Should the Bible Supersede the Will of the People?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 сер 2024
- As part of our debrief of the Rob Reiner interview the team discusses the relationship between Biblical principles and the will of the people.
Listen to the full episode on the Holy Post Podcast, Episode 602 www.holypost.c...
Subscribe to watch more Holy Post videos / @holypost
Listen to the full podcast
Apple - apple.co/3EFBvlA
Spotify - bit.ly/497tseE
Big “No”. Just as I don’t want radical conservative Islamic law put on me, I don’t want conservative Christian law oppression either.
There is freedom in God's good law.
@marekfoolforchrist they aren't talking about God's law. They're talking about the unholy abomination that is a bastardization of cherry picked Bible verses and conservative cultural ideology. It's not truth and doesn't bring freedom; it's an idol that brings power to those in charge and subjugation to the rest.
@@marekfoolforchrist muslims say the same thing about the quron, it dosent make either claim true
The reason that the USA and other liberal democracies can be blessed by God and flourish is because of separation of church and state combined with personal liberties. Jesus does not force Himself on people, and he never commanded anyone else to either. Therefore, secular nations that provide individual rights and liberties are more God-like and usable to the Lord than nations that impose a form of "Christianity" by law (which historically ALWAYS collapse within a generation or two).
As Christians, the Bible supersedes our personal will but we are certainly not taught to impose our will on others.
Tell that to your evangelical pals
Not our will, but God's.
When we vote to ban abortion, we impose our will on others.
@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh how well do you understand God's will?
True but the overwhelming majority of US fundamentalist evangelicals are de facto followers of Dominion Theology which posits that Christians must seize the levers of power and in order remake America into a theocracy
The Bible should not take over the will of the people… neither should the Quran or any religion book
💯
There shouldn't be any laws?
God hates human sacrifice. God loves Jesus' sacrifice.
Should our 3rce Holy God's will take over the will of the ppl?
It's not about MY will, nor any other Christian's will; It's about GOD'S will, which we find in The Holy Bible/GOD'S inerrant word. Which, btw, is not even comparable to any other book, incldg the Quran.
PS: CURIOUS: Are you a servant of Jesus Christ? I'm guessing you're not, but Idw2 assume, either.
I always say it’s kind of what the wisdom of the Golden Rule is for.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
So if you wouldn’t be cool with someone else being at the top and pushing their religion on you…
No religious text should supercede laws and culture based on rationality and equality for everyone. When you advocate basing a society on any particular religion, then the questions arise as to whose "interpretation" of the religion you're going to use, and what happens to equal rights and liberties for people of other Faiths or non-Faiths within that society. A theocracy ALWAYS leads to subjugation and brutalization. Always.
“The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone.”
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
When you speak of violence people should remember law is violence in waiting. As it exist today law is backed up by law enforcement which can escalate from just a fine to the death penalty. Law is violence.
The government should not represent the church. The church should not represent the government. The government is a foundation for order. The church has another role.
💯👍 Yes, indeed!
Theological Declaration of Barmen comes to mind.
Just because something is popular does not mean it is right. History is a long, long list of examples of that reality.
Jesus was for persuasion, not legislation and imposition.
Can you provide the chapter and verse where that is said?
A few observations. I love the discussion about the subject of Christian nationalism. You did talk about violence being a part of the discussion. Setting a law Is a sense of violence when you prevent people from doing something. That is a broad stroke. We have to realize violence comes in many forms. Also the gentle lady mentioned morals that are strictly from Christianity. I didn't hear her mention which ones and would like to know and I will bet that those that she mention have been stated for many years before the bible was written abd Christianity was even considered. This Christio-centric idea that all good things come from Christians and nowhere else is a precursor to a superior way of thinking. Thanks you for yalls discussion and the courage in talking about hard subjects. I will add. Would Christians be ok if Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist laws get put on the books under the same moral guises?
Amazing clarity. Thank you!
No it’s shouldn’t
Yes, it should.
