Religion and Government

[stu]

I see this has drifted wildly so just a quickie as it were.

In biblical times you could own many wives, mistresses and slaves who were considered to be a man's property. So long as you fornicated with your own property and not someone else’s you did not commit adultery. It was a question of property rights. Not an act of faith between 2 people. So a bloke could have it off with his mistress who he was not married to and not commit adultery.

Adultery over centuries has become to mean a breach of faith. For this commandment to be considered immutable,(my warning to doubter to watch out for the word), the commandment would have to read something on the lines of "Thou shalt not break any vows thy made'st with thy spouse".

The whole idea that religion stands for the establishment of moral values is bogus.

Only the free rational application of fair and reasonable justice can and does establish moral values.

In reality main stream religion has to change it's standards in an attempt to fit. It has no reliable standards for setting moral value, immutable or not.

doubter,
The 'swapping quotes stuff' has already been done. If passions were so strong and religion was so devout WHY is there no specific god religion or creator mentioned in formal documents such as The Declaration of Independence. Did they not have enough paper to write the name christ into it or something.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from Doubter:

First of all, I . . . rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins. Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration


, Signer of the Declaration

doubter,

while there is no doubt that several of the signers of the declaration were christians--- the prime movers and the brains behind the document were deists.

best,

surfer

 

[cassidy]

"Morality is herd instinct in the individual."
-F. Nietzsche

 

[Doubter]

marketsurfer - You are probably correct. My only question would be. The actual amount of the Christians' influence.

I do not believe that the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution are Christian documents or that they were based on the Christian religion. I also do not believe that we should have a state religion.

I also believe that those two documents were influenced by Christians and in many ways there are similarities to Christian principles if only by chance.

I also believe that the majority of Christians, then or today, if given the chance to either rewrite those documents or write new ones would (in the case of rewrite) make only minor changes, or (in the case of new write) almost perfectly mirror the originals.
There would be no state religion or anything of that kind inserted then or now. That is not to say that they wouldn't be influenced by their beliefs but those beliefs also include the "fallen nature of man". As Christians we have a general distrust of the judgement of man (including Christians) as it is influenced by self centeredness, selfishness, greed, and it tends to be corrupted by power. The founders that were Christians understood this and would have been against a state religion. To me at least it is clear they tried to establish a republic that would not promote any particular religion but establish a place where various religions could flourish. That republic happened to resemble many of their basic Christian beliefs as they would have wanted it to.

The "fallen nature of man" is where we Christians differ from the secularist (liberals) as they in essense worship man and believe from him alone can come anything that is good. Christians cannot accept that on at least two grounds. 1. Historical evidence that man, when unchecked, is basically good. 2. Our fundamental beliefs and scriptures stating that "man is god" is simply wrong.

The issue today is not a state religion but whether the secularists (liberals) can move in the direction to outlaw any particular religion. The separation argument seems to be a main vehicle to accomplish this task and all of the smaller actions are only small steps to reach the larger goal.

 

[marketsurfer]

well said. i have no issues with christians or their belief structure, however, i lean closer to the deist philosophy of a "hands off" type of creator and a taoist view of nature. my beliefs are evolving and are no way fixed at this time. thank you for the explanation--- i'll note it for the future.

best,

surfer

 

[Doubter]

In biblical times you could own many wives, mistresses and slaves who were considered to be a man's property. So long as you fornicated with your own property and not someone else’s you did not commit adultery. It was a question of property rights. Not an act of faith between 2 people. So a bloke could have it off with his mistress who he was not married to and not commit adultery.

Adultery over centuries has become to mean a breach of faith. For this commandment to be considered immutable,(my warning to doubter to watch out for the word), the commandment would have to read something on the lines of "Thou shalt not break any vows thy made'st with thy spouse".

stu
__________________________________________

Gen. 3:1-7
1 Now the serpent was the shrewdest of all the creatures the Lord God had made."Really?" he asked the woman. "Did God really say you must not eat any of the fruit in the garden?" 2 "Of course we may eat it, "the woman told him. 3 "It's only the fruit from the tree at the center of the garden that we are not allowed to eat. God says, we must not eat it, or even touch it, or we will die." 4 "You won't die!" the serpent hissed."God knows that you eyes will be opened when you eat it. You will become just like God, knowing everything, both good and evil." 6 The woman was convinced. The fruit looked so fresh and delicious and it would make her so wise! So she ate some of the fruit. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her. Then he ate it, too. At that moment their eyes wew opened, and they suddenly felt their shame at their nakedness. So they strung fig leaves together around their hips to cover themselves.
__________________________________________

Notice the parallel tactic of trying to confuse the command to ellicit some contrary action. You can't go back much farther that this. The last half of verse 4 "you will become just like God, knowing everything, both good and evil." is exactly where I say the secularist (liberal) is coming from in their man is god and only through him and his logic can any good or good laws and government come. History does not support this stand very well.

