Saturday afternoon, six GOP candidates participated in the Thanksgiving Family Forum which focused primarily on social issues surrounding the 2012 election. The forum was sponsored by The Family Leader and took place at the First Federated Church in Des Moines, Iowa. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman were also invited, however, both declined to attend.
Original Event Date: Saturday, November 19, 2011
Participants: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Santorum
Here is the entire video of the forum, moderated by pollster Frank Luntz. The actual candidate forum begins at about 30 minutes in if you jump ahead.
Report from the Des Moines Register:
Six Republicans vying to be their party’s nominee for president in 2012 met across a Thanksgiving dinner table on Saturday night for an unconventional discussion of their views and policy proposals.
The Thanksgiving Family Forum, held in a Des Moines church in front of some 2,500 social and religious conservatives, was an unusually freewheeling and philosophical discussion, touching on issues of morality, liberty and personal responsibility as well as hot-button issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.
Forum moderator Frank Luntz, the famed Republican message guru, challenged candidates Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum with mostly open-ended questions, and didn’t hesitate to press them on particulars.
In a question about the 10th Amendment — a GOP favorite that leaves to the states powers not specifically given to the federal government — Luntz asked whether states could “tell the federal government no” on issues of morality. He directed the question initially to Cain, who is black, and referred to state segregation laws that were dismantled only through federal action.
Was the federal government justified in imposing a morally just law — ending segregation — on the states, even if it perhaps exceeded the 10th Amendment?
For Cain, the answer was something of a qualified yes: “The states can’t say no to the federal government if they’re wrong,” he said.
But Paul, the most libertarian-leaning of the Republicans in the field, immediately jumped in to disagree.
“The states definitely have a right to be wrong,” he said. “The states are supposed to correct it. But there are limits. That’s why we have a Constitution.”
The discussion was lively at times. Overall, Luntz did a decent job moderating the discussion and posed some provocative questions.
Get the facts straight folks. For example, the sixth commandment is thou shall not murder (kill unlawfully), not thou shall not kill. There is a huge difference, which you will understand if you take the time to read the Bible.
Or, take your so-called "evolution of social values" that lead improved treatment of women and abolishing slavery and racism. If you look at scripture, Jesus Christ treated women, other races than the Jews, and slaves with way more respect than the Jewish society of that time. Christianity also puts an emphasis on the value of those who are rejected by society- the weak, poor, lame, sick, etc. When Jesus first taught all of this, it was revolutionary and it was part of what got Him killed (along with claiming to be the Son of God). Jesus influence and the teaching of the scripture are behind the idea that all people are created with basic fundamental rights, including the right to worship whatever God you want to worship. God Himself allowed evil in the world when He allowed us the choice to worship Him or to reject Him as God. The only thing that you are missing here is that you think that freedom of religion means "freedom not to worship any God" but you do not realize that all men worship; if you do not worship God, you worship yourself, or beauty, sensuality, humanity, mother nature, whatever it might be (usually yourself though in my experience).
Again, my point has little to do with the things you are talking about. If I worship myself, or King Juju the pink singing tree frog of Sri Lanka makes no difference (as a side note you perceive me worshiping myself like I perceive you talking to an imaginary friend- let's just agree to disagree on that) The main point is that in a pluralistic society as ours and one that had the first truly secular government in history, no religion gets special treatment- even if it has more adherents today or when it was founded. If special religious claims of morality are the only argument, then the there is no basis for a law. Such morality is the duty of its adherents to spread socially, through speaking out and awareness, but not through legislative acts. This is exactly how Jesus behaved. How many laws did Jesus seek to reform? Which forms of government did he overthrow? None. He left Roman law (as morally depraved as Christians say the Romans were) as it was and sought not to change laws- but humanity's hearts and minds. The only things he threw out were the religious laws and religious law makers. So, I don't see why Christians get so active politically, because it certainly isn't WWJD.
There's no doubt that the teachings of Jesus have some really good things to say about human nature- but so do Buddha, Confucius, the Hindu scriptures and Aesop's fables. I don't have to believe in their being literally true to allow them to shape my understanding for the betterment of myself and society. But, the bible (including the New Testament) does more to subjugate women and to treat them like property than it does to elevate them. Racism, or racial mistreatment, also have a firm footing in the NT. The fact that Christians today regard slavery immoral is a credit to the growth of humanity- not the bible. Simply comparing NT treatment of women and races to the OT is not sufficient. We are talking about the "revelation of god's morality" here. God could have easily commanded racial and gender equality but he was too busy worrying about the kinds of spots and blemishes the animals had that were being burnt for his pleasure.
No, Jesus did not give us freedom of religious choice, he is the one who introduced the concept of hell for non-belief. Christ didn't teach about fundamental human rights, that was an outgrowth of the Age of Reason.
All this is to point out that our morality does not just originate from one source, nor does anybody have the right to impose their specific moral views on someone else. Christians can't even decide amongst themselves what is moral and what is not, so don't expect a pluralistic society to adopt the views of one sub-segment of that group.
LOL. Cain says the common good "levels the playing field so everyone can be treated equally, fairly, and with respect."
I was waiting for him to cough and under his breath say "unless you're gay"
Your statements have an element of truth but an element of deception. Let's go through them one by one to find out the errors:
Your Comment: Again, my point has little to do with the things you are talking about. If I worship myself, or King Juju the pink singing tree frog of Sri Lanka makes no difference (as a side note you perceive me worshiping myself like I perceive you talking to an imaginary friend- let's just agree to disagree on that) The main point is that in a pluralistic society as ours and one that had the first truly secular government in history, no religion gets special treatment- even if it has more adherents today or when it was founded.
Reply: Actually, who you worship makes every difference. The Bible says "choose for yourself this day who you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15) Who you worship has everything to do with how you spend your time, money, beliefs about charity, beliefs about sexuality, and on and on. You will find that typically you put your time and money and effort most in where you worship. As a non-believer, you may not understand that because in postmodern Christian churches there has been a decoupling of faith and living. Church is something that people do as a cultural event on Sunday and the rest of the week they live as an atheist. So you do not see the connection between worship and every aspect of their life. But for true believers our entire life is rooted in Christ and in the teaching of the Bible.
Your Comment: If special religious claims of morality are the only argument, then the there is no basis for a law. Such morality is the duty of its adherents to spread socially, through speaking out and awareness, but not through legislative acts. This is exactly how Jesus behaved. How many laws did Jesus seek to reform? Which forms of government did he overthrow? None. He left Roman law (as morally depraved as Christians say the Romans were) as it was and sought not to change laws- but humanity's hearts and minds. The only things he threw out were the religious laws and religious law makers. So, I don't see why Christians get so active politically, because it certainly isn't WWJD.
Reply: You can't separate a person's presuppositions from their politics. As an atheist, you have certain presuppositions (faith) that are different than mine. For example, you believe that there is nothing beyond the physical world, i.e. if you can see taste touch feel hear or measure it with some scientific instrument, that it does not exist. You might try to say that politics and religion should be completely separate because it allows for your own personal presuppositions of atheism to be used as the sole presuppositions in the political arena. This is a very deceptive tactic used by atheists in the areas of science, politics and law in this country. I do not know if this was or was not the intention of the few of the founding fathers that were atheists or deists, but what I do know is this: you are trying to put Christian faith into a box that is bounded by atheistic presuppositions, and then you are trying to get Christians to agree to this. A true Christian will never agree with you, although a Christian who does not understand what they are doing may (such as Francis Collins, for example, who tries to reconcile scripture with science by explaining the Bible from science rather than the other way around). The right thing to do, for a Christian, is to put politics, law, history, etc. into a box that is bounded by Christian presuppositions. And yes, I am sure that we will simply have to agree to disagree over this point. But you should realize, if you don't already, the full implications of what you are asking Christians to do (and equivocally that we aren't asking any more of you than you are of us when we participate in politics) by your worldview and commentary. A real-life example of this is in public schools. You would say that teaching creationism is not allowed because it is "religious" and therefore "establishment of religion" but teaching of homosexual sex acts is "ok" because it is "not religious". If you apply what i have shown you above, you will see that you are asking for the government to establish a religion of atheism by taking this stance.
