Three Problems with Fundamentalism

I would add a fourth: circular logic.

Fundamentalists believe the Bible is the 'word of God' [It's actually
writings of man about God, sometimes questionably translated and
poorly interpreted without taking context into consideration, and
about events which took place thousands of years ago].

When asked how they know it's the word of God they say: 'because the
Bible says so.' One who uses this circular logic is 'never wrong.'
Therefore, that person believes they 'know the truth,' and anyone who
disagrees is 'wrong.'

Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

l***@hotmail.com

2009-07-16 00:21:20 UTC

Post by shegeek72
I would add a fourth: circular logic.
Fundamentalists believe the Bible is the 'word of God' [It's actually
writings of man about God, sometimes questionably translated and
poorly interpreted without taking context into consideration, and
about events which took place thousands of years ago].
When asked how they know it's the word of God they say: 'because the
Bible says so.' One who uses this circular logic is 'never wrong.'
Therefore, that person believes they 'know the truth,' and anyone who
disagrees is 'wrong.'

when its too late, you will learn that "a natural man does
not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are
foolishness to him and he cannot understand them
because they are spiritually appraised."

As for poor interpretation, I've yet to see anything
come from your finger tips which illustrates good
exegetical scholarship. Your revisionism is exactly
like liberal political revisionism. It is subjective and
relativistic.

shegeek72

2009-07-17 01:20:31 UTC

=A0It is subjective <snip>

All biblical interpretation is subjective. The objective things about
the Bible are it's a collection of writings, often at the hands of
scribes, handed down orally from generation to generation, translated
into english (for english-speaking people). On top of that, committees
of MEN chose which writings to include (canonize) and those to reject.

Beyond that, what the correct meanings of certain parts of the Bible
are is open to interpretation. It behooves anyone attempting to
determine what certain passages of the Bible say to look at historical
context, the original language, social norms, etc and not blindly
accept what some 'scholars' and clergy think.

Fundamentalism offers a comfortable safety net, assuaging one's faults
and problems by turning the world, the Bible, and one's beliefs into
black and white where they're right and anyone who disagrees is
wrong.

Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

l***@hotmail.com

2009-07-20 03:08:27 UTC

<snip>

Post by shegeek72
All biblical interpretation is subjective.

No it is not just as you illustrate here by taking what I had
previously
written, interpreted it normatively and now here respond. It is not
subjective otherwise everything is relative and there is no such thing
as Truth.

Post by shegeek72
The objective things about
the Bible are it's a collection of writings, often at the hands of
scribes, handed down orally from generation to generation, translated
into english (for english-speaking people). On top of that, committees
of MEN chose which writings to include (canonize) and those to reject.

Is the hand of God so short as not sovereignly and providentially
keep and canonize those writing which He designed to be His
ordained revelation to man?

The problem is, that your God is too small.

Post by shegeek72
Beyond that, what the correct meanings of certain parts of the Bible
are is open to interpretation.

All men are fallen. Beyond that, all men are finite and therefore
the collective wisdom and understanding of God resides fully in
no man. Anybody who follows everything one particular interpreter
or denomination teaches has stopped thinking.

All that said, the essential things are agreed upon. In basic
teaching of theology proper, all Christian denominations are
in agreement. It is in the application of those basic doctrines
into each of their own systems which brings in division.

Post by shegeek72
It behooves anyone attempting to
determine what certain passages of the Bible say to look at historical
context, the original language, social norms, etc and not blindly
accept what some 'scholars' and clergy think.

So who are you arguing with? I don't think anyone here holds
to these things.

Post by shegeek72
Fundamentalism offers a comfortable safety net, assuaging one's faults
and problems by turning the world, the Bible, and one's beliefs into
black and white where they're right and anyone who disagrees is
wrong.

In your advocacy, you do the very same. You claim to be tolerant
yet you are quite intolerant of those who maintain that absolutes
do exists and that God has been clear in His revelation of them. You
exhort "historical context... social norms" but are blind of those of
our own age and how, too often, they color your interpretation of
the author's original intent.

