Is there a war on Christianity in America's Left?

[Oeste]

If you're trying to argue I should have voted for Crooked Hillary instead of Trump, then you're going to lose that argument. She's as corrupt and incompetent as the day is long.

And for the record, I'm enjoying Trump's record economic success and all his other achievements.

No, I'm trying to understand your Christian rationale, not your political view point. I think you've made your political viewpoint obvious. But your Christian rationale? Not so much.

You were arguing against moral relativism just a few posts ago. Why do you embrace it now?

 

[Spartan]

No, I'm trying to understand your Christian rationale, not your political view point. I think you've made your political viewpoint obvious. But your Christian rationale? Not so much.

You were arguing against moral relativism just a few posts ago. Why do you embrace it now?

God selects who runs the government. From Romans chapter 13:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."

 

[Oeste]

God selects who runs the government. From Romans chapter 13:

That doesn't explain your argument for and then against moral relativism. Also, I'm still not catching your rationale.

Are you claiming Romans 13 justifies or argues against moral relativism, and how exactly does God's objective truths apply to our nation's leaders? Is He a respecter of persons because of their exalted position, or do they have to live and abide by the same moral code as the rest of us?

 

[Spartan]

That's the War on Christianity. It's being fought by conservatives against people who who try to put Christian morals into practice, on a large scale.
Tom

That's nonsense. If anyone is blasting Christians these days it's the irreligious left, who don't want any moral guidelines to screw up their 'anything goes' agenda.

 

[Spartan]

That doesn't explain your argument for and then against moral relativism. Also, I'm still not catching your rationale.

Are you claiming Romans 13 justifies or argues against moral relativism, and how exactly does God's objective truths apply to our nation's leaders? Is He a respecter of persons because of their exalted position, or do they have to live and abide by the same moral code as the rest of us?

I've said a lot along these lines so far. Now it's up to you to demonstrate that your secular moral relativism is better than God's objective morality. Let's see it.

 

[dianaiad]

Baloney to you too.

Redress can also be reached by removing privileges. eg, in my country our Parliament has 24 CofE Bishops - un-elected, just installed by right.
Now I'm not asking for 24 Methodists, 24 Jews, 24 atheists, etc. No, I just want none of any denomination.

Uh huh. You DO realize that in the UK, you have a state religion, yes? The Church of England? Queen Elizabeth is the head of it?

You may not LIKE it, but it is a fundamental part of your history. I suggest that you deal with it....and yes, the solution IS to have as many Methodists, Jews and atheists (at least in proportion to numbers) as there are CoE folks.

To do anything else is to, yes, say that you would rather be denied your own representation/rights rather than allow someone you disagree with to have any. That sort of thing tends to leave everybody out of luck.

 

[Woberts]

To do anything else is to, yes, say that you would rather be denied your own representation/rights rather than allow someone you disagree with to have any. That sort of thing tends to leave everybody out of luck.

Not in this case. It would make it so that you have to be elected, and you're not installed simply for being a specific idiotic denomination. Pay attention next time.

 

[dianaiad]

Many of the privileges demanded by Christians can't be given out equally.

For instance, consider prayer at public meetings: many Christians want these prayers to be Christian-only or nothing. When Muslims or Satanists show up asking to give invocations too, the Christians shut the whole thing down.

That's not legal, if the meetings are not specifically called, run and paid for by the group who wants sole prayer rights. If it IS strictly a religious meeting, then...what right do you think you have to insist that, say....a Catholic prayer meeting allow someone other than a Catholic to pray over it?

At least, it's not legal in the USA. I can't tell you whether it is in Canada.

Or take here in Canada: our head of state is the head of a church: the Church of England. It's not like we could - or would want to - mandate that the Queen be head of every church. It's better to just separate the two offices, IMO.

I think so too; I'm all for a strictly secular government. However, I'm not a Brit. I'm LDS, and one of the principle doctrines of our church is that we reserve the right to worship as we wish, and allow everybody else to worship (or not) as THEY wish. To us, that's the definition of 'secular,' that the government stays out of religion (we haven't been well treated by the government, all things considered) and that religion should stay out of the government.

Secularism would mean equal treatment of religion, but many Christians take it as an "attack" when Christianity is treated as just another religion.

Ah, I agree....but the folks I've been talking to in here seem to think that 'equal treatment of religion' means 'get rid of all of it."

