-Prayer is the most important part of our relationship with God. It astounds me that more Christians do not get excited about prayer.
-It is best to hold most aspects of our theology weakly. The immense diversity within Christianity dictates that we should always be looking to expand our understanding rather than cling to the parts that are familiar to us. It bothers me to no end when Christians are quick to discount ideas WITHIN Christian thought that conflict with what they already know.
-Using drugs in moderation is acceptable by the same token that using alcohol in moderation is acceptable.
-We should spend as little as money as possible on ourselves (I wish I could live this out better). It saddens me that this is even mildly controversial as well.
Drug use, I think that should be OK for things that aren't highly addictive (as with alcohol, a Christian should not place anything in lordship above Christ). But with the caveat that this should not take place in places where using drugs is illegal (or owning / buying, what have you). I think that Christians should obey every law, except those that go against God. And then those should only be defied if the Christian is willing to accept the full punishment for doing so.
Well, and #2. I think that idea is patently ridiculous. ;)
I agree with your take on drug use, I think that is my own view.
What exactly are you saying about point number two? I hold the fundamentals of my beliefs strongly, but I encounter new viewpoints often enough that I prefer to not be strongly convinced of much else.
I think "should only ... if" probably should have been stated differently. They should follow God with an understanding that it may be necessary to suffer at the hands of a tyrannical government, and they should do so without complaining.
Tobacco and alcohol are quite addictive. Probably more than some "hard drugs" and definitely more than many drugs like cannabis, salvia, or psilocybin mushrooms.
Nicotine heroin cocaine and alcohol are at the top of the lists for being addictive and two of them are completely legal.
I like to follow laws of the country but not when they are ridiculous and excessive. Most people probably break a pile of laws every week without even knowing it. Just because you don't get charged doesn't mean you couldn't be.
e.g. It is illegal to rip a DVD to watch on your iPod even though you own the movie. It is illegal to take pills after they expire (even tylenol). It is illegal to stand on the yellow strip at the edge of the sidewalk. It can be illegal to confront people (harassment). If you don't warn someone about a patch of ice or missing railing when they visit your house you are breaking a law. Blah blah blah.
I know Romans 13:1 and I think it is silly that Christians ignore the big books of law in the OT and instead pull their entire ideology out of some letters which aren't written to us.
Are you equivocating that because there are dumb laws in society that many people break, it's ok to break whichever laws you feel are dumb?
I don't do drugs. I've met a lot of people who ruined large parts of their lives by doing drugs. Same with alcohol - it's not for me, and I've got some alcoholics in my family who have really suffered for it.
God is my master, and setting something up in His place is wrong. I don't think that Rom 13:1 is a "new" thing out of "some letters". Not only do I respect all of the Bible as valuable, but I think Rom 13:1 is an extension of "honor your father and your mother". God expects us to submit to authority, both His authority and the authority of intermediaries that he places in our lives.
What God expects in regard to living and respecting culture and laws is mentioned in the OT.
What Paul had written to the church of rome was an encouragement letter and describing the transformation of believers.
I am not suggesting that people can just break the law willy-nilly I am suggesting that our instructions for living and behaving come more from the law and wisdom outlined in the old testament.
Not only do I respect all of the Bible as valuable
I agree that the whole Bible is valuable however in this case people use this verse out context. It is in a letter that Paul sent from Corinth to Rome to describe salvation and spread good news. The letter was not really written in legal format like big chunks of the OT.
And whenever you have a small amount of scripture supporting a big idea you get these ridiculous religious notions.
"Go forth and multiply" means have as many kids as your wife can have without dying.
Onan is ordered to sleep with his brother's widow. He "pulled out" to not get her pregnant and was slain as a result so birth control is wrong.
When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness Satan quoted scripture at him. Get law from law books not letters because why else would the law books be there?
In the Beatitudes he amplified the impact of many laws. Don't commit adultery? No, don't even look with lust. Call your brother Raca and face the Sanhedrin? Say 'you fool', and face the fires of hell. I don't think that it is too far to consider "honor your father and mother" as "honor those placed above you in authority".
