Print

Author Topic: Your F Score?  (Read 60264 times)

« Reply #105 on: April 03, 2011, 11:03:29 PM »
Just going to interrupt to just say that for once I totally appreciate Crosseyed's apparent sitting in the library just flipping through any book he can findjust so he can argue better. Carry on.
"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special." Stephen Hawking

« Reply #106 on: April 03, 2011, 11:04:58 PM »
I'm pretty sure he knows this stuff by heart dude. CrossEyed is really ****ing smart.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

« Reply #107 on: April 03, 2011, 11:30:23 PM »
Indeed. CE is comparable to C.S. Lewis, except that he's not dead.

Nonwithstanding, I give this thread an "F" score.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

« Reply #108 on: April 03, 2011, 11:32:27 PM »
Thank God for CrossEyed7. I don't agree with his politics or believe in his religion but I respect his eloquence, patience, and kindness to his fellow man. CE7 well-represents the loving teachings of Jesus, in a way so many "conservatives" do not.

Insane Steve

  • Professional Cynic
« Reply #109 on: April 03, 2011, 11:40:20 PM »
Jesus was a socialist with two dads.

But yea, I very much respect the teachings of actual Jesus. Too bad the right wing has invented "supply-side" Jesus which is basically the opposite of Jesus, expect also named Jesus.
~I.S.~

« Reply #110 on: April 04, 2011, 01:55:33 AM »
The gentle Jesus and his scoundrel counterpart Christ, I always say.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #111 on: April 04, 2011, 07:53:13 AM »
When an unbeliever sins, they don't get disciplined by the church, because they're not in a church, and it's not like it's the first time they've sinned, so it's nothing new. The New Testament doesn't give any guidelines for us punishing people for sins beyond church discipline. And unlike in the Old Testament, the government is not the church. Under the old covenant, God set His people apart visibly as a physical nation. Under the new covenant, God sets His people apart on the inside, making external nationalities and boundaries meaningless. The kingdom is spiritual now.
Is it perfectly acceptable, then, to do nothing?  More importantly, what are the implications?  If God's law is optional, and we clearly can't be expected to follow it, why bother trying at all?  In expecting only a certain group to follow God's law, you still have a law that's only given to that one group to set them apart.  Unless I'm missing something, what you're suggesting isn't all that different from the Old Testament system, except people would make even less effort to not sin because there's absolutely no punishment to fear.  Or maybe you suggest what is effectively moral relativism, where what is bad for one person or group is just fine for another?

There is no Biblical precedent for a government that rules believers and unbelievers alike under the Levitical code. Israel was God's chosen people. Today, God's chosen people are not a nation, but a mixed, scattered group of people held together by a belief.
Let's look at Romans 13 again.
Quote
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
God establishes governments and leaders, even under the new covenant.  The state can't just not have a role.

You couldn't run a government of unbelievers under the Levitical law (especially if you include James 2:10). Every single person is guilty and deserving of eternal punishment. That's the whole point of the law. You can't run a human government where it's impossible to abide by the laws.
Again, though, does that mean we should just scrap the whole thing and do nothing?  Does that excuse people from obeying God?  Can they just do whatever they like, the consequences, like them eventually, if we leave them to their devices, be [darn]ed?
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

« Reply #112 on: April 04, 2011, 03:21:33 PM »
Matthew 25:41-45
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.



Turtlekid1 wants us to spend taxpayer dollars arresting sodomists, because it is a sin, as stated by God.

Jesus directly states in Matthew 25 that in the final reckoning, those who did not feed the hungry, help strangers, clothe the naked, and comfort the sick will be "cursed into everlasting fire".

Turtlekid1 does not want us to spend taxpayer dollars to help "the least of these".

This is a contradiction, and illustrates how Turtlekid1's anti-gay values trump Republican government savings values, in spite of what the Bible says.

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #113 on: April 04, 2011, 04:33:26 PM »
Turtlekid1 wants us to spend taxpayer dollars arresting sodomists, because it is a sin, as stated by God.

