How do you view God?
- Thread starter Poly
- Start date
I suggest you reconsider. Keep in mind that I believe in salvation by grace through faith only an that if not for the mercy of God we would all be doomed. However, if you die without Christ you will be judged by the Law and as you said, if you make a different standard that is even more harsh than the one God came up with then that's the standard by which you will be held.
Further, we are not talking about how to be a godly person or how to walk victoriously in your Christian walk or anything like that. We are talking primarily about criminal justice (although, not exclusively that). We are talking about what would God have us do with criminals and that is the context in which my statement was made.
Resting in Him,
Clete
adajos
New member
Clete:
Notice how your claims of misrepresentation fail to conceal your contradictions.
I said:
To which you responded:
Ok, fair enough, you think I'm misrepresenting what you are saying. Problem is, one paragraph later in your same post, you say:
So essentially, God is a political conservative is what you've said. So if you're right, and God is a conservative, than how is a person's godliness not contingent upon political opinions? How would it be possible to be very godly while rejecting God's perfect, just political beliefs?
You cannot have it both ways Clete. Either political views don't relate to godliness and so godly people can be found all over the political spectrum, or God holds to certain conservative political views, and only a conservative Christian can be godly. That would be a perfect example of godliness being contingent upon political opinion.
You define an issue as "right-wing" if God supports it or not. Fascinating. "Right-wing" is not a term that God has defined--it's been defined in the politics of modern America. Why should anybody accept your definition of the term, when nobody else uses it the way you do?
Well, you use your personal definition for the term "right-wing" that nobody else uses as we discussed above. When people on this board say "right-wing" they don't mean "God's position on the issue", they mean the politically conservative position.
If you accept the common definition of the term "right-wing", then you will see that the Civil Rights movement, among other issues I brought up where supported more by members of the left-wing as the term is understood by everyone in America but yourself. Even though you think God likes the Civil Rights movement, that doesn't make it "right-wing".
"Right-wing" does not mean "God's and Clete's position" which is correct and godly on every issue.
I never insinuated that you meant political conservatives are inherently godly.
I understand what you've written. "Political views can be ungodly or godly because they flow from religious beliefs which can be godly or ungodly. So if a Christian were to hold leftist political views he would be ungodly or less godly that otherwise."
That would be a perfect example of a person's godliness being contingent upon their political views, the exact thing you denied being true in the first sentence of your post. How do you reconcile these contradictory beliefs?
When will you realize that God isn't liberal or conservative. It makes no sense to apply those labels to Him. He transcends those labels as I said in my first post on this topic.
Notice how your claims of misrepresentation fail to conceal your contradictions.
I said:
To which you responded:
Ok, fair enough, you think I'm misrepresenting what you are saying. Problem is, one paragraph later in your same post, you say:
So essentially, God is a political conservative is what you've said. So if you're right, and God is a conservative, than how is a person's godliness not contingent upon political opinions? How would it be possible to be very godly while rejecting God's perfect, just political beliefs?
You cannot have it both ways Clete. Either political views don't relate to godliness and so godly people can be found all over the political spectrum, or God holds to certain conservative political views, and only a conservative Christian can be godly. That would be a perfect example of godliness being contingent upon political opinion.
You define an issue as "right-wing" if God supports it or not. Fascinating. "Right-wing" is not a term that God has defined--it's been defined in the politics of modern America. Why should anybody accept your definition of the term, when nobody else uses it the way you do?
Well, you use your personal definition for the term "right-wing" that nobody else uses as we discussed above. When people on this board say "right-wing" they don't mean "God's position on the issue", they mean the politically conservative position.
If you accept the common definition of the term "right-wing", then you will see that the Civil Rights movement, among other issues I brought up where supported more by members of the left-wing as the term is understood by everyone in America but yourself. Even though you think God likes the Civil Rights movement, that doesn't make it "right-wing".
"Right-wing" does not mean "God's and Clete's position" which is correct and godly on every issue.
I never insinuated that you meant political conservatives are inherently godly.
I understand what you've written. "Political views can be ungodly or godly because they flow from religious beliefs which can be godly or ungodly. So if a Christian were to hold leftist political views he would be ungodly or less godly that otherwise."
That would be a perfect example of a person's godliness being contingent upon their political views, the exact thing you denied being true in the first sentence of your post. How do you reconcile these contradictory beliefs?
When will you realize that God isn't liberal or conservative. It makes no sense to apply those labels to Him. He transcends those labels as I said in my first post on this topic.
Last edited:
adajos
New member
Duder,
Your example of the Social Gospel movement is a perfect example of something that wrecks Clete's fusion of politics and religion. My hat is off to you!
Clete is contradicting himself more than ever now. I predict he will deny it, and will claim that contradictions are only due to my misreprentation of what he says. He will then use that as an excuse to abandon the debate in a storm of anger and righteous indignation.
Clete's response to Duder:
Hold the phone. Back up the train!! Conservative = right wing. Right wing = conservative. According to Clete right wing = God's position on the political issue. See his quote:
But now you just said the definition of conservative and liberal changing meaning. But I thought God defined what was conservative like you said in your prior post.
Who defines the "right-wing", man or God? Or does God define it, and then man corrupts it? Or are you just making contradictory statements off the top of your head?
Put me down for the latter.
Your example of the Social Gospel movement is a perfect example of something that wrecks Clete's fusion of politics and religion. My hat is off to you!
Clete is contradicting himself more than ever now. I predict he will deny it, and will claim that contradictions are only due to my misreprentation of what he says. He will then use that as an excuse to abandon the debate in a storm of anger and righteous indignation.
Clete's response to Duder:
Hold the phone. Back up the train!! Conservative = right wing. Right wing = conservative. According to Clete right wing = God's position on the political issue. See his quote:
But now you just said the definition of conservative and liberal changing meaning. But I thought God defined what was conservative like you said in your prior post.
