Some will argue that we can not take a stand for what is right because we are imperfect and therefore incapable of discernment of right verses wrong. They will say that only God is perfect so who are you, or me, or him, or she to take a stand in His name? Apart from the Lord's grace that is true - we are in that fallen state even unaware of our sinfulness. In our reborn state, however, we are now equipped with the tools to make judgments based upon His righteousness. Much of the argument against our taking a stand is simply for the sake of argument which cannot be won over by argument itself. It seeks to pick apart every positive conclusion by introducing doubt into what is otherwise obvious. The arguments are often presented with intellectual and philosophical force so as to be convincing to many. By such a stand no one would ever be able to do anything to rebuke another, no parent would be able to raise a child, no court would be able to judge a matter, etc. The goal is to destroy all standards, all points of reference, all morality, all of God's order in the world, etc. No, we should take a stand for what is right and it all should be based on God's word that He has given us by which to live. We can never achieve perfection on this earth and yet we still can and should do what we can. We need to see, understand, and expose liberal thinking for exactly what it is - just another of Satan's tools.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How does one side have all the truth?
- Thread starter Eric B
- Start date
Thing is, nobody here has said you can't take a stand. Again; reading something that is not there.
It's about attitude.
The attitude that one has such a lock on truth that you can treat the other person as stupid (e.g. OP quote), and then paint a broad picture of them, such as trying to destroy all standards and not allow the other side to take a stand. That's sort of what I see being done the other way, as simply voicing disagreement makes one a destroyer of standards, tool of Satan, etc. That means it's basically wrong to take a stand on their views.
You speak of something being "obvious", so that's why I used the example of gravity. Also, the Word of God, where at least we have a written testimony from God. And certain political issues that might touch directly upon biblical teaching. The rest of these issues just seem like one human self-interest versus another.
Absolute standard is based on God, not man. When man argues over his own standards or interests, then it IS relative (and prone to error), and mutual tolerance is called for. And yes, it's picked apart, because no man has the right to paint a broad "conclusion" and dictate that it is from God, and above any scrutiny. (Counting on its passionate and rhetorical force to convince many, as has been working in this country for at least 30 years). If it's really from God, it can stand the scruntiny. If not, then, it's another human pretense attempted to be passed off as truth.
Yes, a reborn state may inform a person's views in the things of God, but the person is still imperfect, and still has the old nature inside which can creep up and skew things. He doesn't automatically become a perfect representative of God's ways. This has to be kept in mind. Again, in issues that seem to be all self-interest and little about God, I don't see how anyone can claim to be taking a stand for God.
That's what the pattern looks like. A person's fleshy self-interest is perceived to be threatened, and then they lash out at others seen as representing the threat. That's a natural sinful human reaction, not a reborn reaction, though reborn people can fall into it. God hardly even enters the picture, but the people insist they are arguing God's truth. That's the key. It's not just a liberal relativizing the truth, it's conservatives not making sure what they are calling truth is really from God; just assuming and asserting it. So why should anybody accept it as truth when people can clearly see their limited humanity as much as anyone else?
Or again, as I asked in the OP, is it some sort of special election kind of thing, where God soveriengly makes some people ideologically perfect, so that everything they say is automatically right? That seems to be what a lot of people's attitudes are; especially if any disagreement constitutes satanic "rejection of truth" or whatever, and they deserve to be "rebuked" with accusations or pejoratives.
It's about attitude.
The attitude that one has such a lock on truth that you can treat the other person as stupid (e.g. OP quote), and then paint a broad picture of them, such as trying to destroy all standards and not allow the other side to take a stand. That's sort of what I see being done the other way, as simply voicing disagreement makes one a destroyer of standards, tool of Satan, etc. That means it's basically wrong to take a stand on their views.
You speak of something being "obvious", so that's why I used the example of gravity. Also, the Word of God, where at least we have a written testimony from God. And certain political issues that might touch directly upon biblical teaching. The rest of these issues just seem like one human self-interest versus another.
Absolute standard is based on God, not man. When man argues over his own standards or interests, then it IS relative (and prone to error), and mutual tolerance is called for. And yes, it's picked apart, because no man has the right to paint a broad "conclusion" and dictate that it is from God, and above any scrutiny. (Counting on its passionate and rhetorical force to convince many, as has been working in this country for at least 30 years). If it's really from God, it can stand the scruntiny. If not, then, it's another human pretense attempted to be passed off as truth.
