-
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.
I
John Locke was a rather long time ago
A rather more modern definition, philosophically speaking
Philosophy: By Branch / Doctrine > Political Philosophy > Conservatism
A rather more modern definition, philosophically speaking
Philosophy: By Branch / Doctrine > Political Philosophy > Conservatism
I
To quote the modern American - rather that the 1700 English definition of conservatism
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans Serif]Conservatism (or conservatism) is any political philosophy that favors tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change. Some Conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time.
Classical Conservatism does not reject change per se, but insists that changes be organic, rather than revolutionary, arguing that any attempt to modify the complex web of human interactions that form human society purely for the sake of some doctrine or theory runs the risk of running afoul of the law of unintended consequences and/or of moral hazards. As a general ideology, Conservatism is opposed to the ideals of Liberalism and Socialism.
Conservatism generally refers to right-wing politics which advocate the preservation of personal wealth and private ownership (Capitalism) and emphasize self-reliance and Individualism. Conservatives in general are more punitive toward criminals, tend to hold more orthodox religious views, and are often ethnocentric and hostile toward homosexuals and other minority groups.
Different cultures have different established values and, in consequence, Conservatives in different cultures have differing goals. Many forms of Conservatism incorporate elements of other ideologies and philosophies, and in turn, Conservatism has influence upon them. For example, Nationalism shares many Conservative values (although usually to a more exaggerated degree), and most Conservatives strongly support the sovereign nation and patriotically identify with their own nation (although most Conservatives distrust the xenophobic or racist sentiments that are prominent in some far-right wing groups).
The term "conservatism" is derived from the Latin "conservare" (meaning to "protect" or "preserve") and from the French derivative "conservateur". Its usage in a political sense began to appear only after the French Revolution of 1789, and then only hesitantly, only taking its characteristic political connotation in the 1820s.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans Serif]Conservatism (or conservatism) is any political philosophy that favors tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change. Some Conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time.
Classical Conservatism does not reject change per se, but insists that changes be organic, rather than revolutionary, arguing that any attempt to modify the complex web of human interactions that form human society purely for the sake of some doctrine or theory runs the risk of running afoul of the law of unintended consequences and/or of moral hazards. As a general ideology, Conservatism is opposed to the ideals of Liberalism and Socialism.
Conservatism generally refers to right-wing politics which advocate the preservation of personal wealth and private ownership (Capitalism) and emphasize self-reliance and Individualism. Conservatives in general are more punitive toward criminals, tend to hold more orthodox religious views, and are often ethnocentric and hostile toward homosexuals and other minority groups.
Different cultures have different established values and, in consequence, Conservatives in different cultures have differing goals. Many forms of Conservatism incorporate elements of other ideologies and philosophies, and in turn, Conservatism has influence upon them. For example, Nationalism shares many Conservative values (although usually to a more exaggerated degree), and most Conservatives strongly support the sovereign nation and patriotically identify with their own nation (although most Conservatives distrust the xenophobic or racist sentiments that are prominent in some far-right wing groups).
The term "conservatism" is derived from the Latin "conservare" (meaning to "protect" or "preserve") and from the French derivative "conservateur". Its usage in a political sense began to appear only after the French Revolution of 1789, and then only hesitantly, only taking its characteristic political connotation in the 1820s.
[/FONT]
T
Are you asking me how I, personally, judge morality, or are you asking, "How does one (in general) determine morality?"
If it's the first, I, personally, use my faith in Jesus Christ as my guide.
If you are asking the 2nd, I recommend you take a class in Ethics at a local community college. I could explain, but it would take several posts.
If it's the first, I, personally, use my faith in Jesus Christ as my guide.
If you are asking the 2nd, I recommend you take a class in Ethics at a local community college. I could explain, but it would take several posts.
I
You are of course correct. I stand wiling. The difficulty lay in how to be heard. To state the truth in love without shying away from harsh reality. Not so easy.
Methinks most of those that were engaged in this discussion, from the loyal opposition, have withdrawn. My presence here making it rather impossible for them to rely on cheap rhetoric or outworn old cliches. The remainder are doing their homework. So be it.
P.S please define WRT and IOW ( I don't speak much txt)
Methinks most of those that were engaged in this discussion, from the loyal opposition, have withdrawn. My presence here making it rather impossible for them to rely on cheap rhetoric or outworn old cliches. The remainder are doing their homework. So be it.
P.S please define WRT and IOW ( I don't speak much txt)
I
Heads up gurl friend! You are being baited!
Having stated you base your morality on your faith in Jesus Christ - his next move (predictably) will be to take that back to your semi-literal interpretation of the Bible. How do you decide what is meant literlly, what is meant figuratively etc..
This is all to turn your reasoning back on it's self.
Here is your ground - state a conservative position that is clearly un-Biblical and un-Christian and ask him how he can find that moral by any stretch. Now it is he who must defend his ground.
Having stated you base your morality on your faith in Jesus Christ - his next move (predictably) will be to take that back to your semi-literal interpretation of the Bible. How do you decide what is meant literlly, what is meant figuratively etc..
This is all to turn your reasoning back on it's self.
Here is your ground - state a conservative position that is clearly un-Biblical and un-Christian and ask him how he can find that moral by any stretch. Now it is he who must defend his ground.
J
No, just trying to figure out starting points.
Although that would be a problem to address, that would at the branch of the tree. I'm going straight for the roots.
No, this is why I ask:
If we have two different starting grounds for basing our judgements of moral issues, we can never come to persuade each other.
If she bases moral judgements on the account of God's word, as God is the source of Objective Morals, then we can come to agree (I seek to appeal to God's word as well).
I diverge with whatever political label when it diverges with my understanding of scripture. (Note: I tried to make it clear I am not infallible in my knowledge)
Ask away, I'll tell you what I think about a specific issue. (I try to base it off of scripture, some issues are more difficult though) To offer you one example though, while economically it is beneficial to have semi-low taxes, I don't flail my hands in the air over a tax increase. Give to ceaser what is ceasers.
Although that would be a problem to address, that would at the branch of the tree. I'm going straight for the roots.
No, this is why I ask:
If we have two different starting grounds for basing our judgements of moral issues, we can never come to persuade each other.
If she bases moral judgements on the account of God's word, as God is the source of Objective Morals, then we can come to agree (I seek to appeal to God's word as well).
I diverge with whatever political label when it diverges with my understanding of scripture. (Note: I tried to make it clear I am not infallible in my knowledge)
Ask away, I'll tell you what I think about a specific issue. (I try to base it off of scripture, some issues are more difficult though) To offer you one example though, while economically it is beneficial to have semi-low taxes, I don't flail my hands in the air over a tax increase. Give to ceaser what is ceasers.
I
This refers to one of the big reasons people came to America to begin with - to escape religious persecution. It was therefore determined that NO religion should be allowed to have authority in state affairs, thus no one religion would have the opportunity to dictate their standards to the population as a whole.
To which you responded
A question that diverged from the topic entirely. That is to say - How much influence Christianity should have on state affairs? As opposed to - How do you determine what is/is not moral?
That is a non-sequiter, which is why I regard it as "baiting" - trying to draw the opposing party into a different topic than the one on point.
If you have followed this thread, her position on this matter has already been covered. She confesses that she "picks-and-chooses" what she takes more or less literally - based on her own biases. As do we all. Her difficulty lies with those who are also "picking and choosing" - but refuse to admit it.
Do you really? Please remember that much of the rhetoric you have heard about "liberals" in America is directed at secular humanist liberals, an attempt to marginalized - even deny the genuineness of the Christianity of the liberal Christian view.
I have very carefully tried to avoid sinking to the level of attacking Christian conservatives based on the more extreme views of secular humanist conservatives.
The point that TheGrungeDiva, my self and a few other Christian liberals are trying to make in this thread is that our liberal political views are not COUNTER to Christianity. We seek redress of the broad brush applied to us.
To which you responded
A question that diverged from the topic entirely. That is to say - How much influence Christianity should have on state affairs? As opposed to - How do you determine what is/is not moral?
