FROM 1970S CHICAGO TO 2018 WHEATON: A TIMELINE OF EVANGELICAL BACKSLIDING
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
So what happened?
Politics happened. A political assault and takeover was successfully executed by the Republican right wing — and the “Religious Right” was born. White evangelicals, in particular, were targeted by a far-right movement steeped in racism and were deliberately politicized. It is now painfully clear that the evangelical world was strategically and politically co-opted — not by more conservative evangelical leaders, but by political operatives from the Republican Party who saw a real opportunity to take over the evangelical world by making particular appeals to “conservative social issues.”
This isn’t hyperbolic rhetoric. Those right-wing political operatives — like Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, Kevin Phillips, and Terry Dolan — would later say as much about what they did and how they did it to recruit white evangelicals. They approached fundamentalist leaders like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and offered to make them household names if they gave them their mailing lists. Richard Viguerie, now a cordial dialogue partner of mine and ally on ending capital punishment, was the direct mail guru of the day. Richard and his fellow Republican activists created new organizations like the Moral Majority, with Falwell and Robertson as the public figures with them — the political operatives — behind the scenes. That politicization of white evangelicals has now culminated in their unbelievable, uncritical support for a man like Donald Trump.
This was never a theological debate; it was a political take-over — and it worked. While Sojourners was referenced as “young evangelicals” in the 1970s, by 1980, we were called an “alternative to the Religious Right” — and those on the right have called us leftist ever since. I have always resisted being called “the religious left.” Sojourners cares so deeply about poverty and racism and war because of the Bible, not because of political ideology. “Progressive evangelicals,” as some of us are now called, have regularly challenged the Democrat’s extreme positions on abortion, have affirmed covenantal sexuality, and consistently push Democrats to go much deeper on both racism and poverty — which is why so many of us feel politically homeless. Now already, the far-right is targeting young evangelicals of color, some of whom were the co-chairs of the Wheaton meeting, as “political,” on the left, as Democrats and Obama supporters. They continue to try to politicize us despite the historical fact that it is they and their far-right allies who have been the ones to politicize the evangelical world.
Evangelical scholar and activist Lydia Bean told the Wheaton meeting last week that the far-right doesn’t even need religious figures anymore to reach their evangelical targets, as Fox News has captured the white evangelical audience and can reach them directly now. Even evangelical megachurch pastors wearily tell me, “I have my people for about two hours a week if I’m lucky, but Fox News has them 24/7. I can’t compete with that.” Is MSNBC partisan, too? Of course, but they and other cable and mainstream outlets don’t represent religious people, and often even neglect or disrespect them. The “liberal media” actually likes to cover the Religious Right and Trump evangelicals because of the way it paints Christianity as extreme, which confirms existing biases — and gets clicks.
Tags
Who is online
198 visitors
Backsliding , which is otherwise called falling away [1] or committing apostasy , [2] is a term used within Christianity to describe a process by which an individual who has converted to Christianity reverts to pre- conversion habits and/or lapses or falls into sin , when a person turns from God to pursue their own desire. [3] To revert to sin or wrongdoing, especially in religious practice, someone who lapses into previous undesirable patterns of behavior. [
~WIKI~
Christian conservatives voting Republican is not backsliding no matter how much our detractors try to say it.
Impeached President Donald Trump is on record as having been caught telling 15,000+ lies, half-truths, and misleading statements thereabouts since taking office.
Well, "Donald J. Trump fan 1" what say you?
Trump can no more tell the truth than I can unbend a pretzel.
HA!
They are "Matthew 23" Christians. They value the Gold over the word of Christ.
A ridiculous sweeping generalization
For those tRump White Evangelical supporters who applaud his caging of children and denying SNAP to poor children and the elderly and bragged about it at the SOTU today's first reading of the 5th Sunday in Ordinary time should provide you guidance to change your ways.
From IS 58:7-10" Thus says the LORD: shelter the oppressed and the homeless; clothe the naked ...do not turn your back on your own. Then your light shall break forth like dawn...and the LORD will answer your cry for help; and he will say: Here I am! If you remove from your midst oppression, false accusations, and malicious speech. If you bestow bread on the hungry and satisfy the afflicted;...then the light shall rise for you in darkness."
This is a critical proof of Christianity. Great point.
James 1:27
Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.
And...
...are good points, but ancillary to the real task. These are not ends in themselves but the means by which we bring Christ to others. We do these things to point to Christ. We do them because they are what Jesus did. Not that I am trying to downplay good works. They are vitally important, but it bears reminding they aren't the goal itself.
I say this because I think there is a tendency for the humanist left to do their own version of what this article is about. That is, people who don't actually believe in God or Christ to co-opt more liberal Christians into losing site of Christ and instead, replacing him with social justice and relativism. Especially relativism, which I see as having infected a large portion of the more "progressive" churches.
Can liberal Christians be mature Christians, Drakkonis?
Well, my brother, what say you to the question?
What do you consider a liberal Christian to be?
A brother or sister in Christ, filled with the Spirit of God. Can liberal Christians be mature Christians, Drakkonis?
What is the difference between a liberal Christian and a non-liberal Christian? That is what Drakk is asking you since you used the adjective 'liberal'.
Hi Tig. Drak wrote the above @3.1.1. I presume he knows what a liberal Christian is since he presumes we can be "gathered up" into humanism by way of abandoning our spiritual convictions to faith and service to God, Jesus, and Spirit.
The word, "infected" is telling. As Drak writes, I see as having infected a large portion of the more "progressive" churches. It is a slam.
I am writing back to him in a manner which as a person in this faith he can relate to. Right now, I am do not intent a protracted discussion about liberal and conservative Christian theologies. I desire Drak to explain whether or not to his way of thinking liberal Christians can be mature Christians!
One point needs to be further elaborated on: Progressive churches do not reject (orthodox) biblical teachings, in order to respect and establish the progresses of science.
Okay CB, but I think Drakk asked a non-challenging question to ensure he knew what you meant by 'liberal Christian' so that he could give you a proper answer.
I replied: "A brother or sister in Christ, filled with the Spirit of God."
It is a qualified statement complete with meaning to a fellow believer. No disrespect to you, but Drak will comprehend all that is packed within such a simple statement. It avoids a lengthy theological discussion.
My question for Drak gets to the heart of the matter: Can liberal Christians be mature Christians?
It is clear to the informed believer, a mature Christian does not easily abandon his or her faith in God, because it becomes a part of his or her identity. I want Drak to declare why he sees progressive churches as discounted (spiritually).
While I await your return and reply to my standing question: I have another in a series for you, Drak.
Donald Trump demonstrates he is a man who makes no apology for anything we can point to; who makes no statement of repentance; who can see no need for forgiveness in his life-or words to that effect; who displays only force and negligible humility; who tell lies without bounds; and, who is near totally self-interested and self-absorbed.
Questions:
My answer will have to wait until the weekend. I have no time until then.
Mm-hmm. Okay.
You didn't answer my question as to what you consider a liberal Christian to be. That's okay. I'll tell you what I consider a liberal Christian to be. My answer to your question should then be obvious, but I will explain further anyway.
A liberal Christian is one who attempts to juxtapose Christian concepts and morals with humanist concepts and morals. This cannot be done without rejecting Christianity. To quote Justin Steckbauer…
The message and the purpose of the Church becomes co-opted by secular humanistic concerns. The mature Christian knows that none of these things, should they even be actual problems that can be solved societally, can be solved by political activism but, rather, by a changed heart brought about by God through Jesus Christ. Instead of preaching Jesus Christ as savior and strengthening believers, they replace Christ with humanistic social justice causes and claiming Jesus is on their side.
Jesus had one, and only one, "cause". It was to bring people to his Father through is sacrifice for their sins. He didn't advocate for movements to eliminate poverty. He challenged the individual to help the poor as a result of their repentance and turning toward God. Do you get what I'm saying? He didn't tell them to organize and go eliminate poverty. He told them, as an individual, go feed the poor because that's what God wants you to do, regardless of what anyone else does, in order to show God's love for the hungry.
And for his Church, go feed the poor. You, yourselves. Not, go make everyone else feed the poor. Not, go force the government to feed the poor. He wants us to do that not to eliminate hunger but to show God's love for them through us. It's important you understand that. Ending hunger in itself is not God's goal. Showing God's love for those who hunger through us, His servants, is the goal. To bring them to Him.
But that isn't the liberal Christian's goal. It's political activism to end hunger through human effort. It's the idea that we humans have the power to change the world if we just try. That's complete crap. We can't even change ourselves. We certainly can't change the world. The best we can do is obey God and do what He empowers us to do to bring people to Him. Only God can change us, as individuals.
So, to answer your question, no. I don't think the liberal Christian can be a mature Christian. What prevents them is that they allow the pressure of society to influence their relationship with God. I do not think they surrender completely to God's will but instead, try to make peace with the world and it's systems.
Now, to be fair, those who fall under the political description of conservative Christian are nearly as wrong as liberal Christians. They don't distort Christ's message as badly, but they still misuse it politically. I find it very sad that any pastor associates with Presidents at all, except for the Presidents personal pastor. Trump is not someone I would give my blessing to in the manner we so often see clergy doing in the press. It is pretty clear he is not a Christian in any sense I can understand and the pastors who cater to him seem more interested in political power than the Gospel.
But that, as I said, is the political description of conservative Christian. My own definition is one who does not exclude something in scripture that is there or include something that isn't. Don't try to interpret it to fit the times. God doesn't change, nor does His message to us.
Where to start! Okay, let's start with your statement I did not answer your question. Actually, I did. My answer: A liberal Christian is (Christian being the operative word): "A brother or sister in Christ, filled with the Spirit of God."
I am not inclined at this point in time to copy and paste for you text on a liberal theological viewpoint! Suffice it to say, that is not what protestant churches are doing at this stage of development. Some of us liberal Christians are taking perspective from our experiences, the Word, and daily living to make practical applications in the world around us.
