PDA

View Full Version : Do you have to be Christian to be conservative?



CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-07-2010, 05:26 PM
I've seen it said on other conservative boards (such as Hannity's forum) that part of being a Conservative is being a Christian...Would any of you agree with that? Are there any non-Christians here who consider themselves conservatives?

And for Christian conservatives Or Christian social conservatives, could you vote for a non-Christian candidate? Saying for example that he/she espoused a consevative fiscal and foreign policy.

Wei Wu Wei
03-07-2010, 05:29 PM
No you don't have to be a christian to be conservative.

You can be of any religious tradition or of none at all.

CueSi
03-07-2010, 05:29 PM
No, you don't have to be Christian to be conservative. I know conservative atheists and pagans.

I am leery of Muslims, but a Conservative anything else is someone I'd definitely vote for.

~QC

Constitutionally Speaking
03-07-2010, 05:30 PM
No.

Wei Wu Wei
03-07-2010, 05:31 PM
Being a conservative is more about accepting the overt ideology that things are good as they are, and one should resist change, and the covert ideology of supporting the interests of the ruling class.

M21
03-07-2010, 05:42 PM
And for Christian conservatives Or Christian social conservatives, could you vote for a non-Christian candidate?

Sure. I voted for George Bush.

FlaGator
03-07-2010, 06:01 PM
Being a conservative is more about accepting the overt ideology that things are good as they are, and one should resist change, and the covert ideology of supporting the interests of the ruling class.
:rolleyes:

nightflight
03-07-2010, 06:08 PM
I've seen it said on other conservative boards (such as Hannity's forum) that part of being a Conservative is being a Christian...

Well those people are idiots for saying as such. What, are they going to say that Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists who hold conservative beliefs should not bother being politically active because they aren't fundamentalist Christians? People such as the ones you mentioned are really insecure in their faith and are a detriment to the conservative movement as a whole.

http://www.theatheistconservative.com/
http://www.compleatheretic.com/links/godlessright.html
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=48625003215
http://secularright.org/
http://unreligiousright.blogspot.com/
http://conservativehumanist.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Mac_Donald

Teetop
03-07-2010, 09:32 PM
I am agnostic and a conservative democrat.


So, the answer is no. :rolleyes:

Teetop
03-07-2010, 09:33 PM
Being a conservative is more about accepting the overt ideology that things are good as they are, and one should resist change, and the covert ideology of supporting the interests of the ruling class.

Your head is about to burst, with all of that bullshit in it! :eek:

PoliCon
03-07-2010, 11:05 PM
Sure. I voted for George Bush.

Why would you call him non-Christian? :confused:

PoliCon
03-07-2010, 11:06 PM
Being a conservative is more about accepting the overt ideology that things are good as they are, and one should resist change, and the covert ideology of supporting the interests of the ruling class.

How do you breath with you head that far up your own ass? :rolleyes:

lacarnut
03-07-2010, 11:17 PM
I've seen it said on other conservative boards (such as Hannity's forum) that part of being a Conservative is being a Christian...Would any of you agree with that? Are there any non-Christians here who consider themselves conservatives?

And for Christian conservatives Or Christian social conservatives, could you vote for a non-Christian candidate? Saying for example that he/she espoused a consevative fiscal and foreign policy.

If you voted for Obama, you voted for a non Christian in my opinion.

Rockntractor
03-07-2010, 11:49 PM
Why would you call him non-Christian? :confused:

Methodist.

Freeman_Shadwell
03-08-2010, 12:08 AM
Nope. Ones religious beliefs can be completely separate from their political beliefs.

I don't care what God you pray to if any, so long as you believe in low taxes, smaller Federal government, States rights, national defense, personal freedom, accountability, etc.

For the record I was raised Catholic, am currently non practicing and hold my own personal religious beliefs that God and I are cool with.

Religious and political beliefs are completely separate, and should remain so. All religions gain from conservative principles, just as all religions lose with a liberal agenda.

M21
03-08-2010, 12:19 AM
Why would you call him non-Christian? :confused:

He's a universalist and an apostate the same as Obama. President Bush said, "I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe." He denies the very nature of Christ as the true and one way to salvation.

Jesus said to us, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

I pray for him.

RobJohnson
03-08-2010, 01:00 AM
Methodist.

:D

NJCardFan
03-08-2010, 01:42 AM
:rolleyes:

Ditto

But how about this question:

Do you have to be an elitist asshole to be a liberal?