I have no problem with understanding "adultery" in my life and arguments to confuse me will be rejected. To me at least it is immutable.

 

[Doubter]

Adultery over centuries has become to mean a breach of faith. For this commandment to be considered immutable,(my warning to doubter to watch out for the word), the commandment would have to read something on the lines of "Thou shalt not break any vows thy made'st with thy spouse".
_________________________________________

To man or the secularist it is not immutable but to God and the committed Christian the command against adultery is immutable.

 

[stu]

Quote from Doubter: I also believe that the majority of Christians, then or today, if given the chance to either rewrite those documents or write new ones would (in the case of rewrite) make only minor changes, or (in the case of new write) almost perfectly mirror the originals.[/B]

I don't. I see no evidence to suggest that 'christians' nowadays have any understanding as to what might be suitable as right or wrong under an independant impartial rule of law.

The "fallen nature of man" is where we Christians differ from the secularist (liberals)as they in essense worship man

A Secularist is simply someone who believes that religion should be excluded from government and education. I can think of a nature of man, but a fallen nature of man is very obscure. Fallen from where I wonder. Perhaps some idea that there is a nature which was never known but from which somehow it is possible to fall from.

There is no definition or general understanding of the word secularist which supports a worshipping of man. Apparently you must have made it up, similarly with the 'fallen nature' idea I guess.

As Christians we have a general distrust of the judgement of man (including Christians) as it is influenced by self centeredness, selfishness, greed, and it tends to be corrupted by power

Considering the enormous number of christian sects and denominations, use of the collective "we" is a little optimistic.

self centeredness, selfishness, greed, a corruption by power are not particularly attractive or virtuous, but you don't need a christian to tell you, or have to be a christian to realize that.

The issue today is not a state religion but whether the secularists (liberals) can move in the direction to outlaw any particular religion. goal.

There are a lot of people who want to ensure government and schools are not unreasonably affected or influenced by religion. There is no imperative I am aware of concerning a secular approach that requires religion to be outlawed.

The separation argument seems to be a main vehicle to accomplish this task and all of the smaller actions are only small steps to reach the larger

Perhaps you should add paranoia to your list of failings and fallings.

Notice the parallel tactic of trying to confuse the command to ellicit some contrary action. You can't go back much farther that this. The last half of verse 4 "you will become just like God, knowing everything, both good and evil." is exactly where I say the secularist (liberal) is coming from in ...

parallel tactic.. confuse the command.. elicit action. Sir. Lft.Comdr.Doubter... Yesss Sir.

.....only through him and his logic can any good or good laws and government come. History does not support this stand very well.

But history does. There are many very good laws and government created and developed by mankind without (christian) religion.

I have no problem with understanding "adultery" in my life and arguments to confuse me will be rejected. To me at least it is immutable.

Doubter, if you are confused with understanding what constitutes adultery under current law,and what adultery meant in biblical times, whether it is immutable to you or not, does not - will not - alter the fact that they have different standards - the meaning has changed ( for the better too, unless you think it's ok to own people as property first, to be able to define adultery) - and therefore the commandment is not immutable by definition, logic and fact.

 

[picknclick]

Quote from Doubter:

but whether the secularists (liberals) can move in the direction to outlaw any particular religion. The separation argument seems to be a main vehicle to accomplish this task and all of the smaller actions are only small steps to reach the larger goal.

We (us nutty secularists [including many "conservatives" I might add]) have outlawed polygamy on many levels of government, which of course makes certain traditional religious practices illegal. I guess that can be seen as a start to outlawing religion if you're a real stickler for the fun or kooky parts of your particular religion. Over time those kinds of things tend to get outlawed.

 

[axeman]

Man... I really get sick of these people.

There is a christian church on every corner, and they
are free to worship as much as they want.

But that is not enough. They must have a theocracy as well.

Screw the great melting pot.
Screw all other religions. All 1500+ in the united states!
Screw all other belief systems.
Screw the law that holds this country together.

We're SPECIAL! Your NOT!

Everyone else is below us.



Then when people fight for nuetral ground, they cry
and whine as if being attacked. Get a life.


peace

axeman