Deep in your message you demonstrate why you can not accept my answer (after the theological interlude) when you wrote: "[N]o. I don't think the liberal Christian can be a mature Christian. "
That answer speaks volumes. Basically, you have subordinated the liberal Christian to being a 'milktoast' Christian who is something shallow and 'worldly' who as long as s/he is a liberal, can not achieve the deeper things of spirituality.
I reject your written characterization and my assessment of it.
"A brother or sister in Christ, filled with the Spirit of God." Has the spirit of God and can leave the elementary things of baptisms, holy days, affirmations, etceteras, having moved on to the love, joy, peace, and certainly the rigors of daily living and walking in spiritual devotion to God.
More in another comment.
No you did not, as I noted @3.1.8 (which you did not take to heart). You did not distinguish a liberal Christian from a Christian and that is what Drakk asked you.
Largely I am going to leave this exchange to you and CB, but I do not understand this
. You believe that God picked Trump as leader. That seems to contradict the above. That is, why would you second-guess God's choice and not give your blessing to Trump?
The list you mention above is simply a recognition of what life is about—people. I have it on good authority that being a Christian requires of me to walk upright in spirit, and it requires me to live in peace with others—including others who are not 'spirit-washed.' In other words, I came out of the world. There remains an indefinite number of folks who did not! I am set-apart in my expression of faith—these folks are not connected to my 'source' of faith and have no communion with the Spirit. For them, it is enough that they recognize that I have something to put faith in which makes me a better human being.
Life is about people. People who do good deeds. The non-criminal element among us. The Good News of the Gospel does not get drowned out when we remember to put people first! After all Drak, people are born to faith in God at different ages and phases in life. Meaning not all of us, certainly not, come as children. So what were we when we are bid, "come"? People come from the 'fields' of this world. People come from your 'list.'
And the Spirit gives power for each 'newcomer' to be better than s/he was before.
Actually loving people is second to loving God.
The Spirit does not command us to take up 'arms' to go and compel (force) people into our spiritual way of living. As we in our own time 'come' —others use their choice to come or not to come. The Spirit does not tell us to restrict our openness to loving other people-people put up walls, rules, laws, and obstructions when people make demands of other people irrespective of the unsaved state of their being.
If one is not in the spirit, from where comes the power to live as such?
More later.
Being filled with the Spirit of God is not an indication of maturity. In Acts 10, where the Spirit sends Peter to Cornelius, Cornelius and his household accept Christ and receive the Holy Spirit. You would not claim that these were mature Christians, would you?
I don't know you well enough to critique what you believe. Nor is critiquing you the point. Nor do I claim that all who thinks of themselves as liberal are guilty of what I have outlined. This is why I asked you to define what you think of as liberal concerning Christianity. Apparently, you feel simply having the Holy Spirit makes one mature. I think I have disproved this well enough.
In any case, I have outlined what I think is a liberal Christian. If you wish to debate that, fine. Otherwise, you simply are making rather vague comments that I can't really comment on.
I don't know about spirituality. That is, I don't know what you mean by it. To my mind, based on what you've said so far, you mean something like, how something makes you feel. I feel good when I hold this view or something like that. Being Christian isn't about feeling spiritual. It is about knowing God and being obedient to Him. That certainly involves spirituality, but spirituality is a side effect. The relationship is what is primary.
I'm afraid this makes no sense to me. It literally says to me that you reject my position and you reject your position that rejects mine.
Baptism is not an elementary thing that can be left behind and still be in God's will. As to holy days, affirmations (whatever you mean by those) and etcetera (again, whatever you mean by that as well) probably can be. As for love, joy and peace, those are benefits, not goals. If you treat them as goals, then you are trying to get something from God, not give. And walking in devotion to God should not be simply spiritual but in all areas of life. Thought, deed, head and heart. It means to do God's will rather than one's own. God wants us to have the same goals and attitudes of Christ. Christ's goals were to do his Father's will in all things and to be reunited with Him. Remember, in the book of John, he constantly claimed that he neither did or said anything on his own, but that everything came from the one who sent him. Jesus wasn't expressing his own ideas, he was telling us what his Father wanted to tell us.
That is where the liberal church goes wrong. They are about political activism. We need to create laws. We need to march. We need to draw attention to groups that, in truth, have no interest in God's will for their lives so that we can achieve some humanist idea of what is moral. The definition of liberal is...
That attitude does not work unless God Himself is liberal. Anyone who has read the Bible cannot claim that God is liberal. He has definite ideas about what is right and moral and He has definite ideas about our purpose in His creation. People confuse Christ's opposition to the "establishment" Jews of his time as liberalism but it wasn't. It was a refutation of their interpretation of God's will and intent. They see Christ's outreach to the sinners he came in contact with as an indication that it doesn't matter who you are or what you do, he still will accept you and love you. That's a distortion of the truth. In fact, he hated the sin in their lives and wanted to save them from it, not say what they were doing was okay. He gravitated to them because they were more aware of their helplessness before God than the self righteous were. He expected those who accepted him as savior to repent, meaning to go to God and stop what they were doing that was against God's will for them, not continue in it.
Again, this isn't about you, unless you fit the description I described concerning what I consider to be a liberal Christian. If you're more concerned about secular humanist hot buttons of the day then I guess this would be about you. If so, I am not trying to condemn you. I am trying to point out that this isn't the mission God gave us. Our mission is to tell about the saving grace of Jesus Christ, not "empower" liberal feminists who don't care about God in the first place but, instead, put their ideal of womanhood in His place. Empowering someone's idea of sexuality as their god rather than the true God. We are not helping them when we do that. We may get a good feeling because we're following our perverted, not to be trusted emotions, but we aren't helping them.
We must not forget what this is all about. In the Garden, we made the decision that we could figure out good and evil ourselves. We didn't need God. Well, we were obviously wrong. It's no good trying to claim God, say we were wrong and still try to continue to do it our own way. It's no good saying we have good intentions and that's enough. We need to surrender completely to God's will and God's desires and leave our own behind. We have no business supporting a cause that doesn't have God as it's goal. That isn't the task God gave us.
Hi Tig, this is where I view Drak's question to be headed (and in my own way I am attempting to redirect it on purpose to something I feel more meaningful):
and
I get Drak's point! It is not mine, nevertheless.
I seek to point out there are an infinite number of bible believing Christians who combine love of God, bible, sciences, and yes practically in the human realm we respect that people are certainly important and in many ways have to be considered first! God being aware of these considerations, too!
As noted, I am not inclined to get fully involved in a semantics debate on what makes a true Christian. I was just trying to save you guys a little time with my clarifying comment.
Of course not! That goes without separate stating does it not! By now it is clear I have established using Christian parlance that I am aware of "baby Christians" and "mature Christians":
Paul is directing the mature Christian to move on to the deep things of God. Don't simply sit in the pews applying , reapplying , and misapplying this great faith in God we possess. Instead understand what it is to love— deeply . To love people who surround us in this world. To live i n peace with people traveling different paths than ourselves.
Not going around compelling people into a posture they have no effectual power to sustain ahead of it being granted them- if granted . Maturity in Christ allows us to see people as Jesus see people: Jesus possessed his body in control to the Spirit and allowed people to come along spiritually in time .
Do we live like someone not in Christ. Of course not! But, we accept them for whom they are-within the laws-in hopes of something more being found in them to appear at some later date or period.
I understand your confusion. I think it stems from what you may think God picking Trump as leader means. Generally, people think it means some sort of approval of the individual on God's part. It can mean that, but without doing a survey, my impression is that more often than not it has more to do with something God is trying to accomplish in human history than anything else.
In Exodus 9:16 God says of Pharaoh
I'm sure you are familiar with the story. God certainly didn't place Pharaoh as ruler over Egypt because He approved of him. He was a hard hearted man who thought himself divine. I think it likely he represented what the general Egyptian attitude had become of the Israelites since Joseph's day. God used Pharaoh for at least two reasons. One was to introduce Himself, in a manner of speaking, to the Israelites. The other was to show the world that He is God and has the power to prove it.
Another example would be Israel's first king, Saul. God was in every sense of the word, king over Israel but the Israelites sinned by asking for a human king instead. God knew what kind of man Saul was and that he would fail to obey Him. He did it anyway to show that a man could not take His place. He ended up rejecting Saul and Saul became a paranoid man living in constant fear. He was more concerned about being king for his own sake than serving as God's representative or serving the people.
David would be an example of a king that God approved of, calling him a man after His own heart and one, who generally was concerned about God's will for the Israelites and upholding His laws.
The point of all this is to demonstrate that because I believe God chose Trump as the leader of the country doesn't mean He did so because Trump is a good man. In all honesty, I don't know why God chose him. The day Trump got elected I wondered if it was a punishment for the direction this country has taken. It may be or may not be. Maybe Trump is just going to do something God desires to be done. In any case, just because I believe God put him there doesn't mean I am to consider him shrouded in God's glory or something. I'm pretty sure God is more disgusted with the man's narcissism than I am, for instance.
I do pray for the man, however. I pray that he turns to God. I pray that he does what is right. I pray that he stops tweeting.
Hopefully this answers your question.
That I knew from our past discussions.
With that in place, it is still the case that, per your beliefs, God intends for Trump to be PotUS. Why would you not give him your blessings since he is (whether or not he knows it) ostensibly fulfilling the will of God?
... so let's continue with your explanation ...
Based on your full answer it seems that you equate giving Trump your blessings with deeming Trump to be a good person. And your objection to those religious leaders treating Trump with great respect is that they seem to presume that God approves of Trump in entirety and that is not necessarily true.
That I can appreciate. So is it best to entirely disregard the notion that God picks leaders since there is no information that can be gleaned from that? The leader could be horrid, ideal or anything in between.
Much philosophical discussion is easily rounded up.
Your mistake, if you are indeed making one, is to assume that I am some alien form of Christianity opposite to your own. In that, you are inaccurate.
What I am, Brother Drak is entirely in Christ, operating in liberty, and more to the point I trust (have faith in) God in Jesus Christ to do what God says God will do. That is, I don't struggle to stay in the center of my faith, instead I live in it believing as Jesus put it: And I paraphrase: 'God's got me.'
Perhaps my operating in Christian liberty is of a kind unfamiliar to you. That is, some people are stressed out in their service to God. I am not!
I live a celibate life-style, but I am not 'uptight' in who I can associate myself. I, me, maintain my Christian discipline, not those who smoke, drink, or live out their being in the world surrounding me.
In other words, God found me "in the world" and saved me twenty plus years ago and as the song states: "It is no secret what God can do what God has done for others God can do for you!" —Written by: Stuart Hamblen. God can establish a new member in the faith or even drive faith deeper anywhere and anytime God wishes. There is no need for me to wring my hands over otherwise innocent people in the world, when they can watch my example of Christ-like living and ask me what is this hope I have that keeps me going.
Drak, there is so much about me to know in my faith walk, that you do not have to presume any thing; instead you and others can just ask me. I assure the sincere question will get answered straightway. Heck, this 'alien discordant sound' just might have harmony for you by the time we are done.
Then you have to define how you demonstrate love to your neighbor whom interfere in the daily 'workings' of their lives, through association with groups and policies which seek to restraint them from experiencing their life as they see fit apart from a love and knowledge of God, Jesus, and the Spirit. Where is the obedience in doing that? It may cause you and your group peers to "feel good," but those folks live oppressed existences under those policies and have no effectual spiritual presence to live as you 'compel' them to do.
Do you understand what is it to try to be a person of faith without the spiritual presence inside to will it?
Jesus stated this to any would-be believer:
Therefore, what of those who do not have "the Spirit"? They are in the fleshly, carnal-state, void of Spirit. They can not walk in what some Christians are attempting vainly to insist they walk in.
Good point! Well, I hope you got the point, despite the misstatement. As you can imagine life is happening all around us during the daylight hours and even into the evening hours. If you know what I meant by it. I will move on.
Galatians 5:25
“If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” King James Version (KJV)
I am not sure what your point is for parsing walking in peace, love, joy, out to me. Clearly, these are attitudes we 'walk' or partake of, and they are matters we pray over, through, and it times of testings and trials are keen to remember. Let us not argue 'basic' understanding in this time of sharing.
As far as our Lord Jesus, Jesus had a full measure of the Spirit (say 100%); no other human can walk in 100% measure of the Spirit. Any other person would be in error if he or she thinks s/he can do so.
What Jesus had for the people he walked among people was COMPASSION.
Apart from God, a man or woman has no power to live a spiritual life, God is not foolish or 'unclever' enough to demand what flesh has no ability to offer.
As to repentance, well I agree with the Believer, the one who is on the path, s/he should walk in the Spirit to the measure (30/60/90 percent) empowered.
Two points:
If you wish to picture this at work: Just remember how Christians recently whine, ring their hands, and set out for Capitol Hill when precious religious freedoms are tugged on and away! In a constitutional republic the believers and the pagans have rights and privileges equal to the other.
As a Christian Homosexual, meaning as one who knows that if he was to enter in a relationship at this time - it properly would be with another of the same sex, were it not for my spiritual power indwelling me I would return to my flesh nature. Consequently, it may be easy for you as someone 'equipped' to be naturally attuned to the heterosexual culture - if it be the case- to call other people's urges you can not relate to as "perverts," but I can and I will not.
One other point about that last, I will not deny the good people who passed through my life before I became Christian. I will speak well of them instead and I will honor them for who they were and are to me. I changed. The change does not make me ashamed of who I was then any more than I am not ashamed of the Gospel I live today!
Drak, will you be addressing this comment above?
Having read your posts since my last one it seems to me you've lost the thread of the discussion. I am not arguing that we should not love people. I am not arguing we should not walk in the spirit. I am arguing that the Church has no business in adopting secular humanist goals in a misguided attempt to make the message more appealing. All you end up doing is perverting the message or losing it all together. It is the enemy's goal to divert us from our mission by trying to convince us that supporting that nonsense is expressing God's love for them. What it in fact does is support them in the notion that they don't need God in the first place, thank you very much, because we can solve all our problems on our own and in our own image.
That is not the Christian message. The Christian message is that this world is broken and suffers as it does because of our separation from God and the only cure for the individual is to come back to God. It is most certainly not a mandate for making this world right again. That isn't going to happen, nor is it our mission.
To use an analogy, we're on a sinking ship. It's sinking because we thought we knew better than the Captain how to sail it. Nothing we can do will fix the ship, although everyone thinks they have some program that will work. A savior comes along and tells those who will listen that he's got a lifeboat and if we listen to him and obey what he says, we can find it and enter it and, eventually, take us to a new ship that will never sink. Then he leaves, telling those who have chosen to listen to him to go tell others about the lifeboat and they can enter it as well while he goes back to the other ship to prepare it for arrivals.
Now, how does it help those who think they can fix the ship by discarding the message about the lifeboat and instead focus on their useless plan to save the ship? How does it help them to encourage their idea of what is an acceptable way to spend what time they have left and how life on the ship should be lived before the end? They're still going down with the ship rather than getting in the life boat. They have not improved their situation one bit.
Imploring people to reject their secular ideas and turning to God is loving them. You quote Psalm 78 but that doesn't mean God forgives unconditionally or puts justice aside. Those verses mean that God does not take counsel of His just wrath in that moment but instead, remembers that we are merely sinful humans, unable to change ourselves. Instead, in His mercy, He stays is wrath and His justice for a time in order to give us time to repent.
What those verses do not mean is that God forgives everyone no matter what, like those who believe God isn't going to really let people go to Hell. He cannot do that and be a good God. That would be to say it doesn't matter whether we do what is right or what is evil, since it all turns out the same in the end. That is hardly good, especially considering the pain and suffering evil produces. Good demands that justice be done for every evil act. Every single one, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant.
God does forgive everyone but that forgiveness isn't some isolated thing floating around out there all by itself. It is connected to something. It is connected to the idea of turning back to God. Seeking Him out and obeying His will for our lives. That forgiveness is not a get out of jail free card. It is God saying "Yes, you've sinned. You've turned away from me but in spite of that I still love you and want you back, desperately. I forgive you, only come back." If we do not do that, do not turn back to Him, there is no forgiveness. Not because He takes it back but because we rejected that forgiveness.
I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean to impart to me.
The Christian message is encapsulated in John 3:16-21. Moreover, I made no claim that this world should be an utopian kingdom apart from God. Indeed, Paul points out:
No utopian outlook.
Still, this place need not be a hell-hole or 'shit-hole' for people to collect in for indefinite millenniums. We can live in peace (as much as it lies within each of other); trusting that what God says "Be" to will appear at the appointment time. We share the good within us with the watching and waiting world, another waters, and God will supply the increase (in God's appointment time).
Drak, that is meaning instilled in 'resting' in one's faith. Many people 'toil' in their faith. God never asks this: some church leaders do!
Drak, it is impossible for God to lose a soul meant for the kingdom, yes? (Then, God has Heaven under control!) There is nothing to fret, worry, be nervous about!
I mean this: In Galatians 5:22-23, the Fruit of the Spirit is a distinct and concise analysis of proof of being a Christian. Philosophical discussions regarding the characteristics of a Christian (mature or not), often wade right past this simple but true test of Christianity.
Not sectarian or political leanings, the proof is in the pudding so to speak.
The Spirit of God display these characteristics.
love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control
I agree with this completely, however...
… is not an example of this. What would be an actual example is trying to legislate access to birth control because of religious views. Legislating that stores and businesses must be closed on Sundays out of respect for the Sabbath.
We absolutely should storm Capitol Hill when religious freedoms are threatened in any way. Not simply ours, but anyone's. Even the non-religious. What would be an actual example is trying to legislate access to birth control.
I would not dream of telling you how to think of yourself but I will tell you what I think about what you've said here. If you reject your homosexual feelings as not in line with God's will for you and do not indulge in those desires for the sake of your love of God, I would not describe you as a Christian homosexual any more than I would describe a serial killer who repented and found God as a Christian murderer. As far as I am concerned, and I think the Bible backs me up, your identity is in Christ, not your homosexual feelings.
That said, I think we are all perverted in one way or another. Not as society uses the term but in that our nature conflicts with God's in one way or another. If it did not why would we have needed Christ's sacrifice? Psalm 53:3 says All have turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. Paul repeats this in Romans 3:10-12. As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
That's God's view of our righteousness. It isn't wrong to call homosexuality a perversion, nor practicing homosexuals perverts because that is what it is and what they are. But no more so than the heterosexual who practices sex outside of marriage. They are equally, not less, perverted because they are abusing what God intended. Even some married heterosexuals manage to pervert the sexual act because of how they treat it. And that I am heterosexual but celibate doesn't save me from perversion on my own part because of the desires I have in my heart that I know are not in line with God's desires. The fact that I don't indulge them does not make them less perverted.
And the idea that someone has nothing they can rightfully say about some particular sin because it isn't one they have to deal with isn't correct, either. Every single one of us struggles with sin. It is a common experience for every single Christian genuinely trying to obey God. There is nothing extra special about homosexual desire. We all know what it's like to struggle against our fleshly desires. Your situation is not unique.
Then I would suggest that perhaps God has not yet brought you to the full realization of your sin yet, nor what humility means. My question is, if you don't feel shamed at who you were, why did you change? Why do you resist the desire of your flesh? I certainly am ashamed of what I was and still have shame over what I still do. I feel shame because of how the things I still do reflect on my Lord. It doesn't rule my life but I long to be free of it. But I trust God to bring me along in His time.
I agree. My point is and has been that doing this does not mean supporting secular human causes. Like pretending that God is for the LGBTQ cause. That He supports the redistribution of wealth as defined by progressives. That He in fact supports any of what I previously quoted...
