Thursday, November 26, 2009

The Manhattan Declaration

The Manhattan DeclarationPerhaps, just perhaps, this declaration might one day be ranked with the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, or at least raise Manhattan to the equivalent historic significance to that of Boston.

The Manhattan Declaration unites Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant and Anglican Christians (not to mention a few others) around contemporary key themes, which they summarise as: respect for human life; the sanctity of heterosexual marriage; freedom of conscience and religious liberty; and the refusal to render unto Caesar what is God's. It is basically a challenge to the White House under Barack Obama.

They say:

A Call of Christian Conscience

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1.the sanctity of human life
2.the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3.the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

And the list of religious leaders who support this declaration is quite possibly the most formidable ecumenical gathering in US history, consisting, as it does, of eminences, graces, archbishops, bishops, reverends (most and right), professors, doctors, pastors, presidents, CEOs, deans, directors, founders, editors, not to mention a 'TV Host' and the 'National Facilitator of Spiritual Unity'.

Cranmer wonders what an equivalent British initiative might be termed, and whether anyone would be inclined to sign it after the founder, president and CEO of The Tony Blair Faith Foundation.

126 Comments:

Anonymous oiznop said...

It would be called The Brussels Declaration.

26 November 2009 at 09:27  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, it's encouraging to see Christians stand up for what they believe. Being brought up as one myself I retain many of the moralistic elements in my now secular life. However, one thing about the Manhattan Declaration puzzles me.

While these groups were thrashing out an alliance I wonder how the US Anglicans managed to square with the Catholics the situation regarding Gene Robinson, the Espiscopalian bishop of New Hampshire? To be blunt and risk the wrath of indigomyth, how does an openly gay bishop (or closet paedophile priests) fit in with Truth No 2?

Enquiring minds would like to know...

26 November 2009 at 09:32  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

This is wonderful and glorious news!

Three hurrahs for our American cousins!

Let us remember the words of the 3rd President of the United States of America:

‘A little rebellion now and then is a good thing.’


Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

26 November 2009 at 09:43  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

You have stated:

‘Perhaps, just perhaps, this declaration might one day be ranked with the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, or at least raise Manhattan to the equivalent historic significance to that of Boston.’


Dr. Robert George of Princeton University and Chuck Colson are already talking about civil disobedience. But if the American Christians step onto that slippery-slope – history shows that it will end in civil war.

26 November 2009 at 10:05  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Amen.

Fine words. I wonder which of the signatories will be the first to put their liberty where their mouth is and go to jail in defence of them?

I'd be utterly amazed if we could achieve the same in the UK.

26 November 2009 at 10:05  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

At a D.C. press conference last week, Dr. Robert George of Princeton University, one of three leaders who drafted the declaration, affirmed that if laws require Christian doctors and hospitals to perform abortion or euthanasia, if the government demands churches bless homosexual 'marriage' or any other dictates attempt to force Christians to act against their moral convictions, there will be no compromise. Recalling the actions of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. years before, George said there may even be call for Christians to engage in civil disobedience:

"We hope and pray that it does not come to this," George said, "that the impositions on conscience will not require anybody to practice civil disobedience. But if it comes to it, as it came to it for Dr. King on the great issue of racial justice, then we have to be prepared to make sacrifices."

"We've always said that we will never compromise what we believe," Colson said, "but this is the first time that all of us have come together across confessional lines and said, 'We're prepared to pay the price. You cannot cross this line, otherwise we will pay the price – we will suffer if we must to avoid doing evil.'"

"'Suffering,' being what?" Huckabee asked.

"'Suffering' being prison, loss of your tax exemption," Colson answered. "We're saying, 'If we're a doctor and we're told to perform an abortion or to refer someone for an abortion, we will refuse. And if you want to put us in prison, put us in prison.'"

Huckabee followed up by asking, "What about hate crimes?"

"Hate-crimes legislation – we're already seeing what this has done in Europe and done in Canada. Human-rights commissions are hauling pastors in," Colson said. "If someone walks in our church and says, 'You preach a sermon on homosexuality, we're going to arrest you as a violation of the hate crimes,' then they'll have to arrest us."

Specifically, the text of the Manhattan Declaration declares:

We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia or any other antilife act

Nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriage or the equivalent

Nor refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.

The authors and original signatories of the Manhattan Declaration are now inviting others who will agree to the pledge to sign the declaration as well.

As Colson told Huckabee, "If you continue to assault the family, continue to assault life, continue to assault our liberties, we will ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's, but under no circumstance will we render to Caesar what is God's. So we have taken a very firm line. We've drawn a line, and we want true Christians to stand up and defend what we believe now."

26 November 2009 at 10:26  
Blogger Preacher said...

D. Singh.
Well researched (as usual) this is a Charter that is essential to Christians universally, how was it conceived & achieved? I think I perceive a queue forming behind me.

26 November 2009 at 10:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the US slips into civil war - then all hell will break loose in the Middle East. Armaggedon.

26 November 2009 at 10:49  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Preacher

http://www.wnd.com/

26 November 2009 at 10:53  
Anonymous English Kuffar said...

I doubt we have the spirit in england to do this - all of us non-muslims are simply Kuffar- second class people in our own country.

26 November 2009 at 10:55  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

Some people are also refusing to sign it because they think it is too ecumenical, e.g. John MacArthur, James White, Alisatir Begg.

26 November 2009 at 11:33  
Blogger Preacher said...

Perhaps a group like the Christian Institute could set the pace. It's no good waiting for the ABC or similar to speak or act.
I believe that there would be a good response to such a charter, it's about time we re-discovered our voices. Don't forget C.T.Studd's words, "If Jesus Christ be God & died for me, what less can I do for Him?". or "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing!".

26 November 2009 at 11:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Preacher,

The Evangelical Alliance in it recent report, Faith and nation, said that civil obedience in some cases could be permitted. To quote:

'In fact, it would appear that resistance of some sort is permitted, as in the biblical examples provided by Daniel, the apostles in Acts 4, and the martyrs in Revelation 13. Such examples could not necessarily be pressed to justify the overthrowing of governments or armed rebellion, though certainly resistance to the authorities and acceptance of the consequences in the form of martyrdom appears to be enjoined. Questions therefore remain regarding the extent to which such contextual examples may be regarded as divine precedents for other times and places. Throughout history many prominent theologians have argued that they are. Calvin affirmed that it was acceptable for properly constituted officials or magistrates to rebel against tyranny. Knox and Rutherford insisted that it was everyone’s duty to resist evil. They believed that an unjust state forfeits any claim to authority and therefore obedience.'

But the report is such a weighty tome - most Christians have never heard of it, much less read it.

The kind of documnet we need must be similar in style to the American's Declaration of Independence. It must set men's hearts on fire.

26 November 2009 at 12:08  
Anonymous Stuart said...

I for one was greatly heartened by this declaration and do sincerely hope for a UK / EU version.

This decalaration is a superb unifying rallying wake up call, which we are in desperate need of.

26 November 2009 at 12:43  
Anonymous Stuart said...

I for one was greatly heartened by this declaration and sincerely hope for a UK / Eu version.

This is a rallying, unifying, wake up call and we need the same here.

26 November 2009 at 12:47  
Anonymous Stuart said...

oops sorry for the duplication.

26 November 2009 at 12:47  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The Manhattan Declaration ought to appeal to Christians everywhere. Apart from Anglicising it where unavoidable do we need our own British version? Individuals in any country can sign the declaration at http://manhattandeclaration.org/ so why don't our Church Leaders examine the content and consider adopting it? This needs to be a worldwide “rebellion” because the Church and Christian values are under threat across the globe.

26 November 2009 at 12:56  
Anonymous Stuart said...

I agree with you Knighthawk, this would be the optimum choice.

26 November 2009 at 13:01  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Pleasantly surprised to see that the include non-believers in their call.

You can share the same morals as they lay out without believing in any religion.

26 November 2009 at 13:51  
Blogger Julian Mann said...

Thank you for this - Manhatten is very significant for the degree of hermeneutical agreement on the key New Testament texts relating to these subjects. One of the things the liberals have tried to do is to obscure the clarity of NT teaching particularly on human sexuality. There really is no hermeneutical difficulty in Pauline statements such as 1 Corinthians 6v9-11. These statements in NT epistles, written to the Church in what the NT describes as the last days (the period between Christ's 1st and 2nd comings), build on OT moral teaching and on Jesus' affirmations about heterosexual marriage in the Gospels (eg Mark 10v6-9).

These texts are as clear as a bell and it's so encouraging to see that implicitly affirmed in Manhatten.

Kind regards,

Curate

26 November 2009 at 14:03  
Anonymous Something about Manhattan said...

Good Post Your Grace.

26 November 2009 at 14:11  
Anonymous not a mouse said...

Thank you, Your Grace. That is indeed heartening - and very well timed at Thanksgiving!! Many of the new hispanic immigrants (legal and illegal) won't know so much what that's about - and are anti-Anglo. And Islam proceeds par for the course. Here too, the Frankfurt School holds great sway in the unversities - so the eu 'mode' extends into society, as in the UK. But Christianity is still strong: especially in this bit of 'The Bible Belt' where the marxists get something of a run for their money!

Gnostic @ 09:32: Many of the Anglicans split from the Episcopalians. I went to an Episcoplian church that I loved, until the controversy blew up.

Then at least 3/4 of the congregation - including me - followed the vicar and all his ministers, who set up a new church a few yards up the road.

They're a brilliant lot in every way, but especially as theologians and preachers. The new church is lovely and doing just fine: and they're planning and building a beautiful new edifice even a little further up the road.