Your Comment: This is exactly how Jesus behaved. How many laws did Jesus seek to reform? Which forms of government did he overthrow? None. He left Roman law (as morally depraved as Christians say the Romans were) as it was and sought not to change laws- but humanity's hearts and minds. There's no doubt that the teachings of Jesus have some really good things to say about human nature- but so do Buddha, Confucius, the Hindu scriptures and Aesop's fables. I don't have to believe in their being literally true to allow them to shape my understanding for the betterment of myself and society.
Reply: As a non-Christian, you are trying to use the Bible to prove a point. But if you do not believe what the Bible says, why are you even bringing it up? You take this stance of complete freedom to use and disgard what you want as needed for your argument. But that is not the case in reality. Jesus did not give the option of partially believing in Him, or even believing that he was a great teacher or moral man. The things that He said indicated clearly that He is the Son of God. If you don't believe that, then you would have to say that His teaching is inconsistent with who He said He was. You would have to say that He was a liar. And we shouldn't be saying that a liar was a great moral teacher. Or else, you might say that He was a lunatic. But again, who would want to say that a lunatic is a great moral teacher? Your warped version of the truth allows you to believe that somehow there are all of these great teachers who all conflict and contradict with each other. As a sinner, we search for a way to reconcile all of them because we don't want to deal with the fact that one of them is right and the rest are wrong. If this is true, it means that we have to submit ourselves to one as Lord, and as sinners, we don't want to do that naturally. Only the Holy Spirit can show you the error of your thinking- I can explain it to you as best as possible to try to help remove the stumbling blocks, but if you don't want to believe, you will keep putting more in the way and we can keep going back and forth ad nauseum. It's like the saying about the scientists and philosophers who are trying to get to the top of the mountain, who persevere through many challenges and seemingly impossible gaps, then get to the top and find sitting on the other side the theologians, saying welcome to the debate, what took you so long? To equate the Bible with Aesop's fables is to show your complete and utter ignorance of the power of God's Word. "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Hebrews 4:12.
Your Commment: I don't have to believe in their being literally true to allow them to shape my understanding for the betterment of myself and society. But, the Bible (including the New Testament) does more to subjugate women and to treat them like property than it does to elevate them. Racism, or racial mistreatment, also have a firm footing in the NT. The fact that Christians today regard slavery immoral is a credit to the growth of humanity- not the bible. Simply comparing NT treatment of women and races to the OT is not sufficient. We are talking about the "revelation of god's morality" here. God could have easily commanded racial and gender equality but he was too busy worrying about the kinds of spots and blemishes the animals had that were being burnt for his pleasure.
Reply:
1. Well actually, you do have to believe in the Bible being true in order for it to shape you. That is one of the basic tenets of scripture- that you are changed by your faith in God. "And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." 2 Cor 3:18
2. There is NO scriptural basis for men subjugating women and treating them like property. The Jewish society may have, but the many rules made up by that society were not always based on scripture, and that was a big part of why Jesus came and challenged the Jewish leaders. Look at examples of how Jesus respected his mother, or other women, to see how women should be treated. Look at examples of how Paul treats women, examples of female believers in the NT church, and you will find that women in the Bible are treated with equal value in God's eyes. Look at what Paul says about women's roles, and you will see that women are to be cherished. Perhaps the most important point comes from the OT Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."If God created us male and female in His own image, he is clearly giving equal value to both. This does NOT mean that he is giving them equal roles. Value and roles are two different things. Jesus has equal value with the Father, but He has a different role. No one would consider Jesus subjugated for having stepped up on the cross and giving His life in obedience to the Father's will. We can all agree that it only enhanced Jesus and the Father's glory (We can have a whole different discussion about this topic in a different thread).
3. Racism in the New Testament? Can you point out the specific examples that you are talking about? God makes it clear that believers are believers. He values all equally. The Body of Christ is made up of all who put their faith in Him. I don't see how you can get racism out of this unless you warp the scriptures. I realize that many churches did do this to justify racism, but what sinner do does not change what God has said.
4.:"God could have easily commanded racial and gender equality but he was too busy worrying about the kinds of spots and blemishes the animals had that were being burnt for his pleasure." The words "command racial and gender equality" sound like a line from a California textbook. You are expecting God to work in the same way as the modern day liberal movement? He teaches throughout the Bible, from the very creation and throughout the Torah: 1. Who He is, 2. What we have done and 3. What He expects of us. God never states that men and women should have equal roles. In your confused human value system, you may think that equal roles are good, but I would wholeheartedly say that I favor God's teaching and for some very good reasons. I love my wife, but I would not want us both to have the same role. She feels the same way. But this gets to a more serious issue that you don't understand about Christianity. God created us differently. Yes, equal but different! The postmodern movement tries to turn this truth on its head by saying that men and women are completely equal in value and in role. But I would argue that everything from scripture to biology negates that lie. You can hold to it if you like, but don't expect to be on moral or logical high ground with it. I would say that you have quite a bit of conjecture to be making up in order to support it (which, by the way, is something that our liberal court system is great at doing). You see, God is a God of differences. When He created the world, he didn't make it all one amorphous blob. He created trees and mountains and water and swamps and all that good stuff that atheists like to call "Mother Nature" for lack of a better explanation for how such amazing creation came about. But it is precisely the differences, the contrasts, that make creation so beautiful. And the same is true for a man and woman, and even more so when they are united as one in marriage, which is God's plan for marriage. That, by the way, is part of the reason behind why homosexual marriage is wrong. (The other part goes back to the above quote about man being created male and female in God's image.)
Your Comment: No, Jesus did not give us freedom of religious choice, he is the one who introduced the concept of hell for non-belief. Christ didn't teach about fundamental human rights, that was an outgrowth of the Age of Reason.
Reply: You have a choice. It does not mean that you do not have consequences for your choice. God does not say that we go to hell because we do not believe. He says that we go to hell because of our sin. We are saved by grace, through faith. Grace is something free, unmerited favor. You can't say that we have lack of choice because we have lack of grace. As the creator, all value rests in God when He put His spirit into us- we were inanimate (without soul) before that point-it is God's choice. "The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Genesis 2:7 Your problem is that you question a God who created you as if he were a human being, but you don't realize that the situation is like the potter and the clay. "When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn't he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into?" Romans 9:21 And yes, the Bible and Christ teach about fundamental human rights, but you do not see it because you ignore whatever includes God in the equation. You see, fundamental human rights come from God, and with a proper understanding of God and the Word, fundamental human rights are a logical conclusion. But to value them over the value of God would miss the point. Let's look at one example to help you see. The Jewish leaders are about to stone a woman for adultery. Jesus stops them and says "let he who has no sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7) Jesus is referring to Deuteronomy 13:9 and 17:7, where the witnesses of a crime are to start the execution. Only those who were not guilty of the same sin could participate. While this says a lot about the Pharisees, it also says a lot about our own hearts. It means that before we judge others, we had better make sure that we deal with our own sin before God first. And this woman was most certainly given the chance to have a fair trial by God in the story. This is why I say that theological issues (such as sin) are completely interwoven with political and governmental ones to the point that they are inseparable. If you are not a Christian, you might think that a person can be tried for something like "teaching his children to hate homosexual acts" without a fair trial. You might even think that his judges could be those caught up in the act of homosexual sin. But clearly God is saying here that a good judge is one who has gotten his own heart straight before God. And that all takes a knowledge of God's teaching in His Word, a proper heart attitude before God, and applying it to His life in prayer and practice.