We are to treat every human being as having been made in God's image. That does not mean that they are God. It doesn't mean that we express some aspect of God simply because we are made in His image. It means we are capable of understanding Him to some extent and reflecting His glory. But even we Christians reflect His glory imperfectly because we are not yet perfected.
Presenting the idea that we're all God's children and we just need to love them is the wrong idea. It is this idea that those who are trying to secularize the church is trying to capitalize on. Forget about Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. Forget about the need for forgiveness of sins and repentance. What's important is that Jesus loved the sinner, the marginalized and the misunderstood. If he were here today he would undoubtedly support our (name the cause) because he was all about social justice. We're all just basically good people and we need to celebrate diversity and blah blah blah.
Nope. Jesus' message is that we've gone off the rails. Everything we think is important, isn't. What you think matters, doesn't. The only thing that matters is where you are going to spend eternity and with whom. That God will give you the life you always truly wanted but couldn't see because of your sin. Because of your own attempts to satisfy your heart. It's God, God, God that the church needs to preach, not secular humanism.
Oh, okay. I understand what you meant, now. Thank you. The only disagreement I would have with it is that I would argue that those fruits are the marks of a mature Christian. Since I don't possess all of them I do not consider myself a mature Christian but I am definitely improving, thanks to God.
What's strange is I used to think of those fruits as something to be sought after, sort of like merit badges. Like I had to work at patience so I could show that I was a Christian, but it doesn't seem to work that way. I have patience now but it doesn't seem to be something I had to work for. It came with understanding myself before God and through that I found patience with other people. It just sort of appeared as a result, it seems.
It's the same with joy. I've never been a very joyful person in the past. It was something I tried to make happen but it never worked. So I stopped trying. Instead, I just sort of said, okay, I'm just going to do my best to know God and, to my amazement, joy just happened.
I can slide on the maturity part lol...
My focus really was on the idea that someone may be "progressive", or "liberal", and still display these proofs. Is that not possible?
Please elaborate.
I am on an indefinite spiritual journey, Drak. For me, sex and closeness to another human being is no longer a driving force. However, I am attuned enough to understand that male attraction is "in" me at the base of me. Thus, I am not ashamed to accept it for what it is. It is likely to be right there well into my oldest years (at this point) and to the very end. As for it, I liken it to a person who has literally moved on with the realization. At this stage (after so long), I would not know what to do with myself anyway! (Chuckles.)
My identity is in my character at this stage of my development.
If the government decreed that I must kill every person with homosexual tendencies I come across, every secular humanist would stand behind me for refusing to do so, although they would not do so for the same reason. They have no problem with supporting my moral actions if it in any way supports theirs. But if I take moral action that doesn't agree with them, they want the government to punish me. Refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, for instance. Refusing to participate in an abortion. They want to restrict my religious freedom to those acts that match theirs, even if the reasons for those actions are different. If I warp my perception of God's desire for my life to something that fits the humanist agenda, they're fine with that as well. They will and have told me that I can believe whatever I wish, as long as I act according to their beliefs.
That is a good question. I am taking your question as a repackaging of CB's original question...
… although they aren't precisely the same question, in my opinion, they are probably close enough to be getting on with. I would like to point out, however, that this question is an oblique challenge to my original post and not a direct one and is an attempt to argue from authority. That is, CB considers that his belief that he is a mature, being what he considers is a spirit filled Christian is authority enough to reject my claim.
To my mind, the question isn't whether or not a mature Christian who is liberal or progressive can display these traits but, rather, is such a Christian acting within God's will? My contention is no. Being a mature Christian is not proof against error. It makes error less likely, but not impossible. It needs to be remembered that the fruit of the Spirit is not the definitive definition of the mature Christian. It is also defined by 2 Timothy 2:15
I would not generalize non-believers that way. There are quite a few of us who do not view the government as an agent to impose morality.
Good example. If a vendor does not make homosexual items then s/he should not be forced to do so. But, and this is crucial, the vendor cannot selectively refuse to offer standard goods and services based on a customer's sexual orientation (and other factors).
By the same token, there is a web-based LGBTQ t-shirt company I discovered years ago. Probably many of them exist. That shop should not be required to create a pro-heterosexual t-shirt. But they cannot refuse to sell their standard products to heterosexual customers ... even those who are explicitly disapproving of LGBTQ.
I ain't going to touch what's above—for now.
On the earlier mention: I am fully aware that all our righteousness apart from God is considered, 'like a filthy rag." (Isaiah 64:6.)
The simple answer is I changed because it was needful. The homosexual lifestyle then was not what it is now. It was getting tasking on the body, transient, and a drain on my spirit. There was no legal marriage to speak of in our country for same-sex couples and I was convicted over (and sick and tired of) dead-end relationships.
I desired something with a sense of permanence and a rest for my flesh. Which I saw no way to acquire. I found my calming effect, much like some other men or women do in Christ. It is ironic to me too. Because, I had departed from the church in my teens to go after "the world" and all that is in it! Only to return to a quiet, tranquil, spiritual existence.
Jesus referred to this activity I underwent to return as: Ask and it will be given; Seek and you shall find; Knock and the door shall be opened. (Matthew 7:7)
And as the disciples once put it: 'Lord, now that I am in You, whereas can I return?' God in Jesus is my way of life now!
Shame? No. Not for being what I was and not for being who I am. I am the "governor" of this body today.
This is not to say that there are some things I have done in the past, which when the Spirit brings it/them back to my remembrance that I am not sorry and really upset about having done. But, turn away from all the totality of memories of all those faces and friends who were part of my 'lot in life' and whom assisted me in making life work then- no, I am not ashamed of them. How can I be?
Free of it? I am free in Jesus Christ to walk in my faith, knowing that God has put my past behind me, even the moment, for God can not fail and I am in God. And none can take me from out of God's hand! (Smile.)
I was in the heart of the LGBTQ 'cause' dujour when God called me to a quieter life, Drak. This is exactly my point: God calls people out of the world. When God calls onw out by the Spirit, there is power ("stickability"). Jesus referred to it as, "seed landing in good ground." God drives the Spirit deep down enough to cause a nourishing root in that one.
These "agendas" you are speaking of are political matters some evangelicals have taken on as Causes. It is how some think to help God (as if God needs aid) and it is okay, nevertheless. And as is clearly evidenced, these undertaken causes become alive in themselves-seeking to survive eve as people dedicate their entire being and lives, their monies, there time and energy in efforts to manipulate people who can not be change ahead of their time of 'calling.' Who could change any one of us when we were not ready to be so changed? Huh?
In short, these are vain efforts. A group of vanity projects. —But not entirely. God can use sincere people to aid and ease the lives of suffering people, even girls, and women caught up in abortion who are at their wits end, and who find themselves snared in bad relationships (and maybe some men too). However, when causes become that which subvert, damage, ruin, and are deleterious to people- people will be oppressed and repressed. The cause has gone to far! It has overstepped its ability to do good.
God loves people, Drak. Primarily and foremost everything we are about throughout history is about people. Never forget that in all your getting.
God will be fine. Bet that. We can not hurt God no way no how. God has us on this earth to do right by people (each other).
If one has the indwelling Spirit of God: then you have confirmed God is your eternal friend. What is there to worry and spend life going over and over and over ad nauseum in one mind over? Trust God to do what God has promised God will do! Then, get on with the business of loving and living in peace with people as we are commanded. God sees every rank sinner where he or she lives and God draws them out of the world in God's time. Trust God to do it! Have faith in God!
When will Christians start believing what God has said to them? Jesus said love your neighbor, you don't have to live your neighbor's life or lives to simply extend a hand of fellowship and peace to all men and women who are extending their hands to you. God sees sinners and God changes sinners. Like me.
Our role is to be available and a good example when each new believer "arrives." We do not have to hunt 'em down and 'slay' them with our Gospel.
Okay. Thanks.I understand.
Drak and Larry (Tig), the answer to the question : " Can liberal Christians be mature Christians, Drakkonis?" Is, yes! A mature Christian is, "all of the above!"
The goal of Christian maturity in any man or woman believer:
This last, "filled up to all the fullness" being a high bar of accomplishment to put on display (if possible at all in a man or woman). In this way, Christian maturity is defined as being settle in one's spirit about:
Love being the greatest. Demonstrated from bottom to top and certainly vice-versa.
I am completely aware of that. It is the driving force behind what I am saying. But too many think that because God loves people it means that He overlooks what we do and think. God is always about bringing people to Himself on His terms, not on theirs. I am not giving you a message analogous to Westborough Baptist Church. I am not claiming we need to go out and scream at people that they are sinners bound for Hell and God hates them. I am saying we are to be a sharp distinction between what the world holds to be true and what God proclaims is true.
When a church gives in to the secular social justice meme, it lays aside God's message. When a pastor marries same sex couples in his church, he is sending the message that God blesses their action. When a preacher tells his congregation they need to go out and support those who wish to take from the rich and give to the poor, they are claiming God approves of that. When a minister states that one must atone for something they never did and never condoned simply because of the color of their skin, they are doing so on God's authority. That is wrong from beginning to end. God doesn't support human notions of social justice. God supports His notion of social justice and it doesn't look like the secular humanist's version.
Look. I'm surrounded by people every day who do not believe God even exists, or if they do, He's little more than a nice thought, like
Santa Clause. He's warm and fuzzy in some ways but not really connected to real life. If you think I look down on them for it you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm a sinner. I know why they hold the views they do. I sympathize with them, but I also know the truth. The problem is not that wealth isn't equitably distributed. It isn't that people don't find homosexuality, transgenderism and all the rest of that stuff offensive. It isn't that we don't meet someone's idea of racial equality. It is that we fall short of the glory of God. It is that we do not seek relationship with Him.
Let's look at it this way. You said...
Do you think that makes you unique? Do you think that gives you access to something non-homosexuals don't have access to? If so, you're wrong. I am a heterosexual. Even though I thought of myself as a Christian, I felt that there wasn't anything seriously wrong with having sex outside marriage. I thought of God's commands concerning it as an ideal, but not something to really be taken seriously. I thought God would understand my human weakness and I used that to excuse my actions. God loves me so that's all that matters.