BTW, when was the last time you picked up a vol. of TDNT and
just began reading, acquainting yourself with "historical
context, the original language, social norms, etc"?

shegeek72

2009-07-24 02:21:41 UTC

Post by shegeek72
All biblical interpretation is subjective.

No it is not <snip>

Prove it.

=A0It is not
subjective otherwise everything is relative and there is no such thing
as Truth.

The problem is who decides what's the 'truth"? Do we leave it up to
single denomination of Christianity? That sounds an awful lot like a
dictatorship, which has led to an agenda resulting in discrimination
and violence against minorities.

The problem is, that your God is too small.

Exactly the reverse. I believe God can fit into any other religion,
even into atheists.

Anybody who follows everything one particular interpreter
or denomination teaches has stopped thinking.

That's my complaint about fundamentalists. They appear to be the most
close-minded about anything that doesn't fit their belief system.

In your advocacy, you do the very same. =A0You claim to be tolerant
yet you are quite intolerant of those who maintain that absolutes
do exists and that God has been clear in His revelation of them.

Not at all. As long as someone's beliefs don't impinge upon my rights
I have no problem. Unfortunately, some Christians are intolerant and
wish to impose their will upon the GLBT community.

BTW, when was the last time you picked up a vol. of TDNT and
just began reading, acquainting yourself with "historical
context, the original language, social norms, etc"?

I have not bought a copy as it's expensive. However, our pastor often
talks on those things, especially homosexuality and how it's been
misinterpreted.

Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org/

l***@hotmail.com

2009-08-04 01:31:21 UTC

pretation is subjective.

No it is not <snip>

Prove it.

I read what you write and don't have any problems discerning your
meaning. How is reading the bible different? Language is designed by
God and implemented as a means to confer understandable truth. Yes,
there are passages that are extremely difficult. But you don't
usually
find much gold or diamonds laying out on the ground. Also, those who
are not spiritual (by God's standard not by personal opinion) simply
don't have the capacity to discern spiritual truth. "Many in that
day"
will come thinking they knew the truth when in fact all they had done
was play a fools game.

=3DA0It is not
subjective otherwise everything is relative and there is no such thing
as Truth.

This is answered in scripture itself. Your problem is accepting
what you know to be true. Much of scripture is didactic by both
nature and intent. It is also antithetical in that it stands apart
from
men and their opinions, likes and dislikes. If it states that God
commands this and you do not obey, then it isn't a matter of
correct interpretation but a matter of nature -one still centered on
self. Scripture interprets scripture. Not some formally set
theological
system or ecclesiastical magistrate. They may each correctly
expound the true meaning, but they and all others must bend the
knee of submission, only coming to a final resolve when their
understanding does not in contradict other passages or teachings
within scripture. If a particular teaching/doctrine/ethic does not
harmonize with the full teaching of scripture, then it is false.

Also, your objection is moot. For one, no one is perfect therefore
no single theo system is perfect. Just because there are errors
doesn't negate the fact that truth has been disclosed and that
it can be understood properly.

The problem is, that your God is too small.

Exactly the reverse. I believe God can fit into any other religion,
even into atheists.

Then you are not a Christian! It's just that simple. In the Greek,
Christ could not have made a more definitive statement than He
did in Jn 14:6. He also employs the oriental negative to further
express the absolute exclusivity of His statement. Even in Acts
we read, "There is but one name under heaven by which we are
saved." Salvation is offered by no other religion. Christianity is
separate from ALL other forms of "religion" in that they have men
seeking to merit God's favor, whereas Christianity has God doing
all the choosing, all the seeking, all the drawing, all the
regenerating,
all the declaring righteous all based upon a single life - that of
Jesus
who by His life, death and resurrection, was declared to be The
Son of God. (Rom 1). This is The Gospel. There are no others
which grant right relationships to God.

It isn't what I believe or what you believe. It is what God has
declared.

Anybody who follows everything one particular interpreter
or denomination teaches has stopped thinking.

That's my complaint about fundamentalists. They appear to be the most
close-minded about anything that doesn't fit their belief system.

