-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Obviously I think he has the vision and ahead sight that makes more sense then the other candidates. At least he is touching some of the hot topics for US that most of not all candidates are silent about.
Reluctant, because there are always these downsides of all political programs. And, IMO, when you vote for someone you will always get part of the negatives of the one you voted for.
Reluctant, because there are always these downsides of all political programs. And, IMO, when you vote for someone you will always get part of the negatives of the one you voted for.
R
Calm down Spaz. Why don't you look up marriage in that Bible of yours than trace where we got it from and then come back. Trust me, you're not going to teach me anything about a Bible. And no, I would never wear cotton poly blends. Why didn't you read the entire quote you quoted before responding? I clearly did bot condemn the person but the act. Like it's in the Bible.
T
I guess we're all "simultaneously saint and sinner," no? (That's a quote from Martin Luther, btw, in case you didn't know.)
You mentioned "hot topics." I think I know what you're talking about, but I would rather hear from you than assume (you know what they say). Which topics, exactly, is he "touching" that the other candidates won't? And why is that important, from a Christian perspective?
And thank you for responding! I am enjoying this dialogue, and hope you are, too.
You mentioned "hot topics." I think I know what you're talking about, but I would rather hear from you than assume (you know what they say). Which topics, exactly, is he "touching" that the other candidates won't? And why is that important, from a Christian perspective?
And thank you for responding! I am enjoying this dialogue, and hope you are, too.
T
Hi. My screen name is "The Grunge Diva." You can call me "Grunge" or "Diva" or "TGD" -- Any of those work. Is there a name you would like to go by? Romans? R222? Something like that? Let me know.
What a wonderful idea! I think I will do just that....
Wow, what a fascinating study that was. You know what? In the Old Testament, "marriage" has nothing to do with love. It is a property transaction, a legal contract between one family and another. Not only does a man never marry a man, or a woman a woman, but a woman never has a choice in the matter. A father "gives a daughter" in marriage. Older men have a choice, but women never do. Hmmm. Is that model really what we want to be emulating? Is that really Godly? Is this a case where the Bible is being PROscriptive or DEscriptive?
In the New Testament, both Jesus and Paul speak of getting rid of marriage altogether. The institution -- which up to then had been a legal contract of the exchange of a possession was part of the Old Covenant. Now we were under the "New Covenant," and marriage was null and void. In the Kingdom of God, a woman does not belong to a man, but both woman and man belong to God. The old understanding of marriage, in which a woman is sold to a man in a contract, is completely obsolete. In the early church, men and women gave their lives to God, not to one another. No one was married to another. Or, looking at it from another perspective, every person is married to each other: everyone in a particular church is married to every other member, as a community, and called to be as husbands and wives to each other, to serve each other as Christ served us.
This is what "marriage" means in the Bible. In the Old Testament, it is a property sale. In the New, it should be banished completely.
Now, the next part of what you asked, to find out "where we got it from," is more difficult. This requires a look into Western Civilization and a lesson in history. The word "marriage" was continued to be used as a legal contract for centuries, even in Christian communities, in the Old Testament sense of the word. Women were sold as property, as commodities to be traded. Although many Christian communities recognized that this was wrong, and rebelled against this, the establishment held this tradition until very recently. Marriage never had anything to do with love or sexual fidelity. It had to do with property rights and inheritance. Again, in most communities, this practice was very sexist. Men were never expected to remain sexually faithful. At times in history it was more shameful for a man NOT to have several mistresses, or even a gay lover. In some periods in history, it was also "fashionable" for women (of certain social castes) to take on lovers. This was tricky, however, because a woman had to be careful not to get pregnant by someone other than her husband, for inheritance purposes. It was important, because it was all about inheritance. The marriage was about two families merging, usually for political reasons, and offspring from such a marriage were given certain parcels of land to rule.
This may sound silly to anyone who has lived in the US their whole lives. Leaders aren't born, they're elected by the populace. Marriage isn't political, it's about love and commitment. Well, that is a very recent development. That sentiment has only been around for the last 200 years or so -- a mere flash compared to all of human history. When marriage was about offspring and inheritance, it made perfect sense that two men or two women could not marry. They could not have offspring, and there would be no political gain in such a contract. But now that marriage has changed its status from a political contract to a statement of love and commitment, why would it not include gays, who are just as capable of love and commitment (and in some cases, are more faithful than a lot of heterosexual I know)?
So, where do we get "marriage" from? Well, it certainly isn't the Bible. The term has changed meanings over time. The understanding of what "marriage" means today is certainly different from what it meant 500 years ago. Heck, it's different today from what it meant 50 years ago! (And that may not be such a good thing, with the divorce rate up over 50%.) If you really want to revert to what it meant in Biblical times, you're going to have to revert to a time when women were little better than cattle, and I think you're going to get a lot of flack for that. (Not to mention the problem that polygamy is completely Biblical.)
No, "marriage" today is not the same as "marriage" in the Old Testament. And since both Jesus and Paul spoke out against "marriage" of any kind, I'd say the Church ought to be just fine with letting the secular world have that word, not seeing it as a sacred at all. Why make sacred what God has already profaned?
I don't doubt that. Not because I don't know more than you do. I probably know some things about the Bible that you don't, just as you probably know some things about the Bible that I don't. And I would very much like to learn what you know. But I know you will never learn from me, because your mind is closed, and there are none so blind as them who will not see.
That's amazing. You must hand-make all your own clothing, then, because it's almost impossible to find manufactured clothing these days that's 100% pure. In fact, you must grow your own sheep, shear them, and spin the wool yourself, to ensure that it's the same breed of sheep. Because even if you buy cloth at a fabric store, you can't be sure that it's kosher. I have to say, I am really impressed. How many acres do you live on, able to keep all the different animals separated as the Bible commands?
Ummm ... I did read your entire post. I'm not sure what you're responding to here. I didn't accuse you of condemning anyone. You may have me confused with someone else on another thread? I, too, am simply applying Biblical principles. I think gay people should live by Christian principles as much as straight people, and should remain pure and upright. Like you, though I don't just them, I just love them.
What a wonderful idea! I think I will do just that....
Wow, what a fascinating study that was. You know what? In the Old Testament, "marriage" has nothing to do with love. It is a property transaction, a legal contract between one family and another. Not only does a man never marry a man, or a woman a woman, but a woman never has a choice in the matter. A father "gives a daughter" in marriage. Older men have a choice, but women never do. Hmmm. Is that model really what we want to be emulating? Is that really Godly? Is this a case where the Bible is being PROscriptive or DEscriptive?
In the New Testament, both Jesus and Paul speak of getting rid of marriage altogether. The institution -- which up to then had been a legal contract of the exchange of a possession was part of the Old Covenant. Now we were under the "New Covenant," and marriage was null and void. In the Kingdom of God, a woman does not belong to a man, but both woman and man belong to God. The old understanding of marriage, in which a woman is sold to a man in a contract, is completely obsolete. In the early church, men and women gave their lives to God, not to one another. No one was married to another. Or, looking at it from another perspective, every person is married to each other: everyone in a particular church is married to every other member, as a community, and called to be as husbands and wives to each other, to serve each other as Christ served us.
This is what "marriage" means in the Bible. In the Old Testament, it is a property sale. In the New, it should be banished completely.
Now, the next part of what you asked, to find out "where we got it from," is more difficult. This requires a look into Western Civilization and a lesson in history. The word "marriage" was continued to be used as a legal contract for centuries, even in Christian communities, in the Old Testament sense of the word. Women were sold as property, as commodities to be traded. Although many Christian communities recognized that this was wrong, and rebelled against this, the establishment held this tradition until very recently. Marriage never had anything to do with love or sexual fidelity. It had to do with property rights and inheritance. Again, in most communities, this practice was very sexist. Men were never expected to remain sexually faithful. At times in history it was more shameful for a man NOT to have several mistresses, or even a gay lover. In some periods in history, it was also "fashionable" for women (of certain social castes) to take on lovers. This was tricky, however, because a woman had to be careful not to get pregnant by someone other than her husband, for inheritance purposes. It was important, because it was all about inheritance. The marriage was about two families merging, usually for political reasons, and offspring from such a marriage were given certain parcels of land to rule.
This may sound silly to anyone who has lived in the US their whole lives. Leaders aren't born, they're elected by the populace. Marriage isn't political, it's about love and commitment. Well, that is a very recent development. That sentiment has only been around for the last 200 years or so -- a mere flash compared to all of human history. When marriage was about offspring and inheritance, it made perfect sense that two men or two women could not marry. They could not have offspring, and there would be no political gain in such a contract. But now that marriage has changed its status from a political contract to a statement of love and commitment, why would it not include gays, who are just as capable of love and commitment (and in some cases, are more faithful than a lot of heterosexual I know)?
So, where do we get "marriage" from? Well, it certainly isn't the Bible. The term has changed meanings over time. The understanding of what "marriage" means today is certainly different from what it meant 500 years ago. Heck, it's different today from what it meant 50 years ago! (And that may not be such a good thing, with the divorce rate up over 50%.) If you really want to revert to what it meant in Biblical times, you're going to have to revert to a time when women were little better than cattle, and I think you're going to get a lot of flack for that. (Not to mention the problem that polygamy is completely Biblical.)
No, "marriage" today is not the same as "marriage" in the Old Testament. And since both Jesus and Paul spoke out against "marriage" of any kind, I'd say the Church ought to be just fine with letting the secular world have that word, not seeing it as a sacred at all. Why make sacred what God has already profaned?
