Soft on Sin

[Archaeopteryx]

Will it work if we elect Atheists, then pray that the Atheists will change their ways? By electing a person, we are endorsing their Atheism. How can anyone justify voting for a person that advocates abortion and homosexuality, or voting for anyone that is part of a political party that advocates abortion and homosexuality?

No. By electing a particular person I am expressing endorsement of their policies, not their religion or lifestyle.

I believe the Restoration of America to being a Christian Nation means every Christian must be mindful of politics and many must devote their life to being political missionaries, by devoting their life to political life. See the thread "Christian Nation Restoration".

You can't restore what was never there to begin with.

For most of my Christian life I debated whether a Christian had an obligation to be involved in politics, but as I have seen Atheism and Socialism (symbiotic relationship) grow in America, I decided being involved in politics was a necessity. Although challenged by the world, I have been at peace with God.

You have yet to prove that this alleged 'symbiotic relationship' is significant.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Will it work if we elect Atheists, then pray that the Atheists will change their ways? By electing a person, we are endorsing their Atheism. How can anyone justify voting for a person that advocates abortion and homosexuality, or voting for anyone that is part of a political party that advocates abortion and homosexuality?

No. By electing a particular person I am expressing endorsement of their policies, not their religion or lifestyle.

I believe the Restoration of America to being a Christian Nation means every Christian must be mindful of politics and many must devote their life to being political missionaries, by devoting their life to political life. See the thread "Christian Nation Restoration".

You can't restore what was never there to begin with.

For most of my Christian life I debated whether a Christian had an obligation to be involved in politics, but as I have seen Atheism and Socialism (symbiotic relationship) grow in America, I decided being involved in politics was a necessity. Although challenged by the world, I have been at peace with God.

You have yet to prove that this alleged 'symbiotic relationship' is significant.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Clirus, why do avoid the hard questions? I've been asking you to respond to your self-contradiction for quite some time now, and each time you fail to account for it. Here it is, yet again:

It is really hard for Socialists to admit that there is a relation between sin and poverty, but the Bible clearly states:

And it's even harder for you to admit that you are contradicting yourself repeatedly. You claim that there is a strong relation between sinfulness and poverty, and yet you also have claimed that 'poverty is not proof of sin'. If it is not proof of sin then how can the apparent association between these variables be as strong as you claim it is?

Christians need to deal with issues as good and evil, not rich or poor.

But you don't even do that! You deal with issues in terms of rich and poor and you assume that poverty is an indication of sinfulness despite claiming the opposite! What's worse is that you are on record for saying that we ought to do nothing for poor people - an idea that is totally incongruent with many of Christ's teachings.

 

[WannaWitness]

Your position seems to be the position of most Christians.

Will it work if we elect Atheists, then pray that the Atheists will change their ways? By electing a person, we are endorsing their Atheism. How can anyone justify voting for a person that advocates abortion and homosexuality, or voting for anyone that is part of a political party that advocates abortion and homosexuality?

Surly it is good to pray for those in leadership and authority, but it is better to elect people that listen to God, so that God can have an effect through the Holy Spirit. I do not believe people that support abortion and homosexuality are listening to God.

Some would say they have totally satisfied there Christian obligation if they vote and pray, but by the time they get to vote, the candidates available are not even Christians, so you are voting for the lesser of two evils.

I believe the Restoration of America to being a Christian Nation means every Christian must be mindful of politics and many must devote their life to being political missionaries, by devoting their life to political life. See the thread "Christian Nation Restoration".

In the discussion of Republican verses democrats, I make the following statement.

Republicans have yet to prove to me that they totally support Christian principles, but democrats have proven they do "not" support Christian Principles.

I believe the Republican Party would be the best possibility for Restoring America to being a Christian Nation, but only if Christians first take over the Republican Party.

For most of my Christian life I debated whether a Christian had an obligation to be involved in politics, but as I have seen Atheism and Socialism (symbiotic relationship) grow in America, I decided being involved in politics was a necessity. Although challenged by the world, I have been at peace with God.

