Religious right

[th1b.taylor]

I don't have to do anymore research to know that all of mankind, inclusive of ourselves, remain bound with sin in the flesh.

As witnesses of Christ, we are called to reach out to all, and not to kill.


When I witness to Muslims, and I have, I go to the ground that we agree on. It is but a small step from there to Christ.

So what if the Koran/(insert your favorite spelling) leaves short. It is an opening, nonetheless, because we will find agreement.



I don't belittle anyone Bill. I know where you are coming from, somewhat. I'll pick up a gun to defend my family/loved ones and country just as fast as you would, if needed. But that still didn't solve anything in the bigger picture.


IF God in Christ is truly on our side, then we witness. He Works.


Guns and swords don't solve our issues. Never have, never will.

God's tools are us, friend, and I do recall the purpose of rhetorical questions asked in a string fashion. Before I came to the Christ for my salvation, I frequently used it to PO Christians to make them look small and I cannot find one other reason you would go there with me. You have even admitted as much when you assure all here that you do know my positions,

The followers of the Christ do not use such tactics. And when you pick up your gun, many will have already been murdered... that's to late. Many have already been murdered by the people the Mosks in the world are collecting funding and training soldiers for.

 

[OzSpen]

About the second paragraph and the, somewhat, huffy retort, even with the damage Multiple Sclerosis has done to my brain, I can still use context. I do not need to learn coherent speech as you have, rudely suggested. The issue is one of conversational context and I do not have an issue with it.

Coherent speech may not be important to you, but it is to me. Therefore in conversation, whether in person or online, if you are not making sense I will ask you to clarify. I asked you to do that, but you put it down to your 'huffy retort'. I urge you to respond in not-so-huffy coherent English.

 

[Edward]

I don't have to do anymore research to know that all of mankind, inclusive oIf ourselves, remain bound with sin in the flesh.

As witnesses of Christ, we are called to reach out to all, and not to kill.


When I witness to Muslims, and I have, I go to the ground that we agree on. It is but a small step from there to Christ.

So what if the Koran/(insert your favorite spelling) leaves short. It is an opening, nonetheless, because we will find agreement.



I don't belittle anyone Bill. I know where you are coming from, somewhat. I'll pick up a gun to defend my family/loved ones and country just as fast as you would, if needed. But that still didn't solve anything in the bigger picture.


IF God in Christ is truly on our side, then we witness. He Works.


Guns and swords don't solve our issues. Never have, never will.

Killing all the Muslims in the world, wasn't really what was said methinks, so would prolly be an exaggeration or extreme thinking. But they are the enemy inasmuch as they worship other gods and strive to kill infidels.

Prudence would dictate that we be ready to defend ourselves, but I would think that anything preemptive, would have to be Spirit led. Scripture shows us many instances where God told the Israelites to go start a war.


So, moderately thinking... we as Christians should be (one body), and strive to eliminate division within the body. Bill's admonishment to take the Lord's Word in its entirety is well taken and wise.

This Spiritual war has been going on since Genesis 3. We should heed the history therein, and be ready not only to defend, buy to be ready to offend also, under the direction of the Holy Spirit. If He so chooses to lead us that direction.

This is a real war. Like it or not, our God, is a God of war when it suits Him...we're not to go off half cocked on our own, but to be ready (in our hearts) to go do whatever He says or puts in our heart.

The way this string is going, I think you're both kinda right, but I think it's just semantics & presuming the extreme that is causing the division in the body here. Blessings to you all, Brothers & Sisters!! Our intimacy with the Lord (and Brothers & Sister's) must be protected in our heart while we discuss matters...!!!
One body, one body, one body.
Blessings.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Coherent speech may not be important to you, but it is to me. Therefore in conversation, whether in person or online, if you are not making sense I will ask you to clarify. I asked you to do that, but you put it down to your 'huffy retort'. I urge you to respond in not-so-huffy coherent English.

You were huffy, not me.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Killing all the Muslims in the world, wasn't really what was said methinks, so would prolly be an exaggeration or extreme thinking. But they are the enemy inasmuch as they worship other gods and strive to kill infidels.

Prudence would dictate that we be ready to defend ourselves, but I would think that anything preemptive, would have to be Spirit led. Scripture shows us many instances where God told the Israelites to go start a war.


