy continually was to stop a lot of posts from showing up that brought dissension and confusion, so that must be it.

    Continue well, in Scripture, and SHALOM !
     
  8. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +1,195
    Christian
    Single
    The organic communal model to that degree is not taught as the standard continuing model, but is one I think Christian should seek to realize, and especially is applicable for new converts. The Latino culture is more conducive to this community living (and temperate climate helps), the European less so.

    As for the supernatural execution of Ananias and Sapphira for there deceit and why we do not see the latter manifest today is consistent with the principle the Lord taught, that "unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required," (Luke 12:48) - and we in this country have been given much in many ways - and consistent with this principle thus the solemn warning of the severe judgment upon those enlightened regenerate who "hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace"(Hebrews 10:29) by will-full impenitent continual sinning in forsaking effectual faith and thus departing from the living God. (Hebrews 3:12; 10:25-39; cf. Galatians 5:1-5)

    The context of Acts 5 is that of a church with leadership which could say,

    Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed: But in all approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, (2 Corinthians 6:3-6)

    These being men who would silence every rational atheist (well,, should), as "fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. (Acts 2:43) "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. (Acts 5:12)

    And the disciples were also given much Light, as they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42) And thus the disciples were exceedingly blessed, but with such grace and light comes commensurate responsibility, thus seeing not only positive miracles but "negative" ones as the supernatural execution of Ananias and Sapphira.

    This principle also helps explain the discipline imposed upon Moses after the people "provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips" (Psalms 106:33) in exasperation versus his characteristic meekness (power under control) and exalting himself as if the power was his, ("Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?" Numbers 20:10) he smote the rock twice.
     
  9. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +1,455
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    My apologies my brother.
     
  10. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +5,021
    Anabaptist
    Oh, not at all - no apology was expected at all, nothing wrong with your posts ... it looks like you will find as I did that for peace and joy continuing, some things in life (for all of us in Christ) must be avoided is all. That was a long time difficult lesson for me to learn, and once I started doing that, WONDERFUL PEACE ! (unexpectedly great peace actually, from doing 'less', doing such a small thing ...)
     
  11. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +1,455
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Again, IMO you are blending the ability to be saved with the Law. We do not have to keep the Law, no matter whose it is or how it is called in order to be saved.

    My point is that because we are saved, Christians we do not then just throw away the 10 Commandments that were given to all men. Because we are a Christian, we can not then say.....
    "I am a Christians so I do not have to tell the truth or stay faithful to my spouse."

    YES WE DO!

    Allow me to ask you a simple question. WHAT IS SIN?????

    According to the Bible, Sin is described as the transgression of the law of God in 1 John 3:4 and rebellion against God's Word in Deut. 9:7, and Joshua 1:18.

    That being the case, let me ask you again, should we try and keep the 10 Commandments, NOT TO BE SAVED but so that we can live a better, safer and more complete life????

    You see my friend, there is an element within human nature which inclines to the idea of justification by works; we like to feel that we are doing something towards our salvation. For this reason, compulsory tithing, wearing a crucifix, reciting set prayers, praying in a certain posture etc. are all popular parts of most religions, Christian and otherwise. But Salvation by faith in Christ alone is a doctrine almost unique to true Bible-based Christianity.

    Warnings against keeping any part of the Law of Moses in order to gain salvation, are dotted throughout the New Testament and most all believers understand that.

    But again, common sense and logic along with the Scriptures themselves tell us to try and obey what we can not do, NOT TO BE SAVED but to be obedient.
     
  12. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,368
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    "What good does it do you to say you follow me if you don't keep my commandments?" - Jesus
     
  13. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +1,455
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Exactly what I have been saying to you!!!!!
     
  14. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,368
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Hmmmmm. Maybe we're saying the same thing in two different languages and not realizing it.

    Let me ask you this - what do you think about this statement? : The Law of Moses, given in the Old Testament, is not binding on us today. Nevertheless, it was given by God and it reveals the mind of God, so it is important to read it to understand what God was teaching.