Sonnabend
03-08-2010, 02:23 AM
Being a conservative is more about accepting the overt ideology that things are good as they are, and one should resist change, and the covert ideology of supporting the interests of the ruling class.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eaKbvlcIK10/R6htNdEuSCI/AAAAAAAAAys/93OLwzKSDvM/s400/teh%2Bstoopid.jpg

PoliCon
03-08-2010, 05:44 AM
He's a universalist and an apostate the same as Obama. President Bush said, "I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe." He denies the very nature of Christ as the true and one way to salvation.

Jesus said to us, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

I pray for him.

ah I see. You're taking one comment and based on it assuming a great deal. Let me guess You're what? - AOG? Or Southern Baptist?

PoliCon
03-08-2010, 05:45 AM
Ditto

But how about this question:

Do you have to be an elitist asshole to be a liberal?

No but being an elitist asshole seems to be a characteristic the left looks for in their political candidates . . . .

Rockntractor
03-08-2010, 08:40 AM
ah I see. You're taking one comment and based on it assuming a great deal. Let me guess You're what? - AOG? Or Southern Baptist?
And you're a cracked bell.

FlaGator
03-08-2010, 08:44 AM
Ditto

But how about this question:

Do you have to be an elitist asshole to be a liberal?

No, but it helps... :D

AmPat
03-08-2010, 09:10 AM
Do you have to be Christian to be conservative? No. To be a Conservative you only have to have a logical mind and a good understanding of American history.

noonwitch
03-08-2010, 09:11 AM
My grandpa is a die-hard conservative, but he is also an atheist who rejects the idea of God as superstition in a world of science.

M21
03-08-2010, 11:33 AM
ah I see. You're taking one comment and based on it assuming a great deal. Let me guess You're what? - AOG? Or Southern Baptist?

How many more quotes of his do you want? There are others on other occasions.

FWIW - I'm a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ and hold a very high view of the sovereignty of God. If it helps you "Brother" I am a Monergist and not a synergist (Arminian).

Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Gingersnap
03-08-2010, 03:07 PM
Conservatism is a political ideology, not a lifestyle. It comes in both religious and non-religious flavors. I have never heard a fellow conservative make the argument that Christianity is part of the requirement. That's just odd.

Now, there are elements of traditional Christianity that marry very well with some conservative ideals: the value of a stable family life, personal accountability, charity, productivity, and avoiding some of the pitfalls of 'affluenza'. However, these are also found in other traditional religions (both Orthodox Jews and Heathens come to mind) as well as in non-religious philosophies.

AlmostThere
03-08-2010, 03:38 PM
Being a conservative is more about accepting the overt ideology that things are good as they are, and one should resist change, and the covert ideology of supporting the interests of the ruling class.

Au contraire. I am conservative and I definitely don't think things are good as they are, and I would welcome change. And perhaps 2010 and 2012 will bring the change I want.

Milly
03-08-2010, 04:58 PM
Being a conservative is more about accepting the overt ideology that things are good as they are, and one should resist change, and the covert ideology of supporting the interests of the ruling class.

Just as a matter of idle curiousity, where'd you learn nonsense like this?

Rockntractor
03-08-2010, 07:43 PM
ah I see. You're taking one comment and based on it assuming a great deal. Let me guess You're what? - AOG? Or Southern Baptist?

Bumping for the Dawg. Little Poli been bad!

PoliCon
03-08-2010, 08:07 PM
Just as a matter of idle curiousity, where'd you learn nonsense like this?

Chris Matthews, Kieth Olberman, Rachel Madcow . . . . .

M21
03-09-2010, 12:59 PM
I have to amend my post. I may have given intellectual ascent to the idea that I consider George Bush a Conservative and of course he is not.

PoliCon
03-09-2010, 05:52 PM
I have to amend my post. I may have given intellectual ascent to the idea that I consider George Bush a Conservative and of course he is not.

I'll grant you that his conservatism is debatable - but questioning his Christianity? :rolleyes:

fettpett
03-09-2010, 06:24 PM
Conservatism is and ideology, Christiany and other religions are not, and therefore are not mutually exclusive. A pretty good friend of mine is a pagan and probably a bigger Conservative than I am. he's also believes in evolution, by no means do you have to be one to be the other.

on the flip side you don't have to be an aethisit to be a Liberal. there are TONS of Liberal Christians, and the biggest blocks of Jewish voters are liberal. also many Catholics that are Liberals (Kennedy's are a prime example)

M21
03-09-2010, 07:07 PM
I'll grant you that his conservatism is debatable - but questioning his Christianity? :rolleyes:

I'm certainly willing to debate it with you. There seems to be overwhelming scriptual evidence that he isn't. I'm going swimming soon but I'm certainly willing to discuss it later.

