Republicans and Christianity

The Rogue Tomato said:
It's the theocracy part that I have trouble with.  Even under the Mosaic law, the Jews were not instructed to impose their laws upon the gentiles.  Translated to present day, I don't see where it is the responsibility of believers to police the behavior of unbelievers.  There are certain "sins" that must be policed (like murder) in order to maintain a civil society.  But that's not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Completely true.  Too many times Christians in America today attempt to police the behavior of non-believers.  Non-Christians should not logically be expected to behave like Christians.  However, there are plenty of people that believe America to be a Christian nation and that the laws of America should conform to Biblical principles.  Is America the new Israel or is it the new Babylon?  Belief on this subject largely depends on generation though it doesn't always do so.  Older Christians tend to view America as the new Israel while younger Christians are more likely to see it as Babylon.  The believer's approach to the government and politics will naturally be very different depending on what view he or she holds.
 
Every law is based on someone's morality.  I prefer to use the eternal truth of God's Word as my source of morality.  No law equals anarchy.  It's not a question of a law not being a moral issue, the only question is whose morality is used to base the law on.
 
T-Bone said:
Every law is based on someone's morality.  I prefer to use the eternal truth of God's Word as my source of morality.  No law equals anarchy.  It's not a question of a law not being a moral issue, the only question is whose morality is used to base the law on.
Click to expand...

That brings everything back to the question of how much and what actually gets implemented and enforced.  There is a certain morality that applies to people of all faiths and no faith.  Things like laws against murder, stealing, rape, physical assault, etc are things everybody can agree are wrong and should be illegal.  There are other moral issues that are sin for Christians but the secular wouldn't wouldn't consider them to be sins.  If we are to have a nation based on Biblical law and morality, what laws are on the books and what aren't?  What about the punishment?  Should the US institute the death penalty for all sins that require it in Leviticus?
 
Smellin Coffee said:
Do you believe gay rights are the equivalent of civil rights?


I believe that gay people should be able to receive the same health/legal benefits as married people. It should be about personhood, you know: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What constitutes materialism?

What constitutes greed? Pride? Critical spirit vs. discerning spirit? Testimony vs. gossip? Gluttony? Drunkenness? Is there a line of demarcation to any of those things?

How much wealth amounts to an unnecessary amount.

That would be relative. The single mom in Southern California with 6 kids, two with medical conditions might need more for her family's well-being than say, a healthy married couple, both employed with no children living in rural Nebraska.

To equate what Scripture calls perversion with some 'unnecessary accumulation of wealth' is, to use a theological term, a crock!

Where does the Bible even mention the idea of a government-endorsed marriage between same-sex partners? Jesus on the other hand, did mention accountability to God for hoarding one's earthly possessions.
Click to expand...

Gay people do have the exact same civil rights that I do or you do.
Civil unions give them exactly that.
But they want Marriage to be re-defined....politically.


I note that you leave out killing your baby as a civil right....because you're really concerned with consistency!

Greed and the amount of wealth one has accumulated are not the same....poor people can be greedy...it's a matter of the heart not the pocketbook.

Congratulations, Dan, you are in essence a Democrat!
 
QuestioningIFB said:
T-Bone said:
Every law is based on someone's morality.  I prefer to use the eternal truth of God's Word as my source of morality.  No law equals anarchy.  It's not a question of a law not being a moral issue, the only question is whose morality is used to base the law on.
Click to expand...

That brings everything back to the question of how much and what actually gets implemented and enforced.  There is a certain morality that applies to people of all faiths and no faith.  Things like laws against murder, stealing, rape, physical assault, etc are things everybody can agree are wrong and should be illegal.  There are other moral issues that are sin for Christians but the secular wouldn't wouldn't consider them to be sins.  If we are to have a nation based on Biblical law and morality, what laws are on the books and what aren't?  What about the punishment?  Should the US institute the death penalty for all sins that require it in Leviticus?
Click to expand...

Your questions about application don't even apply to Christians as far as the penalty part.  We don't apply the law and the penalty for breaking it in the same way as God instructed Israel to apply it in their society during that period of time. 

The basis for what is true and right does not change with social evolution.  As for the laws that are accepted by society as a whole...I guarantee you that they will reflect the moral nature, whether good or bad, of the society accepting and enacting those laws.  Even murder today is a relative term...the application of no murder is dependent on the definition of the group applying it.  I say the taking of innocent life at any time is murder....others say in the womb it is not murder....others say capital punishment of the guilty is murder.  Every law is based on morality...the question is whose morality should be used...I prefer the truth and a morality that comes from our Creator.
 
QuestioningIFB said:
T-Bone said:
Every law is based on someone's morality.  I prefer to use the eternal truth of God's Word as my source of morality.  No law equals anarchy.  It's not a question of a law not being a moral issue, the only question is whose morality is used to base the law on.
Click to expand...

That brings everything back to the question of how much and what actually gets implemented and enforced.  There is a certain morality that applies to people of all faiths and no faith.  Things like laws against murder, stealing, rape, physical assault, etc are things everybody can agree are wrong and should be illegal.  There are other moral issues that are sin for Christians but the secular wouldn't wouldn't consider them to be sins.  If we are to have a nation based on Biblical law and morality, what laws are on the books and what aren't?  What about the punishment?  Should the US institute the death penalty for all sins that require it in Leviticus?
Click to expand...