Your comment: All this is to point out that our morality does not just originate from one source, nor does anybody have the right to impose their specific moral views on someone else. Christians can't even decide amongst themselves what is moral and what is not, so don't expect a pluralistic society to adopt the views of one sub-segment of that group.
Reply:
1. Morality comes from God. Anything else is a lie or deception. (That does not mean that God always gets the credit from society for having written the law on our hearts.) If no one has the right to impose moral views on anyone else, we would be living in anarchy right now. I don't think you understand the basic underpinnings of our country's own governmental system or any country's system for that matter.
2. When you say that Christians can't decide amongst themselves what is moral and what is not, you are taking the view of the uninformed. If you simply read the Bible and use it as your guide, it will be very clear to you that there are only some Christians who are following it. The rest have either added to it, taken away from it, or changed it to agree with postmodern humanistic "age of enlightment, reason, whatever you want to call it" values. They have caved in to the pressure from inside and outside to change their presupposition from faith in God to faith in nothing beyond the material world.(See "How Shall We Then Live" by Dr. Francis Schaeffer, an excellent historical commentary on this that will set straight all of the revisionist history that you were taught by a liberal public school system) Churches that do not believe in the Bible attempt to explain miracles scientifically rather than just believing. They attempt to explain things like gender confusion and homosexuality by taking verses out of context. In some ways it is better to be an atheist than someone who says they are a Christian but has to change what scripture says,or agree with only part of the Bible, in order to believe it. There is only one true church, the Body of Christ, and all true believers make up that church, and all true believers will be in agreement about basic moral teachings of scripture. I can't tell you who the true believers are, only God knows our hearts, but I can say that He gave you a brain and a heart, so get a Bible and get to work using them! As for expecting our society to agree with everything that God says, that is never going to happen, and I think we can both agree on it. Man has rejected the truth for a lie (2 Thes 2) and throughout scripture God commands Christians to obey worldly governments despite this fact. Christians are to live in the world, not be of the world. God does not say NOT to get involved in politics, but His top priority is issues of the heart, not taxes. That is why He says give to Caesar what is his and give to God what is God's. (Matthew 22:21) Ultimately, for a time, the prince of this world is satan, but His time is coming due. So it doesn't surprise me to see a government that makes laws that have nothing to do with God's Word or people who hate God more than ever. That is why it is so important that Christians focus on teaching and preaching the problem of sin and the work of Christ on the Cross. Having said that, if we don't stand up in public, including our workplace, courts, politics, etc. for the name of Christ, those who hate the light that He represents will try to take away all freedom to worship Him. "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19) So we had better continue to run the race, pressing on for the prize in Christ Jesus (Php 3:14), in every aspect of our lives- church, politics, etc. As John Piper likes to say, "when the motor of my mind is in neutral, the hum of the gears is (God's Word)".
You assume things about me you can't possibly know, and which are actually very wrong. I was a Christian for 25 years and not too long ago, I would have written the stuff you wrote above. I went to the top academic Christian college in the country and I studied the Bible there. I know what you're going to say, but you'll have to believe me when I say I didn't just read it with my mind but I also had an open heart to scripture. I was as completely devoted to my faith as anybody could be.
The main question I've asked is whose version of religion, scripture, and morality should we accept when considering public laws and education? You clearly believe that your version of Christianity is the right one and dismiss everybody else's as some form of apostasy. You want us to teach your version of "truth" at the exclusion of everyone else's, including that of science. First, scientific discoveries or religiously neutral and are simply descriptions of reality as it can be observed. Sometimes scientific discoveries have implications about specific interpretations of specific faiths (for example heliocentricity), but they are not religious in nature. The hole, and hypocrisy, of your argument becomes immediately apparent when you substitute the Qur'an and Muslim faith for any time you mention Bible, Scripture, or Christian. You would rightly be offended if they tried to throw out our laws or education based on their theology. But, you ask everyone else to allow an exception for you. If you want to teach such things, you are free to in your home, churches, or in private schools – but you don't get public money to preach your private faith. Another example is the Amish. They believe the use of electricity and many modern developments are immoral. Does that mean you should not be allowed to type on the computer we are communicating through? Should they be able to use public funds to teach their world view to your child? Obviously, no. Under our constitution, they have the freedom to form their society as they see fit, but they cannot impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
You suggest I am arguing for anarchy. Far from it. We have the constitution. We have thousands upon thousands of laws that govern our lives (for example which side of the street we can drive on). These restrictions are good for the preservation of society. But, when the only argument is a religiously motivated one, it cannot become law (or should be thrown out by the judiciary for being an unconstitutional law). For example, working on Sunday. The only reason for banning people from working on Sunday would be a religious one, and therefore should be thrown out as a law. People are allowed to not work on Sunday, or create a society or subsection of society that will permit their belief. But, you do not have the authority under the constitution to tell Walmart they must close their doors every Sunday.
If you cannot see how someone can gain moral wisdom and insight from reading something like Aesop's fables without believing in it's veracity, then that's your short-sightedness, not mine. I could gain wisdom from reading a Harry Potter book, because it is not about the truth of the story being read, but what understanding of human nature I can gain from my own thought processes.
I never said women were identical to men. They are not. But they should be accorded equal freedoms as us. They should be allowed to vote, own land, choose their own vocation or to stay at home. That is the inalienable right of any human. But the Bible denies women the right to divorce, sets the price a father can sell his daughter into forced servitude- including sexual slavery, allows men beat their wives, treats them legally as property, lists them among the spoils of war, denies them the right to speak up in church, forces them to learn at home from their husbands, denies them the ability to have authority over any man, denies them the right to teach, makes them subjugated to will of their husband (with no exception given for abuse) and more. There are more subtle forms of discrimination, such as only tracking lineage through men, or not counting females in population tallies. If you wish to discriminate against women, then there is ample support to be found in the Bible. You may say that such interpretations are not the "correct" ones, but it has taken us millennia to shake such ideas. Only within the last century or so, have women really been allowed normal human freedoms equal to their phallus bearing counterparts.
… I almost forgot, women were forced to marry their rapists, and were to be stoned to death if their rapists were not caught and they were not married. Rape was considered a woman's disgrace not a violence perpetrated against them.
Noah,
Please share with me the irrefutable proof that evolution is more than a theory.
And since you said it happens whether we believe it or not, please give me one example of proof that it happened.
I have a PhD in chemistry and I have been in the field ovr 15 years. Despite reading a lot on the subject, I have not seen any proof yet. If anything, it seems like science shows that it can not happen rather than proof that it did.
@ Bob Jones…you hit a grans slam….again, dude. You obviously just didn't start thinking about these issues just recently….who are you? It hasn't been a long time for me and I like being exposed to well thought out arguements. Even the arguements I don't agree with.
