CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[breakingcontact]

Bless your heart.

You are a historian?

Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk

 

[breakingcontact]

I agree. If you (generic) are not Orthodox you (generic) are flat out wrong

That is interesting.

Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk

 

[historian]

You are a historian?

Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk

Very much so.

 

[breakingcontact]

Very much so.

You certainly understand that many denominations have given up the faith then?

Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk

 

[historian]

Did Paul not defy the government of his time by escaping?

Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk

No. He submitted to government, but he didn't go out of his way to help the government. It wasn't like they had warrants in Roman times. They just arrested you, so there was not violation of the law when he escaped in a basket or walked out of jail.

The problem with your "lesser magistrates" rule is that it is absurd in practice. In the good ol' US of A we have something called religious freedom, and if you are a Baptist, you should believe in Individual Soul Liberty. If you want to impose your beliefs on others, then you will have a hard row to hoe. If you think people should not have to do things that they are not called to do, then they should resign or allow someone else to do it. Kim Davis was a moron. She didn't want to practice her beliefs, she wanted to impose them on others. If you cannot in good conscious do your job, then you are obligated to quit, not just refuse. Kim could have had someone else in the office process the paperwork, or she could have resigned. Instead, she wanted to be famous.

 

[historian]

You certainly understand that many denominations have given up the faith then?

Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk

Depends. I believe T. Lex is going to heaven. I know BBI and PaulF are not (although I love them and pray for them).

The only "Christian" on the board I'm not sure of is JK, but that is because he likes casserole and that frightens me .

 

[breakingcontact]

No. He submitted to government, but he didn't go out of his way to help the government. It wasn't like they had warrants in Roman times. They just arrested you, so there was not violation of the law when he escaped in a basket or walked out of jail.

The problem with your "lesser magistrates" rule is that it is absurd in practice. In the good ol' US of A we have something called religious freedom, and if you are a Baptist, you should believe in Individual Soul Liberty. If you want to impose your beliefs on others, then you will have a hard row to hoe. If you think people should not have to do things that they are not called to do, then they should resign or allow someone else to do it. Kim Davis was a moron. She didn't want to practice her beliefs, she wanted to impose them on others. If you cannot in good conscious do your job, then you are obligated to quit, not just refuse. Kim could have had someone else in the office process the paperwork, or she could have resigned. Instead, she wanted to be famous.

He submitted to the government, by fleeing at night in a basket and not surrendering to the authorities who he knew wanted him?

*Also, Peter escaped from prison.*

Religious freedom =/= the church being silent and accepting a government which fails to punish evil and reward good.

Impose my beliefs on others? Where am I calling for that?

From where does our law come, if there are not absolute laws, from a law giver, then all laws are manmade and we are in deep trouble.

There are moral laws our government is to enforce. Why the machinations of those within the church to claim piety and look at government as if it is something below the believer.

We need government. Government is a good thing.

Why just watch the secular government "do what government does" and be content when we have capacity to reduce suffering by reforming government?

 

[T.Lex]

Depends. I believe T. Lex is going to heaven. I know BBI and PaulF are not (although I love them and pray for them).

The only "Christian" on the board I'm not sure of is JK, but that is because he likes casserole and that frightens me .

Rep inbound.

To pursue something that I think we've touched on before, I couldn't help but notice the different words used in your first paragraph. "Believe" v. "know."

Wouldn't it be more accurate - but I also don't want to put words in your mouth - that you "believe" both to be true? That is, you believe something about certain other Christians, and you also believe something different about non-Christians. I think "know" in this context is a very strong word, with different connotations.

 

[breakingcontact]

Depends. I believe T. Lex is going to heaven. I know BBI and PaulF are not (although I love them and pray for them).

The only "Christian" on the board I'm not sure of is JK, but that is because he likes casserole and that frightens me .

I was talking denominations, not individuals.

