The elephant in the room: the massive, looming problem of the Christian Right.

[D Rodgers]

Swordfall, salvation is a Covenant between Jesus and the saved person. Jesus never breaks His Covenant. We can sin (which sin is sin in God's eyes, doesn't matter what kind of sin) and not keep our end of the Covenant but He keeps His as we have seen in His Covenant with the Jews. I once looked for an answer to what happens when a believer dies in sin and I think I found it in either Corinthians or Hebrews, but it said that the person would lose his rewards.

Suppose a born again, war-weary soldier shoots innocent people out of anger and burn-out and then gets shot to death in the incident. I mean, seriously, if we could lose our salvation through sin, there must be a lot of people in hell because they started a fight with their spouse before their death, or told a convenient untruth to avoid family problems, etc. Suppose a believer has a sexual infidelity and dies in a car accident that night?

God is a Covenant Keeper. He's always faithful. He has always kept His Covenant with the Jewish people and they have been unfaithful many times. I know that the Jewish people don't necessarily go to heaven unless they believe in Jesus, but He has kept His Covenant with them and we really don't know how the Jews are being judged since they have been purposely blinded.

Amen to that! All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death. So people think they can be good enough to get into heaven on their own merit? ROFL! If one could lose their salvation most would have to be saved again on a daily basis to be sure they are going to Heaven.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

There's nothing to be had there. It's an invalid reason for some Christians to call those with abortions murderers when even under the Old Law, it was not considered such.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it is not correct in my estimation. Also, your use of Exodus 21:22-25 to justify abortion and claim God does not speak against it is a misinterpretation. Let's look at it, shall we?

Exodus 21, NASB
22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. [Note, emphasis added]
23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, [Note, emphasis added]
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.​

This passage states that if the fighting men hurt a pregnant woman "so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury," the man would be fined.

What's the difference? It is clear that if the child were born prematurely (not miscarried) and neither the child nor the mother were harmed, then the man would be fined as the woman's husband and the judges determined. However, if any harm were done to the premature infant or mother, then judgment would be carried out accordingly. If the child or woman died, then the man would be executed.

The principle of proportional justice is set forth (i.e., punishment should fit the crime). So accordingly, the unborn child is fully human and must be treated as such. While it doesn't address deliberate abortion, that's not relevant, because such a thought was totally foreign to Israel. They would no more abort a child than they would kill a brother. Either would be a crime punishable by death.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

You might want to lay off on your opinions...you have NO idea who I know. And yes, I do know 4 star Admirals and Generals. I also know a couple of senators and congresscritters. I am probably much better connected than you are...and I can tell you that you are so full of baloney, it's not even funny.

The Sheriff of my hometown was a high school classmate of mine. A couple of fire department battalion chiefs were friends of mine or siblings of friends of mine. Chief of Police...yup, know him and his family too.

So...would you like to repeat your allegations?

Wow! When facts and logic fail you, resort to either name-calling or pulling rank. We don't really care what generals or congressmen you know. What we care about is whether or not you know Jesus. Do you?

 

[Albion]

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil

I'll keep that in mind when protestants tell people they cannot lose their salvation in mortal sin.

How does saying that God saves sinners pose a problem for you?

 

[MrLuther]

I'll keep that in mind when protestants tell people they cannot lose their salvation in mortal sin.

Yeah, that "mortal sin"-doctrine that the papist church has created for itself, using the same method as the worst of the "Just me an' mah Bible!" so-called "non-denominationalists" use....

 

[Psalm 91]

Yeah, that "mortal sin"-doctrine that the papist church has created for itself, using the same method as the worst of the "Just me an' mah Bible!" so-called "non-denominationalists" use....

What is wrong with being a "non-denominationalist"? I am a former Catholic and I'm not interested in a denomination. I do believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and that is what I rely on as the truth. Non-denominational churches follow the Word of God. They do not add anything or remove anything. There are no "new" teachings like replacement theology or purpose-driven anything or the "love verse" from, I think it's from Romans, etc. It's just Scripture and the importance of surrendering one's life to Jesus.

 

[RDKirk]

Can we imagine the nightmare of an atheist left America?

Would there not have been slavery?

 

[Albion]

What is wrong with being a "non-denominationalist"? I am a former Catholic and I'm not interested in a denomination. I do believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and that is what I rely on as the truth. Non-denominational churches follow the Word of God. They do not add anything or remove anything. There are no "new" teachings like replacement theology or purpose-driven anything or the "love verse" from, I think it's from Romans, etc. It's just Scripture and the importance of surrendering one's life to Jesus.

