Christian Trump loyalists undermine Christianity's witness to the culture

[DKW 86 7,431]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

 

I'm sure this sort of thing has no effect on a non-believer's receptiveness to the Gospel.  Nothing to see here.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

22 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

And I specified that my view was on 20-21st Century Predestination. That is as far from Calvinism as can be.
You are defining classical Calvinism and the "Theory of Calvinism."
I am addressing Today's Predestination and Predestination as currently practiced. 

They literally have nothing in common. Classical Calvinism was Outward Focused and Served God.
Today, Predestination.is an excuse to not really engage with the world. It is used to justify lazy believers.

That doesn’t make much sense. So what’re your thoughts on modern-day Calvinists? IE John Piper.

[DKW 86 7,431]

23 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That doesn’t make much sense. So what’re your thoughts on modern-day Calvinists? IE John Piper.

We are talking about two similar but not the same things. That was my point. several denominations take Predestination and literally gut any God Message from their theology. 

I wont go into it here on the open forum, but Mr Piper goes off into left field by the third paragraph here, imho. 

The entire 20th-21st Century Theology of the 'Elect' is so foreign to my reading of the scriptures. What makes someone "One of the Elect?" I would define the 'Elect' as a very very rare world figure, someone specifically chosen by God, for work. The Apostles, the Prophets,  some Pastors (some pastors are not called by God to work as Pastors) some church Lay or non-Pastoral Leaders (Mother Theresa, Saint Stephen), some true leaders that may not be strictly seen as religious or even Christian for that matter (Confucius, some Greek Philosphers?, Gandhi, Mandela, :Lincoln, maybe even the Roosevelts?, others). Those are the Elect imho. I do not believe and sincerely see huge flaws in the idea that literally billions of general people were chosen "before the foundation of the world" and are therefore going to heaven despite any actions or sins they may commit here on Earth.

What if Hitler, Stalin, or Mao were of the 'Elect?' Does that mean they make heaven no matter what? Does that mean their actions or sins are ordained? If they are of the Elect, should we oppose and defeat them? How can we be sure that the next mass murderer isnt of the 'Elect?' Or, really simply, what if an non-Elect person chooses to follow Christ?  There is too much confusion in all this. 

I have said too much and I didnt mean to. See me in PMs if you want to go further. I respect the board and forum members too much to charge off into a religious discussion here on the open forums. 

[toddc 13,194]

On 5/9/2019 at 4:39 PM, TitanTiger said:

Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment.”

This statement is absolutely true, so when a politician arises that isn’t morally bankrupt we can talk! Lol

In the meantime I’m forced into voting for the one who will best uphold my rights to practice religion, own a gun, and have freedom of speech. I don’t know of a politician in my lifetime that embodies my beliefs as a Christian and lives them out, but it’s the price I was willing to pay for Trump to get conservative judges on the SCOTUS. As to the article, I agree it’s a bad look when religious leaders show hypocrisy, and that’s why they should stay out of the political arena debate. When they get political in public they will inevitably get burned by past statements. I do not however believe the actions of a president stymies the power of the gospel message, as it is “the power of God “ unto salvation! It is God who saves, and if corruption in government politicians can stop the gospel He is not God.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

3 minutes ago, toddc said:

This statement is absolutely true, so when a politician arises that isn’t morally bankrupt we can talk! Lol

In the meantime I’m forced into voting for the one who will best uphold my rights to practice religion, own a gun, and have freedom of speech. I don’t know of a politician in my lifetime that embodies my beliefs as a Christian and lives them out, but it’s the price I was willing to pay for Trump to get conservative judges on the SCOTUS. As to the article, I agree it’s a bad look when religious leaders show hypocrisy, and that’s why they should stay out of the political arena debate. When they get political in public they will inevitably get burned by past statements. I do not however believe the actions of a president stymies the power of the gospel message, as it is “the power of God “ unto salvation! It is God who saves, and if corruption in government politicians can stop the gospel He is not God.

We had multiple options in the primaries who weren't morally bankrupt and chose to back this guy.  He didn't get the GOP nomination over and against the evangelicals who should know better.  He got it because far too many of them supported him before he'd won it.