God will save who he will in whatever denomination as he sees fit and has ordained. Some of you Arminian Baptists will be surprised to see folks who attended Catholic church in heaven!

However, there are a good many denominations which Bible believing Christians should not be part of as they preach a false gospel.

 

[historian]

He submitted to the government, by fleeing at night in a basket and not surrendering to the authorities who he knew wanted him?

*Also, Peter escaped from prison.*

He didn't have a warrant for his arrest. He knew they were after him. THERE WAS NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT HE STAY IN JAIL!

Religious freedom =/= the church being silent and accepting a government which fails to punish evil and reward good.

Impose my beliefs on others? Where am I calling for that?

Here:

From where does our law come, if there are not absolute laws, from a law giver, then all laws are manmade and we are in deep trouble.

There are moral laws our government is to enforce. Why the machinations of those within the church to claim piety and look at government as if it is something below the believer.

We need government. Government is a good thing.

Why just watch the secular government "do what government does" and be content when we have capacity to reduce suffering by reforming government?

We can be involved in government in the drafting and legislation of the laws. There is nothing wrong about that. However, who determines what moral law is? You? Me? The Bible? Which denomination/interpretation? Muslims? The Koran? Jews? The OT? We have the ability to act within government to change the law, we can stand against unjust laws, but we must be willing to accept the consequences.

 

[JettaKnight]

Rep inbound.

To pursue something that I think we've touched on before, I couldn't help but notice the different words used in your first paragraph. "Believe" v. "know."

Wouldn't it be more accurate - but I also don't want to put words in your mouth - that you "believe" both to be true? That is, you believe something about certain other Christians, and you also believe something different about non-Christians. I think "know" in this context is a very strong word, with different connotations.

I'm with Historian...

If you can't "know" that someone that flat out denies the existence of God or someone that believe Jesus was a prophet and not actually God is on the outside, then what can you believe?

The fact that Jesus is the only way is an absolute and non-negotiable.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm with Historian...

If you can't "know" that someone that flat out denies the existence of God or someone that believe Jesus was a prophet and not actually God is on the outside, then what can you believe?

The fact that Jesus is the only way is an absolute and non-negotiable.

For us.

Not necessarily for Him.

To me, the position of it being an "absolute non-negotiable" stands in opposition to God's omnipotence (and even omniscience). To "know" attributes God-level knowledge to us lowly humans, His servants.

Let's take PaulF as an example. (Apologies to Paul if he's not comfortable with this - I'll edit this if that's the case.) I think he garners the respect of most INGOers. Seems a decent guy. Conscientious atheist (agnostic?).

What if that was God's plan for him? What if PaulF is living his life exactly in concert with God's will for him? To be a test for believers. To challenge us. To help our faith formation by defending it. What if PaulF actually DOES follow Christ, who tested His faithful by several means? If that is the case, do we "know" that God will deny him unity with Him?

How can we say that such a thing is impossible for God? I don't think we can.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

For us.

Not necessarily for Him.

To me, the position of it being an "absolute non-negotiable" stands in opposition to God's omnipotence (and even omniscience). To "know" attributes God-level knowledge to us lowly humans, His servants.

Let's take PaulF as an example. (Apologies to Paul if he's not comfortable with this - I'll edit this if that's the case.) I think he garners the respect of most INGOers. Seems a decent guy. Conscientious atheist (agnostic?).

What if that was God's plan for him? What if PaulF is living his life exactly in concert with God's will for him? To be a test for believers. To challenge us. To help our faith formation by defending it. What if PaulF actually DOES follow Christ, who tested His faithful by several means? If that is the case, do we "know" that God will deny him unity with Him?

How can we say that such a thing is impossible for God? I don't think we can.

God's justice will be perfect. But if Jesus is God and Jesus said no one gets to the father except through him and he said he was given all the power of heaven to make such claims, and I wanted to go to heaven...I think I'd head Jesus' warning.