For a while, after I was convinced that my way of thinking about my sexual activities was wrong, I sort of felt it only applied to me. Who was I, after all, to tell someone else that what they were doing was wrong after I myself had done the same things? But eventually I realized I was making it all about me all over again. The core of my problem is I didn't want to set myself up as a target for my beliefs. I didn't want the hassle. So if I talked about it at all it was in terms of, well, you really shouldn't do it because that's not God's plan. But God still loves you. I tried to be as inoffensive as I could be rather than simply stating what God said about the subject. I was more concerned with how they thought about me rather than what God wanted me to communicate to others on His behalf.
Yes, as you say, God pulled me out of that worldly thinking, but it wasn't a passive thing. He kept bringing people, books and other things into my life that condemned my thinking. It sure as heck wasn't someone saying, hey, it's okay. God loves you and He's just going to magically make everything okay. He loves you as you are. Well, the truth is, He loves us in spite of who we are, not because of it. This is the message. Bringing secular humanistic causes into the church sidelines this. It creates the illusion that God is all about income equality. It empowers the lie that God is about celebrating "the diversity of human expression". It becomes about empowering every individual's idea about what they think is right and good.
Let me put it another way from an example in my life.
Where I work I am a member of a union. I work in the same department as my biological brother. Although he thinks it's great I am a Christian and believe in God, something he himself considers himself to be, puts the union ahead of God's will. God tells us that, whatever we do, do it all for His glory. When we work, we should work hard, as if we are working for God. My brother objects to this. His concern is that it gives too much to the company. My position is I couldn't care less how much it benefits the company. My concern is that by working hard for the company I am expressing God's will for man in our relationships with others. I don't work hard so that the company can succeed. The company doesn't care a damn about God. I work hard for my boss because he needs to be successful in his job. If he's successful he keeps his job and he can support his loved ones. I support him as much as I can because that is what I would want from someone who worked for me. It doesn't matter whether or not he reciprocates. My concern is expressing God's views concerning work.
In the same way, I don't care if my views on the proper conduct of human sexuality offends others. It isn't my task to coddle their sensitivities concerning their views on the subject. It is my job to conduct my sexual activities (in my case, abstinence) and not make excuses for their lack of concern for God's views on the subject.
That should be your view as well. I am not saying you should condemn them as human beings. That isn't the same as condemning practices that don't conform to God's will if they are interested in the concept. That is, I'm not going to go up to a person who I know doesn't care a fig for God and tell them they are going to hell because they don't obey God. But, as has happened, when someone asks me what God thinks about their extramarital sexual activities, I'm going to flat out tell them that what they are doing is condemned by God and they need to repent of it. Most often what they are actually looking for is some sort of soft soap about how God loves them and He knows they can't really help themselves and it will all be okay in the end. I know what that's like. I spent quite a bit of my life trying to appease God and my own fleshly desires at the same time. I tried to come up with some way to make what my flesh wanted okay while at the same time convince myself that God understood.
Secular humanists who try to subvert the church take advantage of this struggle within Christians. Especially those who are not mature. Such immature Christians, because they also struggle with their flesh vs God's will, jump at anything that sounds like an escape from the struggle. Accepting homosexual activity, redistribution of wealth to those who didn't earn it, exalting sexual identity, race and ideology on the grounds of loving and acceptance sounds religious as hell, and that is the problem. It is of Hell. It is a religion centered around making the self god, rather than God.
Please clarify how God's justice for people in general is different from social justice. Doing what is right is correct any where. As far as churches marrying same-sex couples that is on the head of the church, isn't it? I agree churches should be able to follow their scriptures and by-laws within the Church (as long as legal).
[Deleted] while Talking-In-Tongues are opening the door for Satan to Walk thorough.
That is the trick though. How does one determine if something is morally 'right' or morally 'wrong'? One proposal is that anything that brings harm is morally 'wrong'. But then executing (or imprisoning) a serial killer is morally 'wrong'. So maybe moral correctness must consider the big picture? But that would mean that one can do all sorts of 'bad' things as long as the harm is small and local.
Then we have cultural differences. My prime example here would be Islamic honor killings. Our culture finds this to be barbaric and wrong yet those cultures within Islam that support honor killings are fully convinced that they are correct and moral.
Point is, there exists no true method for determining morality. The inability to present the method is the first evidence, the second evidence is the worldwide disagreement on morality. If there is a method, the memo has not gone out.
That is rather arbitrary compared to the fruits of the Spirit.
Okay! LOL. I was some what caught off-guard when I came upon, "That should be your view as well."
Drak, your "job" is to do your best as a believer to stay in the center of God's will. I agree doing so is you possessing your 'vessel' as a dwelling place for God and your comprehension of what God wants. On this we both agree. You do well (when asked or with the display of your example) to open up about your Christian points of view with others outside the faith.
That is a far cry from 'pushy,' demanding believers who come across passing judgements on unbelievers not called of God. The circumstance is believing persons have been called into religious service. The unbelieving person can reflect on our words and gaze upon our example, and yet not have any inclination or power to live in service to (a) God or live out a single teachings of holiness.
Consider this: Before you are I believed; we were in the world too. —God was far off, removed, and minimally a question.
There are millions upon millions of individuals in the world who as of this comment have not been 'called' to any spiritual consideration of the Christian way of life. These people do have an acceptable earthly guide in this nation, nevertheless.
The Constitution of the United States.
Nearly every consenting unbeliever in our nation have SIGNED ON to follow after this socially constructed document alone. Whereas, we believers have signed on to both - the constitution and a self-imposed contract with a chosen (select) belief system in God.
How shall believers respond to unbelievers? By conducting our faith as they conduct their lack of faiht? Of course not!
By making demands on their disbelief? Many Christians do try! Consider Francis Schaeffer's efforts with starting up a powerful evangelical political movement and Jerry Falwell's political group, "The Moral Majority." Both with remnants active today.
What I suggest is this: As believers we should live in peace with people who live under our system of constitutional rule of law, alone. It is our mutually agreed upon standard of morality. It is what nearly all of us can agree to 'do.'
What happens today is the conservative church attempts to publicly and politically legislate against the concept of moral sin from the perspective of the 'Book' or Church itself. Moreover, neither the Book and the Church hold a 'complete' set of wholly agreed upon teachings on what constitutes sin. Each sect has its subset of doctrines and teaching within its walls.
All the while these groups of believers fail to acknowledge what is plain on its face: unbelievers, obviously, can not execute all or a large portion of what we are asking or expecting seeing that they lack effectual spiritual power. Even as we ourselves lacked ability to execute spiritually while in an unbelieving state.
A new way of looking at an old problem is called for.
We can share with those who ask about our hope in God; we can even volunteer wisdom from our texts; but, going all out with 'sweat, tears, and hand-wringing' in many vain - vanity projects decade after decade attempting to 'whip the herd' of unbelievers' into the gates of God's kingdom through the development of unholy and unsavory tactics, lies, obstructions, cheating wholesale, etceteras goes against the instruction of God to live in peace with those who wish to live in peace with us.
Furthermore, it is corrosive, disruptive, oppressive, and regressive. The terms should not be associate with a people serving a God of Love.
The people of 'the Book' in the conservative movement must change their attitude and approach to public policy.
Sure. God's justice is centered on His infallible morality. Secular humanistic social justice isn't. It's not a system centered on God and when the church involves itself with it our message gets corrupted. The focus is no longer God but human ideas of justice. Take a look at this website and see what I mean.
Social Jesus
It's pure evil.
Not really. Let me give you an extreme, obvious example of what I am talking about. Read what this guy says about Jesus and his purpose at the Social Jesus website.
Drak, I want you to consider that it is 'high' time for the Church and secular humanists, both, to drop their never-ending war on each other.
It is largely a wasted time spent in silos and "college industries" where some people write long tomes and dry book treatise persisting to keep people apart. All we really need to do is seek through wherever it is resides. I give to science, critical thinking, and my love of the spirit-leading all that is due.
It is high-time for us to take a fresh look at how we deal with life, in general.
Case in point. This is my move to the next area of discussion too:
I have been a Born-Again Christian since the middle of the 90's, thoroughly living a personal life of devoted faith. In 2008, California (where I live) legalized same-sex marriage and it was on the night of the passage of Proposition 8 legalizing same-sex marriage that I came face to face with my conservative Christian traditions, doctrines, and determinations. I remember the cable news anchor making the announcement over the airways, then I had a momentary start-stop urge: Something in me immediately stated, "Okay, well we will see about that!" It was something akin to a competitive urge. I wanted to fight back!
Almost immediately, a 'voice' in my spirit said, "Leave them (homosexuals" alone. If they want to do this-let them alone." "They have earned the right from the people around them to be free!" And, in that moment, I understood something big.
Now then, since I have not been active in the homosexual scene since the middle of the 90's, I will always have to wonder if my personal insights into the difficulties homosexuals live in and with, gave me this moment to stare down my otherwise conservative urge to engage these people on moral causes.
All and all, I came to understand something important that election night: The 'battle,' if there is to be one is the Lord's. I do not have to stress myself out about anything to do with driving (herding) people to God. Because people will either 'come out of the world' voluntarily or with the Lord's calling.
All I have to do is serve God and take care with my example of how I live. As we believers are fond of saying: God can not lose anybody God sees fit to save-including a homosexual male or female, or a 'daughter' of abortion!
This is the Christian maturity I desire to see more of in the Churches. Where believers are free to love as God commanded them. While leaving sin and punishment (where it belongs if it is to occur) in the hands of God.
NOTE: One more thing on the topic of abortion. I see no problem with pro-life people (in my area) who quietly sit 'on site' at various places patiently biding their time in hopes that some young woman or person will stop by an ask them how to keep free of abortion. Abortion is not a pleasant endeavor for a girl or woman. As it may have many mental side-effects.
