Posted on 07/05/2014 5:53:22 AM PDT by Kolokotronis
"I say only that the Communists have stolen the flag,” Francis responded. “The flag of the poor is Christian. Poverty is at the heart of the Gospel. The poor are at the heart of the Gospel. Take Matthew 25, the protocol over which we shall be judged: ‘I was hungry, I was thirsty, I was in prison, I was sick, naked.’ Or look at the Beatitudes, another flag. The communists say that this is communist. Yeah, right, 20 centuries later.”
The Holy Father concluded with a joke: “So you could say when you speak to them: ‘But you are Christians.’”
Some precincts of the American hard right went predictably bonkers. “NUTS,” was Jim Hoft’s headline at Gateway Pundit. Rush Limbaugh wondered if the pope was claiming Jesus as a communist. The comboxes at Free Republic, the Washington Times, Newsmax and The American Catholic swelled with insults aimed at the Holy Father. There will be more where this came from, but the week is young."
(Excerpt) Read more at aleteia.org ...
And I should also point out that the quotation from John Stott is precisely to do with Scripture’s understanding of unity—it was delivered to rebut Dr Lloyd-Jones’ call for evangelicals to leave the Church of England at a gathering of English evangelicals (both CoE and not) back in the 1960s.
“I’m not going to demonize people who are otherwise orthodox Christians simply because they believe that socialism is a better system than capitalism, or because they vote Democratic. Theology is not politics, and politics is not theology.”
No one who is an otherwise orthodox Christian believes that socialism is a better system than capitalism (properly defined), and no one who is an otherwise orthodox Christian votes demonrat (except perhaps some of the elderly).
It is no longer possible to be a socialist and a decent person, or a demonrat and a decent person.
Theology most certainly is politics, and vice versa, and it could not be otherwise.
Good article. One can’t escape the call of the Gospel by sputtering, “Communist!” and turning away. “The community in Jerusalem were of one accord, and no one said that anything he had was his own.” I get so exhausted with just my own family and all the conflicting “Mine! Mine! Mine!” ... but don’t touch MY sports car - see, it’s got MY name on the title transfer! Who ate MY mushroom-tomato salad? Who drank MY Diet Coke?
“What have you that you were not given? So why, then, do you boast as though it were not a gift?” Everything is God’s. He owns the cattle on a thousand hills, and he owns “my” time, “my” ability, “my” money, “my” car.
That’s a very dangerous conflation of Christianity with conservatism you have there.
When it takes you that long to explain why you are not a communist - you’re a communist. But hey, who am I to judge.
“That’s a very dangerous conflation of Christianity with conservatism you have there.”
That’s a mighty dangerous ecumenical relationship you have with the left there.
It is not that Christianity and conservatism are the same thing. It is that a life lived according to Christian principles turns out to be a conservative life; and a life lived according to conservative principles leads one to Christianity.
I am speaking, of course, of life in what used to be Western Civilization. Conservatism in Israel is less likely to lead to conversion; and other countries similarly, mutatis mutandis.
As the hymn says, “No one can serve Him and despise another.” I’ll not despise someone simply because their politics are wrong.
“As the hymn says, “No one can serve Him and despise another.” I’ll not despise someone simply because their politics are wrong.”
You’re not required to despise them. You are only required to see them for what they are, and to oppose them with all your will because they do Satan’s work. They are, to one degree or another, under his sway.
This is not solely a political disagreement, and it is certainly not one over which reasonable men can differ in good faith.
Evil always attacks good; that is its nature. The demonrats and leftards have been attacking and continue to attack everything good.
As St. John Chrysostom wrote, “He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices; it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but even the good to do wrong.”
When you treat demonrats and other leftists as you would want them to treat you—Wait. Isn’t that the Golden Rule?—you are displaying unreasonable patience.
The Golden Rule, properly applied, would require you to treat them as they would want to be treated **if** they were not blinded to the truth. Enabling is not kindness.
Do you think that demonrats who knowingly vote for politicians who support abortion on demand are in good with The Lord? How are they going to get back on the straight and narrow?
Whether you choose to deal with them with a show of patience, or with anger, it is incumbent upon you to see what they are, because that will help keep you safe from sophistry.
Giving people money never improves their economic status in life. All they do is spend the money, the money goes right back to those who had it before, and the poor stay right where they are.
“Giving people money never improves their economic status in life. All they do is spend the money, the money goes right back to those who had it before, and the poor stay right where they are.”