You confuse close-minded with knowing the truth. There is a place
for dogmatics. Paul was certainly dogmatic. The NT epistles are
quite dogmatic. The early church soon had to develop dogma
because of satanic infusion of error. Read Peter or Jude. Peter
warns that false teachers were coming, Jude says, "They're here!"
John teaches that we are to test the spirits. How do we do that
without dogma?

Post by shegeek72
=A0> In your advocacy, you do the very same. =3DA0You claim to be toleran=

t> yet you are quite intolerant of those who maintain that absolutes

do exists and that God has been clear in His revelation of them.

Not at all. As long as someone's beliefs don't impinge upon my rights
I have no problem.

Oh ya, "Love the one you're with." BTW, who determines what your
rights are? Also, how does this mindset compare to say, "thinking
others as more important than yourself"? Aren't we suppose to have
the mind of Christ? Did Christ have this attitude of "don't impinge
upon my rights?" Your very words deny that you understand the
true nature of what it means to be a Christian.

Post by shegeek72
Unfortunately, some Christians are intolerant and
wish to impose their will upon the GLBT community.

"Impose their will." I did that all the time as a parent. I do it
now to those brothers and sisters who cross my path. In fact,
we are called to admonish the unruly. It is the wise man who
turns his brother away from error. But the Proverbs are full
of warnings about trying to teach a fool.

BTW, when was the last time you picked up a vol. of TDNT and
just began reading, acquainting yourself with "historical
context, the original language, social norms, etc"?

I have not bought a copy as it's expensive. However, our pastor often
talks on those things, especially homosexuality and how it's been
misinterpreted.

Self serving and revisionary.

Post by shegeek72
Tara's Transgender Resourceshttp://tarasresources.net

So come clean. Is your transgenderism a result of desire or
are there real physical issues. What is your DNA? Either you
are a man or you are a female unless you are a true
hermaphrodite. I have no problems with the later making
a choice. However, if it is anything other than that, then it
is simple rebellion against God's choice and design.

Post by shegeek72
Metropolitan Community Churcheshttp://www.mccchurch.org/

Satan's synagogue.

shegeek72

2009-08-06 00:31:35 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I read what you write and don't have any problems discerning your
meaning. How is reading the bible different?

It's different in that I'm not claiming my writings to be the 'word of
God' or 'infallible.' Also, I=92m not writing in foreign languages,
about some stories that were passed down orally generation to
generation, transcribed by scribes and what was included in the =91final
version=92 decided by groups of men from incomplete copies where the
missing text was surmised.

If you have the idea that humans wrote every word as verbatim from God
and such writings are infallible and you, and/or your particular
denomination, have the last word on exactly what the entire Bible says
that=92s your right. But don=92t expect all Christians to believe as such.

Post by shegeek72
The problem is who decides what's the 'truth"? Do we leave it up to
single denomination of Christianity? That sounds an awful lot like a
dictatorship, which has led to an agenda resulting in discrimination
and violence against minorities.

This is answered in scripture itself. Your problem is accepting
what you know to be true. <snip>

No, you=92re the one claiming to know what=92s =91true.=92

Post by shegeek72
Exactly the reverse. I believe God can fit into any other religion,
even into atheists.

Then you are not a Christian! It's just that simple.

That is a judgment. Perhaps you should re-read what Christ said about
judgment.

Post by shegeek72
Not at all. As long as someone's beliefs don't impinge upon my rights
I have no problem.

Oh ya, "Love the one you're with." BTW, who determines what your
rights are?

In a broad sense the Constitution, plus public servants via laws and
private citizens through the initiative process.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Also, how does this mindset compare to say, "thinking
others as more important than yourself"? Aren't we suppose to have
the mind of Christ? Did Christ have this attitude of "don't impinge
upon my rights?"

He most certainly did. He accepted and defended society's rejects and
scorned. If he was alive today he would defend others on the margins
of society, including GLBT people.

Post by shegeek72
Unfortunately, some Christians are intolerant and
wish to impose their will upon the GLBT community.

"Impose their will." I did that all the time as a parent. I do it
now to those brothers and sisters who cross my path.

