Re: Traditional Xtianity teaches

From: Robert Schneider (
Date: Sun Oct 13 2002 - 21:02:01 EDT

  • Next message: Robert Schneider: "Re: Traditional Xtianity teaches"

    Since you have made my case for me, I rest.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Don Perrett-VP GPA" <>
    To: "ASA Discussion" <>; "Robert Schneider"
    Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 6:04 AM
    Subject: RE: Traditional Xtianity teaches

    > Concerning your comments below:
    > I might agree that some conservatives/Republicans may see
    > as being less Christian than themselves, not that I do, but I must point
    > that this thread and apparent need to involve politics into theology was
    > started by a liberal. It would seem to me that the entire point of the so
    > called "list" of fundamentalists was to make the point that conservatives
    > are less forgiving and therefore less Christian. One's politics and
    > religious beliefs are between God and the individual alone. If one
    > in homosexuality or abortion, that is for them to explain to God not I.
    > I believe is judged by God alone. Being less of a Christian is not the
    > issue. Being a Christian which tries to follow what they believe God and
    > Christ would want is. If we do things that we know God does not want us to
    > do, either individually or as a society, just because we feel that we are
    > saved, we will doom ourselves and those we touch. Each individuals action
    > has an affect on everyone else's life. Some may think that being
    > killing our unborn, not allowing prayer in schools, etc may be accepted by
    > God, but then the same people who believe this are the ones recently
    > that perhaps the Islamic terrorists had a reason for 9/11. They hate our
    > government policies. It is our religion and more particularly our so
    > religious acceptance (forgive all) that they hate. Until we understand
    > our "liberalism" is what is destroying us, we will end up just like the
    > Greeks and Romans. Some may have heard of the recent beauty pageant
    > contestant that was rejected because she promoted abstenace instead of
    > sex". She of course did not say to have safe sex, but rather that not
    > in the first place is the safest sex. It amazes me how liberals have no
    > problem with violating the First Amendment when it suites them, but them
    > turn around and scream about their rights when it comes to having computer
    > generated children in the nude or engaged in sexual conduct. That does not
    > mean we need to condemn or banish those that do these things. Forgive one
    > another but only if they are repentant. If one cannot accept for
    > that they have done wrong, no one, not even God can forgive them, for they
    > cannot forgive themselves in their own hearts. If someone were repeatedly
    > engaging in "actual" sex with a minor, would anyone on this list say it
    > ok? Why? Where in the Bible does it say it's wrong? The OT? Well according
    > to some on the list, the OT is OLD and things like homosexuality, women's
    > rights, etc are outdated and wrong. OK. Well then I suppose murder, child
    > rape and other such things are ok. Point is we can make the Bible read as
    > like, but each of us must ask ourselves in our hearts what is right. If
    > can walk into a church, open a Bible and say to God, "Thank you Lord for
    > giving such a great day. Today I killed my unborn son and I feel great."
    > not then they should look within themselves and the Bible for guidance.
    > Let's quit looking for acceptance of others and groups. We want to be
    > accepted so bad, but we want to take the easy road. Rather than changing
    > fit what we know is right, we want everyone else to accept our faults. The
    > only one we must answer to is GOD.
    > Don Perrett
    > >>>>>I understand Terry's misgivings about what he sees in Burgy's list as
    > conflation of politics with theology, but I think there is some merit in
    > Burgy's doing so in the context of some expressions of American-style
    > Christianity. Unfortunately, there are many fundamental believers in the
    > who have done just that--conflated the two: they have politicized their
    > theology and theologized their politics. The moral-theological positions
    > some on abortion, homosexuality, school prayer, gun control, and YEC are
    > often articulated in political terms, that one wonders if it is possible
    > some now to separate them in their minds. I saw a bumper sticker here in
    > Boone recently that reflects this: "Christian--and a Democrat!" This
    > person obviously felt the need to make the point that you don't have to be
    > Republican in order to be a "true Christian."
    > This politico-theology phenomenon is not confined to fundamental
    > of the Protestant variety. An elderly Catholic woman reported during the
    > 2000 election that she received a letter from her priest, who noticed the
    > "Vote Democrat" bumper sticker on her auto and informed her that he would
    > not administer communion to her if she was going to vote with the
    > abortionists. She was outraged, of course (she opposes abortion), but the
    > anecdote illustrates the extent to which some go on such matters.
    > As for dispensationalist theology, thanks to the phenomenal success of the
    > Left Behind movement, it seems to me that there are many conservative
    > Christians who are buying this theology without realizing what it is.
    > what I have read of LaHaye's work there is a clear political agenda wedded
    > to his dispensationalism.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 14 2002 - 01:35:32 EDT