@@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh go move to saudi Arabia if you want to live in a theocracy
@peterkropotkin1158 Get accustomed to a theocracy. Jesus is going to establish one for 1000 years and then you're going to Hell.
No. Absolutely not! Saying this as a Black American Christian.
I would just respectfully ask you , what if the will of a person conflicted with what is commanded in the Bible?
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you Into Buildings. Separation of Church and State Period!
Well said
What had going to the moon done for anyone? The Bible has helped billions of people, governs societies, business, science and morality. Atheism is the dumbest ideology to ever plague the planet.
I like that Frank Sinatra/ George Reeves duet.
Science said we came from apes. Religion said we are made in God's image. Integration of Church and State Period!
@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh do you know how much of the technology you use in your daily life was developed by NASA or other space agencies? Answer: quite a bit.
Wow, Caitlyn, Sky and Phil, such clear thinking about things that are so frequently subjected to muddy over-generalization. Congrats.
I really respect and appreciate all three of you as you wrestle with big questions in a public forum. Even when I don't agree with how you process things, I am grateful for your efforts to be faithful to Jesus and the Jesus' way while maintaining intellectual integrity. But...(Sorry...there is one.)
I had to laugh out loud at Kaitlyn suggesting that the United States is a country that has said, "We have rational disagreements. We use the will of the people on certain things. We have constitutional protections where we can't let the will of the people supercede the rights of individuals. But most importantly, we don't' use violence to get the things we want that we have religious or non-religious motivations for." As a non-American, this statement feels naive at best. Using violence to get what is wanted has been the primary driver of American foreign policy for decades. Dozens of democratically elected governments have been toppled by American violence for the sole benefit of American interests. The lies told to defend these kinds of actions have become public record and yet the vast majority of Americans and American Christians continue affirm this violence and even sanctify it.
I can't help but wonder if some of what you are discussing and struggling with is the result of what is described Romans 1. Could it be that 'God is giving America over' to what they've been already been doing - unchecked by the supposed Christian majority - for a very long time. It is only now that it is so obviously having an impact at home are some Christians in America noticing. In the meantime people around the world, including Christian brothers and sisters from Cuba to Palestine (as obvious examples), have been suffering and continue to suffer due to this American "Christian" MO for decades or over a century.
I DO 🙋♀️. I think God has given us over.
I'm a 56yo American (born, raised & have never lived, or even visited any other country-except Canada-ONCE & just overnight.) And I've been in absolute AWE of God's patience, grace & mercy, all my teen & adulthood.
Everything is just too bizarre as of these last 8yrs for me to NOT believe that.
Yeah, US Christians see themselves as the protagonist in every scenario. We wouldn’t have “America first” if we didn’t believe we were literally at the top of everyone’s list of priorities. There are millions of people who believe America is the best: the best country with the best form of government with the best policies and the best people (except when the government is run by the liberals. But the best people are still here- we just need to reelect them). It’s pathological. But here we are.
I think you're right. We need for Christians to engage in democratic processes through persuasion, respecting the dignity of all individuals. This approach aligns with Christian teachings that emphasize love, respect, and dialogue rather than force or unilateral imposition of beliefs.
If you ask me, the challenge lies in discerning between ethical principles that require legislative action due to their universal importance, like human dignity, and those that should be subject to public debate and persuasion. This complexity reflects the broader challenge of engaging in a pluralistic society where the roots of many ethical beliefs are deeply intertwined with Christian thought.
In engaging with these issues, Christians are called to contribute to public discourse not by imposing beliefs, but by offering a perspective grounded in the Gospel's call to love and respect all people. This involves a commitment to dialogue, understanding, and the patient persuasion of hearts and minds in the public square.
We always should have separation of Church and State. Don't legislate the Bible into Secular laws. Just study history to see how religious states have always been harmful to the state and people. The Inquisition and most wars have been over religion, and everyone always thinks god is on their side.
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
Well said, Caitlyn!
