Hypocrisy Among American Fundamentalists

I would say that our job is to allow righteousness to live through us. It is possible, and it requires more humility than i currently possess.

Sounds good but in practicality, even if we could do it consistently, how could we demonstrate a righteous political choice merely by how we act? You don't seem to want us to SAY anything, PREACH anything, do anything at all except act righteously, which you don't describe. And if we could, who would we influence except those closest to us? Not that that's not worth anything, but it doesn't make us salt and light in the culture.

Except, of course, for the fact that Jesus was at least a hippie socialist and according to the Bible a communist and supporter of social welfare.If you would like to learn I will be happy to once again direct you to some of the Biblical support for my position and as you well know, it will be extensive and conclusive.

But religion has more than just the potential for abuse. It has a demonstrated history of abuse. We can speculate about the potential for abuse by environmentalists (an example from one of your previous posts), but no speculation is necessary for the abuse religion is capable of. We need only look at history. I'm pretty sure I couldn't come up with a proposal that walks all the fine lines - it seems a very tough task.Leaving aside the absence of religion, at one end of the religious spectrum religion is just something one does on Sunday. At the other end religion permeates a great deal of daily life. For some people religion overlaps secular life little or not at all. For others there is almost no separation between the religious and the secular. How do these polar opposites, and all the shades in between, co-exist in a single country? I don't know.It does feel reasonable to me that the more politically active a religion the less entitled to tax-exempt status it should be. Preaching politics from the pulpit? Fine, I guess, though it strikes me as inappropriate. Putting up political billboards? The money the church had to earn to pay for it should be taxed.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I'm rather interested in hearing your Scriptural reasons against Obamacare. Do you mind giving a couple?Since Christians seem entirely unable to provide miraculous healings for the millions of desperately sick in our "Christian" nation, it does provide me some measure of comfort that the desolate woman with the issue of blood, or the cripple at the well of Bethesda would have been provided with medical help under Obamacare.

It's a pastor's job to tell his congregation how their consciences tally with what God wants them to do. The point of religion is largely to adjust people's consciences. That's a pretty poor case in point. I said, "candidates who support feeding the hungry, healing the sick, etc." not candidates who support socialism. I disagree. If we're paying the taxes anyway, we should be electing middle men who are going to use the money according to our consciences.

What about a Church group that won't sell you a book. But they will give you a book for $21 donation. I see that as blatant tax cheating.

I believe that our current separation of church and state jurisprudence is sufficient to handle most of that problem here. I do have some disagreement with the views of some current Justices. We have some history with environmentalists issues too. The Sierra Club (wrongly in my opinion) lost their tax exempt status for becoming involved too politically for some people.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Quite frankly, I dont believe that a christian should ever be president of the united States due to conflict of interest. The interests of the United States are not what Jesus would advocate, in my opinion.Of course the alternative president would be worse....so this is not an easy issue to discuss. Were we a Theocracy rather than a Democracy (or Republic, according to some) the issue would be easier.

Hi Hyroglyphx, Could you tell me what gospel you are talking about?I would like to hear what you think the gospel is.God Bless,

Hi Phat, Do you realize how many of our Presidents have been members of Churches?You do know that IKE was the president responsible for the statement of "under God" being added to the pledge to the flag. He also was responsible for "In God we trust" being placed on our currency.God Bless,

The United States had different interests in IKEs time.Our national focus has faded since then, IMHO.

True. The only problem is the massive disparity in interpretation that is often found within churches. One church views Christ as a liberal hippie, while another views him as an NRA-supporting war hero. [quote=Hyroglyphx]Case in point, I don't equate a candidate who supports socialism to necessarily be doing that on behalf of the poor.[/quote=Hyroglyphx]I'm just distinguishing from the Christians who equate paying taxes to be morally on par with feeding the hungry, healing the sick, visiting those in prison, etc. Taxes have their place scripturally. Obviously "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," comes to mind, but paying the tax does not satisfy what was called. Jesus was very explicit about how to go about it.Do you feel like you've done your moral obligation by simply allowing the government to withhold your wages (as if you had any choice in the matter) or is it better to actually donate of your own volition and going directly to the source of the problem? I think most people would agree that charity trumps taxation.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you expound?

The teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ.