Originally posted by vistesdIn hopes that we can somehow turn the questions and the argument into song?
In hopes that we can somehow turn the questions and the argument into song? I thought I might be better at that this time around—but not... 😳
“Today, like every other day, we wake up empty
and frightened. Don’t open the door to the study
and begin reading!
Take down the dulcimer...”
—Rumi
Fat chance, old man. 🙂
“Today, like every other day, we wake up empty
and frightened. Don’t open the door to the study
and begin reading!
Take down the dulcimer...”
—Rumi
Nice!
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill
What country do you live in?
USA, in Pittsburgh, PA. (It says this in my profile.)
Bonhoeffer was a Christian theologian who was opposed to Hitler's Nazism. Do you think it was better that Bonhoffer had less enfluence on the political process of that day? Do you wish that he had had more enfluence on people's thinking in those days?
There are plenty of secular arguments against Hitler. He would have
no need to say 'God opposes you Hitler, therefore I vote against you.'
I'm glad that he had influence, but how he had influence is
another matter.
Frankly, it should be a simple matter for a person -- theist or atheist --
to conclude that Hitler's philosophy was deeply flawed and his application
of it disturbingly evil. The method of Bonhoeffer's approach was wholly
unnecessary; we don't need a God to conclude that Hitler was wrong.
I'm concerned about blanket generalizations trying to exclude religious enfluence from the policies of the secular state. I am concerned about tossing out the baby with the bathwater.
In a state that professes the true separation between the two, the
'baby' and 'bathwater' should never touch. Religion should not inform
political decisions, nor should political decisions inform religious ones.
For example, on the matter of gay marriage: whereas it makes no
sense outside of a religious context to oppose gay marriage, if gay
marriage were nationally legalized, a religious institution should be,
in no way whatsover, obligated to recognize or perform such marriages. That is, I would oppose a law in Vermont that forced
a church to perform such ceremonies, because that would impinge upon
the freedom of religion.
Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywillPerhaps you think "tolerance" toward gay marriage would only be represented in a yes vote encouraging it? If that is your criteria that only support of a thing represents tolerance, then I am willing to be labelled "intolerant" on this issue.
Perhaps you think "tolerance" toward gay marriage would only be represented in a yes vote encouraging it? If that is your criteria that only support of a thing represents tolerance, then I am willing to be labelled "intolerant" on this issue.
The problem with your thinking no religious opinions should have place in decision making process, I think is n ...[text shortened]... articipation?
I'll cut this post here and look at your other comments latter.
Thanks.
Why do you think that a "yes" vote would be encouraging it? It would not. It would only be making it legal. Happily, you recognise yourself as a bigot.
The problem with your thinking no religious opinions should have place in decision making process, I think is not wise.
Let's see. A rephrasal is required here, I think.
"The problem with your thinking that no paedophilic opinions should have place in decision making process, I think is not wise."
How does that grab you?
Here's another one. Suppose your local Muslim group found evidence that your neighbours back yard was an extremely holy site. They want to build a shrine there. There will be many visitors. Would you try to envoke planning laws to prevent this from happening? What if it were Christians, perhaps you'd be a little less concerned then, no?
Some high court in the US has deemed Atheism as a religion. So atheist are not allowed to vote because of the enfluence of thier atheist views upon their political participation?
They are wrong. Atheism is not religion. It's a lack of religion. Please provide some documentary evidence of your statement.
4 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio---------------------------------------
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]What country do you live in?
USA, in Pittsburgh, PA. (It says this in my profile.)
Bonhoeffer was a Christian theologian who was opposed to Hitler's Nazism. Do you think it was better that Bonhoffer had less enfluence on the political process of that day? Do you wish that he had had more enfluence on peo should political decisions inform religious ones.
the freedom of religion.
Nemesio
There are plenty of secular arguments against Hitler. He would have no need to say 'God opposes you Hitler, therefore I vote against you.' I'm glad that he had influence, but how he had influence is another matter.
----------------------------------------
I think your whole approach to defining a definite line between "secular" and "religious" is ambiguous and unenforcible.
You may not believe in the power of prayer. But the Bible says that the prayer of a righteous person avials much. Are you going to have prayer police to insure that "religiou" people are not praying for the outcome of a political decision?
