Here’s an easy question for Eddie:
What’s to stop a Christian from ignoring any laws he/she doesn’t like by claiming they violate his/her “Christian principles”?
I don’t have a point. I was asking a question.
I believe it’s the majority now. And it’s rising among those who consider themselves evangelicals as well. If you trust recent polling. But that’s a discussion for another day
Not fully true. They don’t get to pick and choose what side of the road they drive on, or whether they have to pay taxes, etc. But they do get to choose not to obey laws which never should have been passed in the first place because they violate the separation of church and state. For example, if the state said that Christians may not put up religious signs on their lawns at Christmastime. Or if the state fired a teacher who mentioned in passing, or in answer to a student question, that she went to a church (but made not the slightest effort to proselytize). Or if the state fired a teacher who refused to teach certain parts of a Health curriculum which stated or even implied that Christian views on sexuality were bad, false, etc. and should be replaced by a gender-bending understanding of sexuality. Christians nowadays fear that such things could happen in their lifetimes. Their reactions lately are defensive, not imperialistic.
And even if there are a few Christians who want to impose school prayers on everyone, for every one of those, there are ten more who don’t want to impose school prayers, but want to make sure that they can profess and practice Christianity without being attacked, humiliated, or punished by the State or any of its agents or institutions. I’m not defending the first type of Christian, but I will fiercely defend the second.
I didn’t lay down what the Christian point of view was. I said that whatever it is, it has to be worked out by Christians, not by unbelievers. The opinion of unbelievers about whether certain Christian views are “narrow” counts for absolutely nothing in the proper consideration of Christian doctrine – and that is exactly as it should be.
Well, I’ve advocated breaking no laws – except unconstitutional ones. If a Christian bombs an abortion clinic, he can be rightfully punished. But if a Christian is forced to perform an abortion or lose his job, the state has failed to protect his freedom of religion, and that must not be allowed.
Polling cannot determine whether a respondent who identifies himself as Christian is “devout.” It can merely record his or her opinion on the questions asked.
Are there evangelicals who would define themselves as not devout? Or do they think they are devout but really aren’t in your eyes?
They also don’t get to decide which laws violate the U.S. Constitution. That is the court’s call. Yes TRUE Christians can choose to disobey laws they don’t like but then they also choose to suffer the legal consequences.
LOL! Before you appointed yourself Super-Pope and could speak for all TRUE Christians. Now you’re Super-Lawyer and can proclaim by fiat which laws violate separation of church and state. Where did you ever get such superpowers? 
I guess you’ll never answer my questions above. Just too embarrassing for you it seems.
You don’t have the authority or knowledge to declare any Christian devout or not devout. As always you confuse your personal opinion with absolute truth. 
Anyone else want to take a stab at answering this? It scared off Brave Sir Eddie. 
Hmmmm… Gay rights. Abortion. Oh my.
Before this thread goes completely off the rails, I thought I would state that the conservative Christians here have made a point that opposes the theme of the original post and linked essay. Specifically, they are forcefully making the case that Christianity is as opposed to basic human and civil rights today as 50 or 500 years ago. (And make no mistake about it - they are vehemently opposed to these ideals.)
Their oposition to the possibility that the possible Christian underpinnings of progressive ideals (namely, that basic human and civil rights are fundamental and to be enjoyed by the entire citizenry) are illusory is an interesting read.
2 Likes
What do you mean by “devout”? Merely: “I have very strong personal feelings about my reading of Christianity?” Or, “I fearlessly hold to the traditional teaching of the holy, apostolical church, though the world may mock me as old-fashioned, outdated, reactionary, etc.?” I would call the last sort of person “devout”; the first I would call merely “zealous” or “enthusiastic”. But I fear we are getting into quagmire over a word. The question for a traditional, orthodox Christian regarding an issue like same-sex marriage is: Is it allowed by the Bible or by the the teachings of the apostolical church? If the answer is “Yes,” then fine. But if the answer is “No,” then the fact that a number of Christians these days, whether evangelical or not, are “going with the flow,” is irrelevant. Those who adopt more modern views have to justify those views in terms of Scripture and tradition. If they can do so, then there can be change of older positions. But if they can’t, the old positions remain in force. Christianity is not a populist democracy.
Romans 13, 2Corinthians 10, 1Timothy 2, 2Peter 2 - These chapters address how to submit to authority in the world and still live according to God’s word…if you don’t want to read them, you probably won’t understand. The gospels are a good source of how to live following Jesus. If you want me to pull a verse for a more specific topic, I will.
It seems clear that the title “Christian” is up for debate. I define it by James 1:22 - But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
Probably why I think there is a lot of hypocrisy in Christian churches.
Justify them to who, exactly? You? 
I can’t speak for what others here are saying, but only for myself. If Christianity had never existed, those “basic human and civil rights” you speak of would in all probability not exist, either. I have already given extensive reasons for this. If you want more justification, I’ve pointed you to authors who can provide more historical data, tighter argument, etc. But then, since you know so much about what is taught in the Humanities at universities, you probably already know of all these authors. 
1 Like
To the body of Christians – to the Church. An entity whose nature and purpose you are never likely to grasp.
Who speaks for everyone in the “body of Christians”? Which of the thousands of Christian sects is the TRUE Church? You just can’t stop claiming your personal opinion is absolute truth.
1 Like
Jesus. In the Gospels, Acts and Revelation
Jesus doesn’t speak for anyone. He’s been gone for over 2000 years. People claim their personal interpretation of scripture is some absolute TRUTH even if it directly contradicts other interpretations of the same passages. To whom do modern Christians have to justify their beliefs?
I would argue that, Jesus is very much alive.
This is true, and a problem in the church, and addressed in the bible. Seeking truth is a never ending process that ends when you die and find out if you enter into eternal life with Jesus. No one knows for sure, I’d like to think I know for myself, but I wouldn’t presume to know about anyone else.
To Jesus on the day of judgment. In the big scheme of things, no one else matters.
Here, as often, your debating style tends to the cutesy-journalistic. Kind of fluffy, rather than rigorous.
Thank you.