The Christian Thread

Epignosis wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Just dropping in. If you guys haven't seen What's The Matter With Kansas, you might find it interesting: http://www.hulu.com/watch/235713 Nothing!  Except Kerry Livgren and Robbie Steinhardt left! Doesn't that belong in the political thread though?  Reading the summary on Wikipedia (I'm not watching a 90 minute + commercial documentary on this subject), it seems to be a criticism of Terry Fox. I'm a Christian Libertarian, which usually makes everyone uncomfortable.

Edited by AlexDOM - December 04 2012 at 22:36

Jim, I'm pretty sure Roine Stolt is, his Flower Kings albums are peppered with endless Christian imagery, symbolism and references. However, I know plenty of non-Christians who enjoy that bands' music without relating to the religious/spiritual elements.

As for Trewavas and Portnoy, I have no idea! I'm sure someone of these Archives must know!

Edited by Aussie-Byrd-Brother - December 05 2012 at 02:54

Aussie-Byrd-Brother wrote: Jim, I'm pretty sure Roine Stolt is, his Flower Kings albums are peppered with endless Christian imagery, symbolism and references. However, I know plenty of non-Christians who enjoy that bands' music without relating to the religious/spiritual elements. As for Trewavas and Portnoy, I have no idea! I'm sure someone of these Archives must know!

Mike Portnoy is a non-practicing Jew.

AlexDOM wrote: Epignosis wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Just dropping in. If you guys haven't seen What's The Matter With Kansas, you might find it interesting: http://www.hulu.com/watch/235713 Nothing!  Except Kerry Livgren and Robbie Steinhardt left! Doesn't that belong in the political thread though?  Reading the summary on Wikipedia (I'm not watching a 90 minute + commercial documentary on this subject), it seems to be a criticism of Terry Fox. I'm a Christian Libertarian, which usually makes everyone uncomfortable. Could you expound on how and why that makes everyone uncomfortable, because I guess I don't see it.

I tried responding to you, but the forum ate my response. 

Basically this:

I believe certain things are immoral, but I do not believe those things should be the subject of legislation.

In this region, churches tend to believe that laws should be passed against "immoral" behavior.  I don't believe that.

Mr. Maestro wrote: Epignosis wrote: AlexDOM wrote: Epignosis wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Just dropping in. If you guys haven't seen What's The Matter With Kansas, you might find it interesting: http://www.hulu.com/watch/235713 Nothing!  Except Kerry Livgren and Robbie Steinhardt left! Doesn't that belong in the political thread though?  Reading the summary on Wikipedia (I'm not watching a 90 minute + commercial documentary on this subject), it seems to be a criticism of Terry Fox. I'm a Christian Libertarian, which usually makes everyone uncomfortable. Could you expound on how and why that makes everyone uncomfortable, because I guess I don't see it. I tried responding to you, but the forum ate my response.  Basically this: I believe certain things are immoral, but I do not believe those things should be the subject of legislation. In this region, churches tend to believe that laws should be passed against "immoral" behavior.  I don't believe that.   I feel very much the same way.  Though I don't count myself a libertarian, I do agree that a government shouldn't impose moral standards on people who have no desire to follow them.  National laws should uphold justice, not enforce morality.

I have similar social libertarian leanings, although I would consider myself more of a moderate on social issues.  I do think that certain regulations need to be in place surrounding immoral activity (mostly to protect children) but in general I think that what people do in private is their own business, as long as they're not hurting anyone else.  I don't want another faith's morality imposed upon me, so I don't see why Christians should impose theirs on anyone else.  If we want people to behave morally, we should work on their hearts and share the gospel with them, not push some overbearing legislation that's just going to make them bitter.  "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Hey PA Christians, what's your favorite Pauline epistle? It's between Galatians and Romans for me.

I don't really have one, to be honest.  Hoards of wisdom.  I like Ephesians a lot, I suppose.

Galatians, however, is the one where Paul wishes that his audience would cut their penises off though.

Galatians is a remarkable book because it expresses a timeless value of Christianity: Your station in life has no bearing on your station with Christ.  We are ALL the sinners with whom he is pleased to eat.  How incredible is that?

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: My favorite part of Galatians is Paul's emphatic proclamation on freedom in Christ; we are no longer bound to the law, as slaves, but have received our inheritance as sons of God.  We're not saved by rule-keeping, but by grace through faith in Christ Jesus, who is making us a new creation!  Legalism keeps rearing its ugly head inside and outside the church, and Paul's letter is so encouraging and convicting as a rebuttal to legalism and an affirmation of Christian freedom from the law.

I would ask that you consider Paul's audience (and Paul himself):

When were you ever a "slave to rule-keeping?"

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Epignosis wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: My favorite part of Galatians is Paul's emphatic proclamation on freedom in Christ; we are no longer bound to the law, as slaves, but have received our inheritance as sons of God.  We're not saved by rule-keeping, but by grace through faith in Christ Jesus, who is making us a new creation!  Legalism keeps rearing its ugly head inside and outside the church, and Paul's letter is so encouraging and convicting as a rebuttal to legalism and an affirmation of Christian freedom from the law. I would ask that you consider Paul's audience (and Paul himself): When were you ever a "slave to rule-keeping?" Well, six years ago (this sounds silly, but remember, six years ago I was 12) I was on a crusade against, of all things, swear words.  Every time someone said one, I would call them out, I considered myself superior because I didn't swear...you get the picture.  At the time, I, in my self-righteous state, thought I was righteous and justified in this.  I was wrong.  I was putting a burden on others and really irritating them with my legalistic stance on the subject.  I alienated people and put unnecessary tension in my relationships with others.

When I was a teenager (and a Christian) and people would tell me certain words were unacceptable, I would ask them if the biblical authors had a lexicon of the English language.  No one ever appreciated my sentiment.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Epignosis wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Epignosis wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: My favorite part of Galatians is Paul's emphatic proclamation on freedom in Christ; we are no longer bound to the law, as slaves, but have received our inheritance as sons of God.  We're not saved by rule-keeping, but by grace through faith in Christ Jesus, who is making us a new creation!  Legalism keeps rearing its ugly head inside and outside the church, and Paul's letter is so encouraging and convicting as a rebuttal to legalism and an affirmation of Christian freedom from the law. I would ask that you consider Paul's audience (and Paul himself): When were you ever a "slave to rule-keeping?" Well, six years ago (this sounds silly, but remember, six years ago I was 12) I was on a crusade against, of all things, swear words.  Every time someone said one, I would call them out, I considered myself superior because I didn't swear...you get the picture.  At the time, I, in my self-righteous state, thought I was righteous and justified in this.  I was wrong.  I was putting a burden on others and really irritating them with my legalistic stance on the subject.  I alienated people and put unnecessary tension in my relationships with others.  When I was a teenager (and a Christian) and people would tell me certain words were unacceptable, I would ask them if the biblical authors had a lexicon of the English language.  No one ever appreciated my sentiment. The thing is, the epistle of James does tell us to keep away from "coarse language."  But what is considered "coarse" is completely relative to each culture and to each situation.  For example, "sh*t" essentially means nothing different than "poop."  But in our culture, "sh*t" is considered vulgar, whereas "poop" is not.  Then you have to consider that in some circles, using that word will be acceptable, while in some, it will not.  Paul uses the word in Romans, I believe (most translators use "rubbish" instead, unfortunately).

Well said.  Though there is a good reason not to say sh*t in front of your pastor- courtesy and knowing your audience, yes?