That is a non-sequiter, which is why I regard it as "baiting" - trying to draw the opposing party into a different topic than the one on point.
If you have followed this thread, her position on this matter has already been covered. She confesses that she "picks-and-chooses" what she takes more or less literally - based on her own biases. As do we all. Her difficulty lies with those who are also "picking and choosing" - but refuse to admit it.
Do you really? Please remember that much of the rhetoric you have heard about "liberals" in America is directed at secular humanist liberals, an attempt to marginalized - even deny the genuineness of the Christianity of the liberal Christian view.
I have very carefully tried to avoid sinking to the level of attacking Christian conservatives based on the more extreme views of secular humanist conservatives.
The point that TheGrungeDiva, my self and a few other Christian liberals are trying to make in this thread is that our liberal political views are not COUNTER to Christianity. We seek redress of the broad brush applied to us.
I
2Pe 2:9 The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
2Pe 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
There we go again mixing apples and oranges - Absolutely God is the Final and Ultimate Authority! No argument there. Again the original statement was that the U.S. Constitution disallows any religion from being the determining voice in government. The reason for this was to prevent the abuses of religious persecution which had were common place in Europe.
back to merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur
non sequitur-
1.: an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2. : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said
Your logic - the Independence of the state from religious control = Denial of Gods Ultimate and Final Moral Authority. Does not follow.
Meets the criteria of definition 1.: - a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
People are rarely so frank in their misrepresentation of Gospel. THAT at least would be honest. Let me give you an illustration:
In 15 places in the old testament usury (interest on money) warned against, frowned upon, or out right forbidden.
Exo_22:25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
Neh_5:7 Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them.
Pro_28:8 He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.
So on and so forth. Since capitalism absolutely relies on interest for gain and investment purposes - the typical conservative Christian will say "Well, they meant excessive interest." or "Investment is not really usury." or some variant of the same.
That is what I mean.
Not that some Christian liberals are not just as guilty on other issues. No moral high ground for the general population.
I agree entirely. Again our position is not that we are scripturally "right" and conservative Christians are scripturally "wrong". Rather that our political position is not inherently any more immoral than theirs.
So do we. Although I must confess a rather morbid curiosity re: your position on torture.
I agree again. God is the Ultimate and Final Measure of and Authority on morality.
2Pe 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
There we go again mixing apples and oranges - Absolutely God is the Final and Ultimate Authority! No argument there. Again the original statement was that the U.S. Constitution disallows any religion from being the determining voice in government. The reason for this was to prevent the abuses of religious persecution which had were common place in Europe.
back to merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur
non sequitur-
1.: an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2. : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said
Your logic - the Independence of the state from religious control = Denial of Gods Ultimate and Final Moral Authority. Does not follow.
Meets the criteria of definition 1.: - a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
People are rarely so frank in their misrepresentation of Gospel. THAT at least would be honest. Let me give you an illustration:
In 15 places in the old testament usury (interest on money) warned against, frowned upon, or out right forbidden.
Exo_22:25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
Neh_5:7 Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them.
Pro_28:8 He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.
So on and so forth. Since capitalism absolutely relies on interest for gain and investment purposes - the typical conservative Christian will say "Well, they meant excessive interest." or "Investment is not really usury." or some variant of the same.
That is what I mean.
Not that some Christian liberals are not just as guilty on other issues. No moral high ground for the general population.
I agree entirely. Again our position is not that we are scripturally "right" and conservative Christians are scripturally "wrong". Rather that our political position is not inherently any more immoral than theirs.
So do we. Although I must confess a rather morbid curiosity re: your position on torture.
I agree again. God is the Ultimate and Final Measure of and Authority on morality.
J
Romans 6:12-16 "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"
Based on scripture it is clear that Homosexuality is a sin. "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king."
You see rejecting the word of the Lord is as iniquity and idolatry.
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
God did not make people to be Homosexual, he gave them up to their lusts because they served creature more than the creator.
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"
Based on scripture it is clear that Homosexuality is a sin. "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king."