Yes, a reborn state may inform a person's views in the things of God, but the person is still imperfect, and still has the old nature inside which can creep up and skew things. He doesn't automatically become a perfect representative of God's ways. This has to be kept in mind. Again, in issues that seem to be all self-interest and little about God, I don't see how anyone can claim to be taking a stand for God.
That's what the pattern looks like. A person's fleshy self-interest is perceived to be threatened, and then they lash out at others seen as representing the threat. That's a natural sinful human reaction, not a reborn reaction, though reborn people can fall into it. God hardly even enters the picture, but the people insist they are arguing God's truth. That's the key. It's not just a liberal relativizing the truth, it's conservatives not making sure what they are calling truth is really from God; just assuming and asserting it. So why should anybody accept it as truth when people can clearly see their limited humanity as much as anyone else?
Or again, as I asked in the OP, is it some sort of special election kind of thing, where God soveriengly makes some people ideologically perfect, so that everything they say is automatically right? That seems to be what a lot of people's attitudes are; especially if any disagreement constitutes satanic "rejection of truth" or whatever, and they deserve to be "rebuked" with accusations or pejoratives.
Well, in our finished reborn state we will be fully able, but the work is not yet complete in us. (Cue cool "inaugurated eschatology" theme...sounds a bit like "Star Wars" music.)
As it is, our task is not one of judgment, but one of love. If we love radically and pervasively, thus reflecting God's grace, our world will change for the better. If we keep sitting around, tossing Scripture all around like a football, and judging people, we will keep turning people off to the gospel and the Spirit's work in our lives.
Blessings.
Sorry, brother, but we are required to make judgments about right and wrong every day. What we cannot do is make a judgment about a person's final destiny.
We should, through the Spirit's leading, make judgments about our own life, yes.
Oh, brother, you sure can twist things around and take us down all sorts of bunny trails! That's what I meant by argument for the sake of argument. You are good at that!
Many of the points you make are literally true but don't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
Just where do you stand on the various issues we discuss? You just take up the opposite points of view and argue endlessly that the "right" cannot know what is right any more than the "left" can know what is right. So where do you stand? In the middle perhaps? By your point of view no one can be right. In so doing you support nothing and challenge everything. That doesn't help make the right decisions - it only makes calling out wrong more difficult.
I say the conservative point of view is much more aligned with the biblical point of view on issues that are clearly defined in scripture and, therefore, is more likely to be correct on issues that are not so clearly defined. The foundation is more solid and that foundation must come from the word of God. That, brother, is right on target for the original posting!
Really? Then what does it mean to be given a "new heart" and be given the Holy Spirit as our guide and comforter? What then does it mean to seek the wisdom of the Lord? If we are unchanged by salvation then we would still be same. What does it mean to be freed from the bondage of sin? Now we sin by choice but we sin with an awareness that we are and we know the guilt of it. One who is not saved does not even know the guilt and is a slave to sin. What does it mean to grow in Christ? We will never achieve perfection in this life but we will certainly be smarter and do better than we would without salvation. We are equipped with God's word and the Holy Spirit indwells in us. We are not "better" of ourselves but "better" because of Christ. You bet we're better equipped to make the right choices and more responsible than ever if we don't.
We have to make judgments about others as well. We have to be able to discern right from wrong in all things around us. That is required for the governance of self, the family, the church, and the state. We do so with an acute awareness that we ourselves are not blameless and except by the grace of the Lord are doomed.
So because you take the biblical position on more clear issues, then you are automatically "more likely" to be right on the less clear issues. OK, I guess this answers some of the question.
But I see that as a very faulty line of reasoning. Haven't you heard that a little cyanide in a glass of water poisons the whole thing? (And that's assuming the belief system in question is even that percentage correct!)
What I have been pointing out DOES have everything to do with the topic. Again, I'm seeing a lot of self-interest in these debates, and little Biblical validation of it. So it doesn't look like any solid foundation to me. It doesn't automatically become God's truth just because you might be on the "right side" of a couple of moral or theological issues. The Pharisees were right about the worship of the true God, and the Law. Yet they were wrong about Christ, and thought their "grounding" in the Law proved them right in every other area.
That is not how we determine truth.
