Is anyone familiar with the practice of shunning?

It's a simply yes or no question that you know will debunk your position if you answer it.

That's my point. There is none. Yet you have a problem with the person in the OP opposing "dry" laws, and are connecting that to their covenant to not drink.

That's because your position is inconcistent with objective reasoning.

We're not talking about "simply sitting" in church. We're talking about taking a covenant. If you took a covenant to not have an abortion, appearing at a pro-choice rally would not be an indicator that you had an abortion, neither does it coerce anyone else from having an abortion. So, no, appearing at an abortion rally would not violate that covenant.

It would, however, display a bad Christian witness. But that's different than violating a covenant.

 

You obviously want someone to bite, so I will.

I would support a law that makes it illegal for a person to take the name of the Lord in vain in the privacy of their own home. My support for God goes above my support for country or free speech laws. I find it a shame that you would support someone's right to misuse our Lord's name. You are putting your wordly beliefs above God. God gave us the 10 commandments for a reason. If free speech violates one of the 10 commandments, then I'll side with God and His commandments everytime.

 

Thanks Matt. I agree. Whatever laws there are in this country, we as Christians have to answer to a higher law.

 

This kind of thinking is nothing but modified Jesuitry ... and maybe not even that modified!

Taking a covenant to NOT have an abortion, and then appearing at a pro-choice rally (I presume you mean in favour of it, not as a protester!), would absolutely make you guilty of violating your covenant.

Wow. With this kind of thinking, no wonder the Christian church in North America is in such a mess.

 

See, we do agree on things :thumbs:

 

Nah, you’re not alone….and I got nothing better to do tonight than help you put this into perspective…lol

Amy, as for John’s reasoning it is very close to a subspecies and common rhetorical ploy in something called the “Perfectionist fallacy”…it comes up when a plan or policy is under consideration and goes like this:

*If policy X will not meet our goals as well as we’d like them to (i.e., perfectly) then policy X should be rejected.

(policy = to use one’s right to vote against a proposal through moral reasoning) because the system does not always work perfectly.

*This principle downgrades policy X simply because it isn’t perfection. It is a version of a false dilemma because it says, in effect, “Either the policy is perfect, or we must reject it.”

*An example would be an argument against the National Football League’s instant replay rule which allows for off-field officials to review video tape of a play to determine if it was correct. When it was first proposed, the most frequently heard argument was “It’s a mistake to use replays to make the call because no matter how many cameras you have on the field you are still going to miss some calls. There’s no way to see everything that’s going on.”

*According to this reasoning we shouldn’t have police unless they can prevent every crime or apprehend every criminal.

*(Much of the above is paraphrased from: Critical Thinking by Brooke Noel Moore, Richard Parker.)

So…in effect, to say, “You shouldn’t hold your position and rightfully vote against allowing the sale of alcohol regardless that you are committed to it – unless you do the same for anything else you are against (such as making a law against using the Lord’s name in vain in your own home).

The above fits the false dilemma perfectionist fallacy quite well and is a common rhetorical ploy that that defies logical reasoning.

:smilewinkgrin:

 

Your premise is false. By your reckoning, it's hypocritical for a person to support Amendment I, Amendment XVIII, and probably a few others. There is nothing "worldly" about protecting a person's personal freedoms. We're called to live by the Ten Commandments, but we're not called to force everyone else to live by the Ten Commandments. Otherwise, we should be calling for any religion besides Christianity to be illegal, since we Christians view other religions in violation of commandment against idolatry. While your'e at it, good luck codifying coveting.

Any person who wants to live in a country where the laws are dictated by religious doctrine is weocome to move to Iran. Until then, it's pharasaical to accuse a person of upholding secular laws as "worldly".

Then, do you believe it was okay for the person(s) in the OP to be shunned?

I believe you're presuming I believe it's okay for a Christian to appear at a pro-choice rally. I don't. I'm noting that doing so would not violate the aforemented covenant. Even though it does not violate the covenant, though, it makes for an incredibly bad Christian witness. But the question isn't about what constitutes bad moral character.

How is it a "mess" to demand consistency of application? Again, I'm not saying it's okay for a Christian to join an abortion rally. It's still bad witness and questionable character.

That's total bunk, because I'm not supporting a person's action. I'm asserting that the action of the person(s) in the OP did violate the covenant of the church, and the church had no moral right to shun members who signed a petition.

 

You have no idea what pharisarical is.

 

My point to make is many of the ways you are trying to “assert” it are fallacious; I simply specifically pointed the flaws out in one of your premises, and all you did in rebuttal is say “that is total bunk” then you smokescreened back into your reasoning for making the argument in the first place. So what?!