Jesus directly states in Matthew 25 that in the final reckoning, those who did not feed the hungry, help strangers, clothe the naked, and comfort the sick will be "cursed into everlasting fire".

Turtlekid1 does not want us to spend taxpayer dollars to help "the least of these".

This is a contradiction, and illustrates how Turtlekid1's anti-gay values trump Republican government savings values, in spite of what the Bible says.
I don't see the contradiction.  Helping the "the least of these" is something we're supposed to do on our own, without being forced to by the government.  Not allowing sodomites is something the government is supposed to do.  By all means, spend money on charity.  Just don't force people to spend money on charity.
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

« Reply #114 on: April 04, 2011, 04:46:21 PM »
But force people to oppress gays.

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #115 on: April 04, 2011, 05:04:00 PM »
If by "oppress," you mean "don't let them sleep with people of the same sex," then yes.  Something like that.
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

CrossEyed7

  • i can make this whatever i want; you're not my dad
« Reply #116 on: April 04, 2011, 06:31:11 PM »
Is it perfectly acceptable, then, to do nothing?
No. I'm just saying there's no reason to make the government do it instead of doing it ourselves.

Quote
More importantly, what are the implications?  If God's law is optional,
No.
Quote
and we clearly can't be expected to follow it,
"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." - Romans 8:7-8
Paul's words, not mine. Until a person undergoes a personal, individual, internal change of heart, he cannot submit to God's law.
So unless you're somehow going to set up a nation where you know every single person in it is a true believer, your system isn't going to work.

Quote
why bother trying at all?
Why should a Christian try to obey the law? Because we want to.
Why should an unbeliever try to obey the law? Well, I wouldn't argue that they should. It certainly wouldn't be my first advice to them.

Quote
In expecting only a certain group to follow God's law, you still have a law that's only given to that one group to set them apart.
Wait, are you implying that Christians shouldn't be set apart and different from the rest of the world?
Quote
Unless I'm missing something, what you're suggesting isn't all that different from the Old Testament system, except people would make even less effort to not sin because there's absolutely no punishment to fear.
What I'm suggesting is traditional Christian theology.

Quote
Or maybe you suggest what is effectively moral relativism, where what is bad for one person or group is just fine for another?
No.

Quote
Let's look at Romans 13 again.God establishes governments and leaders, even under the new covenant.  The state can't just not have a role.
Once again, Romans 13 is written to the subjects, not the government. It's telling those ruled by governments that aren't the way they'd like them to be not to get upset about it. Which is why I'd suggest you find a different text to support your argument. Especially considering it's the only specific Biblical reference you've used.
Did the Roman government that Paul told his audience to submit to play a role in the way you say it should? The Roman government that fed Christians to lions and all that?

Quote
Again, though, does that mean we should just scrap the whole thing and do nothing?
No. It also doesn't mean that we should pick and choose which parts of the law we like the best to be part of the government and leave other ones out.

Quote
Does that excuse people from obeying God?  Can they just do whatever they like, the consequences, like them eventually, if we leave them to their devices, be [darn]ed?
I see nothing in the Bible that indicates we must evangelize through legislation.



I don't see the contradiction.  Helping the "the least of these" is something we're supposed to do on our own, without being forced to by the government.  Not allowing sodomites is something the government is supposed to do.  By all means, spend money on charity.  Just don't force people to spend money on charity.
Why? How do you draw the distinction? Especially since Israel's government under Levitical law did help the least of these?
Workers were forbidden from picking all the grain on their field. If they dropped any, they were forbidden to pick it up, and they had to leave the corners, both so that poor people could go in and get it for themselves. That wasn't voluntary, that was required by the government. As was tithing. And the Year of Jubilee, where every 50 years, all property ownership was reverted.
Would you incorporate all those laws into your version of the U.S. government?

How can you say that the government must enforce morality, but must not enforce charity, especially going on an Old Testament standard, where the government did both (if you can even separate morality and charity, especially in the New Testament)? How can you see the verses that tell us we must give to the poor of our own accord and not see that obeying the law is the same thing?