Only problem from my pov: they favor RCism a bit (as in the UK) even though they retain BCP, some of the music, etc. But I think that might be happening with the Episcopalians, too.

26 November 2009 at 14:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You can share the same morals as they lay out without believing in any religion."

That is its intent, which I wish they'd made more explicit. In fact, that's why some American evangelicals are not signing: because it's not more 'Christian'.

Go figure.

26 November 2009 at 14:58  
Blogger D. Singh said...

On the other-hand they could not be signing it because the cost commitment is so high.

In any event, it appears to be following the concept of co-belligerency advocated by the late American philosopher Francis A. Shaeffer.

26 November 2009 at 15:07  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

Good news. It's about time that people of good will stood up to be counted.

There's also a Manhattan Declaration on 'Climate Change' i.e global warming is not a crisis.
Many of your communicants will subscribe to that too.

Older communicants may recall that the Manhattan Project was the code name for the development of the Atomic Bomb.

So the name may be apt. Rendering unto Caesar solely what belongs to Caesar, may be interpreted as 'putting a bomb under liberal complacency'

With nigh on 143000 signatures (including yours truly) after only 6 days that's good going.

I note that the San Diego Gay and Lesbian news is not happy about all this. So that must be good too.

Has Your Grace added his sooty signature?

26 November 2009 at 15:18  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

The reason that some evangelicals are objecting to this is because Christianity is not simply a list of moral rules. Yes, there are some standards that are taught within Christianity. But changed lives does not come merely from a set of rules, but from the transforming power of the God and his gospel - the story of Jesus' death (paying the penalty for our wrongdoing) and resurrection.

Christianity does not teach that we can earn God's favour by following rules, but that obedience comes naturally after God transforms our hearts. Obedience comes from gratitude and from love of God. We love because God first loved us.

Moral standards are important, but only the gospel is the power of God for salvation.

Many religions have similar moral standards. But Christianity uniquely teaches that acceptance comes through faith in God's work for us, rather than our obedience to God.

26 November 2009 at 15:22  
Anonymous not a machine said...

It takes a little getting used to your grace after so many years of of quiet.
It has more substance and meaning than rageing at jerry springer the opera and will hopefully put some better theology into our beliefs .

pride is at the beggining of many a road to delusion , foundations are the beggining of living for god .

26 November 2009 at 15:33  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Stevenson,

‘The reason that some evangelicals are objecting to this is because Christianity is not simply a list of moral rules.’

I have read the Declaration and I find that reason weak. Still, they are not compelled to sign.

26 November 2009 at 15:44  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

No Christian Denomination is being asked to sign away any deeply held conviction regarding fundamental disagreements on the nature of the Gospel etc.

The Declaration says: We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths.

It will not help the moral cause, or the spread of the Gospel, if Christians divide over this document. It will just provide the Principalities and Powers with another opportunity to divide and conquer.

26 November 2009 at 16:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point is that the Declaration seeks to preserve certain freedoms from the heavy hand of secular government--government which is acting far outside its original brief as established by the founding fathers. These freedoms are the inheritance of all Americans, and their defense is--or should be--of universal interest. The least that orthodox Christian believers can do is stand up and support it.

Mr. Singh is correct: it is very weak reasoning. I would also agree with him that this does seem to be shaping up as one of those eras requiring us to pick up our crosses.

We've had a pretty good ride for the last 2009 years, but it's over.

26 November 2009 at 16:14  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Anon

These freedoms were also the inheritance of British and Irish Christians.

The British colonists who fought the American War of Independence (our Second Civil War) were the grandchildren of the Puritans who fled our shores.

American law did not emerge from a vacuum. Judges carried over the Atlantic The Institutes by Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke.

Even today not only is our Magna Carta cited in your courts of law but once a year the American Bar Association sends representatives to that hallowed place we call Runnymede.

God save our countries!

26 November 2009 at 17:13  
Blogger Gnostic said...

not a mouse, thank you for the clarification. It is most heartening to learn that your congregation has stood up for what it believes.

Having read some of the witterings of the Bishop of New Hampshire I'm dismayed that he uses his sexuality and his position to make what are blatant and vocal political statements on the behalf of his "brethren". That is not any kind of Christianity I would ever support.

My idea of a bishop is the late Dr Hugo de Waal. He left our congregation to take up his place as Principal of Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He was later made Bishop Suffragan of Thetford. He was a man whom I admired personally and who knew how to lead his flock, even the most troubled ones. He is the best ABC we never had. Beardy isn't fit to kiss the hem of Dr de Waal's cassock.

I would be tempted to return to the church under the aegis of someone like de Waal. Sadly I have failed to find anyone of such an honest conviction. Most seem to be concerned with raking in cash and letting their churches be run by cliques. Oh and then there's the all too prevalent happy clappy brigade. It is easy to see why people convert to Catholicism. But that's not for me either.

Oh well...

26 November 2009 at 18:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You should give the Orthodox a glance.

26 November 2009 at 18:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And, yes, these rights are an inheritance from our British forebears. It pains many Americans to see what's going on over there. We would dearly love to see a rebirth of the spirit that created the Magna Carta.

You are in my prayers.

26 November 2009 at 18:26  
Anonymous Stuart said...

It annoys me frankly, that a ragbag motley crew can come together to oppose religious freedom and yet the Christian community doesn't seem able to come together to fight for them, in the UK.

26 November 2009 at 18:29  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Anon @ 18.15

My church was orthodox. The chap who followed de Waal was only ever interested in money and the church, being situated in a busy holiday town, had the potential to rake it in. It slowly slid into warm and fuzzy happy clappiness.

A number of us joined another high church congregation a few miles away. For a while things remained okay. Then the encumbent vicar retired and his replacement quickly proved to be everything I've grown to dislike about the C of E - venal and political.

There seems to have been some kind of revolution going on. Out with the old and in with the new. Congregations became disillusioned and many members gave up. Progress for the sake of progress isn't always a good thing. If it ain't broke why fix it?

26 November 2009 at 18:37  
Blogger indigomyth said...

An obvious observation is that 2 and 3 of the declaration are in conflict.

//2.the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3.the rights of conscience and religious liberty. //

Hmm, however what if ones conscience and religious conviction lead one to conclude that same-sex relationships are positively good? Evidently, that does not matter, and those people must be denied the right to practice their religious and ethical beliefs, because it might offend the majority. Apparently,
if you believe that marriage is a conjugal union between people of any sex, than you do not have a right to "conscience and religious liberty."

//Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable.//

Hmm, no mention of human liberty? I presume that is because the Christians that signed this are not in favour of liberty, but enslavement to the state.

//have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.//

Would that be through such illiberal acts as the minimum wage? And "protect and strengthen vital institutions" by using the state to offer perverse coercive incentives to engage in those institutions. One might think that if they were so vital, or so necessary to human dignity, that people would not need incentives to engage in them? Must not be so "vital" than. Must be inconvenient, all these people going around being dignified and free without being married.

But look who I am talking to, someone who does not even believe in free speech (when that speech is inconvenient or disagrees with your beliefs).

26 November 2009 at 18:53  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'Hmm, however what if ones conscience and religious conviction lead one to conclude that same-sex relationships are positively good?'

Then your conscience would have been seared by a hot iron.

26 November 2009 at 19:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Once you destroy the husband and wife norm - then all things are possible.

You would have to agree that a sister could marry a brother.

26 November 2009 at 19:07  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//Then your conscience would have been seared by a hot iron.//

And thus we see the continuation of D. Singh's Fascism. Apparently you only have a right to act according to your conscience if your conscience agrees with D.Singh. Therefore there is no such thing as "freedom of conscience", merely an obligation to agree with Mr Fascist. I take it that you disagree with the Declaration's statement of freedom of conscience?

26 November 2009 at 19:07  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Pull yourself together man.

You write like a bewildered ape.

26 November 2009 at 19:10  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Still you are consistent with the projected product of evolutionary theory.

26 November 2009 at 19:12  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//Once you destroy the husband and wife norm - then all things are possible.

You would have to agree that a sister could marry a brother.//

I see no reason that the state should stop siblings being married. It is an unnecessary and illiberal intrusion into private affairs.

All things may be possible, but that does not mean that all things will be popular, or that all things will be successful. Do you honestly believe that if sibling marriage was permitted, you would get a massive raft of brothers and sisters marrying? And if they did, and wanted to do so, what authority do you have to stop them doing as they wish?

26 November 2009 at 19:13  
Blogger D. Singh said...

A woman demanding the right to marry an ape?

Would you argue against that?

26 November 2009 at 19:17  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//Pull yourself together man.

You write like a bewildered ape.//

This coming from a man who resorts to calling anyone that disagrees with him a "National Socialist"? Who imagines that every person who desires to live and think differently to him is part of some global plot to destroy Christianity?

Indeed I would sooner be an ape than a Fascist. Number of people killed by apes = negligible to none. Number of people killed by Fascism = I do not know. Add up Mussolini, Franco, Primo de Rivera and the rest, and I will wager it comes to more than none.

26 November 2009 at 19:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Then thou will lose the poker game.

26 November 2009 at 19:20  
Blogger FABVirgil said...

"You would have to agree that a sister could marry a brother."

Is there any such law which forbids a civil partnership between two brothers? I wish to do this out of love for my brother (joking of course, he would never agree to it).

26 November 2009 at 19:21  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//A woman demanding the right to marry an ape?

Would you argue against that?//

Well, I would be concerned about the ape's welfare. However, it would not really concern me - why should it? What reason have I to be bothered? The women is not infringing on my liberty, nor the liberty of any other person. She is not committing violence, or threatening violence against anyone. Can you show where you get the authority to stop them being married, according to her own beliefs. It can be for no financial reason, for people already are able to leave their houses and wealth to animals. So what is it?

