Legislate Morality

[JerryNumbers]

Mr Graham was more concerned with their souls then their bellies. So, it would seem, is God.

Speaking of Billy Graham, I have read a few pages of The Preacher and the Presidents. My wife has read a good bit of it. It chronicles the influence Mr. Graham had on the last few Presidents. Its an American History book more then anything else, dealing more with the various Presidents then Billy Graham. Again, my wife has been discussing it since she has read it, and its on the list for me to read. If anyone is interested in American History, this is a must read.

So you don't feel that Billy Sunday cared about mans soul as much as Billy Graham.

Your wrong, Billy Sunday cares about ever aspect of the Christen life, but I'm not the least bit surprise you see it that way.

Billy Graham only preached a water down version of God's Word, Billy Sunday preached the whole truth which clearly many today hate, yes, that's right, many hate the whole truth of God, they hate for the light to shine on their darkness and expose them for what they truly are.

Most people want their own form of Christianity, it will be sad for them in the end.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Matt 7:21-23 (KJV)

[dwayner79]

I don't see Christlikeness equaling social activism. Sure, when we fulfill the great commission and follow the commands given to us in God's word, the end will be great influence in a community. But it is an end, and not a means.

Social activism does not make one more Christlike. It seems to be the rave in the post-modern movement to nearly totally abandon God's word and God's way of doing things and try to appear Christlike through certain good deeds. This is just the latest manifestation of human religion. It is not of God.

Speerj,

I said: "The latter is our charge, but the outworking of being more Christlike is social activism..." I shoudl have said one outworking and perhaps that would have been more clear. My point is that caring for the poor and needy, advocating the minority, etc. are Christlike activities. I hope that clarifies.

[dwayner79]

So you don't feel that Billy Sunday cared about mans soul as much as Billy Graham.

Your wrong, Billy Sunday cares about ever aspect of the Christen life, but I'm not the least bit surprise you see it that way.

Billy Graham only preached a water down version of God's Word, Billy Sunday preached the whole truth which clearly many today hate, yes, that's right, many hate the whole truth of God, they hate for the light to shine on their darkness and expose them for what they truly are.

Most people want their own form of Christianity, it will be sad for them in the end.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Matt 7:21-23 (KJV)

Jerry8,

I said nothing about Billy Sunday. Please do not put words in my mouth. However, given the generation gab, the similarities between the Billy's is interesting. Were you aware that Sunday met with a Catholic Cardinal in 1916 during his campaign? Did you know he wen tout of his way to avoid criticizing the Catholic Church? Many of his trail hitter tracts were returned with Catholic and Unitarian as the church of choice. He was hardly a "separationist" in the typical IFB sense... in fact, he was a Presbyterian ordained, non-denomination preacher who was half Calvinist (he was kinda unclear). However, I imagine the two of them will sit in heaven, and be eternally grateful for the ministry God gave them, and for the souls God saved under their, and each other's ministry. I think their fervor for souls probably outreach both of ours combined. Both were men of God. Neither was perfect.

Now if you want to quote me there, feel free.... but don't try to twist my words to say something I never did.

[speerjp1]

I said: "The latter is our charge' date=' but the outworking of being more Christlike is social activism..." I shoudl have said one outworking and perhaps that would have been more clear. My point is that caring for the poor and needy, advocating the minority, etc. are Christlike activities. I hope that clarifies.[/quote']

That does clarify your position. Thanks! :thumb

I guess I do still slightly disagree with your position, though. I can't for the life of me think of where the Bible tells us to advocate the minority just because they're a minority. Maybe you could help me out?


Congrats on your signature, by the way! :thumb

[dwayner79]

Thanks!

Minority is the wrong word. Oppressed is perhaps a better word, and I think the coorolation between the two is mostly a Western thing.