I believe the Bible is an instruction book for both individuals and nations. Neither individuals or nations will prosper/survive if the Church and State are not under the leadership of the Lord and following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

I believe Solomon summed up the whole thing.

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgement, and every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."

You raise a few good points. As far as Democrats (or "demoncrats", as I heard them scornfully called one time) not supporting Christian (or at least moral) principles at all, however, that is where I respectfully disagree. See, while there are many things I agree with on the Republican end of the spectrum - such as the stance against homosexual "unions", for example (and I have gotten very vocal about those things, angering many on the extreme liberal end) -- I see nothing wrong with the creation of programs (within reason, that is) to help our country's many needy people (this was endorsed all through the Bible), and while I agree some of these people have brought their situations on themselves through overindulgence and reckless and lazy lifestyles, this is not true of all of them. In addition to that, I also realize that, as much as I am against the gay lifestyles and believe in speaking out how such things are abominations to the Lord according to the Bible, you can say these things until you're blue in the face, but try as you might, many people do not listen; they have you tuned out before you can even utter a single word. But even God gives people the choice between right and wrong, and anyone who doesn't choose His way has to pay in the end. And of course, there is the saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it." From there, all Christians should be trusted to vote their conscience, and whether it's Democrat, Republican, or a third party (or even if they choose not to vote at all), it is their business (unless they give the information themselves).

I've heard someone else say that rather than to bring politics into Christianity, we should try to bring Christianity into politics... as we should be doing in every situation we face in life.

Hope this clears up the point I am trying to make. God bless.

 

[jgarden]

The American Civil War is a classical example of the contradictions in "clirus' " position. Most of America's Christian population at that time was divided into 2 opposing camps. in which many assumed positions of "leadership and authority."

Both sides claimed to be "listening to God" and following "Christian Principles"
- with each side sincere in its claims to be serving a "Higher Calling."

The reality is that despite the merits of their claims, God didn't grant either side any quick or decisive victory - and this war extended year after year to become by far the most costly in terms of casualties and human suffering in America's history.

The sad reality is that unlike the early Believers, most American Christians have come to accept that "killing" in the name of "defence of the nation," is not a sin, but a virtue.

Once Christians start making exceptions to "Christian Principles" concerning the value of human life, then it is ineviatable that this will translate into the ultimate indignity - Christian killing Christian, all in the name of God!

 

[clirus]

WannaWitness quote

I've heard someone else say that rather than to bring politics into Christianity, we should try to bring Christianity into politics... as we should be doing in every situation we face in life.

Response

I hope that what I have stated does represent Christianity taking over politics.

I believe the Bible is instructions for both individuals and nations.

I too believe, "But even God gives people the choice between right and wrong, and anyone who doesn't choose His way has to pay in the end.", however I also believe God provides Civil Law and Jury Trial to eliminate those people that are the rotten apples that would destroy the barrel.

The Bible sums up the relations of Christianity and Politics (Church and State) as follows.

Proverbs 29:2 says, "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."

 

[clirus]

The American Civil War is a classical example of the contradictions in "clirus' " position. Most of America's Christian population at that time was divided into 2 opposing camps. in which many assumed positions of "leadership and authority."

Both sides claimed to be "listening to God" and following "Christian Principles"
- with each side sincere in its claims to be serving a "Higher Calling."

The reality is that despite the merits of their claims, God didn't grant either side any quick or decisive victory - and this war extended year after year to become by far the most costly in terms of casualties and human suffering in America's history.

The sad reality is that unlike the early Believers, most American Christians have come to accept that "killing" in the name of "defence of the nation," is not a sin, but a virtue.

Once Christians start making exceptions to "Christian Principles" concerning the value of human life, then it is ineviatable that this will translate into the ultimate indignity - Christian killing Christian, all in the name of God!

I believe that is a highly illogical scenario that you have presented.

A key point is that God instructed that evil people and evil nations be executed, thus defense of a Christian Nation is a virtue.

I believe it is evil not to oppose evil and execute evil.