That's just what non-denominational churches say in order to attract people who have had bad experiences with denominational churches. The non-denoms are, in reality, just tiny denominations.

No church that takes any stand on the age for persons to be baptized, what the Lord's Supper means, what qualifies anyone to be a pastor, or dozens of other "hot-button" doctrines that have divided the denominations for centuries can really be considered to be only following the Word of God, period. And there are NONE which do not have a position on such matters.

 

[Stone Butterfly]

Can we imagine the nightmare of an atheist left America?

Great! Put nightmares of USSR the sequel, into my head.

Would there not have been slavery?

The pro-slavery democrats helped make slavery possible.

 

[Psalm 91]

That's just what non-denominational churches say in order to attract people who have had bad experiences with denominational churches. The non-denoms are, in reality, just tiny denominations.

No church that takes any stand on the age for persons to be baptized, what the Lord's Supper means, what qualifies anyone to be a pastor, or dozens of other "hot-button" doctrines that have divided the denominations for centuries can really be considered to be only following the Word of God, period. And there are NONE which do not have a position on such matters.

I don't want to be associated with a denomination so I don't care if non-denominational churches' have a position on such matters. I just don't want to be associated with a certain theology. I just want to attend a Bible-based church. There are no mistakes when you follow Scripture. So many denominations have man-made ideas.

 

[Psalm 91]

Would there not have been slavery?

So slavery was a religious thing? No it wasn't. It was allowed in Scripture, but so was divorce simply because of the hardness of hearts. Perhaps slavery was the same thing. I don't think the fact that Jesus didn't denounce it means that He was in favor of it. He didn't get involved in political things. He came to teach us that the truth would set us free and we needed to accept the truth. Unfortunately, evil people don't usually accept the truth.

 

[RDKirk]

So slavery was a religious thing? No it wasn't. It was allowed in Scripture, but so was divorce simply because of the hardness of hearts. Perhaps slavery was the same thing. I don't think the fact that Jesus didn't denounce it means that He was in favor of it. He didn't get involved in political things. He came to teach us that the truth would set us free and we needed to accept the truth. Unfortunately, evil people don't usually accept the truth.

My response meant that religion did not prevent slavery. "Religious" American was quite capable of being a nightmare for millions of people.

I would argue--and I have in this forum--that the scriptural "permission" of slavery is very much akin to the scriptural permission of divorce. Moreover, I'd argue that the only form of slavery even permitted of believers is debt slavery, which a person enters more or less voluntarily. In neither testament does God establish the concept of a "slave class."

You are also correct in that it was not the mission of Jesus (or Paul) to fix the Roman Empire (of which the US is vestige). The Body of Christ exists as an embassy within the nations of this world, giving asylum and the citizenship of Heaven to those who would defect from the nations of the world.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

The pro-slavery democrats helped make slavery possible.

And revived it in the 60s with the "Great Society" which continues to enslave the less fortunate to a government check in exchange for their vote. Bribery and enslavement funded by a massive federal deficit, carried on the backs of the middle class, and fueled by power-hungry socialists calling themselves the Democratic Party.

 

[musingsofacac]

[FONT=&quot]

What I don't understand is the perpetuation of massive wealth inequality, and the valuing of the rich above the poor, since Jesus was totally a champion of the poor. It's no small stretch of the imagination to say that, if Jesus were to be transplanted to our modern times, he would be some kind of religious socialist.

I soooo disagree with you that Jesus would be socialist. Much of the Old Testament law is about the protection of private property rights, whether it be your slaves, your land, your wife(which was your property) or your children or your cattle.
Yes the Bible, OT and NT both command us to help the poor. But it is just that, temporary help, not a perpetual hand out. The help is freely given, not compelled by the government(unless your were a theocracy like Israel and you had the year of Jubilee).

But the NT no where commands governments to seize the wealth of the Rich and give it to the poor. It commands rich people to be rich towards the poor and give to them.

Jesus affirmed private property rights when he gave a parable and he spoke as land owner hiring workers - he said "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?" Matthew 20:15

The reason that Christ said it was hard for the Rich to enter the kingdom of heaven was because of their lack of faith, because they placed their faith in their wealth instead of God.