Who defines the "right-wing", man or God? Or does God define it, and then man corrupts it? Or are you just making contradictory statements off the top of your head?
Put me down for the latter.
adajos,
It is clear now that you are simply trying to be difficult. But such is the nature of most people on this site and on this thread in particular, so be it.
You want to pick nits about the exact definition of the term right-wing or conservative or liberal and that’s fine. It is so totally simple and obvious what I'm getting at that it is truly a display of colossal willful ignorance and stupidity for you to be arguing this point. Why do you suppose it is then that people who are religious are almost uniformly conservative and that the further right they are the more prone they are to being called the “religious right”? I’m sure you right, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that they have similar worldviews and similar convictions about what is right and what is wrong. I'm sure it can't possibly have anything to do with that. It's probably just luck. It just so happens by mere chance that the overwhelming majority of religious people are also conservative. All the people who have a definite belief in an absolute morality just tripped over the fact that that BELIEF is in line with a conservative political position.
I will concede that from a certain perspective it could be said that the more liberal you are the more ungodly you are but that is roughly the same as saying the more evil ideas you have in your head the more ungodly you are because any way you care to slice it, liberalism is evil, period. If you are on the actual liberal side of an issue then you are on the evil side of that issue, period. That is as long as the word liberal means what it means today, which is the only meaning that makes any sense to use in this conversation. If one calls himself a liberal and holds to some position that happens to be godly then on that issue he is not liberal and conversely if one calls himself conservative and holds to some liberal issue then on that issue he holds to an ungodly position. This doesn't mean that he is no longer to be considered a conservative generally, because as I said several posts ago, there is clearly a spectrum between the far right and the far left.
So my point is and has always been that regardless of the title you want to give it, your political views stem from your understand of what is right and what is wrong which is determined in large measure by your religious convictions and thus politics and religion and two sides of the same coin.
Resting in Him,
Clete
It is clear now that you are simply trying to be difficult. But such is the nature of most people on this site and on this thread in particular, so be it.
You want to pick nits about the exact definition of the term right-wing or conservative or liberal and that’s fine. It is so totally simple and obvious what I'm getting at that it is truly a display of colossal willful ignorance and stupidity for you to be arguing this point. Why do you suppose it is then that people who are religious are almost uniformly conservative and that the further right they are the more prone they are to being called the “religious right”? I’m sure you right, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that they have similar worldviews and similar convictions about what is right and what is wrong. I'm sure it can't possibly have anything to do with that. It's probably just luck. It just so happens by mere chance that the overwhelming majority of religious people are also conservative. All the people who have a definite belief in an absolute morality just tripped over the fact that that BELIEF is in line with a conservative political position.
I will concede that from a certain perspective it could be said that the more liberal you are the more ungodly you are but that is roughly the same as saying the more evil ideas you have in your head the more ungodly you are because any way you care to slice it, liberalism is evil, period. If you are on the actual liberal side of an issue then you are on the evil side of that issue, period. That is as long as the word liberal means what it means today, which is the only meaning that makes any sense to use in this conversation. If one calls himself a liberal and holds to some position that happens to be godly then on that issue he is not liberal and conversely if one calls himself conservative and holds to some liberal issue then on that issue he holds to an ungodly position. This doesn't mean that he is no longer to be considered a conservative generally, because as I said several posts ago, there is clearly a spectrum between the far right and the far left.
So my point is and has always been that regardless of the title you want to give it, your political views stem from your understand of what is right and what is wrong which is determined in large measure by your religious convictions and thus politics and religion and two sides of the same coin.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
servent101
New member
Dimo:
I see the wisdom in what you post Dimo – in a way – when Jesus gave the prayer the Our Father – what the Lord said about forgiveness – was before the actual redemption of Israel – and today when we remember the Lord’s prayer we would do well to say
There is a world of difference before and after Pentecost – and in living in the past – in trying to see that the Lord’s Prayer is in fact more reminiscent of the Old Covenant – and does not take into account what happens in the death burial and resurrection of the Lord – there is a lot that is simply not intelligent in repeating the Lord’s Prayer today – for instance if we neglect such a great of a salvation in Christ – and ask God to forgive us as we forgive others – that is simply a rejection of the Cross – and in praying for the kingdom of God to come – well at Pentecost – the Holy Spirit sealed us with the Promise of entrance to the Kingdom – and at that time for the children of Abraham – God’s Kingdom Opened.
For the people in that isolated geographical location – there was no other Authorized Instruction – and to reject the Lord’s teachings would lead to more of the same – more misery, strife death etc – hell in other words – by taking the metaphors of hell literally – the everlasting fire – you severely hamper your ability to understand what is actually happening in the Ministry of the Lord – and the Nature of God – and you yourself exhibit signs of the diabolical monster you construe from the literal interpretation of the closed canon of Christian Scripture.
With Christ’s Love
Servent101
I see the wisdom in what you post Dimo – in a way – when Jesus gave the prayer the Our Father – what the Lord said about forgiveness – was before the actual redemption of Israel – and today when we remember the Lord’s prayer we would do well to say
There is a world of difference before and after Pentecost – and in living in the past – in trying to see that the Lord’s Prayer is in fact more reminiscent of the Old Covenant – and does not take into account what happens in the death burial and resurrection of the Lord – there is a lot that is simply not intelligent in repeating the Lord’s Prayer today – for instance if we neglect such a great of a salvation in Christ – and ask God to forgive us as we forgive others – that is simply a rejection of the Cross – and in praying for the kingdom of God to come – well at Pentecost – the Holy Spirit sealed us with the Promise of entrance to the Kingdom – and at that time for the children of Abraham – God’s Kingdom Opened.
For the people in that isolated geographical location – there was no other Authorized Instruction – and to reject the Lord’s teachings would lead to more of the same – more misery, strife death etc – hell in other words – by taking the metaphors of hell literally – the everlasting fire – you severely hamper your ability to understand what is actually happening in the Ministry of the Lord – and the Nature of God – and you yourself exhibit signs of the diabolical monster you construe from the literal interpretation of the closed canon of Christian Scripture.
With Christ’s Love
Servent101
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
BChristianK – You said
I judge the unsaved world based on the rest of the bible and a sincere desire to keep my love from the sin of hypocrisy by abhorring evil. And I do not see how I can be any more clear about that. Please quote the part that you do not understand, then say why you do not understand it, then ask whatever appropriate questions that you think might help you to understand.
BTW, your treatment of what I said about BDAG is reprehensible. I argued my case and did not simply make a claim for you ripe out of context. Here is what I actually said that you ignored.
- ”If you are taking the verse beyond the shunning of those with a professing faith in God, then despite your assertion to the contrary, you are taking the teaching further than the scope it naturally covers. As I pointed out to you, Paul himself refused to judge those outside the church, he left that to the God.”
I judge the unsaved world based on the rest of the bible and a sincere desire to keep my love from the sin of hypocrisy by abhorring evil. And I do not see how I can be any more clear about that. Please quote the part that you do not understand, then say why you do not understand it, then ask whatever appropriate questions that you think might help you to understand.
BTW, your treatment of what I said about BDAG is reprehensible. I argued my case and did not simply make a claim for you ripe out of context. Here is what I actually said that you ignored.
- Opinions verses judgments
You can take your BDAG and toss it on this issue, because it is non-sense to think that God is teaching that we should make our opinions known on all things. God says that it is the prudent man who withholds some knowledge, it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but even the fool is shrewd if he holds his tongue. We who are spiritual are to judge all things, not become a babbler of personal opinion.
BChristianK
New member
1way said:
Agreed or not?
You say.
:chuckle:
That's great. I also assume you keep that passage in context by also attempting to bless those who persecute you instead of cursing them and endeavoring to do all you can to be at peace with all men. That would include the "homos."
:chuckle:
That is exactly what I attempted to do in a number of instances, that as of this post, have gone unanswered.
For example, regarding when the saints will judge the world your initial response was:
I’m trying to keep up here 1Way, I realize I might be one of those slow kids, but in the last post, it doesn’t even appear to us slower kids that you attempted to answer those questions.
Did you not understand the question? And in the future, if you don't understand the question, would you please quote the part of the question that you do not understand, then say why you do not understand it and then ask whatever appropriate questions that naturally follow, instead of ignoring them.
Here are some other questions that went totally ignored.
You didn’t answer these either. Maybe, instead of ignoring them, you could state what you don't understand about those questions, quote the part you don't understand and then ask ask for clarification.
Here’s another:
It’s like saying “pealing a banana doesn’t mean pealing the parts that don’t peal”..
So what, that's obvious? Who cares?
All this sentence does is beg the question. What was repealed in the Old Covenant that is no longer applicable to us in this dispensation and what wasn't?
Turbo suggests it was all repealed.
Do you agree or not?
Hopefully limiting the scope of my questions will help you to better understand and stay current with the discussion.
Do you remember reading this?
I posted:
I posted this in my last post. Yet you ignore it and repeated the following anyway:
If you didn't understand what I said maybe you could quote the part you don't understand.......
:chuckle:
I didn’t, as I stated earlier and contrary to your straw-man argument, claim that the passage mandated we voice our opinions on all things. In fact all the passage suggests is that when we voice our opinions, we do so in righteousness not on outward appearances. It is not a mandate to judge, is a description of how to judge.
What’s more, I claimed that the lexical usage of the word krinw as it appears in John 7:24 is the following:
Finally you end your post with a truly patronizing statement:
Yes, well. I’ll try to keep up Please be kind enough to grant me the same courtesy.
If you could kindly answer the questions I asked, it would go along way in doing so.
Grace and Peace
Ok, great. So you would then agree that the following statement:
Needs to be qualified and amended so that it reads. “All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homosexuals (who claim to be believers) that I can."
Agreed or not?
You say.
You can be more clear by kindly answering the previous question. And I thank you in advance for answering it in your next post.
I will, I appreciate you playin' nice with us slow kids, we sometimes have problems understanding what you smarter kids are saying.
:chuckle:
That's great. I also assume you keep that passage in context by also attempting to bless those who persecute you instead of cursing them and endeavoring to do all you can to be at peace with all men. That would include the "homos."
Will do boss.
:chuckle:
That is exactly what I attempted to do in a number of instances, that as of this post, have gone unanswered.
For example, regarding when the saints will judge the world your initial response was:
I replied:
I’m trying to keep up here 1Way, I realize I might be one of those slow kids, but in the last post, it doesn’t even appear to us slower kids that you attempted to answer those questions.
Did you not understand the question? And in the future, if you don't understand the question, would you please quote the part of the question that you do not understand, then say why you do not understand it and then ask whatever appropriate questions that naturally follow, instead of ignoring them.
Here are some other questions that went totally ignored.
I replied:
You didn’t answer these either. Maybe, instead of ignoring them, you could state what you don't understand about those questions, quote the part you don't understand and then ask ask for clarification.
Here’s another:
First, before I continue, let me interject. I was tryin’ to cut ya some slack on this because the sentence was so poorly constructed. Instead of taking the slack, you responded with condescension. So allow me to be more clear, the sentence is a meaningless tautology.
It’s like saying “pealing a banana doesn’t mean pealing the parts that don’t peal”..
So what, that's obvious? Who cares?
All this sentence does is beg the question. What was repealed in the Old Covenant that is no longer applicable to us in this dispensation and what wasn't?
Turbo suggests it was all repealed.
Do you agree or not?
Hopefully limiting the scope of my questions will help you to better understand and stay current with the discussion.
You mean, my answer to your reprehensible straw-man argument was reprehensible?
Do you remember reading this?
I posted:
I posted this in my last post. Yet you ignore it and repeated the following anyway:
You discarded the conclusion of what is perhaps the seminal lexical work on the Greek language regarding this verse and then proceeded to push down a straw-man. That’s really not much of an argument for me to ignore. But in claiming that I ignored your argument you ignored mine.
If you didn't understand what I said maybe you could quote the part you don't understand.......
:chuckle:
I didn’t, as I stated earlier and contrary to your straw-man argument, claim that the passage mandated we voice our opinions on all things. In fact all the passage suggests is that when we voice our opinions, we do so in righteousness not on outward appearances. It is not a mandate to judge, is a description of how to judge.
What’s more, I claimed that the lexical usage of the word krinw as it appears in John 7:24 is the following:
Now you are free to disagree and think that your own analysis of the passage is more informed than the authors who published this lexicon. But you’ll excuse me if I accept over 100 years of combined Greek linguistic expertise on this passage over your opinion.
Finally you end your post with a truly patronizing statement:
Yes, well. I’ll try to keep up
Please be kind enough to grant me the same courtesy.If you could kindly answer the questions I asked, it would go along way in doing so.
Grace and Peace
Last edited:
adajos
New member
Clete:
If pointing out contradictions in your philosophy is "being difficult", so be it.
I don't think that asking you to make a consistent argument is too much to ask.
I have no problem with the idea you are expressing here, though I wouldn't have used the "same coin" terminology that you did. I agree with your main idea with the caveat that since there are other factors involved in influencing political opinions reasonable and godly Christians can have differences of opinion.
My problem is with your characterization of God as a political conservative, your equation of godliness to political views, and your contradictory definitions. Moving right along.....
I don't believe that it's "picking nits" to ask you to be consistent about who defines the term "right-wing." You contradicted yourself as I pointed out in my last post, but I notice you chose to ignore that.
This is more of the usual combination of insults and sarcasm that don't say much. Yes, evangelical Christians tend to vote conservative. No doubt that's somewhat due to religious beliefs. There are probably other factors at work though, such as what their families voted for, their personal experiences, etc.
The problem is that voting for a certain person or supporting a pro-gun policy is in not intrinsically godly per the Bible. I agree that there are certainly voting trends that can correlate to different religious denominations. But because a group of people that is considered godly votes a certain way or believes that certain policies are more effective than others in no way makes the people or the policies godly.
This is ridiculous. I disagree strongly with most liberal policies. But evil ??!!
So universal healthcare, as much as I personally disagree with it, is Biblically considered evil due to what verses?
Uh oh. Here were are back to your pesky contradictory definitions again. You just defined liberal as equal to evil/ungodly and conservative as equal to good/godly.
Firstly, that's a bad idea because as you've pointed out the meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" change over time. What is good and evil do not. Why would you apply terms that are in flux to concepts which are unchanging?
Secondly that's a bad idea because you still contradict yourself. You still have this mistaken belief:
that God's approval makes something "right-wing". Then you combine it with the correct belief that what is considered "right-wing" changes over time via humans. Either God defines "right-wing" by approving of some policy or people define "right-wing". Which is it?
If pointing out contradictions in your philosophy is "being difficult", so be it.
I don't think that asking you to make a consistent argument is too much to ask.
I have no problem with the idea you are expressing here, though I wouldn't have used the "same coin" terminology that you did. I agree with your main idea with the caveat that since there are other factors involved in influencing political opinions reasonable and godly Christians can have differences of opinion.
My problem is with your characterization of God as a political conservative, your equation of godliness to political views, and your contradictory definitions. Moving right along.....
I don't believe that it's "picking nits" to ask you to be consistent about who defines the term "right-wing." You contradicted yourself as I pointed out in my last post, but I notice you chose to ignore that.
This is more of the usual combination of insults and sarcasm that don't say much. Yes, evangelical Christians tend to vote conservative. No doubt that's somewhat due to religious beliefs. There are probably other factors at work though, such as what their families voted for, their personal experiences, etc.
The problem is that voting for a certain person or supporting a pro-gun policy is in not intrinsically godly per the Bible. I agree that there are certainly voting trends that can correlate to different religious denominations. But because a group of people that is considered godly votes a certain way or believes that certain policies are more effective than others in no way makes the people or the policies godly.
This is ridiculous. I disagree strongly with most liberal policies. But evil ??!!
So universal healthcare, as much as I personally disagree with it, is Biblically considered evil due to what verses?
Uh oh. Here were are back to your pesky contradictory definitions again. You just defined liberal as equal to evil/ungodly and conservative as equal to good/godly.
Firstly, that's a bad idea because as you've pointed out the meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" change over time. What is good and evil do not. Why would you apply terms that are in flux to concepts which are unchanging?
Secondly that's a bad idea because you still contradict yourself. You still have this mistaken belief:
that God's approval makes something "right-wing". Then you combine it with the correct belief that what is considered "right-wing" changes over time via humans. Either God defines "right-wing" by approving of some policy or people define "right-wing". Which is it?
Mustard Seed
New member
A "Mormon" chimes in on God's politics
A "Mormon" chimes in on God's politics
Before I reply to the subject of the thread I was just wondering what smaller sees as the several fronts...
...he believes we are determined on. Just curious as to your perception of 'our' determination.
Well on to God's politics.
First off God is a bit too omniscient to be classified into a party or even necesarily one or the other side of a relatively fluid political spectrum. True, as has been pointed out, that a number of moral issues that are relayed to us through God's word would certainly seem to, in the present US political spectrum, make it appear that leannings of God would certainly be in a specific dirrection. But it must be realized that the great problem with the primarily two party system that we have I am positive that there is never a time when there is not a great amount in either party that God is displeased with.
Many, upon seeing Utah, think that all Mormons are Republicans. I personaly am affiliated with said party but I do know several that are and have been for some time affiliated with the democratic party. While I personaly am unsure as to how exactly they reach such a position especially since some I know are very intellegent people and good members of our Faith. I will leave that between them and God.
Our church, as a policy never enters politics unless the issue directly affects us as a Church and I have never seen a candidate or party endorsed by the leadership of our church. Items such as Prop 22 in California and the same issue in Hawaii are some of the few instances in which our religion gets involved.
With regard to governments and what we believe our role in them is as members of our Church the following is a basic synopsis of our belief
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in cobeying, honoring, and sustaining the dlaw.
(Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:12)
From my study of the Scriptures and writtings of our prophets I believe that God sees democracy as the best form of government for us. It seems that if you could somehow guarentee that you would always have a righteous king then a monarchy would be better but since such is not atainable here democracy is the best because the government will largely remain righteous so long as a majority of the people are righteous whereas a monarchy can take a single wicked king that in turn can turn a great many of his subjects to unrighteousness.
That's the view from this Latter Day Saint (aka 'Mormon')
A "Mormon" chimes in on God's politics
Before I reply to the subject of the thread I was just wondering what smaller sees as the several fronts...
...he believes we are determined on. Just curious as to your perception of 'our' determination.
Well on to God's politics.
First off God is a bit too omniscient to be classified into a party or even necesarily one or the other side of a relatively fluid political spectrum. True, as has been pointed out, that a number of moral issues that are relayed to us through God's word would certainly seem to, in the present US political spectrum, make it appear that leannings of God would certainly be in a specific dirrection. But it must be realized that the great problem with the primarily two party system that we have I am positive that there is never a time when there is not a great amount in either party that God is displeased with.
Many, upon seeing Utah, think that all Mormons are Republicans. I personaly am affiliated with said party but I do know several that are and have been for some time affiliated with the democratic party. While I personaly am unsure as to how exactly they reach such a position especially since some I know are very intellegent people and good members of our Faith. I will leave that between them and God.
Our church, as a policy never enters politics unless the issue directly affects us as a Church and I have never seen a candidate or party endorsed by the leadership of our church. Items such as Prop 22 in California and the same issue in Hawaii are some of the few instances in which our religion gets involved.
With regard to governments and what we believe our role in them is as members of our Church the following is a basic synopsis of our belief
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in cobeying, honoring, and sustaining the dlaw.
(Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:12)
From my study of the Scriptures and writtings of our prophets I believe that God sees democracy as the best form of government for us. It seems that if you could somehow guarentee that you would always have a righteous king then a monarchy would be better but since such is not atainable here democracy is the best because the government will largely remain righteous so long as a majority of the people are righteous whereas a monarchy can take a single wicked king that in turn can turn a great many of his subjects to unrighteousness.
That's the view from this Latter Day Saint (aka 'Mormon')
adajos,
I think I may understand where our miscommunication is coming from. I really hope I'm right on this because there simply isn't anything controversial or even disputable about what I'm trying to communicate.
It is not the term "conservative" or "liberal" or even "right-wing" or "left-wing" that I'm concerned about. Its whichever side of the issue one is on that is determined by one's worldview and one's convictions about what is right and wrong (i.e. the religious beliefs).
Let me give an easy example...
Let's take abortion as our example issue since there is no dispute as to which side God is on and which side is considered conservative and right-wing in today vernacular.
Now assume its 150 year from now and that abortion in some form or another is still being debated. Assume also that the terms right-wing, left-wing, conservative and liberal all mean precisely the opposite of what they mean today.
If this were the case then God and all of those who agreed with Him that abortion is wrong would be liberal, left-wingers. So the terms would have all changed but the issue and the side of that issue one is on would not have changed and the reasons why one is on that particular side would not have changed either.
So do you see my point? It is the issues and which side of those issues one is on that has to do with religious convictions or the lack thereof, not the political title one tacks onto them.
This by the way is why the Bible is even relevant to today’s society. There is nothing new under the sun. The very same issues that we face today were being faced 4000 years ago in one form or another and the same moral principles apply to them today that did when God said, Thou shalt not steal, which, by the way, is why universal health care is wrong. It is stealing, the government takes my money under threat of law and pays some doctor to give mediocre medical treatment to a bunch of people who may or may not need it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I think I may understand where our miscommunication is coming from. I really hope I'm right on this because there simply isn't anything controversial or even disputable about what I'm trying to communicate.
It is not the term "conservative" or "liberal" or even "right-wing" or "left-wing" that I'm concerned about. Its whichever side of the issue one is on that is determined by one's worldview and one's convictions about what is right and wrong (i.e. the religious beliefs).
Let me give an easy example...
Let's take abortion as our example issue since there is no dispute as to which side God is on and which side is considered conservative and right-wing in today vernacular.
Now assume its 150 year from now and that abortion in some form or another is still being debated. Assume also that the terms right-wing, left-wing, conservative and liberal all mean precisely the opposite of what they mean today.
If this were the case then God and all of those who agreed with Him that abortion is wrong would be liberal, left-wingers. So the terms would have all changed but the issue and the side of that issue one is on would not have changed and the reasons why one is on that particular side would not have changed either.
So do you see my point? It is the issues and which side of those issues one is on that has to do with religious convictions or the lack thereof, not the political title one tacks onto them.
This by the way is why the Bible is even relevant to today’s society. There is nothing new under the sun. The very same issues that we face today were being faced 4000 years ago in one form or another and the same moral principles apply to them today that did when God said, Thou shalt not steal, which, by the way, is why universal health care is wrong. It is stealing, the government takes my money under threat of law and pays some doctor to give mediocre medical treatment to a bunch of people who may or may not need it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Duder
Over 750 post club
In response to my comment about a Christian liberal movement the goal of which was to "feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick and educate the ignorent", Clete said
". . . it . . . also happens to have been an ungodly thing that they wanted to do."
If I have understood Clete correctly, boy, will Jesus ever be in trouble when His Dad finds out what an ongodly thing Jesus plans on doing! Seems Jesus wants to seperate the good nations from the bad as sheep from goats, the critereon being how well these nations care for their neediest members. The sheep nations will get a special blessing, while the goat nations will not fare so well.
Hey, Clete, why don't you tell Jesus' Dad about His ungodly notions? He'll straighten out that liberal little rascal, pronto!
". . . it . . . also happens to have been an ungodly thing that they wanted to do."
If I have understood Clete correctly, boy, will Jesus ever be in trouble when His Dad finds out what an ongodly thing Jesus plans on doing! Seems Jesus wants to seperate the good nations from the bad as sheep from goats, the critereon being how well these nations care for their neediest members. The sheep nations will get a special blessing, while the goat nations will not fare so well.
Hey, Clete, why don't you tell Jesus' Dad about His ungodly notions? He'll straighten out that liberal little rascal, pronto!
Last edited:
I know nothing of this group save what you have said on this thread. I assume that they were setting up some sort of instutionalised welfare program which is unbiblical and does more harm than good and is thus liberal and evil.
I'm sure that some of what they were doing was fine, its not my intention to be unreasably harsh. As I said I know nothing of this groups activities aside from what you have volunteered on this thread. Which by the way, was volunteered as a supposed example of conservative people doing something liberal in which case I believe my reaction to be more right than wrong. To what ever extent their action were in fact liberal, they were also ungodly. If they were feeding hungry people that were hungry because they were lazy then they were very liberal and very nice but very very evil. The Bible clearly says that if one will not work that he should not eat. If he wants to be lazy to the point of death, then so be it, he has killed himsef and in the doing he has encouraged other lazy people to get off the butts and work.
Resting in Him,
Clete
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
smaller - No one I know of except maybe a scant few extremely willfully ignorant people like yourself would even give such a patently false slander serious attention. Clete does not say that, you are a moron.
It’s a capitol crime to directly aid or support a capitol offense, not to not support capitol punishment.
A terrorist gives another terrorist the murderous order to kill thousands of people, like a commander at a concentration camp murdering thousands of Jews and I think they included murdering homosexuals (?) during the holocaust. Or like when a terrorist chief operative directed the operations of 911. Just because you do not physically commit the murder, does not mean that you are just as guilty, if not more so because of being the support behind the murder.
If you murder someone by shooting someone to death, you did not personally harm them, the bullet projectile did the dirty work, but you are still held responsible for directing that exact course of action. Does any of this make sense smallishlessnessly?
It’s a capitol crime to directly aid or support a capitol offense, not to not support capitol punishment.
A terrorist gives another terrorist the murderous order to kill thousands of people, like a commander at a concentration camp murdering thousands of Jews and I think they included murdering homosexuals (?) during the holocaust. Or like when a terrorist chief operative directed the operations of 911. Just because you do not physically commit the murder, does not mean that you are just as guilty, if not more so because of being the support behind the murder.
If you murder someone by shooting someone to death, you did not personally harm them, the bullet projectile did the dirty work, but you are still held responsible for directing that exact course of action. Does any of this make sense smallishlessnessly?
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
BChristianK – You quoted Clete saying
You said
You quoted a question that brought me and Turbo into comparison and asked me if I understood the question. That was not the question I was answering, this is the first time I’ve seen that question. But I grant that you probably did not do that on purpose, it was I who did not clarify what I was specifically answering. It was a general response to your general line of reasoning, not a specific response to your new question. Much of your previous posts have been so filled with problems of misunderstanding that I stopped answering your post before I got to your similar question because I am getting sick and tired of working against so many misunderstandings. I am seeking to get things clear before moving on to so many different issues.
The Christian’s yet future judgment (that will happen come judgment day when the world and the angles will be judged) is to be proceeded “so much more so” with judgment of things in “this life”. The operative reflexive comparison is one of time, then verses now, not subject, men verses ideas or whatever. This is supported by the tenor of the entire bible that we should abhor that which is evil and generally “separate” ourselves from, and not “associate” ourselves with, sin. Also we have the correspondence of subjects on both halves of the immediate comparison. We should now live in accordance to the righteous judgment that the world is unworthy to judge us because of their ungodliness, but we should judge ourselves to be fully fit to judge amongst our selves. So 1Co 5-6 does not restrict judgment to only being within the brethren, it promotes righteous judgment for all.
Judging has different connotations and moral relationships despite having the same word root.
we would not be judged (Str#2919 krino).
According to Strong’s
Dia = a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; meaning various forms of “through”, time, place, means, grounds or reason, as in by reason of, or on account of, which seems fitting for this use.
So if we would (on account of “krino”) ourselves, we would not be krino
Pretty interesting deal. This demonstrates glaringly loud that judgment is good and if done righteously can preclude future judgment of doing wrong.
As to Turbo, all I see is that he agrees with me. I do not read into what He said as being in any way in disagreement with what I am saying. Next time you see a problem that you do not understand, please not only copy and paste the text, don’t forget to specify the exact problem.
You said
I will now make brief allusions to your questions without full treatment for the sake of brevity so that hopefully you will stop thinking that I am totally ignoring what I said I am purposefully waiting to respond to until we can clear up so many widespread misunderstandings before moving on to more issues!
Turbo and I agree that we are not under the law for salvation or a way of living out our faith in God. I assume that we also both agree that the law remains in effect for the dying world as the first step on the road to Romans, which is that all have sinned and need to get saved. Secondly, criminal law, which is given to governments, has not been repealed. The main alteration to “thou shall surely such and such ... and thus saith the Lord”, is not a repeal of the law, but an amendment that says that these laws should be enforced by the government, if they are not, then to that extent the government is being unrighteous, yet to the extent that they are not causing us to sin, we should obey them for conscience sake because they are God’s ministers of wrath executing vengeance against the criminal for goodness sake. So God places the entire world under manmade but God instituted government for the sake of opposing criminal activity, do well or be afraid. So we are not exempt from “criminal law”, but the law of God is not for salvation (anymore).