It sadens me that the supposedly "open mind" and tolerance of the liberal or atheiest is so invested in destroying the greatest…and only hope for the human race. I hope they are listening with an open mind and open heart…but I don't really hold out much hope for that. You(we) are probably wasting our time on these hard core anti-christs. But maybe that has been foretold and cannot be changed…at least not by us. Maybe an INDIVIDUAL will be influenced. After all salvation is NOT Obamas "Collective Salvation" but an individuals PERSONAL relationship with God.
I wasn't going to continue to add this discussion but felt compelled by your comments to let you know they are appreciated and added to this conservative Christians thinking process in a positive way.
@ Noah…I hope you've been paying attention. Hopefully you will discover that at 17 years old you may not have all the answers…there may be hope for you yet…but it will take a direct divine intervention in your life. Don't know why Gods chosen people insist on rejecting Him in favor of wandering, lost in the wilderness, through out history. Can we hypothecate that this tendency may have something to do with the struggles of the Jewish people throughout history, continuing through today and into the foreseeable future? Just sayin'.
Also you say Barry O. is a genious…and he very well have a high IQ….however…is he wise? Are policies wise? Or moral? We probably disagree completely on these questions.
OneNonBeliever, were your parents missionaries in Russia? Just curious.
No Russian missionaries here.
Hey Noah, I'm glad that we have young folks like you who are engaging in politics and cilized debate. I bet your parents are proud of you.
I have a song for you that expresses the gospel that you might like. It is by Shai Linne, a rapper. You can see his blog here: http://lyricaltheology.blogspot.com/
The song is called "In Adam All Die"
Chorus
We’re cursed from our birth, sinning from the beginning
The womb to the tomb, depraved to the grave
Astray every day, every breath brings death
In Adam all die, In Adam all die
We’re rebels like the devil, scheming like demons
Prideful with our idols, disgusting with our lusting
Twisted and sin-sick, selfish and helpless
In Adam all die, In Adam all die
Verse 1
Everybody knows that they’re guilty
Our conscience condemns us, shows us we’re filthy
Truth be told, we really have no answers
For why we fall short of our own moral standards
The evidence for God is simply bountiful
And it’s illogical to think we won’t be held accountable
A universal day of judgment approaches
Any rational notion of justice would presuppose this
And deep down inside, everybody knows this
But we disregard it because our deeds are atrocious
We prefer the vicious, our words are malicious
Our slurs pernicious, we find the absurd delicious
Depraved in our appetites- the things we crave are lacking light
Because sin’s got us enslaved and shackled tight
And if we are to understand the fruit
We need to go back and examine the root
Chorus
Verse 2
The world we live in wasn’t always like this
The early days had perfect righteousness and bright bliss
Man and woman under God-ruled government at first
Bubbling with mirth, immersed in loving with no hurts
God gave what theologians call the covenant of works
Forbidden fruit- the day you eat of it you’ll be cursed
Husband wasn’t alert; wife lacked discernment
Entrapped by the serpent and that was the first sin
The consequences were monumental
In fact, I’m not convinced they had a clue of what they’d gotten into
Their eyes were opened more- truth in the lies
To their surprise, they didn’t get the prize they were hoping for
They see their nakedness and now regret it
They tried to cover their guilt and then blame shift- how pathetic
And it’s a true story- you want some evidence?
We’ve been doing the same thing ever since
Chorus
Verse 3
We talk Adam and Eve, cats think we’re "throwed off", really
They don’t think it relates to thugs in North Philly
But it’s like Switchfoot said- we were meant to live
But in the garden Adam was our representative
So when the Judge executed the sentence
Adam’s guilt was imputed to his descendents
Global calamity
Major debt, pain, regret, the reign of death- total depravity
And yes, I’m aware that cats were not there
Which opens the door to charges of “that’s not fair”
But God is not subject to fallen notions of fairness
Besides, when it comes to God’s glory, most could care less
We can’t measure how we chase sand treasures
And banned pleasures- similar to our ancestors
So instead of saying if you were there what you would do
Seek your refuge in Adam number two
Chorus
I think Dr. Ron **THE BOSS** Paul is the hardest worker of them all. He is like a lazer that destroys Evil.
Roy, I agree that this has been a great forum for debate. Usually the comments online completely lack substance and are personal attacks. I have to give these folks credit for sticking in there to get so deep into the real issues. I agree that it could be that we are wasting time explaining scripture to people who God has not chosen, but it is impossible to know. I guess we all pitch in somewhere, and efficiency and strategy are good but sometimes God leads in a different direction. That is why I have been praying for these folks and the nuggets of God's Word that we have had a chance to present here. The answers are really for anyone who is reading this blog who might be undecided or wavering in their faith because of the deception of satan and the lies of the flesh. After all, if we don't praise God, the rocks will cry out! (Luke 19:40)
When I first became a Christian in 2000, I was a teaching assistant in the chemistry PhD program. I remember an undergraduate student who told me that she was raised a Christian but was having serious doubts because her professors were giving her all of this so-called scientific evidence for evolution and old earth. I decided that I had to study hard to understand whether I should believe in evolution and if it agreed with what God says in the Bible, and to be prepared to make a defense for the hope that I had in Christ (1 Peter 3:15- note it is supposed to be with gentleness and respect. I think I still need work on this part!) Although our public school system will not tell kids this, I found in my research that there are many Christian men in history whom God has given tremendous insight into science, philosophy and law. When we engage in apologetics, we are standing on their shoulders today. There are also some great defenders of the faith who are currently serving God in the public arena; one of them is Ravi Zacharias, http://www.rzim.org/ . God has given him and his colleagues great wisdom for apologetics. His motto is "helping the thinker believe; helping the believer think". The other book that had a great impact on my life was "The Gospel Primer" by Pastor Milton Vincent. Although it is not a big production, it contains the most solid scriptural exposition of the gospel that I have ever seen. There are many other great Christian leaders who I don't have space to mention, and each of them has something to contribute to our personal theology. I guess God doesn't give anyone a monopoly on spiritual gifts! Well, all the glory belongs to God. And I am glad this dialogue has encouraged you- it has been encouraging to me too to see other Christians reaching out to share the words of life.
To OneNonBeliever
Your comment: You assume things about me you can't possibly know, and which are actually very wrong. I was a Christian for 25 years and not too long ago, I would have written the stuff you wrote above. I went to the top academic Christian college in the country and I studied the Bible there. I know what you're going to say, but you'll have to believe me when I say I didn't just read it with my mind but I also had an open heart to scripture. I was as completely devoted to my faith as anybody could be.
Reply: First of all, I'm sorry if I have offended you. I will try not to make assumptions in my further replies. I'm sad to hear that you once professed faith in Christ and now you are not walking with Him. I am not a Christian counselor, so I don't know the best things to say to someone who has back slidden. I really hope and pray that God will bring you back into the sheepfold. I do know that God is sovereign over all things, and if He has given you saving faith, he will be faithful to bring you through to the end. (1 Cor 1:9)
Your comment: The main question I've asked is whose version of religion, scripture, and morality should we accept when considering public laws and education?
Reply: I think the problem is that we have gone from thinking that it is ok for everyone to have their own opinion, to thinking that therefore everyone is right and no one is wrong. The postmodern philosophy of relativism is a curse that afflicts the educational system in this country to this day. We would all be the better if we taught our children that there are other alternative worldviews. And if we taught them to argue in public debate based on values, based on utility, based on logic, etc. rather than based on political correctness and shutting down opponents because their value comes from a religious view rather than a worldly one. That is supposed to be what democracy is about.