I do not believe God intends Christians to be Pacifists, nor is Pacifism a Christian Principle.

The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I too believe, "But even God gives people the choice between right and wrong, and anyone who doesn't choose His way has to pay in the end.", however I also believe God provides Civil Law and Jury Trial to eliminate those people that are the rotten apples that would destroy the barrel.

The 'rotten-apple-in-the-barrel' analogy is disanalogous. If someone is 'rotten' it does not necessarily follow that the people around him will become rotten because of him. And if they do then it was their own choice. They were not passively infected by the 'rotten' one; rather they choose to become rotten themselves. The idea that eliminating the 'rotten apple' will eliminate 'rottenness' itself is a rotten idea.

The Bible sums up the relations of Christianity and Politics (Church and State) as follows.

Proverbs 29:2 says, "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."

Crucially, however, the Bible does not say 'when the Christians are in authority...'. It merely says when the righteous are in authority. You are assuming that the two are equivalent. But why should that assumption hold any more validity than the Muslim who assumes that Islam and righteousness are equivalent, or the Jew who believes that Judaism and righteousness are equivalent, or the Atheist who believes that Atheism and righteousness are equivalent? Why should we accept your assumption as anymore valid than those other similar assumptions?

But besides that, we already know that when Christians are in authority the people don't necessarily rejoice. Think of how people have suffered under supposedly 'Christian' regimes throughout history.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe that is a highly illogical scenario that you have presented.

A key point is that God instructed that evil people and evil nations be executed, thus defense of a Christian Nation is a virtue.

What Christian Nation? I don't know what you're talking about.

But beside that, how can you judge whether a whole person is wholly evil? How can you see where God sees: into their hearts. Do you claim to have an ability that only God has?

 

[WannaWitness]

WannaWitness quote

I've heard someone else say that rather than to bring politics into Christianity, we should try to bring Christianity into politics... as we should be doing in every situation we face in life.

Response

I hope that what I have stated does represent Christianity taking over politics.

I believe the Bible is instructions for both individuals and nations.

I too believe, "But even God gives people the choice between right and wrong, and anyone who doesn't choose His way has to pay in the end.", however I also believe God provides Civil Law and Jury Trial to eliminate those people that are the rotten apples that would destroy the barrel.

The Bible sums up the relations of Christianity and Politics (Church and State) as follows.

Proverbs 29:2 says, "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."

Okay, I'll leave it at that. I still don't see any party as more "moral" or "Christian" than another, but maybe we can agree to disagree at this point.

More questions along these lines (so as to not drift too far off topic):

What are your thoughts on some of the third parties as alternatives to the two main ones?

What do you feel about the Democrats of the past (such as FDR and Kennedy); do you think them to be any better than the ones of recent years? Just curious to know how you would compare and contrast them (in both morals and the quality of their work).

 

[jgarden]

I believe that is a highly illogical scenario that you have presented.

A key point is that God instructed that evil people and evil nations be executed, thus defense of a Christian Nation is a virtue.

I believe it is evil not to oppose evil and execute evil.

I do not believe God intends Christians to be Pacifists, nor is Pacifism a Christian Principle.

The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

Just another in a long list of examples whereby "clirus" chooses to dismiss the question ("highly illogical scenario"), sidestep the issue and repeat her own stock reponses.

a. The US Civil War and the division of American Christians into 2 camps is no a "highly illogical scenario," - it is fact.

b. Christians holding àuthority and leadership in noth the North and South - fact.

c. Christians in both camps prayed and were sincere in their beliefs that they were fighting to uphold their concept of Christian Principles - fact.

d. Despite prayers and sincere motives, the US Civil War was by far the "boodiest" conflict in American history - fact.

e. For 4 years, American Christians fought and killed each other and innocent civilians - hardly a glowing example of Christian Principles in action.

f. The earliest Christians were pacifists, who believed that all human life was sacred and were encouraged not to participate in military duty.

g. Those Principles "clirus" refers to are not Christian Principles, but were taken from the Old Testament describing the Hebrew conquest of the "Promised Land."

h. Christ does not preach that Christians are exempt from our moral obligations during time of war and that a dual moral standard exists. We are no more allowed to take human life in the name of some secular state anymore than we are allowed to take human life for personal reasons.

i. Nations are nothing more than a collection of individuals and were never granted God-given powers to absolve soldiers from their Christian responsibilities in times of peace or war!

j. These all demand a direct response from "clirus" - but don`t hold your breath because based on past experience its so much easier just to start another thread!.

