CeCe Winans under fire for singing at Gay church

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by Aquila

LOL

glad you have a sense of humor bro,of course i am kidding , sometimes i just have to laugh, lol, the world is a very serious place, dt

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

Where are the magistrates of the earth to get their guidance for proper punishment that is just, fair, and not arbitrary?

I had to think about this one. I'd side with the political theory that states that governments and magistrates should rule according to the consent of the governed...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - Declaration of Independence

Government derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed. That is the foundational principle of government.

[ReformedDave]

Aquila, you said "Do you believe slavery is an acceptable institution for society? " I have not worked all the aspects of the appropriate use of the law. What I do believe is that if a person commits a crime he should have to work out his punishment as prescribed in Scripture.

Aquila - "Can you show me one of Christ's "civil ministers or magistrates" in the New Testament? I know Paul refers to the Roman government then standing in Romans 13, the primary point of Paul's statement was obeying authorities and paying taxes."

All magistrates and rulers are placed in their positions by God. That Scripture doesn't name one doesn't negate the teaching.

Romans 13:1-7 (ESV) 13:1 "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."

While taxes are mentioned the first 5 verses talk of overall principles. We see civil magistrates are placed by God and if they are resisted they are to dispense God's wrath and to use the sword if the punishment is necessary. If we sin against the state we incur God's wrath in the form of the magistrate.

In my last paragraph I asked "Where are the magistrates of the earth to get their guidance for proper punishment that is just, fair, and not arbitrary?"

It simply means what is the unchanging, just, non-arbitrary, standard by which all magistrates are to govern? What is the objective law above the local law?

BTW, I don't believe that the church is to run the state or that there should be a 'state' church. I do believe in separation between church and state.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I had to think about this one. I'd side with the political theory that states that governments and magistrates should rule according to the consent of the governed...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - Declaration of Independence

That is the foundational principle of government. Government derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed.

My problem with this is that it opens one up to the arbitrary and becomes legalized mob rule. If the 'people' say that it is alright to kill Jews than it is alright. We've seen it in America with the killing of 50,000,000 unborn babies. Also, if this is THE foundation principle on which all civil rules are derived will God not judge us for our actions?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

In my last paragraph I asked "Where are the magistrates of the earth to get their guidance for proper punishment that is just, fair, and not arbitrary?"

It simply means what is the unchanging, just, non-arbitrary, standard by which all magistrates are to govern? What is the objective law above the local law?

I'd say they get their guidance from the governed. That's the only way it will work. Even instituting biblical law would have to come by consent of the governed. And then the question would be who's interpretation of biblical law should be instituted? Do we institute biblical law as interpreted by the right wing Dominionists, Christian Socialists, or gay churches like the one described here? It will always fall back to the universal principle of ruling according to the consent of the governed.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'd say they get their guidance from the governed. That's the only way it will work. Even instituting biblical law would have to come by consent of the governed. And then the question would be who's interpretation of biblical law should be instituted? Do we institute biblical law as interpreted by the right wing Dominionists, Christian Socialists, or gay churches like the one described here? It will always fall back to the universal principle of ruling according to the consent of the governed.

I disagree. We must have an objective standard or we have mob rule and Hitler and abortion are possible. Why do you teach a certain doctrine in your assembly? Because you know that truth is possible to ascertain. We must continually strive for an understanding.

"Universal principle"? What makes it universal or a principle?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

My problem with this is that it opens one up to the arbitrary and becomes legalized mob rule. If the 'people' say that it is alright to kill Jews than it is alright. We've seen it in America with the killing of 50,000,000 unborn babies. Also, if this is THE foundation principle on which all civil rules are derived will God not judge us for our actions?

That's the key...God wil judge us for our "actions". Remember God placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden and gave man a...choice. That word places responsibility on the individual as opposed to the whole of a society.

I don't think one can draw an absolute parallel between the Holocaust and abortion in the United States. The Holocaust was the wholesale murder of an entire people as a policy. Those who would hide Jews were put to death with them. If the American government force women to abort under penalty of death you'd have a case.

The SCOTUS deliberated over the complexity of the issue hearing from nearly every angle. In this situation you have two lives intertwined in a way unlike any other. The court felt that the rights, choice, and health of the mother have the most weight under the law. That preventing her from aborting would essentially be government seizure of her body until delivery. Given the legal and moral complexity of the issue the SCOTUS decided that the government is incapable of addressing the issue adequately, therefore they decided to take a hands off approach and place the choice entirely in the woman's hands. In Roe they set standards by which individual states can regulate the provision of abortion based on trimester. Main point was that government is incapable of adequately addressing the issue and women were individual responsible for their own choice.

That decision places the onus on the individual woman who chooses to have an abortion. She alone is responsible for her choice and she alone will be judged by God accordingly. While abortion is still a grave sin, the taking of a life, it isn't anywhere near equal to the Holocaust.

