"But nowhere in the Bible are we told that government should take one man's money by force of law and give it to another man. Jesus' admonition was a personal command to share, not a command for Caesar to "spread the wealth around."
It's amusing to me how those who campaign for the government imposing the virtue of chastity on the populace with the force of law (which impacts no one but the participants) have zero interest in imposing the virtue of charity (which impacts far more people) when that ethical mandate apparently goes unheeded.
Ezekiel 16:49 "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
If we are supposedly held accountable as a nation for the legislation we craft in terms of things like gay marriage, is there no responsibility for the type of legislation we devise regarding any other form of ethics?
Not according to many who crow loudly about holding to a literal interpretation of Scripture. This is not consistent thinking.
God apparently cares about government issuing civil licenses to two guys, but not whether a nation decides to relieve themselves of any duty of assisting those in need by simply characterizing them as morally flawed and deserving of no particular aid.
You think it's inconsistent for conservatives to think laws should be written imposing "virtues of chastity" but not laws imposing "the virtue of charity"?
Can you spell that out, James? What "virtue of chastity" law did you have in mind and what "virtue of charity" law?
If we take, for instance, gay marriage and redistribution of wealth, I cant see any inconsistency. A conservative can take their stance on laws against gay marriage by, to give a crude sketch, saying that the gov't has no right to promote evil or institute and legitimize injustice. Gay marriage is evil/unjust. Therefore, the gov't has no right legitimize it or recognize it. I can't see any way that this line of reasoning would require someone to also support redistribution of wealth... or whatever it is you have in mind.
Could you show exactly what the "not consistent thinking" is?
Based on what standard? Biblical standards? In that case, so are most remarriages in this nation. Many, if not most, people who divorce do so for reasons other than infidelity (the ONLY reason permitted by Christ for divorce). When you start insisting that divorce needs to be permitted legally only for infidelity, then get back to me.
In terms of "redistribution of wealth", well ... there are dozens of Scripture passages that condemn living in ease while others languish in extreme poverty. Recall the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? The parable of the sheep and the goats (where the goats were those who did not help the afflicted)?
Like most fundamentalists, you seek to impose only those passages upon the populace using the force of law that won't inconvenience YOU (even upon those who don't share your brand of religious faith).
Recall that you were trying to show some *inconsistency* between Christian opposition to a thing like gay-marriage and their opposition to "laws imposing charity".
You still haven't shown any inconsistency. You're just taking it for granted that there is one.
If you could show me the inconsistency, I would be happy to rectify it in my own thinking at least.
In case you're scratching your head thinking "Yeah huh! I just showed how it is inconsistent!" let me try to spell it out a little more:
"Based on what standard? Biblical standards? In that case, so are most remarriages in this nation. Many, if not most, people who divorce do so for reasons other than infidelity (the ONLY reason permitted by Christ for divorce)."
At best, this shows an inconsistency in imposing laws of virtue, not an inconsistency between imposing virtue and imposing charity.
"In terms of "redistribution of wealth", well ... there are dozens of Scripture passages that condemn living in ease while others languish in extreme poverty. Recall the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? The parable of the sheep and the goats (where the goats were those who did not help the afflicted)?"
At best, this makes the point that Scripture condemns "living in ease while others languish...". But it doesn't show any inconsistency in how "fundamentalists" approach politics.
"Like most fundamentalists, you seek to impose only those passages upon the populace using the force of law that won't inconvenience YOU (even upon those who don't share your brand of religious faith)."
This is just your attempt to evaluate my motives. Something you aren't actually in a position to do, correct?
"If you could show me the inconsistency, I would be happy to rectify it in my own thinking at least."
Do I really need to spell it out for you?
- The Bible says "thou shalt not have gay sex". Thus we must have a *civil law* that penalizes having homosexual sex (and many said just that when they critiqued Lawrence v Texas).
- The Bible says that those who live in wealth and splendor and do not share with the poor are going to suffer in Hell. Thus, we must have a *law* that either enforces charity to the poor or somehow penalizes those who do not obey the very clear command to share.
How much more clearly can I state this? You want to enforce certain mandates of the Bible using the force of law and not others. Based on what criteria?
The Bible says that to remarry is to commit adultery. So ban divorce except for infidelity. The Bible says to honor the God of Israel alone. So make the worship of Buddha or Allah a crime, punishable by jail or death. The Bible says not to make graven images. So destroy all Catholic churches for their use of statues of the saints.
The only thing any of you right-wingers want to touch in civil legislation is homosexual conduct. Everything else escapes your notice.
It's incoherent. Perhaps it's because you realize that to impose your notions of Biblical morality is tyranny?
It doesn't look like you know anything about "right-wing" politics, outside of the fact that we oppose gay marriage and "laws enforcing charity" (whatever you take that to be).
If you actually paid attention to the arguments those on the right put forth, you would most likely hear them arguing along the lines that gov't welfare ultimately doesn't benefit the poor or the nation as a whole. So the divide isn't "should we help the poor?" but what is the best way to help the poor while, at the same time, not being unjust to the 'rich'?"
That you don't grasp "right-wing" arguments isn't surprising to me, since you apparently can hardly grasp what constitutes an argument for your own case.
You say "Do I really need to spell it out for you?...How much more clearly can I state this?"
But the two points you make in between are only an inconsistency if you add a premise like "We must make laws regarding all of the Bible's moral prescriptions." But of course, no "right-wing" person holds to such a premise, so there is no immediate inconsistency and your obvious befuddlement about how much clearer you could get only betrays your poor reasoning.
You then ask,
You want to enforce certain mandates of the Bible using the force of law and not others. Based on what criteria?
Try reading some "right-wing" Christians on the issues and you'll probably see where they lay out their reasoning for supporting and not supporting various policies. (e.g. You might try Grudem's "Politics According to the Bible") One would think that you would have enough sense to understand the fact that just because you're ignorant of such criteria doesn't itself imply any inconsistency with the other party.
The rest of what you say only betrays the same ignorance.
As you do, in fact, believe heresy, idolatry and fornication to be moral evils, you believe the government has an interest, perhaps even a moral obligation, in responding with some form of civil retribution (jail, fines, etc).
In other words, you believe that the First Amendment is an affront to a Holy God and should be repealed.
Not that it is surprising, but yes you've misunderstood. Given what I've said in this thread, I think you should have been able to piece together that concerning those things I don't believe the government has the right to institute or legitimize said things (e.g., the government has no right to institute a day of idolatry).
So the government granting tax exemptions to the Mormon Church isn't "legitimizing" that denomination? The government granting Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh their third and fourth unbiblical marriage licenses isn't legitimizing adultery?
I suppose you could say it "legitimizes" them as a religious movement, which I'm willing to grant.
re: Gingrich and Limbaugh,
I don't know anything about either of their marriages. I haven't read the blogs, articles, or seen whatever video media there may have been about them. So I can't comment on that.
But your attempt to show some inconsistency between "right-wingers" support for laws of morality and "right-winger's" support for laws of charity sure has imploded.
It's not even clear why you keep at it at this point. Even if you did show some inconsistency in *my* political views, I don't speak for all "right-wingers". Not all "right-wingers" or Evangelical Christians for that matter have the same views on divorce and remarriage (cf. Remarriage After Divorce in Today's Church: 3 Views). Nor do they all have the same views on to what extent, if any gov't should be involved in welfare (which I assume is what you mean by laws of charity).
Eitherway, you're simply grasping at straws with me at this point. Shouldn't you be off crusading for homosexuality somewhere else by now?
Tim Tebow for President!
ReplyDelete"But nowhere in the Bible are we told that government should take one man's money by force of law and give it to another man. Jesus' admonition was a personal command to share, not a command for Caesar to "spread the wealth around."
ReplyDeleteIt's amusing to me how those who campaign for the government imposing the virtue of chastity on the populace with the force of law (which impacts no one but the participants) have zero interest in imposing the virtue of charity (which impacts far more people) when that ethical mandate apparently goes unheeded.
Ezekiel 16:49 "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
If we are supposedly held accountable as a nation for the legislation we craft in terms of things like gay marriage, is there no responsibility for the type of legislation we devise regarding any other form of ethics?
Not according to many who crow loudly about holding to a literal interpretation of Scripture. This is not consistent thinking.
God apparently cares about government issuing civil licenses to two guys, but not whether a nation decides to relieve themselves of any duty of assisting those in need by simply characterizing them as morally flawed and deserving of no particular aid.
James,
ReplyDeleteYou think it's inconsistent for conservatives to think laws should be written imposing "virtues of chastity" but not laws imposing "the virtue of charity"?
Can you spell that out, James? What "virtue of chastity" law did you have in mind and what "virtue of charity" law?