What the Religious Right preaches is in no way connected to what Jesus taught and lived. These people are mean spirited. There is no love for anyone who dies not mirror their persoective. It is self serving and all about domination and power. It is religion, not a true faith, and deeply hypocritical. Jesus had nothing good to say about the Pharasees of His day.
No. Period.
Economic collapse voids this discussion
Kaitlin's thinking is very sloppy on this topic. And the old trope that non Christians borrow from "Christian tradition" or they have no basis for morality is just plain bigotry. Also is it Christian tradition or revealed truths? If it is just tradition then that is a bad reason to keep doing something. I think one aspect of Christian Nationalism is the belief that Christianity should have a favored position ablove other religions. You can see it when Christians want laws like the one in Texas that allows Chaplains in public schools. They assume they will be Christian. If a satanic Chaplain wants the same access, the same people will be up in arms. It also comes down to the different between revealed knowledge and discovered knowledge. Christians can't just say they have a special supernatural revealed knowledge, and that settles it. They must appeal to facts and values that are evident to everyone. They must appeal to things like fairness, societal health, harm, and balance he rights of the individual vs the rights of the many. The abortion issue in a lot of ways comes down to a balance between the feelings of people who don't even know the potential child, and the mother and her bodily autonomy and ability to plan a family in this one life we know we will have.
Is that what you’ll be doing now? Only posting snippets of the episode on YT?
So sad I missed Ashley Eckstein but I’m excited she is coming to an Ontario comic con soon! Gonna get a Funko signed by her and grab a picture. She is just the best
- Christian nationalism, will come as Revelation 13:11 and as of Daniel 11:21 this is what has so been written as the judgement towards the churches which are after the traditions of men
Only on a PERSONAL level, at most.
N.B. America was founded on "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM", thank God :)
God does not impose His will on us. That's why He allowed Adam and Eve to do as they please and they chose to eat the forbidden fruit and sin. Neither should Republicans impose their will on women. That's why God gives us "free will", so we can make our own decisions without His or government's interference.
Are you not imposing your will upon the baby in the womb? Why can't we impose rules, laws, or morality upon others?
If we're not supposed to impose scriptural morality (Natural law) upon others, than what about murder? If God doesn't exist, and ignoring the fact we wouldn't exist, than murder is amoral. There's no standard to which we can measure morality. It'd be entirely subjective. And if a collective of people simply agreed to not do it, then why would someone breaking that agreement be wrong? It's not wrong to break laws if there's no higher moral giver. It wouldn't be wrong to commit murder.
The point is you can't vote on laws without imposing SOME KIND of morality upon others. The question is which morality, or moral giver is the right one?
If you're an atheist, than there is no standard by which people live morally. You can try to claim collective morality. But as i previously stated, why would it be wrong to break those laws? They'd be just as "right" to break the laws as you are all collectively making and obeying laws. Germany had a collective of people who had ideas about what they thought was right and wrong. Why was their collective interest "wrong" compared to the collective interests of the rest of the world, IF there is no God? Because one's bigger? The Roman Empire was the biggest at one point. But were they right on everything?
Collective morality, and Majority Morality Fail.
A straight line must superceded a "crooked" line.
ua-cam.com/video/3x3A-IKYQ5U/v-deo.htmlsi=r52eufdZ4G19bxtm
I disagree with what you have expressed. I am a born-again Christian and I do not believe in abortion. I am pro-life. But I do not believe morality can be legislated by man-made laws. God gave each of us a conscience to know right from wrong. Each person has the right to follow his or her own conscience and decide for themselves what is best for them without government interference. When the government tells you what to do with your own body, it's cruel and tyrannical. Nowhere in the Bible does God or Christ forbid abortion. I believe it's because we live in a broken and fallen world and God knows women will be raped or be involved in incestuous relationships. These women should not be forced to have the baby of a rapist or a blood relative. The serious birth defects that result cause more harm than good. Moreover, babies who are aborted are not harmed. They go straight to Heaven from the womb and get to bypass all the pain and troubles we experience in this evil world. I believe they are blessed by God and are enjoying a beautiful existence in an eternal paradise.