Yes, I admit I end up supporting nothing and challenging everything. I had said I was better at making observations than trying to implement anything. Like Poncho, I see all the sides before me as basically the same thing. It's just that some of the rhetoric coming from the Right, which encompasses most Christians (which I align with spiritually) I see serious problems with. And they're the ones using GOD's name and claiming "absolute truth", not the Left, so the left is not usually worth trying to reason with on "truth".
And while I may not know of a better way at the moment, I do know that as long as people operate under some of the misconceptions, and thinking they have to accept an ideology wholesale as "truth", I am seeing, we will not get anywhere. I see the fingers of blame heading in the totally wrong direction, so despite 30 years of conservative power, things seem to be getting worse, and ironically, to top it all off, conservatives are the ones complaining about it worse than ever.
Like this, in one of Poncho's other threads:
(I originally planned to address financial issues in the OP, but figured I'd hold off until the discussion moved around to it. It IS the main issue I am addressing regarding conservative viewpoints anyway, and one in which I can now tell you what some of my views are).
So someone is "far left" because they point out something American may have been involved.
Setting aside the need proof for or against the denial, if they did happen to be apart of the situations; then they were. What can we do about it, other than be aware, and observe its effects? They don't magically become not involved just because they are from this country. As the most powerful country in the world, it seems to make sense. Hence why I have been supporting some of Poncho's posts lately.
But it seems they always get a pass (Whether in that particular context, or in economics in general), to the point that to even suggest they are apart of a given problem is to "blame America", which is seen as always being "against" the country.
Like you and others have said before, if we blame the country, why would we ever find it worth defending? So it seems like part of the underlying philosophy is that only what is perfect is worth defending; so if we believe in something (namely our own interests and national identity), then they must be perfect or absolute truth.
Again, this touches upon what I said above (to show it's still on topic), regarding your method of determining truth. It's all or nothing when determining the truth on a particular side. One side must be all right, and we have to stand completely behind it on all points, and then ignore or excuse what doesn't fit into this "all right" frame. It's always the liberals' fault, never conservatives or the movements they support (big money, corporate powers, etc.) Even the bailouts are Obama's fault.
But that is apparently where the error occurs. Nothing man does is so completely "right" or above any reproach, even if led by God.
But talking about something being "obvious"; I would think that financiers (domestic or abroad) would be more likely to have the power to be causing a lot of the problems, than what the conservative "tea party" mindset seems to squarely blame; which is basically, the poor, on social programs, through taxes.
So what I'm not suggesting is that the left is all right, and the government should just raise taxes and give to the poor. No, don't redistribute the wealth to the poor, but then don't blame them for the redistribution that is obviously flowing on the opposite direction.
So I can't say either side is better. But again, I do see the Right pointing blame the wrong way, and the problem will never be solved like that, and I'm here in a largely conservative environment, so I'm voicing what I see wrong. Hopefully some will wake up and see what is really going on, and then change their focus, which is probably being deliberately diverted so that the people really controlling things can get you too blame your fellow neighbor while they rob us all blind.
Last edited by a moderator:
Really? You mean it's not how you determine the truth! Which "one side" are you on in any given position or is your position so fluid that you're on neither side of any issue and just go with the middle ground to argue the point? I don't see where you stand on much of anything except to oppose whatever else if put up for a standard. Your arguments are long winded but have little insight into just where you stand excpet, of course, to rip where others stand!
You've said it more than once.
How liberal of you to plead innocence of obvious guilt and , of course, blame others.
:laugh: One knows what it looks like if they've read your posts.
Please stop belaboring the obvious.
Try something original.. The whining of a liberal is old hat.
The keyword is "discern." Discernment in this sense is not the same as judgment in another sense - as in the passing of judgment.
OK, it's just not the way I determine truth. So you're actually affirming that you determine truth just by picking a side and sticking with it...
It doesn't matter if it might be right in one or two points, and wrong in all the rest; they simply becomes right because you choose that side.
It's not so much of a fluid position, but seeing both sides going nowhere. In fact, a lot of you conservatives have been saying the same things in recent elections. You're not happy with either the Democrats or Republicans. You see the Republicans now as just the same old thing. You many of you apparently gave up and did not pick a side, (and that was likely how Obama was ever able to get in in the first place). You were unhappy with Bush in the last election, and he got back in by a narrow margin.