What is alarming is this constant drive by the Pro-life Movement to legislate away a girl or woman's right to choose. And the movement deploys all types of contrivances, religious and otherwise in its insistence to block girls and women from having a say in who/when they will give birth and follow through with the hard 'labor of love' to raise the flesh of their body.
Hey, ETPDNRI! How you stirring? Been a month of Sundays since you stepped out on us! Welcome back!
And,
Tig, for the believer there is the in-dwelling Spirit presence (should we listen). There is a great amount of wisdom in the experiences and examples of by-gone eras and "entries" in recorded history of what is sound and unsound .
As man is the steward of this 'realm,' ultimately, we get charged with determining what is right and wrong—with God's leading coming to those groups who draw spiritual wisdom and insights from writers on the entity.
Drak! I may be a little tired today, because of an early rise this morning, but I agree with the above statements. As for some of the information in the article I may have some concerns about 'folding' Zacchaeus, a spiritually lost man, into a completely worldly account. The article's primary focus is on society, nevertheless.
Not sure I follow what problem there is to be concerned with here. While we, believers, are above ground, on this planet-we are to be good stewards of all things under our control (to the best of our abilities).
(NOTE: I am a tad bushed. Will take a mild 'down-time' to refresh!)
Lol we must be close to the same page Drakkonis; I just posted one of his articles yesterday!
Understood, but I cannot reconcile the fact that morality is not consistent. If there is an arbiter (e.g. God) providing objective morality then why do people not know morality the same way? In particular, take two deeply religious people from different cultures – why do they not have a consistent understanding of morality?
Ultimately those who think they have the Spirit (or whatever based on religion) providing them moral guidance in their hearts will simply believe that what they consider moral must be the objective morality imposed upon them. And thus when they see others with differing moral values they presume that those others are simply misguided.
I do not expect you to be able to address this, just pointing out what I observe and my reasoning thereof.
Where is 3.1.1 and 3.1.2?
What you mean,. . . religions as an institution is not science?!!!
Our faith did not arrive in one 'gifting' appearing from above?
Many chosen writers under inspiration did their best to write about spiritual matters using earthly comparisons, materials, and spoke about things they had scantly seen?
While the participants and writers lived their works were not formalized laid out, penned, and archived?
Finally, yet, millions of people 'swear' to the goodness and presence of a Spirit existing in them everyday; changing them from inside out.
I can not fully explain it myself.
Click: @3.1.1 and @3.1.2.
You are so right about the evil that is contained in your link
No. I was not making any reference to science or even the scientific method. I was speaking of consistency of message. The method should be consistent but it is not. That is a fact that (of course) gnaws at the reasoning of a skeptic.
I am being lighthearted with you with that one. On a more serious note, people of faith share a similar concern. When I was a part skeptic and part disinterested younger person, none of the questions of faith mattered one way or the other to me. On occasion when I was on a 'quest' with microdot or acid I would ponder such matters for hours, 'fielding' questions - getting some answers and - but, never could get God to answer me about the matters God apparently keeps private near or with the God-head. I suppose God has plenty about us/life/universe and beyond that has yet to be explained. Perhaps at one of those "appointed times" God clearly deals in.
Even when we are told in scripture that all our questions will be answered if we ask, seek, or knock - we soon learn many amazing answers are dropped into our spiritual "in-box" with this qualified understanding that other answers are reserved for some time held by God's choosing. This does not mean we should not continue to make requests for further "deeper things" to come into our spiritual understanding, if only to cross the threshold of an appointed time for knowledge to increase.
In the meantime, we struggle along just like everybody else on this planet. Incomplete, but marvelously better along than we were earlier. Carrying around a 'portion' of the Spirit inside our being. Because God put the Spirit there.
You know Tig, God could have first let all humanity exist in other realms and retain its knowledge upon entrance to this plane of existence. God could have inverted everything we comprehend from the beginning. There could have been a myriad of ways to express humanity; and here we are expressed in the ways we display and experience. Evenso, we all wonder why this.
The problem with the Social Jesus site and it's views is that it distorts the message into what it is not. As Paul said,
This site promotes salvation as the pursuit of social justice. That is the method by which this site proclaims not only what the Kingdom of God is but how it comes. By personal effort on behalf of people and not through the sacrificial death of Christ. The focus is on human systems, not God. If you can really not see the problem with this site, I would ask that you take another look. This time, look at it through eyes that see Jesus as the only way to God.
What I see is a cacophony of 'voices' and a plethora of worldviews on Newstalkers. Some voices here: I adhere to, some I stand back from, some I resist. Even some voices are here I utterly detest.
That said, one of the reasons why I enjoy having a presence here is that my 'voice' and viewpoints get shouted out onto the 'field' as well and on average equally.
A note about that social Jesus site you offered for reflection:
For my Christian friends, Jesus does not define salvation as a legal transaction in heaven that assures Zacchaeus of post-mortem bliss. Nor does Jesus define Zacchaeus’ salvation as a pardon or letting him off the hook. Jesus instead defines salvation as the healing of Zacchaeus’ most inward being, healing that manifests in Zacchaeus’ rejection of an unjust system and his decision to work to undo the injustice of that system.
I believe following Jesus is about learning to follow Jesus’ practice of love, inclusion, just distribution, and mutual aid, nonviolence, and compassion toward others. His practice was reparative and transformative and has the power to change our lives personally and systemically.
No, actually, we shouldn't, nor is it spot on. This isn't about feeling good, CB. This isn't about warm and fuzzies. This site is leading people astray and although this sounds nice they don't mean what you think they do
. Their message is that if you go out and do social justice stuff it will transform your life. Their message is that to be accepted by God, you need to do social justice. There's not a mention of the cross anywhere. The focus isn't Jesus, it's their concept of social justice. What these guys are doing with Jesus is akin to saying President Lincoln was all for slavery. That he supported the South. They are using Jesus for their own ends. They couldn't care less about actual salvation. They are wrapping it all up in Christian sounding jargon in order to snare the immature.
For the last time, our mission is to bring people to Christ by telling them the good news. Our task is not to fix the world, It cannot be fixed. When Jesus comes back he will reign for a thousand years. Do you remember what happens after that? Satan is loosed and all the unsaved rebel. After Jesus defeats them this world is destroyed. Do you get that? Even after a thousand years under the most perfect, loving, fair and just ruler possible, they will still rebel. His reign will make no difference to them.
I get why you think it's spot on but these people are wolves in sheep's clothing. Their salvation is a political one. It's man made. When they talk about love, inclusion, just distribution, and mutual aid, nonviolence, and compassion toward others, they don't mean what Jesus meant. This has been my point all along. We have no business allowing secular humanistic agendas in the church. It's Satan's substitute. I hope you hear me.
Jesus who counseled the people of this world to love one another; to visit the sick, to help the poor, the beatitudes, to do good works, even as he spoke of wars and rumors of wars, and things going badly—did not mean for us to ignore, glaze over, and consider the former in order to magnify the latter!
We are to do our best to serve THE GOOD and if the world fails in spite of doing what is efficient, good, and wholesome—so be it.
However, to say that people should sit in silos waiting and expecting signs of the coming apocalypse is to give up and sat on our hands-in pretense of helping and caring when our real intentions are elsewhere.
I believe Jesus will come back. Emphatically. I believe Jesus will return, because I believe in the Word.
Let me be clear. This world's ultimate failure is not the believers' job to acquiesce to! We are to go about doing good to the best of our abilities. Let the world take whatever course it must and will. Let come what may. Do good and expect good from others in the mean-time.
Lastly, I have no delusions about this world becoming a utopia apart from God. However, our country need not be enraged or become a battleground of heedless cultural wars such that no one or not many can be happy:
A single lifetime of 60-70-80 years is a long time to be miserable.
Drak, if that is what you are asking of people to allow for—you have an interesting, but regrettable view of what true love of God is and can be. Also, despite what you hear the world at this point in time is having fewer wars (and rumors of such) than ever in world history.
I'm about done with this conversation. You do not seem able to understand what I am saying to you. That's okay. I'm not God and all I can do is what I can do. I'm all for loving others. I'm all for everything Jesus asked us to do. What I am not for is subjugating the church to secular humanism. If you wish to include it, then you will have to answer for your decision. May God be with you.
Where have I suggested the Church - especially in the United States should subjugate itself to secular humanism? What I propose if the Church should fulfill its role to be a servant to the Good . We should always act to bring about what is good and wholesome with a focus on the whole good - and not just our own good. The church role in this is not one of God's enforcer .
Remember:
And: Allow the Constitution (with the believers' valuable, love-centered, and most importantly, innocent and correct input) to govern the totality of this nation's people.
Here is where the tide of this conversation should of its own accord turn: You and I believe in God. We hold that God is in control. Believing God is in control means that we can (and must) rest in God's provision that no matter how good or bad this world may get, it never will exceed God's omega control over its ending.
After this manner, our role becomes easier. We are to see after people,
"As far as it depends on you," Drak and CB, be at peace with all, not some, but as many people as you can. This is what God is telling us.
Sometimes, I think the Church gets ahead of its mandate to love and let people come to God as God wills it. In so doing, they go out and try to 'make something physically ' happen which the world is not going to go along without doing battle. Christians have no mandate to usurp God's control (as if it can be done - it can not).
As believers' if we stay in our role of love for all, more people will see our CONSISTENCY and CONTROL and Lack of HYPOCRISY and in each succeeding generation our God will be honored. That is what God desires from the Church.
NOTE: Drak. These are good discussions between us. Brother strengthening brothers. Much of it will need 'fleshing out' and time in reflection. Don't give up on me and I won't give up on you. My brother, I learn from you also.
Understood. There are many ways for one to try to explain the inconsistency.
As a skeptic, however, I see the inconsistency and have yet to find an explanation better than: this is EXACTLY what one would expect if there was no arbiter of objective morality.
