Rationalizing extreme liberty to Christianity

[indiucky]

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....

 

[rambone]

Allow me to express a collective "thank you for the reps" to everyone. I think its a fascinating subject and been on my mind for a while. I'm glad people agree, or at least see a valid point of view where I am coming from. It would be nice for the "TEAvangelists" to shake off the statist stereotype too.

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.

Thanks Hough, I agree on all points. I guess I helped to derail the SCOTUS thread with theology. It wasn't because biblical morality is my objection to the case, but was a reaction to someone twisting scripture.

 

[steveh_131]

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 agree, it was difficult to really get to know each other without being able to discuss the most important subject.

 

[traderdan]

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 would be valuable for Americans to realize that a "judge" in bible times was responsible for seeing that the punishment due, was carried out. Deliver the sinner to the "tormenters"...How could a Christian "judge"?? God's word has already pronounced the coming penalty, and God( the all-knowing God) will judge according to his Word. It is up to me to avoid the coming judgement. GOOD post Rambone...I suspect there are many more who strive to fulfill the will of Christ, who want much less interference in their lives from government!

 

[indiucky]

I thought this gal did a decent job of putting across a similar message.....

[video=youtube;3YXINEYdnkY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YXINEYdnkY[/video]

 

[rob63]

Not only does hearing others' religious views help me understand them better, I am finding that it is helping me to understand myself better as well. 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.

 

[indiucky]

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.

Yes sir....Penn Gillette (an Atheist) and Christopher Hitchens (an Atheist) have both inspired me (Spiritually) through their words than a dozen TV Preachers ever could.....Weird huh???

[video=youtube;6md638smQd8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8[/video]

 

[rambone]

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.

I guess the way I look at it, is that the worldly culture (among non-Christians and fake-Christians) is so incredibly displeasing to God that it is of no import to correct any of their particular views of marriage or how they define it. Their vain weddings, their shallow vows, their premarital sex, and their ungodly ways are all hideous to God -- and most of all their lack of faith.

If we, Christians, want to impose God's definition of marriage on the world, then it would be logical to start by making it permanent. But I don't think we really want secular government to ban divorce.

It seems more consistent that Christians, as a community, be willing to hold other Christians up to the Christian standards of marriage. The faithless of the world cannot please God, regardless of the kind of marriage they lead, so I don't make very much of their institutions.

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 share the will to protect innocent and unwilling participants. If the act of prostitution were legal, I would still support freeing people trapped in human trafficking. However, I think if prostitution were legal, it would be occurring above ground in clean facilities, and therefore less likely to result in less underground activities. In other words, the black market disappears when the prohibition disappears.

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.

Agreed.

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.

I've often thought about what I would say if I were in those shoes. If I told people my full political beliefs they would paint me as an immoral libertine (different from libertarian), but that is definitely not the case. Conversely, saying just a few words about Jesus and you'll be lumped into the category of being a religious control freak. Ugh, no wonder most elected politicians are immoral.

I wanted to rationalize and explain that supporting a liberty-based government is consistent with our freedom delivered through Christ's work. I wouldn't ever say I leave my Christianity at home when I come to work. But I think people should know that I can be a devout Christian and not want to put them in jail for sin.

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.

This is a good point. Christianity taught "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her... sanctify her... that she might be holy and without blemish" (Ephesians 5:25-27). The analogy of Husband is to Wife, just as Christ is to the Church is powerful. This was a radically different teaching from the worldly ways, where men dominated and disrespected their wives and treated them as property.

 

[HoughMade]

I thought this gal did a decent job of putting across a similar message....

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?

Matthew 4:17- From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

So would Jesus forego any discussion of sin in favor of showing "love" only?

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."

So far so good. So Jesus isn't into condemnation...no argument there...but keep reading:

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."

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:

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"

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.

 

[miguel]

Hippies...

p.s. Hey, someone had to dissent.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Good post.

If she's saying lets go along to get along, I can't be there.

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.

 

[indiucky]

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 what you are saying...If I didn't it probably wouldn't have taken me as long as it did to get dunked in the creek...

That "Go and Sin no more" part kept me out of the water for at least a four or five years...(Not that I am a big sinner) but I considered this step in my life as important as my wedding vows..(Which is why I didn't get married until I was 32 years old) and I wanted to make sure I could hold up my end of the bargain when I made those two commitments.....

As always Houghmade I appreciate your posts and your words........



I don't want you to think I agreed 100% with that young lady but some of her message seemed to go with the flow of this thread......

 

[indiucky]

Good post.

If she's saying lets go along to get along, I can't be there.

I know...I post a Hippie Love-gram to Jesus and Houghmade has to come in with his darn facts and scripture.....

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.....

 

[ghuns]

But I see marriage as specifically being instituted and defined by God.

It was. But then the state started issuing licenses for it. Laws were passed codifying certain legal privileges to be associated with it. If the state is gonna be refereeing the marriage game, everybody gets to play.

I would prefer if the term marriage stayed a religious institution defined however various religions saw fit. For the purposes of the state, a civil union could be formed by any couple who so desires.

 

[HoughMade]

...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.

 

[rob63]

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.

I've been seeing a lot of comparisons to eating bacon and having tattoos. Leviticus is getting consulted a lot lately.

 

[HoughMade]

I've been seeing a lot of comparisons to eating bacon and having tattoos. Leviticus is getting consulted a lot lately.

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.

...but that "Law" in an age of Grace discussion can be an interesting one.

 

[roisigns]

Well said!

 

[cce1302]

I pretty much agree with Rambone in this thread.

Tired of being accused of being a pothead because I don't think the government should ban it.

Tired of the church expecting the government to take care of things that should be the responsibility of the church (Welfare/charity, anybody?)

 

[Super Bee]

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.

What he said.

One of the best post I have read on INGO. Tried to rep you, no such luck.