As a general proposition, quite true. However, there are still some things to say about it.
The Holy Father is not preaching redistribution of wealth by taking from Peter to pay Paul.
Distributism boils down to just about exactly what the US had in the 1950s. Many people owned houses, cars, boats, TVs, 40 acres for weekend getaways, farms...one man’s income was sufficient for a solid, middle-class life. There were opportunities to rise higher if you worked harder, and were lucky enough not to get knocked off the ladder. (After all, stuff does happen.)
People weren’t being given a living, but the jobs were there, and the schools prepared you for them. That’s Distributism.
Oh, and regarding your use of the word “never,” without my Navy pension and my disability, I’d be living in a cardboard box under an overpass.
Things have changed, just since I’ve been posting here. Then there were jobs; I worked hard, 60 or 70 hours a week, or more. Fairly recently I applied for a job cleaning out dog and cat cages. I didn’t get it.
There are still jobs, but they are few and far between. The actual unemployment rate has been around 25% for years now. I haven’t worked since 2010. We have little or no manufacturing. What are we going to do for employment, sit in a circle and sell a Coke to the person sitting to your right?
A pension is earned, not given.
Excommunicating, disfellowshiping or otherwise shunning Christians over politics--separating yourself from a group of Christians over politics is far too close to despising someone for me to ever endorse.
This is not solely a political disagreement, and it is certainly not one over which reasonable men can differ in good faith.
You say this, but I don't think you can prove it from the Bible without resorting to eisegesis. Os Guiness writes in The Call, "The fallacy of particularism stems from the fact that God has not spoken definitively to us about everything. Obviously he did not intend to. It is an error for Christians to make relative what God has made absolute. But it is equally an error for Christians to make absolute what God has left relative."
If you cannot prove that the Bible endorses American conservative capitalism, then you are making absolute what God has left relative.
Evil always attacks good; that is its nature. The demonrats and leftards have been attacking and continue to attack everything good.
Human beings only know in part. We can be wrong about many things, including politics. This applies to Christians as well as non-Christians, conservatives as well as liberals. They are not 'attacking everything that is good'--they think they are doing good. They are wrong, but their motivation is not the problem. (Mind you, there really are those whose motivation is the problem, but they aren't the majority.)
As St. John Chrysostom wrote, “He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices; it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but even the good to do wrong.”
There is a difference between being angry and despising someone; between being anger motivated by God's holy love and anger motivated by political partisanship.
When you treat demonrats and other leftists as you would want them to treat you—Wait. Isn’t that the Golden Rule?—you are displaying unreasonable patience. The Golden Rule, properly applied, would require you to treat them as they would want to be treated **if** they were not blinded to the truth. Enabling is not kindness.
You are right, enabling is not kindness. The Golden Rule, however, has nothing to do with how they want to be treated--it is about treating them as you want to be treated. In other words, it is about loving your neighbor and your enemy, and about blessing those who curse you. It's pretty hard to do either of those things if you're washing your hands of them because they don't believe like you do in the nonessentials.
Do you think that demonrats who knowingly vote for politicians who support abortion on demand are in good with The Lord? How are they going to get back on the straight and narrow?
Only God knows whether they have sinned against him by voting for a politician who supports sinful behaviors. You cannot help them 'get back on the straight and narrow' by being angry with them, and certainly not by separating yourself from those who call themselves Christians but whose politics don't align with yours. Instead, you are to teach them patiently and with God's own love, so that you may "save them from the fire with fear, despising even the clothing stained by sin" (Jude 23).
“Excommunicating, disfellowshiping or otherwise shunning Christians over politics—separating yourself from a group of Christians over politics is far too close to despising someone for me to ever endorse.”
This gives rise to two thoughts:
1. How can baby-killers be regarded as in communion with Our Lord? This is not a minor sin.
2. Your definition of “politics” must be quite different from mine. Politics is one arena in which the war between good and evil is fought.
>>This is not solely a political disagreement, and it is certainly not one over which reasonable men can differ in good faith.
“You say this, but I don’t think you can prove it from the Bible without resorting to eisegesis.”
What does the Bible say about the taking of innocent life? Q.E.D.
“The fallacy of particularism stems from the fact that God has not spoken definitively to us about everything. Obviously he did not intend to. It is an error for Christians to make relative what God has made absolute. But it is equally an error for Christians to make absolute what God has left relative.”