Understood. I, too, was once a skeptic. Anyone who has ever been a skeptic fully understands what it is to be one. Consider Saul (the Jesus skeptic and the people of "The Way" persecutor) who changed name to Paul (the Jesus church-founder ) and suffered greatly to turn people to Jesus.:
"Paul" states he put his skin in the game of Faith. He suffered for it greatly by splitting himself between Israel (Judaism) and "The Way" (at that time that is what the church of today was known as). Even through all of his founding of churches, and arguments for the faith, even Paul does not try to answer all the possible questions about morality, humanity, Jesus, and God. It is just too complicated. Likely too much to share in books, I suppose.
Best I can tell God wants us to use God's moral leading and guidelines to form a foundation for living , and the rest of our moral code is up left up to people and their individual good (bad, evil) choosing .
Which is exactly what I would expect from someone who begins with the assumption that there is no arbiter of objective morality. There is really only one way to explain the inconsistency, but you refuse to countenance it. People have free will and people desire what they desire. But you assume that if there is a God, then we would have no choice but to adhere to His morality.
It really isn't that difficult to understand, TiG. Even conceptually. You don't need to believe in God to understand that an individual with free will doesn't have to adhere to any morality at all. You can create whatever morality you want to. The only way your conclusion could be true is if there is no free will and we are compelled to a particular morality.
No, Drakk, that is my conclusion ... not my assumption. Don't presume.
No, again, that is also wrong. My point is that if there were an arbiter of objective morality then the rules of morality would be consistently known. That does not mean that they will necessarily be followed.
Here you are continuing with your free will strawman. Go back to what I wrote. I made no claim whatsoever about free will or that the presence of objective morality would mean universal fidelity. I was talking about consistency of knowledge.
In short, where do we go to find the clear rules of objective morality? Obviously we cannot turn to our hearts because even devout believers disagree on moral questions. So where does one find consistent objective moral guidance?
That is the way I understood your comment. That said, I definitely see the expansive point made by Drak. (Smile.) Though, I hope not to throw the discussion.
I always try to be clear.
I see his point too. I just have a problem when someone debates me on a point that I have not made.
Uh, yeah. And that's not an assumption, right? I mean, if it's not, you can prove that it isn't. Right?
Why must I routinely deliver quotes?:
Where do you see me saying or even mildly implying that the existence of known objective morality means that it must be (or even would be) followed??
Now you have changed your allegation from assume no free will to assuming that my position is a claim of certain truth. It is my position that if there were an arbiter of objective morality then the rules of morality would be consistently known. I stated upfront that I was describing what a skeptic would likely expect to see:
There is nothing for me to prove. I have made no claim of certain truth.
Oh, so you were lying?
Drakk, I do not know what to say to you at this point. It seems to me you are looking for any angle you can to try to ↺ spin ↺ something wrong or contradictory in what I wrote.
Now you provide a quote that I had just provided to you and ask if I was lying. I have no idea what you are talking about now.
Lying about what, exactly?
That is exactly what you begin with. Because anyone with an ounce of critical thinking would realize that one entirely possible and eminently plausible answer to the dilemma is not that there is a problem with, or absence of, an arbiter but that human beings can't recognize it when they see it. In point of fact, what we observe is entirely consistent with the claim that sin corrupts man's ability to be and recognize morality. That explains it just as much as your assumption.
You either believe this or you are lying. In either case your statement implicitly states that if there were an arbiter of objective morality man exists in such a state that we could not but know this morality and nothing would impede our knowing it. How could it be otherwise in our perfection? Right? I mean, it must be so for your skepticism to stand on this issue, otherwise, the problem wouldn't be with the Arbiter, but rather, with our ability to perceive what morality was and that just couldn't be possible. Right?
.... ( Such a nice start: I have to wonder what pissed you off because clearly you are ) ...
Did I write somewhere that what I offered is the ONLY possible explanation? I do not see anything like that in my words so where does this new allegation come from? Every reply from you has a different allegation. You ignore my rebuttals and just invent something new to allege.
I wrote that ' to me' it was the best explanation. Look, I will show it to you again:
Does the fact that I present what I have considered to be the best explanation mean that there is no other possible explanation? What strange logic are you drawing from?
Your explanation is that God is the arbiter of objective morality but that God did not make his creations smart enough to understand his objective morality seems ... lacking ... to me. And if God has an established objective morality yet we are all too stupid to understand it then, in effect, there is no objective morality. It is silly for you, as an example, to argue that objective morality exists if you believe that human beings are too stupid to comprehend it. If we cannot comprehend it then it might as well not exist, right? And, interestingly enough, observation of morality on this planet does indeed lack any hint of objective morality. It looks like morality is a function of culture and society and, as a result, there are all sorts of contradicting mores and values in the world and everyone thinks theirs is true morality.
Also, why would you think human beings could not understand objective mores and values? After all, God could always deliver this in a dumbed-down form worldwide to get everyone on the same page and then layer in sophistication as we evolved into smarter creatures. Does not seem beyond God's capabilities, right? Nope, apparently God wants fundamental worldwide contradictions.
It is not a belief Drakk, it is what reason has lead me to conclude . It seems quite reasonable to me that if there were an arbiter of objective morality, said arbiter would seek to ensure those subjected to those rules knew what they were . Seems logical and reasonable to me.
That established, where exactly is the lie?
Implies, eh? Thing is, that is not what I wrote nor did I even imply it. This is coming from your mind. I did not exclude your possibility (which you are again claiming). I merely stated what I think is the best explanation. See? I can have an explanation that I think is best in a world where other explanations exist. Indeed my language 'better than ... explanation' would imply that other explanations are possible. Right? 'Best' via 'better than' implies other lesser explanations exist?
So you are all pissed off because I stated what I thought was the most reasonable explanation and you are offended that I did not mention your explanation? Or are you pissed off because you imagined that I wrote that this is the only possible interpretation? Even though I did nothing of the sort.
Regardless, it is crystal clear that you are in attack mode and are tossing out whatever comes to mind hoping something will stick. The mystery is what set you off to launch an emotional attack.
Bringing this back to the single sentence that apparently pissed you off:
I offered my opinion. I see worldwide inconsistency in our mores and values. To me, this is exactly how things would be if there was no agent coordinating understanding of mores and values. The natural order is disorder.
How this can piss you off remains a mystery to me.
Your talent for self-deception is truly amazing.
Really? Where do you think I am deceiving myself? Let's look at what I wrote:
Now a reasoned reader might observe that:
You invented a series of false allegations and went into an emotional attack.
Why? How does my (opinion) comment @ 3.1.75 trigger such a reaction?
ROTFL. Emotional attack? That's your fallback? Well, if it makes you feel safe and secure, go for it. In the mean time...
Let's look at this from a critical thinking perspective. From the perspective of logic and reason. You state that it would be consistently known. What would be your evidence for this? Would it be from the ample evidence that, everyone, every single person, when presented with fact, accepts it? Let's test that.
Jews are inferior people. In fact, they're not people at all. We should exterminate them for the good of mankind. In fact, everyone who is not of Arian decent should be eliminated or subjugated.
How did that work out? Was it wrong or right? Were we wrong in opposing them or were we on the side of the Angels? If there is no standard of morality, what argument can be made for either side? And even if you could make an argument, what statistical historical metric can you provide that people will unanimously accept it?
In case you're missing the point, what evidence can you present that human beings have a clue as to what is moral, let alone do it? You claim that it was merely your opinion that if there were an arbiter of morality it would be consistently known. How did you arrive at that conclusion? It certainly couldn't have been from observable evidence.
You wonder why I'm pissed off. Since either you are lying to yourself as to the reason or you truly don't know, it's that you present yourself as a rational critical thinker but present this sort of bullshit. You come here with this assumption that if there is truly an arbiter of morality that it is all on Him and you have no responsibility in it at all. You can't entertain the thought that maybe the problem is with you. And since you can't do that, then anyone who can is an emotional wishful thinker without an ability to think critically. Well, here's where your critical thinking fails miserably.
It fails precicely because it doesn't take into account the Christian explanation. That sin in man explains why there appears to be no objective morality. There is zero rationality presented on your part for explaining why there is a lack of acceptance and/or recognition of an objective morality. Since there is not, it is merely assumption on your part, due, I believe, to personal preference. How could it be anything else since you have no evidence or facts to back it up?
No, actually, my 'fallback' is to keep putting my words in front of your face and asking you to explain your allegations. Have you not noticed? I just wonder why you are so emotional about my opening comment. Makes no sense to me.
Right off the bat you put words in my mouth. I never stated that it WOULD BE consistently known. I stated that I would EXPECT it to be consistently known. Let's return to my comment:
I try to choose my words carefully. Try to read them carefully.
In my (and hopefully most people's) moral system, genocide is wrong. Apparently to the Nazis genocide of Jews was right. I think there are deep psychological / sociological reasons for this but that is another topic.
But I will ask you this: if objective morality exists then would you not expect all people to know that genocide is wrong? Would you not expect that this rule, at least, would be communicated to everyone?
People do not unanimously accept even that.
Quite surprising that you ask that question because my posit is that people do not have a consistent understanding of morality. How could you possibly miss that?
Drakk, are you again back to the tactic of telling me you know what is in my mind better than I do? Do you not realize how insane it is to use that as a basis for argument? Anyway, my opinion is what I wrote, not what you just wrote. You misrepresented my opinion by phrasing it as though the existence of an arbiter of morality would necessarily mean that morality would be consistently known. I stated that the existence of an arbiter of objective morality means that we would naturally expect this arbiter would ensure this morality was consistently known. Let's look again at what I actually wrote since you are having problems reading what seems to me to be simple English:
What does the phrase ' what one would expect ' mean to you? There is no necessarily in those words. Very simple: if an arbiter of objective morality exists I would expect a worldwide consistency on morality. I suspect most people would expect that a standard made by the grandest possible entity would be implemented. That is logical.
Logic Drakk. I just outlined it above, but I will write it again. If God creates mores & values for his creations one would expect that God would consistently communicate same to all His creations. One would not expect God to communicate that which produces contradictory views of morality across the world. That would be surprising; counter-intuitive; illogical.