You don't know how many decisions a statesman may make because of a spiritual book she may have read, or because of a hymn to God which he once sung, or because of a sermon or gospel message. How are your going to insure that none of this "religious" influenced decisions are not going to effect policy?
Do you suggest a "religious cleansing" campaign to assure society that no concepts about God or judgment or mercy or accountability or fairness, etc. are in anyway affecting people's votes? I think the best you can do may be to work for laws that remove tax exemption from religious institutions which actively involve in direct support of political candidates. I think that is fair.
I don't think a American Communist style Cultural Revolution to insure that no one has "religion" in their thought process in political matters is Orwellean and will fail. It is likely to encrease people's reaching out to a Higher Power rather than decrease it.
By the way I lived in Pittsburgh, East Hills area for a while in the 60s.
---------------------------------------------
Frankly, it should be a simple matter for a person -- theist or atheist --
to conclude that Hitler's philosophy was deeply flawed and his application of it disturbingly evil. The method of Bonhoeffer's approach was wholly unnecessary; we don't need a God to conclude that Hitler was wrong.
----------------------------------------------
Hitler's philosophy was NOT a simple matter to dismiss if it was to see as evil. And you are talking about a people who produced great thinkers in philosophy, art, music, religion - Germany. This was the shock. That is that in such a country such an evil thing could arise. It was not easy to dismiss. And it was not easy to stop from taking deep root in people's hearts and infesting the society.
You say "Well. religion was not necessary." We needed everything to put down Nazism. Do you think the 6,000,000 murdered Jews would have asked that no religious thinking people please come to their assistance? Can you see them saying "No Theists Please Get Involved. We'd like to solve this problem strictly along secular reasons."
I would like to relate this matter to the purpose of my thread. This is on a Simple Way to Experience Christ.
In any and all matters the Christian should seek to be in touch with the living Christ. Moment by moment the believer should seek to abide in the realm of Christ. I do not claim that the Lord Jesus has told me what candidate I should vote for. But I do maintain that in all matters He says "Abide in Me and I in you". The believer should learn to bring all matters under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in a spontaneous way.
You cannot stop spiritually thirsty people from abiding in Christ in every area of their lives, including how they feel to vote. But I think it is fair that religious institutions which support candidates in a specific way should be considered taxable institutions.
-----------------------------------------
For example, on the matter of gay marriage: whereas it makes no
sense outside of a religious context to oppose gay marriage, if gay
marriage were nationally legalized, a religious institution should be,
in no way whatsover, obligated to recognize or perform such marriages. That is, I would oppose a law in Vermont that forced
a church to perform such ceremonies, because that would impinge upon
-------------------------------------------
I don't want the thread to become a debate on gay marriage. My theme here is mostly a Simple Way to Experience Christ. But reasons to oppose or support legalized homosexual marriage would come from others quarters as well. I think socialogists and psychologists have their own reasons to support or not support it.
Once again, I don't think that God is a religious God. And I don't thing that God is the God of religion. I think God is the God of reality.
Gravity is not a force only applicable in the physics lab. Gravity is a force everywhere. Gravity is not the force confined to the physics lab. It is a force pervading the univese. And that it does whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or not.
You may want to lock God away in religious people's private prayer closets and keep Him there. But God is not going to stay locked in people's private prayer closet. And people will make decisions conciously and unconsciously because of the influence of God upon thier thinking. We hope that it is healthy and not warped thinking. From a Christian perspective we hope that believers are abiding in Christ and He is abiding in them as He taught.
I don't think there is any "religious" God anymore than there is a "educational" law of gravity.
Originally posted by scottishinnzChanging the issue to be about me?
You are certainly not trying to display tolerance, or even the rudiments of Christian behaviour.
You show us then how a disciple of Jesus should live.
I always am eager to follow others as they follow Christ.
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think a yes vote for it or a candidate in support of it would be an encouragement to it.
[b] Perhaps you think "tolerance" toward gay marriage would only be represented in a yes vote encouraging it? If that is your criteria that only support of a thing represents tolerance, then I am willing to be labelled "intolerant" on this issue.