I have no doubt that he thinks he's a Christian. He's actually closer to a Hindu in his beliefs than Christain, but sadly so is a great deal of Evangelical Christianity in America.

Starbuck
03-09-2010, 07:47 PM
.......... A pretty good friend of mine is a pagan and probably a bigger Conservative than I am. he's also believes in evolution........

Just kinda curious here. Paganism as an organized religion died out, didn't it? It was my understanding that there are no more Pagans even though the term is used sometimes to denote non-Christians, and sometimes to insult someone.
I mean, you can't attend a Pagan church anywhere, can you? Or get a bunch of Pagans together and...well, do whatever they did.
I do know that the Pagan religion was headed by women, mostly (maybe entirely), but Christianity put a screeching halt to that.
As far as I knew Paganism died out with Greek and Roman mythology.........?:confused:

Big Guy
03-09-2010, 08:48 PM
Do you have to be Christian to be conservative?...................Hmmmmmmmmmm Let me think?

NO but Christian Values and Conservative are the same.

Starbuck
03-09-2010, 09:05 PM
Do you have to be Christian to be conservative?...................Hmmmmmmmmmm Let me think?

NO but Christian Values and Conservative are the same.

Suppose I can't think of a real argument, but I will point out that Christian values are not the exclusive property of Christians. A Jew or an atheist may have the same values as a good Christian. But then I guess that's what you meant when you said "NO"..........;)

Big Guy
03-09-2010, 09:10 PM
Suppose I can't think of a real argument, but I will point out that Christian values are not the exclusive property of Christians. A Jew or an atheist may have the same values as a good Christian. But then I guess that's what you meant when you said "NO"..........;)

Agreed, Christian Values are not exclusively Christian. There are many good non-Christian people out there who share the same values, just differ on religion.

PoliCon
03-09-2010, 09:24 PM
I'm certainly willing to debate it with you. There seems to be overwhelming scriptual evidence that he isn't. I'm going swimming soon but I'm certainly willing to discuss it later.

I have no doubt that he thinks he's a Christian. He's actually closer to a Hindu in his beliefs than Christain, but sadly so is a great deal of Evangelical Christianity in America.

Hindu? where are you coming up with these notions??:confused:

Tell me - what is the one true faith according to M21 then? To which church/theology/sect do you subscribe?

Sonnabend
03-10-2010, 05:20 AM
Tell me - what is the one true faith according to M21 then? To which church/theology/sect do you subscribe?

Mother Gaia :rolleyes:

FlaGator
03-10-2010, 08:23 AM
I'm certainly willing to debate it with you. There seems to be overwhelming scriptual evidence that he isn't. I'm going swimming soon but I'm certainly willing to discuss it later.

I have no doubt that he thinks he's a Christian. He's actually closer to a Hindu in his beliefs than Christain, but sadly so is a great deal of Evangelical Christianity in America.

It is very hard if not impossible for a leader to live out Christian values. To do so would put the country in jeopardy. The whole, loving your enemy and your neighbor could become an issue when you enemy wants to fly planes in to your buildings. Also that who turn the other check that would not please the people who would want to bomb the hell out of the enemy instead of turning the other check. Machiavelli point out a lot of this in his novel 'The Prince'. A leader may want people to believe that he is behaving in a Christian manner but to rule a country he could not always act as a Christian based on the tenets and ethics established by Christ.

The question(s) concerning Bush are:
Is he a Christian even though he had to make decisions that were not necessarily Christian in nature?

Can a person be a Christian and wilfully make choices that violate the ethics that defines him/her as a Christian.

Gingersnap
03-10-2010, 10:19 AM
Just kinda curious here. Paganism as an organized religion died out, didn't it? It was my understanding that there are no more Pagans even though the term is used sometimes to denote non-Christians, and sometimes to insult someone. :confused:

The Greco-Roman formal religions of southern Europe and North Africa died out with the close of the Empire and the spread of Christianity. The Celtic and Nordic religions held on longer but quickly became syncretic religions with the introduction of Christianity and within a fairly short time the people became purely Christian.