    Fair statement?
     
  15. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +1,455
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Exactly! That is what I have been trying to get across to you.:clap:
     
  16. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +2,403
    Presbyterian
    Single
    This is close to my view. Jesus commented on most of the 10 commandments in Mat 5. It seems to me that he came pretty close to replacing them. "Moses said ... I say ..." His version focused on intent and effect, not rules. It's possible that he didn't intend to replace them, but rather to interpret them. But if he interpreted them, his interpretation still almost replace them. I'd paraphrase his interpretation as "let's not look at these so much as rules, but rather at the intent behind them."

    When you combine this with the fact that the 10 commandments were quite explicitly part of the covenant with the Jews, I'd say that technically speaking they don't apply to us. But Jesus' teachings certainly do apply to us, and he reiterated at least the intention of the 10 commandments. So even though the stone tablets aren't part of our law, for all practical purposes we're committed to the same principles.
     
  17. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,368
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    And so come full circle back to the point that I was trying to make about our religious obligation to support social welfare when we act in the political sphere. The Law of Moses, the Law that God gave - that is not BINDING on us, but that DOES reflect the mind of God, was full of mandatory economic laws that were intended to help the poor, and they were in no sense voluntary. These include the tithe itself, which - if one goes back and reads carefully - was not simply to provide a salary for the Levites, but which was provided so that the Levites would use it to provide for themselves AND the poor. The tithe was a redistributive social welfare tax. It was intended to feed one of the 12 tribes, whose assigned jobs was to be the local judges and poverty relief administrators all over Israel, and to provide them the means by which they were to support the poor.

    The other provisions, such as the right to gleanings, the right to tresspass and eat, the right to a loan upon request, if the wealthy man requested had the money to loan, the right to loans without interest, and to be forgiven debt in the 7th year. This presented a comprehensive and quite redistributive law.

    Now, the Hebrews, and later the Jews, did not obey these laws. They evaded them and avoided them. And God sent the Prophet Amos, and the Prophet Malachi both in particular to focus on those violations as angering God. The other prophets mentioned it as well. God consistently criticized the Israelites and their kings for not respecting his poor laws, in particular.

    It's true, we're not "under" that law. But as with the Ten Commandments, the Law that Jesus gave is parallel in intent, and Jesus made it clear that those who didn't feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc, were goats headed into the fire.

    In Jesus' day there was no vote. There were kings and emperors. Certainly the kings were under God's obligation to provide, through their governments, for the needs of the poor. That's abundanelt clear through the prophets.

    We, by our own hand, removed the kings and put ourselves collectively in their place. Our votes are the fractionated crown.

    The notion that we are not commanded by God to provide for the poor through THAT power, that governmental power which we have, and not simply through volutnary charity, is so screaminly obvious that I am morally outraged by the lies that are told by Christians who try to pretnd that there is no governmental obligation to provide for the poor, or that government programs for poverty relief are contrary to Scripture. Those are lies, and they are lies that disregard the mandatory nature of poverty relief under God's Law, and they are lies motivated by personal greed. But "Christians" have dared to admonish me for pointing out God's law! This is intolerable, and it is what has provoked the lengthy sidebar.

    Social welfare, private AND PUBLIC is a commandment of God which is the obligation of all people until there is no more poverty. Christians have no right to be saying that God wants only private charity. That is not true. It was never true. The Mosaic law is chock full of mandatory, government-enforced redistribution. Granted, we're not directly under it, but we are under its spirit, and Jesus made it clear that he throws people into hell for not fulfilling this duty, upping the ante tremendously.

    That was the purpose of my long sidebar, to stick a bar into the spokes of the argument that God does not demand that, in our public personas, we are free from the obligation to care for the poor, or that redistribution of wealth through the tax code for poverty relief is "theft". Did God command theft when he commanded the tithe for poverty relief, or when he commanded that creditors debts be erased in the seventh year, or commanded men who had excess to lend when asked without interest, or when God ordained that the poor could always walk through the fields and eat (though they could carry none away to tell), or when he forbade farmers and landowners from doing a second picking of the crops _ all of the lgleanings belong to the poor?

