Theology III

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It was used as a bitter medicine in ancient Egypt and by the Greeks. Its use as a drink, though, came far later.

The use of the word as a form of spirits came almost two thousand years after the Book of Revelation was written, so there's no way that it was used to refer to alcohol. Its original meaning was "bitter," and it's in that sense that it is used in Revelation.

It's not used in alcohol as a vermifuge. The reference to absinthe (and its exotic qualities) was just me yanking your chain a little.

Think of me as a brat.

[Lief Erikson]

I thought you were serious . . . my bad .

Originally Posted by Tessar

Lief, if you ever write a book, you will put Robert Jordan TO SHAME.

I'm sure I'll need a U-Haul trailer to purchase the entire series.

I'm much more concise in my fiction. Honest .

[Lief Erikson]

This year, my political and religious views have been undergoing some radical changes. There are so, so many different aspects of society that we just take for granted, so many assumptions that other people in other cultures have grown up without. I'm seriously questioning a number of our basic assumptions, trying to figure out what makes the most sense.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

IR, maybe you know, because I'm not following Lief's argument. He's saying that you "advocate the legalization" of STD's, drunkenness and divorce? And he suggests a firm Christian theocracy is the only real alternative to a complete bacchanal?

I think that Christian moral values implemented in our laws and government structure, and upheld by our leaders, are the best possible thing for our country. I think that a Christian government and a Christian country would function far better than any other model could.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I really don't understand US citizens with this point of view.

I think that false philosophies and religious ideologies are rotting and destroying our country from within. Even though the past Christian kingdoms were imperfect, having rulers, nobles and others (including among the clergy) who were sometimes very wicked, societies also were run on generally very good principles that also really worked. Those principles benefited and protected people and whole societies. I'm very impressed by the values that were upheld and by many of the laws that were in place.

And in view of the horrifying ruin that modern society is making for itself, I see the past as having been far superior.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Isn't it clear that if those systems were all that, we wouldn't have an independent country at all?

My ancestors came here for religious plurality and freedom of expression. That's just who they were. Europe was full of people killing minority faiths, and the lucky ones got out. Why would anyone born here want to reinstate a version of the older idea?

I don't want to reinstate the religious wars. Second only to the crucifixion of Christ, for me there is no blacker event in human history. I view that period as an incredible tragedy, and I view the wars between Protestants and Catholics as having been inspired by Satan. I do not believe that those wars were inevitable, though. And Christian kingdoms ruled in Europe for over a thousand years before those wars exploded.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It would be nice if we had time machines so we could go back and take a look at some of these "golden ages" you all idolize.

Agreed. I'm going to be researching the Christian kingdoms in depth, this coming summer. I already know a fair amount about them, a number of the basics, but I'd like to get the detail.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I can see why Pilate washed his hands.

I completely understand . I think that on the points I'm currently getting into, there is too little common ground for us to make any headway.

Insidious sent me a good post though, so I'll certainly respond.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

My post was meant to point out that even if ruling with a theocratic iron fist reduced the spread of STD’s and vandalism and divorce etc. that it introduces a huge host of OTHER atrocities upon the people of the society. So it’s a stupid suggestion in light of that fact.

Yet you didn't say what atrocities you thought I was advocating.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I don’t wish to live under a Taliban like system be it Islamic or Christian or any religion.

Please drop the loaded language. I never said Taliban, and I do not mean Taliban, and neither did I say or mean "Taliban-like."

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Id rather have democratic freedoms, free speech and reasonable rule of law instead of a forced nanny/Puritan state where you cant do anything because its bad for you.

I know. And I suspect that we are too different to very well get into this.

Here's my perspective on it. There was a doctor and a patient. The doctor took a broad variety of his drugs, took the labels off, and then put them down on a table in front of a patient. He then said, "I'm the doctor. But you should do what makes you feel happy. Choose the one that you want to choose, in order to take care of yourself. Hopefully you'll get the right one."