About 100 years ago Europeans (and Americans) became interested in their conception of Hinduism, the ancient Egyptian gods, theosophy, the Norse pantheon, and ritual magic as practiced by the Golden Dawn. This was just a fringe movement until the 1960s when a number of people declared themselves Wiccans and formed groups. These groups all tried to tie to themselves to some kind of pagan survival in European history and culture to give themselves legitimacy. In truth, there was no survival of paganism in Europe although elements of paganism turn up in folklore and rural traditions.

Today there are thousands of people who self-identify as pagan or Heathens. Pagans are mostly college-educated women (now mostly middle-aged) who practice their religion alone or in small groups so you could theoretically attend a pagan "circle". Heathenism is a very conscious revival of the Norse religion. It attracts men of all ages (and their wives). The religion centers around a code of conduct instead of a magical system and it's very popular in Iceland, Norway, Sweden and among some Nordic descendants here in the States. You could actually attend a Heathen feast if you were invited.

Paganism is recognized as a religion by the Armed Forces and in law. ;)

M21
03-10-2010, 12:37 PM
Hindu? where are you coming up with these notions??:confused:

It's no wonder you're confused. Here's the readers digest verison. http://www.newsweek.com/id/212155

Readers are leaders. :cool:

M21
03-10-2010, 01:05 PM
Tell me - what is the one true faith according to M21 then? To which church/theology/sect do you subscribe?

1. Short answer? Biblical Christianity.

The longer answer? God (who and not man is the one who chooses or elects), of his own purpose (in accordance with his will, and not from any obligation to man, nor because of any will of man), has from Eternity (the period of God's action, not in time in which man acts), determined to save (not has actually saved, but simply determined so to do), [and to save (not to confer gospel or church privileges upon),] a definite number of mankind (not the whole race, nor indefinitely merely some of them, nor indefinitely a certain proportionate part; but a definite number), as individuals (not the whole or a part of the race, nor of a nation, nor of a church, nor of a class, as of believers or the pious; but individuals), not for or because of any merit or work of theirs, nor of any value to him of them (not for their good works, nor their holiness, nor excellence, nor their faith, nor their spiritual sanctification, although the choice is to a salvation attained through faith and sanctification; nor their value to him, though their salvation tends greatly to the manifested glory of his grace); but of His own good pleasure (simply because he was pleased so to choose).

2. Reformed Baptist holding to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html)

You Policon?

M21
03-10-2010, 01:13 PM
Just kinda curious here. Paganism as an organized religion died out, didn't it? It was my understanding that there are no more Pagans even though the term is used sometimes to denote non-Christians, and sometimes to insult someone.
I mean, you can't attend a Pagan church anywhere, can you? Or get a bunch of Pagans together and...well, do whatever they did.
I do know that the Pagan religion was headed by women, mostly (maybe entirely), but Christianity put a screeching halt to that.
As far as I knew Paganism died out with Greek and Roman mythology.........?:confused:

The United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs built at Pagan Worship Circle in January of this year. You can read the details here. http://www.usafa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123187157

M21
03-10-2010, 01:32 PM
The question(s) concerning Bush are:
Is he a Christian even though he had to make decisions that were not necessarily Christian in nature? He "had" to make decisions? Wouldn't he make decisions conststent with hi "new" nature?

The better question is; is he Christian when he denies the Gospel of the Lord who redeemed him at the price of his own life?


Can a person be a Christian and wilfully make choices that violate the ethics that defines him/her as a Christian.

Would a born again blood bought Christian willfully violate God's word? Of course he wouldn't. I'd say that man is not a Christian but would be unregenerate.

PoliCon
03-10-2010, 04:58 PM
It's no wonder you're confused. Here's the readers digest verison. http://www.newsweek.com/id/212155

Readers are leaders. :cool:

You're posting newsweek as being experts on religion - specifically who is and is not Christian??? Seriously? :rolleyes:

PoliCon
03-10-2010, 04:59 PM
1. Short answer? Biblical Christianity.

The longer answer? God (who and not man is the one who chooses or elects), of his own purpose (in accordance with his will, and not from any obligation to man, nor because of any will of man), has from Eternity (the period of God's action, not in time in which man acts), determined to save (not has actually saved, but simply determined so to do), [and to save (not to confer gospel or church privileges upon),] a definite number of mankind (not the whole race, nor indefinitely merely some of them, nor indefinitely a certain proportionate part; but a definite number), as individuals (not the whole or a part of the race, nor of a nation, nor of a church, nor of a class, as of believers or the pious; but individuals), not for or because of any merit or work of theirs, nor of any value to him of them (not for their good works, nor their holiness, nor excellence, nor their faith, nor their spiritual sanctification, although the choice is to a salvation attained through faith and sanctification; nor their value to him, though their salvation tends greatly to the manifested glory of his grace); but of His own good pleasure (simply because he was pleased so to choose).