I don't doubt that. Not because I don't know more than you do. I probably know some things about the Bible that you don't, just as you probably know some things about the Bible that I don't. And I would very much like to learn what you know. But I know you will never learn from me, because your mind is closed, and there are none so blind as them who will not see.
That's amazing. You must hand-make all your own clothing, then, because it's almost impossible to find manufactured clothing these days that's 100% pure. In fact, you must grow your own sheep, shear them, and spin the wool yourself, to ensure that it's the same breed of sheep. Because even if you buy cloth at a fabric store, you can't be sure that it's kosher. I have to say, I am really impressed. How many acres do you live on, able to keep all the different animals separated as the Bible commands?
Ummm ... I did read your entire post. I'm not sure what you're responding to here. I didn't accuse you of condemning anyone. You may have me confused with someone else on another thread? I, too, am simply applying Biblical principles. I think gay people should live by Christian principles as much as straight people, and should remain pure and upright. Like you, though I don't just them, I just love them.
I happen to be "born lutheran" (as was Ron Paul too btw). That quote I agree with. however I would not agree with all modern lutherans view on it.
Well, I won't go into too much detail, and I'm not sure I can fairly present a "christian perspective" on all sides, but I certainly find his approach on how the US should act (or rather not act) in international politics as very sound and in time with the realities of today, so also the suggestion to cut foreign aid, to bring troops home from unjust wars in the middle east etc, rather keep troops in the country to secure its borders. And then there are the classical issues like taxes, spendings, regulations etc. On the critical side I'd say that though I find his idea of protectionism and free market combined within same context as an interesting idea, I'd also find such hard to believe it could materialize IRL.
To be honest, it's so and so. This political quarreling is not very edifying. People are coming from different backgrounds and have various reasons for their convictions. Many times I find that we too easily judge peoples opinions based on prejudice rather than wanting to understand why they think as they do. I have long been in an environment where worldly politics and politicians were viewed with high suspicion and voting for such was seen upon similarly. As I see it much of the voting people do is done from the perspective of choosing the least worst, or to avoid what they perceive as the worst. Little voting seems actually to be done out of visioning.
Well, I won't go into too much detail, and I'm not sure I can fairly present a "christian perspective" on all sides, but I certainly find his approach on how the US should act (or rather not act) in international politics as very sound and in time with the realities of today, so also the suggestion to cut foreign aid, to bring troops home from unjust wars in the middle east etc, rather keep troops in the country to secure its borders. And then there are the classical issues like taxes, spendings, regulations etc. On the critical side I'd say that though I find his idea of protectionism and free market combined within same context as an interesting idea, I'd also find such hard to believe it could materialize IRL.
To be honest, it's so and so. This political quarreling is not very edifying. People are coming from different backgrounds and have various reasons for their convictions. Many times I find that we too easily judge peoples opinions based on prejudice rather than wanting to understand why they think as they do. I have long been in an environment where worldly politics and politicians were viewed with high suspicion and voting for such was seen upon similarly. As I see it much of the voting people do is done from the perspective of choosing the least worst, or to avoid what they perceive as the worst. Little voting seems actually to be done out of visioning.
Last edited:
T
Hi, tribseman! First of all, let me say thank you for expanding on your previous post. I appreciate your candor, and you have expressed yourself with a grace and intelligence that is often missing on the internet these days. Cheers!
What a coincidence. I was Lutheran for the first 30+ years of my life, too. Currently I work in an Episcopal church, which is very similar to Lutheranism.
I so totally agree with you here. (And I think you did an excellent job presenting the "Christian perspective.") I saw a campaign ad of his recently, where he compared our involvement in Iraq with military from the Chinese government taking up residence in Texas, claiming it was for our own good. The way he presented it was brilliant. And yes, he is the ONLY candidate of the two main parties who is being honest about that particular issue. And, I agree with you that his position on that issue is in line with Christian values. Jesus is the Prince of Peace. I would accept that there may be times when war is necessary, this side of paradise. (For example, WWII, though not the Pacific campaign, but what Hitler was doing needed to be stopped.) Most of our nation's leaders, however, are far too blood thirsty, and I think Jesus would preach against this today, just as he did 2,000 years ago, and as the Prophets did before that.
I actually disagree with his economic policies. Basically, there are two general schools of thought when it comes to economics. Keynesian economics teaches that the government can stimulate the economy by providing programs like work-fare, WVA, etc. "Reaganomics" is the opposite approach. It says the government should take its hands off, and allow big business the freedom to operate as it does, minimizing restrictions on government so they create jobs, which is what stimulates the economy.
