Should you separate faith and policy views?

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

There are many things that I disagree with even on a moral level that I don't think should be illegal because of the greater good and my position on personal freedom. There are few things I find to be more morally reprehensible than abortion, but getting rid of abortion will cause more problems than it solves from the black market it creates and Roe v Wade establishes a legal precident about privacy and the right to one's body that is a bigger deal to me than the abortion issue. While it's not moral to me I fundimentally disagree with someone who gets a sex change, but it isn't any of my business and I respect people's right to do what they want with their money and bodies.
Is it acceptable to hold views of morality and views of policy separately, or is that a sign of weak faith or weak moral fortitude?

 

[ebia]

There are many things that I disagree with even on a moral level that I don't think should be illegal because of the greater good and my position on personal freedom. There are few things I find to be more morally reprehensible than abortion, but getting rid of abortion will cause more problems than it solves from the black market it creates and Roe v Wade establishes a legal precident about privacy and the right to one's body that is a bigger deal to me than the abortion issue. While it's not moral to me I fundimentally disagree with someone who gets a sex change, but it isn't any of my business and I respect people's right to do what they want with their money and bodies.
Is it acceptable to hold views of morality and views of policy separately, or is that a sign of weak faith or weak moral fortitude?

One's faith must inform one's opinion on policy matters - religion (at least Christian, Jewish and Islamic religions) are not private affairs of the heart but proclamations about the whole of creation.

However, that doesn't have be at a simplistic level. My faith may tell me that eating bananas on a tuesday is morally repugnant, but that doesn't necessarly mean that the best course of action is to make it illegal.

God allows people to make poor choices - to do stuff that is 'sinful' - it's not our job to override God and attempt to stop people by force. The places where we can and should step in are where innocent parties are directly harmed.

 

[Key]

There are many things that I disagree with even on a moral level that I don't think should be illegal because of the greater good and my position on personal freedom. There are few things I find to be more morally reprehensible than abortion, but getting rid of abortion will cause more problems than it solves from the black market it creates and Roe v Wade establishes a legal precident about privacy and the right to one's body that is a bigger deal to me than the abortion issue. While it's not moral to me I fundimentally disagree with someone who gets a sex change, but it isn't any of my business and I respect people's right to do what they want with their money and bodies.
Is it acceptable to hold views of morality and views of policy separately, or is that a sign of weak faith or weak moral fortitude?

I would say that takes more faith then many even are able to grasp.

Faith is not tested when you only sit with saints and apostles, but when you share your table with prostitutes and tax collectors.

Maybe one day, Christians will realize that.

God Bless

Key

 

[prophecystudent]

There are many things that I disagree with even on a moral level that I don't think should be illegal because of the greater good and my position on personal freedom. There are few things I find to be more morally reprehensible than abortion, but getting rid of abortion will cause more problems than it solves from the black market it creates

To which problems do you refer? What black market? The one in which women violate the law and murder their babies? By violate the law, I am extrapolating from your point that if abortion was illegal.



and Roe v Wade establishes a legal precident about privacy and the right to one's body that is a bigger deal to me than the abortion issue.

In the first place nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about the right to privacy including murdering babies. Second, there is nothing in the constitution about the right to one's body. Roe V Wade was a travesty foisted on the American people by a liberal set of activist judges. Every court since then has been to cowardly to address the issue again, satisfied to let 40 to 50 million babies be slaughtered because of "convenience".

While it's not moral to me I fundimentally disagree with someone who gets a sex change, but it isn't any of my business and I respect people's right to do what they want with their money and bodies.

On this, while I deeply believe it is wrong to modify God's creations, it is their right to free choice. The difference here is that they are only affecting themselves (aside from the stigma that might be applied to their family members).

Huge difference between sex changes and abortions.

Is it acceptable to hold views of morality and views of policy separately, or is that a sign of weak faith or weak moral fortitude?

At best, it is a sign of weak moral fortitude. Perhaps the biggest single problem in our country/government today is that our so-called leaders try to justify their decisions based on what is good for public policy, rather than on what is right and moral (not to mention what God has to say about it).

They tuck their consciences conveniently down into a drawer someplace when it comes to the next election, or money from the lobbyists, etc.