Quote from: Jesus
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40)
Jesus said that the whole Law boils down to "Love God and love your neighbor." If the government is going to enforce the Old Testament Law, that must include caring for the least of these. (Come to think of it, I can't recall ever seeing an actual Bible passage saying that the government shouldn't give to the poor.)

You're splitting the Law into morality and charity. Where do you get that split? Wouldn't you say it's immoral to not give to charity if you are able? Why shouldn't the government enforce that aspect of morality?

If all the Law is summed up with "Love God" and "Love your neighbor", how are you splitting it? Are you saying that "love your neighbor" is charity and "love God" is morality, and the government can force us to love God but can't force us to love our neighbor?

If your reasoning for why the government shouldn't enforce charity is because "God wants you to give from the heart," then why doesn't that also apply to morality? The government can't make you moral any more than it can make you charitable. Laws don't change hearts. So if you're not changing the heart, you can only be concerned with the external effects of forcing people to follow the law. But what positive net benefit does it have on society to stop people from sinning in ways that don't affect others (sinning against God, not against man)? And if you're concerned with the external effects, what about the external effects that forcing people to give to charity would have?



I thought this was kinda relevant in several places, but not relevant enough in any one place, so I'm just putting it here:
Quote from: James 2:8-13
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.



One last thing: The Bible is not written as advice for unbelievers to improve their life. You can find some good helpful stuff like that in there, but the only parts of the Bible that are addressed to unbelievers are the parts that say "Repent, and be forgiven." The Bible has no room to say to unbelievers "Well, you should repent, but if you're not gonna, then at least don't do it with a dude before you go to hell." The only thing the Bible has to say to unbelievers is "Stop not believing." The rest of it is written to God's people. In the past, that was the physical nation of Israel, but it is no longer a physical earthly nation, and has not been for the past 2,000 years.

Hebrews 8 again.

Quote from: Hebrews 8
Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, One who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tabernacle that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tabernacle tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant He mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

For He finds fault with them when He says:
Quote from: Jeremiah 31:31-34
Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
   when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
   and with the house of Judah,
Not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
   on the day when I took them by the hand out of the house of Egypt.
For they did not continue in My covenant,
   and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
   after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
   and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
   and they shall be my people.
And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
   and each one his brother, saying, "Know the Lord,"
for they shall all know Me,
   from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
   and I will remember their sins no more.

In speaking of a new covenant, He makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Look at the Jeremiah passage that the author of Hebrews quotes in there. It's clearly referring to the church body, no longer a physical bounded nation. That's why Paul prescribed church discipline rather than civil legal punishment.

You're seeing a false dichotomy between an Old Testament theocracy (well, sort of a mishmash of one, but still) and anarchy. But the earthly government in the Old Testament was only meant to be a type and shadow of the heavenly kingdom that has been set up for the past two millennia. We can still have governments that keep us safe and give us liberty to follow Christ's teaching's the way we should. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what we've had in America for 250 years.

Yes, we still need government. But we don't need it to keep us moral. Christians have the power of the Holy Spirit to keep them moral, which is far more powerful than any earthly government. Unbelievers cannot possibly follow the law, and even if they started, it still wouldn't solve their actual problem. So who would the government be doing a service to by requiring everyone to follow [parts of] Leviticus?

Why do you want the government to make people follow the law? Because they'll go to hell if they don't? Even if the government successfully prevented any future lawbreaking, they'd still go to hell for their past sins. Because God wants people to follow His law? He doesn't want people who are forced into it (which you agree with when it comes to charity).

For public safety, to keep us all from killing each other? Homosexuality poses no direct threat to public safety.

AND EVEN putting all that aside, how would you justify setting up an Old Testament theocracy under the United States Constitution? You can't.

