[paradox]

Yeah, everyone's gotta decide for themselves what positions to take or not to take. No one's faith or commitment should be questioned over any of this trivial stuff. Finger-pointing and judging others is a waste of time.

[Jonathan Carone]

I agree with you, but that’s part of the point of French’s article posted earlier. We have gotten to the point where White Evangelicals are so closely aligned with the Republican Party that if you disagree on these trivial things, you’re pointed at, judged, and called names.

How did we get here?

How do we fix it?

[paradox]

A big part of it is the human condition being what it is. And people are traveling on different stages of the journey. Sadly, the most hyper-critical and judgmental often flame-out because they never really grasped the grace part.

[Purple Haize]

Why am I a “dang libruhl” because I think climate change is real and think we should be doing things to care for the planet?

Why am I less of a Christian because I think sensible gun control legislation is a conversation we should be having?

In what way am I a Marxist who isn’t a true Christian because I think we should be providing healthcare and other opportunities to low income parents?

These are all things said to me or about me over the last few years by Christians who didn’t even bother to ask the motivation behind why I feel this way. We have lost the ability to disagree with each other and still realize we’re one in Christ.

And herein lies the problem. Intermixing Religious beliefs with Political philosophy

What does Gun Control have to do with being a Christian?
Why is forcing someone else to pay for the upkeep of others a Christian virtue? Weren’t the teachings of Christ more about choosing to do things not forcing? I mean once you force someone to be virtuous, it losses it’s virtue.
Climate Change? Sure we can take that several different ways. Are you saying that God created something so Fragile that Man can destroy it? Or if you aren’t a Young Earther, the Climate has changed several times over the Earths existence so no big deal. Or do you mean we should make sure we have clean air and water, which most Conservationists agree with and has little to nothing to do with whether or not Man Made Climate change is a thing

Or we can focus on Gods love and saving us from our sins. Being a light to our neighbor. Spending more time concerned about my actual neighbor than my metaphorical one.

[rtb72]

I agree with you, but that’s part of the point of French’s article posted earlier. We have gotten to the point where White Evangelicals are so closely aligned with the Republican Party that if you disagree on these trivial things, you’re pointed at, judged, and called names.

How did we get here?

How do we fix it?

...and that goes both ways. So the question is...what could have been a catalyst for this? The first is related to some of what you describe. The latter I just found interesting, and perhaps enlightening from the perspective of a Christian and minority citizen. I will never condone the labeling or "finger pointing" of someone because they don't fully embrace a full ideology, but I think you'll find that all sides do this in venomous ways. I'm not sure I buy into the article's assertions fully, but the onus of more research on its validity and credibility is something I need to take time and do. In the end, I guess it comes down to just being more kind and conscientious to those with differing views. Admittedly...something I myself need to work on.

https://time.com/4385755/faith-in-america/

https://bluewaterhealthyliving.com/livi ... -my-vote1/

[Jonathan Carone]

Before I respond, I want to clarify:

When you say “it goes both ways” are you talking about liberal Christians calling conservative ones names or are you talking about secular liberals doing the name calling and shaming?

[rtb72]

Before I respond, I want to clarify:

When you say “it goes both ways” are you talking about liberal Christians calling conservative ones names or are you talking about secular liberals doing the name calling and shaming?

Both. As I've said before, I've been called a "phony Christian" by a minister in my hometown, simply because of a particular ideology i hold. I won't even begin to tell you what I've been called as a LEO working civil unrest in Raleigh and Charlotte. The same protests I've seen ministers attending (here we can talk about complicity) Earlier this year and at the end of last year, I've listened to pastors politicize the pulpit with a more left leaning ideology, only to conclude where we as Christians should fall in what we support. We can also discuss training classes and forums some local churches are promoting for social justice reform, which essentially breaks down to shaming...

Conversely, I've heard pulpits politicized to the right, which was apparent and equally unacceptable. Like I said, both ways. My relationship and conviction is based on a PERSONAL relationship with Christ. So I didn't take fondly to either...

[stokesjokes]

Why am I a “dang libruhl” because I think climate change is real and think we should be doing things to care for the planet?

Why am I less of a Christian because I think sensible gun control legislation is a conversation we should be having?

In what way am I a Marxist who isn’t a true Christian because I think we should be providing healthcare and other opportunities to low income parents?

These are all things said to me or about me over the last few years by Christians who didn’t even bother to ask the motivation behind why I feel this way. We have lost the ability to disagree with each other and still realize we’re one in Christ.

And herein lies the problem. Intermixing Religious beliefs with Political philosophy

What does Gun Control have to do with being a Christian?
Why is forcing someone else to pay for the upkeep of others a Christian virtue? Weren’t the teachings of Christ more about choosing to do things not forcing? I mean once you force someone to be virtuous, it losses it’s virtue.
Climate Change? Sure we can take that several different ways. Are you saying that God created something so Fragile that Man can destroy it? Or if you aren’t a Young Earther, the Climate has changed several times over the Earths existence so no big deal. Or do you mean we should make sure we have clean air and water, which most Conservationists agree with and has little to nothing to do with whether or not Man Made Climate change is a thing

Or we can focus on Gods love and saving us from our sins. Being a light to our neighbor. Spending more time concerned about my actual neighbor than my metaphorical one.

The only thing I want to push back on is this philosophy of separating political philosophy and religious belief. For one, I don’t think it’s actually possible. A quick example that probably shows this for everyone here: where do you stand on abortion and why? The answer is always going to come from a religious foundation.

And if your faith informs your politics, as I believe it should, your faith should inform where you stand on gun control, social programs, and climate change, to use your examples. Now, what’s troubling is when disagreements about how to apply Christian ethics to these issues is used, as someone said earlier, to shame the other.

It brings me back to my soapbox about modern Christian Gnosticism- the idea that secret knowledge of the right doctrine is what saves you. People may not tell you that’s what they believe, but they sure do act like it. To Jon’s point earlier about being called “not a true Christian” or rtb72’s example of being called a “phony” Christian: people are implying that they aren’t saved because they don’t believe the “right” doctrine, even if they might say the right things about where salvation actually comes from. It elevates these ancillary issues to central and it follows that people get very touchy around them because of it.

One of my guiding principles for the past few years as I’ve really dug into the Christian world outside of the evangelicalism I was raised with is from an old Lutheran theologian:

“In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity”

One of the lies of the modern Gnostics is that everything is essential. In losing non-essentials we’ve lost liberty and it seems also charity.

[Purple Haize]

Abortion isn’t a good example. There are a great many reasons to oppose Abortion that have nothing to do with Christianity. If you believe it is the taking of an innocent Human Life, then you should absolutely oppose Government Sanctioned taking of life.
But I do agree with your quote from that obscure Lutheran Theologian

[stokesjokes]

Even the phrase “innocent human life” is dripping with religious assumptions. The assumption that life has value at all is a religious assumption.

[Jonathan Carone]

“In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity”

This is the single biggest issue missing from the American church.

The Bible does not explicitly tell us how to apply its principles to government. Jesus actually went out of his way to not give us those instructions, teaching his kingdom was not of this world.

There is room for disagreement within Christians on how to apply our biblical worldview onto government and politics. My distrust of the federal government is not at the same level as many on this board. When I combine that with biblical principles, I come to a different conclusion on the best solution than others here. That doesn't mean I'm any more holy or that the other person is any less holy. There's room for disagreement.

I think if White American Evangelicals developed true friendships with Christians from other parts of the world and were able to learn their politics, they would realize the political spectrum of Bible believing Christians is vast and expansive and all love Jesus in the same ways.

[Purple Haize]

Even the phrase “innocent human life” is dripping with religious assumptions. The assumption that life has value at all is a religious assumption.

What? Innocent Human Life is a phrase used all over by all sorts of types. Both religious and non religious

[TH Spangler]

Even the phrase “innocent human life” is dripping with religious assumptions. The assumption that life has value at all is a religious assumption.

Praying for you.

[stokesjokes]

They may use it, that doesn’t mean it’s not full of religious assumptions.
What it means to be innocent is a religious question, what it means to be human is a religious question, and what it means to be a life is a religious question. And why we should care about “innocent human life” is a profoundly religious question.

[stokesjokes]

Even the phrase “innocent human life” is dripping with religious assumptions. The assumption that life has value at all is a religious assumption.

Praying for you.

I think you misunderstand- I believe they are innocent human lives and I believe they have profound value since they are made in the image of God. But I’m aware enough to know that those are religious beliefs at their core.

[paradox]

People instinctively know that abortion is wrong. They have to be persuaded otherwise or indoctrinated in some way in order to embrace the abortion position.

[Purple Haize]

They may use it, that doesn’t mean it’s not full of religious assumptions.
What it means to be innocent is a religious question, what it means to be human is a religious question, and what it means to be a life is a religious question. And why we should care about “innocent human life” is a profoundly religious question.

Innocent is also used in a Legal Sense. That whole “Innocent until proven guilty” thing?

[stokesjokes]

People instinctively know that abortion is wrong. They have to be persuaded otherwise or indoctrinated in some way in order to embrace the abortion position.

And why do you think this is true?

[stokesjokes]

They may use it, that doesn’t mean it’s not full of religious assumptions.
What it means to be innocent is a religious question, what it means to be human is a religious question, and what it means to be a life is a religious question. And why we should care about “innocent human life” is a profoundly religious question.

Innocent is also used in a Legal Sense. That whole “Innocent until proven guilty” thing?

It is, it’s not really the sense I get here. I don’t think of innocent babies as babies who haven’t committed a crime

But look further than that, even if we’re using the legal sense- where do we even get the base concepts of “right and wrong”? If you’re a Christian, you believe it comes from God.

[paradox]

People instinctively know that abortion is wrong. They have to be persuaded otherwise or indoctrinated in some way in order to embrace the abortion position.

And why do you think this is true?

It's self evident.

[stokesjokes]

You gotta give me more than that
I’m trying to get at ground of meaning stuff! This is religious philosophy. If we ground our meaning in God, everything else necessarily flows out of that. There aren’t separate spheres of “religious” and “non-religious”, our basic assumptions about the world are grounded in our religious beliefs. To try to separate anything from that is an impossible task.

[Purple Haize]

@stokesjokes I stated I was going to make the point using a Non Christian point of View. Innocence is certainly not exclusive to Christianity. It’s certainly not exclusive to just those who practice Religion. The sense of “Right and Wrong” also are not Christian Exclusives. I know many a charitable upright and honest Atheist.

[paradox]

CS Lewis would back you up w/Moral Law chapter in Mere Christianity. That too is self-evident.

[paradox]

You gotta give me more than that
I’m trying to get at ground of meaning stuff! This is religious philosophy. If we ground our meaning in God, everything else necessarily flows out of that. There aren’t separate spheres of “religious” and “non-religious”, our basic assumptions about the world are grounded in our religious beliefs. To try to separate anything from that is an impossible task.

So, you want to discuss philosophy and at the same time deny natural law? I would refer you to Aquinas on that one.

[willflop]

What's called natural law is really super natural law, Romans 2:15. I'd refer you to Cornelius Van Til on that one