Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

    Originally posted by naturallystoned View Post
    Yet another reason why I love the Catholic Church...
    I agree with you Naturallystoned that it is easy to look at what men have written and find confidence in it but it is another thing to prove it with scriptures.

    A little challenge for you if you want to accept it. How many types of leadership in the form of church government are their in the NT?
    This is what the apostles established......

    Watch out some terms are used interchangeably.

    I will give you a starting point.

    Titus 1:5-7
    The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.

    Kestas I have not forgotten about you.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

      Originally posted by Kestas View Post
      well, by the official Christian (Catholic) church I ment Vatican first and foremost, but also Orthodox churches (meaning Patriarchy of Moscow as a governing body of the eastern Orthodox Church and so on) and Protestant church (unfortunately I'm unable to name the governing bodies of the main branches of the Protestant church).. anyways, I seriously doubt that any substantial branch of Christian church (meaning its governing body) would ever encourage its members not to participate in pollitics. not in the modern era, at least. if it were to do so, it would not gather any aproval from major churches and would probably be called a sect, simple as that. it's members, on the other hand, should probably be considered religeous fanatics. not that we have not seen such groups emerging - they exist in every country and in every society, unfortunatelly.
      we can see what results from various Islamic groups calling for a religion-first approach in polytics - this leads nowhere. It could have been (and was) valuable a few hundred of a few thousand years ago, but now I believe humanity does not need it at all. besides, it can develop into a religion-only approach, which, if moved to politics, is totally destructive, imho. in the current sircumstances this is extremism at its purest and it should be dealt with at all levels possible, no matter what the religion that propagates it is.
      Alright Kestas I am going to be a little bit more open with you. I think this is beneficial just for the mere fact your comparing me to what seems to be an islamic terrorist. I have to admit that is a first for me.

      I have been a disciple of Jesus for a little over 6 years now and I realize thats not a very long time. In my life I grew up with a very little religious background and came to my beliefs through studing the Bible. I go to a church that is non-denominational and my beliefs about voting or holding political office isn't a core christian doctrine or if you want a salvation issue in my church. Its what I would consider a disputable matter that shouldn't separate believers from one another.

      In my church I am considered average at best with my skill to use scriptures but it is defiantly an expectation in my church to familiarize ourselves with every aspect of Bible. Many churches call it trying to be a Berean, Acts 17:11. This is why I use so many scriptures to back up my beliefs.

      Anyways thats a little bit of background for you but lets get to your comment about religious extremism. I find it interesting that you think my belief is fanitical because this was the belief of the very early church. People might say that its wrong but it still reflects what the early church followed as its doctrine.

      Was it extremism back then and is it now? Of course. Is government less corrupt than in 100 A.D Rome? Yes. Does that mean its ok to lend our christian hands in the pursuit of justice in our respective nations? To me, NO? I could easily say that although governments are less corrupt today, churches are more corrupt than they were in 100 A.D.

      It is almost fortelling that you use the word sect to describe anyone who follows this conviction for that is the exact word used by the Jews to describe Jesus and his followers (Acts 24:5). I think the orgins of christianity are in category of extremism. Would you consider Jesus's commandment to "take up your cross and follow him" extreme? I would.

      I consider it more extreme to be a christian and find justification in killing/torturing a person whether in war or self-defense. This to me is more foreign to Jesus than say "Stay out of Politics".

      But like I said this isn't an issue that should separate christians from being united in Christ.

      1 Cor 1:10
      I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

      Ephesians 4:2-3
      Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

        Originally posted by Eindar View Post
        I think the bolded part is interesting because here Paul is preaching that the Corinthian church should separate itself from unbelievers, whereas in the Gospels Jesus is often found dining with sinners and unbelievers. His message was that sinners should be embraced and shown a good example. At this point I'd also like to point out that Paul never met Jesus. So, to me, that shows how quickly a philosophy can change over a short period of time, and also how many small contradictions there are in the Bible.
        Eindar do you still think the "yoke" passage (2 Cor 6:14) is a contradiction from Jesus because in my opinion it is not.

        IT would be interesting to learn how a christian becomes a deist christian.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
          But I appeal to you to abandon the notion that there is merit in judging others or defining evil as the other guy.
          Can you explain this for me? What do you think I am calling the "other guy" and who do you think I am "judging"?

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

            Originally posted by Gamble View Post
            Eindar do you still think the "yoke" passage (2 Cor 6:14) is a contradiction from Jesus because in my opinion it is not.

            IT would be interesting to learn how a christian becomes a deist christian.
            From what I've been reading, it's ambiguous whether he is telling the clergy to disassociate themselves from the unbelievers, or simply to stop letting unbelievers rope them into their pagan lifestyle. I don't think we'll ever get a solid answer on that.