The doctor is the state, and the patient is society. If the state closes down the options to destructive activities, such as drugs and crime, society will consequently benefit. If the state allows those, the result will be worse for all concerned. By the doctor's taking the labels off, I presume that it knows in advance what is good for the patient and what is not. The doctor has the expertise. In the same way, we have all received knowledge from God as to what the truth is, and as to what is best for society. Our state has refused to implement the true religion, however. It has thus taken the labels off the drugs. It also has not done its job in giving the patient what he needs to be healthy. Things that are clearly evil, the state has legalized. The doctor has given the patient a host of destructive potions to select from, with one or two good ones in there too. The result has been catastrophe for many.

Some people in society choose the right religion, but there are a massive tide of evil ideologies that now lure people down destructive paths. Most people are taking those paths. The tide is incredibly dense and is horrifying. What we can now see explains why, in Old Testament Israel, only the true religion was allowed under law. That was necessary for the protection of society. It didn't fully work then either, just as it hasn't fully worked in the Christian kingdoms, but it sure helped. Now the tide of destruction and sin is endless because the last restraints have been removed, and society is walking down a road that must lead inevitably to its decimation.

There's a fragment of my incredibly bleak view. I think that we experienced an incredible gift and blessing, throughout the time of the Christian kingdoms. That era is tragically over, and we have chosen a nightmare instead.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And really do you want to impose religion on people as mandatory? Is that really how you want to foster belief?

No one can change anyone's heart but God. No one can make anyone else a true religious believer.

But society can at least enact just laws and behave in an upright, moral fashion. That's what I want.

You know that criminal behavior would not exist if ideologies did not first exist in the criminals that justified it. For example, a chap might be very poor. He might say to himself, "there's that woman with a fancy, jeweled necklace. Will she go without food if I steal it? No. She'll be just fine. But I am poor. I deserve the money more than she does- there's no equality here." That ideology justifies the action for him, so he engages in that action. The ideology precedes and creates the action. Sometimes, a desire can cause someone to seize upon an ideology that matches it purely out of selfishness. In such a case, desire precedes ideology. This implies that the person did not already have a sufficient set of values to begin with, however.

Instill a good values system in society, and you'll cut the crime rate. But that denies freedom of speech and freedom of religion to a certain extent- that's the problem.

My current thinking is that even though it's impossible to make someone else believe in a true way, at least laws can be made that prevent him spreading his destructive ideology. But I'm rather unsure on this point. I'm still debating it. And I think there's more to this picture still, that I'm presently not seeing.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Who said anything about legalizing everything? What you want is a radical shift in what is ILLEGAL as in your Oman example. So why are you trying to get me to defend legalization?

What we have seen over time is a radical shift in what is legal, since the Christian era ended. And that includes the United States. Lots of things are being legalized nowadays which used to be illegal, in the name of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and expression, and all the rest. I think that turning back the clock pretty far would do our society good.

But also, you were saying that we should be allowed to do these various IMO immoral activities because they are natural instincts for us. I was pointing out that the fact that they're natural for us doesn't mean they should be allowed, for many things that are natural for us must be repressed, if we are to have a peaceful and functional society.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

All I said was theres much better ways of dealing with things then draconian theocratic decree by force.

I agree that we shouldn't introduced any "draconian" theocracy . Unfortunately, I think we’re becoming a draconian democracy. I think that a truly Christian government and system of laws would be far better for society than the current framework.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Yeah tell that to the women and the homosexuals and the musicians and the countless decent people in theocratic dictatorships who are persecuted and sometimes murdered in the name of whats good for them and society…

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So then your agenda is strictly a CHRISTIAN dictatorship?

I think that government should definitely include Christian morality in the laws, because that is the law of the universe, and it's being proven over and over again by numerous modern data and personal experiences of most people to be best for everyone.

