Jump to content

Photo

Christian World View vs. Secular World View


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
20 replies to this topic

#1 1John2:15-17

1John2:15-17

    It Is Well With My Soul

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
231
Excellent

Posted 27 January 2009 - 07:43 PM

That homosexual marriage thread got me thinking about Christian world view vs. secular world view. I don't really want this thread to be about homosexual marriage per se but that subject does fits into this one.

The Bible tells us to not love the world (worldview, secular system, etc., not the physical globe or the people in it).

What is a secular world view if not the systems that go against God?

All of history is His story. He started it and He will finish it. The Bible says that the wicked will be turned into hell and all nations that forget God. If God condemns abortion or adultery or witchcraft or homosexuality, then we Christians should stand against legislation that goes against God.

At the same time, we recognize that Satan is the prince of this world at this time and God permits him to be in control. That is why most nations do/are forget/forgetting God and as the world worsens, we can expect to see more and more legislation that goes against God. I don't think that gives us the right to accept it and even vote for it.

Just some thoughts! :wave:



:amen:

Like I saw on another topic/thread, some "conservatives" still try to bring the world's (Satan's) values into the OB to try to state their case.

We must stand strong in The Lord!

#2 Bakershalfdozen

Bakershalfdozen

    Super Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,872 posts
3
Neutral

Posted 27 January 2009 - 06:42 PM

That homosexual marriage thread got me thinking about Christian world view vs. secular world view. I don't really want this thread to be about homosexual marriage per se but that subject does fits into this one.

The Bible tells us to not love the world (worldview, secular system, etc., not the physical globe or the people in it).

What is a secular world view if not the systems that go against God?

All of history is His story. He started it and He will finish it. The Bible says that the wicked will be turned into hell and all nations that forget God. If God condemns abortion or adultery or witchcraft or homosexuality, then we Christians should stand against legislation that goes against God.

At the same time, we recognize that Satan is the prince of this world at this time and God permits him to be in control. That is why most nations do/are forget/forgetting God and as the world worsens, we can expect to see more and more legislation that goes against God. I don't think that gives us the right to accept it and even vote for it.

Just some thoughts! :wave:

#3 pneu-engine

pneu-engine

    Postmeister

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,855 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 27 January 2009 - 10:02 PM

Echo. :thumb

#4 trc123

trc123

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
67
Excellent

Posted 28 January 2009 - 08:09 AM

Good post. How about we actually post practical examples of the Christian vs. Worldly (Secular) view?

Christian View: It is wrong to lie under any circumstances
World View: It is wrong to lie most of the time; but is sometimes justified

#5 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 57,686 posts
4,105
Excellent

Posted 28 January 2009 - 09:35 AM

Excellent topic Jess! :thumb I agree with you 100%.

Christians today openly or in a round about manner support all sorts of things, politicians and agendas they would have absolutely refused to support (would have actually stood firmly against) in times past.

Consider the issue of abortion. Look at how the media and other worldly sorts constantly demean those who refuse to support any candidate or legislation that is pro-abortion in any way. They attack them as "single issue voters" with the implication (false implication) that there are may wonderful candidates and programs these people should support because of how "good" they are or the "good" they do rather than failing to support them because of "one issue". Never mind the fact that abortion is the murder of a baby, just put that "single issue" aside and support the "good".

For many worldy folks, the ends justify the means. This is why you see radical environmentalists willing to burn folks homes down, set ablaze and SUV dealership and risk the lives of people for the sake of a tree or snail darter. There are those who would fight to make sure a woman can murder (abort) her baby but would turn around and be willing to beat or kill a person to save an eagles egg.

Where Christians hold to (or should hold to) solid standards based upon the Word of God, the standards of the world are fluid, always in motion, and easily adjustable to fit their particular situation or perceived need. This holds true with regards to lying, killing and even rape. How many people have actually said, and believed, that a woman "deserved" to be raped because of how she was dressed, where she was or how she was acting? True enough, a woman can put herself in a terrible predicament and make rape more likely but that doesn't mean she "deserves" to be raped.

Look at liberals who say no one should be albe to own a handgun yet many of them own handguns, some carry handguns and many have bodyguards who carry handguns. A classic example of "do as I say, not as I do."