Having said that, there is no place that I have found in the Bible that says that democracy is the best governmental system, so I don't believe by default that USA or our government is the best in the world. I am not saying that I am not patriotic to our country, just that I don't automatically assume that the way we have done or currently do things in America is the best way. I am a citizen of heaven first before being a citizen of USA. I love to support my country and neighbors to the extent that it doesn't ask me to violate God's law. That was an easy thing to do 20 years ago, but some of the injunctions being ordered by liberal courts these days are making it more and more difficult. These courts are supposed to make wise choices for but too often they use abuse their authority to legislate the whim of a specific minority that they favor, such as homosexual activists, for example, in California, even when the popular vote goes against them. If it comes down to public laws and school teaching being based on their values or mine, of course I want mine and they want theirs. Basically they are asking me to give up my value stance in favor of their value stance so that I will pay taxes to support public schools that will teach my kids their values. And if I don't do that, they are accusing me of violating this concept of separation of church and state that liberals are now re-defining to mean pretty much any public display of Christian faith (someone in Wash Post recently said that the cross should be banned in public because it is brutal. but I didn't hear them complaining about kids walking around with spikes and chains that symbolize torture- it's clear that their motive is to try to prevent the name of Christ from being mentioned in public).
I don't think that liberals are taking the establishment clause in context. The founding fathers came from a Europe where the Catholic church had oppressed true believers in the reformation for a long time. They wanted to make sure that Christians here would be free to worship or not worship as they believed, and would not be subject to a papacy or other type of dictatorial religious regime. For me, it means to prevent the establishment of an official government religion, not to ban the cross on a military monument or the ten commandments in a court room, or a time for students of any faith to pray before starting classes. To be honest, if you want to use politically correct language that liberals love to invent (and has so much in common with the red guard in China- have you ever studied that event- it smacks of the current liberal media and militant homosexual movement in this country?) what you are asking seems to be intolerant towards those who believe in God. But then again, it is easy to call others intolerant so long as they are being intolerant against something that you value.
Your comment: You clearly believe that your version of Christianity is the right one and dismiss everybody else's as some form of apostasy. You want us to teach your version of "truth" at the exclusion of everyone else's, including that of science.
Reply: As I mentioned, postmodernism is the cause behind a lot of wrong beliefs in the modern age. I believe that there are universal truths. I believe in rationality and the ability to reason. I believe that God gave us a brain, among other things, so that when we hear and read His Word, we will understand it. I believe that if you read the Bible and compare scripture with scripture, there is only one way to interpret the main ideas. Granted, there are plenty of places where people have minor differences because not everything has been revealed or some historical information is unclear, such as end times etc., but the message of creation, of sin, of redemption through Christ, and Christ's return, are agreed upon as clear by all true believers. And it is clear that the entire OT anticipates the coming of a Messiah and God's plan for redemption and salvation. If you sit down with a well translated Bible such as NASB or ESV and you read through the verses where a backslidden church would use to support homosexual sin or female pastors in their theological statement, you will find that there is simply no way to logically justify their conclusion. You should agree with this because you pointed out below how you think the Bible is "out of date" in regard to women's roles in society. It is blatantly clear that these churches are trying to use scripture to justify the currently popular views of sinful man, and are picking and choosing rather than reading the Bible as a whole, in the proper historical context.
When I first got saved from reading the Bible, I came from a very sinful background (adultery, foul mouth, disrespect to parents, and much worse unmentionable) and I read the whole Bible twice. GOd showed me that it is consistent throughout and it was very easy for me to see the difference between those who were teaching from their own opinion and those who were looking at the verses one by one and comparing them to other scriptures to make sure that they were being consistent. Thi doesn't mean that I didn't have questions or doubts, but God gave me the Holy Spirit to show me the truth. If you don't have the Holy Spirit, you probably will be confused by all of these other teachings because even though you have the ability to reason, you do not have the desire to please God. God commands us to "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15 If you have His Spirit, you will seek to do what His Word says, and He will illuminate for you as you read and pray.
Your comment: First, scientific discoveries or religiously neutral and are simply descriptions of reality as it can be observed. Sometimes scientific discoveries have implications about specific interpretations of specific faiths (for example heliocentricity), but they are not religious in nature.
Reply: As a scientist and also a Christian, this is a subject near and dear to my heart. I do the scientific process every day in the research lab. I have published over 20 scientific papers, two book chapters, etc. so I know something about the scientific world. I hate to say this about my colleagues, but scientists are just as confused as anyone else in this world. They have marital problems, struggles with pride and substance abuse, etc. What I am trying to say is that morally, science does not do anything for them. And while they are great at running a western blot or mass spectrometer, I certainly would not want them at the helm of our government making laws. My colleagues are very opinionated and think that they know more than others who are not scientists simply because they are scientists. Many of them were good students and excelled in school, so they have a superiority complex. Others think that because they have studied one subject so hard and understand it so well that they have the right to be an expert on all other subjects, including those which they know nothing about. I admit that I sometimes fall into this trap myself! But as I get older I am seeing how much there is to learn besides science. Most of my colleagues will stretch the truth as much as needed to get a publication or grant money, so it doesn't surprise me if they come up with stuff like the Miller-Urey experiment and then print it in every single elementary school textbook to try to brainwash young impressionable children into believing that science has solved all of the great mysteries of the world, including creation and the existence of God. Science to me is just a tool. Intrinsically it is not good or bad. It depends on how you use it. But to many young people, the word science automatically means something good, for which they hold high respect. Part of this has to do with the goal of science to make man live forever, to be like God, and part has to do with professors who have influence through teaching classes, who pump up science to be more than it really is, because like used car salesmen they need to justify what they do in order to feel valuable in life. For Christians, value comes from God, not from our career. As someone on the inside who sees the face of science after the makeup comes off, I can assure you that science has no monopoly on the truth and should be treated just as skeptically as any other system of thought. That is why, as I said previously, science should fall under the authority scripture, not the other way around.
Your comment: The hole, and hypocrisy, of your argument becomes immediately apparent when you substitute the Qur'an and Muslim faith for any time you mention Bible, Scripture, or Christian. You would rightly be offended if they tried to throw out our laws or education based on their theology. But, you ask everyone else to allow an exception for you. If you want to teach such things, you are free to in your home, churches, or in private schools – but you don't get public money to preach your private faith. Another example is the Amish. They believe the use of electricity and many modern developments are immoral. Does that mean you should not be allowed to type on the computer we are communicating through? Should they be able to use public funds to teach their world view to your child? Obviously, no. Under our constitution, they have the freedom to form their society as they see fit, but they cannot impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
Reply: Actually, I have no problem if we teach kids in school a balanced and unbiased perspective on religion (doubt that is possible with current liberal regime). I took a lot of religion classes on buddhism, hinduism and christianity in college as an agnostic. There isn't time to teach every single religion ever known to man, but certainly some of the major ones in a comparative religion class would be a good start. I wouldn't be a big fan of teaching kids militant islamic teachings, or mormon teachings that Jesus is on a planet in outer space, but it wouldn't mess them up any worse than "bobby has two daddies".