I always find it amusing that people who are prepared to shoot bolts into the brains of cattle, find it so abhorrent and unacceptable that a person stick their genitals in them. Indeed, they advocate violence against them.

26 November 2009 at 19:24  
Blogger FABVirgil said...

It begins where it ends - in nothingness. A nightmare born from deepest fears coming to us from unguarded and whispering images unlocked from time and distance. A soul unbound, touched by others but never held and on a course charted by some unseen hand. The journey ahead, promising no more than a past reflected back upon us, until at last we reach the end, facing a truth we can no longer deny - alone as ever.

26 November 2009 at 19:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'Number of people killed by Fascism = I do not know. Add up Mussolini, Franco, Primo de Rivera and the rest, and I will wager it comes to more than none.'

He does not know history either. Poor bewildered ape. Evolutionary theory's finest product.

26 November 2009 at 19:25  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//Then thou will lose the poker game.//

So you do not believe that Fascism or Fascists have killed anyone? Mussolini did not kill anyone?

26 November 2009 at 19:26  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Hell, even the Catholic Church admits that Mussolini permitted genocide:

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/vatican-apology-for-ethiopian-holocaust.html

26 November 2009 at 19:36  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Boo!

26 November 2009 at 19:37  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'I always find it amusing that people who are prepared to shoot bolts into the brains of cattle, find it so abhorrent and unacceptable that a person stick their genitals in them.'

He finds it amusing.

26 November 2009 at 19:45  
Anonymous len said...

Why don`t you exchange emails and carry this on somewhere else?

26 November 2009 at 19:47  
Blogger D. Singh said...

I withdraw from the field.

26 November 2009 at 19:48  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

D.Singh....Those who accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their King and Saviour, become sanctified to Christ and full of the Holy Spirit. The veil is torn from their eyes and they are no longer blind to the truth.

Indigomyth....Those who don't are still in rebellion.

26 November 2009 at 20:10  
Anonymous len said...

It would be great is something similar to the Manhattan project would be done in the UK.

There must be enough committed Christians in the UK to make it work,we Christians need to speak out regardless of the opposition.

Why are Christians opposed? John wrote, "and men loved darkness rather than light." Loving the darkness is not an outward thing, it is an inward thing. The Apostle Paul said very clearly,

Eph 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.

A darkened understanding blinds the heart to a knowledge of God, who is Light. Men refuse Christ because they refuse to come into the light, as their deeds are evil, but also because:

2 Cor 4:4 the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

It doesn't take long for darkness to descend from a darkened mind into a heart that refuses to believe on Jesus as God's answer to the darkness of this world. In the book of Romans, Paul said the same thing:

Romans 1:21 "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . ."

We need the preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to whoever might hear.

26 November 2009 at 20:17  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//The veil is torn from their eyes and they are no longer blind to the truth.//

And apparently the truth is that if you do not like something, or find it compromises "human dignity" you have a right to use violence, via the state, against those that offend you, destroying their individual liberty.

What value is "dignity" if it requires enslavement? What value is health if you are not free?

26 November 2009 at 20:21  
Blogger FABVirgil said...

"I always find it amusing that people who are prepared to shoot bolts into the brains of cattle, find it so abhorrent and unacceptable that a person stick their genitals in them. Indeed, they advocate violence against them."

It's just not mustard!

26 November 2009 at 20:23  
Blogger Preacher said...

Amen to that Len, the groundswell of opinion is certainly in favour, & creating a lot of positive feedback. The only question left is who should start the ball rolling, it must be someone who is recognised & respected, not afraid to speak out & charismatic enough to inspire believers to stand up & be counted. Perhaps one of the leaders in the States would be prepared to instigate proceedings?.

26 November 2009 at 20:30  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//It's just not mustard!//

And by what authority to you claim to have the right to use violence against them?

26 November 2009 at 20:31  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Well said len.

Give it rest indigomyth, its getting really boring...

26 November 2009 at 20:34  
Blogger Tarquin said...

I don't get why this is interesting - so some US religions are teaming up against from what I can tell - gay marriage, as the other two are already covered, and this isn't about the EU

So these religions want to force their views about 'the dignity of marriage between a husband and wife' on everyone else

How tolerant and democratic of them - 'freedom of conscience, but don't disagree with us!'

26 November 2009 at 20:36  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//Give it rest indigomyth, its getting really boring...//

What, defending individual liberty is "boring"!?

26 November 2009 at 20:37  
Blogger Preacher said...

Indigpmyth.
You do not speak for freedom, you speak for Anarchy. as such you are a blot on His Graces blog. You have nothing of worth to contribute, but insist on trying to draw attention to yourself. Please go away & play elsewhere. don't bother to respond as I will not reply.
Cordially yours Preacher.

26 November 2009 at 20:37  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//How tolerant and democratic of them - 'freedom of conscience, but don't disagree with us!'//

Indeed!

I fully support their right not to recognise or perform marriages that conflict with their ideology, however, they are not just campaigning against state interference in religious affairs, they are actually mandating for greater state interference! They want to control the state, and make people and individual businesses and communities submit to their view of marriage.

[word verification: priest]

26 November 2009 at 20:40  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//You do not speak for freedom, you speak for Anarchy. as such you are a blot on His Graces blog. You have nothing of worth to contribute, but insist on trying to draw attention to yourself. Please go away & play elsewhere. don't bother to respond as I will not reply.
Cordially yours Preacher.//

I respond, because I want to defend myself against the accusation you level against me. I am not an Anarchist - you evidently know nothing of Libertarianism. The role of the state, of government, is to defend the liberty of individuals, nothing more. To protect their negative rights from incursion by other people. Anarchists wish to destroy all of the state. Libertarians want individual liberty.

Come back when you know something of political theory, not before.

26 November 2009 at 20:44  
Blogger FABVirgil said...

What about the individual liberty of an anarchist, you fascist homosexual pig?

26 November 2009 at 21:11  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Don't you get it indigomyth, Christians are fighting for the right to live, as we wish to live, without being legislated against as well.

26 November 2009 at 21:14  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

D.Singh- don't be bullied by everyone else. You were winning against idiotmouth. More, more !

26 November 2009 at 21:23  
Blogger indigomyth said...

FABVirgil,
//What about the individual liberty of an anarchist, you fascist homosexual pig?//

The individual liberty of an anarchist is protected in a libertarian society. The difference between libertarians and anarchists is usually only that anarchists believe that the state or government will always encroach on liberty, whereas libertarians are slightly more optimistic.
---

Stuart,

//Don't you get it indigomyth, Christians are fighting for the right to live, as we wish to live, without being legislated against as well.//

I understand that, which is why I believe they have the right in their own private businesses or religious institutions to discriminate and hate as they wish. Indeed, I oppose all anti-discrimination laws.

Unfortunately, in cases such as this one, and in the recent case in Lithuania, which Cranmer cheered on, Christians are trying to use the apparatus of the state to use violence and threat of violence against people who wish to live and believe differently to them. They wish to restrict free speech so that their beliefs are not offended, be that the belief in the sinfulness of homosexuality, or in the grace of Christ.

There is no right for a Christian to live in a society where same-sex marriage is illegal, because that would require the state to use threat of violence against people who wanted to be in same-sex marriage. Just like there is no right for a homosexual to live in a society where they are not hated and discriminated against by private institutions and businesses. Just like black people have no right not to be excluded from working in individual private businesses, if it is the wish of the owner.

It is the crucial difference between positive "rights" and negative rights. There is no right not to be hated, or to be respected, or not to starve to death, or not to die from feckless lifestyle choices.

Making same-sex marriage legal does not mandate Christians to have same-sex marriage, does it? And it also does not mean that Christian institutions have to perform same-sex marriages, does it?

You seem to suffer from the delusion that if the state is not explicitly pro-Christian, or pro-family or pro-whatever, then it must be anti-Christian, or anti-family or anti-whatever.

So, tell me Stuart, in what way does legalising same-sex marriage mean that Christians are unable to live as they wish?

26 November 2009 at 21:33  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Bag Lady,
//D.Singh- don't be bullied by everyone else. You were winning against idiotmouth. More, more !//

Was that before or after I pointed out to him that Mussolini had committed genocide in Ethiopia, which he had denied?

26 November 2009 at 21:35  
Anonymous Bishop of the Pay of Bigs said...

Well indigomyth and Singh, are in my view, both as pid headed as each other. They both love a bloody good argument and you waste your time trying to debate either of them. But it is good theatre.

26 November 2009 at 21:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm just reading for the entertainment of Singh vs indigomyth round 2.

26 November 2009 at 21:41  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes:-

It annoys me frankly, that a ragbag motley crew can come together to oppose religious freedom and yet the Christian community doesn't seem able to come together to fight for them, in the UK.

26 November 2009 at 21:54  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Sorry I was supposed to post a link with that comment:-

The Cutting Edge Consortium (CEC) has united to remove all religious liberty safeguards in the Equality Bill in sexual orientation employment laws which protect the religious liberty of churches and other faith groups

26 November 2009 at 21:56  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Sorry indigomyth I missed your response.

We all seem to have got ourselves into an ever decreasing circle, with everyone feeling under attack.

I feverently believe in your right (and your community) to live as you desire and I also believe in my right (and my community) to live as I desire and I should have the freedom (legistatively and socially) to state a religious moral view on sexual ethics, as much as I support your right to picket outisde my church and wave plackards that call me a narrow minded bigot.