That=92s a shame.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
So come clean. Is your transgenderism a result of desire or
are there real physical issues. What is your DNA? Either you
are a man or you are a female unless you are a true
hermaphrodite. I have no problems with the later making
a choice. However, if it is anything other than that, then it
is simple rebellion against God's choice and design.

Good questions.

The current thinking is transsexuals are born with a female brain in a
male phenotype body. Vice-versa for FTMs. A study found female brain
structures in MTF transsexuals (cite upon request). Just because there
are no exterior signs of transsexualism, as sometimes with intersexed
(updated term for hermaphrodite) people, doesn't mean there are no
biological factors. However, this is a neglected part of science and
needs more study. I haven=92t had my DNA checked as it's expensive and I
have no pressing need to do so.

Some TS folk report knowing they were trans as young as three or four.
Indeed, it's one's internal gender identity that's most important and
trumps one=92s anatomical configuration. People don=92t just wake up in
the morning and say, =91I=92m going to be a transsexual.=92

Post by shegeek72
Metropolitan Community Churcheshttp://www.mccchurch.org/

Satan's synagogue.

LOL!

Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org/

d***@aol.com

2009-08-07 02:15:22 UTC

Oh ya, "Love the one you're with." =A0BTW, who determines what your
rights are?

In a broad sense the Constitution, plus public servants via laws and
private citizens through the initiative process.

The framers of the Constitution would not agree! "Endowed by their
Creator" n'est ce pas? Do you really think we only have rights as the
state chooses to bestow them? Then those who lived under Nazi Germany
would have no moral appeal.

Daryl

shegeek72

2009-08-13 02:51:29 UTC

Post by d***@aol.com
The framers of the Constitution would not agree! "Endowed by their
Creator" n'est ce pas? Do you really think we only have rights as the
state chooses to bestow them? Then those who lived under Nazi Germany
would have no moral appeal.

"Endowed by their creator" is from the Declaration of Independence,
not the US Constitution. God, or religion, were deliberately left out
of the Constitution, except in the 1st Amendment ("Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof..."), which is to prevent a government-created
religion and allow people freedom from government interference in
expressing their religion.

The US, contrary to opinion, was not founded on Christianity, though
it had a definite influence, as did Greece.

Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org/

a***@joe.net

2009-08-13 02:51:28 UTC

Post by shegeek72
He most certainly did. He accepted and defended society's rejects and
scorned. If he was alive today he would defend others on the margins
of society, including GLBT people.

To an extent I agree.

He defended the adulteress, and said that whoever was without sin among them
should cast the first stone. All of them recognized their own hypocrisy and
left in shame. They were all sinners too and equally deserving of Jesus'
condemnation, but He did not give it. Instead He forgave her, and told her
to sin no more.

We too should defend the sinner (which I freely admit we usually do not - we
usually preach condemnation instead, where Jesus preached repentance and
forgiveness).

When we stand against sin, it is our own sin we should be most concerned about
(whoever "we" are), not anyone else's. And we have NO right to stand in
judgment against anyone. Only God has that right, and He has chosen not to
exercise it, for a time, so that those who are empowered by His Spirit to do
so might first come to repentance and faith.

But please keep in mind that He did not defend her adultery, or whatever
your sins might happen to be, and certainly not mine (which are likely worse
than either, because I regularly fail at a very fundamental level to love
God or others).

God's love for people not only does not preclude hatred for sin. It
*requires* hatred for sin, because sin destroys people whom He loves (and
whom we ought to love as well, or else we are worse sinners then they are).

In order to remain true not only to God, but what we believe to be the
best interests of all people, we cannot defend sin itself - any sin, yours
or ours or anyone else's. We must stand against it, admit we are
essentially powerless against it on our own, and ask for God's help, which
He has promised to all those who will confess (agree with God) about it in 1
John 1:9.

Also let it be clear that merely being oriented toward one gender or another
is not in itself sinful; only actions that violate God's Law, which is based
on love for Him and for one another. Almost all of us, whether straight,
gay, transgendered or whatever, have strong sexual attractions that we must
resist in order to follow God's plan and therefore to avoid sin. In this
area, in spite of the beliefs of zealots on both sides, we really are all
much more alike than most of us want to admit.