    None of that was voluntary. It was all wealth redistribution enforced by governmental power and commanded by God. And while we we are not under the strict form of the Mosaic Law, we are nevertheless under the spirit of it, and Jesus did not remove the spirit of it. God's law of poverty was one of not just voluntary but also MANDATORY, enforced wealth redistribution. We took the crown from the king and now we collectively are kings, it is our duty to do it as long as there is poverty.

    And for a Christian to say that public poverty reliefs programs is "theft" is an outrage, a damned lie told in direct defiance of God. I am demanding that they answer for themselves and that they stop misrepresenting God.

    To do that, it was important to resolve the issue of what the Mosaic Law IS and is not. Whether it's binding or advisory, we're still bound to its spirit. I am pleased to see that several of us are now in agreement on this point (about the Law of Torah). And now I am taking that agreement and forcing it forward to state that we are just as bound by God's spirit of MANDATORY poverty relief that is all through the economic laws of Torah, as we are by the laws against murder and adultery also in Torah. The spirit of God has not changed, and Christians are to stop saying that public poverty relief is theft. It was a commandment of God in Israel, and it still is today. Period.

    We can disagree on efficiencies and modalities, but no Christian has the right to declare before God and man that welfare is theft and un-godly. Some HAVE made that claim, and I have gone through this long exercise to make it impossible for anybody to call himself a Christian and sustain that lie.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2017
  18. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +2,403
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I agree.
     
  19. expos4ever

    expos4ever Left This Site

    +1,668
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    Me too. Excellent stuff, Vicomte.
     
  20. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +1,195
    Christian
    Single

    Edited:
    I do not recall seeing the tithe being a redistributive social welfare tax as in the Levites running a typical welfare system for the poor as defined in the West, giving them a substantially comprehensive goods and services, versus perhaps these being money-lenders at no interest and their dispersal of food and funds from the 3 year gathering to the truly needy (see below)?