It’s wild how Christianity started as The Truth, since Jesus is the Truth. Then it turned into a religion which inevitably created an us vs others mindset.
Jesus is the Truth and the Truth wants to have a relationship with us. The truth is not us knowing which religion is ‘the right one’. People claim Christianity is Jesus and that’s just not true at all.
Go Kaytlyn! It's nice to see some pushback on the abortion discussion. Moral laws should exist regardless of popular opinion
Once again, I agree with sky, but not with Caitlyn. I am not a Christian. However read the Bible many times. I don't remember Christ, although Jews were considered 2nd class citizens, and women were property, He never argued for legislation, because of moral imperatives. It was always by persuasion.
By the way, Pro Choice IS Pro Life, Pro Choice IS Pro Family, Pro Life IS Pro Choice. Anti Choice IS Anti Life, Anti Choice IS Anti Family.
Repent and believe the Gospel.
Grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone.
@@patrickc3419do you see people on the other side questioning your faith and salvation?
You should not have an opiniin.
@@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh You must mean opinion which I have, thank you very much. Blessings.
@@chappellroseholt5740 You didn't make any sense. If you are going to have an opinion, you need to know something about something.
And if the “Will of the People” counters the Bible?
Isn’t a reason blacks might advocate for the supremacy of the Bible over public opinion - history - like slavery, Jim Crowe, segregation, job discrimination, etc., etc.?
Yes. 💯. While I am not an African American, I can assure you that you hit it out of the park. When man’s will (like those evil abominations you shared, along with adultery, prenatal homicide, legal theft, etc.) runs contrary to the Bible, Scripture always supersedes. Romans 12 tells us to hate what is evil.
Don’t understand the question?
Well said Kaitlyn! As someone who sits somewhere in the skeptical middle between the pro-CN and anti-CN crowds, yours is one of the best nuanced takes I have heard yet! Thank you!
From my perspective, I have found that efforts by many in the Whitehead and Perry crew far too quickly breeze past this weird middle ground that you lay out so well. They use phrases like "enforce their beliefs on others through political power" or a "fusion of a particular version of Christianity with civic life...and that the government should preserve this framework" or "authoritarian social control", but fail to clearly describe how exactly this plays out in the very messy real-world, particularly in a representative democracy, such as with the issue of abortion.
For example, on abortion, I find that many in the anti-CN camp seem to be ok staying completely silent as states like my own (CO) pass laws which strip all human rights protections from a baby in the womb (House Bill 22-1279), through the political power of a fully Democrat controlled state government. But will spend much time and effort discussing how the Republican party used their political power to get 3 supreme court justices and subsequently overturn Roe, due to their "white evangelical" or "white Christian Nationalist" support. Something is off there.
I think if Phil would have pushed the convo with Rob even further, eventually Rob would have come to the final conclusion of "you cannot enforce your religious beliefs on me, and therefore, we must adopt my pro-choice worldview in law." It's a clear double standard.
I think the border issue and how it is playing out now is another great example of how messy this all gets in the real world.
In short, for many in the staunch anti-CN crew, I find that when the rubber actually hits the road the academic ideas seem a bit half baked.
Also, I just got done listening to Justin Brierley's Surprising Rebirth podcast too. Soooooooo GOOD!!
If we're not supposed to impose scripture upon others, than what about murder? If God doesn't exist, and ignoring the fact we wouldn't exist, than murder is amoral. There's no standard to which we can measure morality. It'd be entirely subjective. And if a collective of people simply agreed to not do it, then why would someone breaking that agreement be wrong? It's not wrong to break laws if there's no higher moral giver. It wouldn't be wrong to commit murder.
The point is you can't vote on laws without imposing SOME KIND of morality upon others. The question is which morality, or moral giver is the right one?