#6 Alimantado

Alimantado

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,181 posts
156
Excellent

Posted 01 February 2009 - 12:18 PM

Villages, towns and cities (filled with civilians) have long been targets and a part of war.


Again, I'm not disputing this is part of history. I've been told that allowing soldiers to rape and pillage was once-upon-a-time their payment for agreeing to fight. And of course some nations have gone to war with genocide as an aim; obviously in those circumstances civilians have been deliberately targeted. And even when they are not targeted, civilians get killed because they are in the way. Not disputing any of that.

Thanks for explaining that the idea of 'civilians' is a modern secular concept; I'm not familiar with warfare and didn't know this. So the Bible supports an older idea of 'total war' with all the people of a nation? Killing non-military is not a 'means to an end' after all, then, according to a Christian worldview.

Psalm 18_28: how is this conversation off-topic? We're talking about secular vs Christian ideas of war and also whether 'means to an end' is only part of a secular worldview. Seems to go directly back to OP.

#7 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 57,686 posts
4,105
Excellent

Posted 06 February 2009 - 05:47 PM

War is not a part of God's pefect will but in this fallen world God uses war just as He uses wicked weather, sickness and the wicked schemes of the devil and sinners to bring about His will.

The book of Joshua is filled with examples of how God used war to punish those in Canaan. We also have many examples in Scripture of God using war to chastise wayward Israel.

#8 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 57,686 posts
4,105
Excellent

Posted 30 January 2009 - 11:55 PM

For many worldy folks, the ends justify the means.

Going back to this comment, I want to make an observation--it is not a criticism. There is one area where many Christians on here do seem to agree that the end justifies the means: that of civilian casualties in war. I'm only quoting Jerry Numbers because his comments on this in the past have been the most crystallised:

...Sad, to knock out the enemy, sometimes innocent people have to die with the enemy, but the world doesn't understand this, so they think the good guy is the bad buy.

To me, this means: it is justified to use a means (such as a bomb) that kills innocent people (a baby would be the most obvious example) when it achieves the right end (killing the enemy). The ends justify the means.


The Bible is clear that nations and/or people groups are held accountable collectively. Consider that when Babylon conquered and enslaved the Jews, due to their disobeying the Lord, the righteous as well as the unrighteous were effected.

For example, when Hitler declared war on America, FDR didn't declare war on Hitler, he declared war on Germany (which included all the German people). When England attempted to force the colonies under her thumb they didn't view only the colonial soldiers as the enemy but rather all colonials who didn't outright declare their loyalty to England.

The idea of "innocents" in war is rather modern in our history and is mostly a European concept that peaked in the mid-1800s but was totatally discarded by the Lincoln Administration which fell back to the more ancient concept of what we call "total war". One notorious example of this from World War II is the mass firebombing of Dresden which was filled with refugees; mostly women, children and the elderly. That was the deliberate targetting of civilians.

What Jerry was speaking of is that sometimes military targets are located near or among civilians who are a part of the enemy nation/people. Take the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The Hamas fighters purposefully based themselves in populated areas knowing that when Israel attacked them civilians would be killed/injured and the media would make Israel look bad for that. The civilians knew Hamas was there and would be attacked by Israel.

Wars are not typically fought in a one-on-one manner, they are between two or more nations/people groups. That includes military personel as well as civilians.

For the most part in recent conflicts, America tends to go to great lengths to avoid or at least limit the number of civilian casualties; something our enemies don't do.

Read the biblical accounts of war. War is about winning and that winning is best accomplished by eliminating your enemy as completely as possible.

We all know what God told Joshua when he took the Israelites into the Promised Land.

In war, it's not really that the end justifies the means, it's the fact that war is brutal.

As General Nathan Bedford Forrest put it, "War means fighting, and fighting means killing."

#9 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 57,686 posts
4,105
Excellent

Posted 30 January 2009 - 11:30 PM

...it bothers me when Christians promote, accept and encourage things like homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. because "the gov't isn't supposed to legislate morality".To me, that is accepting a secular worldview.

Bakers,

Dwayner and others on here have made it clear that their objection to legislating against homosexuality is based on a principle of not agreeing with legislating marriage and not on support for homosexuality itself. But you are saying that if such a principled stand results in homosexuality being legal, then Dwayner and co are essentially accepting the secular worldview that homosexuality is ok.