 

[clirus]

The 'rotten-apple-in-the-barrel' analogy is disanalogous. If someone is 'rotten' it does not necessarily follow that the people around him will become rotten because of him. And if they do then it was their own choice. They were not passively infected by the 'rotten' one; rather they choose to become rotten themselves. The idea that eliminating the 'rotten apple' will eliminate 'rottenness' itself is a rotten idea.



Crucially, however, the Bible does not say 'when the Christians are in authority...'. It merely says when the righteous are in authority. You are assuming that the two are equivalent. But why should that assumption hold any more validity than the Muslim who assumes that Islam and righteousness are equivalent, or the Jew who believes that Judaism and righteousness are equivalent, or the Atheist who believes that Atheism and righteousness are equivalent? Why should we accept your assumption as anymore valid than those other similar assumptions?

But besides that, we already know that when Christians are in authority the people don't necessarily rejoice. Think of how people have suffered under supposedly 'Christian' regimes throughout history.

Many a young Christian boy or girl has been led into evil by "peer group pressure".

I believe society has a responsibility to control "peer group pressure" that leads people into evil. That is why there use to be laws concerning pornography.

Evil will never be eliminated, nor should the elimination of evil be attempted, but a law stating that something is illegal is a strong statement as to the moral intent of a nation. The Bible says "Thou shalt not commit adultery", which is a strong statement of the moral intent of God.

Nothing good will ever come of the State saying something different than what the Church/Bible says.

The only problem I have with the Muslims is that they really do try to eliminate evil. My order of preference would be: 1) Christianity, 2) Judaism, 3) Islam, then Atheism. The greatest aspect of Christianity is tolerance, but then too much tolerance is its greatest weakness of Christianity.

A lot of evil people may have suffered under Christian regimes, but the righteous have rejoiced.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Evil will never be eliminated, nor should the elimination of evil be attempted, but a law stating that something is illegal is a strong statement as to the moral intent of a nation. The Bible says "Thou shalt not commit adultery", which is a strong statement of the moral intent of God.

Nothing good will ever come of the State saying something different than what the Church/Bible says.

As soon as the nation begins legislating 'Christian moral intent' it defies the Separation of Church and State.

A lot of evil people may have suffered under Christian regimes, but the righteous have rejoiced.

So the so-called 'witches' burned at the stake were really evil people? Galileo was evil?

 

[clirus]

jgarden quote

f. The earliest Christians were pacifists, who believed that all human life was sacred and were encouraged not to participate in military duty.

j. These all demand a direct response from "clirus" - but don`t hold your breath because based on past experience its so much easier just to start another thread!.

Response

I have no intention of responding to every point you make, but rather to respond to the weak link in your discussion which destroys the concept that you want to present.

The weak link in your discussion is that Christians are pacifists or should be pacifists. If all human life is sacred, why did God tell the Jews to execute individuals and nations? If all human life is sacred, why are Atheists cast into hell for eternity?

The concept of an unborn child as being sacred is because they are innocent, and are not held accountable until about 12 years of age.

The Old Testament of the Bible certainly does not support the concept that Christians should be pacifists. Even the New Testament deals with drastic measures to eliminate sin from a person own life such as plucking out ones own eye.

The fact that Christians disagree is nothing new. The slavery issue in the Civil War was due to the differences of interpretation of the Bible between the North and the South. God's will prevailed by the South losing the war and slavery being eliminated throughout the world.

An interesting point is that the Civil War was fought more over states rights than slavery.

