Smooth -
Better late than never.....
Quote:
According to the modern version of salvation, god gives humans a choice to seek repentance and salvation. He doesn't stop people from sinning. in fact, he allows it for a variety of reasons depending on who is asked. Such as, to prove his glory, to give you a chance to understand his grace, or love, or because of free-will, or due to the notion that you can't be punished unless you have a choice to follow him but choose not to.
Any or all of those reasons are explanations for why sin exists in this world according to the overarching evangelical worldview (not that it's monolithic). But the basic point is, for some reason, sin exists even though god could just eradicate it right now.
but he doesn't. and jesus didn't. and so I wonder where christians come up with the notion that they have a moral obligation to stop other people from sinning.
|
I didn’t see it that way. It may be semantics, but I didn’t feel the need to “stop” people from sinning, rather to “show them the error of the ways.” The idea being that once converted, the born-again person doesn’t have the desire to sin. Granted, we are still flawed and sinful, so that is kind of an exercise in futility. You don’t want to sin, but you are still going to. I guess it narrowed down to the mindset of the person doing the sinning.
Quote:
|
I can understand abortion--because then they rely on the fact that they have a moral obligation to end killing of innocent lives (don't anyone jump on this, please, I realize various contradictions that may play out in real life).
|
I would disagree with you here. Without breaking the book back out, I remember that you had to live in both world’s together (the spiritual world and the material world). i.e. paying taxes, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” The true difference didn’t happen until there was a conflict between the two, in that case the rules of the spiritual world would trump. Just because it Jesus or Paul didn’t speak against homosexuality (I don’t know if it is or isn’t) in the New Testament, doesn’t negate the fact that the Old Testament considers homosexuality to be an abomination. The occurrences in the New Testament do not re-write the rules, but change how the rules are used against us. (i.e. salvation through sacrifice vs. salvation through grace)
Quote:
|
now I'm not adhering to the notion of an all inclusive religiousity. I realize people can point to places where it is acceptable and demanded to excommunicate (either violently or symbolically) the sinner.
|
I agree here. There is where I differ from the “religious-right”. If you are a true Christian, in my opinion, then you abide by the rules of the world and by the rules of your faith. If one conflicts with another, then the rules of your faith take over and control your life, not the lives of others.
Nowhere in the bible, that I am aware of, does it state that the government (whichever gov’t it is) must abide by the rules of Christianity (note: I said rules of Christianity, not the rules of a “church”.). It is a book of personal rules and guidelines, something for the individual, not the collective masses because the collective will all never believe the same way.