That's not going to work...and it won't be greeted with cheers. I mean, c'mon....what if you were told that you couldn't hold public office, get a job, live where you want or do what you want on a Sunday (or Saturday, whichever) because of YOUR position on whether there is a deity or not? Well, I know what happens when atheists have this problem in the states: they get all unhappy about it. Why would you figure that your opinion (that there is no God) should be privileged over someone's opinion that there is?

In the cases where secularists talk about actually taking things away from religion, they're generally talking about things that would help everyone:

- getting rid of the clergy housing allowance deduction reduces the tax burden for everyone.

No it doesn't, any more than the mortgage interest deduction does, or that other possible (not religion based) deductions do for the rest of us.

- replacing chaplains with qualified counsellors means that the people they serve get better care.

...........and here you were talking about something that cost less for the taxpayer. Who do you suggest PAY for all these professional counselors? Religious folks who do this are generally volunteers, and don't get paid for those services.

- taking away special access to government for religious organizations means that government is more accountable to the people.

Oh, brother. Where HAVE you been? At least here in the states, 'special access to government' is what religions do NOT get. Quite the opposite.

Example...and I'll predict that every city/community in the nation does this, and if they don't, some atheist WILL sue them and then they will.

In my local town hall there is a space in the foyer where any and all non-profit organizations can post announcements about upcoming events, ask for volunteers for service projects, post fund raising posters and invitations.

If a secular non-profit organization wants to hold a fundraiser to help a local homeless shelter, no problem; a place to post the news and invite folks is available in the town hall foyer. They can put signs on the town hall lawn, and in the library (and on that lawn) and the city supports and encourages that.

UNLESS the fundraiser is being held by a church. Then there is no access to the foyer. No signs allowed. No pamphlets in the library...even if the funds being raised are for the exact same homeless shelter that other non-profit is trying to support.

Shoot, it wasn't that long ago that a high school in Utah allowed student clubs to use classrooms for their meetings, after school. LGBT groups got rooms. American Atheists got rooms. Boy and Girl Scouts got rooms.

Christians, Muslims, Hindus....didn't get rooms. They were not allowed to meet on campus, even after school.

One of the Christian groups sued over that one, and now student formed and led religious groups get the same rights to use rooms after school that everybody else does...;

But do NOT give me that bushwah about religions getting better access to the government than anybody else, because that's....er....

purest bushwah.

 

[dianaiad]

Nice rant.. Who do you think it criticizing the Mormon church here on RF?

I don't remember mentioning RF in that rant. (and yes, it was indeed a rant).

Is RF the entire world, sooda?

Would you care to address the points addressed in that rant?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Someone who participates in worship as part of a Passover service is a Passover worshipper.

Edit: you said that you aren't a Passover worshipper... i.e. someone who worships on Passover.

... as evidenced by the fact that they make a point of worshipping on Easter.

What I said is that is isn't appropriate to call me a Passover worshiper. It isn't a phrase that is normally used. I am a JEW. I celebrate Passover. Those are the proper ways to say it. Anyone who says I am a "Passover worshiper" either doesn't speak English or has some kind of agenda.

Stop trying to twist words. You are pushing an agenda. It is transparent. You are defending those who clearly are trying to avoid the use of the word Christian.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Found this in my Google News today from the Washington Time:

Christians under attack worldwide at a rapidly rising rate

"Open Doors USA, a mission for persecuted Christians, estimates that violent attacks on the faithful doubled from 2017 to 2018, with approximately 11 Christians dying every day for their faith."

Attacks on Christians double since 2017

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Now the hatred is spreading, and Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world, first by Islam, and second by the Left.

You sure about that? At least when the Media reports on KKK doings, they don't say "Radical Protestant Christians".

 

[Oeste]

I've said a lot along these lines so far.

Yes, and as I've pointed out, it's certainly been inconsistent. One "objective morality" for the left, and another, highly relative "objective morality" for the right.

Now it's up to you to demonstrate that your secular moral relativism is better than God's objective morality. Let's see it.

You can't "see it" because I haven't made an argument for moral relativism. Your request to "see it" makes that fairly obvious.

You applied one measuring stick for Hillary and Obama, questioning their Christian faith, and then applied a completely different measuring stick for the Trumps. You went so far as to split the body of Christ into left and right political halves, and appear to be asking me why I haven't done the same. I simply don't find any biblical rationale for doing so, but that doesn't prevent me from asking you about yours.

You then confuse things further by citing Romans 13, which states:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."​

But you cite this after telling me you didn't vote for Hillary. How you voted is of little concern, it's the WHY you voted that I find more interesting. Since it is God that establishes the superior authorities, why bother to vote at all? Wouldn't He have established it with or without your vote, or is this one of those cases where God couldn't do it without you? Do you believe Christians show lack of faith by voting?