Why do you think that a "yes" vote would be encouraging it? It would not. It would only be making t's a lack of religion. Please provide some documentary evidence of your statement.[/b]
I think a no vote towards it or a candidate who supports it would be a discouragement of it. Seems simple enough.
I think that the bigot is yourself. I have a brother who died of AIDs in the gay community. And I have another very close relative who is in the gay philosophy. For many years I have expressed my Christian love towards both of them.
I think that the bigot is you in your self righteous eagerness to pass judgment on "religious" people. And it could be a sign of cowardly comformity in that whatever strong trend takes hold in society, you drift complacently along with the current under the guise of "tolerance".
The section of Scripture I quoted homosexuality was listed not above other damaging tendencies as covetousness, drunkeness, rapaciousness, idolatry, fornication, adultery. It was place on equal footing with coveteousness for example. There is always the teaching to be centered on the living Christ rather than to be centered upon some particular sinful behavior.
I am not a political activist. But I also am not going to succumb to a movement that the "religious" God is not allowed to effect the secular state. It is not possible for you to cleanse out of political participation people whose thinking may be influenced by some aspect of their spiritual beliefs, whether Christian or otherwise.
You are going to find that I will try to relate these things to the topic heading that I have chosen - A Simple Way to Experience Christ.
So your further supposedly shocking examples of political situations are not of much interest to me. But if they were meant to really shake me up or place me in some hopeless moral delimma, sorry. They didn't.
The prevailing Christian church must learn to live in the midst of all kinds of societal situations. And history has shown that she can do that by the grace of God.
Coming back to a Simlpe Way to experience Christ.
Why should it bother some people that the Bible be practical in this regard? If a door is opened to give people a practical way to get into the experience of Jesus Christ, why should that seem wrong?
The bed rock bottom line of the New Testament is that Jesus is living. He is not gone. He is not dead. He is not none existent. He is raised from the dead and He is knowable, experiencable, practically available, and real.
The New Testament teaches that Christ is enjoyable and practical to get in touch with. He is just not at this time physically visible.
"The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
When He said that He came that we might have life and have it abundantly (John 10:10) He really meant that He came to give Himself. He is the life.
So calling on the name of the Lord with the intention to touch and contact the life giving Spirit which the last Adam Christ became is a practical way for us to get into the experience of all that the New Testament teaches.
I did not say calling was the only way. I say that it is a simple way. Calling on God is mentioned over 500 times in the whole Bible easily. The Psalms have many "O Lords" in them.
The simplicity of calling out to Jesus has passed many people. If you want to get to know God, why do you not talk to God? We can pour out our hearts to God. We can call on the name of Christ to experience His riches because He is rich to all who call upon Him.
David said that he called on God daily Psalm 88:1.
Originally posted by jaywillyada yada yada.
I think a yes vote for it or a candidate in support of it would be an encouragement to it.
I think a no vote towards it or a candidate who supports it would be a discouragement of it. Seems simple enough.
I think that the bigot is yourself. I have a brother who died of AIDs in the gay community. And I have another very close relative who is in the ...[text shortened]... s of societal situations. And history has shown that she can do that by the grace of God.
You try to tell me that you would not support the right of gay people to get married, yet I'm the bigot?
Oh, and you should be happy about your dead brother. Except, of course, for the fact that he's went to hell, if you are right.
Originally posted by jaywillAMEN! JEesus Loves You Brothur.
Coming back to a Simlpe Way to experience Christ.
Why should it bother some people that the Bible be practical in this regard? If a door is opened to give people a practical way to get into the experience of Jesus Christ, why should that seem wrong?
The bed rock bottom line of the New Testament is that Jesus is living. He is not gone. He is not dead ...[text shortened]... He is rich to all who call upon Him.
David said that he called on God daily Psalm 88:1.
Originally posted by jaywillSo, the current government encourages drinking and adultery, or do you think we should
I think a yes vote for it or a candidate in support of it would be an encouragement to it.
I think a no vote towards it or a candidate who supports it would be a discouragement of it. Seems simple enough.
make these things illegal to discourage them?
Nemesio
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioThis thread I am concentrating on a Simple Way to Experience Christ. So my comments will be related to that subject.