If reasoning for the truth in a matter, the truth here is that if a person stands for not drinking publically within their moral commitment on the issue and secretly works to allow others the right to do what they have openly declared is morally wrong then they are do so either by “moral relativism” which is a fallacy in reasoning, or they are not being truthful. In this case they got busted; did the pastor have a right to publically expose their double-mindedness or lying? That is a separate issue involving many aspects but maybe they should heed the biblical warnings about being known for what is “really” in their heart, by their actions, and they wouldn’t be in this position to begin with.

Concerning the pastor, two wrongs (you seem to believe he was because it violates your foremost value of liberty) ...regardless don’t make a right, but one thing that he does have going for him is that he was standing up for the truth (my foremost value) in the matter.

Speaking of “moral relativism fallacy” (not to mention a slew of other rhetorical devices that are engaging in that statement alone) the above is a prime example of another fallacy in reasoning that you are presenting in this argument, for example:

“Well, I think bullfighting is wrong, but other countries don’t think so, and who am I to tell them what to believe? If they think there is nothing wrong with bullfighting, then I guess it isn’t wrong for them to have bullfights.”

This is self-contradictory, the person in effect is saying that it is wrong to have bullfights and that he/she thinks it isn’t wrong for some people to have bullfights.

“…the relativist fallacy consists in thinking a moral standard of your own group applies universally while simultaneously maintaining that it doesn’t apply to groups that don’t accept the standard.”

Talk about bunk! That doesn’t support your argument in the least, no less your prior sentence. The truth value in that statement of reasoning is logically null; concerning your arguments, as far as I see, they consist of nothing more than feuding and fussing rather than having a philosophical truth value concerning logic…and for you to speak of “objective reasoning” while presenting this garbage…NOW that is bunk!

 

I'm not the one with different ways of assertion. Actually, Amy.G was the one posting different different scenarios, with different outcomes. My assertion has, from post one, been consistent: If a person makes a covenant to refrain from an action, it is not a violation of that covenant to believe that others have the right to refrain or not refrain from that same action, so long as one does not coerce another to engage in that action. Examples of those would include abhoring idolatry, but supporting the right of a person to freedom of worship; or opposing gluttony, but supporting the right of a person to eat whatever they want.

Unless you favor repealing Amendment I, it is self-evident that opposing an action, but permitting another person the freedom to engage in that action, does not qualify as moral relativism.

Further, your post contains some factual errors. No one was "secretly working" as you say. Signing a petition is public, and there's nothing secret about it. The petition did not legalize alcohol consumption. The petition called for the matter to be put to public vote. Huge difference.

 

Would you support a law persecuting Muslims since they would break the commandment against idoltary?

You don't seem to be a very good Baptist if you don't support separation of church and state. You're missing the point that there are some actions for which you have to answer to God (sins) and some that are state issues (laws, and that should be only when an action violates someone else's rights.)

 

Sure, I'd support any law that is based upon God's word.

You don't seem to be a very good Christian if you can set aside God's law and think that laws of state come before God's law.

 

The problem is that your position would violate the Baptist Distinctive of Separation of Church and State. That would disqualify you as being a Baptist.

 

Well, I'd guess I'd rather hold up God's law than be a Baptist anyway.

 

Then you don't belong in this forum, which is a Baptist Only forum.

While we're at it, let's make infant baptism illegal. Let's make it illegal to sell unchristian literature while we're at it. Don't forget to make it illegal to practice Unitarianism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Judaism, and Hinduism. And let's shun every church member who's feng shui'd their living room furniture, or sent their kids to karate class.

By your own standard, if you're not doing these, then you're a hypocrite just like the person in the OP.

 

Infant baptism? I'd love to see it done away with. Too many people are led astray by the practice. Unitarianism and Buddhism, sure let's get rid of them...no problems from me.

I don't know about you, but I'd love to live in a society based completly on God's word. If you are content on living in this sinful world, have at it.

No, the person in the OP is actively promoting the sale of alcohol. I'm not actively promoting sinful practices. In fact, I'm sitting here speaking out against the sinful practices.

 

Feel free to move out of the US.

I am very content doing so. How else am I to be a light in a dark world, if I'm not in a dark world?

No, the person in the OP signed a petition that would let the voters decide the matter. Huge difference.

 

Show me a country whose laws are based completely on God's word and I just might

Well, a nation living completely for God and adhering to his Word would be a pretty good light, wouldn't it?

The person was promoting the sale of alcohol. If they didn't want to promote it, they shouldn't have signed the petition to even allow it up for a vote.

 

You're the one complaining, you do it.

and would be devoid of religious liberty. That's probably why God never ordained one to exist.

That's like saying anyone who supports Amendment I supports idolatry. It's a nonsequitor.

 

I shun you all for bickering. :smilewinkgrin: