How do you view God?

[BChristianK]

Clete Said:

To whatever extent you are Godly you are right-wing or conservative. I cannot think of a single exception but I suppose that doesn't mean there aren't any.

So political conservatism has become the litmus test for godliness.

So much for…

"By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

left-wing politics are not Godly, and anyone who holds to left-wing principles are to that extent ungodly. That doesn't mean that your aren't a Christian if you hold to liberal ideologies, it just means you're not a very good one.

You are making statements you can’t substantiate. Furthermore you're moving the goal post. We should all be paying more attention to how well we're doing not evaluating how poorly another person is performing in thier Christian duties.

Lets look at Duder. He’s a great example of someone that doesn't fit your paradigm. As far as I know, Duder apposes the war because he sees that it is a compromise of peace.
He realizes that Christ said:

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God: (Matthew 5:9)

He recounts Jesus’ words to Peter, “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) and he remembers that God flooded the earth in the days of Noah because the earth was filled with violence.

Are his reasons for apposing the war in Iraq ungodly?

Was Jesus ungodly for promoting peace?

Clete Said:

Not to any more of an extent than God Himself has. It is He would said put the murderer to death. It is He who wrote the Ten Commandments, which nearly every law in all of western civilization is based upon in one way or another.

And it was God who said:, “This is my Son, listen to Him. (Matthew 17:5). I find it very interesting that the same folks who will defend the dispensational system tooth and nail will on another thread appeal to the justice system of a past dispensation in order to substantiate their system of justice in the present dispensation.
Whatever happened to testing things that differ?

This is not so. Atheism is a religion of sorts. It is a belief that there is not God and by extension no moral absolutes. The vast majority of atheists are very liberal but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Do you even know the vast majority of atheists? What data do you have other than your assertion that substantiates this. I was a member of the Campus Atheists and vice president of the college Republicans at the same time. And most of the folks I knew who were atheists were political conservatives.

I have no doubt that there are aberrations to what one would expect to see normally. Once again my statement is a generality.

And a false generality at that. Granted most evangelicals are conservatives, but the obverse isn’t true. There are oodles of conservatives who aren’t saved. They are practicing atheists if not philosophical atheists.

Oh yes they are. Name one Godly thing that is not conservative or vice versa. Go ahead, try to name one.

Anti-choice (abortion) – Godly:

Supported by both right wing and left wing politicians. And the opposite is true as well, there are political conservatives who are pro choice.

Death penalty for murderers – Godly:

Again not purely divided down partisan lines.

Low taxes – Godly:

Are you serious? Jesus couldn’t have cared less about how much Caesar taxed. Jesus said render unto Caesar what was Caesars’ I’ll like to see you post one verse that clearly describes low taxes as a mandate from God. Don’t get me wrong, I appose excess taxation philosophically, but Its not a scriptural mandate. Of course, we could always go back to the 30% flat tax as it was instituted in the Old Testament. Something tells me some conservatives would gripe at this to.

Freedom – Godly:

Yea, the right wingers hate that freedom stuff. I’m a conservative and I know this is a straw man.

Anti homo – Godly:

God wasn’t anti homo, He was anti-Homosexuality. He was anti any sin, but for the redemption of the sinner. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8)

Anti euthanasia – Godly:

Not a uniquely partisan issue.

Pro Military – Godly:

Pro Peace. God.

I could go on and on and on. Can you think of even one single major issue that would not fit into this pattern?

Yea, how about stewardship over God’s creation?


Grace and Peace

 

[1Way]

BChristianK – Instead of wading through your entire last post (too much assumption and misunderstanding), I’ll try to summarize the differences in understanding and clear up the major misunderstandings and go from there. Thanks for responding so thoroughly, and please feel free to call my attention to something important that this post does not cover sufficiently.

I do not simply use 1Co for shunning, that is only for shunning those with professing faith in God (for righteousness). I simply do not apply that teaching further than the scope it naturally covers. Christians still rightly judge and condemn the world even though they can not shun them away from the body of believers since they are already not part of the body of believers in the first place. So we can eat with the sinners and tax collectors because they put on no pretense of being a believer.

Jesus eating with the tax collectors and sinners. This is true, but does not lend to your argumentation. Jesus would accept anyone if they are receptive to godly teachings. When Jesus came across sin, He never accepted the sin, it always has to be dealt with in a righteous way. So I say that he was ministering to the sick and needy, but if they started to deny Jesus and sin right in front of Him, He would have opposed them for it.

A rebuke is for those caught in an offense where they are not otherwise yielding to righteous correction and is more called for as the issue is more important or urgent, or both. Eating with the sinners was hardly a reason for Jesus to rebuke, they needed the truth to set them free from the sinful ways, and to the extent that they were willing to listen, Jesus was only right to be of service. Had they become a sinful offense, He would have rebuked and rejected them instantly.

Judging the world
You said, right, when will that happen. That is a nonsequitor. I presented ideas that occur in the past present and future, so when they happen is not in question.

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.

Universalizing Christian accountability
I don’t do that. What is universal is right and wrong and that the righteous oppose evil and cling to the good (personally accept good, and personally reject evil). It is evil to accept what is evil no matter if they are a believer or not. You can not send an unbeliever outside the body of believers for the sake that the devil might buffet them since the devil is already happy with the unbeliever, such shunning is not possible to do unless you are a self professing believer in God for righteousness.

Covenants vrs absolutes
You said

• Yea, as turbo and I have been discussing, I disagree. I think that the “homo’s commit a capital crime,” crowd are trying to mix covenants. The sentences of capital offenses in the book of Leviticus have been commuted in Christ. To single homosexuality out as an exception to that rule is inconsistent.

God did not repeal the death penalty, capitol offenses remain capitol offenses. Repealing a covenant agreement does not repeal laws that are not repealed.

 

[servent101]

1Way

I think

:darwinsm:

I would say think about it – but it is obvious you need to go back to the drawing board.

Please do not take too much offense – but you need the rebuke.

You do not think – you simply have acquired an orthodox mindset – what ever is in the closed canon of Christian Scripture – you take literally – whatever is not in the closed canon of Christian Scripture – you ignore and say it is from the Devil.

If you could think – you would make apology for your wayward ways and you would be remorseful over your mindless energy feed concerning the Written Word of God.



With Christ’s Love

Servent101

 

[adajos]

Clete:

BChristianK has already responded very well to much of your last post. Here's my two cents anyway.

To whatever extent you are Godly you are right-wing or conservative. I cannot think of a single exception but I suppose that doesn't mean there aren't any.

You need to broaden your horizons then.

Furthermore, as much as you would love to characterize your argument as Biblical, it just isn't.

I do not subordinate Godliness to politics. As you have pointed out I said just the reverse.
Why do acknowledge what I say then intentionally argue as though I said something else?

Actually, yes you do. You have said yourself that you don't think it's possible to be godly and not be politically conservative. Now godliness is contingent upon political opinions---it has thus been subordinated to politics.

left-wing politics are not Godly, and anyone who holds to left-wing principles are to that extent ungodly. That doesn't mean that your aren't a Christian if you hold to liberal ideologies, it just means you're not a very good one.

Your unsubstantiated opinion fails to impress me. How's that Biblical in any way?

You have fused the Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Man together to such a degree that you cannot recognize what is God's and what is man's.

Not to any more of an extent than God Himself has. It is He would said put the murderer to death. It is He who wrote the Ten Commandments, which nearly every law in all of western civilization is based upon in one way or another.
The law defines for a society what they hold to be right and wrong. Laws are defined and codified via the political system and thus beliefs about what is right and what is wrong drive the political machine.

What laws of the Ten Commandments are supported by modern American political conservatives that are not supported by modern American liberals?

They are moral issues in the context of government. A government that does not provide for the defense and infrastructure of the nation is an evil nation and God will hold the governing officials responsible for the harm they do to their citizens.

I don't remember any Biblical requirements for the gov't to provide infrastructure.

I don't deny that there are moral issues in governing however.

Christianity is about so much more than morality as well.

Really? Christianity has primarily to do with having a relationship with God.
1. Does God accept me?
2. On what basis does He do so?

Sounds pretty much like morality to me.

Actually sin and immorality are not necessarily the same thing.

From dictionary.com

mo·ral·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Note that correlation to morality and action. Sins don't necessarily involve outward action---lust and envy for instance.

There is overlap between sin and immorality to be sure, but morality deals with the realm of interhuman behavior, whereas sin is merely selfish, prideful behavior contrary to God's intentions.

Even so, Christianity is more than just a list of don't or even a list of do's. It's about a personal relationship with God.

What about liberals who believe in objective right and wrong? For instance, one of my old college history professors who was one of the most sincere Christian people I have ever known, who voted Democrat in every election and was a moderate left-winger?

To what ever extent he was a left-winger, he was ungodly. Do you think that it was a godly thing for him to have voted for Bill Clinton? I certainly don't!

I can't think of any Biblical requirements outlining who godly or ungodly to vote for, can you?

Nope. Why are there atheists who vote right-wing and atheists who vote left-wing then? There's no religious distinction between them.

This is not so. Atheism is a religion of sorts. It is a belief that there is not God and by extension no moral absolutes. The vast majority of atheists are very liberal but even a broken clock is right twice a day. This is why I acknowledged that religion and politics are not precisely the same thing because even if an evil person utilizes a godly principle they will benefit from it. So it not that liberals are incapable of doing anything that might be considered right-wing but that they do not do them for the same reasons.

Whether you want to call atheism a religion or not is your business. It's not germane to the argument. I made my original point because you claimed that there is a religious divide between political conservatives and liberals. However, that's incorrect. Politics and religion are not the same thing.

Further, what about atheists who recognize moral absolutes. My friend to whom I referred believes strongly in moral absolutes.

I have no doubt that there are aberrations to what one would expect to see normally. Once again my statement is a generality. However, your friend is internally conflicted and inconsistent because he cannot say that the left-wing is wrong for any reason that is consistent with his belief that people have evolved from slime and that there is no absolute moral standard.

No need to reply to this differently than my preceeding post other than to say that atheists don't categorically deny moral absolutes.

In studying the philosophy of ethics you'll find that many atheists believe that morality is derived from the natural laws of the universe, and thus is outside of man, and objective.

Quite right. You are pouring more into my words than what I am saying. To whatever extent a liberal believes that there are moral absolutes then to that extent he is conservative or right-wing. There is admittedly a spectrum here, the right side of which is defined by God and the left by Hillary. There is no one to the right of God, period.

Look, I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton. Offhand I can't think of a single idea of hers that I agree with. But I don't give my disagreement with her the status of religious truth revealed by God.

Are you seriously equating her with Satan?

BTW, you haven't studied political theory very much have you? The political spectrum is like a horseshoe---extreme right and extreme left are like the ends of the horseshoe---as each side gets more extreme, the more similar they get. That's how you end up with left-wing totalitarian regimes like in the Soviet Union and right-wing totalitarian regimes like the Third Reich that aren't that far apart.

Oh yes they are. Name one Godly thing that is not conservative or vice versa. Go ahead, try to name one.

Anti-choice (abortion) – Godly
Death penalty for murderers – Godly
Low taxes – Godly
Freedom – Godly
Anti homo – Godly
Anti euthanasia – Godly
Pro Military - Godly

Pro Choice – Ungodly
Voting for Bill Clinton – Ungodly
Voting for George Bush – Ungodly
Pro-abortion – Ungodly
High taxes – Ungodly
Big Government – Ungodly
Welfare – Ungodly

I could go on and on and on. Can you think of even one single major issue that would not fit into this pattern? I don’t think you can. This is why when people list the things they don’t like to talk about, they always say religion AND politics. This is because they are basically the same subject.

Wow, I almost don't even know where to start here, there's so many problems with this. OK, let's assume you're correct for a minute and that those political issues are somehow inherently godly or ungodly.

Here's some left wing issues that are godly:

• Civil Rights movement/desegregation of the 1950s and 1960s
• Feminism in the early part of the 20th century getting women the right to vote
• The Abolitionist movement that freed the slaves---clearly more progressive than conservative
• Protecting the environment

So that alone blows your theory and your challenge out of the water.

How do you figure Big Gov't and Welfare are ungodly? Impractical, perhaps--ineffective, certainly. But how are they ungodly?

The point is, most political issues are not inherently godly or ungodly---they are just in different places on a spectrum of practicality and effectiveness. It just so happens in my opinion that most of the conservative ideas work the best.

One final word---the modern American labels of liberal and conservative aren't really meaningful much more than one hundred years in the past. Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were considered liberals in their time---classic liberals. Perhaps you could determine how Christians in the Middle Ages measured godliness prior to the existence of conservatism or liberalism as we use the terms.

 

[Clete]

I believe that you guys are intentionally trying to misunderstand my point and so I am only going to respond in a very limited way at let this one go. I do not like wasting my time.

Civil Rights movement/desegregation of the 1950s and 1960s

While there may be people who wear the conservative label that didn't like desegregation that does not mean they were or are conservative on this issue. Racial discrimination is an extremely liberal mindset. Take Hitler as perhaps the most extreme example. The left-wing historical revisionists like to refer to Hitler as being far right but any thinking person knows otherwise. He was a socialist and a racist.
There is simply no way to reconcile racism with the conservative mindset of a world in which there are moral absolutes.

Feminism in the early part of the 20th century getting women the right to vote

This such a complex issue that I hardly think that it qualifies as either right-wing or left-wing. There are aspects of both.
Women are of course equal to men from an ontological point of view so from the stand point of treating woman as equals instead of second class citizens, this would be a conservative issue. However, voting (democracy) is not a idea anyone got from God. On the contrary, God reacted rather negatively to such ideas in the Bible so giving woman the vote only compounded one of America's primary failings in that democracies are doomed to fail and the more democratic a nation becomes the quicker they will self destruct from within. Thus, Democracy itself is a liberal ideology, and therefore so is giving woman the vote.

The Abolitionist movement that freed the slaves---clearly more progressive than conservative

No it isn't! Race based slavery is racism. Racism is not Godly and it is certainly not conservative. As I said a moment ago, it is the liberals who like racism. Jesse Jackson for example is as racist as anyone alive and at the very same time he is as liberal as they get.

Protecting the environment

And again, this is not, I repeat, NOT a liberal issue. What we are used to calling environmentalism has almost nothing to do with the environment. It has to do with the curtailment of private property rights and the seizing of power. Land ownership is in many ways foundational to genuine freedom. I won't bother establishing this, it should be somewhat intuitive anyway. The point is, no conservative is trying to destroy the planet, which we wouldn't be allowed to do even if we wanted to try. Indeed it is quite the reverse. When this country first really started down the road to real prosperity there can be no doubt that we made quite a mess. However, the higher standard of living people are able to afford, the less mess they want around them and so we cleaned up and I submit that the EPA has done nothing to help in this direction. If anything they have hampered our progress in this area. The point being is that conservatives do not want to see pollution any more than liberals do. Indeed, it is the conservatives who are actually doing something real about the problems that actually exist while the environmentalists are freaking out about problems that aren't even real that they've make up in order to have a political impact rather than an environmental one.

And as for Duder being against the war. This is a left-wing position and it is an ungodly one. If he had some moral ground upon which he opposed this particular war because it was in some way an unjust war then that might be different depending upon whether his reasoning for calling it unjust was sound. But the way you present it, he is apparently apposed to all war, which is clearly unbiblical and wrong, morally wrong.

And one final note. As I was writing this, I realized that I much prefer the term 'right-wing' over 'conservative' because I realize that the definition of conservative can and has changed over the years to a much larger degree than has "right-wing". "Right-Wing" has more consistently been associated with the concept of moral absolutes and thus better illustrates my original point in having brought this subject up to begin with which was simply to point out that religion has to do with what we believe and our politics are determined by those beliefs and that religion and politics are therefore basically two sides of the same coin.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[smaller]

Osama bin Laden=Lion, son of destruction.

God has purposes with all things. Osama is no exception.

Homosexuals are no exception.

 

[adajos]

Clete:

I believe that you guys are intentionally trying to misunderstand my point and so I am only going to respond in a very limited way at let this one go. I do not like wasting my time.

So you step back from your outrageous claims that "godliness" equals "conservative political positions" and address the peripheral matters? It's the implications of combining politics and faith that are the most disturbing, but apparently you don't want to talk about that--you'd rather label issues and people and discuess that.

I really wish you'd address the substance of BChristianK and my posts---but I understand why you'd want to avoid the difficulty of defending an untenable position.

Clete on racial segregation and the Civil Rights movement:

While there may be people who were the conservative label that didn't like desegregation that does not mean they were or are conservative on this issue. Racial discrimination is an extremely liberal mindset. Take Hitler as perhaps the most extreme example. The left-wing historical revisionists like to refer to Hitler as being far right but any thinking person knows otherwise. He was a socialist and a racist.
There is simply no way to reconcile racism with the conservative mindset of a world in which there are moral absolutes.

• Racial discrimination is not unique to either the left or right wings.
• Racial discrimination is not unique to liberalism.
• Hitler was right wing
• There have been many ways to reconcile racism with the conservative view of the world in which moral absolutes exist--the same is true of the liberal view of the world. Don't you realize that Strom Thrumond, who was right-wing ran for President on a segregationist platform?
• The Civil Rights movement was driven primarily by the left---yes, there were some conservatives in favor, but there were also some opposed to it.

Clete on giving women the right to vote:

This such a complex issue that I hardly think that it qualifies as either right-wing or left-wing. There are aspects of both.
Women are of course equal to men from an ontological point of view so from the stand point of treating woman as equals instead of second class citizens, this would be a conservative issue. However, voting (democracy) is not a idea anyone got from God. On the contrary, God reacted rather negatively to such ideas in the Bible so giving woman the vote only compounded one of America's primary failings in that democracies are doomed to fail and the more democratic a nation becomes the quicker they will self destruct from within. Thus, Democracy itself is a liberal ideology are so therefore is giving woman the vote.

Again, to an extent this issue isn't partisan. But it was driven by progressives of the day.

I notice how the idea of treating women as equals "ontologically" is a conservative idea. So your definition of a "conservative idea" is apparently anything that you personally agree with.

What Biblical support do you have for the idea that God dislikes democracy?

Clete on the Abolitionist movement:

No it isn't! Race based slavery is racism. Racism is not Godly and it is certainly not conservative. As I said a moment ago, it is the liberals who like racism. Jesse Jackson for example is as racist as anyone alive and at the very same time he is as liberal as they get.

Yes, there is racism on the left and on the right. You claim that racism is a liberal thing and that's just hogwash.