You see rejecting the word of the Lord is as iniquity and idolatry.
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
God did not make people to be Homosexual, he gave them up to their lusts because they served creature more than the creator.
J
This doesn't address my question. Duly noted.
There are some governments that I am going to despise.
Do you approve of the above regime? I would sure hope not. If you don't, that makes you a despise-r.
Scripture declares that we are to follow God, not men. When the two split, I must go with God.
To use what Red_Tory said in my thread about burning people alive/capital punishment.
So we should stick with secular ethics when it comes to legislation? (Note:Secular ethics has no grounding in God; hence, secular)
What basis should a government legislate morals from? A secular one? (which removes God as the source of right/wrong)
(Note: Every issue is moral, traffic laws, economic regulations, etc etc)
Also, it should be noted that there is a difference between religious control, and religious influence.
Might not be bad to admit that, your earlier post on how christian liberalism handles the issue of abortion, is still attempting to influence government based on religious beliefs, albeit through the backdoor.
So you don't promote the "Iron-Curtain" view of the relation between OT and NT? Also, what do you make of this?
When it disagrees with scripture, just as for the political conservative, it would be immoral. Liberal and Conservative as is generally formulated in the United States, both have their short-comings. Namely in social and economic issues, respectively.
Not devoted, but leaning against. At least, that is, when humans do it to each other.
There are some governments that I am going to despise.
Do you approve of the above regime? I would sure hope not. If you don't, that makes you a despise-r.
Scripture declares that we are to follow God, not men. When the two split, I must go with God.
To use what Red_Tory said in my thread about burning people alive/capital punishment.
So we should stick with secular ethics when it comes to legislation? (Note:Secular ethics has no grounding in God; hence, secular)
What basis should a government legislate morals from? A secular one? (which removes God as the source of right/wrong)
(Note: Every issue is moral, traffic laws, economic regulations, etc etc)
Also, it should be noted that there is a difference between religious control, and religious influence.
Might not be bad to admit that, your earlier post on how christian liberalism handles the issue of abortion, is still attempting to influence government based on religious beliefs, albeit through the backdoor.
So you don't promote the "Iron-Curtain" view of the relation between OT and NT? Also, what do you make of this?
When it disagrees with scripture, just as for the political conservative, it would be immoral. Liberal and Conservative as is generally formulated in the United States, both have their short-comings. Namely in social and economic issues, respectively.
Not devoted, but leaning against. At least, that is, when humans do it to each other.
Last edited:
I
let me be more specific than - Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Praise God I have not been asked to accept the authority of such a regime. I had a hard enough time with Bush!
A government has to go very far before we can actively oppose it - and this goes very much against conservatism. They would argue that the system must self-correct, or fail of its own accord, if it is so unbalanced.
Absolutely, that is why it is critically important to know the moral beliefs of those we vote for. The warning being, that just because someone is conservative - or liberal for that matter. Does not mean they are inherently more or less moral. In the American system - once the representatives of the people have spoken - the authority is established.
I not only admit it I have repeated it in this post. Influence is a horse of a different color. Still, the influence of one belief system can not be the final say in our government, it is all about checks and balances - so that the freedoms of all (whether we are comfortable with them or not) are respected (within agreed upon bounds).
On this we are agreed.
I am happy to hear that
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
There are some governments that I am going to despise.
Do you approve of the above regime? I would sure hope not. If you don't, that makes you a despise-r.
Do you approve of the above regime? I would sure hope not. If you don't, that makes you a despise-r.
A government has to go very far before we can actively oppose it - and this goes very much against conservatism. They would argue that the system must self-correct, or fail of its own accord, if it is so unbalanced.
Absolutely, that is why it is critically important to know the moral beliefs of those we vote for. The warning being, that just because someone is conservative - or liberal for that matter. Does not mean they are inherently more or less moral. In the American system - once the representatives of the people have spoken - the authority is established.
I not only admit it I have repeated it in this post. Influence is a horse of a different color. Still, the influence of one belief system can not be the final say in our government, it is all about checks and balances - so that the freedoms of all (whether we are comfortable with them or not) are respected (within agreed upon bounds).