Jesus placed a higher role on women then they had ever had. He turned the culture on its head by saying Mary chose the better option. He talked about treating slaves right (though he did not abolish it). He talked about there being no difference between Jew and Greek, male or female. And he poured his Grace out to the Samaritan woman. Jesus' example seems to highly value all human life with no regard for race, sex, or even creed. The injustices of our culture are more race related then sex related (speaking western culture... much of the east still puts women as property, etc). Like Christ, we ought to be against those injustices. We ought to be in the forefront of the charge against racial (and other) injustices.

[speerjp1]

Minority is the wrong word. Oppressed is perhaps a better word, and I think the coorolation between the two is mostly a Western thing.

Jesus placed a higher role on women then they had ever had. He turned the culture on its head by saying Mary chose the better option. He talked about treating slaves right (though he did not abolish it). He talked about there being no difference between Jew and Greek, male or female. And he poured his Grace out to the Samaritan woman. Jesus' example seems to highly value all human life with no regard for race, sex, or even creed. The injustices of our culture are more race related then sex related (speaking western culture... much of the east still puts women as property, etc). Like Christ, we ought to be against those injustices. We ought to be in the forefront of the charge against racial (and other) injustices.

I see what you're saying now: let's view people the way God views them and not the way the world says we should view them. God is not a respecter of persons. :thumb

[dwayner79]

I see what you're saying now: let's view people the way God views them and not the way the world says we should view them. God is not a respecter of persons. :thumb

:thumb indeed

[Guest Guest]

Jesus placed a higher role on women then they had ever had. He turned the culture on its head by saying Mary chose the better option. He talked about treating slaves right (though he did not abolish it). He talked about there being no difference between Jew and Greek' date=' male or female. And he poured his Grace out to the Samaritan woman. Jesus' example seems to highly value all human life with no regard for race, sex, or even creed. The injustices of our culture are more race related then sex related (speaking western culture... much of the east still puts women as property, etc). Like Christ, we ought to be against those injustices. We ought to be in the forefront of the charge against racial (and other) injustices.[/quote']


dwayner. :wave:

[JerryNumbers]

Jerry8,

I said nothing about Billy Sunday. Please do not put words in my mouth. However, given the generation gab, the similarities between the Billy's is interesting. Were you aware that Sunday met with a Catholic Cardinal in 1916 during his campaign? Did you know he wen tout of his way to avoid criticizing the Catholic Church? Many of his trail hitter tracts were returned with Catholic and Unitarian as the church of choice. He was hardly a "separationist" in the typical IFB sense... in fact, he was a Presbyterian ordained, non-denomination preacher who was half Calvinist (he was kinda unclear). However, I imagine the two of them will sit in heaven, and be eternally grateful for the ministry God gave them, and for the souls God saved under their, and each other's ministry. I think their fervor for souls probably outreach both of ours combined. Both were men of God. Neither was perfect.

Now if you want to quote me there, feel free.... but don't try to twist my words to say something I never did.

Your words brother, they speak for them self, no twisting.
<<"Mr Graham was more concerned with their souls then their bellies.">>

Its a fact, we were speaking of Billy Sunday and Billy Graham, and you said, "Mr Graham was more concerned with their souls," it still looks to me that was what you were saying, so back off, and don't jump down my throat, I did not put words in to your mouth, its what you said.

Now, if that is not what you mean, the thing to do was to clarify it, explain what you meant, that would be the Christ like way.

[brosmith]

And that fascinating part of this is Paul is referencing the ROMAN government, which was the most corrupt government of all time. They were most certainly NOT legislating morality. This passage is a call to obey the laws of the government and to see the government as God's extension no matter how corrupt they are. It is not a dictation on how government should function.

You have a warped way of looking at scripture. God created human government right after the flood to control the sinful desires of man. Romans 13 outlines God's plan for government: the punishment of evil doers and the promotion of righteousness. The Roman government did not follow God's plan and that is why God allowed it to fall. Moral corruption is what caused the Roman Empire to collapse.