Yes. Note that you just admitted that you are being emotional so please revisit your opening comment to me.
Where, exactly, is the bullshit? As usual, thus far I have addressed you putting words in my mouth. You have yet to show any flaw in my comment. Every single time you raise an issue it is a result of you inventing something that I did not write. Have you not noticed that?
Again you put words in my mouth. No, I stated:
If objective morality exists and the arbiter is the grandest possible entity, yes I would expect that this entity would consistently communicate this objective morality to His creations. You find that illogical?
So what are you trying to say with this babbling nonsense? You are positing that I am the reason why the world has contradictory views on morality? How can the problem lie with me? I stated what I would expect given an arbiter of objective morality:
I think you need a beer. There is no reason to get so emotional (and employ blatant intellectual dishonesty) just because I happen to have an expectation that differs from yours. Good grief man, no wonder we cannot communicate anymore — I have to write a book to get you to understand (or maybe just objectively read) a single sentence from me. I am amazed though at how many ridiculous false interpretations you can invent from a single sentence.
Of course, no believer can properly speak for God beyond what has been written down in our books, or through an experience.
'The Books' and God's indwelling Spirit which comes to all that properly want the Spirit states there are many types of forces at work in the Earth. That, just because we can not detect (with our tools) all the forces at work in the Earth this has no bearing on an assumption that still unknown forces exist (detected by science or not) which influence nature and by extension mankind. Consequently, man can reason, but man is not able to have existence by reason alone, because of its flesh and carnal nature. Moreover, we are biblically explained that God is Love. Thus, God is not operating with humanity on reason alone.
This leads to truly dynamic state for the world where 'forces' of efficiency and error rotate around and throughout themselves. Where God has not taken on the unique of separating the two contrasts in to parallel states of being. God's prescriptive morality can not be properly or entirely expressed in flesh, thus leniency and discretion of morality is globally tolerated for now.
Using Drakk's Nazi genocide example, does it seem reasonable that genocide would be objectively immoral?
If so, would one naturally expect that God would ensure his creations understood that genocide is objectively immoral?
Do you think that everyone understands / believes that genocide is objectively immoral?
We could now repeat this for: honor killings, slavery, rape, ....
The point is this, even if (as Drakk suggests) human beings might not be smart enough to comprehend God's objective morality, do you not think we are smart enough to comprehend a dumbed down version of big ticket items like genocide?
Why do we not have a consistent dumbed-down version of objective morality? The 10 commandments is pretty dumb (and demonstrably lacking; and limited to select religious people) but humans certainly can comprehend moral issues of more complexity such as no slavery, no rape, no pedophilia, no bigotry, no genocide, etc. Right?
I do not suggest that man can not necessarily understand God's morality; but even when granted such high-level understanding about morality, as flesh and carnal creatures there will of necessity exist a problem of such a considered lofty standard being completed properly, efficiently, and timely.
I would like to personalize the "genocide" question: How many normal humans if asked to commit a version of genocide on a large area of their person, or more dramatically, to commit genocide on their own lives, will properly, efficiently, and timely execute such an act objectively?
The reason(s) for such behavior to carry forward can be right for the circumstances, yet normally our flesh will consider following through as wrong for it. This is where society finds itself: skirting, flounting, developing, and rarely following through to completion the right thing to do in every situation properly, efficiently, and timely.
And the difference would be???
And you don't consider the ample evidence that man is sinful (or whatever you would prefer to call it) and therefore inherently incapable of recognizing true morality when he sees it, or if he does, to subjugate himself to it over his desires as relevant? Because in order to hold your view, you have to assume that man would be incapable of denying objective morality and would therefore necessarily do what the arbiter of morality decreed. Since we can't even do that with man made morality, as amply evidenced in the legal code, upon what basis to you make your claim???
No, it's not another topic. It is directly relevant to what you claim. You attempt to pass it off as some sort of materialistic disorder of a natural function but that, again, assumes. It assumes that there is no God, there is no Arbiter of morality. Since, in your view, this is so, all that is left is "deep psychological / sociological reasons." This isn't critical thinking. This is reasoning in order to support a preferred view.
That would be because I didn't. What you apparently miss is the alternate reason from yours for that consistent misunderstanding of morality. Specifically, that there isn't an absence of an Arbiter of morality but, rather, that humans are such that, when presented with that morality they either don't recognize it or reject it, both due to sin.
Do you know how insane it is to state something and then claim it doesn't mean what it says?
And??? How does that refute what I have said so far? From the beginning I have put forth the position that your claim is nothing but assumption. That if there were an Arbiter of morality we would have no choice but to accept and recognize it is an assumption and one not supported by observable facts. I also put forth the possibility that the reason we cannot consistently recognize, let alone hew to, objective morality is because of sin. That explains things at least as well as your suppostion and has more evidence to back it up. Your "hypothesis" rests on pure assumption.
And my question to you would be, why would you expect this? If we can't even adhere to the standards we make for ourselves, what logical, critically thought out reason would you have for thinking we would adhere to a standard The Arbiter of morality communicated to us? Would it be that this Arbiter would necessarily need to be omniscient and omnipotent? If so, what about that would mean that such a being would compel us to act according to His standard? The only answer you are likely to give is that, that's what we'd do. But we are demonstrably immoral as a species. So that doesn't hold much credit.
Um, He did. So, what's really your point? That this can't be true because people believe different things? It's called free will, TiG. He doesn't force Himself on anyone. How moral would that be?
Already explained. I haven't put a single letter, let alone a word, in your mouth. Instead, when confronted with what you said, as usual, you attempt to claim what you said isn't what you mean. I'm sick to death of this, TiG. Have a nice life. You'll know the truth some day. I pray it is before it is too late for you.
WOULD be is an assertion of certainty. EXPECTED is what one would think would be true based on reason.
I accept your position that human beings could not comprehend objective morality at the level of God. But I see no logical reason why human beings could not consistently comprehend a dumbed-down version. Ergo no reason why it has not been communicated. Where is the consistent dumbed down objective morality?
No. You are back to pretending that I have stated that human beings would necessarily follow objective morality. I never stated nor did I imply that. Why, Drakk, do you not read my rebuttals and instead repeat yourself?
(see above ... you jumped right back into a strawman and I am tired of explaining the same thing to you)
Oh so you want to discuss deep psychological and sociological aspects of genocide now? You are disagreeing with anything I write and it seems it is just to be obnoxious. Sorry, bullshit, that is clearly way off topic.
Yet another invented allegation.
What assumes there is no God. The presence of genocide? You are not making any sense now.
Again, you are now just tossing out bullshit.
I acknowledged your alternate reason as soon as you stated it. I am not persuaded but I acknowledged it. So repeating your hypothesis is pointless. I have acknowledged it and have commented on it.
That would be crazy. I state X. You claim I stated Y. I explain and explain X. You insist Y. Watching this disgusts me.
See the individual refutations I have made. I am done repeating myself.
And I have consistently told you that I am not claiming that we would have no choice. So here you are blatantly pushing your strawman no matter how many times I tell you that you are wrong. Again, I am disgusted observing such intellectual dishonesty.
Noted, commented on it. You ignore my response and then repeat yourself. You must be trying to play for an audience, but I can assure you that nobody gives a shit when 'debates' are this long with lengthy comments. So who do you think you are kidding? The only person reading your crap is me and possibly CB. You are wasting your time playing this stupid game. Seriously, do you think nonstop strawman arguments will somehow persuade me? Man, what happened to the Drakk from Newsvine who tried to be candid and honest?
Strawman again. You again claim that adherance is in my comment rather than knowledge.
Strawman again. Compel is your invented claim; I never wrote anything remotely to that effect. I have stated this so many times that there is no way you could have missed it.
Strawman again. No free will is your invented claim; I never wrote anything remotely to that effect. I have stated this so many times that there is no way you could have missed it.
You are sick of this? What a laugh!
You will not convince anyone of anything if your argument is predominantly based on strawman allegations. What you will accomplish is to discredit yourself to your interlocutor and readers (if any).
I will not have much patience for you in the future so if I seem abrupt and in-your-face you will know why. It gets old knocking down strawman arguments only to have them be recreated and reapplied.
And if by some extraordinary chance you do not realize that you have been substituting a position of your invention and pretending that you are debating my position then be on notice that you have. Any notion that I posit that God would necessarily force compliance to objective morality on everyone came strictly from you. If you cannot comprehend that then that is on you. But I am informing you of the fundamental flaw in your responses to me.
You are not debating me, you are debating yourself and apparently nothing I write can get you to realize that you claim things that appear nowhere in what I have written. My guess is that you are doing this on purpose because you are too intelligent to not realize a basic strawman argument. And that disgusts me beyond words and hints at another negative of religious belief.
In case anyone is reading this. This 'debate' is a result of me expressing my opinion on the likely existence of an arbiter of objective morality:
Drak and Other Supporters of Trump:
-
I don’t really care how they choose to exercise their religious freedom. Their mind their choice. I’m just glad they didn’t turn into a bunch of Democrats.
They did turn their back on Christ.
no, we did not.
Related article
The Right-wing Evangelicals made a conscious choice to achieve power and expediency as their "mission-field" in this world. It is a poor choice.
"Evangelical backsliding?"
They have not been backsliding. They have the same mindset of The Pharisees who demanded Pilate execute Him or they would foment unrest in the land. Different name, different time, same regressive thoughts.
bbl-1: I have the unique experience of attending one of these Evangelical-Talking-In-Tongues sessions. They are very demonic, extremely bizarre and reminiscent of Druid religious ceremonies without the alcohol and drugs.
A lot of babbling, shouting, shaking, stomping their feet and trance induced celebration.
Cult.
Dean: It would be impossible for Evangelicals to turn into Dems. They would have to be able to think for themselves and that is NOT permitted in the Holy Rollers-Talking-In-Tongue CULT!
Actually, Eat' some evangelicals (not the right-wing version of evangelicals - nearly all of those folks run republican) are democrats politically.