Joe

news

2009-08-18 01:18:06 UTC

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 ***@joe.net wrote:

**snip

Post by a***@joe.net
Also let it be clear that merely being oriented toward one gender or another
is not in itself sinful; only actions that violate God's Law, which is based
on love for Him and for one another. Almost all of us, whether straight,
gay, transgendered or whatever, have strong sexual attractions that we must
resist in order to follow God's plan and therefore to avoid sin. In this
area, in spite of the beliefs of zealots on both sides, we really are all
much more alike than most of us want to admit.
Joe

B - for me sin will always equate to "mistake". Mistakes are to learn
from. We learn from sin to know how futile it is...what problems they
cause us. Sins are to be interpreted correctly...a word borrowed from
archery meaning "missing the mark". I see no see in being gay or
transgendered etc. just as I see no sin in my being left handed. I see a
lot of sin in person's intolerance of different kinds of loving between
adult unmarried persons....but I see no sin in loving another adult
unrelated person in a sexual way if no "promises" of monogamy have been
made to another. Love is love. People who for various reasons can't or
won't have children still have sexual love, why not gay persons? not all
sex is procreational. Sex is a gift given us by the Creator to experience
an unparalleled joy that is one step closer to self obliteration on an
egoic scale. Orgasms give us that brief minute or second of having no
boundaries..of ceasing to be divided and becoming ONE. Sex in the gay
communities are as varied as in the hetero. Not all Gay persons have
anal sex and not all heteros DON'T have anal sex. I know there are some
who are very vocal about this sex act in particular. Yes indeed it can
be more rife with problems if done incorrectly and even doing it at all
can be hard on the body but it is up to each of us to go there or not.
No sex is problem-free..there can be problems in anything we do.Sex is a
sacred act. Safe or Safer sex with someone of the same or different sex
,unrelated to oneself, is a good healthy thing given by the creator. In my
opinion of what I believe is the Christ speaking through.

Blessings of Sacred Pleasure,
Bren

l***@hotmail.com

2009-07-16 00:21:20 UTC

On Jul 13, 12:41=A0pm, **Rowland Croucher**

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
I'm 'fundamental/conservative' in some areas (eg. I believe in the
supreme authority of the Bible, the deity of Christ, a 'real'
resurrection of Christ, the reality of Satan etc.) but I'm far too
liberal for many of the fundamentalists here.
How can you pick 'em? Pretty simple really. Fundamentalists tend to have
problems with (alliterated for easy recall :-)
1. Maturity. 2. Magnanimity. 3. Methodology.

I don't know what "fundy" churches you've been attending, but none
of these, esp. the second, applies to the one's I've attended over the
last 40 yrs.

As for three, most fundamentalists are dispensational which in turn
means they follow the historical/grammatical hermeneutic, whether
they would understand those terms or not. They are literalist but
in a normative way. They understand symbolism, typology, metaphors,
and other comparative figures of speech.

As for one, this can be said of every church or denomination. There
are those who take the "normal Christian life" seriously and those
who think its a game to be played. So we are talking percentages,
and degrees. And when it comes to that, I will stack a typical
fundy dispensationist church up against any other percentage wise.

I attended a small church after getting out of MBI where a 100
in Sunday service would have been a good Sunday. Yet we had
a yearly missionary budge of $80K, and that wasn't from just one
or two wealthy patrons. And those who didn't participate in the
church missionary fund, more times than not supported their own.

Really naive and crass assessment.

**Rowland Croucher**

2009-07-17 01:20:31 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
On Jul 13, 12:41=A0pm, **Rowland Croucher**

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As for three, most fundamentalists are dispensational

Only in the U.S. (and there, mostly in the south) and in pockets of the
Two-thirds world where such missionaries taught Dispensationalism to
their converts...

I like the advice given to me by a wise ex-Dispensationalist in the
Brethren Assembly I grew up in: 'Best to stick to the material *between*
Scofield's notes'.

Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/

Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/

a***@joe.net

2009-07-20 03:08:27 UTC

If I can see a common theme between "liberal" (unbelieving) and
"fundamentalist" (judgmental) forms of perversity, it is the utter lack of
humility that pervades both. "Liberal Christians" are absolutely convinced
that they know better than billions of past and present Christians and other
theists, all the prophets, all the apostles, the Bible, and God Herself (if
She exists, which they doubt). Meanwhile, the eeeevil "Fundies" are
absolutely convinced that while the Bible is enough for them it is not
enough for anyone else: they need to follow not the Bible itself, but rather
other Fundies, and they need to hate everyone else who isn't like them.
They must worship their flag and their military, vote only for "God's own
party," listen to Rush Limbaugh, and hate "ragheads" and "fags."

The real truth is that God is God, and we aren't. He revealed Himself
infallibily through Scripture, but we ourselves are not infallilible and
will very likely fail to understand or apply it perfectly, or even well.
The absolute certainty professed by atheists and puritans alike must be
tempered by wisdom, humility, and character - and, at least for anyone
professing to be a Christian, by God's Spirit, Who is some sense is the
Author both of truth and of love (neither of which is sufficient on its own
- both are necessary).

Joe

---

[Maybe. But most liberal and conservative Christians are reasonably
moderate and mature. It's a conservative myth that "liberal"
Christians are unbelieving, and I've known enough conservative
Christians that I don't think they're generally judgemental (except
maybe in a tendency to classify all liberal Christians as
unbelieving).

I don't think it helps anyone to perpetuate the idea of warfare
between liberals and conservatives. Press guys love that kind of
thing, but it's rarely a good description of reality.

I will say that I see this kind of thing all the time in online
coverage of my church (PCUSA). We have an onslaught of hysterical
coverage from groups for whom the Gospel seems to come down to whether
or not we condemn homosexuals, and a few groups on the other side who
seem to do nothing but dream up new campaigns to get the denomination
to changes its rules.

I have more experience with reality on the liberal end, since my local
church and most of our Presbytery are on the liberal end. I can say
that few of us are focused on these issues. We're more interested in
living as Christians. I'm hoping that the Layman (one of the more
hysterical conservative publications) is equally unrepresentative of
the more conservative congregations.

--clh

a***@joe.net

2009-07-20 23:26:10 UTC

My use of hyperbole and sarcasm were intended to make it clear that I was
referring to those on the extremes, not meaning to imply that all or even
most people would fit there. My point is that once a person becomes such a
"liberal" or "conservative" Christian that Christ must take a back seat to
his or her liberalism or conservatism, something is badly wrong, and, in
every case I've seen (including the case of myself), lack of humility was at
least a big part of the problem.

A Christian is a person who follows Christ . . who demonstrates the supreme
and unconditional Lordship of Christ through his or her actions, not
perfectly, but more than would be possible apart from the reality of His
Lordship. It is fine to have strong beliefs as long as they are consistent
with reality as best we can perceive it - hopefully including Scripture. I
certainly do. But those beliefs must not rule our lives. They must not
unduly filter or distort our perception of God or His will for us. They
must be our servant, not our master; only Christ is qualified to be our
Master.

Joe

Post by a***@joe.net
[Maybe. But most liberal and conservative Christians are reasonably
moderate and mature. It's a conservative myth that "liberal"
Christians are unbelieving, and I've known enough conservative
Christians that I don't think they're generally judgemental (except
maybe in a tendency to classify all liberal Christians as
unbelieving).

l***@hotmail.com

2009-07-20 23:26:10 UTC

Post by a***@joe.net
If I can see a common theme between "liberal" (unbelieving) and
"fundamentalist" (judgmental) forms of perversity, it is the utter lack o=

Post by a***@joe.net
humility that pervades both. =A0

I would suggest you read a really interesting, a little bit difficult,
book
titled, Jesus Means Freedom, by Ernst Kasemann. He was out spoken
in Germany during the Hitler years. A bit of a philosophic scholastic
but he's nails where Christianity has erred and where it should con-
centrate its focus. I'm sure you can find it on line for 2-3 bucks.

a***@joe.net

2009-07-24 02:21:41 UTC

Interesting. I agree with Mr. Kasemann's conclusion that there is
ultimately no freedom outside of Christ, but, I suspect (based on a quick
perusal of the preview available on Google) for very different reasons.

The most important freedom, the only one that will endure eternally, is
freedom from sin and its effects. The Bible makes it clear that this is
possible only due to the Cross.

But political freedom as well - from all forms of totalitarianism, left or
right - is also impossible apart from the Cross. This is the more
controversial point. I will make the case here, but briefly. We are
created by and for God. He has revealed something of His nature to us,
including His perfect Law. That Law is summarized in the following
commands: to love Him with all our being and our neighbor as ourselves. To
love our neighbors requires at a minimum that we do not harm them, which in
turn requires that we not violate their rights, e.g., by initiating force or
fraud against them without their consent. A free society by definition is
one in which people may do whatever does not violate the rights of others,
and only a society in which most people are ruled by the Law of Love can
ever become truly and lastingly free.

This is not to say that non-Christians cannot be politically free. If they
live according to that part of God's Law that is written into nature and
into the human conscience, they can live very politically free lives, and
form politically free societies. But they still need to deal with the ways
they fall short (as all people do) and with the need to love not only our
neighbor, but also God Himself. If not, they remain bound, maybe not by
earthly chains, but by spiritual ones.

Joe

Post by a***@joe.net
If I can see a common theme between "liberal" (unbelieving) and
"fundamentalist" (judgmental) forms of perversity, it is the utter lack o=

Post by a***@joe.net
humility that pervades both. =A0

l***@hotmail.com

2009-08-04 01:31:21 UTC

Interesting. =A0I agree with Mr. Kasemann's conclusion that there is
ultimately no freedom outside of Christ, but, I suspect (based on a quick
perusal of the preview available on Google) for very different reasons. =

=A0

The most important freedom, the only one that will endure eternally, is
freedom from sin and its effects. =A0The Bible makes it clear that this i=

possible only due to the Cross.
But political freedom as well - from all forms of totalitarianism, left o=

right - is also impossible apart from the Cross. =A0This is the more
controversial point. =A0I will make the case here, but briefly. =A0We are
created by and for God. =A0He has revealed something of His nature to us,
including His perfect Law. =A0That Law is summarized in the following
commands: to love Him with all our being and our neighbor as ourselves. =

=A0To

love our neighbors requires at a minimum that we do not harm them, which =

turn requires that we not violate their rights, e.g., by initiating force=

fraud against them without their consent.

Has the rod been placed in the hand of government for not?

=A0A free society by definition is
one in which people may do whatever does not violate the rights of others=

and only a society in which most people are ruled by the Law of Love can
ever become truly and lastingly free.

THAT is not freedom. Freedom only comes to the one who is
regenerated. There is no such thing as freedom to those who have
not yet been born again. They are slaves to sin and Satan. They
are slaves to themselves. Freedom only comes "in Christ."

And as far as a government freedom, look at the US. Here is
a nation which was established on the moral laws of Christianity.
Now that it has all but abdicated not only those laws, but their
concepts and even their presuppositions, those freedoms which
were the result of a society based on Christianity will become
the very hammer blows which will burst the US to bits. Any
sane man can see that for himself today. "Rise and decline of
America."

This is not to say that non-Christians cannot be politically free. =A0If =

they

live according to that part of God's Law that is written into nature and
into the human conscience, they can live very politically free lives, and
form politically free societies. =A0But they still need to deal with the =

ways

they fall short (as all people do) and with the need to love not only our
neighbor, but also God Himself. =A0If not, they remain bound, maybe not b=

earthly chains, but by spiritual ones.