Moral clarity, or lack of, shows the true person. It is sad that far too many in our world today find it easier to compromise on moral issues than to do what is right.

Having said that, it is all predicted in the bible. Check out what the bible says about the approaching end times.

Fred

 

[tapero]

There are many things that I disagree with even on a moral level that I don't think should be illegal because of the greater good and my position on personal freedom. There are few things I find to be more morally reprehensible than abortion, but getting rid of abortion will cause more problems than it solves from the black market it creates and Roe v Wade establishes a legal precident about privacy and the right to one's body that is a bigger deal to me than the abortion issue. While it's not moral to me I fundimentally disagree with someone who gets a sex change, but it isn't any of my business and I respect people's right to do what they want with their money and bodies.
Is it acceptable to hold views of morality and views of policy separately, or is that a sign of weak faith or weak moral fortitude?

Hi, No it is not a sign of weakness at all.

There are many different beliefs held by Nicence Creed agreeing Christians.

Here is the Nicene creed url:

http://www.christianforums.com/rules

There are Christians who believe certain sins are not sins. They may even go to a church that teaches the same.

There are Christians who are pro-choice.

There are Christians who do not take the bible literally in some areas.

I know for myself, when I became a Christian didn't view a certain sin as sin. But one day a year later, I realized the sin was a sin. It was a year after I believed. I hadn't committed this sin as a Christian but just didn't believe it was a sin; just because Christians said it was, I needed to know in my heart on my own.

Many Christians (well, we all sin) but many sin knowing they are sinning and continue to sin.

We shouldn't do that, but we do.

Of course some believe if the above occurs that they aren't Christians at all which is not true. Once one comes to Christ they are indwelled by by the Holy Spirit, a seal guaranteeing our redemption (salavation.)

One can never lose their salvation.
Of course many dont believe this either.

Of course this isn't a license to sin, we are not to abuse grace, but because we live in this body we do sin, and if we commit a sin over and over, eventually we become hardened in our hearts about it, and don't hear God on the issue.

But that's okay, because God will work on what we are willing and ready to give over to Him, and the one who is intentionally sinning may some day see the truth and change.

Abraham was a liar, but God did not deal with that sin with Abraham; at least it's not written.

Jacob committed many sins, and God dealt with whatever He dealt with Jacob.

We are filled with sin, and there is much sin in us and in our hearts. Though we have new hearts and are clean and righteous in Gods site, we still have much sin in our hearts.

God says clean the inside of the cup and the outside will be clean.

We have pride, arrogance, etc. in our lives. All of us, to different degrees whether aware or unaware and God roots this out as we see it and bring it to Him. OR, because of growth in Him in other areas, those sins, become less and less as we grow in Him.

So, one comes to Christ, is indwelled by the Holy Spirit, and if starts reading the bible, will learn about God more and learn about sin more. God does not want us to sin, but we do. He knows we do, we fall short every day and He loves us. We are forgiven, past, present and future sins.

There is much in us that need change and it's a process, a life time process.

God is gentle and loving.

But on moralities if one doesn't see abortion as wrong it does not mean they aren't a Christian.

If we are in the bible, praying, and singing, we will be changed. Not saying all 3 is needed to be changed, but just stating all those 3.

Some come to Christ, and don't read the bible, and they
change little, cause they have no truth to go by.

Maybe they go to church and take what the pastor says as truth, which is very dangerous to do, as can be in a bad church. And if they don't read the bible, they don't know it's not the truth. This is a common occurance, and you see many Christians like this.

Many need be discipled to help them grow, yet it's written the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth.

Many Christians are democrats. Billy Graham is.

It shouldn't be about politics, wasn't with Jesus, shouldn't be with us.

So, no it is not a sign of weakness to have morals that are contrary to the word of God, because the Spirit hasn't dealt with that issue with the person, and if the Spirit has and they haven't changed, it makes them no less moral. If someone can't understand why something is wrong, and don't change on their own thinking, then they adapt that to their lifestyles. When they give it to God, as they see perhaps it might be contrary to what God would have us do, they might change their thoughts.

God doesn't force us to understand and grasp.

