Candidates and Religion

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Christopher Michael: <<My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:...every society embracing homosexuality has been destroyed...The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women....How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, etc...>>

I don't understand the connection with drunkards and peace, but today's feminist agenda is certainly immoral.

Concerning the part about every country embracing homosexuality going down in flames...there are also a lot of countries that have gone done in flames without the homosexuality factor.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't care what religion you are unless it changes your views on the issues.

I would agree with that. Still, someone who can be thinking and open-minded, while having a strong faith (like Tony Blair) would get my respect and admiration.

How does Blair's acceptance of homosexuality agree with his Christian faith?  Is it logical for a Christian to disagree with the bible?  Blair, like many Christians, has deceived himself into thinking that God makes side deals with those unwilling to accept his instruction.

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life." (Gal 6:7-8)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfcst,

I am not a Christian, so I would like you to clarify something for me.  If you accept homosexuals, are you a bad christian?  I would like to hear your answer.

I wouldn't say it makes one a "bad" Christian.  They've simply allowed themselves to be deceived.   Not to mention that they are contradicting their own faith....if their faith is not defined by the bible, then what defines it?  Did they invent their own religion?

Taking a purely logical point of view, contradicting one's own faith is contradicting one's self.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfcst,

I am not a Christian, so I would like you to clarify something for me.  If you accept homosexuals, are you a bad christian?  I would like to hear your answer.

I wouldn't say it makes one a "bad" Christian.  They've simply allowed themselves to be deceived.   Not to mention that they are contradicting their own faith....if their faith is not defined by the bible, then what defines it?  Did they invent their own religion?

Taking a purely logical point of view, contradicting one's own faith is contradicting one's self.

I misread your question...I thought it asked " If you accept homosexualITY, are you a bad christian?" instead of  "If you accept homosexuals, are you a bad christian?"

I don't know what level of "acceptance" you are referring to.  

Accepting them as human beings?...of course I do.

Accepting them as being born into the same system as sin as me?...of course.  

Accepting them as fit for leadership?...absolutely not.   Neither would I accept a heterosexual who justifies fornication as fit for leadership.

Getting back to your question...Any Christian who thinks someone who justifies their opposition to the guidelines of the bible as fit for leadership is purposely deceiving themselves.  They are turning logic on its head by allowing the blind to lead.  Such a Christian that "accepts" unrepentent sinners as leaders is himself sinning.  

Does "accepting" unrepentent sin make you a "bad" Christian?  The bible doesn't use the term "bad Christian",  but it does use terms like "faithful servant".  And accepting things contrary to God's word is not what I consider faithful.  The faithful are suppose to "shun evil", not "accept" it:

Isa 5:20-21 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, and Bob Livingston (all three of whom I greatly respect) are all unfit for leadership and I presume you will do everything within your power to oppose them as much as you do homosexuals?  I also presume that Strom Thurmond is equal with homosexuals too with you now, huh?

Setting aside Bob Livingston, whom I believe has displayed too much of a temper problem to be a leader in the first place, not to mention being an idiot for throwing his name into the hat for Speaker of the House in the first place....

If Henry Hyde, Strom Thurmond, and Newt Gingrich were unrepentant of their actions, then "YES", I do NOT think they are fit for leadership.  I would still trust them to run errands (like being the local dog catcher), but I certainly wouldn't allow them to lead people.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't see why a politician's stance on fornication is so important to you.  There are hundreds of more important issues facing America today than the issue of fornication.

Fornication probably costs this country hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars per year.  But the impact of fornication and/or homosexuality wasn't my point.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

<<having a woman as pastor, wearing clothing of mixed material, not keeping strict kosher, eating shellfish and pork, working on the Sabbath (ah, the life of an airline employee), not making animal sacrifices to the Almighty, and being gay are all against scripture and all apply to me.>>

Your "logic" is to justify not obeying the laws of the NT by mocking the OT laws and mixing NT & OT law together.

Having a woman as pastor is explicitly against the teachings of the NT as it was against OT law, and against the OT first references prior to the Law of Moses...the bible is uniform in this requirement.

Wearing clothing of mixed material is only mentioned in the Law of Moses, the regulation is NOT mentioned in the NT nor is it mentioned in the first references prior to the Law of Moses.

---

<<not keeping strict kosher, eating shellfish and pork, working on the Sabbath>>

Again, only mentioned in the Law of Moses, the regulation is NOT mentioned in the NT nor is it mentioned in the first references prior to the Law of Moses.

In fact, eating unclean meat is explicitly allowed in the NT.

---

<<not making animal sacrifices to the Almighty>>

Even someone being as intentionally dense as you knows that Christ's one and only sacrifice replaced animal sacrifices that were simply prefiguring Christ’s death.

---

<<and being gay>>

Homosexuality is against the pattern established in the Garden of Eve (predating the Law of Moses) when the context of sex was given in a marriage between one man and one woman.  This context excludes fornication, adultery, homosexuality, bigamy, and bestiality.  Homosexuality is also against the Law of Moses and the writings of the NT….the bible is uniform on this matter.  

---

<<On the other hand, I try to love the Lord with all my heart, soul and strength; and to love my neighbor as myself. Those were the important things given to us.>>

Actually, love towards God is defined, by God himself, as obedience to him:

John 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

migrendel,

<<I have to take issue with this pattern established in the Garden of Eden theory, jmfcst.>>

First, let’s establish the fact that it is ok of Christians to use Adam and Eve as a pattern (so no one thinks I’m simply making up a method of establishing doctrine):

Mat 19:3-6 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" "Haven't you read," [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

1Tim 2:12-14  I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

---

<<Adam and Eve didn't wear clothes. Would wearing clothes be against the pattern of the Bible?>>

Adam and Eve didn’t wear clothes while they were sinless.  Once they sinned, then they needed a covering.  This first reference of clothes symbolizes the need for our sins to be covered with the blood of Christ.  Those that have received the Holy Spirit have been clothed in Christ.

But it certainly wouldn’t be beyond the teachings of the bible to state that nakedness (and sex) in a marriage is how it was meant to be.

---

<<would doing things not specifically approved of or practiced by the holy men and women be against Biblical teaching?>>

Sin is defined as a transgression of God’s law: “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.” (1John 3:4).  Since Christians believe that the bible was inspired by God so that the bible basically defines God’s will, it would be illogical for a Christian to argue that God has given them the right to ignore what the bible commands.

But, I have perfect liberty to engage in acts not covered in the law.  For instance, I can play sports with a clear conscience because I know such actions are not forbidden by the bible.  In other words, I don’t need the bible’s permission to engage in acts not covered by scripture: “Where there is no law there is no transgression.” (Rom 4:14)

---

Your questions are always thoughtful and logical.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What version of the Bible are you using jmfst?

I only quoted one verse (John 14:15) in the post to which you replied.  I do my search/cut&paste from biblegateway.com.  I believe the default setting is NIV, but there are a least a dozen or so versions to chose from on the site.

Why do you ask?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What version of the Bible are you using jmfst?

I only quoted one verse (John 14:15) in the post to which you replied.  I do my search/cut&paste from biblegateway.com.  I believe the default setting is NIV, but there are a least a dozen or so versions to chose from on the site.

Why do you ask?

I just didn't notice a difference until now, I read from the KJV, and John 14:15 says "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

The NIV reads "If you love me, you will obey what I command."...I see no difference except I prefer the KJV because it is more concise:

"The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?" (Ecc 6:11)

Also, the KJV is cool in that it italicizes words the translators added for clarity, so that you know what was added and what wasn’t.  But I also like the paragraph form of the NIV.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"11.  Seeing there be many things that increase vanity, that is man the better?" (Ecc 6:11)

I guess that's the reason I don't like NIV too much, it changes the meaning too much.  Many things in the Bible have different meaning and different ways at looking at it, the NIV changes most of that.

Yes, I knew that Ecc 6:11 read differently, that is why I quoted it.  And yes, I would agree that the KJV is much more of a literal translation than the NIV.