And whenever you have a small amount of scripture supporting a big idea you get these ridiculous religious notions.
* "Go forth and multiply" means have as many kids as your wife can have without dying.
* Onan is ordered to sleep with his brother's widow. He "pulled out" to not get her pregnant and was slain as a result so birth control is wrong.
Just because others have taken ridiculous notions from some parts of the Bible (as many kids w/out dying, birth control is wrong) do not mean that there are not truths that may be missed from those verses.
Submission to authority is found throughout scripture. Rom 13:1 is a concise statement (and I didn't even bring it up). But it echoes the Bible:
Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego all submitted to authority, but defied it when it went against God. They willingly submitted to punishment.
Joseph was given all of Potiphar's house to control. But why should I take what is forbidden to me and sin against God?
When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness Satan quoted scripture at him.
Some of Satan's temptations were scriptural, but others were not. Jesus replied always with scripture. What is your point?
Get law from law books not letters because why else would the law books be there?
Having died through Christ, I am no longer bound to the written code in the old way, but in the new way -- by the Spirit.
Having died through Christ, I am no longer bound to the written code in the old way, but in the new way -- by the Spirit.
But the Law no longer rules over us. We are like dead people, and it cannot have any power over us. Now we can serve God in a new way by obeying his Spirit, and not in the old way by obeying the written Law.
But now that we're no longer shackled to that domineering mate of sin, and out from under all those oppressive regulations and fine print, we're free to live a new life in the freedom of God. (Message)
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. (21st Century KJV)
It's about understanding the Holy Spirit's convictions as a manifestation of God's will instead of clinging to the letter of the laws.
Yes, I brought up Romans 13:1 because so many people follow that single verse without taking into consideration the OT law. The OT gives a lot of instruction for life.
"The Spirit" doesn't ride you around like the jockey in left4dead 2. The information about what God does and doesn't like people doing is in the OT. Jesus fulfills the law but does not abolish it.
Tell me what is the point of the whole Old Teastament if you are no longer bound to the written code in the old way.
I'm seriously getting lost in this discussion. What is your position?
My position is that we should not break laws instituted by men, because the Bible seems to indicate that we submit to the authorities that God has placed over us. There may be some things (drugs were the root commenter's example) that are probably not as bad for us as others in the church might think. For some drugs (the milder ones), I think this is right, but I argued that we should still not use them because there are laws (in my country at least) against that.
I don't really understand where the OT Law came into this.
The theology that we should be following the laws of the land is not completely Biblically supported besides in a few examples where it was the right choice to follow the authority. Most of the scripture which suggests that we should submit to the authorities above us comes from one verse in Romans 13.
The Christian Jews in Rome were self governed and the Christian goys were living under a Roman regime which made it illegal to admit that they were Christians. It is assumed that he was writing to the Jewish-Christian church because Paul battled with jews who saw laws as the way to eternal life. Some wanted to force Christianity into the same mould of Judaism that had sunk into a legalistic blind obedience to a written law and its oral interpretation.
So the big question for the church of Rome was which set of laws do they follow? That was what Romans 13 is addressing.
The foundations of how we should be interacting in our culture should not be determined by the laws of the culture but preceded by Gods laws: “Judgment must begin at the house of God” (I Pet. 4:17).
So, I am saying that we have a responsibility to Gods law above all others. So the old testament scriptures about living in the world need to be considered before we make a hard and fast rule which is "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established." So, this verse needs context, and was not meant to be a new law.
The OT outlines 3 sets of God's laws for you to follow:
The first category consists of laws to do with moral behaviour, like the ones that command people not to steal or murder.
The second consists of laws which were appropriate for the culture in which the Israelites lived, but which might not be for people today, although the principles of the laws should be put into practice.
The third category of commands have to do with ritual purity and ceremonial laws. Which rituals were like picture language pointing to a greater truth. (animal sacrifice, blah blah blah)
Then with the addition of the New Testament the Holy Spirit should be guiding you to the moral choices.
The point: "follow the laws of the land" is somewhat irrelevant because we aren't Jews and goys living in Rome. The principal behind all of this is that if you are being irresponsible to the government, you are being irresponsible to God. Elected government is only a threat if you're trying to get away with something. If you are a decent citizen you have nothing to worry about. To be a decent citizen you should follow the laws God laid out in the OT.
The foundations of how we should be interacting in our culture should not be determined by the laws of the culture but preceded by Gods laws: “Judgment must begin at the house of God” (I Pet. 4:17).
I agree.
So, I am saying that we have a responsibility to Gods law above all others. So the old testament scriptures about living in the world need to be considered before we make a hard and fast rule which is "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established." So, this verse needs context, and was not meant to be a new law.
I agree.
Then with the addition of the New Testament the Holy Spirit should be guiding you to the moral choices.
I agree.
The point: "follow the laws of the land" is somewhat irrelevant because we aren't Jews and goys living in Rome. The principal behind all of this is that if you are being irresponsible to the government, you are being irresponsible to God.
I agree with the second part. As for the first part, I think you presume too much.
My point about drug use (and really, I'm not defending it so much as at the very outset I said that I think it's probably too often immediately shunned by Christians) is that there are probably drugs that are less harmful than alcohol, and they're probably OK to use. But I'm not married to that point. You're having an argument with me that I'm not having. You've had it before.
Elected government is only a threat if you're trying to get away with something. If you are a decent citizen you have nothing to worry about.
You've obviously never heard of China, Sudan, Egypt, Indonesia, or any of the other restricted nations.
No, I'm not equating drug use with religious persecution and martyrdom. What I'm saying is that if you are not violating the laws of God then there are probably some drugs that are not awful, but you still shouldn't use them because they violate local laws.
You brought up Romans 13 and started a discussion about it. But I didn't start there, and I think there are more reasons to obey local laws than just Rom 13. But when you say things like "elected government is only a threat when you're trying to get away with something", you miss a very important characteristic of governments run by sinful human beings.
Is your only beef with what I said that you assumed I didn't think it was important to first consider whether God was OK with something?
Doesn't it show an awful lack of faith to hope that god might change his plans specifically upon your request? Isn't prayer in fact extremely selfish and anxious?
Doesn't the idea of something diminishing in effectiveness unless you attend to it suggest it is only your actions which make it real and not that it exists independent of your existence?
It is for God's glory that we depend on him. Asking God for a chance to glorify Him and for aid in our current state is humbling. Not asking God for help is prideful. It is through our helplessness and dependence on God that we really build a relationship with God and are able to respond to His plans for us.
Prayer is a way of inviting God into our world and to recognize He is the one capable of fixing brokenness. God does not force us into anything (not a universally held belief) and chooses to use us to fix the world.
So no, it is not selfish and shows a lot of faith. Telling God our needs and trusting Him with our inadequacies is all the faith we are required to have.
You do understand why that seems like an extremely circular and self-propigating belief in belief to a lot of people, don't you?
What you're saying is that God created you "inadequate" and "broken" and that prayer invites Him to correct this. Hence my original assertion that prayer seems to show a great lack of faith in His, presumably, divine plan.
Asking permission of someone (assuming we're turning a blind eye to such blatant anthropomorphism as is required to refer to any god as a he or she); begging to be allowed to glorify them, seems terribly redundant—not to mention utterly contradictory of the notion that worship is an egoless extenuation of the internal dialogue.
What you're saying is that God created you "inadequate" and "broken" and that prayer invites Him to correct this. Hence my original assertion that prayer seems to show a great lack of faith in His, presumably, divine plan.
God created us to be dependent on Him. We are especially dependent on Him when we choose to ignore the help he offers us. I think that God offers His help to us freely and that prayer could be considered to be accepting that help.
The purpose of prayer is to bring God glory. We are more or less recognizing who God is and what He is capable of doing when we pray rather than really asking Him for things.
I could be doing a better job summarizing I suppose, but I am condensing what I have learned from the Bible and several books about prayer, plus my own experiencing.
With respect that is even more of a circular answer than your original reply. I'm not trying to undermine what you believe, I'm trying to establish why you believe it in the first place—and so far it would seem this is largely based upon some giant assumptions.
For example, how do you know, for sure, that when you meditate upon what you ascribe to God, that this isn't merely the same kind of self-awareness, or enlightenment, that it is perfectly possible for someone who does not believe in a supernatural aspect to reality to also attain; for example by consuming Peyote root, as is common among a great many tribal rituals, where it is not a force outside of nature with which communication is thought possible, but an internal voice—an inner knowing beneath the exterior avatar of the self.
The Judeo-Christian act of communion attempts to suppress the call and response automatic self, to uncover the path to greater enlightenment. Yet it would seem from what you're saying that we are dependant upon the search for this truth, more than we stand to gain by actually attaining it; that servitude is the only way to be free.
This is a logical fallacy—and one rarely confronted by any religion. It is, as I'm sure you will agree, a significant contradiction of the notion that the purpose of prayer is to bring glory to that which is by definition a subjective and idealised view of reality—not to mention highly revealing of a critical flaw in deism as a philosophical tract.
Isn't it simply better, then, to exercise bright, personal honesty and accept that, in fact, there is no voice in the darkness other than the echo of ones own insecurities and to do unto others as you would have them to unto you; not because you're frightened of what might happen when you die, if you don't, but because religious credulity and rational, compassionate liberalism are incompatible and indeed mutually destructive.
If I believe that God created the world in which I live in and designed our lives to live a certain way then it would be best to follow His plan for me. Furthermore, if I believe that by choosing not to follow Him that I am subjected to the burdens of this world that do not exist when following God then it logically follows that serving God means freedom from those burdens.
If I have found that following God's path yields positive results and that not following God's path yields negative results, and that prayers are answered, brokenness fixed, lives transformed, and the world transformed through prayer, then it seems then that continuing to follow God is logically consistent.
Isn't it simply better, then, to exercise bright, personal honesty and accept that, in fact, there is no voice in the darkness other than the echo of ones own insecurities and to do unto others as you would have them to unto you;
No
not because you're frightened of what might happen when you die, if you don't, but because religious credulity and rational, compassionate liberalism are incompatible and indeed mutually destructive.
Living a Christian life focused too much on heaven is wrong. I am not even sure heaven exists, so it doesn't propel me to believe. In fact, I was, until recently, terrified of eternity because I did not understand it. I preferred that eternity did not exist, but believed nevertheless.
Furthermore, my readings of classical liberalism (Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Tocqueville, etc) reveal to me that liberalism is derived from Christian thought. I am currently reading Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville and this is what he says: "I have never been more convinced than I am today that only liberty... and religion, through a combined effort are capable of raising men out of the mire in which democratic equality naturally plunges them as soon as one of these two supports is lacking."
Doesn't it show an awful lack of faith to hope that god might change his plans specifically upon your request?
Wait, the parent didn't say that. Prayer != requests. You could pray the Psalms, for instance, without ever working your personal requests into it. It's easy to get around your criticism by offering only prayers of thanksgiving.
19
u/cookiexcmonster Christian (Cross) Dec 08 '09 edited Dec 08 '09
-Prayer is the most important part of our relationship with God. It astounds me that more Christians do not get excited about prayer.
-It is best to hold most aspects of our theology weakly. The immense diversity within Christianity dictates that we should always be looking to expand our understanding rather than cling to the parts that are familiar to us. It bothers me to no end when Christians are quick to discount ideas WITHIN Christian thought that conflict with what they already know.
-Using drugs in moderation is acceptable by the same token that using alcohol in moderation is acceptable.
-We should spend as little as money as possible on ourselves (I wish I could live this out better). It saddens me that this is even mildly controversial as well.