This is interesting in the light of John81's comment that "...for many worldy folks, the ends justify the means." (John81). You seem in effect to be arguing the opposite of John 81: that as long as the end is not good (homosexuality ends up legal), then the principle (believing that legislating marriage is wrong) cannot justify it .

Now, it may be that instead you think the principle that Dwayner and co have based their argument on is itself faulty, but I have never anyone on here attempt to argue this. Instead, the response has always been (in essence), 'no matter the means, as long as the result is good (homosexuality gets banned) then it is justified.'


For a Christian, biblical principles should trump everything.

Constitutionally, issues such as marriage and the legality/illegality of homosexuality are issues for each State to deal with. Of course the issue of guns was left for each State to deal with as they pleased too but today most "conservatives" who are pro-gun wouldn't like that aspect of the Constitution being enforced.

Of course the reality is that America has long ago ceased from being rightly governed by the Constitution so for the most part taking principled, constitutional stands are moot.

All that said, the reality is that just as the Federal government has usurped most other powers from the states, they will eventually do the same with regards to homosexual "rights/marriage". The Constitution is a flawed, man-made document that men have decided to ignore or twist at will.

The only solid rock to stand upon, with regards to principles, is the Word of God, and that's where Christians should be taking their principled stands.

#10 Alimantado

Alimantado

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,181 posts
156
Excellent

Posted 30 January 2009 - 01:46 PM

...it bothers me when Christians promote, accept and encourage things like homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. because "the gov't isn't supposed to legislate morality".To me, that is accepting a secular worldview.

Bakers,

Dwayner and others on here have made it clear that their objection to legislating against homosexuality is based on a principle of not agreeing with legislating marriage and not on support for homosexuality itself. But you are saying that if such a principled stand results in homosexuality being legal, then Dwayner and co are essentially accepting the secular worldview that homosexuality is ok.

This is interesting in the light of John81's comment that "...for many worldy folks, the ends justify the means." (John81). You seem in effect to be arguing the opposite of John 81: that as long as the end is not good (homosexuality ends up legal), then the principle (believing that legislating marriage is wrong) cannot justify it .

Now, it may be that instead you think the principle that Dwayner and co have based their argument on is itself faulty, but I have never anyone on here attempt to argue this. Instead, the response has always been (in essence), 'no matter the means, as long as the result is good (homosexuality gets banned) then it is justified.'

#11 Alimantado

Alimantado

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,181 posts
156
Excellent

Posted 30 January 2009 - 01:48 PM

For many worldy folks, the ends justify the means.

Going back to this comment, I want to make an observation--it is not a criticism. There is one area where many Christians on here do seem to agree that the end justifies the means: that of civilian casualties in war. I'm only quoting Jerry Numbers because his comments on this in the past have been the most crystallised:

...Sad, to knock out the enemy, sometimes innocent people have to die with the enemy, but the world doesn't understand this, so they think the good guy is the bad buy.

To me, this means: it is justified to use a means (such as a bomb) that kills innocent people (a baby would be the most obvious example) when it achieves the right end (killing the enemy). The ends justify the means.

#12 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 57,686 posts
4,105
Excellent

Posted 29 January 2009 - 05:21 PM

PreacherBen, I agree with what you wrote. We are on a prophetic train ride and seeing the end nearer and nearer!

I expect the lost to behave like lost people but it bothers me when Christians promote, accept and encourage things like homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. because "the gov't isn't supposed to legislate morality". To me, that is accepting a secular worldview.


Agreed.

Great post by PreacherBen. It's true we as Christians shouldn't be spending all our time attempting to manipulate the political landscape so that it will vote and govern how we think it should. In many respects I believe this has been one of the greatest failures of the Pro-Life movement. Far too much emphasis upon electing "just the right president" who they hope will have the opportunity to nominate "just the right number of Supreme Court Justices" who will in turn vote to overturn Roe v. Wade when "just the right case" comes before them.

I'm not saying supporting worthwhile candidates is a bad thing, but to concentrate the bulk of your time, energy and resources into politics is not the biblical approach. Imagine if the same amount of time, energy and resources had been put forth in witnessing and revival efforts. Consider how Billy Sunday managed to move a great deal of this nation against alcohol, not by political efforts, but by winning citizens and politicians to Christ.

