The Death Of Plastic Bags...

[Teallaura]

Um, what? I can't make heads or tails of this post.

The idea that citizens are subservient to the state should not be all that controversial; people speak of "civic duties" all the time. It is also not all that controversial that people can be forced to sacrifice their lives for the good of society, as there is little push to abolish the draft in the US, for instance.

I believe my POV is justifiable when considering the society that God officially ordained the one time this ever happened. Individual rights seemed limited to ensuring legal justice and were certainly muted compared to the flipside. Modern individualists would find stoning for working on the Sabbath or having sex with another man to be offensive, but God thought the order of society was more important than these "rights", as moderns would no doubt call them. Modern individualists decry as socialism or worse any implication that people do not have unlimited rights to use of their own property on their own land (Christians often among these), but God's gleaning laws directly refute these. Your logic suggests taking severe issue with the laws God set up in the Pentateuch; there are a cascade of regulations covering nearly every scenario imaginable.

Okay... I'd argue that Israel marks the first constitutional form of government. That doesn't make it a modern form - but it has the hallmarks.

Which has not a danged thing to do with how the US constitution is constructed. The Israel 'constitution' limits human government with the laws of God. The US constitution is not directly constructed that way (but has some arguable characteristics).

MY argument concerns the function of the US constitution - and in that power flows up not down (yeah, yeah, I know, but I'm dealing with the theory). IN that construct, individuals are members, not servants. They are also NOT rulers - government BY consent is not the same thing as individual rule - not even remotely.

The US constitution is not based on the 'Israelite constitution' (while I would argue for it, it's also arguably not a constitutional form since it uses monarchy - governmental forms are fun! Not...) nor is it based on a theocracy (I wish, we wouldn't be having this conversation) of any form. US Constitutional theory is the balancing of power between entities to prevent any one from becoming tyrannical. Individuals are therefore never subservient - that undermines the form. Nor are they supreme - individuals are members/citizens with both rights and responsibilities.


Okay, now to take on the elephant in the room - who exactly do you guys think you are questioning someone's faith in God because they do not happen to agree with a means of stewardship? Because that's what you both keep doing - conflating 'you are against banning grocery bags' to 'you are unwilling to care for the environment and are therefore bad Christians'.

I wasn't arguing about stewardship AT ALL. I was arguing about the reduction of freedom (actually both corporate and individual but I did state individual) inherent to allowing government to take on more and more power not originally granted to it. And no, that government has some power doesn't mean it should keep getting more. Or that government has banned other things (most not in time frame, I will note) doesn't mean we should allow this one - or that we shouldn't curtail government's power to do so.

Heck with it - I'm tired of being attacked as a poor Christian because I'd rather solve a problem in a different way.

[Teallaura]

But it was quite a screed, eh?

The sad part is it made slightly more sense than KG's argument did.

I'm gone now.

[Adrift]

Okay, now to take on the elephant in the room - who exactly do you guys think you are questioning someone's faith in God because they do not happen to agree with a means of stewardship? Because that's what you both keep doing - conflating 'you are against banning grocery bags' to 'you are unwilling to care for the environment and are therefore bad Christians'.

I don't recall seeing a single post where KingsGambit called into question people's faith in this thread. For context on my posts I think you'll need to go back to post #39 where in answer to Christian3, "I think the motive is to help the planet," seer replied, "We are not going to save the planet, the planet like the universe is slated for death." Which struck me as a very odd reply for a Christian who knows that we are to be good stewards (see my post #41). Somewhat unrelated, I also pointed out that his view on the soul had a gnostic flavor (post #49). However, to the contrary, I did not question his salvation, rather I affirmed his faith in post #44. A little after that is when a number of other posters added in on their agreement on the destruction of the earth motif, which I attempted to rebut using scriptural and scholarly sources, as well as pointing out that the whole thing was neither here nor there, since we're generally agreed that Christians are called to good stewardship of the planet regardless. I have stated or implied in some of my posts confusion or frustration that Christians who know they ought to be good stewards were sidetracking onto the (as far as I can tell) irrelevant discussion about the future fate of the earth, but I don't recall every telling someone "you are a bad Christian." You'll have to link that post.

I wasn't arguing about stewardship AT ALL. I was arguing about the reduction of freedom (actually both corporate and individual but I did state individual) inherent to allowing government to take on more and more power not originally granted to it. And no, that government has some power doesn't mean it should keep getting more. Or that government has banned other things (most not in time frame, I will note) doesn't mean we should allow this one - or that we shouldn't curtail government's power to do so.

I'm looking through the posts since you went down this "reduction of freedom" tangent, and I can't see anyone saying anything about stewardship to you in reply to the tangent. But now that you bring it up, it seems that it is somehow part and parcel since that is what is being debated. Do civil societies have the right to force that society to be good stewards even if individuals within that society don't like it? Well, yes. As a matter of fact they do. Should they? I think they should. Sometimes society makes a call for the greater good despite the protest of those who would rather not participate.

Heck with it - I'm tired of being attacked as a poor Christian because I'd rather solve a problem in a different way.

Uh...ok.

[KingsGambit]

Heck with it - I'm tired of being attacked as a poor Christian because I'd rather solve a problem in a different way.

I did not call you a poor Christian or attack your faith. I am not primarily even thinking of your specific arguments but thinking more broadly. However, it appears you are too emotionally charged to engage with on this issue.

