Evidence for God from Science

...I had to edit this post because of people not being able to understand that opposing hypocrisy and offering negative facts...does not
equal complaining..
I have found that partisan reactions to negative facts...against their side..can only make a reactionary person...do their normal bidding
...react before reading carefully.

That said....
I have been wondering for years why there are so many of my Christian brothers and sisters that are very staunch, partisan right-wing ideologues.

I never thought that it would be difficult for anyone on this forum to coherently answer this ONE question below...without ranting.


QUESTION....What are the coherent, scriptural references .....that are indisputable reasons to decide to
be a staunch, unwavering right wing ideologist and a Christian who loves God? (which is the majority of Christendom)?

...what am I as a non-partisan centerist missing......? Seriously, I have never heard an answer to this question ...ever...

...Here is a written invitation for anyone to first answer the question above.....and be persuaded enough to
consider being a non-partisan centerist....that's what a sober person would glean from this post with a modicum of respectful decency.

Consider the level of "lawlessness" and corruption in U.S. society; and how it has increased over these last forty years. Does lawlessness and corruption need less government
or more government to regulate it?

I would like to understand where this notion came from: that "limited" government is inherently better than moderate, flexible, government. Also, I think the U.S. would benefit by having serious dialogue about the future of U.S. government; instead of practically assuming that our tired, inapt, vague, U.S. Constitution is somehow a canon from on high.

First, we all have to learn to be civil in these discussions.

Remember...we wrestle not against flesh and blood. The love of money and corruption are the real destructive forces against us; no matter who is in the White House.

I have been wondering for years why there are so many of my Christian brothers and sisters that are very staunch, partisan right-wing ideologues.
What happened to moderation in politcs? I have listened to partisan Christian radio hosts for many years. I only hear them offer one-sided, reactionary, Republican
platitudes; without opposing points of view. They speak as if conservative politics is somehow a biblical conclusion.

Under Moses, the Israelites had over 600 laws that governed their lives in so many aspects. This was not conservative government. There was no "market system" that perverted the values of labor and material goods. The Lord God ordained these laws for righteousness, peace, and unity. Laws regulated one's ability and right to do another harm.

Yeeeeahhhh ... whole lotta stereotyping, caricaturing and broad-brushing going on here.

To start, the meanings of "liberal", "conservative", "right-wing", "left-wing", "socialist" and "fascist" have shifted with time and users' agenda (and sometimes ignorance, accidental or intentional). I'm not pointing a finger at jcg, just pointing out out something important to recognize and prefacing my responsive comments. Since you invoke the Law of Moses, consider ...

* The Law recognized private property - personal possessions, businesses and real estate, to use modern terms; you know, Thou shalt not steal/i]. In the context of current US politics (folks from other countries can reflect on this question as well in regard to their governments and cultures) is there currently a party and/or individual politicians more inclined to compromise or take private property through high taxation, regulations that severely obstruct or restrict legitimate use of property (including businesses), or outright seizure?

* The Law forbade things like adultery, fornication, homosexuality, incest, and bestiality. In the context of current US politics is there currently a party and/or individual politicians more inclined to encourage and enable such things?

* The Law forbade murder. In the context of current US politics is there currently a party and/or individual politicians that encourages certain kinds of murder, i.e. abortion?

* The Law enjoined respect for parents (while forbidding abuse as part of general prohibitions of murder, assault, rape and incest). In the context of current US politics is there currently a party and/or individual politicians that encourage the undermining, compromising, and violation of parents' rights?

Israel was a nation in which religion was built into their legal structure (with protections for those living in Israel, but not part of the Jewish nation). In the US, religious freedom (not merely legal "tolerance") has been the standard. In the context of current US politics is there currently a party and/or individual politicians that is inclined to compromise that freedom and force on Christians (and other religions as well) "Obey God or obey the law" choices.

Keep in mind, these are not just personal private standards of conduct. They are also the kinds of conduct and standards that make societies better. While Christians should not identify - broadly and blindly - with any political party, at the same time it is foolish, when Christians have the right to participate in their country's governance, to ignore advocacy of immorality by certain political parties and/or by factions within a political party and/or by individual political leaders. In view of that and in view of honest answers to the questions I asked above, I think it's clear that the modern US Democrat Party is committed to continual and increasing compromise of private property, to support of at least one certain type of murder, to encouraging and enabling various types of sexual immorality, and undermining the (non-abusive) nuclear family. There are exceptions among Democrat politicians, but the party is currently actively ostracizing and isolating such leaders. The US Republican Party has been more supportive the kinds of moral values I cited above; there are notable exceptions, and the Republican Party seems to be inclined to distance itself and even suppress persons who hold such values. But - not that it's a standard of excellence - as a whole, the Republican Party is currently significantly less awful than the Democrat Party on moral issues.

