Evangelism, Empathy, and Christian Nationalism...

[Bootstrap]

It's only "true" if you chose to take every sin scenario and lump them all together. Sin is sin but not all the subjects you listed are relatable. They are delt with in different ways in the OT and the NT.

I agree.

And Christianity is very much a minority position in the United States. In either party. Unless you turn Christianity into something very different than it was for Jesus.

[Soloist]

It's only "true" if you chose to take every sin scenario and lump them all together. Sin is sin but not all the subjects you listed are relatable. They are delt with in different ways in the OT and the NT.

I agree.

And Christianity is very much a minority position in the United States. In either party. Unless you turn Christianity into something very different than it was for Jesus.

Well, some of us would believe Christianity doesn’t exist in the political parties.

[temporal1]

Well, some of us would believe Christianity doesn’t exist in the political parties.

The current model is wholesale rejection of Christianity, EXCEPT when/where it can be applied for gain, or the other favorite, to punish/control others with guilt/shame.

Christians are, by Jesus’ name, fundamentally introspective, looking inside self for wrong doing. Easily exploited.
Christians make great targets!

In my (not original) view, the U.S. was founded on freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
i’m encouraged when courts respect this view that many pushy godless ideologues want to demolish.

[Soloist]

Well, some of us would believe Christianity doesn’t exist in the political parties.

The current model is wholesale rejection of Christianity, EXCEPT when/where it can be applied for gain, or the other favorite, to punish/control others with guilt/shame.

In my (not original) view, the U.S. was founded on freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
i’m encouraged when courts respect this view that many pushy godless ideologues want to demolish.

Yet this freedom of religion persecuted those who didn’t want to fight the British.
I don’t think America was founded on freedom of religion or freedom of choice.
It seems to be so now, but it wasn’t back then.

[temporal1]

Well, some of us would believe Christianity doesn’t exist in the political parties.

The current model is wholesale rejection of Christianity, EXCEPT when/where it can be applied for gain, or the other favorite, to punish/control others with guilt/shame.

In my (not original) view, the U.S. was founded on freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
i’m encouraged when courts respect this view that many pushy godless ideologues want to demolish.

Yet this freedom of religion persecuted those who didn’t want to fight the British.
I don’t think America was founded on freedom of religion or freedom of choice.
It seems to be so now, but it wasn’t back then.

i would not ever suggest humans get anything right, certainly not consistently.

[Ken]

There is none, zero, principle in the NT against governments using capital punishment. This is a fantasy and invention of the left.

Actually, unlike the Old Testament, there is basically zero instruction, principles, or laws set of out of ANY KIND in the New Testament regarding the administration of government. None whatsoever. So whatever you say about Capital Punishment is also true of:

Abortion
Gay Marriage and LGBT rights
Racism
Immigration
Freedom of Speech and freedom of religion
Right to bear arms and self defense

And pretty much every other pet public policy issue of BOTH the left and right.

It's only "true" if you chose to take every sin scenario and lump them all together. Sin is sin but not all the subjects you listed are relatable. They are delt with in different ways in the OT and the NT.

I’m making a different point. Old Testament law was the actual legal code for the Hebrew people. They had no separate secular legal code. So there was really no distinction between religious law and civil law, they were one and the same.

By contrast, the New Testament world of Jesus and Paul was the Roman Empire. Neither Jesus nor Paul made any comment whatsoever about what Roman law should be other than that you should follow it. Nor did they seek to influence Roman law in the slightest. Their teachings were entirely religious. There is nothing in the New Testament that suggested the Roman Senate should enact any particular law of any kind. Nor did they ever lobby the civil authorities for any kind of changes to Roman law to implement any of their teachings through force of law.

[Nomad]

Actually, unlike the Old Testament, there is basically zero instruction, principles, or laws set of out of ANY KIND in the New Testament regarding the administration of government. None whatsoever. So whatever you say about Capital Punishment is also true of:

Abortion
Gay Marriage and LGBT rights
Racism
Immigration
Freedom of Speech and freedom of religion
Right to bear arms and self defense

And pretty much every other pet public policy issue of BOTH the left and right.

It's only "true" if you chose to take every sin scenario and lump them all together. Sin is sin but not all the subjects you listed are relatable. They are delt with in different ways in the OT and the NT.

I’m making a different point. Old Testament law was the actual legal code for the Hebrew people. They had no separate secular legal code. So there was really no distinction between religious law and civil law, they were one and the same.

By contrast, the New Testament world of Jesus and Paul was the Roman Empire. Neither Jesus nor Paul made any comment whatsoever about what Roman law should be other than that you should follow it. Nor did they seek to influence Roman law in the slightest. Their teachings were entirely religious. There is nothing in the New Testament that suggested the Roman Senate should enact any particular law of any kind. Nor did they ever lobby the civil authorities for any kind of changes to Roman law to implement any of their teachings through force of law.