I don’t advocate a denial of rights for the LGBT community, however, legislation is swinging to the other extreme, whereby, any religious objection is potentially outlawed, for example in terms of employment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/22/churches-lift-ban-homosexual-staff

26 November 2009 at 22:04  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Ah but indigomyth , you dont believe in the Jesus story do you ?

try all you want it will always be imperfect with out jesus , how ever you put it .

26 November 2009 at 22:06  
Anonymous len said...

C.S. Lewis was writing in his book, The Problem of Pain and he wrote this, “The lost enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded and are therefore self-enslaved.” God will abandon sinners to their own choices and the consequences of those choices. And just what is this abandoning act on God’s part, it is the removal of restraining grace. It is when God lets go and turns a society over to its own sinful freedoms and the results of those freedoms. No scripture more directly confronts this abandonment and its consequences than Romans 1 does. Here is the most graphic and the most comprehensive discussion of what it means to be abandoned by God and it is the best passage that I know of to explain the moral chaos and the confusion that we experience in our own nation at this very time. God’s wrath is already at work in our culture. We’re not waiting for it, we are currently experiencing it.

26 November 2009 at 22:19  
Anonymous Stuart said...

I totally agree with your comments len, and I have learnt that we will never legislate morality anymore, those days are finished as God removes his restraining hand.

Our battle is to defend our freedom to proclaim the full counsel of God no matter who is offended and this obviously requires quid pro quo.

I'm sorry if that sounds defeatist.

26 November 2009 at 22:28  
Anonymous len said...

The first indication in a society of the wrath of abandonment is sexual immorality. When a society becomes pornographic, when the general character of a society can be seen to be immoral, this wrath is in effect. When man is abandoned by God, when a society is abandoned by God, it operates only out of the passions of its own impure heart. It operates in the lusts of the heart, leading to impurity. The heart is wretched, the heart is immoral and the body follows. First the lusts dominate the heart, leading to impurity and the bodies follow in most dishonorable ways. The heart is wicked and unrestrained and the body follows and you have a pornographic culture.

( From When God abandons a Nation John MacArthur)

This is why the Gospel must be preached.

26 November 2009 at 22:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some may not sign the declaration in the US because of the politicisation of the churches.
Some may despite it. Each to his own conscience.

While they have spoken up about family and conscience, many of our our dear Christian brethren in the US did not speak up - maybe for fear, maybe lack of teaching - about the societal demonisation of moderate Muslims or the grievous harm of torture to victims as well as those taught to do it, while obviously we need to not demonise soldiers sent to serve their country. Our Lord Jesus' reputation has sadly become attached somewhat to a stereotyped "Christian right" crusader-type-mentality. Likewise Christian conservatism on social issues has become somewhat enmeshed with a false stereotype of "Christian Republicanism" as happened with "Christian Demmpcratism". Few in certain dear American churches speak out against certain types of over-authoritariansism or over-spying, or about poverty, except when indirectly berating the poor (and censoring James amongst other scriptures).
Please pray for America, as indeed for teh UK. The churches like everywhere else have done good things but like us all they have failed in some areas. Thus, in addition to the salvation-by-faith-or-works problem, some of the difficulties (as well as blessings) with this kind of declaration and why some choose not to sign. Every genuine believer in Jesus will do as their conscience permits. Jesus talked about wheat and tares - you can't pull out all the tares before judgement day, despite 1 Corinthians 5. While we should want to worship in churches with good doctine, yet a some believers in Revelations were commended by God even though they were in churches where some bad stuff was happening inclduing false prophesies.
Each of us needs to follow our Lord. Scary times - remember Daniel but also the midwives in Genesis. Our churches need prayer - in the US and Great Britain - that we wold serve and honour Him, as we have been called to do, indiviually and in our churches, in private and public, according to the individual calling on our lives. Loving believers and unbelievers, in this world, but not of this world. And I personally wish that all churches would be tactfully wise in whom they serve communion, for the sake of the church, and for the sake of some indiviual souls who obviously need to repent for whom communion brings judgement rather than blessing. Friends gently warn friends who profess to know God but are obviously not walking in the light, just as friends, as and when they feel called to, warn non-believing friends of the judgement to come and their need - like ours - for forgiveness for our wrongdoings through His shed blood.

27 November 2009 at 00:11  
Blogger indigomyth said...

not a machine,

//try all you want it will always be imperfect with out jesus , how ever you put it .//

I am not trying to make society perfect - that is for Christofascists like D. Singh, Communists and Nazis.

My only desire is to free people from state interference. Some people are feckless and stupid, and will die as a result of the lack of state interference. That is as it should be. People will die of drug and alcohol abuse, and that is entirely within their right.

//I don’t advocate a denial of rights for the LGBT community, however, legislation is swinging to the other extreme, whereby, any religious objection is potentially outlawed, for example in terms of employment.//

Then we have no conflict. However, many Christians, like those involved in the Christian Institute, do want to compel people, under threat of state violence, to observe their sensibilities and values. Such things as the blasphemy law in Ireland are explicit examples of Christians, not Muslims, using the law to threaten violence against people that offend them.

I agree with you that things like anti-discrimination laws are very illiberal. But then, I am also utterly appalled that the BNP is being forced to accept black members! What authority does someone have to force any group of mutually consenting people to accept another group of people, against their will. It is disgusting.

Unfortunately, people like Cranmer alienate potential allies, by supporting such illiberal acts as the recent Lithuanian law restricting speech that shows homosexuality in a positive light.

27 November 2009 at 07:47  
Anonymous Stuart said...

indigomyth, I agree with you, as I am vehemently opposed to the proposed UN 'defamation' laws and all so called 'blasphemy' laws. We cannot demand freedom of speech and then legislate to stifle others. We cannot legislate for so called 'offense' and so called 'hatered'. We should all be mature and confident in our beliefs and lifestyles to rise above this, period. No one has a 'right' not to be criticised.

In terms of the positive promotion of LGBT within, say the educations system, if I do not want my child exposed to this, then all I want is the right to remove my child from state controlled education with no interference from the government. Unfortunately, even this is under attack.

I agree with you in terms of the BNP, the government, is using the so called 'equality' laws to simply smash another legal political party (I'm not advocating support for the BNP with this comment) and on an aside what right do church leaders have to tell me which political I may, or may not belong to.

Many Christians are (in my opinion) rightly concerned with the changes they view in society, however, they are wrong in their approach to attempt to wield power through legislation, privilege and state appartatus.

I said before, you cannot have your cake and it. The world has changed and (I know you won't agree with this) all that is left is to proclaim the full counsel of God, without state interference and fear of prosecution, too all people until the Lord returns.

"My only desire is to free people from state interference

Same here

27 November 2009 at 08:07  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

D. Singh said: ‘Once you destroy the husband and wife norm - then all things are possible.’

Indigomyth said: ‘You would have to agree that a sister could marry a brother.’

It is not conscience that Indigomyth is concerned about for he shows, by permitting that which is morraly repulsive, he has little if any conscience to defend.

It is not induvidual liberty either he is concerned about, for he would happily erase the idea of sin on the basis of the ‘virtue of charity’ (which in his mind is severed from its Judaeo-Christain roots).

For if the doctrine of sin itself is erased, then there can be no wrong-doing and therefore nothing to forgive. That is why he is an enemy of humanity. He is an enemy precisely because he is so human.

27 November 2009 at 08:35  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

Why would anyone want/ value a blessing or marriage muttered through gritted teeth against the conscience of the Presiding Minister.

There is no reason why those who dislike ,the views of traditional Churches, cannot set up, for example, The Church of the Gay Redeemer where their individual theology can be better expressed. There is no reason why the State needs to regulate in this area any more than it should enforce doctrinal changes in any other sphere.

27 November 2009 at 09:10  
Anonymous Stuart said...

I like that comment Martin.

How often I have thought to myself that so called Christian LGBT groups should simply start their own church and stop trying to divide and destroy other churches, although they simply don't seem to care about the consequential damage, because it's all about their "rights" and running after the spirit of the age.

27 November 2009 at 09:15  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Oh, and it has began, Singh is now speaking of himself in the thrid person.

Somebody grab the jacket that fastens at the back please.

27 November 2009 at 09:32  
Blogger AndrewWS said...

indigomyth, are you a member of LPUK? You should be.

http://swlibertarians.blogspot.com/

This is a message from a fellow reader of Devils Kitchen.

27 November 2009 at 11:35  
Blogger indigomyth said...

AndrewWS,

I am not a member, but I have purchased buttons from them, and intend to vote for them if they put up a candidate in my area (South West).

I have considered becoming a member, or at least donating. However, I do not have much money, and what I do have needs to go on such extravagancies as food and rent!
---

D. Singh,

//It is not induvidual liberty either he is concerned about, for he would happily erase the idea of sin on the basis of the ‘virtue of charity’ (which in his mind is severed from its Judaeo-Christain roots).//

Charity is not a virtue if it is done for the wrong reasons. Better that someone work and exercise themselves, rather than they be given money from other people. I also do not want the government being overly "charitable" with my money.

I disagree with Christian teachings on sin, sure. However, I do not want to stop Christians saying that X, Y or Z are sins. What I am utterly, implacably and immovably opposed to is the state using violence or threat of violence against individuals, on the basis that "it is for their own good, so they do not go to hell".

I would sooner leisurely wend my long, joyful, unmolested way to the gates of hell, rather than arrive at the gates of heaven beaten, downtrodden and enslaved.

//he has little if any conscience to defend.//

And yet I am utterly appalled by your Fascism. Strange that someone without conscience can be appalled by anything. Must mean that I am either lying about being appalled by you, or that you are wrong when you accuse me of not having a conscience.

I am sure that you can copy and paste an appropriate response from one of your authoritarian idols.