This leads us to another big problem with your fusion of religion and politics. God and the Bible are rightly considered infallible. But when politics is tightly interwoven with Christianity, then political issues or parties take on the infallibility of the Bible. In this case, you are unwilling to acknowledge that it's quite possible to be conservative (AKA "godly") and racist at the same time.

Unfortunately for you case, there are many examples of conservatives who are racist. Thurmond, Duke, etc were right-wing racists. No doubt you will blindly continue to claim that the "conservative" position is the one you espouse and that conservatives who supported issues you dislike aren't really conservative.

You really should step back and view your argument objectively though. I think you'll find it holds as much water as a sieve.

Clete on Environmentalism:

And again, this is not, I repeat, NOT a liberal issue. What we are used to calling environmentalism has almost nothing to do with the environment. It has to do with the curtailment of private property rights and the seizing of power. Land ownership is in many ways foundational to genuine freedom. I won't bother establishing this, it should be somewhat intuitive anyway. The point is, no conservative is trying to destroy the planet, which we wouldn't be allowed to do even if we wanted to try. Indeed it is quite the reverse. When this country first really started down the road to real prosperity there can be no doubt that we made quite a mess. However, the higher standard of living people are able to afford, the less mess they want around them and so we cleaned up and I submit that the EPA has done nothing to help in this direction. If anything they have hampered our progress in this area. The point being is that conservatives do not want to see pollution any more than liberals do. Indeed, it is the conservatives who are actually doing something real about the problems that actually exist while the environmentalists are freaking out about problems that aren't even real that they've make up in order to have a political impact rather than an environmental one.

So you disagree with the left-wing approach to environmentalism. Great--I do too to an extent. But why is it ungodly just because you think it's impractical? If holding impractical ideas makes them ungodly then surely there can be no more ungodly of an idea that recriminalizing homosexuals as Enyart wants to do!!

And as for Duder being against the war. This is a left-wing position and it is an ungodly one. If he had some moral ground upon which he opposed this particular war because it was in some way an unjust war then that might be different depending upon whether his reasoning for calling it unjust was sound. But the way you present it, he is apparently apposed to all war, which is clearly unbiblical and wrong, morally wrong.

Since Amish, Quakers, and Mennonites are usually pacifists I guess those groups are less godly than other conservative denominations like Baptists or Evangelical Free eh?

BTW, I'm sure Duder has specific reasons why this war is an unjust war.

And one final note. As I was writing this, I realized that I much prefer the term 'right-wing' over 'conservative' because I realize that the definition of conservative can and has changed over the years to a much larger degree than has "right-wing". "Right-Wing" has more consistently been associated with the concept of moral absolutes and thus better illustrates my original point in having brought this subject up to begin with which was simply to point out that religion has to do with what we believe and our politics are determined by those beliefs and that religion and politics are basically two sides of the same coin.

The term "right-wing" only makes sense for the last century--just as "conservative" does. How was a Christian's godliness measured before any such notion?

Clete, you are displaying ignorance of both politics and religion by your positions. Your interwoven tapestry of politics and Christianity harms Christianity by elevating non-essentials of the faith to the status of measuring godliness.

 

[Clete]

adajos,

I believe that you attempting to piss me off, and you have succeeded.

You have repeatedly put words in my mouth and I have repeated told you that I do not mean what you are suggesting and yet you insist on arguing for the sake of arguing.

Do you deny that the positions one takes on political issues are determined by ones world view?

If you deny this your are stupid or a liar, it is plainly obvious.

Do you also deny that your world view is determined by your religious beliefs?

Again, you would have to intentionally lie in order to deny such an obvious fact.

If you politics are determined by your worldview and your worldview is determined by you religious beliefs then your politics are determined by your religious beliefs.

It is obvious and simple. Liberal ideologies are generally based upon an ungodly worldview and are therefore generally ungodly and vise versa.

 

[adajos]

Clete:

I believe that you attempting to piss me off, and you have succeeded.

Actually I wasn't attempting that. I was addressing your fallacious argument. If you can't handle it, then don't advance arguments you know people will attack.

I notice that you get upset alot on this board when people disagree with you---usually you call them "stupid", "idiots", and "morons". Seems like you might need to relax a bit--disagreement on internet forums is inevitable.

You have repeatedly put words in my mouth and I have repeated told you that I do not mean what you are suggesting and yet you insist on arguing for the sake of arguing.

Yet you don't cite even one specific instance of me creating a strawman. Care to do so?

Do you deny that what positions one takes on political issues are determined by ones world view?

Nope.

If you deny this your are stupid and a liar, it is plainly obvious.

More pointless name calling.

Do you also deny that your world view is determined by your religious beliefs?

I deny that your worldview is determined solely by your religious beliefs. Your worldview is influenced by your religious beliefs and possibly several other factors. Do you deny that there can be elements of a "worldview" that are not determined by religious beliefs?

