Rationalizing extreme liberty to Christianity

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    Most of you know me for supporting extreme amounts of liberty. My overall position is that if there is no specific victim of an activity, I don't support there being a law against it. Any law I support (generally few) must simultaneously be constitutional, affordable, necessary, popularly-enacted, and respecting of the individual. I prefer the government to be as small as possible and mainly focused on crimes of violence, breach of contract, and breach of property.

    With that said, my philosophy leaves most "vices" as legal, unregulated activities, provided they are done voluntarily and not by force. I think people have the right to poison their own bodies and ruin their own lives without government playing the nanny. People have the right to manufacture, possess, and sell property -- even guns or addictive substances. I could do without government licenses -- all of them. "ATF" would be better as a convenience store than a government agency.

    Drugs, prostitution, and gambling -- oh my! I have even argued against incest laws.

    I regret that people have misunderstood my unusual political stances to be an indication of my personal morality. Because, while liberty is important to me, it is not my god. First and foremost I am a Christian and my life is centered on salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. (Notice the title did not say "Rationalizing Christianity to liberty.") I look at everything through the lens of the Bible and take it very seriously. Some people find that startling and hard to reconcile.

    It is true that many of the activities I listed above are sins. Its a common misconception among Christians that if something is sinful, we must pass a law against it. We have seen the types of things that "moral majorities" are known for banning. (One of my "favorites" is that in Florida it is still a crime for a couple to live together before marriage.) And as such, religious people have an unfortunate stereotype of being controlling statists.

    But that "ban-everything" attitude is not consistent with Biblical Christianity. It doesn't take much bible-reading to know that sin is everywhere: in our words, in our thoughts, and in our actions. Anything that goes against God's will is sin. To attempt to ban sinful things using secular government would be futile; for starters, we'd have to repeal the 1st Amendment so that blasphemy could be prohibited. It couldn't be done and shouldn't be attempted.

    Christ died to fulfill the Law of Israel in the Old Testament. Christians are not called to recreate it!!

    I am not suggesting that Christians get used to sin, or shut up about sin. No, very much the opposite. It is up to you, Christians, to hold yourselves to Biblical standards and do what is pleasing to God. Avoid sin and remain accountable to each other. This is one of the functions of the church. But, it is very misguided to impose Biblical rules on the outside world. As Paul writes, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside" (1 Corinthians 5:12-13).

    So I guess the point is, Christians, don't get hung up on the fact that the corrupt institutions of men are not displaying Christian values and traditions. The outside world is not a reliable moral standard for anything -- and it never was! Christianity was/is naturally counter-cultural. Instead of inventing of ways to put sinners in jail -- exhibiting our "values" at gunpoint -- we should be convincing people to depart from their sinful ways, voluntarily, and find faith in Jesus Christ.
     
    Last edited:

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,638
    149
    Well said rambone. Ultimately it is up to each and every individual to seek their own path and reconcile their own actions according to their own standards without infringing on the next individual while doing so. I do agree that any law cannot exist solely on religious principles because like it or not lawfully inclined non believers have to be taken into account as well. Morally inclined and lawfully inclined non believers must learn to co-exist under a standard of laws that can apply to everyone equitably.
     
    Last edited:

    Woobie

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 19, 2014
    7,197
    63
    Losantville
    Rep nazis won't let me get you rambone.

    I completely agree. If God wanted to force morality, He would do it Himself. He would certainly do a better job of it. Instead he leaves every person with choice. We can obey or disobey, but today is the day of salvation. One day choice will be replaced by judgement, but He withholds that judgement today so we can choose Him freely.
     

    Twangbanger

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Oct 9, 2010
    7,095
    113
    Yiiikes. You just expressed an idea and fleshed it out over several paragraphs, explaining your _own_ reasons for thinking that way. This expression of original thought used more than one sentence; you didn't post a link, you didn't accuse someone else of hypocrisy / inconsistency, you didn't attempt to use Wikipedia or a list of unattributed and inconclusive charts to prove they were wrong, and you didn't use somebody else's quoted words as a substitute for your own.

    ...You DO realize this is INGO, don't you?
     
    Last edited:

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,638
    149
    I appreciate this side of Rambone, and it puts his other views in a very different context for me.

    Kudos. I'm out of rep, if someone can get him for me!
    Wish I could. I couldn't even give my own. I got cut off at the knees by the rep nazi's.
     

    Donnelly

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 22, 2008
    1,633
    38
    Cass County
    Most of you know me for supporting extreme amounts of liberty. My overall position is that if there is no specific victim of an activity, I don't support there being a law against it. Any law I support (generally few) must simultaneously be constitutional, affordable, necessary, popularly-enacted, and respecting of the individual. I prefer the government to be as small as possible and mainly focused on crimes of violence, breach of contract, and breach of property.

    With that said, my philosophy leaves most "vices" as legal, unregulated activities, provided they are done voluntarily and not by force. I think people have the right to poison their own bodies and ruin their own lives without government playing the nanny. People have the right to manufacture, possess, and sell property -- even guns or addictive substances. I could do without government licenses -- all of them. "ATF" would be better as a convenience store than a government agency.

    Drugs, prostitution, and gambling -- oh my! I have even argued against incest laws.

    I regret that people have misunderstood my unusual political stances to be an indication of my personal morality. Because, while liberty is important to me, it is not my god. First and foremost I am a Christian and my life is centered on salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. (Notice the title did not say "Rationalizing Christianity to liberty.") I look at everything through the lens of the Bible and take it very seriously. Some people find that startling and hard to reconcile.

    It is true that many of the activities I listed above are sins. Its a common misconception among Christians that if something is sinful, we must pass a law against it. We have seen the types of things that "moral majorities" are known for banning. (One of my "favorites" is that in Florida it is still a crime for a couple to live together before marriage.) And as such, religious people have an unfortunate stereotype of being controlling statists.

    But that "ban-everything" attitude is not consistent with Biblical Christianity. It doesn't take much bible-reading to know that sin is everywhere: in our words, in our thoughts, and in our actions. Anything that goes against God's will is sin. To attempt to ban sinful things using secular government would be futile; for starters, we'd have to repeal the 1st Amendment so that blasphemy could be prohibited. It couldn't be done and shouldn't be attempted.

    Christ died to fulfill the Law of Israel in the Old Testament. Christians are not called to recreate it!!

    I am not suggesting that Christians get used to sin, or shut up about sin. No, very much the opposite. It is up to you, Christians, to hold yourselves to Biblical standards and do what is pleasing to God. Avoid sin and remain accountable to each other. This is one of the functions of the church. But, it is very misguided to impose Biblical rules on the outside world. As Paul writes, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside" (1 Corinthians 5:12-13).

    So I guess the point is, Christians, don't get hung up on the fact that the corrupt institutions of men are not displaying Christian values and traditions. The outside world is not a reliable moral standard for anything -- and it never was! Christianity was/is naturally counter-cultural. Instead of inventing of ways to put sinners in jail -- exhibiting our "values" at gunpoint -- we should be convincing people to depart from their sinful ways, voluntarily, and find faith in Jesus Christ.

    Donnelly gives his approval to this post.
     

    Leo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Mar 3, 2011
    9,795
    113
    Lafayette, IN
    I always figured that being a good citizen and doing my part for influencing the Community to righteousness was being a good steward, a Biblical requirement. Throughout all history, the best times any nation had, both collectively and individually, is when they followed and exercised Christianity. We are poised to become another South Africa, Spain ore Greece. Look at their loss of prosperity and peace in their post Christian experience.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    I always figured that being a good citizen and doing my part for influencing the Community to righteousness was being a good steward, a Biblical requirement. Throughout all history, the best times any nation had, both collectively and individually, is when they followed and exercised Christianity. We are poised to become another South Africa, Spain ore Greece. Look at their loss of prosperity and peace in their post Christian experience.

    I think that much is true. We are called to influence the community: talk about Jesus, love each other, set a good example, serve the Lord, do good works, tell people about salvation, raise a Christian family.