If we take, for instance, gay marriage and redistribution of wealth, I cant see any inconsistency. A conservative can take their stance on laws against gay marriage by, to give a crude sketch, saying that the gov't has no right to promote evil or institute and legitimize injustice. Gay marriage is evil/unjust. Therefore, the gov't has no right legitimize it or recognize it. I can't see any way that this line of reasoning would require someone to also support redistribution of wealth... or whatever it is you have in mind.
Could you show exactly what the "not consistent thinking" is?
"Gay marriage is evil/unjust."
ReplyDeleteBased on what standard? Biblical standards? In that case, so are most remarriages in this nation. Many, if not most, people who divorce do so for reasons other than infidelity (the ONLY reason permitted by Christ for divorce). When you start insisting that divorce needs to be permitted legally only for infidelity, then get back to me.
In terms of "redistribution of wealth", well ... there are dozens of Scripture passages that condemn living in ease while others languish in extreme poverty. Recall the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? The parable of the sheep and the goats (where the goats were those who did not help the afflicted)?
Like most fundamentalists, you seek to impose only those passages upon the populace using the force of law that won't inconvenience YOU (even upon those who don't share your brand of religious faith).
James,
ReplyDeleteRecall that you were trying to show some *inconsistency* between Christian opposition to a thing like gay-marriage and their opposition to "laws imposing charity".
You still haven't shown any inconsistency. You're just taking it for granted that there is one.
If you could show me the inconsistency, I would be happy to rectify it in my own thinking at least.
James,
ReplyDeleteIn case you're scratching your head thinking "Yeah huh! I just showed how it is inconsistent!" let me try to spell it out a little more:
"Based on what standard? Biblical standards? In that case, so are most remarriages in this nation. Many, if not most, people who divorce do so for reasons other than infidelity (the ONLY reason permitted by Christ for divorce)."
At best, this shows an inconsistency in imposing laws of virtue, not an inconsistency between imposing virtue and imposing charity.
"In terms of "redistribution of wealth", well ... there are dozens of Scripture passages that condemn living in ease while others languish in extreme poverty. Recall the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? The parable of the sheep and the goats (where the goats were those who did not help the afflicted)?"
At best, this makes the point that Scripture condemns "living in ease while others languish...". But it doesn't show any inconsistency in how "fundamentalists" approach politics.
"Like most fundamentalists, you seek to impose only those passages upon the populace using the force of law that won't inconvenience YOU (even upon those who don't share your brand of religious faith)."
This is just your attempt to evaluate my motives. Something you aren't actually in a position to do, correct?
"If you could show me the inconsistency, I would be happy to rectify it in my own thinking at least."
ReplyDeleteDo I really need to spell it out for you?
- The Bible says "thou shalt not have gay sex". Thus we must have a *civil law* that penalizes having homosexual sex (and many said just that when they critiqued Lawrence v Texas).
- The Bible says that those who live in wealth and splendor and do not share with the poor are going to suffer in Hell. Thus, we must have a *law* that either enforces charity to the poor or somehow penalizes those who do not obey the very clear command to share.
How much more clearly can I state this? You want to enforce certain mandates of the Bible using the force of law and not others. Based on what criteria?
The Bible says that to remarry is to commit adultery. So ban divorce except for infidelity. The Bible says to honor the God of Israel alone. So make the worship of Buddha or Allah a crime, punishable by jail or death. The Bible says not to make graven images. So destroy all Catholic churches for their use of statues of the saints.
The only thing any of you right-wingers want to touch in civil legislation is homosexual conduct. Everything else escapes your notice.
It's incoherent. Perhaps it's because you realize that to impose your notions of Biblical morality is tyranny?
James,
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't look like you know anything about "right-wing" politics, outside of the fact that we oppose gay marriage and "laws enforcing charity" (whatever you take that to be).
If you actually paid attention to the arguments those on the right put forth, you would most likely hear them arguing along the lines that gov't welfare ultimately doesn't benefit the poor or the nation as a whole. So the divide isn't "should we help the poor?" but what is the best way to help the poor while, at the same time, not being unjust to the 'rich'?"
That you don't grasp "right-wing" arguments isn't surprising to me, since you apparently can hardly grasp what constitutes an argument for your own case.
You say "Do I really need to spell it out for you?...How much more clearly can I state this?"
But the two points you make in between are only an inconsistency if you add a premise like "We must make laws regarding all of the Bible's moral prescriptions." But of course, no "right-wing" person holds to such a premise, so there is no immediate inconsistency and your obvious befuddlement about how much clearer you could get only betrays your poor reasoning.
