 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > ~THE CROSS AND THE SWORD~ | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Leviathan
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 9/10/2004 4:30 AM (GMT -6) |   | DLW-
I read your comments but not the links you gave...
It sounds to me liked some parts and not others...(see how I keep that simple...thats for me, not you)
Boyd's sermons are for the masses and have to hit on the major themes and to get into quote:
post-millenial position...The Cultural Wars are undermining this autonomy and poisoning the US's democracy in the process.
And the like... Are IMHO way to deep, I have not idea what you are talking about. I most likely would understand what you are saying if told, slowly with little words. And A sermon hitting every point would go on for months and months...to long and to deep for me.
What I want to know.
Does it Jive with the bible?
How do I apply this to my life?
What is your bottom line?
Did you overall agree or not?
As a christian how political do we get, do we vote and leave it at that or protest and/or join the christian coal.?
Finally- Can you be save and be a Democrate? | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 9/10/2004 2:09 PM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
Leviathan wrote:
Finally- Can you be save and be a Democrate?
Answer: Yes.
.
.
.
SOURCE:Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Leviathan
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 9/10/2004 2:28 PM (GMT -6) | | May-
I never said anything about God...I was talking about a 'person'being a democrate!!! I KNOW God isn't either.
Plus did you NOT see the little guy winking??? does that mean a funny? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 9/10/2004 5:56 PM (GMT -6) | | .
quote:
... does that mean a funny?
Whew. I thought you were serious.
Peace ...
<><
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/16/2004 6:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Leviathan
DLW-
I read your comments but not the links you gave...
It sounds to me liked some parts and not others...(see how I keep that simple...thats for me, not you)
Boyd's sermons are for the masses and have to hit on the major themes and to get into quote:
post-millenial position...The Cultural Wars are undermining this autonomy and poisoning the US's democracy in the process.
And the like... Are IMHO way to deep, I have not idea what you are talking about. I most likely would understand what you are saying if told, slowly with little words. And A sermon hitting every point would go on for months and months...to long and to deep for me.
sure. I see the need for keeping it simple. But, the above are critical to the topic.
quote:
What I want to know.
Does it Jive with the bible?
How do I apply this to my life?
What is your bottom line?
Did you overall agree or not?
As a christian how political do we get, do we vote and leave it at that or protest and/or join the christian coal.?
The key question is how then should we Christians live, letting our lights shine in this world, removing barriers to the sharing of the Gospel. I'm saying that the Bible does not exhaustively set out how we should let our lights shine. Ie., there ethical situations that were not considered by the writers of the Bible and directly addressed in the Bible. That is why we need to learn from experience and embody lessons learned from experience in our traditions.
I contend that one lesson we have learned from experience is that Church-State relations are an important part of our collective witness as Christians and important to our survival in the future. In the US, traditionally churches have been more autonomous from the state than was the case in Europe. They have historically been intermediaries between people and the State. This is one potential reason why Christianity is still alive in the US, instead of on life-support in Europe.
I'm not saying that we should return to the days of the Social Gospel or have preachers say how we should vote in their sermons. I am saying that pastors like Boyd need to encourage believers to develop better habits of deliberation on politics. This is because without such habits, we are going to be easy to manipulate into thinking as a-political something that is very political.
But this requires some theological justification, because time spent following/deliberating/acting on political issues is time spent away from reading the Bible, praying, sharing the Gospel with others. And politics tends to be an unsavory area, requiring many compromises to make changes and full of actors who are in it for the money and fame, for the most part, but who are still forces to be reckoned with.
Boyd refers to our political beliefs as our preferences. This treats them as non-deliberative, rather than exhorting us to deliberate more on how we should act, politically, as part of our public witness and how we go about loving our enemies. Pastors need to exhort us in this regard. They shouldn't string some verses together along with expressing their own personal pessimism about politics and exhorting us to remain unified and focused on the gospel.
to recap:How do I apply this to my life?
How much time do you spend following/deliberating/acting on political issues? How much time do you spend on sports?
What is your bottom line?
Try taking a tenth of the time you spend on sports or other entertainment stuff and dedictate it to fulfilling your civic responsiblity.
Did you overall agree or not?
I agree that making political changes isn't our ultimate goal and that we shouldn't let political differences divide us as Christians. But Christians are being manipulated politically. We, like most Americans, are often rather ignorant politically and our emphasis on personal holiness and end-times stuff tend to encourage us to stay ignorant politically. The price of this ignorance is that it makes us easier to manipulate which then may tarnish our collective witness to others and raise barriers to our ability to share about our faith with others.
quote:
As a christian how political do we get, do we vote and leave it at that or protest and/or join the christian coal.?
