indiucky
Grandmaster
It is only after that change many of the posts I've seen Rambone post come into full context. Allowing him to post up such thoughts and positions helps to complete the picture he is trying to paint.
Yep...Dead on....
It is only after that change many of the posts I've seen Rambone post come into full context. Allowing him to post up such thoughts and positions helps to complete the picture he is trying to paint.
I don't want to get into haggling over the Sup. Ct., but my main problem, legally, with what happened last week has to do with "original intent" vs. the "living document" philosophy, it's not Theological, as the gvt. cannot be trusted with something so important as faith matters. This change was properly the province of the people through referendum, legislature, or Constitutional Amendment.
Anyhoo, I've said many times, if we pass laws to make everyone live like good Christians, all Christians have done is make themselves more comfortable. They haven't advanced the Gospel at all. Last time I checked, "comfortable" was not in the job description.
This being said, I believe that there is a great deal of pragmatism in Christian moral beliefs and that people of all beliefs can benefit from the wisdom found therein.
GodFearinGunTotin said:I applaud the rule change regarding the discussion of religion, here on INGO. It is only after that change many of the posts I've seen Rambone post come into full context. Allowing him to post up such thoughts and positions helps to complete the picture he is trying to paint.
I think this is the verse you are referring to:
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." -- Matthew 7:1-5
A lot of people gloss over this text and believe it says that we should not have any opinion about what other people do. In other words, throw up our hands and ignore everyone else's sins so as not to be "judgmental." We can see this is not true.
In verse 5, Jesus says "first take the log out of your own eye" (correct our own sin problem) and "then... take the speck out of your brother's eye" (help your brother out of sin). So we are called to correct the sins of others, but do it in a helpful manner and don't be hypocrites about it.
Also note that Jesus said "your brother," meaning our rebuking should be reserved for fellow Christians. We, inside the church, have a very important role of keeping each other accountable to obedience to God. I quoted this verse earlier, but it deserves more emphasis: "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside." (1 Corinthians 5:12-13)
It is surprising how often somebody else expresses something in a way that clarifies why I believe what I believe. Things I already knew, but put together in a more coherent fashion than I ever did in my own mind.
For me, it gets hard when actually put into operation. For example, with homosexual marriage... I am opposed to anti-sodomy laws and I am glad homosexuals are not persecuted for their behavior as much as they once were. More progress should be made in that direction. But I see marriage as specifically being instituted and defined by God. Civil government is also an institution established by God for the good of all society and has certain sovereign responsibilities outside the sphere of the family and the church, such as punishing crimes and administering civil justice. In the execution of the state's duties it must recognize one of the most basic, God-established institutions in all societies throughout time - marriage. It is just wrong for the state to define it as something other than what God said it is. The issue I have with homosexual marriage is not related to the right of homosexuals to freely act as they wish. My issue is that it is wrong for the civil government in considering a homosexual relationship to be a marriage. I don't have a say in how homosexuals live their lives but in this democratic republic I DO have a say in what the government does. And I say what the government is doing by recognizing "homosexual marriages" is wrong.
In theory I am also opposed to government restrictions on the free exercise of prostitution. Consenting adults exchanging sex for money, while evil, is no business of the state's. Except I see that prostitution invariably leads to human trafficking, violation of the most vulnerable young women (usually under duress) and even underage girls. So, in practice I just don't know that civil government can have prostitution be legal and still fufill it's responsibilities to ensure the freedom and rights of the weakest members of our society.
I do get frustrated hearing about "separation of church and state" all the time. The government should not establish a religion, I am opposed to making prayers in public schools, and I oppose the civil law to include the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. But it is good and proper that the church should inform and advise government officials and elected representatives. Politicians should make decisions based on their religious beliefs and we should consider a candidate's religious views when choosing for whom to vote. The secular civil government should ensure that the church has the freedom to exercise its rightful authority and influence on society.
I remember a debate when Mitch Daniels and Andy Horning were running for governor. Someone asked about the candidates religious beliefs and what effect that would have on the way they would govern. Horning went first and said something like, "Although I respect people from any or no faith at all, I'm a Chrisitian and that effects every part of my life including my values and the decisions I would make as governor." I about gagged when Mitch D. and the dem. candidate both said, in effect, that they were Christians too, but unlike Andy, they are able to act as if the are not when they go to work. They may as well just have come out and said "I am unprincipled in the execution of my duties". How pathetic.