God will work on what we are willing to give over.

Although (saul) wasn't a Christian at this point, he kept all the law, was a good man, and he murdered Christians. Then Jesus called him, and he was a changed man, named Paul at that point.

Of course he didn't keep all the law, because no man could, but he did as much as he could, he was a good man in his eyes and he thought pleasing God.

As a Christian there are things I believe to be true, and wrong, I agree with what the bible says is sin. Whatever the bible says is sin, I agree.

But again, not everyone feels the same way.

What matters is faith in Christ, his death and resurrection and believing in Him.

God will work on our hearts as we grow in Him.

Sorry for the book here.
Peace

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

At best, it is a sign of weak moral fortitude. Perhaps the biggest single problem in our country/government today is that our so-called leaders try to justify their decisions based on what is good for public policy, rather than on what is right and moral (not to mention what God has to say about it).

I actually think it is problematic that people cannot distinguish between faith and policy. I think that for the greater good of society, equality for homosexuals is more important than whether or not it is moral to engage in homosexuality. I also think that freedom is more important than moral objections to prostitution, gambling, and drugs. I think that freedom of speech is more important than moral objections to content. I think that science is more important than moral objections to the teaching of evolution and stem cell research. Morality is personal to me, I don't think I or anybody else has any right to impose morality on anybody else. Again we are talking about public policy, not on what is and isn't moral.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Furthermore if christianity, hell, and sin really are choices then why pass laws forcing people to not sin?

 

[tapero]

Furthermore if christianity, hell, and sin really are choices then why pass laws forcing people to not sin?

Hi, don't think you were replying to me, but just had a question here.

The laws we have in place, don't murder, steal, etc. rape.

Are they not moral laws?

Also no law forces someone not to sin.

As we know because we have prisons for those who caught got breaking the law, as well as there are those in prison who are innocent alos.

Not sure of laws that you are speaking of in particular tho.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The laws we have in place, don't murder, steal, etc. rape.

Are they not moral laws?

They are moral, but they are not exclusively moral. If I kill, rape, or steal, I have demonsterably and directly harmed someone. Whereas homosexuality only directly affects the participants and it is mutual. I dont think there should be such thing as a victimless crime. That however says nothing about how i view some of those things morally.

 

[Adoniram]

Whereas homosexuality only directly affects the participants and it is mutual.

Is this really true? Why then is AIDS such a scary proposition for the rest of society? There is no denying that it has spread outside the homosexual community, is there?

 

[Adoniram]

Is it acceptable to hold views of morality and views of policy separately, or is that a sign of weak faith or weak moral fortitude?

Well, many people do, but I don't think that's a good policy. I think that an essential quality of a good leader (i.e., a good policy maker) is a strong moral compass. A strong moral compass is most commonly found to be grounded in "faith" and the acceptance of God's Word as law.

This is not to say that the "faithless" have no moral compass. Through the centuries, guidelines as to what is commonly accepted moral behavior in society have been established, with faith and the Bible playing a major role. People, as products of society, are "conditioned" to the acceptance of those moral guidelines whether they have faith or not.

However, a problem arises when faith in God and the Bible are no longer the foundation of those moral guidelines. The "conditioning" begins to break down, leading to more abhorrent trends. As the importance of God and the Bible have been downplayed in schools, in government, in people's lives in general, the lines between what is moral behavior and what is not have grayed, widened, such that the definition is now less distinct. We see the evidence of this in today's society.

So, the question arises: what good is a compass without a map? And the map, of course, is the Bible.

Luke 6:46-49
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47 I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."

 

[Key]

Hi, don't think you were replying to me, but just had a question here.

The laws we have in place, don't murder, steal, etc. rape.

Are they not moral laws?

I would have to say.. they are not "Moral Laws" they are laws that protect the freedom and enforce the U.S. Constitution.

Be they are based on "biblical" Morals, they are not in and of themselves Moral Laws.

As such, Laws in a Secular status should be geared towards the Secular needs, not the needs of a Religious Belief, as a Religion does not need "Secular" laws to uphold moral actions within itself. If things like (for example) working on the sabbath are legal, that does not mean that the Church, or that Christians must accept this as a morally good thing, and thus, equally can refuse to engage in that action or lifestyle because they view it as such.