2. Reformed Baptist holding to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html)

Sweet and fluffy Lord - Calvinist? :rolleyes:

You Policon?
Not Calvinist that's for sure. I do not subscribe to any denominational doctrinal system. I'll wager that in your book - I'd be viewed as some sort of false Christian because I'm not going to be dogmatic or doctrinaire about what I believe - NOR am I willing to judge another mans heart or call him unsaved because he does not share my idea of orthodoxy. If you want a box to put me in - I'm a charismatic, liturgical, Christian who believes in living my faith and I'm more comfortable with so called 'liberal Christians' than I am with fundamentalists. Sorry.

M21
03-10-2010, 05:35 PM
You're posting newsweek as being experts on religion - specifically who is and is not Christian??? Seriously? :rolleyes:So you didn't read it?

A Gospel that does not affirm that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone is not the Gospel of Christ, but a false gospel. The story is this: Many Americans have such a doctrineless understanding of Christianity that they do not even know what the Gospel is; not even remotely. A greater tragedy is that so many who consider themselves Christians seem to share in this confusion.

Is that hard?

M21
03-10-2010, 05:58 PM
Sweet and fluffy Lord - Calvinist? :rolleyes:

Not Calvinist that's for sure. I do not subscribe to any denominational doctrinal system. I'll wager that in your book - I'd be viewed as some sort of false Christian because I'm not going to be dogmatic or doctrinaire about what I believe - NOR am I willing to judge another mans heart or call him unsaved because he does not share my idea of orthodoxy. If you want a box to put me in - I'm a charismatic, liturgical, Christian who believes in living my faith and I'm more comfortable with so called 'liberal Christians' than I am with fundamentalists. Sorry.

False Christian? George Whitefield and John Wesley were good friends even though they didn't see eye to eye on theology. They did agree on one thing though; doctrine matters. No need worrying about being blown about by the winds of doctrine when you don't have any. LOL.

I'm not worried about calling out apostates like George Bush. The Apostle Paul called them out by name as well. Perhaps the Lord is not finished with George yet and one day he will be born again and saved. Clearly based on his own words he's not there yet.

What does it say about the our churches in America when a professing Christian President can openly acknowledge his belief in universalism and attack the supreme doctrine of Christianity, that Jesus Christ is the Creator-God become flesh, and there is not an uproar of protestation and denunciation from pulpits all over the country?

It says to me that today's pastors and Christians seem to display more loyalty and devotion to George W. Bush than they do to the Lord Jesus Christ.

PoliCon
03-10-2010, 10:02 PM
False Christian? George Whitefield and John Wesley were good friends even though they didn't see eye to eye on theology. They did agree on one thing though; doctrine matters. No need worrying about being blown about by the winds of doctrine when you don't have any. LOL. Doctrine schmoctrine. CHRIST matters. Everything else is worthless.


I'm not worried about calling out apostates like George Bush. The Apostle Paul called them out by name as well. Interesting that people often put themselves on par with Paul and the apostles when it comes to judging others - but always forget the consequences of judgment and how Paul particularly suffered for his tendency to judge.


Perhaps the Lord is not finished with George yet and one day he will be born again and saved. Clearly based on his own words he's not there yet. Clearly you have no idea of the man's testimony. http://www.prayforbush.com/testimony.php


What does it say about the our churches in America when a professing Christian President can openly acknowledge his belief in universalism and attack the supreme doctrine of Christianity, that Jesus Christ is the Creator-God become flesh, and there is not an uproar of protestation and denunciation from pulpits all over the country? It means that the church is waking up to reality and realizing that doctrine is worthless and Christ is all.


It says to me that today's pastors and Christians seem to display more loyalty and devotion to George W. Bush than they do to the Lord Jesus Christ.:rolleyes: That's just plain ridiculous.

PoliCon
03-10-2010, 10:14 PM
So you didn't read it?

A Gospel that does not affirm that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone is not the Gospel of Christ, but a false gospel. The story is this: Many Americans have such a doctrineless understanding of Christianity that they do not even know what the Gospel is; not even remotely. A greater tragedy is that so many who consider themselves Christians seem to share in this confusion.