            How does a Christian become a Deist Christian? Simple. I spent so much time as a young man going to church, reading the bible, and attending chapel/bible study groups, that I realized sometime around my senior year in high school that churches are no longer telling me anything I don't already know. I was no longer learning anything. I had grown beyond what the church could teach me.

            I then came to realize that I don't need the church to worship God. In fact, I don't need anyone but myself at this point. Does the church serve a role? Certainly. I believe they should be there to instruct those who still find their information to be informative, and also to teach the young about religion. Obviously, these churches need money to operate, but I don't feel that the church needs gold crosses, gold communion cups, and 30 foot high stained glass windows to preach the Word of God. It's vanity and decadence, to be honest. There's no reason a church couldn't provide the same function at someone's home, or, if membership is high enough to warrant it, a small, plain structure. Whenever I see all the gold rings, rich linens, and gold leaf around the vatican, I think "how many people could you have fed with what was spent on those items?". Churches are far, far too often involved in politics and one-upmanship with each other that is completely unneccessary, in my opinion. The role of the church should be to instruct new Christians, strengthen the faith of those who are faltering and request help, and perform small services for those who require/desire it, such as weddings, communion, and baptism. Anything beyond that does nothing to glorify God, and only serves Man.

            As a Deist, I see God all around me, and I don't feel I need a church or a minister as a conduit to help keep me close to God and Jesus. I accept certain fundamental truths central to most if not all Christians, and leave the rest for contemplation. I think denominations spend far too much time arguing over how they interpret the .01% of the rulebook (Bible) they see differently, and not nearly enough time focusing on what they agree on. Again, it's one-upmanship. The goal is to attract followers (money) into your denomination so that you can have 12 services per week (and a really big bell tower, and a 20 foot tall altar with gold leaf on it). Personally, I find the whole thing disgusting.

            I guess I'm just fed up with the commercialism and meddling of churches, and no current church fits the niche that I would prefer that they fall into. So, I worship God in my own time, in my own way.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

              Originally posted by Eindar View Post
              From what I've been reading, it's ambiguous whether he is telling the clergy to disassociate themselves from the unbelievers, or simply to stop letting unbelievers rope them into their pagan lifestyle. I don't think we'll ever get a solid answer on that.

              How does a Christian become a Deist Christian? Simple. I spent so much time as a young man going to church, reading the bible, and attending chapel/bible study groups, that I realized sometime around my senior year in high school that churches are no longer telling me anything I don't already know. I was no longer learning anything. I had grown beyond what the church could teach me.

              I then came to realize that I don't need the church to worship God. In fact, I don't need anyone but myself at this point. Does the church serve a role? Certainly. I believe they should be there to instruct those who still find their information to be informative, and also to teach the young about religion. Obviously, these churches need money to operate, but I don't feel that the church needs gold crosses, gold communion cups, and 30 foot high stained glass windows to preach the Word of God. It's vanity and decadence, to be honest. There's no reason a church couldn't provide the same function at someone's home, or, if membership is high enough to warrant it, a small, plain structure. Whenever I see all the gold rings, rich linens, and gold leaf around the vatican, I think "how many people could you have fed with what was spent on those items?". Churches are far, far too often involved in politics and one-upmanship with each other that is completely unneccessary, in my opinion. The role of the church should be to instruct new Christians, strengthen the faith of those who are faltering and request help, and perform small services for those who require/desire it, such as weddings, communion, and baptism. Anything beyond that does nothing to glorify God, and only serves Man.

              As a Deist, I see God all around me, and I don't feel I need a church or a minister as a conduit to help keep me close to God and Jesus. I accept certain fundamental truths central to most if not all Christians, and leave the rest for contemplation. I think denominations spend far too much time arguing over how they interpret the .01% of the rulebook (Bible) they see differently, and not nearly enough time focusing on what they agree on. Again, it's one-upmanship. The goal is to attract followers (money) into your denomination so that you can have 12 services per week (and a really big bell tower, and a 20 foot tall altar with gold leaf on it). Personally, I find the whole thing disgusting.

              I guess I'm just fed up with the commercialism and meddling of churches, and no current church fits the niche that I would prefer that they fall into. So, I worship God in my own time, in my own way.
              Although I don't have the same beliefs for the role of a church as you do I really respect your observations when it comes to how the church spends its money. My church has met for 20 years or so in a leased school or other building. IT isn't becuase we can't afford one its due more to the fact that we support churches and missions in poor countries. This has greatly saped our funds for anything like a building even if it was meager.