So, the current government encourages drinking and adultery, or do you think we should
make these things illegal to discourage them?
Nemesio
The experience of Christ is not just for Sunday. It is not just for when you are in trouble. The experience of Christ should permeate every area of our life. That includes our politics and our civic involvement.
We first should be born of the Spirit in regeneration. Then we should learn to walk by the Spirit in our daily lives.
What you are really talking about is walking by the knowledge of good and evil. The life of a son of God is walking by the indwelling life that one receives from receiving Christ into thier spirit.
You then should bring all of your activities one by one under the leading of the Holy Spirit. You should allow the indwelling Christ to permeate your tastes and attitudes and actions. This is a growth process. Just as natural growth matures with time so does spiritual growth take time to mature.
Jesus said "As the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me" (John 6:57)
To eat Him means to take Him into us. To absorb the living Christ daily. We enjoy Him in the word of God. We enjoy Him in calling on His name and in praying and fellowshipping and reading the Bible. And we enjoy Him by learning to go step by step with Him into all activities.
This would include civic involvement, listening, voting, participation in politics. The experience of Christ should permeate and saturate all areas of our living. The Christian is passing through. This world is temporary and its governement is temporary. The kingdoms of the world are to become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ.
All human governements Christ will eventually crush and replace with His kingdom of God. So I consider myself a pilgrim and a sojournor. We seek after a better country:
"But as it is, they long after a better country, that is a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed of them to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them" (Heb. 11:16)
This verse does not refer to going to heaven but of the enfluence of heaven's nature and kingdom upon the earth.
"For he (Abraham) eagerly waited for the city which has foundations, whose Architect and builder is God" (Heb 11:10)
I am not putting my ultimate trust in the governments of this world. I am a sojournor and a passerthrough. I am seeking a better country, a city of God. My participation in today's politics is with a view that this world is temporary and my destination is the kingdom of God.
In the mean time I bring my voting and my civic particapation more and more under the Lordship of the Holy Spirit. I don't want to make even a right decision if it is apart from the Holy Spirit. I don't want to live by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I want to live by the tree of life.
Originally posted by scottishinnzConcerning my brother. I said nothing to you about his eternal destiny. What did I say about him going to hell? I said nothing concerning his eternal salvation.
yada yada yada.
You try to tell me that you would not support the right of gay people to get married, yet I'm the bigot?
Oh, and you should be happy about your dead brother. Except, of course, for the fact that he's went to hell, if you are right.
I said nothing about his destiny in that regards as to whether I knew it or did not know it.
Yes you are a biggot against Christians. But it is Okay. In the last two thousand years one more petty little bigot won't make much difference. Do the best you can.
Originally posted by NemesioI think that some of us should satisfy our thirst by learning to experience Christ, regardless of your vote.
So, the current government encourages drinking and adultery, or do you think we should
make these things illegal to discourage them?
Nemesio
I think that some of us should learn to walk by the indwelling Holy Spirit in our marriage relationships. And that regardless of how we vote.
My focus is on the experience of Christ in preparation for the kingdom of God to come. My hope is not ultimately on this system or any other human governemt system. My focus is on the government of God from within.
As a growing Christian pray for our leaders and I vote that we may have a peaceful environment to spread the gospel and live the new testament church life.
Things that I think will damage the environment and create a unfavorable atmosphere to have the church life and preach the gospel to the lost world, these are the things seek would be limited.
Government helps to make limitations. I am not voting to create a utopia. The laws are imperfect. And the result will cause someone to be unhappy somewhere.
My focus is on limitation of chaos so that there is a peaceful situation in the country to have the new testament church life and preach the good news of Christ's salvation.
At this present time I think that homosexual marriage is a kind of idolatry. That is not to say that heterosexual relationships cannot also be idolatrous also. That is on a spiritual level. On a mental health level I presently feel that homosexulity is a kind of arrested psychological development.
As far as the USA is concerned my suspicion is that the gay movement came out of the disillusionment of the free love of the 60s. I think the broken hearts, broken relationships, lying promises of happiness at unrestrained fornication, etc. these were the seeds leading for damaged people to seek further happiness in homosexual relationships.
Its an opinion.
I would not be in favor of any mob violence or evil acts against gay people.