Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you use scripture to support so called social justice through taxing and government action you are saying scripture approves of you forcing others, by the use of armed agents, to act as you want them to. It is no longer voluntary. The exact thing complained about if a majority votes to make the definition of marriage people born of opposite genders and using armed agents of the government to enforce that policy upon others
They all teach a bit differently. One uses the KJV only.
The KJV-only movement was quite a fringe movement back in the mid 1970s when I became aware of it through a word processing service I ran at the time; I typed a master's thesis for a Baptist theological seminary student who had a huge appendix / addendum on the topic.
Are they growing, do you know? I'm surprised to still hear about it forty years later.
For me, even then, it was a bridge too far, and in retrospect, hearing of it was one of the things that started to erode my own evangelical faith. I mean, it's one thing to claim that God inspired the original manuscripts; but the implicit "WASP supremacy" in the notion that he also inspired a particular translation "for the English-speaking peoples" which leads to all sorts of conspiracy theories about things like Wescott & Hort being a corruption from Satan to undermine the Textus Receptus ... it was just about three notches too nutty for me, even as a fundamentalist Christian. That, and hyper-dispensationalism, led me to begin to question, if people can wander that far off the rails, how nutty might some of my beliefs potentially be.
Besides, I NEVER heard them take a position about what god's approved translation was for "the Spanish-speaking peoples" or the "French-speaking peoples". I guess it was of no concern ...
When you use scripture to support so called social justice through taxing and government action you are saying scripture approves of you forcing others, by the use of armed agents, to act as you want them to. It is no longer voluntary. The exact thing complained about if a majority votes to make the definition of marriage people born of opposite genders and using armed agents of the government to enforce that policy upon others
Well there are a number of problems with this logic I'm afraid.
First of all, the notion that anything the government does, particularly at a high level, is immoral or coercive. I hope you don't plan to accept Social Security when you reach retirement age. It's that much more for me!
Secondly, the Bible teaches that one is to obey his constituted civil authorities as they would obey him, so how do you start deciding to selectively consider obedience to certain laws to be coercive rather than just the government being "sent by him (God) for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right"?
Thirdly the notion that social justice is a specious concept ("so-called" social justice). Is there or is there not a moral vs immoral stance on how the poor for example should be treated? Should they be assumed to be slothful and lawless or somehow automatically 100% responsible for their plights? Do more fortunate fellow citizens have some nonzero ethical responsibility to assist them? If not, why not? If so, how much?
If you have an objection to "social justice" then object to a particular implementation of it on the merits, not to the concept itself. I should think that any Christian who believes in empathy, compassion, and mercy as well as justice, would not have a problem with making society more just, and advocating certain policies to improve that picture. That is not bringing in jack-booted thugs to arbitrarily enforce your will on others.
If you think the term "social justice" has been hijacked to produce a faux moral authority for itself, then come up with some alternative term that isn't so loaded in your view. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Otherwise people would legitimately think that you object to the stated aims of social justice as a goal, which is, a more civil and fair society for all, and what you're really on about is keeping things the way you like them and excluding those you think are undeserving.
. While the Amish and certain sects of Mennonite, Church of Christ, and LDS make Baptists look quite liberal,[/quote]
You must Not be referring to the United Church of Christ, as that denomination is very socially liberal. (The Obamas's are former members).
Anytime these days you (foolishly) mix religions/dominations/churches with politics, you run the risk of the "unholy alliance" and the controlling behavior mentioned. Religion rarely helps politics, and politics sure as hell tends to corrupt churches. It's just a bad mix of two very differently converging matters, with different priorities.
Sure, in the early days of this country, the two could actually coexist without much problem. And you can certainly see the Judeo-Christian wording in the early documents of this country. But we lost that positive partnership many decades ago.
These days, the healthiest churches and schools of belief are the ones who stay farthest away from politics. Inversely, those that prefer the unholy alliance approach are of utmost danger to spiritual thought and belief, churches, and society at large.