Is that hard? Faith alone? Scripture refutes faith alone. :rolleyes:

James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Faith is key - faith in Christ specifically, but not faith ONLY. Furthermore - If I present to you the gospel message and use the name Bobo instead of Jesus - does that negate the message? Don't get hung up on words when what matters is concepts.

Gingersnap
03-10-2010, 10:20 PM
Do I need to start a Sola Scriptura thread for you people? :D

PoliCon
03-10-2010, 10:23 PM
Do I need to start a Sola Scriptura thread for you people? :D

Ick no thanks. :p

Rockntractor
03-10-2010, 10:28 PM
Do I need to start a Sola Scriptura thread for you people? :D

God has always been amazed at Poli's works. He has a picture of him on his desk!

PoliCon
03-10-2010, 10:29 PM
God has always been amazed at Poli's works. He has a picture of him on his desk!

:o You saw that too? :o

Rockntractor
03-10-2010, 10:31 PM
:o You saw that too? :o

Little short picture but hey.

Gingersnap
03-10-2010, 10:33 PM
Little short picture but hey.

He's not that short - it's the scale with the tiny hands.

PoliCon
03-10-2010, 10:42 PM
Say what you will - My picture is there and not everyone's is. :p

Rockntractor
03-10-2010, 10:52 PM
He's not that short - it's the scale with the tiny hands.

Little feet too, and you know what they say about that!

Sonnabend
03-11-2010, 06:13 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uNRFA170F0A/Sh4wzwSzWpI/AAAAAAAABXM/S4QGczVs0l4/s320/Faraon_Pigs_Feet.jpg

AmPat
03-11-2010, 11:29 AM
Faith alone? Scripture refutes faith alone. :rolleyes:

James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Faith is key - faith in Christ specifically, but not faith ONLY. Furthermore - If I present to you the gospel message and use the name Bobo instead of Jesus - does that negate the message? Don't get hung up on words when what matters is concepts.

True faith will lead to the works. Works is not the key concept in James. BTW, your picture was taken on a bad hair day. God is merely being nice to you.

wilbur
03-11-2010, 11:33 AM
Oh jeez, the whole sola fide debate again.

The reason there is so much debate over this point is simple and obvious. The Bible contradicts itself on the matter and explicitly endorses both points of view.

One should take such an apparent contradiction on a matter so central to Christian life, as a decisive refutation of the idea that the Bible is divine.

M21
03-11-2010, 12:49 PM
Oh jeez, the whole sola fide debate again.

The reason there is so much debate over this point is simple and obvious. The Bible contradicts itself on the matter and explicitly endorses both points of view.

One should take such an apparent contradiction on a matter so central to Christian life, as a decisive refutation of the idea that the Bible is divine.

Not at all Wilbur. It is a "seeming" contradiction to those who are unwilling or unable to apply Biblical hermanuetics and exigete the text. It is axiomatic to most people that the canon of Scripture is to be studied as an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts. The apparant "problem" of Sola Fide is easly resolved when the audience of James polemic is taken into consideration. We are clearly saved BY faith alone FOR good works and not the other way around. All of our good works are filthy rags when presented to Him who created the universe and all that is in it. Do you really think He's impressed? This affirms that the works of the flesh profit us nothing.

Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it's off to work we go.....:D

AmPat
03-11-2010, 12:54 PM
Well it's settled. Wilbur has ruled on a subject he neither understands, believes in, subscribes to, or is an expert on. It must be true.:rolleyes:

M21
03-11-2010, 01:10 PM
Well it's settled. Wilbur has ruled on a subject he neither understands, believes in, subscribes to, or is an expert on. It must be true.:rolleyes:Hey AmPat nice to read your writings again. I thought I'd drop by again to pay a visit. Funny how the the names change but many of the characters remain the same. I guess Solomon was right when he said there's nothing new under the sun.

wilbur
03-11-2010, 01:40 PM
Not at all Wilbur. It is a "seeming" contradiction to those who are unwilling or unable to apply Biblical hermanuetics and exigete the text. It is axiomatic to most people that the canon of Scripture is to be studied as an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts.


In other words, if you axiomatically presume that there are no contradictions in the text, you won't find any. Amazing how that works.


The apparant "problem" of Sola Fide is easly resolved when the audience of James polemic is taken into consideration. We are clearly saved BY faith alone FOR good works and not the other way around. All of our good works are filthy rags when presented to Him who created the universe and all that is in it. Do you really think He's impressed? This affirms that the works of the flesh profit us nothing.