In fact Jesus said this about the poor:
"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For you always have the poor with you" Matthew 26:11

We can no more eliminate poverty or wealth inequality than we can change the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. God has created an unequal creation, and that will never change. Conservative Republicans except the truth that charity should be done, but that it should be done freely and by private groups, not by government compulsion. Conservatives also accept nature of man, the good and the bad, and we except the total inequality of nature as well as economics.




[/FONT]

 

[musingsofacac]

[FONT=&quot]

Another thing I don't get is the glorification of the military. War is bad. I mean, of course there are such things as a just war, but I think we should do everything we can to prevent wars. Maybe I'm just a silly young idealist?

I agree we should strive for peace, even the Bible tells us as "as much as it relies on you" to try and be at peace.

But the Bible tells us there is a time for war. God commanded Israel to go to war many times. Abraham fought to get Lot(his family) back. Jesus even understood that if someone broke into a man's home, would not the strong man defend it?

Nehemiah told the people to fight for their families and their land.

Glorification of the military is important as these men offer their lives as a sacrifice for our freedom. They should be paid well, and honored well. The Bible tells us that there is no greater sacrifice than a man should lay down his life for his friend.

[/FONT]

 

[musingsofacac]

[FONT=&quot]

Also, the whole gun culture. You know, if Jesus were around today I'm sure he would have a large collection of guns in his basement.

The right of self defense is as old as the Bible itself.

The law of Moses gives the right to family members to avenge their loved ones deaths.
[/FONT]

 

[musingsofacac]

[FONT=&quot]

And the environment. I'm not sure, don't you think Jesus would want us to protect the environment?

I think that God wants us to be good stewards of his creation, but remember God created nature for us, not us for nature.

It is one thing to stop some company from dumping toxic sludge in a river, I think most conservatives could agree with that. But we believe there has to be checks and balances on the EPA, which today there are practically none.

We also believe that if a regulation is not based on solid provable science it should be scrapped. Also if the regulation does more harm than good(measuring its affect on the economy verses the eco system) it should be scrapped.

Today a lot of enviromental laws and regulations are meant more to control and confine the freedom of the people than to protect the environment - this is what conservatives don't like.
[/FONT]

 

[musingsofacac]

[FONT=&quot]

And the ridiculous, fervent nationalism. Do you think God has some kind of special destiny for America? We're just a country, like any other country. Nations are a human construct. Do you really think the God of the universe cares about flags and anthems? He doesn't love an American more than a Frenchman or a Mexican or a Nigerian or even a filthy, godless Chinese communist heathen.

I agree that God does not love an American any more than any other person on the planet. I believe "For God so loved the world..."

That being said, I believe he has blessed America because of her Godly heritage. Even today with our turn toward secularism, America is still the most religious country in the Western world.

I am not sure God will continue to bless us as we invite gays out of the closet and ask Christians to put their faith in the closet and keep it there.

There is nothing wrong with national pride, the Israelites were very proud as a nation. There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect your language and your culture, the Israelites did that as well.

Pride in one's nation does not equal hate of all other nations as some try to make it, no more than me having special pride in my children's accomplishments means I hate all other people's children.
[/FONT]

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

So slavery was a religious thing? No it wasn't. It was allowed in Scripture, but so was divorce simply because of the hardness of hearts. Perhaps slavery was the same thing. I don't think the fact that Jesus didn't denounce it means that He was in favor of it.He didn't get involved in political things. He came to teach us that the truth would set us free and we needed to accept the truth. Unfortunately, evil people don 't usually accept the truth.

Bolded and underlined = So true.

Thats why politics and people who focus so much on them.. fail...period.

 

[musingsofacac]

[FONT=&quot]

It just all makes me facepalm, folks. A lot of Christians claim to love the Bible and the Constitution. But the Constitution is not a religious document. It is a secular document. America really, truly is a secular nation. That is what the Founders intended. They were sons of the European Enlightenment, a movement that was skeptical of God. In our republic, you aren't supposed to have laws based on a particular religion (gay marriage in mind here).

Just because the constitution does not mention God does not mean that God was not mentioned everywhere else by most of our founding fathers. To protect religious liberty(which is what they were doing) is far cry from trying to remove anything religious from society or public life which is what we are doing today.

I think you need to check your American history. Congress had and still has chaplain. The congress approved the printing of Bibles. Some of the first text books in schools had the Bible in them.

While our forefather's believed in religious liberty, they were anything but secular for the most part. There are some exceptions and I know our secular friends love to dwell on those exceptions, but they were just that - exceptions.
[/FONT]