We (Christians) are to be the salt and light in the world. As Jess said, it's a shame when professing Christians accept and sometimes even condone and promote wickedness. We should be constantly and consistently standing up for biblical truth. Shining the light of truth in this dark land, exposing evil for what it is and speaking for the One True Light that all may hear the Gospel.

We are to influence the world around us without being a part of that world.

#13 deafnva77

deafnva77

    Super Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,535 posts
1
Neutral

Posted 29 January 2009 - 04:44 PM

And they expect us to join them too.

#14 Bakershalfdozen

Bakershalfdozen

    Super Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,872 posts
3
Neutral

Posted 29 January 2009 - 03:42 PM

PreacherBen, I agree with what you wrote. We are on a prophetic train ride and seeing the end nearer and nearer!

I expect the lost to behave like lost people but it bothers me when Christians promote, accept and encourage things like homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. because "the gov't isn't supposed to legislate morality". To me, that is accepting a secular worldview.

#15 PreacherBen

PreacherBen

    Member

  • Tools for the Ministry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 387 posts
18
Good

Posted 29 January 2009 - 01:14 PM

Baker 1/2 D,

You said:

...as the world worsens, we can expect to see more and more legislation that goes against God. I don't think that gives us the right to accept it and even vote for it.


It is true, the apsotle wrote:

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. and etc.

We are never to accept any philosophies, legisaltion, etc., that is counter to our Christian faith. However, at the same time, I'm not sure that there is a clear mandate in the New Testament for the Christian to be a political activist, either. Historically speaking the early church was not political, but existed seperate from the world system. Under the (false) theology of Augustin and the error of the RCC, the church began taking the (earhtly) kingdom by force. Calvin and the Reformers picked up on this with their Dominion Theology. I'm afraid that some of that sentament has made it's way over into baptistic thinking (I think it goes without saying here that Baptists never had anything to do with the RCC or the Reformers.)

Operating strictly from a New Testament mandate what can we learn about the Christians "World View," as opposed to the secular world view.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

2Cr 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.


If we are going to obey the words of Christ and Paul, we should see that we are members, in fact ambassadors, from another kingdom. Why should we be shocked that the United States of America is going the wrong way? Should we vote? Yes/no only according to your conscience. I believe the disciples and the (extremely) errant Judas thought Jesus was going to establish an earthly, physical, kingdom. Instead he was establishing a kingdom that (for now) rules in the hearts of men made new by the blood of Christ.

Paul went on to teach:

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

If we take this passage literally (being literalists as we are,) Paul is saying, we wrestle not, plainly put, WE DON'T WRESTLE with humans, flesh and blood. Our war is a spiritual war. Is it?

2Cr 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
2Cr 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;


Again, we see the spiritual weapons, used by spiritual people, fighting for a spiritual kingdom...the heart of man. We must be careful that we are not reading the bible with Red, White, and Blue colored glasses on.

I think it is natural for us to get riled (sp?) up about politicians and policies, but ultimately, the Lord is moving EVERY issue down the prophetic train tracks to prepare this world for His coming.

1Jo 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

#16 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 January 2009 - 10:50 PM

I actually heard a pastor say this from the pulpit before!!! Of course we aren't there anymore but sure did scare me! pixiedust ( About thre women deserving to be raped!) quote="John81"]Excellent topic Jess! :thumb I agree with you 100%.

Christians today openly or in a round about manner support all sorts of things, politicians and agendas they would have absolutely refused to support (would have actually stood firmly against) in times past.

Consider the issue of abortion. Look at how the media and other worldly sorts constantly demean those who refuse to support any candidate or legislation that is pro-abortion in any way. They attack them as "single issue voters" with the implication (false implication) that there are may wonderful candidates and programs these people should support because of how "good" they are or the "good" they do rather than failing to support them because of "one issue". Never mind the fact that abortion is the murder of a baby, just put that "single issue" aside and support the "good".

