Don't ask, Don't tell

[Ruiz]

But only when it is convenient to your biases do you follow your stated guidelines. We (Christians) all make our judgments/decisions on morals and on whether or not to support and/or impose those morals values in/on society based on our Christian principles and beliefs and use the government to enforce them. We vote etc. You make excuses for not imposing moral laws and values on society, by the use of these governmental laws (as if this doesn't exist, again only when it is convenient to your biased opinions do you follow your guidelines), and in fact will ("throw out morality") when it suits your cause which you only then site and fall back on your "philosophical position". I have based my argument presenting your weaseling tactics on your stated standards which you will selectively use to support your position on homosexuality and despite your intellectual dishonesty and smokecreening in this matter have shown this to be logically true therefore my point has been made.

Your selective too. DO you advocate all the moral law? Do you want to criminalize two 15 year olds who have premarital sex or petting? Do you want to criminalize people who worship other Gods? If not, you are selective too, you choose.

I gave you my rationale for choosing such. If you are selective, give me yours.

 

[Benjamin]

Seems to me that the reason for all the contention in this thread is that we as citizens of the US have forgotten that our "government" is not just some entity, but is us.

Exactly! And selectively falling back on other principles to avoid this responsibilty of upholding morality to support one's position is pure fallacy.

 

[freeatlast]

Salty,

This year I spent extra time studying the founding of our country from a theological/religious history perspective--taking into account all the beliefs present in that day about our founding (beginning with Jonathan Edwards and continuing to Lincoln).

I say that to say that except in the United States, theologians were rather united that our move was unBiblical and harmful. John Wesley, George Whitfield (Whitfield started off for the Revolution, until he visited America and realized the harm), and many others wrote and preached against our move to form a Republic form of Government. What is scary, much of what they predicted has come true and many ramifications they underestimated.

Deidrich Bonhoffer's view of our Republic when he visited America was not favorable at all, but rather scathing.

My point, our system was opposed by everyone, theologian and otherwise, except in the United States because of theological reasons. A democracy, however, is much worse than a Republican Government. So, I do oppose such.

Now, I do not know of the details of the towns you mentioned and I may move to such a town. However, the philosophy has dire consequences. I may move there, but like living in America, I understand the negatives of living in such a place and teach the negatives to my children.

Now, the obvious question is, if a Republican form of Government is that bad, what do I advocate? I do not know. My study took me to studying the Stone Lectures of Kuyper, Schaeffer, Calvin, and others. To be honest, I don't know the solution outside of saying that my goal is to live at peace with the government. I see they hold a few vital roles as defined by theologians. But outside of those roles, I want them to get out of everything else so I know I can live peacefully with them. I see them as the greatest threat to our peace as Christians, as citizens.

Would I live in a Democracy? Yes, but I would not like it and would like it less than living in a Republic.

Even so dear Jesus, come!

I choose a theocracy or as close as one can get to it.

 

[Benjamin]

Your selective too. DO you advocate all the moral law? Do you want to criminalize two 15 year olds who have premarital sex or petting? Do you want to criminalize people who worship other Gods? If not, you are selective too, you choose.

I gave you my rationale for choosing such. If you are selective, give me yours.

I clearly admitted I have my lines that I draw and am selective based on my moral priorities...this is being intellectually honest. You on the other hand use excuses to protect homosexuality from your judgment and willingness to impose laws against it rather than admit your selection.

 

[Ruiz]

Exactly! And selectively falling back on other principles to avoid this responsibilty of upholding morality to support one's position is pure fallacy.

Benjamin,

You are funny. It is not a fallacy because there is nowhere in the Scripture that the state is given that authority. If you want to play God and say it is so, then that is fine, but you have to prove it first.

I can't prove anegative, but I can make a statement that NOWHERE in Scripture is your view placed on the state for such laws. And you admit that your view is not rational, but what you think should happen. Thus, you admit yours is irrational and a fallacy. I think it is funny you attack me for a fallacy when you admit your view is irrational and that you made it up. You can't really attack one person for something you admit to doing yourself.

 

[Ruiz]

I clearly admitted I have my lines that I draw and am selective based on my moral priorities...this is being intellectually honest. You on the other hand use excuses to protect homosexuality from your judgment and willingness to impose laws against it rather than admit your selection.

You are once again lying about my position. Homosexuality is a sin, an evil. I am not trying to protect it. I am trying to define the role of Government.

Next, you refuse to answer my questions. You refuse to dialog, to converse, just attack.

Again, I simply state that NOWHERE in Scripture is Government called upon as a moral agent to enact pure moral law. Until you show me a place outside of a Theocracy, unless you advocate a theocracy, then you must agree with me at points.

 

[Ruiz]

I choose a theocracy or as close as one can get to it.

By that token, you are not a Baptist but an anti-Baptist.

Sorry you have left a great tradition. It truly does sadden me.

 

[freeatlast]

By that token, you are not a Baptist but an anti-Baptist.

Sorry you have left a great tradition. It truly does sadden me.

I am sorry for your sadness, but I choose to be a follower of the Lord, not a denomination.

 

[Ruiz]

I am sorry for your sadness, but I choose to be a follower of the Lord, not a denomination.

God did not call his church to establish a theocracy. He called them to preach the Word. He didn't call us back to Rome, but to Glory.

 

[Benjamin]

I am not trying to protect it. I am trying to define the role of Government.

You do in fact try to protect it by excuses that you will not be consistent in, that has been my point of contention from the get go which you have tried to dance around. It is painfully obvioous that you fall back on what the role of government should be only when you need that defense to support your refusal of imposing moral laws against homosexuality. Truth is, you have made choice on nothing more than your conscious on that particular matter.

Edit: a truth you are not man enough to admit, and I am tired on chasing your fallicious rabbits.

 

[Ruiz]

You do in fact try to protect it by excuses that you will not be consistent in, that has been my point of contention from the get go which you have tried to dance around. It is painfully obvioous that you fall back on what the role of government should be only when you need that defense to support your refusal of imposing moral laws against homosexuality. Truth is, you have made choice on nothing more than your conscious on that particular matter.

Edit: a truth you are not man enough to admit, and I am tired on chasing your fallicious rabbits.

You are absolutely lying about my position in a most unChristian manner and you refuse to engage in dialog, attacking me without even answering my questions. Your lies are horrendous in that you would rather win a debate than get the facts straight.

 

[freeatlast]

God did not call his church to establish a theocracy. He called them to preach the Word. He didn't call us back to Rome, but to Glory.

I never said God called us to form a theocracy only it would be my choice. Only God can form that. However the closer that any government can function in regards to the moral laws of God the better that government will function and the greater peace the people will be able to live under and every believer should seek such a government when possible.

 

[Ruiz]

I never said God called us to form a theocracy. Only God can do that. However the closer that any government can function in regards to the moral laws of God the better that government will function and the greater peace the people will be able to live under.

Again, moralism is not helpful. Our country does not need moralism. In fact, we have too much of moralism today, that is our problem. We need the Gospel, a church who proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I never see moralism as our solution, it is not. The solution is the Gospel.

 

[Benjamin]

You are absolutely lying about my position in a most unChristian manner and you refuse to engage in dialog, attacking me without even answering my questions. Your lies are horrendous in that you would rather win a debate than get the facts straight.

Go back and see who has began throwing Ad Hominem into the discussion. Like I said your position has been nailed down and you refuse to admit your bias. I ignored your personal attacks and have tried to keep centerd on your position not you. More discussion or AD hominem won't help your cause. End of story.

 

[Ruiz]

Go back and see who has began throwing Ad Hominem into the discussion. Like I said you have been nailed down and refuse to admit your bias. More discussion won't help your cause. End of story.

Have a good day. I hope you enjoy making 15 year olds who have premarital sex criminals. How saw you want to attack kids instead of focusing on the Gospel.

 

[Benjamin]

Have a good day. I hope you enjoy making 15 year olds who have premarital sex criminals. How saw you want to attack kids instead of focusing on the Gospel.

:laugh: Fallicious strawman.

 

[Ruiz]

:laugh: Fallicious strawman.

No it isn't, you said you wanted God's moral law upheld. I asked you specifically about that issue, you refused to answer. Based upon your previous answer I concluded this was your position. I asked for clarification many times, you refused to answer.

So, I concluded that if:

You bash me for not wanting God's moral law against homosexuals. Therefore, you are determined the folllowing:

God's moral law should be enforced by the State.
God's moral law states pre-marital sex is a sin.
Therefore you want to the state enforce by law that pre-marital sex is a sin.

Do you see a problem with that logical formula?

If so, where? If not, clarify your position.

 

[freeatlast]

Again, moralism is not helpful. Our country does not need moralism. In fact, we have too much of moralism today, that is our problem. We need the Gospel, a church who proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I never see moralism as our solution, it is not. The solution is the Gospel.

I am not sure where you live, but here in Texas there is very little morality. The reason that the church is so dead is not because the gospel is not preached, but because of people like yourself that seeks to do away with moral standards that should be leading our nation.
In years past when the nations laws were closer set in accord with the moral standings of God the nation was a safety place, but because many in the church have decided that God's moral standards are not for the government we have declined into a pit of rubbish. We need to seek leaders who will return to legislating moral standards that God has set.

 

[Ruiz]

I am not sure where you live, but here in Texas there is very little morality. The reason that the church is so dead is not because the gospel is not preached, but because of people like yourself that seeks to do away with moral standards that should be leading our nation.
In years past when the nations laws were closer set in accord with the moral standings of God the nation was a safety place, but because many in the church have decided that God's moral standards are not for the government we have declined into a pit of rubbish. We need to seek leaders who will return to legislating moral standards that God has set.

Free,

The problem is not the standards, the problem is the Gospel is not faithfully preached. When Paul went to Corinth, he did not blame the licentiousness on people in the society refusing to enact moral standards in society. He turned the people to the Gospel. The solution to the Corinths was not "morality" it was to remember Christ crucified. In Galatia, their problem with the Judiazers was not to be more moral, but to turn to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul didn't call anyone to enact moral standards for the government (and we know that some Christians were even in the household of Caesar, but still no mention of it), but he pointed them to the Gospel.

Oh, and yes we are moralists. The Church is filled with moralists. The State is filled with people who are moralists, who think they are doing good therefore they are good people. The problem in America, we think we are too good for the Gospel.

 

[Benjamin]

No it isn't, you said you wanted God's moral law upheld. I asked you specifically about that issue, you refused to answer.

Totally untrue! I said/admitted I have my lines that I draw when making laws on morality. I pointed to your excuses (OK...Lies!) that you base your imposing moral laws against others in society on your "philosphical position" of separation of church and state 3 government roles. You in fact base your position on your conscious and use this as an excuse to defend homosexuality. You are not man enough to admit your bias. Simple as that.