So it's not just me. I'm just challenging one side I see making this claim to having all the truth, yet not able to effectively do anything about it except complain about who's in office. (Which is close to what you just said about me).
Where have I said it? The most I possibly might have said is that Conservatives blame more, or lierals are not as vocal or persistent with it, or something like that. But that's not the same as saying they are not in the game.
How conservative to make up stuff out of thin air to build a straw man argument.
Knows what what looks like? What are you even talking about?
All you ever do is make snide remarks, but I don't see you coming up with any answer.
You have yet to answer the question, of why my raising the issue is "whining", but your side's constant complaining about politics is not. Look who starts most of these discussions every day, week, or whatever about what Obama is doing; how the liberals are against you, how someone is reversing some injustice on you, etc. I don't see how you conservatives even have the gall to accuse anyone of whining. You're the ones who have filled the airwaves for three decades with constant tantrums, and have swayed a lot of politics with it, and are still not satisfied.
Both of you have completely deflected away from that point. (Would his comments be part of your "absolute truth", Dragoon? Is he speaking God's Word? Liberals are just whining jerks, you're the real victims they're trying to take something from. That's the "truth"? This is the sort of thing I'm getting at).
Last edited by a moderator:
You're talking about someone else here, brother, because I'm not unhappy with the conservative ideology at all. You need to be careful with the "you" word here!
I don't think we have enough conservatives in any major or minor party that I know about but must definitely not among Democrats who might as well change the name of their party.
No, I didn't affirm anything you said but it's just about a certainty that you'll claim this or that no matter what is written!
Like I've said, I align with conservatives because I believe they are, in their foundation, more aligned with the principles revealed in the word of God. I don't agree on every single issue every single time. If I think something is wrong then I'm not going along with it just because I think the group pushing it is generally right. Likewise, I distance myself from the liberals because I've never found much of anything I could align with and recognize there foundation is not based on scriptural principles. I'm also not going to compromise my beliefs just because there are some differences among conservatives from time to time or just because once every 1,000 years the liberals get something right by accident. I'm also not going to wally in uncertainty and be non-committal just so I can argue the fine details for the sake of argument.
So, that's why I'd have to say, with some qualification, that "one side" does have the "truth" advantage over the other or, better yet, that "one side" is full of "lies".
So you weren't unhappy in the last term, and thinking Bush and his administration were "just liberal Democrats in disguise". If not, then I apologize for your sake.
It seemed everyone here for the last eight years was unhappy with Bush (and in 2004, pushing for Peroutka of the Constitution Party, and the conservatives who were against him were only so based on the premise that they knew he would lose, and the votes would go to the Democrats).
People were no longer satisfied with the Republicans, even when they controlled all the branches of govt.
So I wonder who is it out here now that you all want in office to make you happy, and what do you think is stopping this from happening? (especially, since conservatives insist they always win the ideological debates).
Sometimes; I just wish you could get the leaders you want in power, so you all could cool it already, and we could see how much of your wishes they could actually accomplish.
But then that IS all I was saying. You're not satisfied with the major parties.
But my question is not so much about "conservatives" vs "liberals" as groups, even though we have sort of veered into that. It's individual ideologies and perspectives I have been getting at all along. Like who's to blame for all the economic problems. It just so happens that conservatives will form a group that blames another group called the liberals. Liberals may in return blame conservatives.
I'm not asking why you side with "the conservatives". It's why you (and conservatives in general) blame the factors that you do, and ignore or exhonerate what others have added as factors of the problems (and then you neatly categorize them as "liberals" for that), and then claim your views are so infallibly "truth" that some of you put down your opponents as stupid, blind, liberal, "whining", etc.
You're the one making everything "conservative" vs "liberal". I and others have been opposing much of the labeling your side does.
So if it seems like I'm just arguing fine details, it's because you're not understanding the questions, and trying to push me into one of your little boxes, expecting me to take a "side". Of course, if I choose the "wrong" side, then I'm just wrong; no further debate needed. Hence, another member and his little one line insults.
I've already said over and over that I do not see either side as worth "joining" and rallying for like you do.
For the love. Can we not do better than resorting to labeling people as being liberal because they are not as narrow in their viewpoints?
I have noticed before that liberals don't like to be called liberals. In particular, liberal Christians don't like it because liberalism is often at odds with the teachings of scripture.