Well said. I agree with that statement. Thank you for clarifying. I don't think its the churches role to campaign against government Law.

In the Covenant given to Noah, God told him that the price for murder was the life of the killer. Before this, murder was unrestrained, as we see Cain And Lamech commit murder without consequence. Depending on how you view scripture, I dont see this as part of the Law that was given on Sinai that Jesus fulfilled. The Law on Sinai was given specific to 1 nation (Israel) while the words given to Noah apply to all peoples. Unless you want to nullify all the Old Testament by calling it "the Law", (which is nowhere justified in scripture) then this is still applicable today. To me it fits with the governments role to bear the sword in Ro Ch.13. I've heard some try to explain away the command for justice given to Noah by applying the word "Law" to all the OT in order to remove its meaning as fulfilled in Christ. To me this is a cop-out.

But to be clear, that's the governments role as a minister for God to apply justice on evil (which they fail to apply often times) NOT the churches role. However, the government does have a role too restrain evil (somewhat) until the Lord returns.

[Ken]

It's only "true" if you chose to take every sin scenario and lump them all together. Sin is sin but not all the subjects you listed are relatable. They are delt with in different ways in the OT and the NT.

I’m making a different point. Old Testament law was the actual legal code for the Hebrew people. They had no separate secular legal code. So there was really no distinction between religious law and civil law, they were one and the same.

By contrast, the New Testament world of Jesus and Paul was the Roman Empire. Neither Jesus nor Paul made any comment whatsoever about what Roman law should be other than that you should follow it. Nor did they seek to influence Roman law in the slightest. Their teachings were entirely religious. There is nothing in the New Testament that suggested the Roman Senate should enact any particular law of any kind. Nor did they ever lobby the civil authorities for any kind of changes to Roman law to implement any of their teachings through force of law.

Well said. I agree with that statement. Thank you for clarifying. I don't think its the churches role to campaign against government Law.

In the Covenant given to Noah, God told him that the price for murder was the life of the killer. Before this, murder was unrestrained, as we see Cain And Lamech commit murder without consequence. Depending on how you view scripture, I dont see this as part of the Law that was given on Sinai that Jesus fulfilled. The Law on Sinai was given specific to 1 nation (Israel) while the words given to Noah apply to all peoples. Unless you want to nullify all the Old Testament by calling it "the Law", (which is nowhere justified in scripture) then this is still applicable today. To me it fits with the governments role to bear the sword in Ro Ch.13. I've heard some try to explain away the command for justice given to Noah by applying the word "Law" to all the OT in order to remove its meaning as fulfilled in Christ. To me this is a cop-out.

But to be clear, that's the governments role as a minister for God to apply justice on evil (which they fail to apply often times) NOT the churches role. However, the government does have a role too restrain evil (somewhat) until the Lord returns.

You have two separate things going on in the New Testament.

First you had Jesus preaching to a primarily Jewish audience who were living in the Roman province of Judea and where local affairs were still governed to some extent by Jewish law with an overall umbrella of Roman rule.

Second, you had Paul spreading the gospel to non-Jews across the Roman Empire in far-flung places like modern Italy, Greece, and Turkey. Places where Jews did not live and where Old Testament Jewish law had no meaning and carried no weight, historical, cultural, or otherwise.

[Josh]

Except the culture wars are explicitly being fought against an American Christian culture.

Actually it is the opposite. The culture wars are explicitly being fought by a Christian Nationalist minority against a majority culture (both secular and Christian).

No, they aren't. Some might think I'm fighting the "culture wars" because I oppose some of the cultural changes being foisted on the American public. (An example is the shift to out of wedlock pregnancy becoming the norm.) That doesn't make me a Christian nationalist. I just think it's bad for people to have children out of wedlock and for society and policy to promote/affirm that.

There is no culture war issue that has majority support in this country. They are all about rallying a political base for political reasons.

That is entirely not true. Over 30 states voted to ban gay marriage - many of them via direct citizen appeals at the ballot box, including California's Prop. 8. These were overturned by the courts.

Abortion, all the “anti-wokeness” nonsense, CRT, DEI, anti-gay rights, etc. etc. All of them are minority positions in this country, even among Christians.

Can you explain why banning gay marriage had strong popular support then and the courts overturned the will of the people?

[ohio jones]

Second, you had Paul spreading the gospel to non-Jews across the Roman Empire in far-flung places like modern Italy, Greece, and Turkey. Places where Jews did not live and where Old Testament Jewish law had no meaning and carried no weight, historical, cultural, or otherwise.

But there were Jews in those areas, and Paul usually went first to the synagogues. He did not limit his preaching to the Jews, and also presented the gospel to Gentiles, especially when the Jews rejected his message. The non-Jews of course had no knowledge of the OT, and you're correct that he didn't try to persuade the Romans to follow OT law.