So, moderately thinking... we as Christians should be (one body), and strive to eliminate division within the body. Bill's admonishment to take the Lord's Word in its entirety is well taken and wise.

This Spiritual war has been going on since Genesis 3. We should heed the history therein, and be ready not only to defend, buy to be ready to offend also, under the direction of the Holy Spirit. If He so chooses to lead us that direction.

This is a real war. Like it or not, our God, is a God of war when it suits Him...we're not to go off half cocked on our own, but to be ready (in our hearts) to go do whatever He says or puts in our heart.

The way this string is going, I think you're both kinda right, but I think it's just semantics & presuming the extreme that is causing the division in the body here. Blessings to you all, Brothers & Sisters!! Our intimacy with the Lord (and Brothers & Sister's) must be protected in our heart while we discuss matters...!!!
One body, one body, one body.
Blessings.

Great post! I am astonished that people know so little about their enemies. For any that care not to be so uneducated I suggest a copy of Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates. And from there go purchase some books or go to the library and check out some volumes on the origins of Islam or the Muslim Movement.

They did declare war long before your great great grandma. They do means to kill every Christian, everywhere.

 

[smaller]

About the second paragraph and the, somewhat, huffy retort, even with the damage Multiple Sclerosis has done to my brain, I can still use context. I do not need to learn coherent speech as you have, rudely suggested. The issue is one of conversational context and I do not have an issue with it.

Sorry Bill. You must be referring to someone else. I made no such claims.

 

[AirDancer]

This is The Lounge....

let's keep the conversation from going personal.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Sorry Bill. You must be referring to someone else. I made no such claims.

Are you so self centered that you believe posts addressed to Oz are about you? And if you spend a moment, I know that's asking too much of the Y generation but, just the same, humor an old fossil and reread the string you should, if you can perceive the context even though I was speaking with both of you ganged up on me.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Back on the topic, the Religious Right is a misnomer any way because true Christianity, the type that gets a person into Heaven and particularly into Heaven as a member of the Bride of the Christ is a moment by moment walk with Jesus, the Saviour. If I were the president of a new nation, I could only be such if the people forbid all religions. AS for Muslims a.k.a. Islamics, I am a Christian, saved by grace, known to the quasi military Muslim/Islamic believer as one of those People of the Book they intend to exterminate. I could never turn my back on one of them nor have I ever since concluding my study of possible future enemies of the United States in the early mid-sixties.

 

[smaller]

Are you so self centered that you believe posts addressed to Oz are about you? And if you spend a moment, I know that's asking too much of the Y generation but, just the same, humor an old fossil and reread the string you should, if you can perceive the context even though I was speaking with both of you ganged up on me.

The claim was in a response to me. Just wanted to clarify. Post #61

 

[OzSpen]

Sorry Bill. You must be referring to someone else. I made no such claims.

He was referring to my comment.

 

[OzSpen]

Back on the topic, the Religious Right is a misnomer any way because true Christianity, the type that gets a person into Heaven and particularly into Heaven as a member of the Bride of the Christ is a moment by moment walk with Jesus, the Saviour. If I were the president of a new nation, I could only be such if the people forbid all religions. AS for Muslims a.k.a. Islamics, I am a Christian, saved by grace, known to the quasi military Muslim/Islamic believer as one of those People of the Book they intend to exterminate. I could never turn my back on one of them nor have I ever since concluding my study of possible future enemies of the United States in the early mid-sixties.

To the contrary, the Religious Right is not a misnomer but a factuality, not only in the USA.

Wikipedia's definition of the Religious Right is:

Christian right or religious right is a term used - mainly in the United States of America - to label right-wing Christian political factions that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies. Christian conservatives principally seek to apply their understanding of the teachings of Christianity to politics and to public policy by proclaiming the value of those teachings or by seeking to use those teachings to influence law and public policy.

These socially conservative policies could be opposition to abortion on demand (support for Right to Life organisations), opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide, opposition to homosexual marriage and support of traditional marriage of a woman to a man.

Other right wing policies could include aims of a balanced national budget (heading towards a surplus) rather than an increasing national burden caused by excessive borrowings; medical services to the most deserving in the country but within the boundaries of fair income distribution. Etc.