27 November 2009 at 13:31  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Indigomyth

Setting aside your misunderstanding of the virtue ‘charity’, you have accepted that if one type of relationship is permitted which is other than the husband and wife norm then another type of relationship must be admitted.

That leads to anarchy. I can understand your logic and the need to remain consistent with your position.

For example, there is now a consensus that boys growing up in single parent (another type of relationship) families are more likely to demonstrate criminal behaviour. Thus more laws need to be brought onto the statute book (more state interference) – that is what in the end threatens individual liberty.

27 November 2009 at 13:59  
Blogger FABVirgil said...

It's all filthy and disgusting behaviour and never the twain shall meet in my head. Go away and die soon. (Just exercising my individual anarchistic liberties of free speech)

27 November 2009 at 15:33  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Just exercising my individual anarchistic liberties of free speech

And long may you be able to do so...

27 November 2009 at 15:51  
Blogger Young Mr. Brown said...

Interesting discussion.

As a Christian, I find myself in agreement with just about everything that the Manhattan Declaration says.

But I also have reservations -
probably something to do with being a member of LPUK.

(C'mon Indigomyth - join us. You know you want to!)

27 November 2009 at 18:35  
Blogger indigomyth said...

D.Singh,
//you have accepted that if one type of relationship is permitted which is other than the husband and wife norm then another type of relationship must be admitted.//

Your statement shows the assumption of power that is common to all Fascists. What authority do you have to permit or forbid any consenting relationship? Why do you believe that the state can make judgements about what consenting activity can and cannot be engaged in?

//For example, there is now a consensus that boys growing up in single parent (another type of relationship) families are more likely to demonstrate criminal behaviour. Thus more laws need to be brought onto the statute book (more state interference) – that is what in the end threatens individual liberty.//

No more laws need to be brought onto the statute books to govern how children are raised, especially not governing how many parents they should be raised with. If the parents fail in raising their child, then their child will either have to grow beyond what their parents teach them, or they will end up in prison for committing violence against other people. Simple.

Why do more laws need to be brought onto the statute books? For what possible reason could you have for wanting the state to use violence against single-parents?

Individual liberty means the right to raise your child in the manner you see fit - even if that means raising them in an Islamic environment that teaches hatred of the infidel. Remember, Mr Fascist, that there is no crime in poorly raising a child, for there is no restriction of liberty.

//That leads to anarchy. //

Again, you show your ignorance. You have not read of Libertarian ideology or principles, and so you are confused. You are so used to advocating violence against people that any proposal to reduce violence against individuals is met with cries of "anarchy".

Out of curiosity, D. Singh, why is that you never answer any questions? Such as, do you think that Fascists never killed anyone?

And, do you admit that you are a Fascist? A theocrat no less.

27 November 2009 at 18:42  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//C'mon Indigomyth - join us. You know you want to//

Of course I want to, however I cannot afford to at this time

27 November 2009 at 18:58  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

indigomyth: "Your statement shows the assumption of power that is common to all Fascists. What authority do you have to permit or forbid any consenting relationship? Why do you believe that the state can make judgements about what consenting activity can and cannot be engaged in?"

I believe that God has given the state certain responsibilities. The chief one of these is to punish wrongdoers. I don't have power to permit or forbid anything - but I believe that the state should obey God regarding its function.

"Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. " -- Romans 13:3-4

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." -- 1 Peter 2:13-14



indigomyth: "Individual liberty means the right to raise your child in the manner you see fit - even if that means raising them in an Islamic environment that teaches hatred of the infidel"

I agree with this. I think parents should be free to raise children how they like - except if they put the child in physical danger (e.g. by abuse).
I would also like to see more Christians sending their children to private Christian schools or homeschooling.

27 November 2009 at 19:07  
Anonymous len said...

Part of the homosexual agenda is to get the public to affirm their lifestyle, as one homosexual admitted in the October 1987 homosexual rally on Washington: "We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right -- as heterosexual Americans already have -- to see government and society affirm our lives" .

Part of the homosexual agenda is to turn people from Christianity: "The teaching that only male-female sexual activity within the bounds and constraints of marriage is the only acceptable form should be reason enough for any homosexual to denounce the Christian religion" .

27 November 2009 at 21:13  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

indigomyth: "In that case then, you would be led by logic to believe that the state must compel people, by threat or actual violence to act and believe Christian things"

No. The state cannot punish thought crime - that is left to God alone.
God is omniscient, but the state is not, and needs to follow proper rules of evidence.

"One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." -- Deuteronomy 19:15


indigomyth: "And if you believe that, then you believe in theocracy."

Yes, I believe in a form of theocracy.


indigomyth: "So doesn't that make you a Fascist? Or rather, in what way are you not a Fascist?"

Is "fascist" just your insult for anyone with a more authoritarian viewpoint than yourself? If so, it is surprising how insistant that people must be idiots if they confuse libertarianism and anarchy. Surely you realise that some similarities between viewpoints does not make two views identical.

There must be similarities between libertarianism and theocracy, given the number of theonomists loudly supporting Ron Paul in the 2008 election - but that does not make the two identical does it?

indigomyth: "Tell me, do you think slavery is wrong?"

I think kidnapping is wrong.

"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death." -- Exodus 21:16

I don't have a moral objection as a system whereby destitute people can sell their labour to another in provide so they can be provided with food and shelter.


"indigomyth: "Indeed, is not your logic the logic of Islamic countries that impose Sharia law? They believe that the state should obey their conception of God? Do you think that is correct, methodologically speaking?"

My problem with Sharia law is not that it seeks to obey God, but that it obeys the wrong "god".


indigomyth: "Do you agree to the extent that you think that liberal and gay parents should be able to send their children to pro-gay schools?"

Yes. Although I would like to think that private Christian schools, with a Christian curriculum, would be good enough academically that many non-Christians would choose to send their children to them.

27 November 2009 at 23:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, indigomyth, your boorishness has cocked up this thread. Why don't you make a graceful exit and relieve your hostile impulses elsewhere?

No. You're the kind who likes to stick around and act like a prat.

28 November 2009 at 04:16  
Anonymous len said...

I think indigomyths intention is to'cock up this thread'
To parade his intellect, his specialness,and anarchistic views.
Best ignored!

28 November 2009 at 08:11  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Ben Stevenson,

//There must be similarities between libertarianism and theocracy, given the number of theonomists loudly supporting Ron Paul in the 2008 election - but that does not make the two identical does it?//

I am unaware of any, perhaps you could provide an example?

//Is "fascist" just your insult for anyone with a more authoritarian viewpoint than yourself?//

I asked you in what ways your views were not Fascist, and you evade the question. I assume this is because you have no real reason not to call yourself a Fascist.

There are other words for authoritarian idiots: socialists, Communists, Nazis etc etc.

Your brand of authoritarianism is far beyond what we have in the current main political parties, and is more akin to Fascism or Dominionism.

//My problem with Sharia law is not that it seeks to obey God, but that it obeys the wrong "god".//

Rather than the fact it seeks to control every aspect of every persons life, Muslim or otherwise?

So, do you have a problem with Mussolini's Fascism, or Franco's Spain? Or any other Fascist idiot? And where do you think that you have differences with them, in terms of advocating state violence against people that wish to live differently to you?

//No. The state cannot punish thought crime - that is left to God alone.
God is omniscient, but the state is not, and needs to follow proper rules of evidence.//

Okay, but you would punish people for public blasphemy, for disrespecting Jesus. You would advocate violence against those that publicly desecrate Jesus? Indeed, showing your lack of belief in god would be punishable in your world, in much the same way that it is punishable in Islamic countries to publicly deny the validity of Muhammed as a prophet. Which would mean that you do not believe in Free Speech.

//I think kidnapping is wrong. //

Yet you do not proclaim that slavery is wrong, why not? What if someone is owned from birth? Are they not then enslaved, but also not kidnapped?

You cannot say that slavery is wrong, because they Bible, and Jesus, do not proclaim it to be so.

//Yes, I believe in a form of theocracy.//

You say this, and wonder at me calling you a Fascist!? You say the state is authorised to commit violence against people doing things that you (as a Christian) do not like. You try and avoid the issue by saying it is not you, but the state, yet you want the state to use violence in support of your religious beliefs. You only believe that state has the authority, because of your beliefs, and you try and worm out of responsibility by saying that you have no authority to commit violence, but the state does. But you think the state should obey what happens to be your religion, which others do not share, and therefore the state becomes an agent of repression in the service of your religion.

I notice you also do not address the point I made that if you, in a democratic structure vote for something, you become in part responsible for it.

I guess we just have fundamentally different views on the value of human liberty. You want an authoritarian, controlling state, I want people to be free.

Do not worry, Libertarians are not neo-liberals, and will protect our individual liberty, with violence if necessary.

28 November 2009 at 08:55  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Well indigomyth, for what it's worth you are making a lot of sense to me!

28 November 2009 at 10:46  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

indigomyth: "I am unaware of any [similarities between libertarianism and theocracy/theonomy], perhaps you could provide an example?"

1. Desire for lower taxes.
2. Opposition to government control of health and education.
3. Desire for smaller welfare state.

See this for more.


indigomyth: "I asked you in what ways your views were not Fascist, and you evade the question."

That is because it is a ridiculous question. Two examples are support for democracy and support for capitalism.


indigomyth: "[re. sharia law] Rather than the fact it seeks to control every aspect of every persons life, Muslim or otherwise?"