[Cow Poke]

I did not call you a poor Christian or attack your faith. I am not primarily even thinking of your specific arguments but thinking more broadly. However, it appears you are too emotionally charged to engage with on this issue.

I was kinda wondering about the whole "being wasteful on purpose" just to (whatever the rest of that was) - and you indicated that's on display here on Tweb. I really don't like it when these kinds of general statements are made because it has a tendency to indict people who don't think that way at all.

Is that what you think the general consensus of conservative Christians is?

[KingsGambit]

To add, I am not arguing we should live under an Israelite theocracy. The theocracy is an analogy; an example of a type of government that God thought to be acceptable for the people, and some of what God ordained did not exactly line up with the values that many Christians demand from their own government. My argument is, in sum: If that was okay in God's eyes, maybe we need to rethink what we claim a government should not do.

[Cow Poke]

To add, I am not arguing we should live under an Israelite theocracy. The theocracy is an analogy; an example of a type of government that God thought to be acceptable for the people, and some of what God ordained did not exactly line up with the values that many Christians demand from their own government. My argument is, in sum: If that was okay in God's eyes, maybe we need to rethink what we claim a government should not do.

That always makes me think of "mad" Eddie Chiles - "I think the government outta defend our shores, deliver our mail, and leave us alone!"

[KingsGambit]

I was kinda wondering about the whole "being wasteful on purpose" just to (whatever the rest of that was) - and you indicated that's on display here on Tweb. I really don't like it when these kinds of general statements are made because it has a tendency to indict people who don't think that way at all.

Is that what you think the general consensus of conservative Christians is?

No, I don't. I think the general consensus is that conservation is unimportant. People will pay lip service to "stewardship" if asked to, but I don't know if it's more than that given how much pushback there is whenever anybody actually wants to pursue anything along those lines. (And I'm not a very good steward myself, admittedly, but I would like to be better.)

I probably shouldn't have mentioned that specific example (about taking pride in waste) because it turns out it was in a forum I can't link to.

[KingsGambit]

That always makes me think of "mad" Eddie Chiles - "I think the government outta defend our shores, deliver our mail, and leave us alone!"

That was definitely not God's view of government. That's my point.

[Cow Poke]

No, I don't. I think the general consensus is that conservation is unimportant.

But you know that's not my view, yes?

People will pay lip service to "stewardship" if asked to, but I don't know if it's more than that given how much pushback there is whenever anybody actually wants to pursue anything along those lines. (And I'm not a very good steward myself, admittedly, but I would like to be better.)

Well, I'm the one who often brings up "stewardship", and I happen to think I do pretty well in that area.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned that specific example (about taking pride in waste) because it turns out it was in a forum I can't link to.

Can't link to? Here on Tweb?

[Cow Poke]

That was definitely not God's view of government. That's my point.

I only mentioned him because he was a rather comical character -- it wasn't an argument or even a suggested example.

OK, I'm having a hard time sorting this all out --- what, specifically, do you think God's view of government is?

[KingsGambit]

But you know that's not my view, yes?



Well, I'm the one who often brings up "stewardship", and I happen to think I do pretty well in that area.



Can't link to? Here on Tweb?

Nope. I don't think it's your view at all. Or even the view of most people. I just mean that things are out of whack if the idea can even come up.

It was in the mod only section.

[Cow Poke]

Nope. I don't think it's your view at all. Or even the view of most people. I just mean that things are out of whack if the idea can even come up.

It was in the mod only section.

OK, so read your post again, please....

I wonder what those in biblical societies would have to say about the fetishization of individual freedom in our society today. I genuinely believe that individual freedom has become an idol in our society. This is how we get Christians "joking" about intentionally wasting resources just to annoy environmentalists (this has happened here on TWeb). The fact that this has a net negative effect on society doesn't matter. It's all about me, me, me.

Can't your see that this kinda looks like a broadside against conservative Christians in general? Not wanting to start something, so if your answer is "no, it's not a broadside", that's your answer.

[KingsGambit]

OK, so read your post again, please....



Can't your see that this kinda looks like a broadside against conservative Christians in general? Not wanting to start something, so if your answer is "no, it's not a broadside", that's your answer.

Sort of, I guess. But it's frustrating that I can't argue about what we could do better, using the Bible as an example, without people dismissing it as an "attack". If you want to use the word "broadside", have at it.

I'm not here to win an argument or debate for the sake of debating... I'm genuinely trying to work out how best we can live as Christians, because I certainly don't have it all worked out.

[Cow Poke]

Sort of, I guess. But it's frustrating that I can't argue about what we could do better, using the Bible as an example, without people dismissing it as an "attack". If you want to use the word "broadside", have at it.

KG - I'm not trying to fight with you - I respect you a lot.

I'm not here to win an argument or debate for the sake of debating... I'm genuinely trying to work out how best we can live as Christians, because I certainly don't have it all worked out.

We have a guy in our Church who expressed.. um... "unhappiness"... with me because I don't preach hard against "living together without being married". He's focused on that because I have a senior adult couple in my church who are attending regularly like clockwork, living together, though they're not married.

She's a new Christian, we're still working on him. I'm thrilled they're showing up exposing themselves to the Word, and I really don't see a need to aim a shotgun in their direction.

(When I started this little story, I actually had an application, but..... it's gone )