Anyone out there want to respond to erinberry's comment on my blog? Does anyone agree with erinberry?
"Seriously, girl, I stumbled across your blog, and after reading a number of your posts, I can not believe how misguided you are. Faith is a wonderful thing, but if you think you are following Christ by towing the Republican party line, you are sorely mistaken. Jesus was as radical and liberal as they come. Hate to break it to you, but Jesus never said a thing about condemning gays or abortion. He taught compassion and love and generosity towards the poor, not the typical Republican selfishness, and all this voting with one's wallet. Please, if you are going to call yourself a Christian, at least have the decency to act like Christ. Don't be a hypocrite."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Talk about misguided! Erinberry's crazy moral relativism is kind of hard to square with scripture and the commandments. I have a hard time believing that Jesus would endorse homosexuality or encourage women to have an abortion. 'Liberal', if we are to use erinberry's word, 2000 years ago is not the same thing as politically 'Liberal' in 2005. But hey, if all she's looking for is a sanction on her moral nihilism (see her post on the UU Church), then by all means have at it!
I agree with erinberry.
As a matter of fact, Jesus doesn't care what you do, as long as you love one another and are compassionate. Because really, how can he expect you to maintain "biblical" standards of living when he made you the way you are?
Do whatever you want, as long as it's in "love", then you'll be ok.
As for Republicans and Democrats, I like them both equally.
Oh, and absolutely nobody comes and sees me when they die. wha hahahahahahahahah.
Satan
>>>He taught compassion and love and generosity towards the poor, not the typical Republican selfishness, and all this voting with one's wallet. >>>
Yes, Christ taught compassion, love, and generosity toward the poor, but erinberry overlooks the fact that He taught that these qualities should be demonstrated voluntarily rather than coerced. If love is coerced, it ceases to be love. For example, would you feel loved if someone was "loving" you only because they had a gun at their head?
Moreover, coerced generosity is simply theft. Rather, Christ emphasized personal responsibility, which encompasses cheerfully giving to the poor.
As I understand it, Republicans favor cutting out government-run "charities" (i.e., coerced generosity) so individuals can exercise personal responsibility to give to private charities. They also believe that government is inefficient to meet both the financial, as well as the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of the poor. Private entities can better provide holistic aid.
What it really comes to is this: people like erinberry do not believe and/or know what Jesus Christ was really doing on earth. Yes He talked about love and compassion, but His true purpose on coming to earth was to die for all mankind’s sins and then conquer death by rising from the grave. If all we need to do is "love one another" and it is indeed true that "Jesus doesn't care what you do" than that means 1) we aren't sinners and 2) there was no point to His coming to earth. Both those points are contrary to all of scripture and are a lie.
The truth here is you cannot be a true Christian if you do not believe you are a sinner who needs saving and that Jesus died and rose from the dead to wash you clean of your sins. That’s the truth plain and simple.
Whenever I hear people begin to make an argument that Christ would not have condemned, I love to take them back to the story of the woman who is almost stoned for adultrey. In the passage, Christ masterfully put down the arrogance of the pharisees, but he also condemned the moral sin of the woman. He had grace and spared her life, but he also commanded her to "Go, and sin no more." Christ taught personal responsibility, while emphasizing love and grace. Today, Christians can follow him by condemning sin, while having the grace to help those who are in need. They can keep the "set of morals" which Christ clearly gave, and promote them in the world, just as Christ did. This is simply what you have done on your blog, Amy. Well done; keep up the good work.
If Jesus is THE WORD of God as is explained in John 1:1...then why would he negate anything HE SAID in the Old Testament which the readers of the time he walked on earth would have known????oh...forgot,...the Old Testament is invalid for our day....oh really?
Such responders are one reason I personally do not want a blog, thank you! You are brave to put up with such.
Frankly, I seriously doubt Jesus would have joined either party...both are an embarressment to a true Believer in one way or another! (But to call you a hypocrite, I say remove the beam out of thine own eye first, Erinberry). If you feel called to join one party or another and try to make it better, go for it! Or however you see fit to try to improve this country!
Elizabeth
Alright, now that I have a few seconds, I’ll try to respond to this in a concise manner.
As a Christian who takes the bible as the word of God (Christ being one-third of the Godhead), I think Christ/God has a lot to say on the issues of abortion and homosexuality. (Those are the two specific examples cited by erinberry.) Looking at the two major parties’ platforms, it is clear to me that the GOP platform best aligns with God’s word. Therefore, I am a Republican. If the GOP party ceases to reflect my values system (i.e. biblical values), I will immediately cease being a Republican. My loyalty is to the Truth, not a specific political party. I am a Christian who happens to be a Republican.
The bible is resoundingly clear on the issues of homosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9-11, Rom. 1:26-27, 1 Tim. 1:9-10, Lev. 20:13, etc.) and abortion (Ex. 20:13, Ex. 21:22-25, Job. 31:15, Isa. 44:22, Ps. 139:14, Gen. 1:27, etc.). These verses leave no wiggle room on these social issues. If you believe the bible is the source of truth, your guidebook for life, and you are intellectually honest with yourself, you will oppose societal endorsement of homosexual behavior and you will oppose the slaughtering of innocent unborn children. (Note: I’ve often wondered how an allegedly “compassionate party” could possibly allow the abortion killings to continue. Have you ever seen a picture of an aborted child?)
On the issue of showing “compassion and love and generosity” which erinberry alleges are not Republican values, I defer to Kevin’s comments above. Just because I don’t believe the incompetent government (a.k.a., inventor of the DMV system) should assume the role of charity work doesn’t mean that I, as a Christian, am personally relieved from showing compassion to the helpless and needy around me. On the contrary, my Christian beliefs demand that I reach out with compassion to those more unfortunate than myself.
The GOP party encourages tax breaks and incentives to enable citizens to care for themselves and others. Americans are generous people and, if given tax incentives, will give to charitable organizations and churches for the care and support of the poor among us. Look at the recent tsunami disaster in Asia, and how many private funds were poured into the relief efforts, as a prime example of this. So, the bottom line . . . the Republican Party believes in encouraging compassion without assuming the government is the best answer to find solutions for the poor.
Most compelling, I’m a Republican because the GOP party platform, unlike the Democratic Party platform, doesn’t blatantly, openly, and unapologetically mock, scorn, and ridicule the precious Word of God.
Hopefully these things will make us all think harder about Christ’s would-be political affiliation (which I think is almost sacrilegious to presume!). And hopefully it will also make us think harder about our own.
"Towing" the GOP line is hard work.
"is kind of hard to square with scripture and the commandments"
As near as I can tell, the S & C here can be used to shore up any sort of belief you wish to justify. You can push for gay rights, you can push against them, ditto for Terri S. and the whole thing.
How do I know this ? I just watch all the people using the S & C every which way to justify their needs of the hour. My guess is that he would definitely be democratically inclined. He had no sense of profit motive, he was always giving away the store, her tried to help the underdog, these are not Republican traits, that I've been able to tell.
Post a Comment