I don't think that Christians are asking for an exception to get their way with others, I think that they are are asking not to be excluded because they are Christian. I don't think that Christians want to be relegated to live separate lives as the Amish becauseof their beliefs- they want to be in the world but not of the world. You say that we should not get public money to teach private faith, but liberals are asking for public money all the time to teach private faith. THey do when they support abortion clinics, they do when they use student funds for the school's LGBT club, and they do when they use teachers' union funds to support left leaning atheist politicians for office. I personally think that we should be able to opt out of the public school system completely, take our tax dollars that are going to fund all of these liberal programs such as teaching kids homosexual sex education in elementary school, and put them towards home schooling our kids with the truth from God's Word. Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it. Proverbs 22:6. I think that you are misunderstanding using public funds for things related to religion (such as a statue with a cross) for "imposing your religious viws on us". They are not the same thing. If they are, then you are imposing your atheistic view on me every single time that you exclude religion from a publically funded event/work/show/etc. If you don't think that excluding something can be as important as including something, try telling that to Joe Paterno.
Your comment: You suggest I am arguing for anarchy. Far from it. We have the constitution. We have thousands upon thousands of laws that govern our lives (for example which side of the street we can drive on). These restrictions are good for the preservation of society. But, when the only argument is a religiously motivated one, it cannot become law (or should be thrown out by the judiciary for being an unconstitutional law). For example, working on Sunday. The only reason for banning people from working on Sunday would be a religious one, and therefore should be thrown out as a law. People are allowed to not work on Sunday, or create a society or subsection of society that will permit their belief. But, you do not have the authority under the constitution to tell Walmart they must close their doors every Sunday.
Reply: First of all, I don't think there is anything wrong with working on Sunday. Jesus says that the sabbath is made for man, not man for the sabbath. (Mark 2:27) It is a great day to spend worshiping the Lord and focusing on Him, because after all we don't spend enough time throughout the week due to work distractions; but whoever made that law was adding something to scripture (we talked about this in a previous comment). But I do think that while God has given the government authority, He has also given it a responsibility to do what is right. And that involves moral interpretion. Otherwise, yes, you will have anarchy. Allowing child pornography is not right, nor is allowing gay parades with groups that support child molestation dressed as clowns going around giving children free gifts with their contact information. It doesn't take knowing the Bible for someone to know that these folks are corrupted by their fleshly lust, yet liberals would argue that we can't impose moral values on this situation because it is intolerant of those who are "different". but what it really is doing is being intolerant of those who are normal for the sake of a few sick perverts. That is anarchy, and it is a danger to a civil society, even an atheist one. And I should put in a plug for the Bible as the best reference that we have for moral law. If you were to remove all of the advances in our society based on the moral law of the Bible, we would not be typing these messages today- we would still be having gladiator fights and slavery.
Your comment: If you cannot see how someone can gain moral wisdom and insight from reading something like Aesop's fables without believing in it's veracity, then that's your short-sightedness, not mine. I could gain wisdom from reading a Harry Potter book, because it is not about the truth of the story being read, but what understanding of human nature I can gain from my own thought processes.
Reply: I am not challenging the fact that you can learn from readng fables. I am saying that the Word of God is our guide for life and Aesop's fables is in a completely different league. It doesn't mean that we can't learn from other things, but if they contradict scripture, scripture will always prove to be right. Solomon talks about how there are always books being written but there is no new idea under the sun. Books are great, I've read plenty in my lifetime, but I just don't put academic learning and worldly clever philosophies at the priority level of scripture.
Your comment: I never said women were identical to men. They are not. But they should be accorded equal freedoms as us. They should be allowed to vote, own land, choose their own vocation or to stay at home. That is the inalienable right of any human. But the Bible denies women the right to divorce, sets the price a father can sell his daughter into forced servitude- including sexual slavery, allows men beat their wives, treats them legally as property, lists them among the spoils of war, denies them the right to speak up in church, forces them to learn at home from their husbands, denies them the ability to have authority over any man, denies them the right to teach, makes them subjugated to will of their husband (with no exception given for abuse) and more. There are more subtle forms of discrimination, such as only tracking lineage through men, or not counting females in population tallies. If you wish to discriminate against women, then there is ample support to be found in the Bible.
Reply: Please give verses for these claims. I don't doubt that the Hebrews had subtle forms of discrimination and were a male-dominated society. Most of this is stuff that you need to read in the context of the entire Bible and history/culture in order to understand correctly, you can't just pick and choose sentences. We can discuss them one-by-one and put in context each verse.
The stuff about women being subjugated to husbands and no authority over men is easy to answer without looking up the verses. Women are to be submissive to husbands in Christ and husbands are to love their wives sacrificially as Christ loved the church.(Eph 5) The idea is that women's role is to submit to their husbands so long as their husband is submitting to Christ. Husbands role is to literally lay down their own life to love their wife spiritually, similar to how Christ did for the church. There are many, many books written on this but I would recommend that you check out "mark of a man" by Elizabeth Elliott. I have never seen a better book that explains what is it to be a man from a biblical perspective. There is also a very long book written on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by John Piper that is available free online as a PDF. I don't have space to go into all of the great teachings that come to mind from scripture right this moment, but I would be glad to dialogue more if you like. Basically, the confusion about male and female roles has caused many of the core problems in our society. My wife and I live according to the biblical teachings and when she stopped working we had an amazing improvement in our relationship. She has a PhD too, by the way, which defies the stereotype of an uneducated hillbilly bumpkin that I mentioned in a previous post. The better education a woman has, the more prepared she is as a wife, mother, home-schooler and home-maker. And there is no Biblical basis for women not getting an education or not working a job so long as it doesn't interfere with their role as a wife and mother. In fact, the Proverbs 32 woman is very industrious in the market and people know this and she is praised for it. The problem with our society is that vocations in the workplace are valued over the vocation of being a mother and home maker because workplace vocations earn money and that is seen as valuable and powerful. Yet any man whose wife is at home can tell you that the role of a woman in the home is far, far, more valuable than any job that she could get. They estimated the monetary value at 150k per year but I think that you can't put a monetary value on spiritual matters. Whether to work in the workplace or at home is the choice of a woman and her husband, but I can tell you that all the women I know doing it absolutely love it and wouldn't have it any other way. By contrast, many of the women I know in the workplace who have neglected their family life are having marital problems and are unhappy that they don't get to spend more time raising their children.
The part about women being in authority over men, you are probably taking out of context. It is saying that women should not have authority in the church for teaching. Men are called to take the initiative to teach and lead in the church. You are probably implying that submission is a less valuable role than leadership, but all of these things are understood through Christ's example. He submitted the Father, yet that didn't make HIm any less valuable- actually it served to increase His glory. You are confusing "position" with "value". You might be doing this because in our world, a person's position in an organization sometimes indicates their value to the organization. But in Biblical terms, position does not indicate value, it simply indicates differentation in role. As I mentioned in a previous post, God is a God of differences. If everything was an amorphous blob, this world would not be as amazing as God has created it with differences.
Comment: You may say that such interpretations are not the "correct" ones, but it has taken us millennia to shake such ideas. Only within the last century or so, have women really been allowed normal human freedoms equal to their phallus bearing counterparts.
Reply: I am not disputing that women have more freedom today than ever before. In fact, all people have more freedom today than ever before. But there are some things you need to think about:
1. The fact that women in the past were not given freedom does not indicate that the Bible is responsible for that. You seem to be assigning responsibility to the Bible for something that was actually the responsibility of sinful man.