Interestingly however China does force women to abort under penalty as policy. China is the largest exporter of goods into the United States. The largest retailer in the United States is Walmart. The vast majority of goods sold by Walmart are made in China, benefitting both nation's economy greatly. Yet free market leaders in the US who claim to be pro-life hail Walmart as a sterling example of American success. Few Christians who are pro-life see an issue with shopping at Walmart, thereby fueling the economy and adding to the wealth of China, a nation that forces women to have abortions.

Every dollar spent in Walmart can be likened unto aiding a nation that performs genocide through forced abortion as a national policy. That my dear friend is on the level of sympathizing and even aiding the Germans during the Holocaust.

Walmart
Low Morals, Low Prices

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by Aquila

That's the key...God wil judge us for our "actions". Remember God placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden and gave man a...choice. That word places responsibility on the individual as opposed to the whole of a society.

I don't think one can draw an absolute parallel between the Holocaust and abortion in the United States. The Holocaust was the wholesale murder of an entire people as a policy. Those who would hide Jews were put to death with them. If the American government force women to abort under penalty of death you'd have a case.

The SCOTUS deliberated over the complexity of the issue hearing from nearly every angle. In this situation you have two lives intertwined in a way unlike any other. The court felt that the rights, choice, and health of the mother have the most weight under the law. That preventing her from aborting would essentially be government seizure of her body until delivery. Given the legal and moral complexity of the issue the SCOTUS decided that the government is incapable of addressing the issue adequately, therefore they decided to take a hands off approach and place the choice entirely in the woman's hands. In Roe they set standards by which individual states can regulate the provision of abortion based on trimester. Main point was that government is incapable of adequately addressing the issue and women were individual responsible for their own choice.

That decision places the onus on the individual woman who chooses to have an abortion. She alone is responsible for her choice and she alone will be judged by God accordingly. While abortion is still a grave sin, the taking of a life, it isn't anywhere near equal to the Holocaust.

Interestingly however China does force women to abort under penalty as policy. China is the largest exporter of goods into the United States. The largest retailer in the United States is Walmart. The vast majority of goods sold by Walmart are made in China, benefitting both nation's economy greatly. Yet free market leaders in the US who claim to be pro-life hail Walmart as a sterling example of American success. Few Christians who claim to be pro-life see no issue with shopping at Walmart, thereby fueling the economy and adding to the wealth of China, a nation that forces women to have abortions.

Every dollar spent in Walmart can be likened unto aiding a nation that performs genocide through forced abortion as a national policy. That my dear friend is on the level of sympathizing and even aiding the Germans during the Holocaust.

it is ludicrous for you to use that circle logic to try and hold walmart accountable for the sins of the chinese govt, come on, well i thought we could talk but your lib thinking is beyond me, take care, god bless you is my prayer, dt bye bye

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by DividedThigh

it is ludicrous for you to use that circle logic to try and hold walmart accountable for the sins of the chinese govt, come on, well i thought we could talk but your lib thinking is beyond me, take care, god bless you is my prayer, dt bye bye

If one can shop in a place that fuels the economy of a nation that forces abortion and not be accountable in any way for that nation's sins...how are we responsible for the individual choice a woman makes in a free society? If we are morally implicated in the individual choice a woman makes as an individual merely based upon our politic, are we not morally implicated in the forced abortion policies of China if we shop somewhere that fuels their economy adding to their wealth, prosperity, and influence in the world?

No woman is forced to abort by the government in America. In China they are. However, we say it's ok to help China by purchasing goods made in China?

My point is that we are only zeroing in on a very narrow aspect of social morality and behaving as though it is the pre-eminent issue we face as a people. But things are more complex than that. That's all I'm saying.

Consider this quesion,

What if this were the 1930s or 1940s, gas chambers are in full operation daily, and Walmart was marketing and selling products manufactured in Nazi Germany? Would it be OK to shop at Walmart? What would be the moral implications of a political party hailing Walmart as a sterling example of American business success?

Don't freak out over what I'm saying bro. Try to see the point I'm trying to make.

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If one can shop in a place that fuels the economy of a nation that forces abortion and not be accountable in any way for that nation's sins...how are we responsible for the individual choice a woman makes in a free society? If we are morally implicated in the individual choice a woman makes as an individual merely based upon our politic, are we not morally implicated in the forced abortion policies of China if we shop somewhere that fuels their economy adding to their wealth, prosperity, and influence in the world?

No woman is forced to abort by the government in America. In China they are. However, we say it's ok to help China by purchasing goods made in China?

What if this were WWII and Walmart was producing products manufactured in Nazi Germany. Would it be OK to shop at Walmart?

good luck and god bless you bro, dt