Texas, Five Other States Considering Secession

[Diogenes]

I think Sam is a class case of a liberal who forces his theology to align with his politics --- and I know Sam will disagree, but that's my opinion. Cafeteria Christianity.

Maybe "forces" is the wrong word --- but I think you get what I'm saying.

Sam cites the history of Roger Williams and yet he wants to do the exact opposite,

In his defense, all Christian nationalists are "Cafeteria Christians" in that they all selectively twist Scripture to their politics. Sam prefers Leviticus 25 over Leviticus 20 while he derides those who prefer 20 over 25 Of course Sam also wants the veneer of opposing endorsement of Christianity by the State when he openly justifies public policy with Scripture. The consistent approach would be to support both chapters.

I wonder though if Sam believes farmers should not sow every 7th year.

My apologies to Sam for previously referring to chapter 19.

[Diogenes]

The example that the guy tried to use to demonstrate this — opposition to usury — is an example I've explicitly argued is scripturally obligatory but should not be politically imposed. The other example often referenced — that Christian principles demand a particular attitude toward immigrants seeking refuge — is likewise a principle I've explicitly argued should not form the sole or even primary basis of secular policy.

You'll want to look elsewhere for your drive-bys.

-Sam

You explicitly berated Sparko that he should support the State eliminating interest and be consistent regarding Christian nationalism and when I pointed to a person who explicitly did that you changed your tune.


ETA: You didn't merely change your tune, you put lipstick on a pig and called it "Christian activism".


ETA: You also called it "Christian-informed civic advocacy".

[Cow Poke]

Every sect and denomination is a form of smorgasbord. That’s the whole reason branches exist.

meh -- can I help it if everybody else gets it wrong?

[Cow Poke]

The example that the guy tried to use to demonstrate this — opposition to usury — is an example I've explicitly argued is scripturally obligatory but should not be politically imposed. The other example often referenced — that Christian principles demand a particular attitude toward immigrants seeking refuge — is likewise a principle I've explicitly argued should not form the sole or even primary basis of secular policy.

Not talking about that.

You'll want to look elsewhere for your drive-bys.

-Sam

I have.

[Cow Poke]

....
In his defense, all Christian nationalists are "Cafeteria Christians"....

There's a whole lot there to unpack.....
depends on what you are calling a "Christian Nationalist", for starters.

[Sam]

You explicitly berated Sparko that he should support the State eliminating interest and be consistent regarding Christian nationalism and when I pointed to a person who explicitly did that you changed your tune.

I made the point that a Christian nationalist — a person who favors implementation of religious policy into secular law — must oppose usury in order to be consistent, yes. That is not an argument to implement religious policy into secular law.

Philosophy students learn very early on the difference between deductive logic and advocacy of positions. I'd consider it a 100-level skill.

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

I think Sam is a class case of a liberal who forces his theology to align with his politics --- and I know Sam will disagree, but that's my opinion. Cafeteria Christianity.

Maybe "forces" is the wrong word --- but I think you get what I'm saying.

He's quick to quote scripture, but only when he thinks it will give him the upper hand in a debate.

[Diogenes]

I made the point that a Christian nationalist — a person who favors implementation of religious policy into secular law — must oppose usury in order to be consistent, yes. That is not an argument to implement religious policy into secular law.

Philosophy students learn very early on the difference between deductive logic and advocacy of positions. I'd consider it a 100-level skill.

-Sam

Whatever you say Sam.

[Cow Poke]

He's quick to quote scripture, but only when he thinks it will give him the upper hand in a debate.

I've just seen "Christians" move further and further left until they pretty much abandon the Word of God as anything other than literature.
In a number of those cases, I think it became clear that the "Christian" had gotten "religion", but not a genuine relationship with Christ.

Just my observations from over 50 years in ministry.

[Sam]

I've just seen "Christians" move further and further left until they pretty much abandon the Word of God as anything other than literature.
In a number of those cases, I think it became clear that the "Christian" had gotten "religion", but not a genuine relationship with Christ.

Just my observations from over 50 years in ministry.