Christianity has done more than any other cultural or societal influence to improve the rights and freedoms of the individual. From slavery to women's rights, to civil rights, to the right of people of other faiths to worship and live in accordance with their faith and conscience... Christian culture has been the driving force behind all these. It's frustrating to hear some folks claim that Christianity is some sort of force for oppression - nothing could be further from the truth.
I thought this gal did a decent job of putting across a similar message....
Matthew 4:17- From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
John 3:17- "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."
John 3:18-20- "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed."
John 8:10-11- "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? She said "No one Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more"
I agree with much of her message. Christians need to be able to engage with other without harshness and arguing continually. Certainly with true love for others. However, it is way too easy to let that good message tip over into a Christianity that never mentions Truth and tacitly accepts all things in the name of "Love".
...without sin, there is no need for a Savior. Without a realization of sin, there is no repentance. Without repentance, there is no salvation.
Before we claim that Jesus was all "Love" and no condemnation, we need context and scripture.
When Jesus first began his public ministry, how was his message summed up?
So would Jesus forego any discussion of sin in favor of showing "love" only?
So far so good. So Jesus isn't into condemnation...no argument there...but keep reading:
What does the light of Truth do? Does it condemn? No. the condemnation is there already, but the light exposes evil and the NEED for repentence.
What about the woman at the well? Didn't Jesus love her and leave her sin out of the conversation? No. He dealt gently, but he dealt with the sin. Sin still exists and could not be ignored, but there is room for mercy and forgiveness:
Did Jesus ignore the fact there was sin? No, but clearly He knew that she was already aware of her sin. Knowing her heart, He offered forgiveness for it. Without the realization of sin, there is no forgiveness and true repentance is evidence by turning from sin.
So, for me while salvation is not my job, explaining what is in the Word is. Some people want to say: "I'll just tell people how much Jesus loves them." Great, but how do you do this? Saying "Jesus loves you" without the context that this love took the form of self-sacrifice to pay for the sins of humanity, approaches uselessness. It's, at most, half a Gospel.
I agree with much of her message. Christians need to be able to engage with other without harshness and arguing continually. Certainly with true love for others. However, it is way too easy to let that good message tip over into a Christianity that never mentions Truth and tacitly accepts all things in the name of "Love".
...without sin, there is no need for a Savior. Without a realization of sin, there is no repentance. Without repentance, there is no salvation.
Before we claim that Jesus was all "Love" and no condemnation, we need context and scripture.
When Jesus first began his public ministry, how was his message summed up?
So would Jesus forego any discussion of sin in favor of showing "love" only?
So far so good. So Jesus isn't into condemnation...no argument there...but keep reading:
What does the light of Truth do? Does it condemn? No. the condemnation is there already, but the light exposes evil and the NEED for repentence.
What about the woman at the well? Didn't Jesus love her and leave her sin out of the conversation? No. He dealt gently, but he dealt with the sin. Sin still exists and could not be ignored, but there is room for mercy and forgiveness:
Did Jesus ignore the fact there was sin? No, but clearly He knew that she was already aware of her sin. Knowing her heart, He offered forgiveness for it. Without the realization of sin, there is no forgiveness and true repentance is evidence by turning from sin.
So, for me while salvation is not my job, explaining what is in the Word is. Some people want to say: "I'll just tell people how much Jesus loves them." Great, but how do you do this? Saying "Jesus loves you" without the context that this love took the form of self-sacrifice to pay for the sins of humanity, approaches uselessness. It's, at most, half a Gospel.
Good post.
If she's saying lets go along to get along, I can't be there.
But I see marriage as specifically being instituted and defined by God.
...I didn't think she was saying "lets go along to get along" but as Hough said....It would be easy for someone to watch that and think that Love is all there is to it and as he so eloquently pointed out there is a bit more to it than that.....
Yeah, I didn't have any problem with what she actually said, but it nudges up against the idea that Christians are never to mention sin...and I've seen that cropping up a lot of places since last Friday.
We can have a long, drawn out discussion of the effect of the Law post Christ....or we can consult Romans 1:21-32, which applies post-Christ.I've been seeing a lot of comparisons to eating bacon and having tattoos. Leviticus is getting consulted a lot lately.
I applaud the rule change regarding the discussion of religion, here on INGO. It is only after that change many of the posts I've seen Rambone post come into full context. Allowing him to post up such thoughts and positions helps to complete the picture he is trying to paint.
Nice post, Rambone. Rep inbound.