In Australia, I know of one conservative mass media commentator, Andrew Bolt, who is not Christian but right wing (conservative) in his social and economic views.

Oz

 

[smaller]

He was referring to my comment.

I presumed so, but didn't see your name mentioned in that post to me.

 

[smaller]

The "conservative" side of our political ledgers here is favored by many christians. But it certainly contains no "religion" as far as the government is concerned.

Our laws here are not based on religious positions, but on ethics. Though they bear some similarities, they are NOT the same whatsoever, as to "basis."

So, I do not mistake our "leaders" as having a "religious" basis, as they do not. There technically is "no place" for this in government. They can pander to "us" but their system is not based on any "religion."

And, personally, I consider that to be a "good enough" situation.

Ben Carson can claim whatever he wants to for example, as far as being an SDA member, but in government, that will have no rightful place.

The only standard government holds is our freedom of religion, OUTSIDE of government.

It's a tricky place. To say our government has any kind of religious stance isn't and never was the case.

 

[th1b.taylor]

To the contrary, the Religious Right is not a misnomer but a factuality, not only in the USA.

Wikipedia's definition of the Religious Right is:


These socially conservative policies could be opposition to abortion on demand (support for Right to Life organisations), opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide, opposition to homosexual marriage and support of traditional marriage of a woman to a man.

Other right wing policies could include aims of a balanced national budget (heading towards a surplus) rather than an increasing national burden caused by excessive borrowings; medical services to the most deserving in the country but within the boundaries of fair income distribution. Etc.

In Australia, I know of one conservative mass media commentator, Andrew Bolt, who is not Christian but right wing (conservative) in his social and economic views.

Oz

No Oz, it is a misnomer because they people using the term fails to separate the follower of Jesus from the Pew Whales, the Muslim, the JW and all the other unsaved religious people going to Hell. Generalizations, no matter how widely used are never correct.

 

[OzSpen]

No Oz, it is a misnomer because they people using the term fails to separate the follower of Jesus from the Pew Whales, the Muslim, the JW and all the other unsaved religious people going to Hell. Generalizations, no matter how widely used are never correct.

Not so, Bill. I provided you with a definition of what a Right Wing agenda involves. The late Francis Schaeffer used to use the term co-belligerence when Christians joined with non-Christians on a common issue, whether that be moral, economic or cultural. See the article, 'Co-belligerence: Compromise or Christian duty?'

Seems to me that you could be confusing the issues between Gospel and political action.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The "conservative" side of our political ledgers here is favored by many christians. But it certainly contains no "religion" as far as the government is concerned.

Our laws here are not based on religious positions, but on ethics. Though they bear some similarities, they are NOT the same whatsoever, as to "basis."

So, I do not mistake our "leaders" as having a "religious" basis, as they do not. There technically is "no place" for this in government. They can pander to "us" but their system is not based on any "religion."

And, personally, I consider that to be a "good enough" situation.

Ben Carson can claim whatever he wants to for example, as far as being an SDA member, but in government, that will have no rightful place.

The only standard government holds is our freedom of religion, OUTSIDE of government.

It's a tricky place. To say our government has any kind of religious stance isn't and never was the case.

smaller,

You are advocating a view that I saw in my 7 years of living in the USA where there is every attempt to distance politicians and political decisions from any association with religion. It beaches on the sand of expediency.

However, this is one of the primary issues for an evangelical politician. How could he or she enact laws that were consistent with this biblical mandate: 'So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God' (1 Cor 10:31 NIV)?

While one is a member of parliament (MP), he or she will not be enacting a denominational position. If he or she is a true Christian, the MP will pass laws that bring glory to God as that encompasses 'whatever you do'. I have interacted on a number of occasions with my local federal MP who attends a local Baptist church. He wants to be part of a parliament that does not violate his biblical principles. Here in Australia we use the language of 'conscience vote' to enable MPs to vote according to their religious or secular personal principles.

Just some thoughts from a fellow traveller.

Oz

 

[smaller]

smaller,

You are advocating a view that I saw in my 7 years of living in the USA where there is every attempt to distance politicians and political decisions from any association with religion. It beaches on the sand of expediency.

However, this is one of the primary issues for an evangelical politician. How could he or she enact laws that were consistent with this biblical mandate: 'So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God' (1 Cor 10:31 NIV)?

While one is a member of parliament (MP), he or she will not be enacting a denominational position. If he or she is a true Christian, the MP will pass laws that bring glory to God as that encompasses 'whatever you do'. I have interacted on a number of occasions with my local federal MP who attends a local Baptist church. He wants to be part of a parliament that does not violate his biblical principles. Here in Australia we use the language of 'conscience vote' to enable MPs to vote according to their religious or secular personal principles.

Just some thoughts from a fellow traveller.

Oz

There were very good reasons government here was delineated from "religion." Primarily being that men posturing as God's religion, are not. They are the faulty constructs of MAN. And this was proven quite thoroughly to them by the dark ages of the inquisition and the stifling of those "religious" men who obviously didn't have a clue and landed in a position that was NOT GOOD for the pubic or for "religious freedom." It resulted in religious TYRANNY. The same TYRANNY that Muslims are currently facing with extreme Islamists.

Today we have "do not murder" or "do not steal" on ethics considerations, not religious God serving considerations. Though they may seem similar on the surface they couldn't be further away from Biblical law on their basis, which is "ethic" based.

In ethics based law it is "self serving" and thereby "collectively serving" for all to not murder or not steal, not "God serving." So, in theory (not practice) laws that are passed are supposed to be for the ethical betterment of "all."

But this really isn't possible for numerous reasons on a practical/proven basis.

In "self serving" and thereby "collective serving" laws, they obviously and eventually turn into just this. A few lawmakers and special/powerful interests "SELF serving themselves" at the cost of the collective/masses.

Which is unfortunately where our own "ethics based laws" have taken quite an ugly turn. This will not and can not continue.

 

[OzSpen]

There were very good reasons government here was delineated from "religion." Primarily being that men posturing as God's religion, are not. They are the faulty constructs of MAN. And this was proven quite thoroughly to them by the dark ages of the inquisition and the stifling of those "religious" men who obviously didn't have a clue and landed in a position that was NOT GOOD for the pubic or for "religious freedom." It resulted in religious TYRANNY. The same TYRANNY that Muslims are currently facing with extreme Islamists.

Today we have "do not murder" or "do not steal" on ethics considerations, not religious God serving considerations. Though they may seem similar on the surface they couldn't be further away from Biblical law on their basis, which is "ethic" based.

In ethics based law it is "self serving" and thereby "collectively serving" for all to not murder or not steal, not "God serving." So, in theory (not practice) laws that are passed are supposed to be for the ethical betterment of "all."

But this really isn't possible for numerous reasons on a practical/proven basis.

In "self serving" and thereby "collective serving" laws, they obviously and eventually turn into just this. A few lawmakers and special/powerful interests "SELF serving themselves" at the cost of the masses.

Which is unfortunately where our own "ethics based laws" have taken quite an ugly turn. This will not and can not continue.

So what is the foundation for 'ethics based law' of, (a) You shall not murder, or (b) You shall not steal? What's stopping it from being, (1) You shall murder, or (2) You shall steal?

Without a biblical foundation, 'ethics based law' founders on the beach of expediency or - as you have suggested - self-serving desires. You and I know those desires are dominated by sinful natures.

Oz

 

[smaller]

Without a biblical foundation, 'ethics based law' founders on the beach of expediency or - as you have suggested - self-serving desires. You and I know those desires are dominated by sinful natures.

Oz

BINGO!

We ALL also should have figured out by now that LAW serves the opposite purpose, for which purpose it was intended by God. Not for the control of lawlessness but the amplification of lawlessness.

The Law was meant to empower sin, so that it's presence within all is unmistakable and undeniable. It was meant to shut up every mouth and that "all the world" become guilty before God. Romans 3:19, Romans 7:13, 1 Cor. 15:56

The Laws of God were NOT meant to do mankind any favors, to make them lawful. The intents of God are actually the opposite of that. And, those intentions will be fully met by the world collective, not only by God's Laws, but of man's as well.

One big old ball of legal yarn, wrapping all of us up quite tightly...:nod