Besides, God loves us too much to force us to be with him. If we reject him in this life, I believe he'll honor our preferences and separate you from him in the next. Why force someone against their will into heaven if they don't want to be there?

 

[breakingcontact]

He didn't have a warrant for his arrest. He knew they were after him. THERE WAS NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT HE STAY IN JAIL!


Here:






We can be involved in government in the drafting and legislation of the laws. There is nothing wrong about that. However, who determines what moral law is? You? Me? The Bible? Which denomination/interpretation? Muslims? The Koran? Jews? The OT? We have the ability to act within government to change the law, we can stand against unjust laws, but we must be willing to accept the consequences.

He did not submit to the authorities.

To pretend that we can claim no moral law means we are left with the laws of man.

Everything the Nazis did was legal.

 

[JettaKnight]

I think one of the flaws of the application of "lesser magistrate doctrine" is that this was develop under a monarchy - there was no other recourse; you couldn't just vote someone out of office. Also, IIRC, this was a time when Baptist were being drowned, so not a great period of time for us... Now days, there are other, more sensible avenues for instituting change.

Couple this with the notion that we Christians should be focused on the hearts of men, not just that they uphold the law.



I'm really torn with the this... on one hand, you have the Founding Fathers (at least some) and the Constitutions underpinnings in Christian morality. But then you have the concepts of religious freedom.... and in modern society there's key issues that are at loggerheads, namely abortion.

(here's where I ramp up on my rambling...)

Which brings me back around to the author of the book. Not to dismiss him, because I think anti-abortion is a noble cause, but he seems to be a one trick pony in that this one issue dominates all of his sermons, writings, et cetera. Which, the older I get, the more I find that sort of preaching Pharisaical. It's a bit of a balancing act, how do you preach the truth in love. I'm sure we all know preachers who have fallen off that wire on both sides.

Until someone comes to love the Light, you can't convince them they're living in darkness, amirite? I mean, a sinner comes to a place where they realize they're a sinner, but simply telling them their gay lifestyle is a sin isn't going to work - they have to believe it themselves. And if they don't believe in God or Scripture, then you can't use that as a reference.

I'm all for resisting gov't when it forces me to go against my morals, but Kim Davis was enforcing her (i.e. God's) morals upon others... but selectively. How many marriage certificates did she sign for divorcees? If we are to be consistent in enforcing God's law, let's be consistent and support sheriffs that arrest adulterers. Let's start on college campuses - walk of shame starts at 7am Sunday. That may be absurd, but once you start the ball, where do you stop it?

 

[T.Lex]

God's justice will be perfect. But if Jesus is God and Jesus said no one gets to the father except through him and he said he was given all the power of heaven to make such claims, and I wanted to go to heaven...I think I'd head Jesus' warning.

Besides, God loves us too much to force us to be with him. If we reject him in this life, I believe he'll honor our preferences and separate you from him in the next. Why force someone against their will into heaven if they don't want to be there?

I generally agree with what you said, but I see a large middle ground between "rejection" and "disbelief." Granted, I also believe that reasonable people can disagree on the size of that middle ground and whether any particular person or group occupies space in it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I generally agree with what you said, but I see a large middle ground between "rejection" and "disbelief." Granted, I also believe that reasonable people can disagree on the size of that middle ground and whether any particular person or group occupies space in it.

Oh...like I say God's justice will be the best justice (using a little Trump lingo there). But I'd have to believe Jesus was either a liar or being hyperbolic in his statements. If I were a person that rejected Jesus' gift but entertained thought of eternal life with all of the good stuff, rather than eternal torment, it'd be a awfully risky path to follow, in hopes of "getting in" because you lived your life in some way you hope was according to God's plan.

 

[JettaKnight]

Clarifying here, but If Kim Davis wants to follow her conscience, my judgement is mild... I really should be careful in saying she's wrong. However, I do not believe I have the duty to support her. That's probably key. I believe the author says it's our duty to support these God following lesser magistrates, not just that it's acceptable for them to resist through non-obedience in their duties.

That's where I'm pushed farther away from this concept. Once I start thinking it's my duty to support them, I'll start going out of my way to look for lesser magistrates to support.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think one of the flaws of the application of "lesser magistrate doctrine" is that this was develop under a monarchy - there was no other recourse; you couldn't just vote someone out of office. Also, IIRC, this was a time when Baptist were being drowned, so not a great period of time for us... Now days, there are other, more sensible avenues for instituting change.

Couple this with the notion that we Christians should be focused on the hearts of men, not just that they uphold the law.



I'm really torn with the this... on one hand, you have the Founding Fathers (at least some) and the Constitutions underpinnings in Christian morality. But then you have the concepts of religious freedom.... and in modern society there's key issues that are at loggerheads, namely abortion.

(here's where I ramp up on my rambling...)

Which brings me back around to the author of the book. Not to dismiss him, because I think anti-abortion is a noble cause, but he seems to be a one trick pony in that this one issue dominates all of his sermons, writings, et cetera. Which, the older I get, the more I find that sort of preaching Pharisaical. It's a bit of a balancing act, how do you preach the truth in love. I'm sure we all know preachers who have fallen off that wire on both sides.

Until someone comes to love the Light, you can't convince them they're living in darkness, amirite? I mean, a sinner comes to a place where they realize they're a sinner, but simply telling them their gay lifestyle is a sin isn't going to work - they have to believe it themselves. And if they don't believe in God or Scripture, then you can't use that as a reference.

I'm all for resisting gov't when it forces me to go against my morals, but Kim Davis was enforcing her (i.e. God's) morals upon others... but selectively. How many marriage certificates did she sign for divorcees? If we are to be consistent in enforcing God's law, let's be consistent and support sheriffs that arrest adulterers. Let's start on college campuses - walk of shame starts at 7am Sunday. That may be absurd, but once you start the ball, where do you stop it?

Why would we keep it from them? Why do we congratulate homosexuals when they announce they're getting "married"? Why do we keep the Gospel from them while making them (or the person filing for divorce or the kid moving in and shacking up with his girlfriend) comfortable in their sin? If we do one and sluff off the other, aren't we doing what Jesus warned us about being better to have a millstone tied around your neck and thrown in the sea? Shouting "God hates f**s" does not show love and does not follow the advice for sharing the Gospel we were given. But we're negligent in our duties if we don't make the attempt to show them the light.

 

[T.Lex]

Oh...like I say God's justice will be the best justice (using a little Trump lingo there). But I'd have to believe Jesus was either a liar or being hyperbolic in his statements. If I were a person that rejected Jesus' gift but entertained thought of eternal life with all of the good stuff, rather than eternal torment, it'd be a awfully risky path to follow, in hopes of "getting in" because you lived your life in some way you hope was according to God's plan.

Man, I'm sorry to find a small disagreement amidst so much that we agree on (Pascal's Wager and all), but I don't think its a strict liar/hyperbolizer construct. Jesus was a teacher. He used many different approaches to teach many different things. The "I am the way" is one. It is - no doubt - an important one. But it is not the only important thing He said.

I believe that we are poorly enabled to fully understand all the teachings. When taken together, though, there is room for us to mis-understand the lessons if we focus too intently on one or a few of the approaches.

Importantly, and this is with a nod to foszoe and the Orthodox, Luke 24:45 says that when Jesus ascended, he opened the minds of the apostles to understand the scriptures. To me, that says they came as close as humanly possible to understanding the entirety. That's what places the Acts and epistles in a place of prominence. Those writings - while not as perfect as the words of Jesus - are based on a better understanding than what we have.

Again, I will absolutely apologize for sounding like I'm looking for an argument. I'm not. There is much I agree with. But the parts where we disagree are more interesting.