So, broad and blind allegiance to a political party or label whose policies and meaning shift would be foolish. Failure to recognize parties' and individual leaders' policies/beliefs is equally foolish. Jesus and Paul enjoined obedience and respect for national governments, in the context of a Roman Empire that had some very corrupt and often monstrous governance. But in modern republics every citizen is a part of the government, so we should endeavor to improve our nations, including with our votes. Peter summed one thing up pretty well: when governments work to force a choice, we must obey God rather than men.

If you're wary of the "Religious Right", be equally wary of the Jim Wallis--Sojourners type "Religious Left" (a term "curiously" missing from "news" media in the US).

Yeeeeahhhh ... whole lotta stereotyping, caricaturing and broad-brushing going on here.

Unfortunately you have read into my post your own negative bias. Please re-read my post with the understanding that I am seeking
to understand the connection between Holy Scripture and this "conservative politics". Please be fair...I have not asserted that I had a preference for the other side of the spectrum, either.

I simply stated the fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians identify politically with "conservative politics".

It is also clear to me that government of God's people in the Old Testament was not conservative or limited. The Lord did not judge Pharoah's Egypt for his liberal government. He was judged for oppression and slavery of God's people and disobeying His command. The Commandments of the Lord in the New Testament are apolitical.

I hear so many of Christian brothers complaining about "liberal" government. They are focusing on the wrong fight. Complaining is not a fruit of the Holy Spirit.
Yet, our God is creating and ruling His Kingdom. He is sovereign over His creation....no matter who is in the White House.

Your post was not helpful to me.

jcgood wrote:

Yeeeeahhhh ... whole lotta stereotyping, caricaturing and broad-brushing going on here.

Unfortunately you have read into my post your own negative bias. Please re-read my post with the understanding that I am seeking
to understand the connection between Holy Scripture and this "conservative politics". Please be fair...I have not asserted that I had a preference for the other side of the spectrum, either.

Well, somehow you managed to use the very kind of language more liberal-"Progressive" folk use in bashing Christians who happen to be conservative. And I've been participating in news/politics discussion sites since 1998, so I'm speaking from experience. "Parallel Planet Development" might work in Star Trek, but I think you are not recognizing your own bias - bias evidenced in your own language and seeming hostility toward Christians who happen to be conservative.

jcgood wrote:I simply stated the fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians identify politically with "conservative politics".

In my experience, this is inaccurate, as well as very oversimplified (or stereotyping ... or caricaturing ... or broad-brushing). I'm not even sure it's true among Evangelicals, though it may be.

jcgood wrote:It is also clear to me that government of God's people in the Old Testament was not conservative or limited.

Since the Law was written 3 1/2 millennia ago, "conservative" or "liberal" don't even have meaning. God would have used - and did - other, less changeable and relative, adjectives: righteous, just, right, good. But Israel's governance was certainly limited. Government could not appropriate private property. Government could not change laws God had given. God gave certain commands to future kings - things they were to do, things they were not to do.

jcgood wrote:The Lord did not judge Pharoah's Egypt for his liberal government.

I've never heard anyone say it was, so this is a strawman argument, and a rather silly one.

jcgood wrote:He was judged for oppression and slavery of God's people and disobeying His command. The Commandments of the Lord in the New Testament are apolitical.

Concur, and I made the very same points regarding the Law and modern politics.

jcgood wrote:I hear so many of Christian brothers complaining about "liberal" government.

They are using the adjectives the people they are criticizing use to characterize themselves. IOW, they are merely distinguishing certain types of ideas. Using liberals' own chosen adjectives is a courtesy liberals, largely, won't extend, for example, to Pro-Life people. So you at least partly misunderstand the usage.

jcgood wrote:They are focusing on the wrong fight. Complaining is not a fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Your spin and broad-brushing betray your bias. Correcting social problems necessitates defining the problems, identifying what's wrong in them, talking about it, and talking about how to correct the problems. What I just described are the same things you termed "complaining" and "the wrong fight". Spin is very pliant and flexible.

jcgood wrote:Yet, our God is creating and ruling His Kingdom. He is sovereign over His creation....no matter who is in the White House.

Your post was not helpful to me.