But that's beside the point.  I wasn't referring to people who merely voted for Trump.  I'm getting on the case of people who cheerlead for him, who excuse/minimize/defend/ignore it when they wouldn't do anything of the sort for a Democrat accused of the same stuff (and didn't when Clinton was the guy in the crosshairs).

And you have your head in the sand if you don't think it has serious negative impacts on the receptiveness of people hearing the Gospel.  Of course it's God who saves that's not in dispute.  But when Christians blatantly and willfully engage in public hypocrisy, it causes non-believers to question the message they preach.  Does it make it impossible?  Of course not.  But it does make it a lot harder.

[homersapien 11,393]

41 minutes ago, toddc said:

This statement is absolutely true, so when a politician arises that isn’t morally bankrupt we can talk! Lol

In the meantime I’m forced into voting for the one who will best uphold my rights to practice religion, own a gun, and have freedom of speech. I don’t know of a politician in my lifetime that embodies my beliefs as a Christian and lives them out, but it’s the price I was willing to pay for Trump to get conservative judges on the SCOTUS. As to the article, I agree it’s a bad look when religious leaders show hypocrisy, and that’s why they should stay out of the political arena debate. When they get political in public they will inevitably get burned by past statements. I do not however believe the actions of a president stymies the power of the gospel message, as it is “the power of God “ unto salvation! It is God who saves, and if corruption in government politicians can stop the gospel He is not God.

Is this emphasis on "conservative judges" only about abortion or do you also want to roll back legal rights for gay people?

Do those social issues outweigh conservative rulings that reinforce the corporatocracy/oligarchy while rolling back individual rights, or do you support all such rulings also?

A few examples of what I am referring to:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/who-are-citizens-united/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-courts-conservatives-overturn-precedent-as-liberals-ask-which-cases-the-court-will-overrule-next/2019/05/13/b4d3c4f8-7595-11e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.363b8380f15f

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html

https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/womens-rights-workplace/supreme-court-favors-forced-arbitration-expense-workers

https://www.scotusblog.com/2011/04/opinion-recap-court-strengthens-municipal-immunity-for-prosecutorial-violations/

 

I just don't understand the yearning for "conservative" justices when their rulings often seem to come at a cost of individual rights and freedoms.  Conservatives like to cite support of the second amendment as important to safeguard individual rights from a tyrannical government, but our rights and liberties are really formed - or reduced -  incrementally by laws.  More often than not, "conservative judges" rule in favor of government and corporations against individuals when confirming or eliminating such laws.

Bottom line, support for "conservative" justices seems like a paradox if one places a premium on individual liberty. 

 

[toddc 13,194]

33 minutes ago, homersapien said:

More often than not, "conservative judges" rule in favor of government and corporations against individuals

The SCOTUS is tasked with upholding the laws passed by congress, so it seems to me that if individual rights suffers from these rulings that the problem stems from too much government oversight and interference. Give me smaller federal government and individual rights (states rights-which is where individual rights are best decided) will thrive in my opinion. I’m all for individual rights! 

My main reason for wanting conservative justices is in how they interpret the constitution. For the first most part they are “originalists” in their interpretation theory. 

[homersapien 11,393]

28 minutes ago, toddc said:

The SCOTUS is tasked with upholding the laws passed by congress, so it seems to me that if individual rights suffers from these rulings that the problem stems from too much government oversight and interference. Give me smaller federal government and individual rights (states rights-which is where individual rights are best decided) will thrive in my opinion. I’m all for individual rights! 

With all due respect, our history refutes the assertion that individual rights are best decided at the state level. 

It is the states and corporations who have typically been agents for suppressing individual rights.  Federal legislation has typically been the mechanism of restoring or preserving those rights. 

A "conservative" federal judiciary - or at least the "conservative" members of that judiciary - seem to rule more frequently against the rights of the individual in reviewed cases. (See examples above.)

As a general statement, conservative judges are far more restrictive in interpreting individual freedoms provided by the constitution than are liberal judges.  It's the basic difference between a strict constructionist (originalism, textualism)  and a liberal or loose constructionist ("living constitution").  The former is more restrictive - by definition - than the latter regarding individual rights.

(And the SCOTUS is not tasked with "upholding" the laws enacted by congress; they are tasked with judging the constitutionality of those laws when in dispute.)

 

[toddc 13,194]

22 minutes ago, homersapien said:

With all due respect, our history refutes the assertion that individual rights are best decided at the state level. 