    The point of all this, however, is glorify God and win souls into Heaven. Making secular government into a sin-stopping agency is losing sight of this purpose. The enforcement of moral rules on unsaved people is fruitless because nothing they do can please God, absent of faith (Romans 8:8).

    To the extent we are called to influence government is to observe the call for freedom (1 Peter 2:6; Galatians 5:1, 5:13) and to uphold justice (Micah 6:8, Psalm 106:3). And living in a functioning society is nice too.
     

    indiucky

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Well said sir...I tried to rep you but I can't due to a previous rep....Your post was timely....

    My brother came down to the farm Sunday....We walked down to a spot in Oil Creek and he baptized me (I thought my sins were going to dam up the creek but we had a bit of rain Saturday so they all headed down to the Ohio River...) and I fulfilled a promise I had made January 12th, 2015.....I had been a Christian Apologist for a number of years now...Came to Christ through the back door via Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, and countless other Jewish, Roman, and Pagan historians.....Proved to myself that He was an historical figure, proved to myself He performed miracles, proved to myself He was exactly who He said He was......But.....I never asked Him to come in until January 12th.....(I didn't think I deserved it I suppose....)

    I used to scoff at phrases like "washed in the blood", "filled with the Holy Spirit", etc......That night (in January) I asked Him to come in and He did....The closest description I can give is Spiritual Morphine whose only ingredient is Love......I thought when I finally believed in Him it was enough....Turns out I was wrong....You got to let Him in to get the full benefits......

    Thanks again for the post...I am too hard on the Atheists here sometimes...I shouldn't be but when they are trying to make their case it reminds me of those years I made the same arguments....I get embarrassed about that time in my life and I direct anger at them that should really be directed towards my old self...

    I heard this tune afterwards (I am certain this is not the songs intent) but it does capture the feeling of Joy and Love that follows sweet surrender to something larger than oneself.....

    "Man on Fire", Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeroes

    [video=youtube;qghPyUm_MSI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qghPyUm_MSI[/video]

    May your days be forever Blessed Rambone........
     
    Last edited:

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    Well said.
    I also like the saying about not judging others just because they sin differently from you.

    I think this is the verse you are referring to:

    "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." -- Matthew 7:1-5


    A lot of people gloss over this text and believe it says that we should not have any opinion about what other people do. In other words, throw up our hands and ignore everyone else's sins so as not to be "judgmental." We can see this is not true.

    In verse 5, Jesus says "first take the log out of your own eye" (correct our own sin problem) and "then... take the speck out of your brother's eye" (help your brother out of sin). So we are called to correct the sins of others, but do it in a helpful manner and don't be hypocrites about it.

    Also note that Jesus said "your brother," meaning our rebuking should be reserved for fellow Christians. We, inside the church, have a very important role of keeping each other accountable to obedience to God. I quoted this verse earlier, but it deserves more emphasis: "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside." (1 Corinthians 5:12-13)
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,734
    149
    Valparaiso
    I think this is the verse you are referring to:

    "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." -- Matthew 7:1-5


    A lot of people gloss over this text and believe it says that we should not have any opinion about what other people do. In other words, throw up our hands and ignore everyone else's sins so as not to be "judgmental." We can see this is not true.

    In verse 5, Jesus says "first take the log out of your own eye" (correct our own sin problem) and "then... take the speck out of your brother's eye" (help your brother out of sin). So we are called to correct the sins of others, but do it in a helpful manner and don't be hypocrites about it.

    Also note that Jesus said "your brother," meaning our rebuking should be reserved for fellow Christians. We, inside the church, have a very important role of keeping each other accountable to obedience to God. I quoted this verse earlier, but it deserves more emphasis: "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside." (1 Corinthians 5:12-13)

    Whatever differences you and I may have on the intersection of faith and gvt., which aren't huge as far as I can see, from my perspective, your Theology seems to be spot on.

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to rambone again.