I rest my case.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2011, 07:05:58 PM by CrossEyed7 »
"Oh man, I wish being a part of a Mario fan community was the most embarrassing thing about my life." - Super-Jesse

« Reply #117 on: April 04, 2011, 06:50:04 PM »
Dear God, I love CE, and if that's wrong, oh well.
Sincerely,
This apparent heathen.
"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special." Stephen Hawking

BP

  • Beside Pacific
« Reply #118 on: April 04, 2011, 07:05:35 PM »
In layman's terms, it's the government's job to protect us from each other, not from demons
All your dreeeeeeams begiiin to shatterrrrrr~
It's YOUR problem!

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #119 on: April 04, 2011, 08:41:20 PM »
No."For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." - Romans 8:7-8
Paul's words, not mine. Until a person undergoes a personal, individual, internal change of heart, he cannot submit to God's law.
That verse isn't saying that men are incapable of doing anything right, though.  It's saying that as long as men are unrepentant, their works alone are not going to cut it.

So unless you're somehow going to set up a nation where you know every single person in it is a true believer, your system isn't going to work.
But I could say the same to you.  Unless everyone is a believer and wants to follow the law, they're not going to, and you're going to have a very depraved population.

Why should a Christian try to obey the law? Because we want to.
Why should an unbeliever try to obey the law? Well, I wouldn't argue that they should. It certainly wouldn't be my first advice to them.
So then, if unbelievers shouldn't [don't have to try to] obey the law, then you are asserting that it's optional and/or relative, are you not?

Once again, Romans 13 is written to the subjects, not the government. It's telling those ruled by governments that aren't the way they'd like them to be not to get upset about it. Which is why I'd suggest you find a different text to support your argument. Especially considering it's the only specific Biblical reference you've used.
Did the Roman government that Paul told his audience to submit to play a role in the way you say it should? The Roman government that fed Christians to lions and all that?
Paul wasn't referring only to the Roman government of the time, though.  Notice the terminology: There is no authority except from God.

No. It also doesn't mean that we should pick and choose which parts of the law we like the best to be part of the government and leave other ones out.
Whether we like the law is irrelevant.  I'm not picking and choosing what I like and don't like.  I'm saying that there's a difference between moral law and ceremonial procedure, and that the latter (and only the latter) is no longer necessary thanks to Christ.

One last thing: The Bible is not written as advice for unbelievers to improve their life. You can find some good helpful stuff like that in there, but the only parts of the Bible that are addressed to unbelievers are the parts that say "Repent, and be forgiven." The Bible has no room to say to unbelievers "Well, you should repent, but if you're not gonna, then at least don't do it with a dude before you go to hell." The only thing the Bible has to say to unbelievers is "Stop not believing." The rest of it is written to God's people. In the past, that was the physical nation of Israel, but it is no longer a physical earthly nation, and has not been for the past 2,000 years.
The way I see it, though, either the law does apply to everyone, or it doesn't.  There isn't only one thing the Bible has to say to unbelievers if they're to follow the same morals as we are.  If they're not, then... dude, that's the definition of relativism - what's good and right for one group isn't necessarily for another.

Yes, we still need government. But we don't need it to keep us moral. Christians have the power of the Holy Spirit to keep them moral, which is far more powerful than any earthly government. Unbelievers cannot possibly follow the law, and even if they started, it still wouldn't solve their actual problem. So who would the government be doing a service to by requiring everyone to follow [parts of] Leviticus?
The point is to restrain unbelievers from immorality, not to save them.  If you got a pet, say, a large dog, and brought it home, would you just let it destroy your possessions just because it can't know any better on its own?  No, you would restrain it first to prevent further damage before you try to train it to know what's acceptable and what isn't.

Homosexuality poses no direct threat to public safety.
Debatable, considering its effect on the institutions of marriage and family.

I really really do not have the time or energy to go much further into this at the moment, and I'm sorry I'm terrible at discussing this stuff, but further reading on the matter can be found here.

The bottom line - the point I really want to make - is that the church and state are separate spheres of authority and while they need to work together, the church doesn't have the authority to administer justice.
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

Print