Again, you would have to intentionally lie in order to deny such an obvious fact.

I'm not lying.

If you politics are determined by your worldview and your worldview is determined by you religious beliefs then your politics are determined by your religious beliefs.

Other factors aside from religious faith, like personal experience go into determining a worldview. So it makes sense that people with very similar faith can arrive at different political conclusions because of differing experience, personality, etc.

That doesn't automatically make those different political conclusions ungodly as you would desparately like to do.

It is obvious and simple. Liberal ideologies are generally based upon an ungodly worldview and are therefore generally ungodly and vise versa.

Still wrong. Politics and religion aren't the same, and so it's not obvious that "liberal" equals "ungodly" and vice versa. It's only obvious and simple in your mind.

Why is it so important that Christians agree with you on matters of public policy? I know you're gonna change the question and say "It's important to me that Christians agree with the Bible on matters of public policy", but claiming that disagreeing with you on environmental issues is ungodly and in disagreement with the Bible is patently false.

You don't seem to understand the difference between the Bible being infallible and in your interpretation of the Bible being fallible.

 

[Clete]

I did not say that your world view is based SOLELY on your religious beliefs. That is why I have repeatedly said that "Liberal ideologies are generally based upon an ungodly worldview and are therefore generally ungodly and vise versa."

The straw man you are fighting is the one where you insist that I am saying anything more than this.

And by the way, I call people names like stupid when they are being that. You'll take notice of the word "IF" in my statements concerning your potential stupidity.

 

[adajos]

Clete:

I did not say that your world view is based SOLELY on your religious beliefs. That is why I have repeadely said that "Liberal ideologies are generally based upon an ungodly worldview and are therefore generally ungodly and vise versa."

The staw man you are fighting is the one where you insist that I am saying anything more than this.

Since you agree that politics are based on worldview and worldview is not solely based on religious faith, then why do you assert that godliness is practically contingent upon political opinions? After all, faith is not the only thing that influences worldview, so it seems like godly people can have lots of room for political disagreement--and that that disagreement doesn't affect their godliness.

Deny that you said that all you want but here it is:

To whatever extent you are Godly you are right-wing or conservative. I cannot think of a single exception but I suppose that doesn't mean there aren't any.

That's more than generally as you suggest above. That means, you can conceive of an exception to your "Christians ought to be conservative claim", but you haven't run across one--thus for all practical purposes "liberal" = ungodly.

But this conclusion is clearly wrong since more goes into influencing a worldview than religious faith.

 

[Dimo]

Poly posted:

I agree with Clete's view. I'm sick of Him being made out to be a wimp or a good ol' grandpa in the sky. Yes His is loving but He is also rightous, just and holy. He cannot look upon sin and expects the same from us.
So let's get off the fence. What is your view of God? Do you agree or disagree with Clete? Give reasoning or scripture for your vote.

Dimo:

Poly, where does it say in the Bible that God cannot look upon sin? If this were true he would never see our sins.

Clete's opinion:

If you think I'm a right wing extremist, wait till you meet God. If you have a problem with me, you're not going to like God at all! I'm just a lame little Teddy bear compared to God. All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homos as I come in contact with. The awesome living God, on the other hand, not only is the one who created the universe by the power of His spoken word and has the power to throw your soul into eternal fire, but He also happens to be the ultimate right wing conservative wacko extremist of the universe! And He does not like people who try to ride fences.
I suggest you pick a side and get on it!

Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.


Dimo:

I agree that my judgement and justice cannot compare to God's. I hope that God is nothing like Clete. I also hope that God judges Clete with reason, despite Clete's inability to do the same. I do not believe that God is a nice old man with a grey beard. I do believe that God will use each of our own standards to judge us when the time comes.

 

[Duder]

Adajos -

An obvious counterexample to Clete's thesis would be the Social Gospel movement of the early to mid-twentieth century here in the United States. It was a Christian liberal movement that promoted the idea that public funds and energies ought to be used to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick and educate the ignorent.

A mere half centry ago, the political face of Christianity was as liberal as it is today conservative..

 

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Dimo

Poly posted:

I agree with Clete's view. I'm sick of Him being made out to be a wimp or a good ol' grandpa in the sky. Yes His is loving but He is also rightous, just and holy. He cannot look upon sin and expects the same from us.
So let's get off the fence. What is your view of God? Do you agree or disagree with Clete? Give reasoning or scripture for your vote.

Dimo:

Poly, where does it say in the Bible that God cannot look upon sin?

Answer: on one of Its pages.

For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

I don't believe that God can see sin. I believe that His Vision is greater than that, since sin is temporary, and The Lord is Eternal. He is Holy, and Perfect.

 

[Dimo]

Aimiel posted:

I don't believe that God can see sin. I believe that His Vision is greater than that, since sin is temporary, and The Lord is Eternal. He is Holy, and Perfect.

