Where do politics and religion connect? (believers, belief, exist, miracles)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
perhaps you don't read "typo" Someone with an open mind is one who is not convinced that he MUST be right and "love" in our conversations is concern for the well-being of others. Both qualities tend to keep us from being self-righteous. both are qualities Mystic displays. I hope that helps.
Are you then suggesting that I'm self righteous, close minded, hateful and unconcerned for the well-being of others?
(It's okay, you can be honest. I promise not to bite.)
I am suggesting that it might be conducive to personal growth for you to review your stances. As it is for the rest of us.
I appreciate the apparent fact that you're concerned for my "personal growth."
As for reviewing my "stance," that would be what these discussions are basically all about. As I've stated repeatedly in this very thread, I'm open to the idea that I could be wrong. Again, if anyone can present REASONED arguments against Christianity, the truth of the Bible or the existence of God I'll be happy to entertain them and change my worldview accordingly if need be.
As for the "rest" of you, in all honesty and based upon various past statements, I don't see much apparent interest in any "review" of "stances." The atheism/skepticism seems to be mired in dogma.
The particular one that I am concerned about is whether a perception that is based solely on religious teachings should be a matter for legal coercion or individual conviction, and whether such secular coercion should be appropriate for only one religion. The point has been made that our Constitution does not allow it for good reason, and that attempts to force such coercion routinely meet rejection in the courts for that reason.
The particular one that I am concerned about is whether a perception that is based solely on religious teachings should be a matter for legal coercion or individual conviction, and whether such secular coercion should be appropriate for only one religion. The point has been made that our Constitution does not allow it for good reason, and that attempts to force such coercion routinely meet rejection in the courts for that reason.
Again, I'm open to entertaining opposing viewpoints. However, one has to at least be willing to put forward a reasoned argument that's based upon factual (true) information. It's one thing for people to go around throwing down various opinions and quite another to present a coherent set of ideas in a discussion.
There hasn't really been too much conversation in this thread about what the Constitution actually states - more or less, I've been bombarded with various opinions about views of what the Constitution states. If you want to debate the Constitution, fine, let's debate the Constitution. I'm actually looking for a bit more than someone's dogmatic opinion about how the Constitution should be properly interpreted.
As for religious teachings, there's been practically no detailed conversation about it in this thread. For you to infer here that I've somewhere suggested that religious teachings (whatever that means) should be forced through secular law is, at the very least, disingenuous. My only point is that all laws are imposition and the people will ultimately determine what sort of morality is going to be imposed. It's not a question of whether or not morality will be imposed - it's a question of which morality is going to be imposed.
Actually we both can be right. Following Jesus is right . . . WHY we do so is largely irrelevant. Politics and religion unfortunately do connect all too often . . . but they shouldn't. "Render unto Caesar . . ." Besides in my estimation politics is fundamentally susceptible to evil via the exercise of power. After all the word "Poly" means "many" and "ticks" are "blood suckers."
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
IMHO the "WHY" is everything because it speaks to the WHO. Who is Jesus? Who is God? If we disagree about THAT, and obviously we do, then it logically follows that our views are at odds - that they CONTRADICT. Therefore and logically, there's no possible way for us to "both be right."
That is definitely a close-minded view of following Christ and is hardly justified. Those who seek to follow Christ are Christians and why they do so may be a subject for debate . . . but it is definitely NOT central to following Christ. What does seem central to following Christ would be His instructions to His disciples to "love God and each other" daily and repent when we don't. Hard to argue with direct instructions.
Quote:
...but you have no problem with the connection between godless philosophy and politics? In other words, it's fine to impose godlessness through political activism - anything - so long as it cannot be linked somehow with "religion?"
This is a misrepresentation of my view. It has nothing to do with imposing godlessness in secular laws. It has everything to do with NOT imposing religious laws that have no secular justification. If the only reason for a law is to follow what some religion thinks God wants . . . it is NOT a legitimate secular law. God can enforce His own laws. Secular laws are for enforcing society's legitimate requirements for an orderly society, period.
Quote:
Is it logically possible to separate philosophy and politics? ...or are you suggesting that our political view should actually BE (one-in-the-same) our philosophical and "religious" view?
What does it mean to "render unto Caesar?"
It means leave things that are secular to secular authorities and things that are of God to God! God is not impotent and will enforce His own laws. God wants VOLUNTARY adherence to His laws . . . NOT forced or enforced by human beings. Human beings enforce societal laws that have a secular purpose, period.
Quote:
Politics has no ability to actually be "evil" in and of itself. People ARE evil and therefore, unchecked power WILL be used for evil purposes. It seems to me that the only way to thwart powerful people who are committed to establishing evil is to counter their efforts with people committed to establishing good - "good" being basically defined as truth and justice.
True . . . As long as good is NOT defined as what YOU think YOUR God wants whether or not there is a genuine societal purpose.
That is definitely a close-minded view of following Christ and is hardly justified. Those who seek to follow Christ are Christians and why they do so may be a subject for debate . . . but it is definitely NOT central to following Christ.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me, there's a huge difference between the Jesus who is God and the 'jesus' who was a prophet and/or good teacher who performed a few magic tricks. I do not agree with your apparent doctrine of God and Christ and can only wonder how it is that you're actually able to know anything about them in view of your rejection (either completely or in part) of the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
What does seem central to following Christ would be His instructions to His disciples to "love God and each other" daily and repent when we don't. Hard to argue with direct instructions.
Where in the world do you get these "direct instructions" if not from the Bible?
Just out of curiosity: Do you follow those instructions? Have you perfectly followed those instructions all your life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
This is a misrepresentation of my view.
How is it that merely asking two questions can equate to a "misrepresentation" of your view? They were not intended to be rhetorical. Dude, you seriously need to lighten up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It has nothing to do with imposing godlessness in secular laws. It has everything to do with NOT imposing religious laws that have no secular justification.
It strikes me as completely ridiculous to move forward on the presumption that we all take a common view of "secular" laws and "religious" laws. SOME form of morality must logically and by necessity be imposed through law. If we exclude "religious" laws or "religious" laws that do not get the "secular" stamp of approval - whats left?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
If the only reason for a law is to follow what some religion thinks God wants . . . it is NOT a legitimate secular law.
I prefer all laws to be in accordance with truth and justice. What is a "legitimate" law? The only legitimate laws that I know of are those in accordance with God's objective moral framework.
Is rape objectively wrong? Is slavery objectively wrong? If secular law permitted both acts would that equate to "legitimate" secular laws?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
God can enforce His own laws. Secular laws are for enforcing society's legitimate requirements for an orderly society, period.
I have no issue whatsoever with God's power and sovereignty. However, even though God commands that we not commit murder I still continue to read about it most every day in the newspaper. Should I therefore conclude that God is weak? Does man bear any responsibility for the evil that's committed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It means leave things that are secular to secular authorities and things that are of God to God! God is not impotent and will enforce His own laws. God wants VOLUNTARY adherence to His laws . . . NOT forced or enforced by human beings. Human beings enforce societal laws that have a secular purpose, period.
This is the classic modern redefinition of the Constitution. So called "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the original text or in the original intent.
I challenge you to find anything in any of the founding documents that runs counter to Biblical principles.
The founders weren't idiots. They fully realized that all societal law MUST be grounded in OBJECTIVE moral standards. That's why they used the term 'inalienable' rights. The notion that our rights are not defined by or bequeathed from government, "period."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
True . . . As long as good is NOT defined as what YOU think YOUR God wants whether or not there is a genuine societal purpose.
That is definitely a close-minded view of following Christ and is hardly justified. Those who seek to follow Christ are Christians and why they do so may be a subject for debate . . . but it is definitely NOT central to following Christ. What does seem central to following Christ would be His instructions to His disciples to "love God and each other" daily and repent when we don't. Hard to argue with direct instructions.This is a misrepresentation of my view. It has nothing to do with imposing godlessness in secular laws. It has everything to do with NOT imposing religious laws that have no secular justification. If the only reason for a law is to follow what some religion thinks God wants . . . it is NOT a legitimate secular law. God can enforce His own laws. Secular laws are for enforcing society's legitimate requirements for an orderly society, period.It means leave things that are secular to secular authorities and things that are of God to God! God is not impotent and will enforce His own laws. God wants VOLUNTARY adherence to His laws . . . NOT forced or enforced by human beings. Human beings enforce societal laws that have a secular purpose, period. True . . . As long as good is NOT defined as what YOU think YOUR God wants whether or not there is a genuine societal purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me, there's a huge difference between the Jesus who is God and the 'jesus' who was a prophet and/or good teacher who performed a few magic tricks. I do not agree with your apparent doctrine of God and Christ and can only wonder how it is that you're actually able to know anything about them in view of your rejection (either completely or in part) of the Bible.
Where in the world do you get these "direct instructions" if not from the Bible?
I get them from Jesus as recorded in the Bible and tested by the Spirit of God (agape love) under the guidance of the Comforter. There is no way that your absurd view is valid . . . that the Bible is either ALL true or none of it is true. There is truth in the Bible. There is falsity in the Bible, There is deliberate fraud in the Bible. There are political agendas reflected in the Bible. All manner of human frailties are reflected in the Bible. This is normal and cannot be wished away or believed away by some preposterous notion that God magically prevented us fallible and corrupt human beings from messing with the Bible.
Quote:
Just out of curiosity: Do you follow those instructions? Have you perfectly followed those instructions all your life?
Off topic . . . but yes. I try daily and repent when I don't.
Quote:
How is it that merely asking two questions can equate to a "misrepresentation" of your view? They were not intended to be rhetorical. Dude, you seriously need to lighten up.
It strikes me as completely ridiculous to move forward on the presumption that we all take a common view of "secular" laws and "religious" laws. SOME form of morality must logically and by necessity be imposed through law. If we exclude "religious" laws or "religious" laws that do not get the "secular" stamp of approval - whats left?
Secular law and secular enforcement is appropriate ONLY for secular purposes. An orderly society requires such laws and such enforcement. Whether or not they conform to what YOU think YOUR God requires of us is irrelevant! Secular society has no responsibility to enforce YOUR God's laws on anybody for any reason if it has no secular purpose! YOUR God's laws are to be voiluntarily followed by those who believe in Him, period. Society has no role in enforcing such nonsense . . . nor should YOUR God require such secular enforcement for voluntary religious acts.
Quote:
I prefer all laws to be in accordance with truth and justice. What is a "legitimate" law? The only legitimate laws that I know of are those in accordance with God's objective moral framework.
Nonsense. All secular laws should have the role of promoting an orderly society with mutual respect for the freedoms and dignity oi each member. They have no role in promoting the wishes of YOUR God or anyone else's God.
Quote:
Is rape objectively wrong? Is slavery objectively wrong? If secular law permitted both acts would that equate to "legitimate" secular laws?
Those issues are answered secularly without regard to what YOUR God thinks about them.
Quote:
I have no issue whatsoever with God's power and sovereignty. However, even though God commands that we not commit murder I still continue to read about it most every day in the newspaper. Should I therefore conclude that God is weak? Does man bear any responsibility for the evil that's committed?
Murder has societal consequences and is appropriately handled by society. No need for YOUR God or anyone else's to be involved.
Quote:
This is the classic modern redefinition of the Constitution. So called "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the original text or in the original intent.
I challenge you to find anything in any of the founding documents that runs counter to Biblical principles.
The founders weren't idiots. They fully realized that all societal law MUST be grounded in OBJECTIVE moral standards. That's why they used the term 'inalienable' rights. The notion that our rights are not defined by or bequeathed from government, "period."
How do we define "good" without God?
You may disagree with the separation . . . but it is necessary. YOUR God has no more standing in a secular and diverse society than the God of the Muslims or the Gods of the Hindus or any other God defined by men in their religions. Society defines good on the basis of its impact on the members and their inalienable rights. It has no role in individual morality that is between individuals and their God.
I get them from Jesus as recorded in the Bible and tested by the Spirit of God (agape love) under the guidance of the Comforter. There is no way that your absurd view is valid . . . that the Bible is either ALL true or none of it is true. There is truth in the Bible. There is falsity in the Bible, There is deliberate fraud in the Bible. There are political agendas reflected in the Bible. All manner of human frailties are reflected in the Bible. This is normal and cannot be wished away or believed away by some preposterous notion that God magically prevented us fallible and corrupt human beings from messing with the Bible. Off topic . . . but yes. I try daily and repent when I don't. Secular law and secular enforcement is appropriate ONLY for secular purposes. An orderly society requires such laws and such enforcement. Whether or not they conform to what YOU think YOUR God requires of us is irrelevant! Secular society has no responsibility to enforce YOUR God's laws on anybody for any reason if it has no secular purpose! YOUR God's laws are to be voiluntarily followed by those who believe in Him, period. Society has no role in enforcing such nonsense . . . nor should YOUR God require such secular enforcement for voluntary religious acts.Nonsense. All secular laws should have the role of promoting an orderly society with mutual respect for the freedoms and dignity oi each member. They have no role in promoting the wishes of YOUR God or anyone else's God.Those issues are answered secularly without regard to what YOUR God thinks about them. Murder has societal consequences and is appropriately handled by society. No need for YOUR God or anyone else's to be involved.You may disagree with the separation . . . but it is necessary. YOUR God has no more standing in a secular and diverse society than the God of the Muslims or the Gods of the Hindus or any other God defined by men in their religions. Society defines good on the basis of its impact on the members and their inalienable rights. It has no role in individual morality that is between individuals and their God.
We can't have a discussion unless you're willing to entertain and answer my questions. Do that, and we can continue.
It's interesting that you've actually come clean on your view of the Bible. I can't help wondering how it is that you're able to distinguish between the "true" parts and the "false" parts. Perhaps you have some sort of direct line to the almighty that no one else is privy to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