I think you miss the point.
T-Bone is exactly right, all law legislates morality.

I would be perfectly happy if the government stayed out of most thinhgs in our lives, but they don't or won't.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
But they want Marriage to be re-defined....politically.
Click to expand...

And I have no problem with that, as long as I get to redefine what lesbian means.  I want it to include heterosexual males.  And if a heterosexual male happens to go to a lesbian bar and gets treated differently, I want that "lesbian" to be able to sue for violation of civil rights. 

 
The Rogue Tomato said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
But they want Marriage to be re-defined....politically.
Click to expand...

And I have no problem with that, as long as I get to redefine what lesbian means.  I want it to include heterosexual males.  And if a heterosexual male happens to go to a lesbian bar and gets treated differently, I want that "lesbian" to be able to sue for violation of civil rights.
Click to expand...

According to liberal Democrat logic, that is a perfectly logical argument!  :)
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
The Rogue Tomato said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
But they want Marriage to be re-defined....politically.
Click to expand...

And I have no problem with that, as long as I get to redefine what lesbian means.  I want it to include heterosexual males.  And if a heterosexual male happens to go to a lesbian bar and gets treated differently, I want that "lesbian" to be able to sue for violation of civil rights.
Click to expand...

According to liberal Democrat logic, that is a perfectly logical argument!  :)
Click to expand...

Yes.  And while we're at it, I want "gay couples" redefined to include heterosexual married persons.  And all rights and privileges currently reserved for minorities must be extended to everyone defined under that banner.  So, as a heterosexual married man, if anyone looks at me funny, I want to be able to sue them for harassing a member of gay couple. 

You know, there's actually a lot of truth behind this joke.  I was harassed at work at my last job.  I filed a complaint, but HR said I had no standing because I was not a minority.  So, if a minority was treated the way I was, they would have a course of action to correct the complaint.  But not me, because I'm not a minority. 

 
Gay people do have the exact same civil rights that I do or you do.
Civil unions give them exactly that.
But they want Marriage to be re-defined....politically.

So what? Is "politically" the same as "spiritually"? Not in my world.

I note that you leave out killing your baby as a civil right....because you're really concerned with consistency!

I'm for the civil right of the baby. :) Again, the right for: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. First point says it all.

Greed and the amount of wealth one has accumulated are not the same....poor people can be greedy...it's a matter of the heart not the pocketbook.


I agree. Hence, in my original post on the topic, I included the phrase "without distribution". Meaning, one does not hoard what he has nor neglect from the needs of others when it is in his power to help. You know, the kinda action Jesus warned against.

Congratulations, Dan, you are in essence a Democrat!


Funny thing...the Dems think I'm a Republican! I guess I really AM planted in the radical middle!

 
Smellin Coffee said:
Gay people do have the exact same civil rights that I do or you do.
Civil unions give them exactly that.
But they want Marriage to be re-defined....politically.

So what? Is "politically" the same as "spiritually"? Not in my world.

I note that you leave out killing your baby as a civil right....because you're really concerned with consistency!

I'm for the civil right of the baby. :) Again, the right for: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. First point says it all.

Greed and the amount of wealth one has accumulated are not the same....poor people can be greedy...it's a matter of the heart not the pocketbook.


I agree. Hence, in my original post on the topic, I included the phrase "without distribution". Meaning, one does not hoard what he has nor neglect from the needs of others when it is in his power to help. You know, the kinda action Jesus warned against.

Congratulations, Dan, you are in essence a Democrat!


Funny thing...the Dems think I'm a Republican! I guess I really AM planted in the radical middle!
Click to expand...

Right Dan...I don't look to the Republicans, you Democrats or any politician for moral guidance.....that's why it's called a political party!  ;)

And, killing babies is one of the foundational platforms of your party.
The greed issue is a smokescreen...I noted how little Obama and Biden donated to charity personally, while championing giving hand outs to the pooooor with our money.

Dan, you articulate the 'liberal greedy capitalistic', 'gay is a civil' right drivel of the Democrits
If it quacks like a duck.....
 
Just cam from a fundraising meet and greet for my district's congressional candidate.
He defeated a republican 'establishment' candidate in the primary.

Our district is a Republican district, so he's very likely to be elected....the district I previously lived in was gerrymandered to be Democratic...it looked like a snake thru the middle of our state.

I think both parties are guilty of gerrymandering districts....which is why very few congressional districts are competitive!
 
aleshanee said:
ALAYMAN said:
The Rogue Tomato said:
"I Increasingly Find Conflict Between My Faith and Some Conservative Discourse"

http://www.redstate.com/2014/08/21/my-faith-and-conservative-populism-are-colliding-more-frequently/
Click to expand...

That was a good read,  and I found resonance with all of his points.  I heard a little of Anne Colter's rant about the Ebola missionaries, and was disgusted with her brand of conservatism.
Click to expand...

i agree with all the points in his article.... but i still think the missionary doctors could have been treated for their exposure to ebola in place or in a separated area
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing.  There's a reason we used to screen people for diseases before allowing them into the country.  We could have been just as humane without introducing the risk. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top