11

Thanks for engaging with the question. The only thing I would push back from my perspective is that I don’t think it’s so much about applying the principles of the Bible in your life as it is about allowing the Holy Spirit to shape your life.

I sometimes use the language that sin is an “eye problem” that leads to an “I problem.” The Bible often uses language that sin is a force or disease which affects and infects us. And yes, I believe that we’re only healed of this disease by the work of the Holy Spirit.

I think “conversation” is the key word here. It’s a means of engaging in dialogue with our predecessors, who wrestled with many of the same questions we do today.

These days, I interpret the idea of “sola scriptura” to be more closely related to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers than the infallibility of the Bible. I recognize that this may not be what Martin Luther had in mind, but I’m comfortable asserting that we don’t need to rely on the clergy to interpret scripture for us. I don’t think it’s wise to reject the wisdom of the church or to read the Bible outside of community.

Some traditions would argue that the concepts of original sin and total depravity necessitate that, as sinful people, everything we do, we do in sin, regardless of intention or knowledge.

For the most part, I reject that line of thinking. I think sin usually does involve some level of awareness. Again, I view sin primarily as the dehumanizing or objectifying of others. It’s viewing people not as other souls with inherent worth, but as a means of achieving your own desires. I think often, we are aware to some degree that we do this. But then, it could be argued that we may sometimes do this without realization.

This is a bit of a strange question, because an amendment is just that - an amendment. You don’t list amendments in your first draft of a constitution, you list articles. Amendments are changes made to the constitution after it’s ratified.

Not always, but often, making unpopular changes is precisely what the executive is being paid to do. Their job is to implement these changes, make sure that they are the one everyone gets upset with, and then take that anger with them when they leave.

This is definitely the most reasonable approach.

Aye, aye, captain.

I agree with the direction you’re suggesting. I think it may also be helpful to identify a few key issues that would require more than a simple majority vote to overturn.

In particular, we’ve already gotten multiple posts on defederating from various instances, and on clearing our defederation list. My suggestion is that something like once per month we hold a vote on defederation issues. A 2/3 majority vote to defederate/refederate must be achieved to pass.