I don't object to the principle of seeking to obey God. I don't think Sharia law is an expression of God's will.


indigomyth: "So, do you have a problem with Mussolini's Fascism, or Franco's Spain? "

Of course. This view that every view that is more authoritarian than your own must be fascist and support Fascist dictators is quite bizarre.

indigomyth: "Okay, but you would punish people for public blasphemy"

Yes, given democratic consent for doing so.


indigomyth: "Which would mean that you do not believe in Free Speech."

Very few people agree with completely free speech, so we have libel laws, and laws against inciting violence.


indigomyth: "You cannot say that slavery is wrong, because they Bible, and Jesus, do not proclaim it to be so."

Correct. But the Bible contains concessions. Divorce is a concession, that the Bible allows, rather than an ideal it promotes. Likewise, the Bible's ideal is freedom from slavery, and the ability to work for yourself, and to make money for yourself - and so that people will have the ability to share (voluntarily) with those in need.


//Yes, I believe in a form of theocracy.//

indigomyth: "You say this, and wonder at me calling you a Fascist!? "


Yes, because it suggests little understanding of history, or the variations possible in beliefs.


indigomyth: "You say the state is authorised to commit violence against people doing things that you (as a Christian) do not like."

Presumably you think the state is authorised to commit violence against people doing certain things, such as murder, and theft.


indigomyth: "I notice you also do not address the point I made that if you, in a democratic structure vote for something, you become in part responsible for it."

I didn't address it because it is true.


indigomyth: "I guess we just have fundamentally different views on the value of human liberty. You want an authoritarian, controlling state, I want people to be free."

I want people to be free. We just disagree on the extent to which the state should punish wrong-doing. You limit the state's role more than me, but it does not necessarily follow that I want a controlling state per se, just more controlling than you are happy with.

28 November 2009 at 12:26  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Ben Stevenson,

//I don't object to the principle of seeking to obey God. I don't think Sharia law is an expression of God's will.//

Yes, but that is not what Sharia law in Muslim countries is used for. It is used to force people to cover up their religious beliefs, and prevent blasphemy, and many other things because they go against Islam. It is perfectly right for you to want to obey God's instructions, but you also want everyone else to obey the teachings of your religion, and want to force hem, by threat of violence to do so. So, you only disagree with Sharia law for forcing people to act in accordance with Islam, even if they re not muslims, because they are forcng people to obey the wrong religion.

//Yes, given democratic consent for doing so.//

So, you support Muslim countries that prosecute and punish Christians for public displays of their faith, given the fact that it is likely that a majority would find rejecton of Islam repugnant?

Also, if a majority wanted to kll all the Jews, would you think that also accepable, because it had a democratic majority?

//Presumably you think the state is authorised to commit violence against people doing certain things, such as murder, and theft.//

Yes, but that is only because I have the authority to use violence to protect my life, liberty and property. However, since no individual has the authority to use violence to ge someone to obey religious convictions, the state cannot have the authoriy to do it either.

//I didn't address it because it is true.//

So you concede that your previous remark about
//I don't have power to permit or forbid anything - but I believe that the state should obey God regarding its function.//
is wrong.

The essential point is that you believe the state has the authority to use violence against people to make them adhere to your religious beliefs. No Libertarian makes such a statement.

//the Bible's ideal is freedom from slavery//

One would think that if it was an ideal it would be more clearly say that slavery is wrong.

Can you provide a passage that lauds freedom as the ideal? You have previously quoted one that said the very opposite, that the state had the right to restrict individual liberty.

//Very few people agree with completely free speech, so we have libel laws, and laws against inciting violence.//

Just because "most people" think something does not make correct.

28 November 2009 at 13:58  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

indigomyth: "So, you only disagree with Sharia law for forcing people to act in accordance with Islam, even if they re not muslims, because they are forcng people to obey the wrong religion."

Basically yes. All people are created by God, and whether they recognise it or not, they will answer to him. In theory, the role of the state is to act as a deterrent to public immorality.

The creator God, the king of the universe, has certain moral standards. Not believing in him does not free you from responsibility to obey them. So a society that rejects God, is unlikely to accept God's standards on sexual ethics (and the country's laws will likely reflect this), but that does not mean that those standards are not relevant to them - God will still hold them to account for their failure to obey.


indigomyth: "Also, if a majority wanted to kll all the Jews, would you think that also accepable, because it had a democratic majority?"

Obviously not. Democratic consent is important as a check on tyranny. But a majority cannot change something from being wicked to being good, simply by it being a majority viewpoint.
God sets the unchanging standards of what is right and wrong - and murder is always wrong, even when country's permit it (as our country does with abortion).


indigomyth: "Yes, but that is only because I have the authority to use violence to protect my life, liberty and property. However, since no individual has the authority to use violence to ge someone to obey religious convictions, the state cannot have the authoriy to do it either."

Where do you get this authority from?
It is God alone, who can legitemately give anyone any authority to use force against his neighbour.


indigomyth: "So you concede that your previous remark about
//I don't have power to permit or forbid anything - but I believe that the state should obey God regarding its function.//
is wrong."


No I don't. I, along with millions of others, get to vote for those I prefer. If enough people believe that the state should punish theft and murder, then it will. Those who vote for such a government share some responsibility for their choice. If enough people think abortion should be illegal, then that also will be illegal.

God has granted the authority to government to punish wrongdoings. I don't give it the right to do that. As I have said, if a democratic majority want to permit murder, it does not make it right.
The state gets its moral right to punish wrongdoing from God. The voters will help elect determine whether or not we get a government that has an accurate perception of what sort of actions should be punished.


indigomyth: "No Libertarian makes such a statement."

I am not a libertarian. I do however have some similarities with libertarians, such as support for capitalism and free markets, desire for lower taxes, etc.


indigomyth: "Can you provide a passage that lauds freedom as the ideal?"

"Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so." -- 1 Corinthians 7:21

"He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need." -- Ephesians 4:28

"Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, 12so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody." -- 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12

The first passage says that freedom is preferable to slavery. The second and third passges say that economic independence is the ideal.

28 November 2009 at 14:24  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Ben Stevenson,

//Obviously not. Democratic consent is important as a check on tyranny. But a majority cannot change something from being wicked to being good, simply by it being a majority viewpoint.
God sets the unchanging standards of what is right and wrong - and murder is always wrong, even when country's permit it (as our country does with abortion).//

So where does that leave your support for democracy? Do you think that the majority has the right to tell what laws should and should not be passed. Your philosophy is incoherent. You want the majority to dictate laws and so forth, yet you do not think the majority should be allowed to go against God's laws.

//As I have said, if a democratic majority want to permit murder, it does not make it right.//

Yes, but according to what you have said, you do not think it incorrect that states should be allowed to contravene God's law. But the state is the out working of the majority? So you do not believe in democracy, as you have said.

//I believe that the state should obey God regarding its function//

So, what if the majority do not want the state to obey God's law? Do you think the state should counter act the will of the majority?

//The creator God, the king of the universe, has certain moral standards. Not believing in him does not free you from responsibility to obey them. So a society that rejects God, is unlikely to accept God's standards on sexual ethics (and the country's laws will likely reflect this), but that does not mean that those standards are not relevant to them - God will still hold them to account for their failure to obey.//

Yes, but why do you have the right to use violence against those that wish to live in ways that contravene God's laws? Why is it not my right to live free and go to hell?

//Where do you get this authority from?
It is God alone, who can legitemately give anyone any authority to use force against his neighbour.//

I get the authority from the fact that I own myself, totally and completely. I am not owned by you, or the state, and therefore you have no authority to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body.

And you also believe that if God gave you personally the authority to go around killing Jews, for rejecting God, then that would be your right?

//as support for capitalism and free markets//

You do not support free markets. Do you support the right for people to sell their bodies via prostitution or pornography? If you do not, then you think the state should intervene in economic exchanges.

//In theory, the role of the state is to act as a deterrent to public immorality. //

No it isn't.

//I don't have power to permit or forbid anything - but I believe that the state should obey God regarding its function//

//Those who vote for such a government share some responsibility for their choice.//

But then, you do believe that you have some power to permit or forbid things, through the power of the state.

//The first passage says that freedom is preferable to slavery. The second and third passges say that economic independence is the ideal.//

Hardly lauding it; rather seems to be saying that if you can, that's okay, if you can't be free then just be satisfied. Hardly an injunction to throw off the shackles of oppression.

//to mind your own business//

And yet you, with your assertions that the state has the right to interfere in private lives, do not want to mind your own business, and would instead use your vote to intercede in other peoples lives.

28 November 2009 at 14:53  
Blogger indigomyth said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 November 2009 at 15:01  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Interestingly I found on the website you linked to this,

// No government in any form can make men Christians or truly obedient; this is the work of God' sovereign grace. Much less should civil government try to impose Biblical law on an unbelieving society. Biblical law cannot be imposed; it must be embraced. //

So, do you think that Biblical laws should be imposed on individuals?

28 November 2009 at 15:09  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

indigomyth,

I believe that God is the king of the universe and the ultimate judge of all. Everyone is accountable to him. All people are commanded to obey him, whether they recognise this or not. God's law does not apply only to believers, but to everyone.

However, where people do not recognise God as God, then the laws of the country are likely to be at odds with God's standards.

The country's laws cannot make people moral. They cannot make people love God - they should serve merely as a deterrent to public immorality.

In a democracy, the laws of the country reflect the wishes of the people. If the people reject God, then the country's laws will also reject God's standards. But if the people embrace God, then the country's laws will also follow.

Fortunately, unbelievers often agree with Christians on certain points, because God's law is written on our hearts. So it is not necessary for the majority of the population to be Christian, for a democratic society to be able to know that murder should be illegal. So even an immoral people can have moral laws. As such, the government serves as part of God's common grace to all, in that by the government, the government restrains society from being as bad as it could be, given the depravity of the human heart.

