SolaChristus7

IDK... This, as-is, sounds fine. The Gospels are not the only parts of Scripture wherein Christ is revealed to us, and none of the New Testament operates as though that's the case. It's not even the only part of Scripture where the post-incarnate Christ speaks; He also speaks directly in Revelation.

I'd like to see a pastor do that. It'd be an intriguing experiment.

Hehehe. I like to think I at least have a basic understanding of the term.

Ah. Yes, there is a strong differentiator between our two positions, although I do appreciate the seeming openness on abortion. I conceive of myself as a traditionalist conservative rather than a liberal of any sort or type.

Again, everyone who makes an "ought claim" of the state "wades into use of force to uphold [their] interpretation of the truth" already.

By "punishing evil" I don't mean idolatry or wrong religious praxis, to be clear. That is a heart/conscience matter and not an outworking of natural civic righteousness. Compelled religion at the tip of a sword is useless.

No. That is the realm of the Church. The state is merely called to form society in such a way as to ensure that all of its citizens can cultivate virtue and live in dignity, both by punishing evil (Romans 13) and ensuring relative equity (the Mosaic tithes to the poor and Years of Jubilee).

I'm not deeply concerned with compromising on the basis of "politics as evangelism". If it's true that marriage is only between a man and a woman, we should go to bat for that truth. We should not back down for fear of man. Because God cares about marriage pretty deeply.

*happens regardless

Why should we separate out the financial "force claims" from the moral, virtue, or religious "force claims"? Why is God only concerned with whether the state spends money on poor people (a thing I agree with BTW) and not whether the state enforces virtuous societal norms that honour Christ? /end

Talk about "forcing" people to live up to ethical standards. Because the "force" happens. Not everyone believes we should spend money on Medicaid for people that broke our laws in coming here to begin with. But they're forced to. Therefore, every "ought" view of the state is making force claims. /3

Persuasion is linked to force. When we make "ought" claims about the state, we're making a force claim. Every dollar the state spends on Medicaid for undocumented migrants is a dollar taken from a taxpayer-citizen, either through inflation or taxes. Within this framework, it doesn't make sense to 2/

All of it is Law; giving to the poor is Law, loving others is Law, marriage is Law. I do believe that, within a Christian context, we are called to influence the state in a direction that brings it in line with Christ. Not through force, but through persuasion; within our system of government, /1

I'd agree with this, FTR. But I suspect we have different ideas of what natural revelation impels on a state.

Is this consistent with your reasoning:

"I’m advocating at the state enforce hetero-only marriage because it’s the right thing to do, because of my personal religious convictions. But others might know it’s the right thing to do based on different religious convictions." (Islam, Sikh etc)

Are you advocating that the state give aid to the poor on the basis of your personal religious convictions backed by Scripture? Welcome to the cause, comrade; you're a Christian Nationalist.

It'd really help if people stopped getting offended that they weren't invited to the wedding. I have interacted with Cousin Marcus maybe 5 times in my lifetime, why is he a must-invite?

I think there will always be measuring sticks by which a person can be "cancelled". The difficulty is in discerning what is worthy of cancellation. Why I was never a fan of the "anti cancel culture" rhetoric. There are absolutely things worth canceling & things I want to cancel that are celebrated.

Even though I agree with the general thrust of Trump's Ukraine policy (I have no interest in continuing that war and believe bringing it to a conclusion is good) this idea of being cowed by Trump's mean tweets, or getting primaried, is garbage fecklessness.

Xbox is the best and most intuitive.

Therein is the rub. But I tend to believe Hobbes' thesis that the Leviathan is necessary to stave off greater evil than it causes.

Indeed. Ultimately, I think that left-anarchism doesn't work on this side of Eternity. As long as there is evil in the world, there would always need to be a power structure to contain and restrain it by the power of the sword.

I find the right-anarchists' proposals for how a stateless society would work at scale easier to implement and more practical than left-anarchists'. But right-anarchists frighten me. Their vision of society seems to me to result in even more corporatist dystopia and less practical freedoms.

Left-anarchists versus right-anarchist is always a fun dynamic.

The GOP has quietly shelved its opposition to Obergefell. Many Republicans voted for the Respect for Marriage Act. Trump influenced the most recent 2024 GOP platform to remove any references to marriage. I don't think it was strategist-driven so much as Trump-driven and electorally difficult.

This also goes in the other direction, too. We see this with approval of same-sex marriage pre and post-Obergefell. People in general roll with the status quo, all else being equal.

Pierre Trudeau once said that being a neighbour to the Americans is like being in bed with an elephant. If said elephant suddenly started joking A LOT about rolling over and squashing you into jelly, amidst other antagonizing moves, it's malpractice to not prep for every contingency.

Ah. Yeah, the PC port was really bad.