The problem you call "easily resolved" was one of the primary causes of the protestant reformation and is still part of the chasm that seperates them from the Catholics. So, its not quite as easily resolved as you suggest. It is still highly controversial.

The best most plausible explanation remains... that the Bible contains a serious contradiction.

lacarnut
03-11-2010, 01:50 PM
Well it's settled. Wilbur has ruled on a subject he neither understands, believes in, subscribes to, or is an expert on. It must be true.:rolleyes:

He is neither a Conservative or a Christian; that kinda leave him SOL and in the dark.

M21
03-11-2010, 02:01 PM
In other words, if you axiomatically presume that there are no contradictions in the text, you won't find any. Amazing how that works. It's also called letting the whole of scripture speak for itself. No presumption to it.


The problem you call "easily resolved" was one of the primary causes of the protestant reformation and is still part of the chasm that seperates them from the Catholics. So, its not quite as easily resolved as you suggest. It is still highly controversial. Nonetheless it has been resolved in the minds of the faithful on both sides.



The best most plausible explanation remains... that the Bible contains a serious contradiction.

You don't really pay attention do you? Did James and Paul remain in fellowship with this apparent "contradiction"? Yes. How could that be? There wasn't a contradiction in either of their minds and they were in agreement. The problem isn't theirs to resolve, it's ours, but more specifically it's yours.

wilbur
03-11-2010, 03:05 PM
It's also called letting the whole of scripture speak for itself. No presumption to it.


"Letting the whole scripture speak for itself" is a nice rhetorical way of saying "I presume its all true". Such a presumption is a reckless and self-serving abandonment of the basic standards that are required in any intellectual pursuit. We can only hope few people with such lax standards ever encounter a Koran.



Nonetheless it has been resolved in the minds of the faithful on both sides.


Again, not surprising, given that most read and interpret their text extremely uncritically, discounting from the outset any plausible scenarios, no matter how likely, that would color it as untrue or contradictory. They call that massaging the data to fit the theory (aka, exegesis).



You don't really pay attention do you? Did James and Paul remain in fellowship with this apparent "contradiction"? Yes. How could that be? There wasn't a contradiction in either of their minds and they were in agreement. The problem isn't theirs to resolve, it's ours, but more specifically it's yours.

We don't even really know who wrote the Epistle of James. So I'm afraid here, all you have is more unwarranted presumption.

M21
03-11-2010, 03:56 PM
"Letting the whole scripture speak for itself" is a nice rhetorical way of saying "I presume its all true". Such a presumption is a reckless and self-serving abandonment of the basic standards that are required in any intellectual pursuit. We can only hope few people with such lax standards ever encounter a Koran.
Uh..no. back up the truck Chuck. I can read anything out of context and isogetically examine a text. That won't lead to a true rendering of the authors meaning. Do you think you're the first guy to discover textual critisim of historical texts? Do you care that there are rules of hermanuetics that need to be followed to arrive at the single intended meaning attached to what the author wrote?



Again, not surprising, given that most read and interpret their text extremely uncritically, discounting from the outset any plausible scenarios, no matter how likely, that would color it as untrue or contradictory. They call that massaging the data to fit the theory (aka, exegesis). You are guilty of the same thing you accuse others of; assuming the historical texts are untrue when there is sufficient evidence showing otherwise. Talk about interprting text uncritically. I think your problem is always going to be your inability to discern truth from the plain historocity of the books.



We don't even really know who wrote the Epistle of James. So I'm afraid here, all you have is more unwarranted presumption.The author identifies himself in the opening verse as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". From the middle of the third century, patristic authors cited the Epistle as written by James the Just, a relation of Jesus and first Bishop of Jerusalem. You may disagree with that. I don't. One thing the Jews were very, very good at was passing down oral history in excruciatingly painful detail.

Weak sauce my friend.

wilbur
03-11-2010, 04:52 PM
Uh..no. back up the truck Chuck. I can read anything out of context and isogetically examine a text. That won't lead to a true rendering of the authors meaning. Do you think you're the first guy to discover textual critisim of historical texts? Do you care that there are rules of hermanuetics that need to be followed to arrive at the single intended meaning attached to what the author wrote?


But hermaneutics arent all thats at play here! Hermaneutics can easily, and most plausibly, draw out a contradiction in James. The presumptions I speak of come into play when plain readings tend to manifest conflicts - extra biblical meaning is injected into the passage, or backstories are invented to try to reconcile them because its assumed from the outset, that true contradictions cannot exist. Standard practice in Biblical interpretation.

The game is rigged from the start.



You are guilty of the same thing you accuse others of; assuming the historical texts are untrue when there is sufficient evidence showing otherwise.


No, I simply assume contradictions are contradictions, when the most plausible interpretation of a texts meaning draws one out. The only texts that ever dodge this bullet are holy books (according to their believers). Like I said... rigged.



The author identifies himself in the opening verse as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". From the middle of the third century, patristic authors cited the Epistle as written by James the Just, a relation of Jesus and first Bishop of Jerusalem. You may disagree with that. I don't. One thing the Jews were very, very good at was passing down oral history in excruciatingly painful detail.

Weak sauce my friend.

Nobody is good at passing down oral history - no matter how rigorous and disciplined they claim to be at it. Its not within our capacity to do. "Oral history" is the weakest sauce of them all.

PoliCon
03-11-2010, 07:27 PM
BTW, your picture was taken on a bad hair day. God is merely being nice to you.:confused: huh?

PoliCon
03-11-2010, 07:28 PM
The only thing worse than arguing theology with a fundamentalist - is arguing it with an atheist. :rolleyes:

M21
03-11-2010, 11:57 PM
The only thing worse than arguing theology with a fundamentalist - is arguing it with an atheist. :rolleyes:

You don't need theology and doctrine remember?

The word "doctrine" comes from the Latin word docere, which means to teach. The word "creed" comes from the Latin word credo, which means I believe. The word "dogma" comes from a Greek word dokeo which means to think. Therefore, a person who has no dogma, no creed and no doctrine is a person who neither thinks, believes, or teaches. But if you are going to think anything, believe anything, and teach anything, then, my friend, you need dogma, creed, and doctrine.

In the great commission, Jesus tells the disciples to take the gospel to the world, making disciples of all the nations and teaching them all that Jesus had commanded them (Matt. 18:18-20). The disciples were not just to evangelize, but to make disciples and teach them all that Jesus had commanded them.

Before I can have personal relationship with God or anyone else, I must first be aware of them to some degree. I must have some intelligible understanding of what or whom I am believing. I cannot have God in my heart if he is not in my head.

George Bush either didn't understand what he read and is blissfully ignorant of God's word or he dd understand and is intentionally leading our Brothers and Sisters astray. Fortunately he no longer spouts his errors from the bully pulpit.

Buggy
03-12-2010, 02:57 AM
You don't need theology and doctrine remember?

The word "doctrine" comes from the Latin word docere, which means to teach. The word "creed" comes from the Latin word credo, which means I believe. The word "dogma" comes from a Greek word dokeo which means to think. Therefore, a person who has no dogma, no creed and no doctrine is a person who neither thinks, believes, or teaches. But if you are going to think anything, believe anything, and teach anything, then, my friend, you need dogma, creed, and doctrine.

In the great commission, Jesus tells the disciples to take the gospel to the world, making disciples of all the nations and teaching them all that Jesus had commanded them (Matt. 18:18-20). The disciples were not just to evangelize, but to make disciples and teach them all that Jesus had commanded them.

Before I can have personal relationship with God or anyone else, I must first be aware of them to some degree. I must have some intelligible understanding of what or whom I am believing. I cannot have God in my heart if he is not in my head.

George Bush either didn't understand what he read and is blissfully ignorant of God's word or he dd understand and is intentionally leading our Brothers and Sisters astray. Fortunately he no longer spouts his errors from the bully pulpit.

Hi M21, I'm new, and confused. How can you tell if another person understands a reading or not? Also, unless you are the original author, how can one determine the correct interpretation of a reading? Aren't readings often open to subjective interpretations? Could you give an example?

Sonnabend
03-12-2010, 05:32 AM
Do you have to be Christian to be conservative

No.

AmPat
03-13-2010, 09:40 AM
:rolleyes:


Nobody is good at passing down oral history - no matter how rigorous and disciplined they claim to be at it. Its not within our capacity to do. "Oral history" is the weakest sauce of them all.

Says you. The Jews were exceptionally good at it. Successive generations could quote huge volumes of text, without error. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean nobody has the ability. The Jews had it ingrained in their culture and an extremely high value was placed on the ability to quote scripture from memory without error. They still do.