              I agree with you that .01% of the Bible is the tragedy of the churches today. How could things go so wrong?

              I think it is a result of man serving himself rather than God.

              Thanks for your explanation..

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                Originally posted by naturallystoned View Post
                Yet another reason why I love the Catholic Church...
                The answer to my question is 2 types of leadership or church government.
                Bishop also called many different things and Deacon. Early church writings support this view of what the apostles established for the time after them. THis includes Rome.

                The 3 fold leadership has its first signs in a letter by Ignatius at 105 A.D.

                Why do I make this point? IF any church claims it has orthodox beliefs or apostolic beliefs or authority its only necessary to prove it.

                There is no conclusive evidence that one bishop in a church held authority over another at a different church until the time of Constantine.

                For those that want to look at Luther and Calvin to find their beliefs I would like to point out that blood is still on their hands.

                Give me the leader or apostle in the early church that held it "ok" to silence heresy by violence or an uprising of peasants with murder? (Calvin and Luther did)

                Give me the leader or apostle in the early church who thought it was ok to defend his life with violence as today catholics do?

                2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
                I am writing this to provoke thought not to anger anyone. I have held many doctrines that I later found out were not biblical or apostolic.

                For those who think I shouldn't judge those who claim christianity I would like to point out 1 Cor 5:12-13.

                What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                  Originally posted by Gamble View Post
                  I agree with you Naturallystoned that it is easy to look at what men have written and find confidence in it but it is another thing to prove it with scriptures.
                  The problem, as noted earlier in the thread, is that the bible doesn't contain everything...

                  "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

                  "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

                  "You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2).

                  "‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 12).
                  Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                  I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                    Originally posted by Gamble View Post
                    Give me the leader or apostle in the early church who thought it was ok to defend his life with violence as today catholics do?
                    I don't know if you read 2263 as well as 2264...

                    The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
                    Or the excerpt in 2264 (Is Thomas Aquinas too late?)

                    If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's
                    Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                    I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                      I indeed read both of those and I do believe Thomas Aquinas was to late, 1200's. By that time alot of doctrines that were created would have been foreign to the early church, (pre-Constantane).

                      You are right in saying that the bible doesn't contain everything but Jesus
                      did not leave us without a guide. The Holy Spirit is the Counselor and he does not contradict Jesus but uses Christ words to remind us what God's will is...

                      It makes sense to me that the oral apostolic traditions and teachings would be found in their puriest form near the time of the apostles disciples and not in the time of Constantine and after.

                      Romans 12:2
                      Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

                      John 14:25-26
                      "All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

                      I hope you can see where I am getting this belief from....

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                        Originally posted by Gamble View Post
                        I indeed read both of those and I do believe Thomas Aquinas was to late, 1200's. By that time alot of doctrines that were created would have been foreign to the early church, (pre-Constantane).

                        You are right in saying that the bible doesn't contain everything but Jesus
                        did not leave us without a guide. The Holy Spirit is the Counselor and he does not contradict Jesus but uses Christ words to remind us what God's will is...

                        It makes sense to me that the oral apostolic traditions and teachings would be found in their puriest form near the time of the apostles disciples and not in the time of Constantine and after.

                        Romans 12:2
                        Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

                        John 14:25-26
                        "All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

                        I hope you can see where I am getting this belief from....
                        Yep, I was hinting at the Holy Spirit as well. I have some other things to say but not much time. I have one question though, do you believe in the Trinity, even though it isn't really stated in the bible?
                        Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                        I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                          Anyone with any interest in this topic should go see new movie "Jesus Camp".

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                            Hey Gamble, at this time I'd like to point out that The Bible wasn't canonized until the mid-1500s, and the first version ordered to be made by the Pope was done around 400 A.D.

                            Constantine died in 337 A.D. Which means that The Bible itself, or at least the version you're quoting from, doesn't pre-date Constantine. One could go as far as to say that for all we know, the scriptures selected could be very foreign to the "early church". If Constantine had that much of an impact on Christianity, how could he not have had a similarly large impact on which books were included and which not?

                            This is one thing that bugs me about people who think the Bible should be taken word for word with no thought as to how a 2000 year old book made it here. There have been so many translations, and so many fallible humans involved in its production, that I don't feel comfortable taking every single word as Gospel. I use it as a guidebook, not a set of laws, and as such, I do my best not to quote scripture. I try to live my life as best as I can, and as closely to what I think God and Jesus would prefer as I can manage. I apologize for my mistakes, and try to do better next time.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Shouldn't Christians get out of politics?

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              Anyone with any interest in this topic should go see new movie "Jesus Camp".
                              Just watched the trailer. That's frightening.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X