People tend to break laws where they can get away with it, e.g. music piracy on the internet. A good law, will however, act to restrain immorality.

In a democracy, the majority do dictate the laws - that is simply a fact of the system. But the majority can be wrong. A good system (democracy) does not guarentee a good outcome (obedience to God), but is still better than a bad system.

Democracy is a good system because it is a safeguard against tyranny. Democracy should not allow too much power to be concentrated in the hands of too few people. As people are naturally sinners and unrighteous - giving them too much power is not a good idea. This is why the US system of dispersal of power and checks and balances is a wise one.

I believe in democracy as a system of government. I believe in the Bible as the revelation of God's moral standard of how people should live. No system of government can make people righteous, and democratic societies may have unjust and immoral laws.



indigomyth: "You do not support free markets. Do you support the right for people to sell their bodies via prostitution or pornography? If you do not, then you think the state should intervene in economic exchanges."

I expect you believe the state should prohibit the hiring of contract killers, and the slave trade. So you don't object in theory to state interference in economic exchanges.
State interference should be minimal, but is, I believe, necessary in some circumstances.

28 November 2009 at 16:42  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//I expect you believe the state should prohibit the hiring of contract killers, and the slave trade. So you don't object in theory to state interference in economic exchanges.
State interference should be minimal, but is, I believe, necessary in some circumstances.//

Yes, but that is because the end result is a decrease in human liberty. As I have stated before, people own themselves and can do as they wish, which means prostitution is acceptable.

I only advocate state violence, when violence has been done to other human beings. You are advocating state violence to enforce your religion. There is a fundamental difference between the two positions. It is like saying that someone is being authoritarian by preventing someone from having sex with them. Or that to defend yourself against someone trying to kill you is to impede the killers liberty. It does no such thing.

//necessary in some circumstances.//

And those circumstances are in which God's law is being broken. So tell me, how can your ideal state have freedom of religion? Because is not worshipping a different God a sin, and therefore under the auspices of your Christian State?

//they should serve merely as a deterrent to public immorality.//

Again, no they shouldn't. Why should they? What reason have you for wanting that? Why are you not merely content to "mind your own business"?

//But if the people embrace God, then the country's laws will also follow.//

But why? What authority have you to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body? Because you believe that you have God on your side? Well, I believe you do not. So why should your fallible ability to perceive God mean that you can issue the state to use violence against me, when I have done no violence to anyone else?

//A good law, will however, act to restrain immorality.//

No it will not. My morality, is not your morality, therefore what right have you, or the state, to force me to act according to your morality, in my own life?

So, let us just recap, you do not believe in Free Speech and you do not believe people can do what they want with their own bodies, because it might offend your God.

I guess we just have foundationally different views on the state. I believe people own their own bodies, and can do whatever they want with their own body provided it doesn't limit another person's freedom. You do not.

Your ideology would plunge us into despotism and totalitarianism. It is truly evil. But then, at least you are honest about wanting to use violence against people that wish to live differently to you, and your religion. You also are a good source to quote for any Christian that says that all Christians want is to be left in peace.

It is impossible to talk with you in a meaningful way, because we have virtually no common ground. Your ideology is so essentially authoritarian and controlling that it doesn't fit into my head. Your lack of recognition for individual liberty makes my head hurt. If I had my way, you would be allowed to live as you wish; if you had your way you would invade my home, my life, and use violence against me to make me comply with your religion. Never before have I so clearly seen the need for the right to bear arms. I want to know that if any of your state sanctioned minions come and try and take me away, then I have recourse to taking a few of you with me.

Honestly, if it was a choice between the nightmarish totalitarian world you construct, where no one may do anything that contravenes your religion, and utter and total anarchy, then I would gladly choose the latter.

28 November 2009 at 17:21  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Though I did like this little exchange,

//indigomyth: "So, you only disagree with Sharia law for forcing people to act in accordance with Islam, even if they re not muslims, because they are forcng people to obey the wrong religion."

Basically yes. All people are created by God, and whether they recognise it or not, they will answer to him. In theory, the role of the state is to act as a deterrent to public immorality.//

I look forward to the bloody war between your totalitarian army, and the Islamist totalitarian army.

28 November 2009 at 17:26  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

indigomyth: "You also are a good source to quote for any Christian that says that all Christians want is to be left in peace."

Except, people can be Christians and yet disagree with me about the role of the state. My views are shared by many Christians, but not all.

28 November 2009 at 17:28  
Blogger Preacher said...

Well debated Ben, but this character's objective is simply to argue any point & destroy the thread of the Blog. Best left alone, carnival roundabouts lead nowhere!

28 November 2009 at 19:49  
Blogger indigomyth said...

This is what you Christians want!?

http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/polytheism.htm

It is utterly horrific what you want to do to other people in the name of Christianity. I literally cannot comprehend the extent of such totalitarianism.

28 November 2009 at 20:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indigo: Go away. You're booooooooooooring.

28 November 2009 at 21:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indigomyth@20:08 (& boo to 21:40)pt1
Some "slavery" in the Bible was indentured service to repay debts, not slavery. In 1 Timothy 1 Paul (Jewish theologian/believer in Jesus)says:"We know that the law is ..is made ..for slave traders." So God is against slave-trading. Some Bible passages about "law(s)" were for other times & cultures. The Israelites were told not to oppress anyone,they'd suffered in Egypt. Some parts were written to believers under dictatorships, but God is against oppression. The context is key. I try to ask what does this say about who God is, His attitude to/will for man in the time & circumstances, to know Him better. The gospel however does not change nor the historical nor prophetic.Although a blessing, reading the Bible isn't easy & needs God's help to understand - only He understands it perfectly. In the times of the Mosaic "law" before Jesus died (look at how He lived in the Gospels for perfect application of the Law), there are sections about with societal laws(ie Exodus-Deutoromony) in the context of "close community" in a Jewish theocracy pre-Jesus' fullfilling the "Law". Also the Prophets re God berating abuses of law. God allowed(I lack can't find it right now) for self defence if someone robbed your home eg in darkness.He also allowed for govt & armies. Christians may or may not defend themselves, in a particular situation. Likewise to protect others. Re free speech: some libertarians (a continuum) don't like perjury or defamation about themselves/their loved ones sometimes. Are libertarians for framing people? murder? theft? If you don't murder, are laws needed to protect you from others who do? In the Bible, law refers not necessarily to the Mosaic law; it was not the first system God had for man. There was another "law" for the time of Adam & Eve, for Noah & after Jesus' death & resurrection as punishment for our failure to keep the Mosaic law which showed us we couldn't be good or obey or worship God 100% & needed instead God's mercy & forgiveness.If you don't follow Jesus (& I hope you will one day) look at the "non-religious" of the 10 Commandments (though loving God is key). Jesus said the Mosaic Law was summarised as Love God 100%& don't have 1 "law" for yourself & another for others. Honour your father & mother(ie take your relationship with them seriously, which may or may not be easy, no parent is perfect),don't murder, don't steal,don't purposely lie about another,don't covet ie crave after the property, status, life, livelihood etc. of another which doesn't preclude wanting good things, only not craving to the point of wishing to destroy or steal another's well-being. To which of these does a libertarian object? I doubt libertarians are pro-100%-freedom; you wouldn't have the right to defend yourself or any property rights,someone could take it lawfully & it would be anarchy & tyranny by the most strong/ruthless/manipulative.
God doesn't want Christians to sin, so Christians can't obey laws telling them to do evil to God, self, others, animal or creation. People matter. Though God does want Christians to generally be law-abiding.

29 November 2009 at 01:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to Indigomyth (part 2)
Re freedom, God is all for that. Galations 5 says "stand fast in the freedom with which Christ has made us(ie Christians) free & don't be entangled by a yoke of slavery". Christians are free to do good & not evil.Is that not freedom? Freedom without bounds of morality is a free-for-all. Don't you want some dispute mechanism like civil & criminal law? Good law protects society & social fabic so people can thrive, including vulnerable people. Christians believe certain sins bring God's wrath & harm society, but they vary in what should be legislated. The Bible also says too many laws in society are a sign of societal problems(?isaiah) & not to overcorrect kids(colossians3,ephesians6).Please don't stereotype Christians & if you wish, read the Bible & ask God's opinion. He is never wrong.
He also does not micromanage & He is for privacy, dignity, free-will & not for government meddling in every area of life. Blessings.

29 November 2009 at 01:07  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Anonymous @ 01:07,

//Please don't stereotype Christians //

I am not. Look at the source I site, and see the level of control that Christians want.

//Christians are free to do good & not evil.Is that not freedom? Freedom without bounds of morality is a free-for-all.//

Which means that only Christians are free. You are couching freedom in terms of Christians being free to obey God. I do not want to obey God, I do not want to obey his laws regarding my own body, I do not want to have state violence against me because I want to say or do things which do not limit other peoples freedom.

A free-for-all is to some extent, good. It allows free market forces to act on ways of living.

In fact, what you mean by freedom is nothing more than "freedom to obey the Christian God", and brutalise anyone else that raises any objection.

//Good law protects society & social fabic so people can thrive, including vulnerable people. //

No they do not, good laws enhance individual freedom, by enforcing negative rights. Laws DO NOT protect "society" or the "social fabric", they protect individuals from violence and coercion from other people and organisations.

//Christians believe certain sins bring God's wrath & harm society//

Well Muslims believe that apostasy is a capital crime, does not make it correct. Why should Christians be able to use the state to commit violence against individuals, merely on the basis of "sinning"?

As I have established with other Christians on this site, they put God's will before human liberty, and consider it appropriate to use state violence against people that are "sinning".

I have also said that I would sooner have the complete and total destruction of government, total anarchy, rather than the totalitarian theonomic nightmare that you want.

//To which of these does a libertarian object?//

Some of them are suitable protections of individual liberty, however others are completely unsuitable to be made into law. Do not lie? What even if there are Jews in your attic, and the men in suits knock at your door? (Incidentally, I have heard Christians saying that it is better to reveal the location of the Jew, rather than lie to the Nazi).

//livelihood etc. of another which doesn't preclude wanting good things, only not craving to the point of wishing to destroy or steal another's well-being.//

Which is anathema to free trade. If a business is poorly run, then it is only reasonable that they be utterly destroyed if the market competition is strong enough. That is the brilliance of the free market.

//I doubt libertarians are pro-100%-freedom; you wouldn't have the right to defend yourself or any property rights,someone could take it lawfully & it would be anarchy & tyranny by the most strong/ruthless/manipulative.//

Yes I would, of course I would. The right to defend myself is intrinsic to the idea that I own myself, that my body is my own property. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that stopping someone from killing me is taking away the would-be murderers freedom! Which is absurd, because they are trying to take away my liberty.

//it would be anarchy & tyranny by the most strong/ruthless/manipulative.//

Better that than the tyranny of Christians. At least in that circumstance, such dictators are unlikely to have a very strong support structure, and will easily fall once dead.

//God doesn't want Christians to sin, so Christians can't obey laws telling them to do evil to God, self, others, animal or creation. People matter.//

I do not expect Christians to obey laws telling them to do things they disagree with, other than if that law is telling them to leave other people alone to get on with their own lives.

29 November 2009 at 10:11  
Anonymous len said...

Man does as he pleases, but his will binds him and carries him downward, and man cannot reverse his fallen nature. Man cannot renew his own will. Man cannot change his own heart; neither can man regenerate or make anew his old fallen nature. So man is free as far as the outside forces are concerned, but his will is bound by his old nature, which is enmity toward God and he cannot please God. Therefore, man is free to sin, but is free from holiness, and man is helpless in his state of sin. Therefore man will not come to God because it is not in him to will to come to God. His whole fallen nature is turned into a direction away from God, and man cannot come to God, because his heart is darkened and deceived. Man can no more turn to God than a dead man can rise from the grave. SO GOD, AND GOD ALONE, BY HIS SOVEREIGN GRACE CAN CALL DEAD SINNERS TO LIFE, put a new nature in them, and release their depraved wills from the power of their old fallen nature and turn them toward Christ. So we have to come to the one conclusion that MAN’S WILL IS IN BONDAGE, and even though he is a free moral agent he has no free will.

29 November 2009 at 11:42  
Anonymous len said...

MAN’S ENTIRE BEING IS DEPRAVED; therefore, he has no righteousness, no understanding or knowledge of God; he does not seek after God. He is going away from God; he has no natural goodness. The way of peace he has not known, and there is no fear of God before his eyes. His mouth is full of cursing; his throat is an open sepulchre; his heart is deceitful, incurably wicked; his righteousness is as filthy rags. He is in open rebellion against God; there is no love of God in his heart. He is without strength, and therefore he has no power to come to the Son except the Father draw him. His carnal mind is enmity against God. He has no power to do good. Therefore, he wills not to repent, and within himself he cannot come to Christ. So we see that the bondage of the sinner’s will is definitely set forth in the Scriptures.

29 November 2009 at 11:48  
Anonymous len said...

It is the Holy Spirit’s work in the heart of a sinner to give him that knowledge of his utter helplessness, his right view of sin and its power, the knowledge of his unbelief, the knowledge that he is a son of Satan and is held captive by Satan. Then He sees that free will can do him no good. This is where the sinner cries out, “Lord, I can’t believe; help Thou my unbelief.” The sinner’s one cry is, “Lord, don’t leave me; don’t forsake me. Save me, Lord, or I perish. Give me faith to lay hold of You.” He realizes his weakness; he realizes his utter helplessness. The Holy Spirit slowly but surely tears him loose and separates him completely from all creature faith; He takes all other gods from before him and leaves him standing, as it were, before a sovereign God — guilty, condemned to die, unable to believe, with only one plea: “Christ died, and He died for me.”

29 November 2009 at 11:52  
Anonymous Dobryden said...

The Manhattan Declaration is an ungodly manifesto, contemptuous of the blood and righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is an ecumenical treatise, complete with a Romish gospel and shot through and through with popish error. Those evangelicals who have authored this document and who have led the way in signing it show themselves to be in rebellion to God. It is, in their case, a brazen manifesto of treason against the Lord Jesus Christ. And they are not friends but rather are enemies of Christian liberty in that they disobey and provoke the Author of liberty with their spiritual fornication, even wresting His word and corrupting His blood-bought church. It is the biblical duty of all faithful Christian pastors to stand against the evangelical authors of the Manhattan Declaration and all evangelicals who sign it or promote it in any way. Such betrayers of Christ and His church must be separated from and called to account by all faithful Christian ministers and people.

29 November 2009 at 15:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indigomyth pt 1
I think you're stereotyping Christians. Why not go to the source, the New testament to see how real & fake Christians behave? Truly free trade is good, but some people abuse power. Do you think that trade can ever be truly free & not needing some regulation to protect from abuse of power by some? Power tends to corrupt. Not all the powerful abuse their power but some do.Some indiviuals/small/ large companies are fail/make less not by inefficiency but because they play fair/aren't ruthless/ abuse influence. Their freedom is reduced by criminals. Do criminals (any size) deserve more freedom without penalty than those who are not? Do you believe in any laws? Do you want to be able to defend your home & livelihood from criminal acts, regardless of the strength of the burglar(private or state)? Should the outcome depend only on relative power& self-restraint? Good laws allow for self-defence(There ARE Mosaic Law scripture allow self-defense, sorry as I said, I coudn't locate them).No laws would mean everyone would be free to do anything without deterrents of punishment & accountability, so the strongest would prevail where God did not intervene. That is more freedom for the stronger.You are free to judge Christians & even Jesus by one video or not. Why not read the source of Christianity(the New Testament written to Jewish & Gentile followers of Jesus, though not negating the Old Testament)to see what God says re Christianity & then compare clips of the video with what you read in the Bible? If you've been grieved or offended by Christians(fake or real & fallible), I'm sorry & have also been wounded & deceived(& wounded others);so I try to go to the Bible not people as my source re God. Christians in persecuted countries sometimes are more like Jesus because the cost of being Christian is higer; suffering matures real Christians(fakes (except state spies) mostly vanish with threats to career,home,lives, family,assets);comfort is good but with it also comes temptation to pride, greed & selfishness in all, Christian or not. Re lying: the 10 commandments say don't slander your neighbour. Not all slander & lying was legislated under the then Mosaic Law but perjury was ie frame someone, & if justly tried, the false witness(/es) incurred the punishment due for the crime they purposely falsely accused. In some cases(as you may know) the Bible allows for lying, such as in "protect from Nazi-types-regardless-of-label" situations -see Rahab & the hebrew midwives in the Old Testament. There can be mission creep & lying usually grieves God (all sin in against God, some against man) - i.a. it robs the lied-to-one(s) of the truth & freedom they need to make optimum free-will decisions;its a manipulative abuse of power. I hate totalitarian acts, whatever the prefessed creed. I understand where libertarians come from, but I was smeared by a few freedom-promoters myself(1 wanted the freedom to harass but didn't love true freedom & cooperated with smearers & oppressors)- that should not tar the whole bunch, should it? You're free to like (or not) all "Christians", but is such stereotyping fair?

30 November 2009 at 01:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

indigomyth pt 2
I have a very slow computer & didn't watch the video, so I'm reacting to your judjing Christianity by a video.
The Bible says(argue with God, the ultimate authority, not me on this), that only Jesus saves people from their sin ie wrong-doing. Re "Christians": professing Christianity in itself does not make someone/a church Christian. In Matthew 25:34, Jesus said "When the Son of man shall come in His glory, & all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory; And before Him he gathered all nations; & He shall separate them one from another,as a shepherd divideth His sheep from the goats; And He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the king say unto them on His right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry, & ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, & ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, & ye took me in: Naked & ye clothed me: I was sick, & ye visited me: I was in prison, & ye came unto me...." (contrast with rest of the chapter who professed Christianity but didn't care for real people, were fake & end up in hell with those who reject the forgiveness of sins though Jesus). Elsewhere (I can't find it right now, sorry) Jesus says performing supernatural miracles in His name isn't proof of real Christianity.
Also Revelations.I hope you will read what He has to say in the Bible, so you can really choose whether to follow or reject Him, rather than risk rejecting Him (& embracing Hell where there is not freedom) based on encounters with a subset of "Christians"(real & fallible & sometimes insentive, or fake) you have encountered on the internet or otherwise. If you don't want Jesus, He gives you the freedom to reject Him but I hope He reveals Himself to you & you choose Him, because there is no freedom in Hell. Why don't you reason with God about this, not the "God" you believe "Christians" represent but the real God per the Bible? Tell him you don't like things - I challenge to ask Him if He is like that - if you genuinely seek Him, it is Him drawing you to Himself. He is not a Nazi-type dictator, though sovereign, & though allowing free-will to do right as well as wrong where He does not always directly intervene. He does not like any wrongs done to you or others in or not in the name of Jesus , and will judge all unless they repent. See Psalm 73 & 37 (this is not an indictment of all the rich or powerful, some choose to be ethical, as with the poor), some injustices are not dealt with until the death of the wrong-doer(s), regardless of whether they are rich or powerful or not.

30 November 2009 at 01:34  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older