You and I do not agree that the Bible wants Christians to be Pacifists. Should we go to war over this issue? Does our disagreement mean one of us is not a Christian?

 

[clirus]

Okay, I'll leave it at that. I still don't see any party as more "moral" or "Christian" than another, but maybe we can agree to disagree at this point.

More questions along these lines (so as to not drift too far off topic):

What are your thoughts on some of the third parties as alternatives to the two main ones?

What do you feel about the Democrats of the past (such as FDR and Kennedy); do you think them to be any better than the ones of recent years? Just curious to know how you would compare and contrast them (in both morals and the quality of their work).

I believe you have identified a subject that would take an eternity in heaven to discuss.

Let me just summerize by saying that I believe the democratic party has gotten more and more into Socialism and Atheism ever since FDR got America into Socialism by the New Deal.

I believe it started with Socialism, but I believe Socialism leads to Atheism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The weak link in your discussion is that Christians are pacifists or should be pacifists. If all human life is sacred, why did God tell the Jews to execute individuals and nations? If all human life is sacred, why are Atheists cast into hell for eternity?

But God doesn't tell Christians to execute individuals or nations, does he? You point out only that God told the Jews, in a particular time and place, to execute individuals and nations. Christians are not Jews.

The Old Testament of the Bible certainly does not support the concept that Christians should be pacifists. Even the New Testament deals with drastic measures to eliminate sin from a person own life such as plucking out ones own eye.

And yet the early Christians were not militant. Indeed, the behaviour of many of the earliest martyrs can only be described as pacifist. They did not resist the 'evil' people that sought to kill them.

The fact that Christians disagree is nothing new. The slavery issue in the Civil War was due to the differences of interpretation of the Bible between the North and the South. God's will prevailed by the South losing the war and slavery being eliminated throughout the world.

Slavery is not eliminated Clirus.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe you have identified a subject that would take an eternity in heaven to discuss.

Let me just summerize by saying that I believe the democratic party has gotten more and more into Socialism and Atheism ever since FDR got America into Socialism by the New Deal.

I believe it started with Socialism, but I believe Socialism leads to Atheism.

I believe that you don't even understand what Socialism is.

 

[clirus]

Art Vandelay quote

But God doesn't tell Christians to execute individuals or nations, does he? You point out only that God told the Jews, in a particular time and place, to execute individuals and nations. Christians are not Jews.

Response

God established a model of how evil should be dealt with for all the world.

America made that model the law of the land, and God blessed America with great wealth.

As the wealth increased, America has turned away from God.

Now we have Obama.


PS

I believe that you don't even understand what Socialism is.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Response

God established a model of how evil should be dealt with for all the world.

America made that model the law of the land, and God blessed America with great wealth.

As the wealth increased, America has turned away from God.

Now we have Obama.

Was America the first nation to do this? How so?

And is "great wealth" God's usual method for blessing those who please Him?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God established a model of how evil should be dealt with for all the world.

Ah, but you said, just a moment ago, that God told the Jews, at some point in time, to execute individuals and nations. Jews are not the same as Christians. If God specifically told the ancient Jews to do X and Y, then there is no need to generalise that to all of humanity, or Christianity. If we were to generalise what God told the Jews to do then all Christians would be circumcised!

America made that model the law of the land, and God blessed America with great wealth.

As the wealth increased, America has turned away from God.

Prove to me that God blessed America with great wealth. It seems to me that the wealth came either from (a) Colonialism or (b) people actually legitimately creating wealth. It didn't come in rain from the Heavens, so to speak.

Think of other nations with great wealth (or at least a sub-set of the population with great wealth and/or economic growth)... like the Muslim UAE. Or nations with rapid economic growth, like China. Is God rewarding them with great wealth too? You'd have to conclude that if you truly believe that material wealth is God's reward for those that obey him. And if you really believe that then you'd have to conclude that God is rewarding a Muslim nation and a Communist nation!

PS

I believe that you don't even understand what Socialism is.

Who cares if you don't believe that I don't understand Socialism when you don't understand it yourself - just look at your posts.