If it is obvious that God did not intend to make everything absolute, then it is equally obvious that He intended for us to apply our reason to the areas left relative, thereby discerning what He would have us do—discerning good from evil, and choosing good for His sake.
“If you cannot prove that the Bible endorses American conservative capitalism, then you are making absolute what God has left relative.”
That is a false duality. All one need establish is that conservatives are closer to the good and striving to move in the right direction, while demonrats are closer to Satan and striving to move in his direction. That’s enough to tell you which side to be on, without in any way asserting that “American conservative capitalism” is perfect, or that conservatives are without sin.
“Human beings only know in part. We can be wrong about many things, including politics.”
That is true, without in any way supporting your position.
“This applies to Christians as well as non-Christians, conservatives as well as liberals.”
Are you seriously saying that non-Christians and liberals have the same access to truth that conservatives and Christians have? That we might as well not even be Christians, because they are as right as we are?
Sure, conservatives and Christians make mistakes and sometimes believe stupid crap. But across billions of cases, Conservative Christians have an immensely higher chance of being right on matters of faith and morals than liberals and pagans (The inevitable rare exceptions are acknowledged).
“They are not ‘attacking everything that is good’—they think they are doing good.”
Yes, they think they are doing good. Does that make their actions good? What effect do their intentions have on the evil consequences of their actions?
“They are wrong, but their motivation is not the problem.”
True again, but again supportive of your position in no way.
“There is a difference between being angry and despising someone”
What is that difference? Consequences?
(There is a difference between)…anger motivated by God’s holy love and anger motivated by political partisanship.”
Oh, really? So, support for abortion on demand, baby-killing, murder of the most innocent, is just a matter of “political partisanship,” is it? Leftards don’t think so. They will kill to preserve their spurious “right” to kill babies if they think they have to.
Back during the Cold War there were “fellow travelers,” useful idiots, as the Soviets thought of them, who asserted that America and the Evil Empire were just two equally valid political systems (except theirs was better), so it was just awful of those right wingers to utter any criticism at all, especially since America was an imperialist bully, blah blah blah blah blah…
Sound familiar?
Leftards are not on the same moral footing as conservatives. On that continuum with Satan on the left and God on the right, Leftards are to the left of conservatives and trying to drag us all leftward—with, obviously, a good deal of success. You don’t have to be perfect to have standing to oppose them; you just have to see, “Hey, God doesn’t want us to do those things and go that way; He wants us to do these things and come this way.” And God has gifted us with the reason, faith, and Scripture we need to see that.
“You are right, enabling is not kindness. The Golden Rule, however, has nothing to do with how they want to be treated—it is about treating them as you want to be treated.”
I would want to be shown I was wrong. I would not want people holding their tongues out of misplaced concern for my feelings.
“In other words, it is about loving your neighbor and your enemy, and about blessing those who curse you.”
Our Savior also gave us the example of the moneychangers in the temple. Ignore that one at your peril, because your enemies will cheerfully cut you down.
“It’s pretty hard to do either of those things if you’re washing your hands of them because they don’t believe like you do in the nonessentials.”
Nonessentials?
We are on the same planet, are we not? Discussing the morality explained to us by God? How can these things be dismissed as “nonessentials” by any Christian or conservative? Twenty years ago I would have typed in a long list of “nonessentials,” but neuropathy is slowly making my hands go numb.
I’ve already talked about abortion. This time let’s take disarming the American people for our example.
Since you seem to like foreign non-Christians so much, let me start with something Ghandi wrote, “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”
Do you really fail to understand the enormity of depriving the world of a nation where the people are armed against the establishment of tyranny?
“Only God knows whether they have sinned against him by voting for a politician who supports sinful behaviors.”
Really? You never learned anything from the Bible that allows you to understand how God views such things? So, you might as well go out tonight, sniff some cocaine, lie with a naughty lady of the evening, then pay for her abortion, because you have no idea whether that would be sinning against God? That about it?
“You cannot help them ‘get back on the straight and narrow’ by being angry with them”
Seriously? You believe that to be true?
My word.
Robert A. Heinlein wrote, “Anyone who clings to the historically untrue—and thoroughly immoral—doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”
Leftards live and breathe that doctrine, although in their case it is framed in different words that give it a false glow of rectitude.