If you're an atheist, than there is no standard by which people live morally. You can try to claim collective morality. But as i previously stated, why would it be wrong to break those laws? They'd be just as "right" to break the laws as you are all collectively making and obeying laws. Germany had a collective of people who had ideas about what they thought was right and wrong. Why was their collective interest "wrong" compared to the collective interests of the rest of the world, IF there is no God? Because one's bigger? The Roman Empire was the biggest at one point. But were they right on everything?
Collective morality, and Majority Morality Fail.
A straight line must superceded a "crooked" line.
ua-cam.com/video/3x3A-IKYQ5U/v-deo.htmlsi=r52eufdZ4G19bxtm
'A man's ethical behavior should be based on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.' Albert Einstein
Just so you know there were moral codes that existed LONG BEFORE the Old Testament.
Check out this review of Satan's Guide to the bible!
ua-cam.com/users/livelI1WcG7jr7Q?feature=shared
so are you saying that only 'religious societies' forbid murder???? what an ignorant statement.... I don't give a f*ck what your 'holy book' says....
The "inherent dignity and value of all people" [1:55] is easily seen from secular foundations. If the Bill of Rights comes out of Christian ideals, why did it take 1700 years to get to that? Thomas Paine, in particular, denied the Christian creed. And he and others persuaded people about the benefits of the Bill of Rights, without using the Bible.
If a person has a "deeply held Christian belief that I don't just think should inform my person life, I think this is important for a community to function well", [8:45] it should be possible to make the argument without invoking God, Jesus, or the Bible. If that is not possible, then proselytize but drop the attempt to legislate.
"Some of those initial conversations we had about what counted as negotiable and what doesn't, ... we acted like everyone was [Christian]." This is a great insight, and would benefit from the follow-up insight: Even though we acted like everyone was Christian, the values we agreed to like the Bill of Rights had foundations in reason rather than religiosity.
Evangelical Christians, in particular, seem to have a very difficult time with the idea that the non-religious social contract can be an effective basis for a successful society. This is most easily seen in the discussions about "objective morality, with the phrase, "A law needs a law giver", dismissing the idea that a societal group can collaboratively agree to a moral code.
Well hello there!
If we're not supposed to impose scriptural morality (Natural law) upon others, than what about murder? If God doesn't exist, and ignoring the fact we wouldn't exist, than murder is amoral. There's no standard to which we can measure morality. It'd be entirely subjective. And if a collective of people simply agreed to not do it, then why would someone breaking that agreement be wrong? It's not wrong to break laws if there's no higher moral giver. It wouldn't be wrong to commit murder.
The point is you can't vote on laws without imposing SOME KIND of morality upon others. The question is which morality, or moral giver is the right one?
If you're an atheist, than there is no standard by which people live morally. You can try to claim collective morality. But as i previously stated, why would it be wrong to break those laws? They'd be just as "right" to break the laws as you are all collectively making and obeying laws. Germany had a collective of people who had ideas about what they thought was right and wrong. Why was their collective interest "wrong" compared to the collective interests of the rest of the world, IF there is no God? Because one's bigger? The Roman Empire was the biggest at one point. But were they right on everything?
Collective morality, and Majority Morality Fail.
A straight line must superceded a "crooked" line.
ua-cam.com/video/3x3A-IKYQ5U/v-deo.htmlsi=r52eufdZ4G19bxtm
@@Fireking285 We can impose scriptural morality. Do you prefer the Bhagavad Gita or Quran? I think the Bhagavad Gita conforms more to "Natural Law".
There is a difference between personal morals and interpersonal morals. I don't care if a person thinks that murder is moral. Yahweh seems to, ordering the killing of Canaanites and Amalekites. I care about the actions, and that a society has and enforces laws based on balancing the rights of the everyone, individually and collectively. No rights can be protected absolutely.