BaptistFundie: Again...we are voters. Why are atheists and pagans so political and why do they, unlike other people, feel they should impose their morality, or lack thereof, on society at large, and that it's right to control the culture?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
Anytime these days you (foolishly) mix religions/dominations/churches with politics, you run the risk of the "unholy alliance" and the controlling behavior mentioned. Religion rarely helps politics, and politics sure as hell tends to corrupt churches. It's just a bad mix of two very differently converging matters, with different priorities.
Sure, in the early days of this country, the two could actually coexist without much problem. And you can certainly see the Judeo-Christian wording in the early documents of this country. But we lost that positive partnership many decades ago.
These days, the healthiest churches and schools of belief are the ones who stay farthest away from politics. Inversely, those that prefer the unholy alliance approach are of utmost danger to spiritual thought and belief, churches, and society at large.
So a voter who believes the Lord Jesus Christ whose the Savior of the whole world which means all of mankind.
The dead walk the plank to fall headlong into the same place Judas fell into that for one silver piece betrayed...
God made the world they have lived in just 6 days as it has almost been destroyed by the practices of mankind.
That Christian social work is both common sense and an interruption to how man's government has been ailed.
The exiles from those promises God promised in the scriptures is no longer the unknown but to be the fulfilled.
It will take no longer than a day or two for people to catch on how the governing structure was exile designed.
There is no reason to become so upset over that thought of Christians entering into governments for redesign.
It must be the corruption of what money does to some that they can't see that money will not reign there bye.
There will be no false faces to have to look into them anymore and see those fake sympathies mean more died.
It will be just as the Egyptians saw the future be a wholescale re-enactment of the cosmos of God is at designed.
God lifted the veil of that testimony that the Egyptian Sphinx is a living representative of the Tribe of Judah hi.
Because God considers soil to be the foil that the outer court must continue to rein in with hell is at a widening.
Between those who preach that Gospel of the Lord Yeshua is God with us that he visited upon Egypt so is fining.
There's no more smoke and mirrors as to what the ankh represents as it is the same key of what Peter was given.
'Life and life more abundantly' that torture holds no place in the land of Ptah was God with us justice is at living.
BaptistFundie: Again...we are voters. Why are atheists and pagans so political and why do they, unlike other people, feel they should impose their morality, or lack thereof, on society at large, and that it's right to control the culture?
You're kidding, right? I mean, you *do* live in the United States, I presume? Because your comment above makes me think you don't.
Atheists and pagans are not imposing any type of morality (or lack thereof) onto anyone else.
What we atheists have *always* espoused is for our government to give everyone the *choice* to decide for themselves what their moral compass ought to be and how far to take it.
If you think giving people the freedom to make their own decisions is "imposing our morality or lack thereof" onto society at large or controlling the culture, you're one confused puppy.
Take the best example of the last 40 years -- marriage equality, also known as the "gay marriage" war.
WE atheists were not imposing morality of any kind. Instead, most of us defended the right for gays to marry because not everyone sees homosexuality as immoral. Rather, it was the fundamentalists and evangelicals who were imposing their morality on the rest of society by saying gay marriage must be banned because THEY believed it was immoral.
In other words, all 320 million Americans would have been forced by the government to obey the Bible whether they were Christian or not, whether they believed homosexuality was immoral or not. After all, why should two gay Hindus give a damn about what the Bible says -- and why should two gay atheists be forced to treat their own lifestyle as "immoral" because a God they don't believe exists says it is?
Atheists merely want to live in a nation where we have the choice, the freedom to choose, for ourselves the path of our lives ... and NOT have someone *else's* belief system dictating to us what we can and cannot do.
That is NOT imposing morality onto anyone nor is it controlling the culture. In fact, it is the fundamentalists and evangelicals who wish to impose their moral system onto society at large and control the culture -- as if they believe that our culture belongs to them and them alone. Those Christians acted as if their religion owned marriage and thus had the right to decide for the entire country who could and couldn't marry.
The atheist philosophy was: If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, don't engage in homosexual acts and, for heaven's sake, don't marry someone of the same gender! No one is forcing those Christians to live a gay lifestyle or marry someone they don't want to marry. They can still practice their beliefs to their hearts' content.
Unless you can explain to me precisely how atheists and pagans are imposing our morality onto everyone else thus controlling the culture -- instead of simply saying that they are and providing no examples -- you really don't have a case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