Just as there are people that view eating meat as immoral, or drinking as immoral, this does not mean that the Secular Government must equally bend to their wishes, as a matter of fact, isn't there this big hyperbola about how the "Liberals" are affecting the government, and if the Christians can do it and say it is "good" the they equally must accept that anyone else can do it.. and claim it is "good". It's a brutal "Catch 22".. because both sides are crying "But we are only trying to establish our good morals upon everyone else"

Well I believe that the Secular Laws, and Religious Morals are not the same thing, they may share some similarities on some issues, but they are not the same thing, and should not be treated as such.

God Bless

Key

 

[MelissaShae]

If we all measured our policy buy our faith in God then we wouldn't have to worry about rape and murder because our faith teaches us that is wrong. Faith is not the problem with the policy views of today, it is the lack of faith that is the problem.

 

[dvd_holc]

Faith and policy should not be seperated...both deal with morality...it is an lie to think that you can seperate the two. Either a country is in harmony with God's created order or it is not.

Does God expect parents to keep authority of the household? Do we as parents make a room for the children to sin in or do we conquer sin and remove the yeast? We have no gods but God, and kingdoms of sin have no room for God. Repent and follow the Kingdom of God's reign.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Do we as parents make a room for the children to sin in or do we conquer sin and remove the yeast? We have no gods but God, and kingdoms of sin have no room for God. Repent and follow the Kingdom of God's reign.

Should those be laws though?

 

[dvd_holc]

Should those be laws though?

I don’t have all the answers, but this I can say…

The authority of the established governments should be a reflection of the God’s providence for this age and implementation of Kingdom of Heaven. The current kingdoms should not force submission to God because God has not forced submission of humanity even though He reigns over humanity, but the current kingdoms should preserve and build up life and not make room for death. God has given a certain degree of freedom to humanity according to His will, so too the nations should allow a certain degree of freedom in reflection to God’s will which also point to our Creator Covenantal God. This does not mean (for example) abortion should be allowed or demanded acceptable by the nations because abortion causes death of a child, but this does mean that governments should not over step their given authority to control all things there by through the wickedness of men deceitful thinking are attempting to replace God. All sin is outside the Shalom of God and causes death, but God did not ordain that all sin lead to our death because of the mercy of God for repentance. God has ordained certain appointed days for the judgments of the world and implementation of the union of heaven and earth; we anticipate this age’s completion and end of the call for repentance. So then because of the urgency of the times, we call for repentance as leaders and teachers of the community without forcing people to submit so that we are completed as a community in union with God’s teaching and purpose; living the Kingdom, now.
Zec 4:6
'Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the Lord Almighty.
We put faith in and are faith to the Spirit and not the sword.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

It is the job of government to protect its citizens. This is not a theocracy, the bible is not a recognized legal text in our system. Do you really value freedom less than morality? I think this is my public policy view, I value freedom more than morality when making laws. Why would it be so wrong for a to believe that homosexuality is immoral but recognize that the right to equality and privacy are more important to protect for the greater good of society?

 

[MelissaShae]

In my faith I am free spiritually and morally. I don't have to be free physically to be free in the Lord.

 

[dvd_holc]

It is the job of government to protect its citizens. This is not a theocracy, the bible is not a recognized legal text in our system. Do you really value freedom less than morality? I think this is my public policy view, I value freedom more than morality when making laws. Why would it be so wrong for a to believe that homosexuality is immoral but recognize that the right to equality and privacy are more important to protect for the greater good of society?

In certain respects, our system is the product of Enlightment Era's ideals which was the division of religion and state and reactionary against England. The soul premise of the government cannot be a system of can'ts and penalties. Any system like that is not worth of buying into...God's Torah was both positive and negative...God's Torah included what we call government. Now in Torah, homosexuality was wrothy of death...however in this age, we don't condemn them to death but anounce a call to repentance. The established governments won't kill them...nor do I saw that they should...but to call a homosexual relationship a marriage and equal to marrage is not biblical and a lie. We can't call that relationship equal and approved as a marriage.

 

[TheShiningPath]

yes