2. Man is becoming more and more wicked. So while we are gaining freedom of action, we are actually losing freedom of will. We are all a slave to something- either slave to sin or slave to God. (John 8:34) Only the truth can set you free (John 8:32). What this means is that there is actually significantly more freedom in Christ than as an unsaved sinner who is captive to satan and the flesh. You see, as a Christian, I do not have the same value system as an atheist that says that "more freedom of behavior is always necessarily better". I would argue that there are times where freedom is not good. For example, a kid crossing the road by himself vs. holding his mother's hand. but my point is not about women's right to vote, etc. but about the typical worldly value of freedom of behavior without boundary, which assumes that freedom of behavior is something that is aways good in itself. I would prefer to subjugate myself to Christ in order to gain freedom from the sinful desires that ensnare me, "because He is gentle and lowly in heart, and I will find rest for my soul." (Matt 11:29) Perhaps the worst tyrant to be enslaved to is your own sinful desire, which ultimately results in spiritual and physical death! The Bible says "Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." (James 1:15)
We are hardly scratching the surface on some of these topics, there are so many more scriptures to share and deep profound revelation of scripture on some of these topics. It is so refreshing to hear the Word of God because you know the truth when you hear it, and it is like eating whole oats vs. the refined white flour of the worldly ways of thinking. It's just good solid and filling. I really enjoy thinking through how what God has said applies to our lives and politics in our country. It is amazing how much insight and wisdom He has given us in scripture! Thanks again for all of your good discussions.
@BobJones,
Once again, it comes down to whose version of morality do you choose. This is not a post-modern question, but one our forefathers themselves asked. This is the specific reason why we are a secular government that provides the freedom for its citizens to answer that question for themselves. This arrangement is the reason religion absolutely flourishes in the States. Our forefathers knew that answering such a question is impossible, and warned about the dangers of sectarianism. If you look at the history of the various colonies, from the Quakers to the Presbyters, Jamestown to the Utopian experiment of Georgia, our various colonies had vastly different ideas on the role of morality and religion in society. Our forefathers wisely decided to allow US, we the people, to choose and define our morality for ourselves and not to decide moral positions through government. The purpose of our laws is not to create moral people. Far from it. The purpose of our laws is to protect our personal freedoms and liberties- and to prevent people from imposing on those liberties. Thomas Jefferson wrote "the legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The purpose of law is to create social order, but not to create "moral" individuals.
It is up to you and I to develop those things. As I have said many times already, it is up to society to care for the moral upbringing of an individual. Most importantly, this begins in the home, then to small groups and associations (like church or girl scouts etc). But, it is an impossible task for government to select which sect of a particular faith has the proper notion of morality. Should your wife have to wear a burqa because one segment of our population thinks that is the moral behavior of women? Should you have to unplug your computer and end our conversation because one section of population believes electricity is immoral? Those people who believe such things are allowed the freedom to live according to their beliefs, but it is not the role of legislation to decide whose version of morality to choose. Thomas Jefferson said, "I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another." Finally, once more I repeat I think it is instructive that Christ himself never sought to set up laws and government, but in fact overthrew established laws of morality. His focus was on the heart of the individual and not on the power of a religious organization.
As I have stated many times already, I believe moral instruction is very important. I would love to see a focus on ethics in the classroom. I also would love to see the focus on developing critical thinking and debate skills instead of the wrote factual recitation method we see in our schools. I too, dislike much of the PC movement. I think it's a waste of time to dress things up with fancy words to try and put a protective hedge around everyone so that nobody's feelings get hurt. People get too easily offended. The one thing I do like about the PC movement, however, is the emphasis on trying to understand someone's way of life who is different from your own- to honor somebody who has different experiences and traditions from your own. If we all truly embraced this, I do think life would improve for everyone.
You said, "I do think that while God has given the government authority, He has also given it a responsibility to do what is right. And that involves moral interpretion. Otherwise, yes, you will have anarchy." I disagree. Our government is a great example of how that is not true. The government has given great power to our organizations to decide for themselves the rules and regulations it deems as prerequisite for membership. So, if a church decides that you cannot be a member if you work on sunday, or if a woman doesn't cover her head, or if you sprinkle a child instead of immersing it (etc.), they are free to do so. The only time government oversees doctrinal issues, is when a person's liberties are being infringed upon by the organization. One absurdly obvious example is human sacrifice. Government doesn't allow this even if it is part of a religious creed or observance. Even then, they don't ban the organization that promotes such practices, but only bans the behavior. Again we can look to the various organizations of our colonies and settlers to see how they had social order (and not anarchy), while yet having vastly different views of morality and organizational roles and laws.
You said, "I don't think that Christians want to be relegated to live separate lives as the Amish becauseof their beliefs." True, few people want to be outcasts. Most people want others to share their world view. But, it is not the role of government to make it easy to carry out a specific world view. The more radical a world view, or the further it is from the values of a current society as a whole, the more difficult it will be for that group to be fully immersed in society. That's the way it is. The Amish, for example, are free to live their lives how they see fit, but it is not our responsibility to make sure it's easy for them to fit in with everyone else. Christ himself said that you will be outcasts for your beliefs. That you will be ridiculed and abused. But, that you were to take up your cross and follow him and to go the extra mile when people persecute you. I don't think mainstream Christianity will be on the outer fringe of society in anytime soon. The vast majority of our population consider themselves Christians (though you and I know that what there's a wide spectrum of what that actually means). But, the more extreme one sect's position is compared to that of society, the more it will naturally be on the outskirts of society. To conclude, it is the responsibility of an individual to figure how to make their worldview work within society, not government's.
The point of my comments on the bible and women's roles (and slavery) within society is to highlight that your values as a Christian are strongly shaped by society, even when such teachings fly in direct opposition to what your holy books actually say. But, as I've already spent plenty of time today on this discussion, I will have to postpone the lion's share of that argument for another time.
What if Christianity actually teaches Peace and not preventive wars of aggression……….
Ron Paul 2012 Peace and prosperity
@ Bob Jones
You forgot an important part of the definition of a bigot. It is a "prejudiced" person who is intolerant of others ideas…not just someone who disagrees. I'm just trying to stand up for my religion as one centered around the faith of Jesus Christ. The scriptures you were referring to were not about the Book of Mormon (which actually reiterates the Bible). They were referring to the centuries of clergymen who added to and took away from the Bible. It is a historical fact that the Bible is not in its pure form. It has been adjusted from one version to another. It is a fact. I'm not going to get into a big debate b/c I have more important things to do with my time. Bottom line: Mormons are Christians. If you want to know what we believe, study our doctrine, attend our services, and read the Book of Mormon instead of listening to prejudiced anti-Mormons. If you still can't see we're Christians after all that……
@ LINDSAY…I am one who fully recognises that Mormons are Christians. I have not reviewed the previous arguements in this debate, but I know enough from my reading and more instructive from the Mormons I have known over the last 50 years. As a former Catholic but Still a Christian (a better one in my opinion) I appreciate the individuals right to an honest search for Christ and to worship as they decide. I also look to the "fruits" of that religion. In other words what kind of life a person or family lives and how closely it comes to the virtues that should flow from a true Christian belief. While I cannot agree with some major tenets of Mormonism and in all likelyhood never will …my personal experience with the virtues generally practiced by my Mormon freinds are highly moral, excellent examples of family values (none practiced polygamy) and had very practical and admirable traditions of hard work, love for others and self sufficency …that they passed to their children. Many who call themselves Christians could certainly take a lesson from Mormons who live in such a way. Christ seems to be central to their beliefs. Seems pretty Christian to me.