You then ask,
You want to enforce certain mandates of the Bible using the force of law and not others. Based on what criteria?
Try reading some "right-wing" Christians on the issues and you'll probably see where they lay out their reasoning for supporting and not supporting various policies. (e.g. You might try Grudem's "Politics According to the Bible") One would think that you would have enough sense to understand the fact that just because you're ignorant of such criteria doesn't itself imply any inconsistency with the other party.
The rest of what you say only betrays the same ignorance.
Jonathan wrote: "Gay marriage is evil/unjust. Therefore, the gov't has no right legitimize it or recognize it"
ReplyDeleteTrue or false: the worship of Buddha or the god of Mormonism is a moral evil (Exodus 20:3)
True or false: divorcing for any other reason besides infidelity is condemned in Scripture (Luke 16:18, Matthew 5:32) and is evil/unjust.
You essentially wrote: "because 'x', then 'y'".
Replace any other "moral evil" with gay marriage.
____ is evil/unjust. Therefore, the gov't has no right to legitimize it or recognize it.
Idolatry?
Divorce?
Fornication?
Heresy?
Gambling?
Drinking alcohol?
Overeating?
Miserliness?
Contraception? (Rick Santorum thinks so)
I'm thinking "None of the Above".
In which case, it's clear that gay marriage is the only type of morality you're interested in legislating against.
I'm just pointing out that your formula is bogus.
James,
ReplyDeleteYour post hardly makes sense. Nevertheless, I'll humor you:
True or false: the worship of Buddha or the god of Mormonism is a moral evil (Exodus 20:3)
True.
True or false: divorcing for any other reason besides infidelity is condemned in Scripture (Luke 16:18, Matthew 5:32) and is evil/unjust.
False.
[Idolatry] is evil/unjust. Therefore, the gov't has no right to legitimize it or recognize it.
True.
[Divorce]is evil/unjust. Therefore, the gov't has no right to legitimize it or recognize it.
False. Divorce isn't always unjust.
Fornication
True.
Heresy
True.
Gambling
False. Gambling isn't unjust per se.
Drinking alcohol
False. See above.
Overeating
False. See above.
Miserliness
True.
Contraception? (Rick Santorum thinks so)
False (Take it up with Santorum).
I'm thinking "None of the Above".
Well good for you. What does that have to do with me or with other "right-wingers" and how I or they are inconsistent?
In which case, it's clear that gay marriage is the only type of morality you're interested in legislating against.
False. To give just one example out of a plethora: murder.
I'm just pointing out that your formula is bogus.
I think you're terribly confused. Perhaps your narrow obsession with homosexuality has left a few screws loose?
So Jonathan, if I understand your above reply:
ReplyDeleteAs you do, in fact, believe heresy, idolatry and fornication to be moral evils, you believe the government has an interest, perhaps even a moral obligation, in responding with some form of civil retribution (jail, fines, etc).
In other words, you believe that the First Amendment is an affront to a Holy God and should be repealed.
Have I misunderstood?
Not that it is surprising, but yes you've misunderstood. Given what I've said in this thread, I think you should have been able to piece together that concerning those things I don't believe the government has the right to institute or legitimize said things (e.g., the government has no right to institute a day of idolatry).
ReplyDeleteSo the government granting tax exemptions to the Mormon Church isn't "legitimizing" that denomination? The government granting Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh their third and fourth unbiblical marriage licenses isn't legitimizing adultery?
ReplyDeletere: Momon,
ReplyDeleteI suppose you could say it "legitimizes" them as a religious movement, which I'm willing to grant.
re: Gingrich and Limbaugh,
I don't know anything about either of their marriages. I haven't read the blogs, articles, or seen whatever video media there may have been about them. So I can't comment on that.
But your attempt to show some inconsistency between "right-wingers" support for laws of morality and "right-winger's" support for laws of charity sure has imploded.
It's not even clear why you keep at it at this point. Even if you did show some inconsistency in *my* political views, I don't speak for all "right-wingers". Not all "right-wingers" or Evangelical Christians for that matter have the same views on divorce and remarriage (cf. Remarriage After Divorce in Today's Church: 3 Views). Nor do they all have the same views on to what extent, if any gov't should be involved in welfare (which I assume is what you mean by laws of charity).
Eitherway, you're simply grasping at straws with me at this point. Shouldn't you be off crusading for homosexuality somewhere else by now?