"If a person is an atheist, there is no standard by which people live morally" is the most arrogant and absurd statement, a Frank Turek Special. He is not wise enough to be worth following, please try to choose someone better. He is lying throughout that video. "Are only atheists qualified to run the country?" About 85-90% of Congress are Christians. There are less than 5% atheists in Congress, and it may be only 1-2 members.
What many people want in the US is to have laws passed which can be justified without invoking a deity. Even if a person starts with a religious foundation for a particular legal position, can they make a convincing argument for it without using their religion? If laws are enacted based on religious reasons, we get to the situation of not being able to open the First Baptist Church of Riyadh.
This notion that there are principles of human value that one can't get apart from the Christian tradition I find to be myopic. Folks in the west have this notion that Buddhism is all about suffering and being reborn into a better life. It's not. At its essence it's about how to judge what's good and bad based on very practical rules about what causes and relieves suffering in oneself and others. I was raised in a Christian home and was a faithful corporate Christian for decades, but found in the Buddhist precepts and worldview to hold all life more dear and a better yardstick when judging moral behavior.
Reads Title:
Yes. Yes it should.
Move to Russia then.
The idea that people have inherent dignity and value are distinctly Christian ideas is not true. That idea for example exists in Buddhism, which is 500 years older than Christianity.
Buddhism is a false, man made religion that leads it followers straight to Hell.
Salvation is found in Christ and Christ alone, per Acts 4:12. Anyone who loves a practicing Buddhist as an image bearer of God and as their neighbor should love them enough to share the Gospel.
One of the exercises I did a few years ago was put together my own church calendar. It's one way to get yourself to stop worrying about traditions and laws and focus on doing what Jesus told you to do. The only time the government matters is when the government stops you from doing something positive for your neighbor.
Abortion isn't tricky. All aborted babies go to heaven. So they're fine.
99% of abortions are a few weeks or even days into the pregnancy. 75% of abortions are for financial reasons.
God told the church to provide the material needs for people in need. If a women is seeking an abortion, there's a reason and the church is supposed to be negating those reasons. We pretend we shouldn't do anything for others lest we be accused of "works righteousness" forgetting that we can't work for our salvation when we're already saved. We do things because we are saved and because they make a difference for people.
The issue of abortion is purely to take away the autonomy of women. Men force women to get pregnant and then demand the woman have the baby and incur all those costs while the man flees any responsibility. If a woman chooses to get pregnant and then chooses to get an abortion, that's an issue for the church, not the government. Women need support. The church needs to provide it.
Yes, all babies go to Heaven. (Ty Jesus!)
But that doesn't make it okay to mrdr a baby. Infact, it's an abominable sin to kill an innocent child, regardless of development stage & regardless of human (aka: FLAWED) reasoning.
That's not my opinion. That's God's inerrant word.
@@Anabee3 This guy is deeply flawed and he believes that being good and showing compassion is the way a person becomes a Christian, yet he doesn’t see the hypocrisy of not defending the most vulnerable human beings. Infants in the womb.
Repent and believe the Gospel, sir.
@@stevemateuszow
And turns literally anything (ANYTHING) into a racial issue.
@@patrickc3419 Absolutely everything!
No
The real problem with the bible superceding the will of the people is that when trying to superimpose an old book over our society there are many things that can be interpreted in different ways. Lets not forget slavery in the south was justified in biblical terms and denounced in the north by the same bible. I sometimes hate when christians see something going on and immediately find a biblical story which kinda seems similiar because often to do so we have to strip away all the context around the past and current situations in order to shoehorn an ancient story to fit what we see today. There are some variables that the bible story did or didnt have that will affect todays success or failure, and just because we do or dont do what they did in the bible doesnt guarantee or protect us from the same result
It is ridiculous and incorrect to claim that all the good ideas came out of Christianity. Statements claiming this are part of the problem. They enhance the idea that Christians are better have better morals and ideas than others. FYI The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are secular documents based on secular ideas.
The code of Ur and the code of Hammurabi both predate Christianity and Judaism. Both of these codes influenced the laws found in Leviticus.