It is the states and corporations who have typically been agents for suppressing individual rights.  Federal legislation has typically been the mechanism of restoring or preserving those rights. 

A "conservative" federal judiciary - or at least the "conservative" members of that judiciary - seem to rule more frequently against the rights of the individual in reviewed cases. (See examples above.)

As a general statement, conservative judges are far more restrictive in interpreting individual freedoms provided by the constitution than are liberal judges.  It's the basic difference between a strict constructionist (originalism, textualism)  and a liberal or loose constructionist ("living constitution").  The former is more restrictive - by definition - than the latter regarding individual rights.

(And the SCOTUS is not tasked with "upholding" the laws enacted by congress; they are tasked with judging the constitutionality of those laws when in dispute.)

 

Yes, I misspoke about scotus and their duty is to judge constitutionality and I agree with that! At least with textualism you know what you’re getting, but with living constitutionalists I worry that view can be too subjective and leads to biases clouding their interpretation 

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, toddc said:

Yes, I misspoke about scotus and their duty is to judge constitutionality and I agree with that! At least with textualism you know what you’re getting, but with living constitutionalists I worry that view can be too subjective and leads to biases clouding their interpretation 

My point is that those "biases" are generally more supportive of individual freedoms whereas a textual approach is more biased toward restricting individual freedoms.

In fact, most of the expanded individual freedoms we expect today - especially those not contingent on race or sex - were created by either modifying the original constitution via amendments, (typically opposed by conservatives) or by a more liberal interpretation which served to expand personal freedom (opposed by conservative judges).

Thus liberals - and liberal judges - are more supportive of expanded individual freedom than conservative judges.

I can only conclude that conservatives care more about their particular religious-based  beliefs on social issues such as abortion (which is restrictive of women's individual rights) and sex-related issues such as gay marriage (which is restrictive of the individual rights of homosexuals) than they care about individual rights as principle.

In other words, conservatism is more about authoritarianism than individual rights. Whereas, liberalism is more about the elevation of individual rights. 

[PUB78 1,358]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

My point is that those "biases" are generally more supportive of individual freedoms whereas a textual approach is more biased toward restricting individual freedoms.

In fact, most of the expanded individual freedoms we expect today - especially those not contingent on race or sex - were created by either modifying the original constitution via amendments, (typically opposed by conservatives) or by a more liberal interpretation which served to expand personal freedom (opposed by conservative judges).

Thus liberals - and liberal judges - are more supportive of expanded individual freedom than conservative judges.

I can only conclude that conservatives care more about their particular religious-based  beliefs on social issues such as abortion (which is restrictive of women's individual rights) and sex-related issues such as gay marriage (which is restrictive of the individual rights of homosexuals) than they care about individual rights as principle.

In other words, conservatism is more about authoritarianism than individual rights. Whereas, liberalism is more about the elevation of individual rights. 

Liberalism is about the elevation of deviant individual rights.

[toddc 13,194]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

My point is that those "biases" are generally more supportive of individual freedoms whereas a textual approach is more biased toward restricting individual freedoms.

In fact, most of the expanded individual freedoms we expect today - especially those not contingent on race or sex - were created by either modifying the original constitution via amendments, (typically opposed by conservatives) or by a more liberal interpretation which served to expand personal freedom (opposed by conservative judges).

Thus liberals - and liberal judges - are more supportive of expanded individual freedom than conservative judges.

I can only conclude that conservatives care more about their particular religious-based  beliefs on social issues such as abortion (which is restrictive of women's individual rights) and sex-related issues such as gay marriage (which is restrictive of the individual rights of homosexuals) than they care about individual rights as principle.

In other words, conservatism is more about authoritarianism than individual rights. Whereas, liberalism is more about the elevation of individual rights. 

Who’s standing up for the unborn babies rights?

[DKW 86 7,431]

4 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Liberalism is about the elevation of deviant individual rights.

Do we need to start a GoFundMe to get you some help?

[DKW 86 7,431]

 

 

 

2

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

My point is that those "biases" are generally more supportive of individual freedoms whereas a textual approach is more biased toward restricting individual freedoms.