I would suggest that your penchant for abusive and derogatory behavior online justifies more concern than my "cafeteria Christianity", with the reminder that I put a great deal more exegetical weight to my positions on immigration and usury in the relevant discussions than you did. The habit to dismiss conclusions of Christian practice that coincidentally fall on the "liberal" side of the political spectrum on the basis of politics is a warning flag for your own religious beliefs and system.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

I would suggest that your penchant for abusive and derogatory behavior online justifies more concern than my "cafeteria Christianity",

I get so tired of this dishonest sissy crap, Sam. WAAAaaannnnhhhhh, Cow Poke is being a meanie!!!!

with the reminder that I put a great deal more exegetical weight to my positions on immigration and usury in the relevant discussions than you did.

A) I think you eisogete FAR more than you exegete
2) I'm not the judgmental Pharisee you tend to be

And, here comes a dose...

The habit to dismiss conclusions of Christian practice that coincidentally fall on the "liberal" side of the political spectrum on the basis of politics is a warning flag for your own religious beliefs and system.

-Sam

Sure, Sam. Whatever you say. But, hey, the left-wingers and the lost, and those who have walked away from the faith slap you on the back and kiss your butt, because you're "their kind" of Christian.

[Sam]

I get so tired of this dishonest sissy crap, Sam. WAAAaaannnnhhhhh, Cow Poke is being a meanie!!!!



A) I think you eisogete FAR more than you exegete
2) I'm not the judgmental Pharisee you tend to be

And, here comes a dose...



Sure, Sam. Whatever you say. But, hey, the left-wingers and the lost, and those who have walked away from the faith slap you on the back and kiss your butt, because you're "their kind" of Christian.

Well, that was helpful in reinforcing each point.

Cheers.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

Well, that was helpful in reinforcing each point.

Cheers.

-Sam

laughing - I have no doubt whatsoever you think so.

[NorrinRadd]

Very interested in the enthusiasm for this application of government as the agents of God's will, as expressed in Christian thought and Scripture. I assume we'll all be looking forward to the elimination of interest-based loans, the dissolution of 2nd/3rd/etc. marriages, and pseudo-Paul's qualifications for leaders turned into actionable legal items.

In a "small government" framework, of course.

-Sam

Well, you've gone an' poked a couple of my trigger points. I don't intend on derailing the thread, so I'll just post a couple of links. Interested parties can turn either or both into topics of their own. I may or may not participate.

David Instone-Brewer on Divorce and Remarriage.

In general, I think Phil Payne (in Man and Woman, One in Christ, pp. 291-294) and especially Ben Witherington III (in Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Vol. 1) and each make good cases for genuine Pauline authorship of the PEs, with Luke as amanuensis -- majority scholarly opinion be damned.

Also, this lengthy rebuttal to *part* of an 11.5-hour Mike Winger video includes this interesting little tidbit that could be relevant:

"Mike goes next to something said by Glahn in a blog, about how the Artemis story may shed light on Paul’s choice of words in 1 Timothy 2:13." (The referenced blog post is here.)

[Sam]

Well, you've gone an' poked a couple of my trigger points. I don't intend on derailing the thread, so I'll just post a couple of links. Interested parties can turn either or both into topics of their own. I may or may not participate.

David Instone-Brewer on Divorce and Remarriage.

In general, I think Phil Payne (in Man and Woman, One in Christ, pp. 291-294) and especially Ben Witherington III (in Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Vol. 1) and each make good cases for genuine Pauline authorship of the PEs, with Luke as amanuensis -- majority scholarly opinion be damned.

Also, this lengthy rebuttal to *part* of an 11.5-hour Mike Winger video includes this interesting little tidbit that could be relevant:

"Mike goes next to something said by Glahn in a blog, about how the Artemis story may shed light on Paul’s choice of words in 1 Timothy 2:13." (The referenced blog post is here.)

The point that bears argument in a Civics thread is that someone gets to decide whose religious interpretation is "correct" and implement it into law if government is going to preference a religion and its rules. If the Confederates had won, that interpretation would have been the one that tolerated or allowed slavery in Christian theology. If we made John Piper in charge, it would be the interpretation that allows for no divorce among married couples but only among fiancés. If Paul is considered the author of I Timothy by the lawmakers, perhaps qualifications for elders will be extended to our religious political leaders; if the skeptical theologians are in charge, maybe not.

When you decide that a religion gets codified into secular law, you have to decide who gets to define what that religion actually prescribes and proscribes. And who knows what crazy thing they think is true?

-Sam