    If that was the case then why was not this appeal to bureaucratic application and enlistment in welfare rolls to receive a vast range of free or discounted goods and services the recourse when Israelites become poor, rather than things such as,
    • selling themselves (or being sold) into servanthood, (Leviticus 25:39,47ff) with the owner giving generous severance pay in the seventh year (Deuteronomy 15:9-15) thus helping prevent a cycle. And;
    • not harvesting the corners of the field, (Lv. 19:10; 23:22) and also;
    • letting the land rest the 7th year with the poor being the harvesters (meaning work: Exodus 30 23:11). As well as leaving that which dies of itself for the poor. (Deuteronomy 14:21) And;
    • at the end of every seven years making a release of every creditor of his neighbour, or of his brother, excluding foreigners. (Deuteronomy 15:1-3) And;
    • giving to every family per tribes a portion of the conquered land by lot for an inheritance forever. (Numbers 33:53,54)
    • ever fiftieth year proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants to return every man unto his possession (in case they sold it, such as out of need), and every man unto his family. (Leviticus 25:10)
    • And personal charity to brethren who waxed poor, and with loans having no interest, (Leviticus 25:35,36; Deuteronomy 15:7,8; cf. 1 Timothy 6:17,18; 1 John 3:16,17) and;
    • not keeping overnight what he placed down as collateral/pledge (Deuteronomy 24:12) and;
    • paying workers daily. (Deuteronomy 24:15) And with;
    • the same tax (an half shekel) for rich and poor for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation. (Exodus 30:15,16)?
    • A yearly tithe of produce, dough, etc. for the Levites to do the service of the Tabernacle (Numbers 18:20,21; Leviticus 27:30-31)
    • The yearly tithe of their increase of the field (being an agrarian-based society) for the feasts, to eat (or buy food if one came from far away, who could sell their increase) at the feast unto the Lord in the place which He would choose to place his name. (Deuteronomy 14:22-26)
    • The free-will offerings by inviolable vows, of persons, cattle, houses, or land, (Leviticus 27:2-25) according to administrative estimation based on value and ability.
    • The tithe of thine increase at the end of three years, thus, "the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest." (Deuteronomy 14:28,29)
    In any case, while you might can support in principal for "redistributive social welfare tax," the devil is in the details, and if you want to use the theocracy of Israel for support and to make it applicable today, you need deal with it as part a whole system, which was opposed to,
    1. a welfare system which subsidizes having children due to rampant continued fornication. And fosters;
    2. absentee fathers, and;
    3. able persons/recipients who would not seek to be productive. And
    4. a vast penal system, and;
    5. redundant overlapping (federal and "tribal") programs providing $ignificant aid for a whole host of aspects, including education, housing, heat, power, health care, utility rates, and a multitude of adult health issues as well as children, and including,
    6. funding the cost of treatment for a disease primarily caused by a sinful activity the Scriptures only condemn,and even funding so that they may engage in it without becoming infected. And;
    7. with the support largely being an impersonal means in the mail or similar, And;
    8. administered by a vast bureaucracy largely staffed by supporters of said system;
    9. many of who are naive idealistic student of secular schools choosing this employment in order to obtain forgiveness of their remaining significant debt. And with political powers;
    10. fostering a victim-entitlement mentality, in which all those lack benefits others earned are told they are victims of injustice, and have the right to benefits others earned, and who are generally portrayed as oppressors who need to have more taken from them to provide what the victims are told is their right (thus working against the concept of mercy and grace and acts of gratitude), and by which Communist-type seduction said political powers obtain their power (in the end resulting in dictatorships and the most extreme economic discrepancy), all of which is
    11. funded by approx. just half the adult population, and;
    12. with certain benefits for the working poor effectively being a disincentive to work, since recipients quickly lose more benefits for each additional dollar they earn.
    And i am sure the list could go on. If this is not what you are defending, then what hypothetical system is it that you condemn conservatives for opposing? Or are the conservatives you condemn hypothetical? If not, where are their posts?

    I did not read this before I responded with the above. But before you condemn those who condemn redistributive social welfare taxes you need to objectively understand what manner of animal they are condemning. How would Moses fare in today's elections?

    But "poor" needs to be defined. In the OT, a poor man is described as was one who needed his wages (not welfare check) daily, and his cloak (only having one). "Poor" is a relative term and today, "cumulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per household living below the poverty level. By comparison, the median household income in 2011 of $50,054 equals $137.13 per day."

    And earning too much (and or getting married) can result in substantial loss of benefits:
    [​IMG]
    (Source: Gene Steuerle, blog.governmentwedeserve.org, from A misleading chart on ‘welfare’ spending

    Thus, as,

    scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

    The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. ...Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media. - Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?


    In addition,

    Because to believe in the Lord Jesus, with the faith which is counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4:5) and not simply believe a promise abstract from who and what the One who made it is and says, effects characteristic obedience, and such negative disobedience as ignoring the needy (as well as fostering a indolence) is contrary to saving faith, which is to seek "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)

    Again, what "poor" means and the conditions and means of providing help is the issue.
    So you think America's founders were renegades who made a mistake?

    You have yet to show that OT governmental power the OT describes is that which the conservatives you rail (nothing new here) against are opposing.

    I missed this admonishment of you for pointing out God's law. Perhaps now you will include me in that list.

    Again, where are the Levites mailing out checks and ebtd cards, and the other means I numbered, vs what i bulleted, and how does the latter correspond to what conservatives oppose? It seems you are reading an awful lot into that the 10% tithe meant. And if the gov. decided to only take 10% (though this was more than just money) with the welfare taken out of that, do you think conservatives would oppose it or celebrate?
    Before you issue such a sentence, have you shown that they oppose is what the OT teaches in dialog with them?
    Or that since it can be Godly, that the form conservatives oppose it just that.
    Who are these believers you speak of?
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2017
Loading...