Without a doubt, God is bigger than and supreme over political parties and party politics. I thought that point obvious in my previous post. Perhaps the helpfulness that was intended was not perceived due to your own biases.

BTW, the post you spurned as "unhelpful" in part embodies the process I went through from the mid-70s thru the 80s. Understanding that in a republic citizens are part of government. Understanding that my vote and other influence is part of what I need to steward. Understanding that the moral rights and wrongs of the Law were God revealing the best way for people to live in a society. Asking myself what party and individual leaders were working toward or against what God has said is right and wrong.

If it wasn't clear in that post, I am not even close to a pure partisan. People are too complex to say any party or group is fully good.But it was also clear to me that one party was moving away from what God says is right and wrong, and ostracizing its members who stood up for what is right. That would be the Democrat Party. There are, yet, good people among Democrats. The Republican Party has been more accepting of people who stand for what is right, but my perception is that that may be changing. And there are Republicans for whom I could not vote.

And as you said, God and His kingdom are bigger and more important than any particular nation.

PeteSinCA:

Since the Law was written 3 1/2 millennia ago, "conservative" or "liberal" don't even have meaning.

Gasp!....I don't even know how to respond to such an incoherent statement. Did "less" or "more" have meaning 3 1/2 millenia ago?.....you might want to edit that one, Pete.

Your reply is only coming from your very narrow perspective, it is suspicious and accusatory in it's tone and disgraceful. You don't know how to disagree in a helpful way. If you respond with just your opinions...why should I bother to even read your response?

Everyone has a bias...but some have specks and some have logs. If we can remove your log, then maybe you will be able to help us.

Your posts were not helpful to answering my questions. Other people can read your replies and read your heavily biased comments and labels...and
you don't even know me! You seem to be more interested in "being right"...then helping. Adios...amigo....Peace/Out.

It seems to me that words could be spoken in a more friendly way. Instead of assuming something about the other poster, why not to check whether our assumptions are right? And even then, why not to sprinkle posts with expressions like "in my opinion", "i think", "... as I see it", etc...

I think debates could be more friendly when we do this.

(That was my opinion. That is as I see it. )

Your reply is only coming from your very narrow perspective, it is suspicious and accusatory in it's tone and disgraceful. You don't know how to disagree in a helpful way. If you respond with just your opinions...why should I bother to even read your response?

Everyone has a bias...but some have specks and some have logs. If we can remove your log, then maybe you will be able to help us.

Your posts were not helpful to answering my questions. Other people can read your replies and read your heavily biased comments and labels...and
you don't even know me! You seem to be more interested in "being right"...then helping. Adios...amigo....Peace/Out.

jcg, I followed your tone, the tone you set in your post that started this thread. The moral superiority and guilt-tripping of this post and your refusal to even consider what I posted confirm my perceptions of the biases in your initial post. But responding to your comments, quoted above, and 1/137's comments, here are the phrases and sentences from your initial post that demonstrate partisan (party or ideology) or tendentious assumptions, over-simplifications and stereotypes or are contemptuous or inflammatory:

"... very staunch, partisan right-wing ideologues." This is not a little inflammatory ("ideologues") and over-simplification, if not outright stereotyping.

"... one-sided, reactionary, Republican platitudes ..." "One-sided" is very over-simplified; "Republican" is both stereotype and over-simplification; "reactionary" is partisan, tendentious, and quite inflammatory; "platitude" is quite contemptuous as well as inflammatory.

"... 'market system' that perverted the values of labor and material goods." This is question-begging partisan as well as quite inflammatory (specifically, "perverted")

"Obviously the density of urban living necessitates more regulation...more government than in rural areas." Partisan assumption and a non sequitor (Crime and nuisances don't happen in rural areas? Really? I grew up in a rural area, and it wasn't any more crime or nuisance free than the nearest town).

"Does lawlessness and corruption need less government or more government to regulate it?" This partisanly stereotypes conservative people and ideas as advocating near anarchy.

"I would like to understand where this notion came from: that "limited" government is inherently better than moderate, flexible, government." This partisanly stereotypes a particular idea as advocating near anarchy.

"... our tired, inapt, vague, U.S. Constitution is somehow a canon from on high." "tired", inapt", "vague", and "a canon from on high" are all quite inflammatory and partisan.

jcg, if you're going to object when people follow the tone you initiated, maybe you should consider more carefully beforehand what and how you say it. I've been participating in news/politics discussion sites since 1998: I am very familiar with both the ideas liberal and "Progressive" folk frequently express and the way they do so; I've endeavored to understand their ideas and their bases therefore; there are conservative sites and people I have problems with as much as with some liberal/Progressive folk/sites. So, while I obviously have beliefs in the realm of politics, I don't suffer from the tunnel vision you believe I do. A few of my perceptions of parts of your post may be arguable, but many of your phrases clearly embody partisan ideas and/or are inflammatory partisan rhetoric. Whether you are aware of that, I won't guess.

1/137 and jcg, I've been a Mod or Admin on news/politics discussion sites for the last 8 1/2 years. Neither jcg's nor my posts have been particularly strong in tone for that kind of context (and this forum is "Politics and World Events").

1/137, I will happily moderate my tone further, but that moderation and recognition of the need therefore should be bilateral. I fully accept your authority in this site and that my posting here is at the hospitality of the site's staff and owner(s). But I do not accept (obviously, given my response above) jcg's attempts to manipulate or guilt-trip me. If jcg continues the tone he has set and continued with or continues the manipulation I may follow jcg's tone, at my discretion (and within EfGfS' forum's rules, of course).

Just an FYI, I was the one who approved jcgood's first post. And I saw the same tone in that post, that Pete is referring to.


I could've just disapproved the post, but I was kinda hoping someone would point out jcgood's seemingly "holier than thou" tone, and glaring errors.

RickD wrote:Just an FYI, I was the one who approved jcgood's first post. And I saw the same tone in that post, that Pete is referring to.

I find jcgood fun. It isn't often we hear from an anti-American American.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

RickD wrote:Just an FYI, I was the one who approved jcgood's first post. And I saw the same tone in that post, that Pete is referring to.

I find jcgood fun. It isn't often we hear from an anti-American American.

FL

Then I guess you don't know any American liberals.

PeteSinCa wrote:1/137, I will happily moderate my tone further, but that moderation and recognition of the need therefore should be bilateral. I fully accept your authority in this site and that my posting here is at the hospitality of the site's staff and owner(s). But I do not accept (obviously, given my response above) jcg's attempts to manipulate or guilt-trip me. If jcg continues the tone he has set and continued with or continues the manipulation I may follow jcg's tone, at my discretion (and within EfGfS' forum's rules, of course).

My post was general, jcgood including.

I just thought I would step in somehow to point the tone of conversation hoping it would change.

RickD wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

RickD wrote:Just an FYI, I was the one who approved jcgood's first post. And I saw the same tone in that post, that Pete is referring to.

I find jcgood fun. It isn't often we hear from an anti-American American.

FL

Then I guess you don't know any American liberals.

Not touching these lines with a 10-foot German (why do people always pick on the Poles?).

Not that it means much, but I also would have approved jcg's OP were I a Mod here. It introduced a good topic with good potential for discussion, was posted in the appropriate forum, and complied with EfGfS' posting rules to the best of my understanding. To me, it's tone fits within what I think appropriate for a news-and-politics forum.

1over137 wrote:

PeteSinCa wrote:1/137, I will happily moderate my tone further, but that moderation and recognition of the need therefore should be bilateral. I fully accept your authority in this site and that my posting here is at the hospitality of the site's staff and owner(s). But I do not accept (obviously, given my response above) jcg's attempts to manipulate or guilt-trip me. If jcg continues the tone he has set and continued with or continues the manipulation I may follow jcg's tone, at my discretion (and within EfGfS' forum's rules, of course).

My post was general, jcgood including.

I just thought I would step in somehow to point the tone of conversation hoping it would change.

That's how I understood you, 1/137, and appreciate your (singular and plural possessive pronoun) efforts to establish and maintain a pleasant place for discussion.

PeteS

It's amazing to read specious assessments about my alleged "holier than thou" tone of my original post. My Jesus would have taken the time to ask a clarifying question to the author; before assessing unprovable things with a heavy bias. Without asking a question, these assessments are spurious and land in a parallel universe.
Where is the love?

At least give me a quote from my text that indicates this alleged "tone"....and give me a chance to explain...since I am on trial here.

These comments with labels like "anti-American" and "Liberal"....are written as intended put downs.
I have the last laugh....because as a Christian, who loves Truth; these labels are a compliment.

Where did I ever say that I am an American?....another false assumption here. Living here does not make me an "American"...., F.L.
Again...your extreme biases are evident here and exposed.

I am actually, a U.S. resident alien; but not "American"....(whatever that changing, debatable, subjective term means).