Also, do you believe this extends only to America's "superior authorities", or does it extend to Iran, North Korea, and Syria? To left leaning governments, or only those of the right?

What about George Washington? Didn't he rebel against King George? What does scripture say? "Whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted". Wouldn't continued obedience to the King be a fine example of God's "objective morality" and strict adherence to biblical principle, or does the bibles say we can insert a bit of "relative morality" when a "Founding Father" is involved? Do your pastors prefer we change our history books, or that our schools stop lauding unbiblical revolutionaries because of their "objective morality" or are they out there celebrating Macy's President's Day sale with the rest of us?

Why criticize any authority that God establishes at all? If Hillary was Secretary of State, then God wanted her to be Secretary of State, correct? Likewise liberals are crazy for questioning Trump's wandering eye, much like conservatives were crazy for criticizing Obamacare.

Lastly, is it wrong for one superior authority to criticize another since "there is no authority except that which God established"? If so, should we or the President be in the business of establishing our own "superior authorities" (think Argentina, or Afghanistan) or should Christians call it a day, and tell these folks they can gleefully thank God for whatever leader or despot is in charge of their country now?

_____________________________________

I ask you these questions because of the way you responded to my question @Spartan. I specifically asked why you argued against moral relativism earlier and then embraced it the next. Instead of giving a straight forward answer, you dodge and cite Romans 13.

Romans 13 does not give Christians license to make a moral relativism, whether between the Clinton's, Obama, Trump or anyone else. It doesn't matter whether they are in power or out. God is no respecter of persons. What I don't see is how you see it, or at least your biblical rationale. You cite "objective morality" when talking about Obama but strangely build a "relative morality" case for Trump, then cite Romans 13 to explain it all.

Your presentation makes no more sense than this thread's premise, and that's the way I "see it". The problem to me is not one of "left" or "right" Christians, but simply Christians who peer down their nose at other Christians. If you're going to advocate "God's objective morality" then you must first ditch any "relative morality" and be prepared to apply this to yourself, and I think your response to questions asked about Romans 13 are a good place to start.

 

[Duke_Leto]

God created borders.

God created evil, too, according to the same Bible. Incidentally, you may want to look at his instructions for how to treat immigrants.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

God selects who runs the government. From Romans chapter 13:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."

No, Romans 13 is not about obeying the governing authorities

 

[Oeste]

Found this in my Google News today from the Washington Time:

Christians under attack worldwide at a rapidly rising rate

"Open Doors USA, a mission for persecuted Christians, estimates that violent attacks on the faithful doubled from 2017 to 2018, with approximately 11 Christians dying every day for their faith."

Attacks on Christians double since 2017

What the article doesn't state is that these attacks came from America's Left.

 

[Spartan]

For starters, God's objective morality doesn't exist. Even if it did, it's objectively terrible. Have fun shootin' gays and lynchin' blacks.

You're wrong on all counts.

 

[Spartan]

No, Romans 13 is not about obeying the governing authorities

Yes, it is.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You sure about that? At least when the Media reports on KKK doings, they don't say "Radical Protestant Christians".

Because Christianity has completely disavowed White Supremacy. They actively preach against it. You don't see the same effort in mosques to the best of my knowledge.

For example, the Poway synagogue shooter from last Saturday was a member of a local Presbyterian Church. His church was utterly appalled by his actions--indeed they were in a state of disbelief. The Presbyterian Church USA website called Facing Racism says the following:

Racism is the opposite of what God intends for humanity. It is the rejection of the other, which is entirely contrary to the Word of God incarnate in Jesus Christ. Racism is a lie about our fellow human beings, for it says that some are less than others. Because of our biblical understanding of who God is and what God intends for humanity, the PC(USA) must stand against, speak against and work against racism.
Presbyterian Church Facing Racism
​

 

[Spartan]

God created evil, too, according to the same Bible. Incidentally, you may want to look at his instructions for how to treat immigrants.

An alternative word for evil in that scripture in Strong's Concordance is 'calamity'. The gist of that passage is that if people do evil, they will have evil returned to them (i.e. sow evil reap evil). It's up to them how they live their lives and whether they want blessings or curses returned to them. Read Deuteronomy chapter 28 for examples.

Immigrants are fine. ILLEGAL immigrants aren't. They're breaking the law in many instances just breaking into the U.S.