Societies thrive when people learn to live and work together. Simple rules, such as don't kill each other, allowed primitive societies thrive. If you kill each other there are fewer members to hunt, gather, and protect the group. Simple mathematics provided that rule, not a metaphysical being.
If we're not supposed to impose scriptural morality (Natural law) upon others, than what about murder? If God doesn't exist, and ignoring the fact we wouldn't exist, than murder is amoral. There's no standard to which we can measure morality. It'd be entirely subjective. And if a collective of people simply agreed to not do it, then why would someone breaking that agreement be wrong? It's not wrong to break laws if there's no higher moral giver. It wouldn't be wrong to commit murder.
The point is you can't vote on laws without imposing SOME KIND of morality upon others. The question is which morality, or moral giver is the right one?
If you're an atheist, than there is no standard by which people live morally. You can try to claim collective morality. But as i previously stated, why would it be wrong to break those laws? They'd be just as "right" to break the laws as you are all collectively making and obeying laws. Germany had a collective of people who had ideas about what they thought was right and wrong. Why was their collective interest "wrong" compared to the collective interests of the rest of the world, IF there is no God? Because one's bigger? The Roman Empire was the biggest at one point. But were they right on everything?
Collective morality, and Majority Morality Fail.
A straight line must superceded a "crooked" line.
ua-cam.com/video/3x3A-IKYQ5U/v-deo.htmlsi=r52eufdZ4G19bxtm
As pointed out in a TED talk there are over 700 religions or belief systems in the world today and a number are exclusive in the sense they believe they ‘know the truth’ and that all others are ‘false’ religions. Then as a result that they “know the truth” it must be imposed on all society.
Christianity is just one of these religions and why is it superior to others?
I believe the Bible is fundamentally wrong. It says the human soul is separate to God. Many people who have experienced an NDE ( Near Death Experience), believe the human soul is a direct extension of, or is God. There is much evidence indicating we incarnate on Earth many times as a spiritual teaching experience. It is not a one time on Earth thing, and then go to Heaven or Hell, but rather a multiple lesson process with Karma imbalances to be satisfied. To me, the Bible is a poor reflection of the spiritual reality, and does more harm then good .Namaste
I'd love to see some of this evidence that you have showing that we are reincarnated
Repent and believe the Gospel sir. Turn to Christ and live.
@@patrickc3419 Christ wanted to be emulated, not worshipped.
God’s Will only
Yes.
Row overturned itself because that original decision was based on a right of privacy. But homicide never has a right of privacy. It's true regardless of religious belief.
The law was based on the right of people to have privacy in their medical decisions. You don’t honestly believe your medical records shouldn’t be private, do you?
@@jahbernI already said that homicide never gets privacy.
Only Jesus ( and the Holy Trinity ) separate Christianity, Judaism and Islam. There other basic beliefs are so similar.
How do we make decisions on what counts?
We refer to God's inerrant word.
It's not about what I believe, or any other Christian believes, it about what GOD believes: GOD'S will.
(Please do not take that as an insinuation that we should use violence, or any such "strongman" garbage against ANYONE. I only mean to say that we should vote according to God's will, not our own, nor the peoples will).
As a Christian, you should do what Jesus would do. That is not what you are describing. Love, humility and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Period.
12,252 Palestinian children killed; Palestinian 8,663 children injured since October 7, 2023 (as of February 14, 2024) 🛐🛐🛐
#Jesus said, “Let the little #children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of #heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14)
This conversation is skewed in so many directions.
(1) to insist and constantly repeat that there are values that are “distinctly Christian” is fallacy. To do good to others, to be honest, to be loving and so on and so forth is a universal characteristic of all humans, regardless of any religious teachings. These are not values that were setup and established by Judeo-Christian doctrine. To hold such a view that such values or system of values is “distinctly Christian” I would argue is at the heart of Christian Nationalism. And it is a flawed ideology. For it is an ideology that removes God from power and places all control in the hands of the religious who feel that they are the best arbiters of deciding what is right or wrong for society according to their own interpretation of scripture , of which there are many-on any given religious topic.
(2) The American Bill of Rights (1791) has more of its text foundation in The French’s Rights of Men (1789) document than the Bible.
(3) Back to Christian Nationalism ( to use a spiritual take on it), it is a falsity in idea. For it points to man and not to God or to Christ. In Christian Nationalism God and Christ are secondary to man’s religious theology.
Although it may parade scripture around like a flag but the spirit of the Word comes second (if it is expressed all) to the black and white letters of Paul’s writings.
Christian Nationalism essentially takes the Devine Creator and places him (if you will) on a particular side of an issue, of a race, of an ideology, of any thing that the Christian feels he or she knows better than others.
Christian Nationalism makes God small. Puts Him (if you will) into a box of whatever is the latest interpretations of scripture. Once popular of church doctrine was that the Earth was the center of the universe, that women should not speak in a church setting, that black people were created for servitude, that Jews were the enemy of Christ. The list goes on and on…
(4) It is amusing, when one really thinks about this: how as Christians we spend so much time making these academic arguments and pronouncements about Christian values when Jesus never put his own words down in writing himself. We are left with trying to interpret the words and meanings from second hand writings (The Book of Gospels), third hand (the letters of Paul), fourth hand (the Council of Laodicea in 363 C.E…).
Final note, I think maybe if we just put all of our attention(or as much as we can) in just working on being kind to one another, forgiving of one another, and accept that we don’t know it all ( to say the least) and just trust that there is a God who is in control and is not somewhere on his (if you will) throne freaking out and biting His finger nails over the state of the world, we might find it easier to be of one mind. Just saying.
Your response is thoughtful and respectful, thank you. I disagree with certain aspects, which I won’t elaborate on because I really don’t want to get into an argument. However, my top pick from your contribution is your point that, although widely accepted, Kaitlyn’s assertion is in fact erroneous, that certain American values are intrinsically Christian. That view is in fact the basis of Christian nationalism. To add a Bible reference in support of this critique, Jesus said, “If you, being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him”. Meaning that giving good things to one’s own children is not an inherently Christian value. In fact according to Jesus, it might be a ‘pagan’ value. It’s just a human thing. There are other Bible references, but you get the point.
Exactly
“By the time this child is old enough to eat curds and honey, he will know enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong. But before he knows right from wrong, the two kings you fear so much - the kings of Israel and Aram - will both be dead” (Isaiah 7:15-16 NLT).
NO!!!!!!
I suggest that the will of the people shouldn't be consulted so much anyway. We need to keep the power of government more restricted than it is (not just from Christian Nationalism) and in most cases (there are always some exceptions) allow individuals to make more of their own decisions.
That one comment from phil "We did it because the end justifies the means" makes everything else he says mute! If everything else he says falls on deaf ears. God never justifies Wrong as a means to make his will come to fruition!!!
Listen more closely. He's saying that's what conservatives basically said when they overturned Roe v Wade, by trump appointing SCOTUS judges with conservative proclivities (and some morally objectionable ethics) that undid that past precedent
Thanks for clarifying, but Christians are still celebrating the overturning of Roe v.Wade as if it were a mandate from God. Even though I may have misinterpreted what Phil was saying, to celebrate an ill-gotten victory through deceptive means is not the will of God. But again, thanks for the clarification. @@aaronhauth8880
Skye once again you conflate a false equivalency... There is no equivalency crazy town (Republican) I don't think of them as conservatives.... I consider myself to be conservative.
Quack!
Sure you're not projecting?
Hell no. Why should this even be considered?
Do all three of you love Donald Trump and his supporters?
You dont have to answer, i know the answer.
I do hope they get well.
Well, as Christians we’re supposed to love everybody so there’s your answer. (It is admittedly very, very difficult though)
Do you love anybody who isn't Donald Trump or one of his supporters?
Hell Nah