@Royboy Thank you for your respect for my beliefs. It's disheartening that I have tried my whole life to exemplify Christ and live His teachings and then to constantly hear people tell me I am NOT a Christian. It's a statement stemming from ignorance, hate, or fear and it isn't true. Mormons are Christians (although I'm sure not every member of our faith acts like it!) It's refreshing to hear someone who isn't closed minded and spouting something they heard on an anti-Mormon blog rant.
I have respect for others' beliefs, Christian or not, and I wish more people were tolerant and respectful to people whose beliefs differ from their own…like you. Thank you.
@ Lindsay…a lack of tolerance and respect for anothers honestly held beliefs would seem to me a violation of the second part of the "Greatest Commandment" that is… love your Neighbor as yourself….the first part of the greatest commandment being …love God…with your whole heart, mind…ect
I have not always been so tolerant…being an imperfect human it is work and takes persistance to make attitude corrections based on the teaching of Christ. It is a constant struggle to remind oneself to remember, with humility, that I do not have all the answers and attempting to live up to the example of Jesus is a life long pursuit. Those who stand in judgement and condemn others for their honestly held beliefs based on love are guilty of excessive pride and lacking in humility. Pride was the downfall of Lucifer and we know how that turned out.
anyway…
We are entering my favorite religious season!….the birth of Jesus and the true hope he brought to all who would hear his message. I wish you and yours a Very Merry Christmas!
Love God does not mean love sin or love deception or love lies. You are mixing postmodern thinking in with Biblical teaching. The Bible says that God hates sin. Does that make God intolerant??? It is not wrong to hate something that is wrong- it is commanded! This is a free country, believe what you want, but if your faith is irrational, don't call me intolerant for disagreeing with you about it!
And Paul says that if you boast in anything, boast in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ! Does that make him proud??? You are trying to take a biblical virtue of humility and turn it on its head to use it against what the Bible teaches about believing only scripture and not false prophets. That is very sneaky, and that is the same tactic that satan used when he tempted Jesus Christ (Matthew 4).
Yes, of course Christian actions are important, but they come out of a changed heart in obedience to God, not out of one's own goodness. "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." Romans 9:16 You will see fruit in those who truly believe, but it is not so simple to just look at what someone does and judge them by that. Only God sees the heart. And only God knows who has acknowledged that "All my righteousness is like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64) before Him, and who has truly believed that when Christ went on the cross, he took the punishment for our sins upon Him. If you don't believe that, you are not a Christian, no matter what great works you do for others. Because God gave His only son, and you have turned Him down and told God that you will earn your own righteousness instead of taking His precious and free gift. What did He give His son for if you could get to heaven on your own work??? What a waste of the earthly life of Someone of infinite value!
In short, a works centered faith puts the cart before the horse. You can't look for the fruit of someone's faith if they don't first have the correct understanding of what it is to put faith in God. If you don't study the Bible to find out who God is and what He has said about man, and what Jesus Christ has done for us, how will you know what you are believing in???
Are you believing in what a preacher or friend told you? Or just what you personally think? Who is to decide??? Scripture is solid rock, everything else is shifting sand. (Matthew 7:24-27)
@ Bob Jones…I hope people appreciate the schooling you are giving us. Are you a long time Biblical/Philosophy scholar? You have given me a lot to think about. Some of it may be uncomfortable and I will not just accept what you say without a thorough investigation. Understand my faith is a recently renewed faith and I didn't get it all right the first time either. I've been pretty comfortable with my opinions thus far this time. Oh well, back to work. Food for thought. I certainly do not have all the answers. I do try to understand within my capabilities. Merry Christmas!
@ Bob Jones. Wow! I've never heard such judgy, put-words-in-my-mouth person! You know nothing about the Mormon faith. It is centered around the belief that through Christ's sacrifice on the cross for us, we have the opportunity to be saved (here's the catch), IF and after all we can do. We believe in mercy AND good works. Something many Christians believe in. We don't believe we'll all be saved because some people will not use our Lord's gift and repent. There are so many mistakes in your thinking, but the main reason I chimed in on this discussion is because I want people to understand that we believe in the Bible, but first and foremost, Jesus Christ. Merry Christmas.
IF you truly are a religious scholar of some sort, I would encourage you to actually read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover before you judge our religion. I'm afraid you've been ill-informed about us on many counts, though I agree with most of your thoughts on Christ. Until you read our doctrine, you will never fully understand what we believe, no matter how many other books, blogs, or newspaper articles, or even historical documents you read. "By their fruits shall ye know them." Read it, then you can continue your criticisms. It's as simple as that.
@ Lindsay….Bob Jones seems to be a very intelligent guy with well thought out points…but if his aim is to convince others his tone will serve to turn some people off…kind of defeating the purpose. I can read his comments and see the potential value and the need for me to consider what he says…however, it is not my specific religion being attacked. Attacking puts people on the defensive and reasoned thinking stops. I realize my education in Christianity is far from complete…I'm still trying to get the basics taken care of.
Lindsay…try not to get upset. Take what others say …or leave it…its a free country.
Christ our savior is born…..Glory to God in the highest! Merry Christmas all!
Roy
That was a very insightful and kind comment, I admire you for expressing it so well.
Windisea…thanks a lot…I confess that in my case being kind is not always easy…gotta work at it.
With a screen name of Windisea, you wouldn't be from the Wind'n'Sea, LaJolla, San Diego area? Surfer? Used to be a hangout of mine as a teen (long freakin' time ago) Fond memories.
Roy
The name is a play on my first name and middle initial. I surfed a bit as teen at Redondo and Huntington Beach CA but never there. Yes, I have good memories too….
Merry Christmas
The reason, I believe, that the country has stepped away from "Christian Values" is because so many people, especially recently, have used the Bible in a way that it was not intended and that has caused people to decide that they no longer wished to be associated with the radical sect of Christianity. For instance, "man shall not sleep with man" is located in the Old Testament. Some people who want to call themselves Christians are using this quote to try and tell the rest of us that it is against Christian beliefs for two men to have sexual relations with each other. This is not true. The Old Testament is the "Jewish" book. When Jesus came to this Earth he got into a lot of trouble with the leaders of the Jewish faith because what he was telling people was that what the leaders were teaching (the Old Testament) was not true. Jesus was telling people that God was a loving and forgiving being, not the God being portrayed in the Old Testament, the God that the leaders of the Jewish faith would like you to believe is being represented, simply for the fact that they were trying to control, via fear, their "sheep". We need to get back to the loving God, the one Jesus came here to tell us about, and stop accepting the behavior of those who wish to use the Bible for its unintended purpose.
So it is the jews' fault again for something unimportant? While I am only of jewish descent and do not actually believe in religion, I can still tell that judaism is at least less unintelligent than christianity. If there were a god, it would seem too idealistic that he or she is so loving and forgiving. Sometimes, heinous acts just cannot be forgiven. Ferdinand and Isabela cannot be forgiven for the inquisition where they persecuted so many jews and muslims, the nazis cannot be forgiven for destroying so many jews, gays, gypsies, and jehova's witnesses, and the admissions board at columbia university cannot be forgiven for rejecting Richard Feynman's application because he was jewish. There may never come a day where you understand that worshipping one person such as jesus is absurd, but I can hope that in the foreseeable future, most people will realize that religion is simply outdated science. This social natural selection will happen regardless of what you believe.
[...] —Newt Gingrich, Thanksgiving Family Forum (skip to 1:10) [...]
[...] "To find one thing where I really goofed it or I had to suffer through it," Paul explained, "it's almost arrogant to think I can't find any one thing." [...]