Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Thanks for the encouragement, and yes, I am well aware of the father-son dynamics which at some point transition from "you know everything" to "don't you know anything." Perhaps I thought this only happened to me.
And I do understand the "blank stare" when I read some of your posts. It's accompanied with this overwhelming inner sense of helplessness. That's why I appreciate your patience here. Every time I think I'm heading in the right direction, you quickly point out that I'm lost again. And I took the other posters with me.
|
Dear
Ohio,
If it's not clear already, I will emphasize that my concern is more in
how things are argued and the
process in which they're argued - that is, the integrity of it - than it is on the ultimate conclusions.
Here's the bottom line: if you're making an argument with integrity, as a Chrisitan, you have to do so from an admitted and open standard (not a shifting one). Thus, you are either arguming for something based on
God's standard which may or may not be provable in human terms, or you are meeting your fellow citizens where they are at and arguing based on a
shared moral standard which is provable in human terms.
Let's look at homosexuality.
It is clear in the Bible that it is a sin. We can agree on that. But so is hating your brother and coveting (I'm trying to stay in the New Testament, because OT arguments are really suspect and complicated given that we have a New Covenant). I don't see where, Biblically, Christ makes a distinction.
Given that, you have a few choices: 1) show me how/why/where God cares more about this particular sin and thus justifies focusing on it in secular politics; 2) if you can identify, in human terms, the detrimental effect on the American polupace, describe those effects and argue them - any unbeliever can relate to such arguments.
If you can't do the first, then your argument will be (rightly) called out as disingenuous. If you can't do the second - i.e. argue why same-sex marriage (in this example) is detrimental to society in secular terms - then you're arguing for a theocracy. But it won't even be God's theocracy (since you couldn't be consistant with God's standard in the first place).
Do you see what dangerous territory this can be?
You have mentioned giving Christians "liberty" in engaging in politics according to their conscience. I am DEFINATELY an advocate of giving Christiains liberty to engage according to their OWN conscience in the world. But what you are arguing is that Christians pass laws that govern OTHER Christians and unbelievers (e.g. I got no problem if Kerry R wants to restrict himself to "One Publication" - but don't pass an EDICT that puts it on me).
That's like giving "liberty" to the Judiazers in Roman's 14 to PASS LAWS about diet/sacrifices. That's not pursuit of liberty. That's pursuit of your vision of God's will being imposed on OTHERS. It's the exact opposite of the "liberty" Paul describes in Romans 14.
There is no such thing as "liberty" to impose one's concept of God on others, no less with the force of secular law and police and sentencing behind it.
I am NOT saying the Bible gives LIBERTY to believers to be homosexual. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about secular American society. So that brings us back, again, to whether you purport to argue GOD'S STANDARD (good luck in not being hypocrytical) or a HUMAN STANDARD with some "God approved" versus tossed in to justify your position in order to pass SECULAR LAWS FOR A HUMAN SOCIETY.
But I want to stress AGAIN, that is VERY DIFFERENT than expressing your views in the public arena - WITHOUT trying to get a secular law passed. One should ABSOLUTELY attempt to convince those around them of the truth. And share the gospel. And share their morals.
But that is different than PASSING A LAW which imposes a morality REGARDLESS of whether anyone's heart has changed.
That's not "liberty," that's the opposite of what Christ and Paul advocated for - EVEN THOUGH they agree with your moral convictions.
Any closer to getting where I'm coming from?
In Love,
Peter