There are two problems with this "trickle-down" theory. The first is that it just doesn't work. Republicans have been ignoring scads of data that show when restrictions are removed from businesses, they do NOT create jobs and stimulate the economy. The studies show that additional regulations really don't cause a majority of companies to pick up their HQ and move to off-shore. The big companies will do that anyway, no matter how lax our regulations are, and the smaller companies won't, no matter how strict we are. Of course, as a Christian, that doesn't really matter to me; what matters to me is justice. The fact that Keynsian economics actually benefits the rich as well as the poor is just an added benefit.
Yes, I know that there are some lazy people who just collect their welfare check and sit on their butt. As a percentage of the whole, they are few and far between. Most people on welfare are really hurting. The prophets tell us, time and time again, that God judges us based on how we treat the poorest in our society. Jesus said to the goats: I was hungry and you did not feed me. I was sick, and you did not help me. When we cut these social programs, we are hurting God. As a Christian, this is just plain wrong. So far, ALL the Republican candidates are running on platforms of social conservativism, lowering taxes and cutting these social programs. It looks nice on paper, but when you see the details, Jesus has already told us what is right. As I've said before, I'm not sure Obama is so much better than any of the Republican candidates. At least he's saying that it's more important to support these programs than to lower taxes, which is a step in the right direction.
I agree with you here. That is part of why I bring this up. I am hoping this discussion inspires people to think about the issues behind the candidates, and not just go with a candidate because of their platform. The more I discuss, the more I think there is no candidate that is particularly "Godly". (E'en so, Lord, quickly come!)
Also, I am glad most of the posters here have been able to keep the discussion civilized and polite. It makes me happy to see sisters and brothers treating each other with respect and agape, even in disagreements.
What a coincidence. I was Lutheran for the first 30+ years of my life, too. Currently I work in an Episcopal church, which is very similar to Lutheranism.
I so totally agree with you here. (And I think you did an excellent job presenting the "Christian perspective.") I saw a campaign ad of his recently, where he compared our involvement in Iraq with military from the Chinese government taking up residence in Texas, claiming it was for our own good. The way he presented it was brilliant. And yes, he is the ONLY candidate of the two main parties who is being honest about that particular issue. And, I agree with you that his position on that issue is in line with Christian values. Jesus is the Prince of Peace. I would accept that there may be times when war is necessary, this side of paradise. (For example, WWII, though not the Pacific campaign, but what Hitler was doing needed to be stopped.) Most of our nation's leaders, however, are far too blood thirsty, and I think Jesus would preach against this today, just as he did 2,000 years ago, and as the Prophets did before that.
I actually disagree with his economic policies. Basically, there are two general schools of thought when it comes to economics. Keynesian economics teaches that the government can stimulate the economy by providing programs like work-fare, WVA, etc. "Reaganomics" is the opposite approach. It says the government should take its hands off, and allow big business the freedom to operate as it does, minimizing restrictions on government so they create jobs, which is what stimulates the economy.
There are two problems with this "trickle-down" theory. The first is that it just doesn't work. Republicans have been ignoring scads of data that show when restrictions are removed from businesses, they do NOT create jobs and stimulate the economy. The studies show that additional regulations really don't cause a majority of companies to pick up their HQ and move to off-shore. The big companies will do that anyway, no matter how lax our regulations are, and the smaller companies won't, no matter how strict we are. Of course, as a Christian, that doesn't really matter to me; what matters to me is justice. The fact that Keynsian economics actually benefits the rich as well as the poor is just an added benefit.
Yes, I know that there are some lazy people who just collect their welfare check and sit on their butt. As a percentage of the whole, they are few and far between. Most people on welfare are really hurting. The prophets tell us, time and time again, that God judges us based on how we treat the poorest in our society. Jesus said to the goats: I was hungry and you did not feed me. I was sick, and you did not help me. When we cut these social programs, we are hurting God. As a Christian, this is just plain wrong. So far, ALL the Republican candidates are running on platforms of social conservativism, lowering taxes and cutting these social programs. It looks nice on paper, but when you see the details, Jesus has already told us what is right. As I've said before, I'm not sure Obama is so much better than any of the Republican candidates. At least he's saying that it's more important to support these programs than to lower taxes, which is a step in the right direction.
I agree with you here. That is part of why I bring this up. I am hoping this discussion inspires people to think about the issues behind the candidates, and not just go with a candidate because of their platform. The more I discuss, the more I think there is no candidate that is particularly "Godly". (E'en so, Lord, quickly come!)
Also, I am glad most of the posters here have been able to keep the discussion civilized and polite. It makes me happy to see sisters and brothers treating each other with respect and agape, even in disagreements.
H
I agree with your position on Gay marriage completely GrungeDiva. I don't feel marriage should be a legal contract. I think it should be sanctioned by the church, and the government should stay out of it. Gay couples already can acknowledged as a civil union. Iif we disbanded marriage on a "legal" leval, and just had it go through the church, i think it would be a better system.
