Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Political Ethics vs. Biblical Ethics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Political Ethics vs. Biblical Ethics

    I just came across this article and found it very interesting.

    The sinful storming of the US Capitol Building this week exposes a massive world-view contrast between political ethics and biblical ethics.

    Political ethics sees events through the lens of their potential to further political objectives. Biblical ethics sees events through the lens of moral absolutes with a gospel trajectory. Political ethics embraces hypocrisy—the best politicians are not even embarrassed by it!—while biblical ethics views hypocrisy as a disease to be eschewed. Biblical ethics concerns itself with absolute truth, and defines wisdom as the application of those moral principals in a fallen world. Political ethics defines wisdom as the ability to manipulate an event for maximum advantage.

    When the Capitol Building was breached this week by Americans, it was obviously the first time in our nation’s history that had happened. Yet it certainly was not unprecedented. In the past few years protesters had occupied Senate offices, Congressional offices, even the State House in Wisconsin (and that occupation lasted several days!). This summer and fall, “protesters” embarked on a month long siege of the federal court house in Portland. A “Second Amendment” group forced their entry into in the Michigan State House back in April. Twice in the past few years massive groups had tried to forcibly enter and occupy the US Supreme Court.

    One who views these events through political ethics asks himself, “Which party affiliation do these protestors have? Does supporting those protests advance or hinder a political objective I value?” Through that lens, supporting the mobs that attempted to breach the US Supreme Court this year advanced the narrative that the justices President Trump appointed were not legitimate, with the goal of undermining the perceived legitimacy of their rulings.

    In fact, earlier this year, a massive mob attacked the White House itself, attempting to breach the walls and burning a church just outside the White House fence. Law enforcement responded with force, and other nearby police departments sent mutual aid to defend the White House.

    That took place June 1, 2020. Do you remember the fallout from that? Those on the political left vilified the police for using force. The cities that sent mutual aid passed resolutions banning them from doing so again. The head of the Park Police was hauled in front of Congress to defend his agency’s use of pepper spray on US Citizens.

    Meanwhile, many on the right defended the police and condemned those that sought to storm the White House. This established a pattern that lasted all summer long, through the various riots/protests/looting that took place from Philadelphia to Los Angeles. At risk of over-generalizing, those on the political left excused the rioters (in fact, they objected to them being called “rioters”), and rationalized why attacks on property were justified. Those on the right generally condemned the rioters, and encouraged the government to prosecute those doing the looting.

    This is precisely why the riot at the US Capitol so effectively reveals the hypocrisy of political ethics. For those that have elevated politics above truth, their response to the attack on the Capitol almost causes whiplash. People who condemned the Park Police for dispersing the Lafayette Square riot promptly blamed the Capitol Police for not acting forcefully enough to disperse this latest riot. Meanwhile, many of those who condemned the rioters back in June are excusing the actions of the crowd this week (“they were just lost,” or “I’m sure many of them thought they were invited into the Capitol Building”).



    The article continues. It really reminds us of what our view of politics as believers should be.


    https://thecripplegate.com/political...3hHvuxlL06OWaQ


    Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

  • #2
    This part stuck out
    Political ethics embraces hypocrisy—the best politicians are not even embarrassed by it!


    You can't shame these people for being hypocrites. They just smirk and continue unfazed.

    I've noticed the same thing with parasitical behavior. When able-bodied people (relatives, in my case) demand that others support them, my accusing them of slothing and sponging doesn't embarrass them at all.

    Maybe it is just the times we live in.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Ronson View Post
      This part stuck out
      Political ethics embraces hypocrisy—the best politicians are not even embarrassed by it!


      You can't shame these people for being hypocrites. They just smirk and continue unfazed.

      I've noticed the same thing with parasitical behavior. When able-bodied people (relatives, in my case) demand that others support them, my accusing them of slothing and sponging doesn't embarrass them at all.

      Maybe it is just the times we live in.
      There is certainly an attitude of entitlement among the majority of people these days, for sure.


      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Ronson View Post
        This part stuck out
        Political ethics embraces hypocrisy—the best politicians are not even embarrassed by it!


        You can't shame these people for being hypocrites. They just smirk and continue unfazed.


        I've noticed the same thing with parasitical behavior. When able-bodied people (relatives, in my case) demand that others support them, my accusing them of slothing and sponging doesn't embarrass them at all.

        Maybe it is just the times we live in.
        That reminds me of what they used to say about negotiating with the old Soviet Union. They would boldly and blatantly lie and when caught they'd laugh, even congratulating you for catching them, and then continue on like nothing happened.

        Sort of like how the former Senate Leader Harry Reid brazenly lied about Mitt Romney not paying any taxes for a decade during the 2012 election, and when finally called out on it by the MSM (who of course waited until after the election to do so) just smirked and said "Romney didn't win did he?"

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment

        Related Threads

        Collapse

        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 07:38 AM
        2 responses
        17 views
        0 likes
        Last Post NorrinRadd  
        Started by Christian3, 02-25-2021, 12:29 PM
        0 responses
        15 views
        0 likes
        Last Post Christian3  
        Started by Thoughtful Monk, 02-10-2021, 11:49 AM
        26 responses
        179 views
        3 likes
        Last Post Maranatha  
        Started by Christian3, 02-08-2021, 01:48 PM
        2 responses
        32 views
        0 likes
        Last Post Christian3  
        Started by Cow Poke, 01-27-2021, 12:44 PM
        20 responses
        84 views
        1 like
        Last Post Cow Poke  
        Working...
        X