In fact, most of the expanded individual freedoms we expect today - especially those not contingent on race or sex - were created by either modifying the original constitution via amendments, (typically opposed by conservatives) or by a more liberal interpretation which served to expand personal freedom (opposed by conservative judges).

Thus liberals - and liberal judges - are more supportive of expanded individual freedom than conservative judges.

I can only conclude that conservatives care more about their particular religious-based  beliefs on social issues such as abortion (which is restrictive of women's individual rights) and sex-related issues such as gay marriage (which is restrictive of the individual rights of homosexuals) than they care about individual rights as principle.

In other words, conservatism is more about authoritarianism than individual rights. Whereas, liberalism is more about the elevation of individual rights. 

So, in cray cray homey-land killing a baby and those offended by the killing of babies because the parents are too stupid to figure out birth control, and/or too lazy to go get it, and/or too immature to take responsibility for their actions is because Abortion is a 'social issue' and not about the slaughtering of babies???

Strange place in which you dwell...

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

So, in cray cray homey-land killing a baby and those offended by the killing of babies because the parents are too stupid to figure out birth control, and/or too lazy to go get it, and/or too immature to take responsibility for their actions is because Abortion is a 'social issue' and not about the slaughtering of babies???

Strange place in which you dwell...

You left out too naive to avoid being raped by their family members or Sunday school teacher. 

[DKW 86 7,431]

14 hours ago, alexava said:

You left out too naive to avoid being raped by their family members or Sunday school teacher. 

I did. And i dont think you ever heard me advocate anything about Incest or Rape....

So the head slap was because you want to deny it for Incest and Rape? You are a sick puppy...

 

[alexava 6,973]

12 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I did. And i dont think you ever heard me advocate anything about Incest or Rape....

So Am I correct to assume you’re ok with with the “slaughter “ of a baby conceived of rape or incest? 

[homersapien 11,393]

19 hours ago, toddc said:

Who’s standing up for the unborn babies rights?

In our legal tradition, "unborn babies" - by which you presumably mean the stages of development, from zygote and beyond, prior to birth - have no rights.

The "rights" you are inventing are informed solely by your personal religious beliefs, not by our history, including our constitution.

On the other hand, the rights of a girl or woman began at birth, and are proscribed in both our legal tradition and the constitution.

Not to say that might not change or you cannot hold the opinion they should, but that's where we are.

 

[homersapien 11,393]

22 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Liberalism is about the elevation of deviant individual rights.

You left out   "....as long as it doesn't directly harm others"  which is important. 

Conservatism is about assuming the power to arbitrarily determine what's "deviant".

[PUB78 1,358]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

You left out   "....as long as it doesn't directly harm others"  which is important. 

Conservatism is about assuming the power to arbitrarily determine what's "deviant".

Or if these deviant lifestyles harm others and society.

[toddc 13,194]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

The "rights" you are inventing are informed solely by your personal religious beliefs, not by our history, including our constitution.

Everything in my life is guided by my Christian beliefs! I do not however believe in a theocracy. The church has its work to do and the government has its job to do. I do vote and voice my opinion when the government legalizes or does things that the Bible/God calls sin.

 I believe in the freedom to believe what you want to, however I don’t sit idly by where I believe government has crossed the line. I will obey the laws that are enacted until they try to force me personally to do what the Bible calls sin. 

[homersapien 11,393]

42 minutes ago, toddc said:

Everything in my life is guided by my Christian beliefs! I do not however believe in a theocracy. The church has its work to do and the government has its job to do. I do vote and voice my opinion when the government legalizes or does things that the Bible/God calls sin.

 I believe in the freedom to believe what you want to, however I don’t sit idly by where I believe government has crossed the line. I will obey the laws that are enacted until they try to force me personally to do what the Bible calls sin. 

OK.

[homersapien 11,393]

3 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Or if these deviant lifestyles harm others and society.

I think I covered that.

But the harm to "society" is a little fuzzy.  Do you have a hypothetical as an example?

[toddc 13,194]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I think I covered that.

But the harm to "society" is a little fuzzy.  Do you have a hypothetical as an example?

If he means infringement on the rights of others, I get it,  if not, I’m not sure.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

20 hours ago, alexava said:

You left out too naive to avoid being raped by their family members or Sunday school teacher. 

That does not happen very often in my neighborhood. I bet it doesn't in your neighborhood. Who are you referring to and where do they live?