February 4, 201115 yr Natural Rights then? God created the world. Natural Rights or God given rights, same thing. Thomas Jefferson mentioned them. Remember? But from a Deist perspective. Deism often acknowledged God as creator but denied an active God in the present and/or denied deity of Jesus. Most often Deists denied the Bible as Divine Revelation from God. The last two are the most serious issues with trying to wed early founders as 18th century evangelicals. http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+deism&FORM=DTPDIA&qpvt=deism+definition NOUN 1. rational belief in God: a belief in God based on reason rather than revelation and involving the view that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs. Deism was especially influential in the 17th and 18th centuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
February 4, 201115 yr That wasn't exactly my point. What I meant was that to say that the Enlightenment was based on a philosophy that rights are granted by God is a simplistic (if not entirely inaccurate) representation of that period in history. If anything, the Enlightenment was about scientific method and cold rationalism attempting to stamp out the universality of assumptions of faith or revealed truth. To claim the Enlightenment as something Christian in nature overlooks men like Thomas Paine and Voltaire who were downright hostile toward organized religion and completely ignores others like Baruch Spinoza who was ethnically (though not religiously) Jewish. In fact, I would submit that the Enlightenment was something closer to anti-Christian based on contemporary philosophers' willingness to take down old institutions and criticize religious ideas. I agree with most of what you stated. I believe that the philosophers were acting in a more Christian attitude than the leaders of the Catholic church at the time. They were upset with the Church because its leaders were more interested in power and money, if not for their own personal use, at least for the Church's position and standing. The leaders of the Church were acting more for power, than being the leaders of their flocks. They were pointing out the hypocrisy of the Church leaders.
February 4, 201115 yr I agree with most of what you stated. I believe that the philosophers were acting in a more Christian attitude than the leaders of the Catholic church at the time. They were upset with the Church because its leaders were more interested in power and money, if not for their own personal use, at least for the Church's position and standing. The leaders of the Church were acting more for power, than being the leaders of their flocks. They were pointing out the hypocrisy of the Church leaders. Did you read any of the links I provided? I think you are painting the Enlightenment in a simplistic/untrue light.
February 4, 201115 yr I don’t think it’s an easy question to answer, for me at least. The logic of the preacher that caused me to start this thread was that society has a duty to live up to “God’s standards” and since there would clearly be people who would balk or fail in trying to do so or who would otherwise use the government as a tool to corrupt society, Christians had a duty to use the government to impose the laws of Christianity. That, in and of itself, would be another debate, as I’m not exactly sure how one makes a society live up to “God’s standards” or what Christian laws are. At any rate, I immediately disagreed with this idea. My thinking was that “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” wasn’t simply Jesus’ tax policy, but was closer to the idea that politics had little utility for Christians as it plays no part in the Christian mission. Not to mention situations like those that Hatz mentioned. But, this would mean Christians have no place in politics. And that didn’t seem to make sense, as certainly religious persecution could hinder the Christian mission. So I’m inclined to agree with those who believe liberty is most in line with Christianity. Beyond that, I’m still not sure. That sounds pretty similar to my thought process. It's somewhere in the middle of Christians trying to take over government/politics to advance their cause vs. completely ignoring it. I'm just trying to figure out where it falls in there. Obviously, a Christian's primary duty is to worship Jesus Christ, place him first in your life, and tell people about him. But, past that, I think we are called to do good, to help people, and try to make our world better. Politics/government is just one area where that can occur. It is a difficult question if you really want to dive into it.
February 4, 201115 yr Did you read any of the links I provided? I think you are painting the Enlightenment in a simplistic/untrue light. While some rejected the miracles of the Bible, the wiki article (of which I read wiki, but do not trust it) said many of the philosophers still considered theirselves Christians. It also stated many supported that God was the creator of the world and thus I believe nature and the "unalienable rights" that we protect in the Bill of Rights. I will admit most were not the greatest of Christians, but do believe that these rights we have are given by God.