Sabboth law is not criminal law, it is symbolic, and Christ is the substance that fulfilled the symbols.
As to your slack in tautology, I disagree. You tried to bend the issue around covenants, I showed how that idea was wrong in that it’s more accurately a dispensational change, and it’s more accurately about whether or not laws were repealed or not. Please stick to commenting on the issues, and not the formal aspects of argumentation. There is only so much time, also you are not very accurate, redeem the time.
Sorry, got carried away
I did not comment about yet another thing you carelessly assert I did. About opinions, you said that the verse means to make opinions on everything. You who are spiritual are to opinionate everything. Ok, I’ll grant you that I was mistaken by asserting the proclamation part, but a righteous judgment, judge with righteous judgment, can not be simply an issue of “opinion”.
It must be based in righteousness, and righteousness is not an issue of personal subjectivity, it’s an issue of objective absolute righteousness and goodness. So if I speak my judgment/opinion that murder is terribly wrong, it is not just my opinion being presented, I am presenting my judgment against murder, that objectively speaking, it is absolutely terribly wrong.
But I also want to affirm a very important part of what you are saying. It is “my” personal judgment. I am not simply restating God’s teaching without my own personal conviction in it’s righteousness. Because the statement is condemning, and I personally affirm the condemnation involved, I am personally condemning murder as being absolutely a terrible evil.
Seminal lexical
You intellectual exclusivist. Such big words for the masses to contemplate, even for lowly me.
I see that you continue to ignore my statement of purposeful limitation of the scope of my last post by continuing throughout your entire post to charge against me what you do not know is true, saying that I neglected your arguments. I did not, I informed you that I am purposefully not addressing them all, and was instead trying to reduce the size and scope of things in order to help us gain mutual clarity on fewer issues “before moving on”. I find you making a few such remarks naturally acceptable because I did not specifiy exactly where I specifically stopped, but you repeatedly say the same thing, so it seems you have a desire to find fault/bad where it simply does not exist. Don’t cause strife.
To one extent I amend my statement about the BADG in that it is a personal judgment not just that we are repeating the judgments of God, we are to faithfully and righteously judge according to God’s teachings. But these opinions as you call them condemn evil people and sinful people and wicked people and hypocrites and false teachers and heretics and slanderers for being the ungodly bunch that they are. That is not a subjective thing, that concerns judgment from absolute standards of right and wrong. So it’s personal, but is based upon absolutes, not subjective opinion like I prefer strawberry over chocolate. Two very different issues, personal authority and conviction verses a foundation of absolutes of righteousness and goodness. And I meant moreso to dismiss what I understood to be your subjective representation of the reference work, not the specific authority it represents seeing how we never specifically even addressed it yet.
You quoted BADG and said some flaky subjective stuff. I basically agree with what it says, so maybe you can refresh my memory for why I should disagree with it.
Now, you get this huge trimmed down post as my attempt to reduce the data flow, the second part I tried to just make allusions to your points without copy and pasting, but it is still this large. So I disagree with your sentiment that we should answer more completely in terms of points.
From now on I will accurately quote you and respond accordingly and will stop responding when the size and scope becomes to problematic, and we can deal with those issues until reasonable clarity surfaces. You can continue to post as much as you like, and I will do the same. I would hope you would be more cooperative.
then you said
No. If a pro-homo, like perhaps the several here in this thread, is actively seeking God’s views on the matter of homosexuality and how Christians should respond to it, I would say that it is ok to stop shunning long enough to teach the truth because at that point, the issue is not one of promotion, but one of learning. Manifestly Clete believes the same thing because we have not been arguing with people who agree with us... We’ve been arguing with folks who are to one degree or another pro-homo, yet we have been engaging in willful dialogue all this time! And we have also engaged in a certain amount of ridicule, so it’s shunning and witnessing, both. Also part of the mix is that we are sharing our faith at the same time with many who are uncertain or who are not pro-homo, so we are not being hypocritical by addressing these issues and to some extent have been allowing pro-homo type arguments against our views. So it’s not simply an issue of pure personal rejection, otherwise discussions like this could never happen.
You said
You assume correctly but I think you assume wrongly about what that means. Being at peace does not mean without offense, it means without causing unjustifiable offense. Concerning peace with our fellow man, we are to never violate God’s character and ways, that is, we are to never treat others unjustly, unlovingly, unrighteously, or with sin or evil. At the same time, it is EVIL to not oppose evil with godly abhorrence, which often is lived out in a very upsetting and non-peaceful fashion in terms of being nice and polite, yet the peace of God through reliance upon Him and His ways is what causes such a non-peaceful disturbance, and what causes us to be at peace with God because of the comforting of the HS for doing right and risking the consequences. Bob Enyart says it well about an activist slogan against abortion, I paraphrase,
- there will be no peace and tranquility on my watch while babies are being led to the slaughter. Implied teaching. And it is the peace of God for the love and righteousness for the innocent that commands us to break the common peace that the murderers would otherwise like to enjoy.
You quoted a question that brought me and Turbo into comparison and asked me if I understood the question. That was not the question I was answering, this is the first time I’ve seen that question. But I grant that you probably did not do that on purpose, it was I who did not clarify what I was specifically answering. It was a general response to your general line of reasoning, not a specific response to your new question. Much of your previous posts have been so filled with problems of misunderstanding that I stopped answering your post before I got to your similar question because I am getting sick and tired of working against so many misunderstandings. I am seeking to get things clear before moving on to so many different issues.