    I don't want to get into haggling over the Sup. Ct., but my main problem, legally, with what happened last week has to do with "original intent" vs. the "living document" philosophy, it's not Theological, as the gvt. cannot be trusted with something so important as faith matters. This change was properly the province of the people through referendum, legislature, or Constitutional Amendment.

    Anyhoo, I've said many times, if we pass laws to make everyone live like good Christians, all Christians have done is make themselves more comfortable. They haven't advanced the Gospel at all. Last time I checked, "comfortable" was not in the job description.

    This being said, I believe that there is a great deal of pragmatism in Christian moral beliefs and that people of all beliefs can benefit from the wisdom found therein.
     
    Last edited:

    Kart29

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jun 10, 2011
    373
    18
    I completely agree, rambone. Wholeheartedly. People should be free to be as wicked as they choose - as long as they don't directly violate the right's of others.


    I agree... in principle. But...


    For me, it gets hard when actually put into operation. For example, with homosexual marriage... I am opposed to anti-sodomy laws and I am glad homosexuals are not persecuted for their behavior as much as they once were. More progress should be made in that direction. But I see marriage as specifically being instituted and defined by God. Civil government is also an institution established by God for the good of all society and has certain sovereign responsibilities outside the sphere of the family and the church, such as punishing crimes and administering civil justice. In the execution of the state's duties it must recognize one of the most basic, God-established institutions in all societies throughout time - marriage. It is just wrong for the state to define it as something other than what God said it is. The issue I have with homosexual marriage is not related to the right of homosexuals to freely act as they wish. My issue is that it is wrong for the civil government in considering a homosexual relationship to be a marriage. I don't have a say in how homosexuals live their lives but in this democratic republic I DO have a say in what the government does. And I say what the government is doing by recognizing "homosexual marriages" is wrong.

    In theory I am also opposed to government restrictions on the free exercise of prostitution. Consenting adults exchanging sex for money, while evil, is no business of the state's. Except I see that prostitution invariably leads to human trafficking, violation of the most vulnerable young women (usually under duress) and even underage girls. So, in practice I just don't know that civil government can have prostitution be legal and still fufill it's responsibilities to ensure the freedom and rights of the weakest members of our society.

    I do get frustrated hearing about "separation of church and state" all the time. The government should not establish a religion, I am opposed to making prayers in public schools, and I oppose the civil law to include the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. But it is good and proper that the church should inform and advise government officials and elected representatives. Politicians should make decisions based on their religious beliefs and we should consider a candidate's religious views when choosing for whom to vote. The secular civil government should ensure that the church has the freedom to exercise its rightful authority and influence on society.

    I remember a debate when Mitch Daniels and Andy Horning were running for governor. Someone asked about the candidates religious beliefs and what effect that would have on the way they would govern. Horning went first and said something like, "Although I respect people from any or no faith at all, I'm a Chrisitian and that effects every part of my life including my values and the decisions I would make as governor." I about gagged when Mitch D. and the dem. candidate both said, in effect, that they were Christians too, but unlike Andy, they are able to act as if the are not when they go to work. They may as well just have come out and said "I am unprincipled in the execution of my duties". How pathetic.

    Christianity has done more than any other cultural or societal influence to improve the rights and freedoms of the individual. From slavery to women's rights, to civil rights, to the right of people of other faiths to worship and live in accordance with their faith and conscience... Christian culture has been the driving force behind all these. It's frustrating to hear some folks claim that Christianity is some sort of force for oppression - nothing could be further from the truth.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,838
    113
    Mitchell
    I applaud the rule change regarding the discussion of religion, here on INGO. It is only after that change many of the posts I've seen Rambone post come into full context. Allowing him to post up such thoughts and positions helps to complete the picture he is trying to paint.

    Nice post, Rambone. Rep inbound.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,734
    149
    Valparaiso
    I applaud the rule change regarding the discussion of religion, here on INGO. It is only after that change many of the posts I've seen Rambone post come into full context. Allowing him to post up such thoughts and positions helps to complete the picture he is trying to paint.

    Nice post, Rambone. Rep inbound.

    +1
     
    Top Bottom