We should do more than vote. We should do research first, follow or participate in debates prior to deciding who we vote for. We should seek to be peace-makers in the cultural wars, since they have mainly produced acrimony/hate and raised barriers to the sharing of the Gospel.
It's also worth diverting some of the energy we spend endlessly arguing about the meaning of the inerrancy of the Bible or whether the future is predetermined or not on such things because of how it may open up opportunity to share about one's faith with people that we wouldn't be able to share it with, otherwise.
For example, I took a lot of time off during my last two years in graduate school to help organize successfully a graduate employee union at Michigan State. I did this because the university was taking advantage of its graduate students and because it opened up lots of opportunities for me to share about my faith with non-Christians or marginal Christians for whom I am their main interaction with evangelical Christianity. I don't think anyone became a Christian, but I still have the friendships and learned from the experience and it has informed my lay-ministry since then.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Leviathan
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 9/17/2004 3:46 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW,
I don't think I really disagree with anything you said.
quote:
We, like most Americans, are often rather ignorant politically and our emphasis on personal holiness and end-times stuff tend to encourage us to stay ignorant politically.
Agree, I wish more pasters would tackle the tough issues that surround the candidates and help people think about them and what is bibical and what is not. Pastors don't have to come out and say who to vote for but, what issues each candidate believes.
Why don't they...??? I have no idea!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Leviathan
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 9/17/2004 11:43 AM (GMT -6) | | How do you seperate political issues and moral issues?
You can argue, Is it the governments job to provide welfare or individuals and the churches.
But
How do you argue life of the unborn, and doesn't one far out way another?
The speaks nothing of the government programs but does say that shedding innocent blood is a abomination!! How do you compare are isn't that a issue for the church?
What is the 1st job of a nation...to protect it people. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/17/2004 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Leviathan
How do you seperate political issues and moral issues?
All political issues deal with values. But we tend to be fallible in our understanding of both the consequences of different political actions(like what would happen if we lowered or raised the marginal tax rate some) and we tend to be influenced by our own self-interests in political stuff(I.e., we don't want to pay for what helps someone else, but we do like to claim that what helps us is in the public good.). This is true for everyone, including clergy.
Also a theological education doesn't make one a good policy analyst and clergy tend to like to pronounce what they judge is right or wrong with absolutist language, which is likely inappropriate and harmfully divisive to church-politics and Christian unity across political divisions.
quote:
You can argue, Is it the governments job to provide welfare or individuals and the churches.
There is a free-rider effect to the church's exclusively providing welfare for the poor. We are more effective if we provide political support for effective welfare for the poor.
quote:
But How do you argue life of the unborn, and doesn't one far out way another?
At issue in this debate is when legal personhood should begin. It isn't given by the Bible or science that the newly-formed zygote is a human being. Only a minority of people believe that. By the separation of Church-State, a religious minority cannot determine law against the views of the rest of the population.
The Constitution through Roe-V-Wade only guarantees a woman's right to elect an abortion in defined circumstances. This effectively forbades making first trimester abortions illegal. It leaves open legal redefinitions of when human personhood begins and other measures that help to prevent abortions.
I recommend focusing on all of that and accepting that we are not going to make first trimester abortions illegal and keep it legal in the future.
Bush has said that he doesn't believe that America is ready for making abortion illegal. Which basically says he's not going to spend his political capital on the issue. Instead, he'll probably support some limited, easy issues like PBAban(which didn't actually prevent any abortions) or taking federal funding from health clinics in underdeveloped countries that provide abortion services.
quote:
The speaks nothing of the government programs but does say that shedding innocent blood is a abomination!! How do you compare are isn't that a issue for the church?
What is the 1st job of a nation...to protect it people.
What is being debated is when we become people from a legal perspective. This issue wouldn't have dragged out for thirty years if it was that clear-cut.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Leviathan
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 9/20/2004 3:36 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW,
Why is it the you are SOOO PRO-ABORTION?
I don't get it?
quote:
easy issues like PBAban(which didn't actually prevent any abortions)
How do you figure that?
quote:
It isn't given by the Bible or science that the newly-formed zygote is a human being.
Well the bible does say I know YOU while you were in the womb!! that's personhood to me!
2nd are you under the false belief that science CANNOT validate when life begins...or won't. We have had babies born as early as 26 weeks and live...how about no abortions after that?
How can a mother go in for an abortion a day before her due date...but if she is struck and killed by a drunk driver there is 2 counts murder!
quote:
The Constitution through Roe-V-Wade only guarantees a woman's right to elect an abortion in defined circumstances.
"...defined circumstances..." What are thoughs...SHE WANTS ONE...give me a break!
quote:
a religious minority cannot determine law against the views of the rest of the population.
There was a time when Blacks were slaves and woman couldn't vote...would you have stood with the "rest of the population" Some times a CHRISTIAN MUST stand for what is RIGHT...not with what is POPULAR!!!!!
HOW SAD!!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Leviathan
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 9/22/2004 1:14 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW-
quote:
You know, when I encouraged you to be more politically active, I meant in a more civil manner.
You should read my mind and hear the things I self edit!
quote:
PBAban only prevents a certain type of abortion. It doesn't prevent other types of abortions and so it will not prevent actual abortions.
It would prevent the woman wanting to have an abortion at 38 weeks! What other abortion could she have? That is a baby saved.
quote:
Science can establish facts that are the grist we use for determining when we believe we become human beings.
I believe legal personhood should be established well before 26 weeks of pregnancy.
Fine with me...good start!
You do know that PBA are done WAY after 26 weeks?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution through Roe-V-Wade only guarantees a woman's right to elect an abortion in defined circumstances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...defined circumstances..." What are thoughs...SHE WANTS ONE...give me a break!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not encouraging me to interact with you further.
That is YOUR Constitution right... Just being honest and frank, you don't have to guess what I'm thinking...but also no one as accused me of being nice But really you came across to me as being a avocate of abortion, If I was wrong then sorry
"...defined circumstances..." A woman can have abortion for any reason.
quote:
We can change their beliefs by acts of civil disobedience and the arguments we make, but we cannot constitutionally capture the gov't to impose what we think ought to be law. Any legal changes we make must work within the democratic process.
I would be happy with 'vote pro-life'
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/22/2004 2:00 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Leviathan
DLW-
quote:
You know, when I encouraged you to be more politically active, I meant in a more civil manner.
You should read my mind and hear the things I self edit!
all the same, it pays to strive for the emotional distance to be civil on these issues.
quote:
quote:
PBAban only prevents a certain type of abortion. It doesn't prevent other types of abortions and so it will not prevent actual abortions.
It would prevent the woman wanting to have an abortion at 38 weeks! What other abortion could she have? That is a baby saved.
There are hardly any elective abortions at that stage that are not meant to save the life of a woman. I don't remember the details, but there are other late-term abortion techniques, though I don't think they are as safe for the mother as PBA.
quote:
quote:
Science can establish facts that are the grist we use for determining when we believe we become human beings.
I believe legal personhood should be established well before 26 weeks of pregnancy.
Fine with me...good start!
You do know that PBA are done WAY after 26 weeks?
Yes, and those elective abortions should be banned based on the stage, not the technique.
quote:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution through Roe-V-Wade only guarantees a woman's right to elect an abortion in defined circumstances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...defined circumstances..." What are thoughs...SHE WANTS ONE...give me a break!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not encouraging me to interact with you further.
That is YOUR Constitution right... Just being honest and frank, you don't have to guess what I'm thinking...but also no one as accused me of being nice But really you came across to me as being a avocate of abortion, If I was wrong then sorry
"...defined circumstances..." A woman can have abortion for any reason.
Roe-V-Wade left open the possibility of us putting restrictions on abortions after the first trimester, that is what defined circumstances means.
My contention is that we would have successfully redefined when human personhood begins and prevented many abortions if pro-lifer political activists were not determined to pursue making all elective abortions illegal again. This and the heated rhetoric on the issue made their opposition unwilling to step out onto the slippery slope by compromising.
It also is what led to the deadlock and huge waste of political capital on the issue. Greg Boyd in his sermon series refers to the issue as unresolvable. I disagree. I think that successful compromises can be made if the terms of the debate are reframed.
quote:
quote:
We can change their beliefs by acts of civil disobedience and the arguments we make, but we cannot constitutionally capture the gov't to impose what we think ought to be law. Any legal changes we make must work within the democratic process.
I would be happy with 'vote pro-life'
no, because there are a host of issues that affect matters of life and death.
Sojourners had a debate forum on this not long ago.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=get_connected.forums&mode=display&forum_id=57
A consistent pro-life position must be far more politically nuanced and politically strategic and to be effective in the US, it must also work within the democratic process.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
| 38 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:40 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|