On an individual level, you never know whether a given person will respond better to sugar or vinegar, if they respond at all, but joking and glad-handing just establish the precedent that they are not to be treated as a person guilty of serious crimes against humanity should be. On a larger stage, sides must be taken. You don’t have to pretend that your side is perfect; you just have to know that it is closer to scripture and God.
“and certainly not by separating yourself from those who call themselves Christians”
Boom! Shaka laka. Who *call* themselves Christians. Calling yourself a Christian doesn’t make you one (I’m sure you know where that is in the Bible). Rebuking sinners is one of the seven spiritual acts of mercy. Acting as though the things that are sending them to hell are “nonessentials” is merely enabling them.
“but whose politics don’t align with yours.”
You say that as though it were such a minor thing, as though the demonrats were not strongly influenced by Satan. I think perhaps they are influenced more by Satan than we are by God, seeing as how some of us are so eager to betray Him rather than endure opprobrium.
“Instead, you are to teach them patiently and with God’s own love”
Like Stalin taught the Ukrainians, right? Good grief, man, can’t you see that we are in just such a fight today? There are powers who evince a design to reduce us under absolute despotism, which will of course be accompanied by the inaugural bloodbath. It is long past time to chuck the money changers out of the temple.
Stalin starved 20 million Ukrainians. Mao killed 40 million Chinese. All told, leftism killed 100,000,000 innocents in the 20th century.
How many babies have been killed in this country since Roe v Wade? How many innocents will die in the coming upheaval, which Satan, through his useful idiots, has been laboring to bring about?
It is long past time for decent people to wake up and realize that when dealing with scumbags, civility is nothing but a self-imposed handicap.
After a hundred million innocent dead in the twentieth century, no liberal is entitled to the slightest consideration, courtesy, or civility. Liberals should be reviled, abominated, spat upon, even beaten, whenever they have the gall to show their faces in the presence of decent people.
Evil should never be allowed to masquerade as a “responsible opposing viewpoint” to good, in any of its manifestations.
All leftist thought, from the limousine liberalism of a George Clooney to the murderous horrors of Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, is of and from Satan. Leftism is a contaminant in the human cognosphere, not a natural component of it.
Satan is smarter than we are, and he never sleeps. Those over whom he has the most influence are like maniacally evil energizer demons.
Every once in a while one of them escapes, like David Horowitz, but who knows how or why?
The notion that his own society is evil and unjust is the bedrock of the leftist’s vision. Wicked capitalists trample on the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden; the leftist appoints himself to rescue these victims. He is a self-styled social redeemer, leading a movement to liberate the masses, even if it results in the destruction of his own society. This political mission provides him with immense moral indignation and, therefore, moral superiority, dispositions from which, in turn, he derives emotional self-gratification. His whole belief system provides him with a sense of belonging; he joins other social redeemers, as well as the victims, real or imagined, who wait for him to break their chains. (This paragraph plagiarized.)
“…so that you may “save them from the fire with fear, despising even the clothing stained by sin” (Jude 23).”
This tells us we should despise even clothing stained by sin, but you seem unwilling to despise even the sin itself.
This assumes that voting for someone who commits evil is the same thing as committing that evil yourself. You may as well say that conservatives are responsible for the Abu Ghraib scandal back in the mid-2000s in Iraq, because they voted for President Bush; or that they are responsible for the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians for the same reason.
2. Your definition of “politics” must be quite different from mine. Politics is one arena in which the war between good and evil is fought.
You are right, our definitions of politics are vastly different. Politics is simply how human beings order their lives so that they can live together in communities. There are better and worse policies, but it is very hard to find a policy that is completely devoid of good. Even socialistic wealth-redistribution schemes are more than simply theft for the sake of theft.
What does the Bible say about the taking of innocent life? Q.E.D.
Cute, but the average Democrat or leftist is not directly involved in the abortion industry.
That is a false duality. All one need establish is that conservatives are closer to the good and striving to move in the right direction, while demonrats are closer to Satan and striving to move in his direction. That’s enough to tell you which side to be on, without in any way asserting that “American conservative capitalism” is perfect, or that conservatives are without sin.
The problem is that you cannot prove that liberals are 'striving to move in [Satan's] direction.' Since you cannot prove that, and since you really cannot even prove that conservatives are 'closer to the good,' you cannot say without the shadow of a doubt that you are doing what God wills.
That is true, without in any way supporting your position.