On this we are agreed.
I am happy to hear that
J
2 Peter 1:20-21 "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
" you should accept that gays should have the rights at least of a murderer"
Then they should be in prison? Because that's the right that a murderer has, he doesn't have any rights.
If God does not allow gays in his kingdom why should it be different on earth?
"Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men"
"Here, for whatever reason, we have allowed the courts to give out rights based on this thing which is of God"
Man how terrible! They are actually obeying God rather than man? You're kidding?
I
And..........
That is not what she is saying. Her point is that a murder remains married even after conviction and imprisonment.
You may not like it (it is a sad state of affairs), but God has allowed gays in this world. You can take it up with Him.
AMEN
Please look at this verse in context.
Act 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
Act 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey.
This had to do with those who forbade the apostles to carry out the great commission.
Look also to these verses-
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Which indicates quite the opposite.
Pesky constitution!
That is not what she is saying. Her point is that a murder remains married even after conviction and imprisonment.
You may not like it (it is a sad state of affairs), but God has allowed gays in this world. You can take it up with Him.
AMEN
Please look at this verse in context.
Act 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
Act 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey.
This had to do with those who forbade the apostles to carry out the great commission.
Look also to these verses-
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Which indicates quite the opposite.
Pesky constitution!
J
And..........
That is not what she is saying. Her point is that a murder remains married even after conviction and imprisonment.
You may not like it (it is a sad state of affairs), but God has allowed gays in this world. You can take it up with Him.
AMEN
Please look at this verse in context.
Act 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
Act 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey.
This had to do with those who forbade the apostles to carry out the great commission.
Look also to these verses-
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Which indicates quite the opposite.
Pesky constitution!
That is not what she is saying. Her point is that a murder remains married even after conviction and imprisonment.
You may not like it (it is a sad state of affairs), but God has allowed gays in this world. You can take it up with Him.
AMEN
Please look at this verse in context.
Act 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
Act 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey.
This had to do with those who forbade the apostles to carry out the great commission.
Look also to these verses-
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Which indicates quite the opposite.
Pesky constitution!
I
The thing you are missing is that we are to submit to government because their authority comes form God.
Yes He will destroy all evil in the end.
I agree that that which is sinful before God SHOULD be regarded as such. My point is - it comes down to the the rulers to make these judgements. In the U.S. our leaders are chosen by representatives elected by us. Rightly or wrongly - they have the authority.
But to your point of passing law against the immoral - In my opinion we have far more pressing and urgent cancers at work in our society than homosexuality. It gets down to priorities.
It is far more urgent to address a cut off limb than it is to address a chronic illness. Not to say that we don't need to address the chronic illness.
So, what is the cut off limb?
Our negligence toward the poor in this country. It is an absolute disgrace. Our reliance on usury for the support of our economy. The fruit of which we are currently enjoying.
In case you are unaware, usury is spoken against 15 times in the Bible. The conservatives of course will refer to the one place ( the story of the talents) where Christ appears to condone the practice - to discount the weight of scripture and His repeated warnings against harshness toward the poor.
Yes He will destroy all evil in the end.
I agree that that which is sinful before God SHOULD be regarded as such. My point is - it comes down to the the rulers to make these judgements. In the U.S. our leaders are chosen by representatives elected by us. Rightly or wrongly - they have the authority.
But to your point of passing law against the immoral - In my opinion we have far more pressing and urgent cancers at work in our society than homosexuality. It gets down to priorities.
It is far more urgent to address a cut off limb than it is to address a chronic illness. Not to say that we don't need to address the chronic illness.
So, what is the cut off limb?
Our negligence toward the poor in this country. It is an absolute disgrace. Our reliance on usury for the support of our economy. The fruit of which we are currently enjoying.
In case you are unaware, usury is spoken against 15 times in the Bible. The conservatives of course will refer to the one place ( the story of the talents) where Christ appears to condone the practice - to discount the weight of scripture and His repeated warnings against harshness toward the poor.