February 5, 201115 yr Good Read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-t-hughes/what-the-flap-over-health_b_816923.html
February 5, 201115 yr Good Read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-t-hughes/what-the-flap-over-health_b_816923.html Informative read. There is much content within the article that I agree with--namely Jesus' call for selflessness, sacrifice, servanthood, etc. Only a blatantly biased individual could read about Jesus' life and teaching without discovering that very fundamental truth. I agree also that government must take responsibility in providing assistance and aid for those in need, though I'm sure the author and myself have major differences regarding the extent to which that help should be offered. I had no problem, for example, with President Clinton's SCHIPP (I think that's what it was called) program that was designed to provide health care assistance for children. But soon, the program began to be abused & became something it should never have become--like a lot of other social assistance programs. The author also shines light on some of the arguments some conservatives have with social assistance programs. He even highlighted the 2 Thessalonians 3:10 passage, in which Paul clearly instructs Christians to avoid those who are idle/not working. If a man wants to eat, Paul instructs, he must earn his bread. He doesn't bring up, however, a passage such as the feeding of the 5,000. After performing that miracle, the same crowd continued to follow Jesus and later expected him to fill their bellies again. Jesus refused, claiming that he was not a bread messiah--and he wasn't. Jesus' primary purpose in coming here was not to alleviate the suffering of the impoverished. His primary purpose was seeking and saving those who are lost. Unlike some of my fellow conservatives, I believe there should be government involvement in assisting the poor. But I believe that assistance should be limited and selective. And to answer the author's question concerning the willingness for work on the part of those standing in unemployment lines, my response would be that there is absolutely widespread laziness. To what degree, I do not know. I've seen quite a bit of both--people out of work who genuinely desire it & also those who do not at all. The biggest problem I have is with men such as this who pull Jesus out of the hat when an argument needs to be made. I wonder if the author would also use Jesus' words to take such a stand against pornography, extra-marital affairs, or simply sin in general? I am of the opinion that this man, along with many others, is making the same mistake as the Christian coalition (or whatever it was called) of the 1980's--using Jesus as a crutch to make political points. I certainly don't paint all left-leaning Christians with that brush, just as I don't do that with right-leaning Christians either. But it's happening on a grand scale--using Jesus and selecting only portions of what he said during his ministry to advance a liberal/conservative cause--when in reality, there's little faithfulness to Jesus at all.
February 5, 201115 yr The article just reaffirms the hypocrisy of the left .. So it's our Christian duty to force people to buy health insurance but it's OK to murder millions of unborn babies....
February 5, 201115 yr The article just reaffirms the hypocrisy of the left .. So it's our Christian duty to force people to buy health insurance but it's OK to murder millions of unborn babies.... Maybe, just maybe, there are some Christians who do both: See a need for health care for the helpless and a need to end the murder of the unborn.
February 5, 201115 yr Maybe, just maybe, there are some Christians who do both: See a need for health care for the helpless and a need to end the murder of the unborn. Agreed... Health care for the truly helpless is needed, but the new systems just creates more people who need help...
February 5, 201115 yr Agreed... Health care for the truly helpless is needed, but the new systems just creates more people who need help... No disagreement with the thought that often "good intentions" are ruined by beauracracy. There has to be some forms of check and balance. I had a long discussion with an intinerent minister once who formed a Pentecostal church with about 30 attendees. They decided all their funds would pay expenses of meeting place and left over were to be "given out" to those in need who applied. The result was widespread abuse and people showing up at the first of each month to "get theirs." The church shut down. I told the pastor his intentions were the best but there is a difference between empowering someone and enabling someone. The latter is the easiest of the two and the former is the hardest. You have to do the hard work to empower people.
February 5, 201115 yr The article just reaffirms the hypocrisy of the left .. So it's our Christian duty to force people to buy health insurance but it's OK to murder millions of unborn babies.... How is that hypocrisy any different from those who claim to be "pro-life" yet are also staunch capital punishment supporters? There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, regardless of political stripe.
February 5, 201115 yr How is that hypocrisy any different from those who claim to be "pro-life" yet are also staunch capital punishment supporters? There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, regardless of political stripe.When you take a life in cold blood, you lose your right to live in my book. I don't see how the two views begin to compare.
February 5, 201115 yr How is that hypocrisy any different from those who claim to be "pro-life" yet are also staunch capital punishment supporters? There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, regardless of political stripe. Definitely plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides, but there is a vast difference between taking life during abortion and taking life in capital punishment.
February 5, 201115 yr Definitely plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides, but there is a vast difference between taking life during abortion and taking life in capital punishment. Unless of course you don't believe that abortion is taking a life. But that is for 15 other threads.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.