Dimo:

I agree with the second and third sentences. I do not believe that this verse says the same as what Poly posted:

"For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."

It says "suffer thine Holy One to see corruption", not "can't see sin". Is sin the same as corruption? At any rate can you answer my other question;

If God cannot see sin, how can he judge it?

 

[geralduk]

The life of ISIAH was up to a certain point as a m an of God who spoke the message of God yet when he saw the lORD "hIGH AND LIFTED UP and His train filling the temple" then he REPENTED in sacklth and ashes.
When Moses first came into contact with God he fell on his face in terror.
When John heard and voice behind him anmd turned and saw Him who is the alpha and omega he fell as one dead onto his face.
We have to LOW a veiw of God and would think that we can put Him into the pocket of our own miserable interelect.and encomapss Him about with the wisdom of men.
It is when the CHURCH gets a right veiw of GOD and THEN a right veiw of herself she will find that she will begin to PRAY in ERNEST and God will THEN hear her and forgive her sins and heal the land.

 

[Clete]

Since you agree that politics are based on worldview and worldview is not solely based on religious faith, then why do you assert that godliness is practically contingent upon political opinions?

I don't. You are ready to much into it. I have never said that one cannot hold to some particular liberal ideal if they are otherwise right-wing in their thinking. However, you still have yet to give a good example of single major political issue that is fundamentally liberal in nature and is at the same time godly. They simply do not exist.
This is not to say that someone who is evil cannot hold to right-wing ideas. A perfect example is a guy named Glenn Beck. He is a nationally known conservative radio talk show host. He himself is an amazingly evil guy. He is a pagan (actually he's a Mormon, but that is the same thing, the point is he doesn't worship the true and living God or His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ). His political views are extremely conservative. And now, get ready and really concentrate because what I'm about to say is my entire point, if you miss it, then you'll have proven yourself to be too obtuse to bother with any longer. GLEN BECK IS EVIL HIS POSITIONS ON POLITICAL ISSUES ARE GODLY! So I don't want to hear any more about how I equate one's political views with their godliness. Glen's political views are in fact godly and conservative but he is certainly not.

So I say again. One's political views are determined by what one believes to be right and wrong and what one believes to be right and wrong in many ways defines one's religious beliefs and thus one's political views are undeniable effected and in many cases determined by one's religious beliefs.
That is so plainly obvious that it simply ridiculous that I've had to repeat myself so many times. What else is there that would make something right-wing or left-wing if the concept of right and wrong are left out of the equation? That is the equation! If you are left-wing then you think that it is morally wrong to make people earn the money they need to eat. You can say something similar for every single issue that comes up. Duder thinks that it is morally wrong to be at war with Iraq, I think it is morally wrong for Jesse Jackson to say the racist things that he says. God thinks that it is morally wrong to keep people alive who should be executed and to execute people that should be allowed to live. And by the way, God happens to be on the conservative side of every single issue, that’s what makes that side of the issue right-wing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[BChristianK]

1way said:

I do not simply use 1Co for shunning, that is only for shunning those with professing faith in God (for righteousness). I simply do not apply that teaching further than the scope it naturally covers.

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.

Why don’t you?

Christians still rightly judge and condemn the world even though they can not shun them away from the body of believers since they are already not part of the body of believers in the first place. So we can eat with the sinners and tax collectors because they put on no pretense of being a believer.

Judge in what way? There are many nuances to the Greek words krinw and anikirinw As I stated. Now your reply to these distinctions was:

You can take your BDAG and toss it on this issue…..

My translation of this would be, “don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up.”
If the tenor of this debate is as you said it is:

The tenor of this debate from both sides of the discussion is that God’s word is right and authoritative and as such invokes the reasonable assumption that both parties are (to some extent) adherents thereof.

Then we should be careful not to extend a passage farther than its reach as I fear you have done with 1 Corinthians 5:11 and we should likewise be careful to understand the nuances of the words that the bible employs if we claim to care what bible really says versus what we can make it say to prove our points. Don’t you agree?

Jesus eating with the tax collectors and sinners. This is true, but does not lend to your argumentation. Jesus would accept anyone if they are receptive to godly teachings.

That is how it lends to my point. How can Clete follow Christ’s model and extend godly teaching to anyone if he avoids all homosexuals?
There’s a whole subgroup of people that Clete will never extend Christ’s teaching to, because he won’t get close enough to them to do so.

When Jesus came across sin, He never accepted the sin, it always has to be dealt with in a righteous way. So I say that he was ministering to the sick and needy, but if they started to deny Jesus and sin right in front of Him, He would have opposed them for it.

I’m not arguing against this point.

A rebuke is for those caught in an offense where they are not otherwise yielding to righteous correction and is more called for as the issue is more important or urgent, or both. Eating with the sinners was hardly a reason for Jesus to rebuke, they needed the truth to set them free from the sinful ways…

As do we all, homosexuals included.


Concerning Judging the world, you answered my statement:

You said, right, when will that happen.

You replied

That is a nonsequitor. I presented ideas that occur in the past present and future, so when they happen is not in question.

You and Turbo need to pow wow, he disagrees with you.
Turbo quotes the same passage and says:

The saints will judge the unbelievers on judgment day according to the Law of God.

Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? 1 Corinthians 6:2-3/ (Turbo, Post #22, Christians, criminal Justice and death penalty)

Is turbo wrong then, are we to carry out judicial sentencing now? And if so, then where is the role of the state in carrying out judicial sentence? Furthermore, why didn’t Paul tell the Corinthians to kill the wicked brother instead of shunning him?

You said:

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.

Who said anything about blurting out everything we believe, that is a misrepresentation of my statement.
I said:

We are not to hold those opinions due to appearances but in righteousness.

Holding an opinion and expressing an opinion are two different things. I hold all sorts of opinions you don’t know about because I haven’t expressed them, so your charge misses its mark on this argument.

Universalizing Christian accountability
I don’t do that. What is universal is right and wrong and that the righteous oppose evil and cling to the good (personally accept good, and personally reject evil). It is evil to accept what is evil no matter if they are a believer or not. You can not send an unbeliever outside the body of believers for the sake that the devil might buffet them since the devil is already happy with the unbeliever, such shunning is not possible to do unless you are a self professing believer in God for righteousness.

First, remember that this thread is about whether or not we agree with Clete, if we buy his statement or not. He said:

All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homos as I come in contact with.

So how is this not universalizing Christian accountability? Clete, has not, as far as I have read, (maybe I missed something), amended his statement to say that it applied only to homos who were professing believers.

So....
I argued that this wasn’t the godly response contrary to his assertion, you disagreed and pointed out 1 Corinthians 5:11. I replied and drew your attention to the fact that this verse is uniquely applied to believers and you have suggested that you agree with this, at least to a certain extent, as is evidenced by your following statement:

…that is only for shunning those with professing faith in God… (taken from above)

But you still defend Clete’s universal shunning of homosexuals despite the fact that 1 Cor 5:11 doesn’t say this.
Now you say:

Covenants vrs absolutes

God did not repeal the death penalty, capitol offenses remain capitol offenses.

He didn’t. Ok, so you disagree with Turbo when he says that Christians aren’t under the law then, correct? You would argue that we are all under the law, the Christians and everyone else, right?

You would disagree with Turbo in that you would still consider Sabbath breaking a capital offense since it was in the Mosaic Covenant and "capital offenses remain capital offenses," right?

You anticipate these questions and object.

Repealing a covenant agreement does not repeal laws that are not repealed.

I’m having a little trouble comprehending this statement, (don’t worry I read my own statement and wonder sometimes if people are really getting them), but the best I can tell, you mean that repealing a covenant doesn’t mean repealing the laws that are within that covenant right?
If that is what you are saying, then this is false, that is exactly what repealing a covenant is. If it isn't then Sabbath breaking is still a capital offense and it still requires death as the punishment.
If repealing a covenant doesn't mean repealing the laws within that covenant then the Acts 9 crowd have some “esplainin’ to do’ when it comes to Sabbath keeping.



Grace and Peace

 

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Dimo

If God cannot see sin, how can he judge it?

Sin doesn't exist in eternity. This earth is in a 'temporary flux' state, a space-time bubble, which will one day be burst. The understanding which we have of it is limited, since men have a finite number of brain cells and are trying to comprehend something which is beyond our realm. The universe is unlimited in size, but will be brought together, folded and placed in a drawer.

The Lord does not look upon 'deeds,' but the thoughts and intents of the heart. The death that men suffer is due to their sin. It is inherrent, since all men descend from sinful parents (Adam and Eve). The judgement of their nature (heart) that follows can only be avoided by having a substitutionary replacement to be judged in your place. Believers have Jesus. Others are left to face the judgement on their own.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Duder

Adajos -

An obvious counterexample to Clete's thesis would be the Social Gospel movement of the early to mid-twentieth century here in the United States. It was a Christian liberal movement that promoted the idea that public funds and energies ought to be used to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick and educate the ignorent.

A mere half centry ago, the political face of Christianity was as liberal as it is today conservative..

This does not undermine my thesis. It perhaps demonstrates the tendency of the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' to change meaning but I don't even think it does that very well and even if it did, I've already conceded that point.

What these Christian people wanted to do was liberal by the curent understadning of the term and it also happens to have been an ungodly thing that they wanted to do. You example does not undermine my thesis it demonstrates it.

Resting in Him,
Clete