Men cannot live "according to that part of God's Law." It was never
intended for that purpose. It is the Law which displays to man just
how deprave he/she is and how inept they are in true compassion,
true godliness, true freedom.

a***@joe.net

2009-08-05 01:25:57 UTC

Post by a***@joe.net
But political freedom as well - from all forms of totalitarianism, left or
right - is also impossible apart from the Cross. =A0This is the more
controversial point. =A0I will make the case here, but briefly. =A0We are
created by and for God. =A0He has revealed something of His nature to us,
including His perfect Law. =A0That Law is summarized in the following
commands: to love Him with all our being and our neighbor as ourselves. =

=A0To

Post by a***@joe.net
love our neighbors requires at a minimum that we do not harm them, which =

Post by a***@joe.net
turn requires that we not violate their rights, e.g., by initiating force=

Post by a***@joe.net
fraud against them without their consent.

Has the rod been placed in the hand of government for not?

I don't fully understand your question, but what the Bible teaches about the
power of rulers, lawful or otherwise, is clear: God permits this power, for
reasons I won't pretend to understand, and even commands us to obey it when
it is consistent with His other commands; but it must never be forgotten
that we must obey HIM first, not man, when it is not possible to do both.
To do otherwise, as we all do routinely, is not only sin, but idolatry. No
mere human is entitled to the authority or power that belongs to God alone.

Post by a***@joe.net
=A0A free society by definition is
one in which people may do whatever does not violate the rights of others=

Post by a***@joe.net
and only a society in which most people are ruled by the Law of Love can
ever become truly and lastingly free.

As I said, the ultimate freedom is freedom from sin. Political freedom is a
highly desirable goal as well however. It is possible for people to be
politically free to an extent, so long as they follow God's Law to some
comparable extent. I agree that freedom from sin however can only come
through saving grace.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And as far as a government freedom, look at the US. Here is
a nation which was established on the moral laws of Christianity.

Many of the framers argued otherwise. The Constitutions of the various
States often were explicitly based on, and made reference to, the various
laws of God. The U.S. Constitution however did not, which is part of the
problem. It also was argued by some of the same framers to be adequate only
for a moral and "religious" people, which the original inhabitants of the
U.S. largely were, and which we today obviously are not. That is another
part of the problem.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Now that it has all but abdicated not only those laws, but their
concepts and even their presuppositions, those freedoms which
were the result of a society based on Christianity will become
the very hammer blows which will burst the US to bits. Any
sane man can see that for himself today. "Rise and decline of
America."

I think we are largely in agreement.

Post by a***@joe.net
This is not to say that non-Christians cannot be politically free. =A0If =

they

Post by a***@joe.net
live according to that part of God's Law that is written into nature and
into the human conscience, they can live very politically free lives, and
form politically free societies. =A0But they still need to deal with the =

ways

Post by a***@joe.net
they fall short (as all people do) and with the need to love not only our
neighbor, but also God Himself. =A0If not, they remain bound, maybe not b=

Post by a***@joe.net
earthly chains, but by spiritual ones.

I would say that the Law has many purposes. The one you metion is probably
the highest: the Law is a schoolmaster that should lead men and women to
Christ. But it also is a reflection of the moral and ethical character of
God, and it is something to which all people can and should aspire. (The
more they do, the more ALL of its purposes will be fulfilled.)

What we see in the political realm is a reflection of both purposes. People
are aware of sin in others (though not necessarily themselves). They turn
to "government" to protect them from the wickedness of others, but usually
fail to understand that those who seek power and the unearned wealth that
accompanies it are usually, BY FAR, the most wicked in all of society.
Fallen people generally* cannot govern themselves well, but for the same
reason, they cannot govern others well either. God allows them to try, just
as He allows people to sin individually. The Law offers the hope of
improvement and change, but those who try to follow it eventually realize
that they fall short, and if they listen to the voice of their conscience
and more importantly that of the Holy Spirit, this will lead them to the One
who can make men and women completely free, both body and spirit.

* This is not to say that some non-Christians don't live more moral and
ethical lives than some professing Christians. Clearly that is not the
case. "Moral" people on average will live happier, freer, and more
prosperous lives than those who are not; yet they are not different
from anyone else in their need for God's forgiveness and restoration
(see Romans 2).

Joe

d***@aol.com

2009-07-28 03:37:14 UTC