The Christian’s yet future judgment (that will happen come judgment day when the world and the angles will be judged) is to be proceeded “so much more so” with judgment of things in “this life”. The operative reflexive comparison is one of time, then verses now, not subject, men verses ideas or whatever. This is supported by the tenor of the entire bible that we should abhor that which is evil and generally “separate” ourselves from, and not “associate” ourselves with, sin. Also we have the correspondence of subjects on both halves of the immediate comparison. We should now live in accordance to the righteous judgment that the world is unworthy to judge us because of their ungodliness, but we should judge ourselves to be fully fit to judge amongst our selves. So 1Co 5-6 does not restrict judgment to only being within the brethren, it promotes righteous judgment for all.
Judging has different connotations and moral relationships despite having the same word root.
For if we would judge (Str#1252 diakrino) ourselves,
we would not be judged (Str#2919 krino).
According to Strong’s
Dia = a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; meaning various forms of “through”, time, place, means, grounds or reason, as in by reason of, or on account of, which seems fitting for this use.
So if we would (on account of “krino”) ourselves, we would not be krino
Pretty interesting deal. This demonstrates glaringly loud that judgment is good and if done righteously can preclude future judgment of doing wrong.
As to Turbo, all I see is that he agrees with me. I do not read into what He said as being in any way in disagreement with what I am saying. Next time you see a problem that you do not understand, please not only copy and paste the text, don’t forget to specify the exact problem.
You said
You hold against me what you should not. I did not totally ignore them, I told you that I limited the scope of my response to deal more clearly with less issues to help promote clarity between us before moving on!
I will now make brief allusions to your questions without full treatment for the sake of brevity so that hopefully you will stop thinking that I am totally ignoring what I said I am purposefully waiting to respond to until we can clear up so many widespread misunderstandings before moving on to more issues!
Turbo and I agree that we are not under the law for salvation or a way of living out our faith in God. I assume that we also both agree that the law remains in effect for the dying world as the first step on the road to Romans, which is that all have sinned and need to get saved. Secondly, criminal law, which is given to governments, has not been repealed. The main alteration to “thou shall surely such and such ... and thus saith the Lord”, is not a repeal of the law, but an amendment that says that these laws should be enforced by the government, if they are not, then to that extent the government is being unrighteous, yet to the extent that they are not causing us to sin, we should obey them for conscience sake because they are God’s ministers of wrath executing vengeance against the criminal for goodness sake. So God places the entire world under manmade but God instituted government for the sake of opposing criminal activity, do well or be afraid. So we are not exempt from “criminal law”, but the law of God is not for salvation (anymore).
Sabboth law is not criminal law, it is symbolic, and Christ is the substance that fulfilled the symbols.
As to your slack in tautology, I disagree. You tried to bend the issue around covenants, I showed how that idea was wrong in that it’s more accurately a dispensational change, and it’s more accurately about whether or not laws were repealed or not. Please stick to commenting on the issues, and not the formal aspects of argumentation. There is only so much time, also you are not very accurate, redeem the time.
Sorry, got carried away
I did not comment about yet another thing you carelessly assert I did. About opinions, you said that the verse means to make opinions on everything. You who are spiritual are to opinionate everything. Ok, I’ll grant you that I was mistaken by asserting the proclamation part, but a righteous judgment, judge with righteous judgment, can not be simply an issue of “opinion”.
It must be based in righteousness, and righteousness is not an issue of personal subjectivity, it’s an issue of objective absolute righteousness and goodness. So if I speak my judgment/opinion that murder is terribly wrong, it is not just my opinion being presented, I am presenting my judgment against murder, that objectively speaking, it is absolutely terribly wrong.
But I also want to affirm a very important part of what you are saying. It is “my” personal judgment. I am not simply restating God’s teaching without my own personal conviction in it’s righteousness. Because the statement is condemning, and I personally affirm the condemnation involved, I am personally condemning murder as being absolutely a terrible evil.
Seminal lexical
You intellectual exclusivist. Such big words for the masses to contemplate, even for lowly me.
I see that you continue to ignore my statement of purposeful limitation of the scope of my last post by continuing throughout your entire post to charge against me what you do not know is true, saying that I neglected your arguments. I did not, I informed you that I am purposefully not addressing them all, and was instead trying to reduce the size and scope of things in order to help us gain mutual clarity on fewer issues “before moving on”. I find you making a few such remarks naturally acceptable because I did not specifiy exactly where I specifically stopped, but you repeatedly say the same thing, so it seems you have a desire to find fault/bad where it simply does not exist. Don’t cause strife.
To one extent I amend my statement about the BADG in that it is a personal judgment not just that we are repeating the judgments of God, we are to faithfully and righteously judge according to God’s teachings. But these opinions as you call them condemn evil people and sinful people and wicked people and hypocrites and false teachers and heretics and slanderers for being the ungodly bunch that they are. That is not a subjective thing, that concerns judgment from absolute standards of right and wrong. So it’s personal, but is based upon absolutes, not subjective opinion like I prefer strawberry over chocolate. Two very different issues, personal authority and conviction verses a foundation of absolutes of righteousness and goodness. And I meant moreso to dismiss what I understood to be your subjective representation of the reference work, not the specific authority it represents seeing how we never specifically even addressed it yet.
You quoted BADG and said some flaky subjective stuff. I basically agree with what it says, so maybe you can refresh my memory for why I should disagree with it.
Now, you get this huge trimmed down post as my attempt to reduce the data flow, the second part I tried to just make allusions to your points without copy and pasting, but it is still this large. So I disagree with your sentiment that we should answer more completely in terms of points.
From now on I will accurately quote you and respond accordingly and will stop responding when the size and scope becomes to problematic, and we can deal with those issues until reasonable clarity surfaces. You can continue to post as much as you like, and I will do the same. I would hope you would be more cooperative.