The United States at one time was a Christian nation because its leaders were God fearing people and many of them referenced the word of God in their decisions. Over the last 40 years we have become a morally bankrupt barbarian nation due to the fact that our leaders now believe that morality is a personal decision. We are living like Israel in the book of Judges: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. One day, God will allow the United States of America to collapse in a pile of ashes just like he did Rome.

[Colin Stolzer]

You have a warped way of looking at scripture. God created human government right after the flood to control the sinful desires of man. Romans 13 outlines God's plan for government: the punishment of evil doers and the promotion of righteousness. The Roman government did not follow God's plan and that is why God allowed it to fall. Moral corruption is what caused the Roman Empire to collapse.

The United States at one time was a Christian nation because its leaders were God fearing people and many of them referenced the word of God in their decisions. Over the last 40 years we have become a morally bankrupt barbarian nation due to the fact that our leaders now believe that morality is a personal decision. We are living like Israel in the book of Judges: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. One day, God will allow the United States of America to collapse in a pile of ashes just like he did Rome.

That's an interesting set of contradictions you have there. In one statement you reference Romans 13 and in the next you say that the United States was once a Christian Nation because the leaders used the word of God to make their decisions. So please tell me how you reconcile the Founding Fathers defying the King of England (the power ordained by God) with them obeying Romans 13.

C

[Guest Guest]

Further more how do you justify that many did not claim Jesus as their Lord. Our country was founded on opportunity and opportunity for all. Christianity had and still has a huge place in the history of the USA. We can say in God we Trust but the individual must ask that Do I believe in the son of God Jesus Christ. The country cannot proclaim it. You can go back and many of the founding fathers believed in a God but I am not sure if they believed in Jesus Christ.

[dwayner79]

Your words brother, they speak for them self, no twisting.
<<"Mr Graham was more concerned with their souls then their bellies.">>

Its a fact, we were speaking of Billy Sunday and Billy Graham, and you said, "Mr Graham was more concerned with their souls," it still looks to me that was what you were saying, so back off, and don't jump down my throat, I did not put words in to your mouth, its what you said.

Now, if that is not what you mean, the thing to do was to clarify it, explain what you meant, that would be the Christ like way.

Well with my words and with scripture you seem to do the same... read into it what you think instead of looking at the immediate context.

Mr Graham was more concerned with their souls then their bellies.

That sentance is complete in and of itself. Nothing more, nothing less.

[JerryNumbers]

Well with my words and with scripture you seem to do the same... read into it what you think instead of looking at the immediate context.

Mr Graham was more concerned with their souls then their bellies.

That sentance is complete in and of itself. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your statement speaks for itself, I did not read anything into it.

Your sounding like a politician trying to explain away what you really said, but not stopping there, but going on and putting me completely down.

I want go no further with it, it does no one the least bit of good, besides, I really thought you were above being that way.

[dwayner79]

My statement does speak for itself... in plain simple english. Amazing.

@BroSmith

You have a warped way of looking at scripture. God created human government right after the flood to control the sinful desires of man. Romans 13 outlines God's plan for government: the punishment of evil doers and the promotion of righteousness. The Roman government did not follow God's plan and that is why God allowed it to fall. Moral corruption is what caused the Roman Empire to collapse.

The United States at one time was a Christian nation because its leaders were God fearing people and many of them referenced the word of God in their decisions. Over the last 40 years we have become a morally bankrupt barbarian nation due to the fact that our leaders now believe that morality is a personal decision. We are living like Israel in the book of Judges: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. One day, God will allow the United States of America to collapse in a pile of ashes just like he did Rome.

I'm not sure how its warped ;-) Its called hermeneutics. Scripture was not written to us (though it certainly applies to us), it was written to a certain group of people. In this case, Paul is writing to to those living in Roman culture. Instead of belaboring the point, I recommend Grasping God's Word as an excellent text on hermeneutics.

Edit to add: Roman's does not at all outline God's plan for Government. If it did it would have been written to the govering officials, or it would be written as an outline of how to's. Romans 13 outlines God's plan for how his people should respond to the government. Huge difference.