For many worldy folks, the ends justify the means. This is why you see radical environmentalists willing to burn folks homes down, set ablaze and SUV dealership and risk the lives of people for the sake of a tree or snail darter. There are those who would fight to make sure a woman can murder (abort) her baby but would turn around and be willing to beat or kill a person to save an eagles egg.

adjustable to fit their particular situation or perceived need. This holds true with regards to lying, killing and even rape. " to be of how sheWhere Christians hold to (or should hold toHow many solid standards based upon the Word of God, the standards of the world are fluid, always in motion, and easily was dressed, whepeople have actually said, and believed, that a woman "deservedraped because ) re she was or how she was acting? True enough, a woman can put herself in a terrible predicament and make rape more likely but that doesn't mean she "deserves" to be raped.

Look at liberals who say no one should be albe to own a handgun yet many of them own handguns, some carry handguns and many have bodyguards who carry handguns. A classic example of "do as I say, not as I do."[/quote]

#17 ltl

ltl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 06 February 2009 - 07:22 AM

Would like to voice out my view: Is war, as a rule, really part of God's will? If yes, then why is it that in the Millennial Kingdom, and in Heaven there are no weapons?

"And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." - Isaiah 2:4

Isn't war all about destruction and killing? The Scriptures say, "Thou shalt not kill" (or rather, do no murder), and "Thou shalt not steal".

Why do wars even erupt in the first place?
- Some happen because of competition over resources.
- Some happen because of blind patriotism - that says, "My country, right or wrong".
- Some happen because of religion. NEVER the Biblical way because the gospel cannot be spread by the sword!

Very rarely are there any other reason apart from those. God only allowed OT Israel to overcome the pagans as a punishment for their disobedience to God's Word. The reverse (Israel's defeat) was true when Israel disobeyed God.

But today, wars happen almost all the time due to the fallen nature of Man - greed, pride and hatred of his fellow neighbor. It's not good for civilization as well - so much $ could be spent on building factories, cars, tools that benefit people (and not forget churches plus Bibles) - instead go to killing machines.

I'm not saying that pacifism is good, but war should be primarily for defence rather than offence. So killing of innocents and civilians - not a good idea. It's for defending the weak and needy, and not for slaughtering them.

This totally fits the Biblical worldview: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27)

#18 deafnva77

deafnva77

    Super Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,535 posts
1
Neutral

Posted 01 February 2009 - 11:01 AM

never mind.. going offtopic

#19 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 57,686 posts
4,105
Excellent

Posted 01 February 2009 - 11:07 AM

Just because a person is a civilian doesn't mean they are not the enemy. The enemy comprise the people/nation you are at war with, not just those who wear a uniform. The enemy comprises the entirity of the enemy people nation, civilian and soldier alike.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with history and warfare, but any idea that civilians are not a part of the enemy or are separate from war plans and aims is an almost exclusively European concept (which spread to European dominated lands) and was a relatively modern concept that has seen its ups and downs depending upon who was in power and the case at hand.

Villages, towns and cities (filled with civilians) have long been targets and a part of war.

I don't think in the case of war it's that the ends justify the means (although there are clear cases where the targetting of civilians is totally unnecessary to achieve ones war aims) but rather a part of war as a whole. Enemy civilians are just that, the enemy, and as such are subject to the consequences of war.

#20 Alimantado

Alimantado

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,181 posts
156
Excellent

Posted 01 February 2009 - 08:39 AM

The Bible is clear that nations and/or people groups are held accountable collectively. Consider that when Babylon conquered and enslaved the Jews, due to their disobeying the Lord, the righteous as well as the unrighteous were effected.


Many thanks for both your comments, John. You point out in your second response that war takes place between nations and not individuals, that civilian casualties have always been a fact of war and that America does more to prevent civilian casualties than other nations. I wouldn't disagree with any of that--I was specifically talking about what civilian casualties in war actually represents.

If a civilian is killed in a battle who would not be killed if encountered one-on-one or put before a judge, then their death must be justified as part of a larger goal of vanquishing the enemy, on account of the fact that the enemy can't be destroyed without also killing civilians. That seems to me to be a case of 'the end justifies the means'. The end is the destruction of the enemy. The means is killing civilians. The means wouldn't be acceptable in of itself, but is justified by the end. If there's Biblical justification for it, that's fine, but doesn't that simply mean that there is sometimes a Biblical case for 'the end justifies the means'?

I'm not arguing against civilian casualties in war, btw.




The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500