There is where you are wrong. Since human beings can be mistaken about all manner of things, humility demands that we do not impugn false motives to others who view things differently than us. We cannot simply dismiss liberals as vile satan-worshipers with no redeeming value. People are not the enemy, no matter how wrong-headed their ideas. Even if their motivations are sinful, people are still not the enemy, and someone who calls him or herself a Christian should not treat them as such.
Are you seriously saying that non-Christians and liberals have the same access to truth that conservatives and Christians have? That we might as well not even be Christians, because they are as right as we are? Sure, conservatives and Christians make mistakes and sometimes believe stupid crap. But across billions of cases, Conservative Christians have an immensely higher chance of being right on matters of faith and morals than liberals and pagans (The inevitable rare exceptions are acknowledged).
The opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. I have faith in the Triune God, and insofar as it is faith, I must own that I am not certain. Since I am not certain, it behooves me to allow that I may be wrong, though I am not convinced of it and may never be convinced of it.
Yes, they think they are doing good. Does that make their actions good? What effect do their intentions have on the evil consequences of their actions?
Moral culpability requires wrong motive as well as wrong action.
“There is a difference between being angry and despising someone” What is that difference? Consequences?
Sin requires motivation as well as action and consequence. Anger is not sinful only when it is motivated by love. If anger is not motivated by love, then it is hatred.
Oh, really? So, support for abortion on demand, baby-killing, murder of the most innocent, is just a matter of “political partisanship,” is it? Leftards don’t think so. They will kill to preserve their spurious “right” to kill babies if they think they have to.
You paint with such a broad brush, and yet neither of us has any way of knowing just how many leftists would kill people to preserve their access to abortion.
Back during the Cold War there were “fellow travelers,” useful idiots, as the Soviets thought of them, who asserted that America and the Evil Empire were just two equally valid political systems (except theirs was better), so it was just awful of those right wingers to utter any criticism at all, especially since America was an imperialist bully, blah blah blah blah blah…Sound familiar?
Useful idiots and fellow travelers are not objects of scorn, derision and hatred, but creatures made in the image of God. They were wrong, but if a "Christian" speaks contemptibly of them, they are even more wrong (Mt 5:22).
Leftards are not on the same moral footing as conservatives. On that continuum with Satan on the left and God on the right, Leftards are to the left of conservatives and trying to drag us all leftward—with, obviously, a good deal of success. You don’t have to be perfect to have standing to oppose them; you just have to see, “Hey, God doesn’t want us to do those things and go that way; He wants us to do these things and come this way.” And God has gifted us with the reason, faith, and Scripture we need to see that.
The issue here is not opposing leftism; it is treating people who are not of your own conservative tribe with Christian love.
I would want to be shown I was wrong. I would not want people holding their tongues out of misplaced concern for my feelings.
There are a lot more options than 'holding one's tongue out of misplaced concern for my feelings' or lashing out in self-righteous anger. The message matters, but so does the delivery. Or as John MacArthur puts it, "Love and truth must be maintained in perfect balance. Truth is never to be abandoned in the name of love. But love is not to be deposed in the name of truth...truth without love has no decency; it's just brutality. On the other hand, love without truth has no character; it's just hypocrisy."
Our Savior also gave us the example of the moneychangers in the temple. Ignore that one at your peril, because your enemies will cheerfully cut you down.
Jesus fulfilled prophecy with that action. He never endorsed it for his followers. In fact, his word to his disciples was "If a man strike you on one cheek, turn the other."
Nonessentials? We are on the same planet, are we not? Discussing the morality explained to us by God? How can these things be dismissed as “nonessentials” by any Christian or conservative?
The doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the necessity of repentance and faith and the new birth are all essentials. Political systems? These are not essentials of the faith. A "good Communist" can be as much of a Christian as a "good capitalist"--though both are expected of Our Lord to be a voice against the system's excesses.
“Only God knows whether they have sinned against him by voting for a politician who supports sinful behaviors.” Really? You never learned anything from the Bible that allows you to understand how God views such things? So, you might as well go out tonight, sniff some cocaine, lie with a naughty lady of the evening, then pay for her abortion, because you have no idea whether that would be sinning against God? That about it?
False comparison. Direct personal involvement such as in the examples you cite is not indirect involvement such as voting for a politician on record as supporting immorality.
“You cannot help them ‘get back on the straight and narrow’ by being angry with them” Seriously? You believe that to be true? My word.
I believe the Bible, whose whole tenor is summed up in statements like "The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now" (1 Jn 2:9) and "I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment" (Mt 5:22).
On an individual level, you never know whether a given person will respond better to sugar or vinegar, if they respond at all, but joking and glad-handing just establish the precedent that they are not to be treated as a person guilty of serious crimes against humanity should be. On a larger stage, sides must be taken. You don’t have to pretend that your side is perfect; you just have to know that it is closer to scripture and God.
To know is to be certain, and no one can contend that they are certain without abandoning the very concept of faith.
Boom! Shaka laka. Who *call* themselves Christians. Calling yourself a Christian doesn’t make you one (I’m sure you know where that is in the Bible). Rebuking sinners is one of the seven spiritual acts of mercy. Acting as though the things that are sending them to hell are “nonessentials” is merely enabling them.
There are many people on the Right who call themselves Christian but aren't, as well. There are those who are conservative because they are Christian, but there are also those who are Christian because they are conservative. And again, I do not see anywhere in the Bible where the mere act of voting for a sinful candidate puts someone in danger of hell.
You say that as though it were such a minor thing, as though the demonrats were not strongly influenced by Satan. I think perhaps they are influenced more by Satan than we are by God, seeing as how some of us are so eager to betray Him rather than endure opprobrium.
Politics is a minor thing. One's personal involvement and direct actions/inactions have far more bearing than the guilt by association that comes from voting for 'the wrong guy.'
Like Stalin taught the Ukrainians, right? Good grief, man, can’t you see that we are in just such a fight today? There are powers who evince a design to reduce us under absolute despotism, which will of course be accompanied by the inaugural bloodbath. It is long past time to chuck the money changers out of the temple.
We are not Jesus, and he is the only one who has the authority to throw people out of the Temple. Instead, we are told, "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord." (Romans 12:19).
Stalin starved 20 million Ukrainians. Mao killed 40 million Chinese. All told, leftism killed 100,000,000 innocents in the 20th century. How many babies have been killed in this country since Roe v Wade? How many innocents will die in the coming upheaval, which Satan, through his useful idiots, has been laboring to bring about? It is long past time for decent people to wake up and realize that when dealing with scumbags, civility is nothing but a self-imposed handicap. After a hundred million innocent dead in the twentieth century, no liberal is entitled to the slightest consideration, courtesy, or civility. Liberals should be reviled, abominated, spat upon, even beaten, whenever they have the gall to show their faces in the presence of decent people.
No Christian who reads "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven" (Mt 5:43-45) can ever agree with what you have just written.
“…so that you may “save them from the fire with fear, despising even the clothing stained by sin” (Jude 23).” This tells us we should despise even clothing stained by sin, but you seem unwilling to despise even the sin itself.
The sin is to be despised; the man is not.
Literally everything you wrote is wrong.
I thought about explaining why, but when I got to this:
“A ‘good Communist’ can be as much of a Christian as a ‘good capitalist’”
— my heart sank, and I realized that it is just too huge a task.
God help you.
Finally came to the realization that neither of us were going to change the other’s mind, huh?
The Lord have mercy on you as well.
“Finally came to the realization that neither of us were going to change the other’s mind, huh?”
No, I just lack the energy. Besides, you will be drifting in my direction anyway, if you hang around with conservatives.
An excerpt: "As Christians, we must be careful not to obscure the gospel for the sake of an idea or truth that is less important. Your view on the Affordable Care Act or the next election may seem important to you; but maybe it shouldn't reach the level where you need to post on it three times a day and question the motives of people on other side, particularly in the name of your faith."
“Being as I’m Christian first, and I’ve been here on FR a decade already...doubt it.”
Now *that’s* hard headed.
“An excerpt: “As Christians, we must be careful not to obscure the gospel for the sake of an idea or truth that is less important. Your view on the Affordable Care Act or the next election may seem important to you; but maybe it shouldn’t reach the level where you need to post on it three times a day and question the motives of people on other side, particularly in the name of your faith.”
Horrifyingly wrong.
Consider this: if you say “both sides do it” when that is not the case, you wrongfully disadvantage the side that doesn’t do it.
Satan is very active in the world today, and blinding yourself to that fact advantages only Satan.
All leftist thought is of and from Satan. Leftists do Satan’s work. Their motivation is irrelevant when deciding on the proper response to their actions.
I prefer to view it as having my priorities straight. Although I do admit freely that I am incredibly obstinate (my wife prefers "mulish").
Horrifyingly wrong.
I am completely unsurprised that you would say this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.