As for dictatorship, I don't know. I'm still pondering whether that, monarchy, democracy or theocracy is better. Or whether the differences really matter. You see, I don’t think it makes sense for there to be a government by the people, for the people. It makes more sense that it should be by God, for God. For God is love, and his will is righteous and just. If society is for God and by God, every single person in it will benefit incredibly from God’s leadership and from the society’s holy purpose. I believe that one can see the proof that this works in practice across the history of the times when Christianity dominated the world.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Why bring up the Oman example then exactly? If you bring up an Islamic country as an ideal then Ill sure as heck bring up Afghanistan as a counter example thanks…

Oman is a good example of a country that has certain laws in place that run counter to modern Western freedoms, but which have major observable benefits that have come to their society from those laws.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And Christian theocratic rule has had a pretty pockmarked history on its own so I would hardly raise it up as an example of the perfect society either. The inquisition anyone?

I agree that it wasn't perfect. There were abuses then, as there always will be, no matter what. Society back then was sure a ton better than modern society though, in many ways.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

In this case

You see, I don’t think it makes sense for there to be a government by the people, for the people. It makes more sense that it should be by God, for God.

why do it here? Meet up with folks who agree with you and go do that. In all seriousness, I would recommend you spend some time in Israel. While not Christian, per se, it's a good demonstration of how a modern theocratic democracy in the Judeo-Christian tradition operates.


If your theory was correct, as to the impact of 'good values' on criminal behavior, though, wouldn't we be seeing better behavior from prominent evangelists and religious leaders? Yet we notice that despite daily exposure to The Word of God, they're engaging in all 7 of the Deadly Sins on a routine basis. Until you have a political/educational solution for that problem, I'll keep on assuming that the key to 'what makes a man/woman righteous' isn't solvable by political means.

The trouble with the 'doctor' analogy is that, in a democracy, the 'doctor' is the citizen, and the state is the patient. You can't reverse that and still have THIS country. And if you want a different country, well, the world's a big place. We live (missing Jersey Devil, here, for a minute) in a federalist democracy. That's not compatible with what you're proposing.

The legal system we use presumes innocence. The Christian faith (as most people in fundamentalist circles see it) presumes sin. That's a pretty sizable gulf to cross.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

In this case why do it here?

Because it's just and will improve everyone's lives. Don't you think justice should exist everywhere, rather than only in select locations?

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Meet up with folks who agree with you and go do that. In all seriousness, I would recommend you spend some time in Israel. While not Christian, per se, it's a good demonstration of how a modern theocratic democracy in the Judeo-Christian tradition operates.

Israel looks really, really secular to me.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

If your theory was correct, as to the impact of 'good values' on criminal behavior, though, wouldn't we be seeing better behavior from prominent evangelists and religious leaders? Yet we notice that despite daily exposure to The Word of God, they're engaging in all 7 of the Deadly Sins on a routine basis.

Not everyone holds true to the faith. That doesn't mean that the faith isn't true.

Also, there have been many, many observed instances where religion has made a huge impact upon crime and people's behavior patterns.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Until you have a political/educational solution for that problem, I'll keep on assuming that the key to 'what makes a man/woman righteous' isn't solvable by political means.

I think righteousness can only come from faith, and faith isn't going to come from politics, but can rather only come from the Holy Spirit. However, wrong behaviors can be limited by placing laws against them.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The trouble with the 'doctor' analogy is that, in a democracy, the 'doctor' is the citizen, and the state is the patient. You can't reverse that and still have THIS country. And if you want a different country, well, the world's a big place. We live (missing Jersey Devil, here, for a minute) in a federalist democracy. That's not compatible with what you're proposing.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not convinced of that, though I know that there would have to be some very significant changes.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The legal system we use presumes innocence. The Christian faith (as most people in fundamentalist circles see it) presumes sin. That's a pretty sizable gulf to cross.

I think that everyone presumes that sin exists in everyone else, in practice. No one assumes that everyone else is perfect, and few believe that any human (aside from Christ, who is also God) is perfect. But the ancient Israeli system did not presume guilt. Guilt had to be proven through witnesses and evidence. I'm not in favor of presuming guilt in our courts, and I don't think that you will find any Bible passage advocating that either.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Because it's just and will improve everyone's lives. Don't you think justice should exist everywhere, rather than only in select locations?

It wouldn't improve my life. It wouldn't improve the life of my family. I don't agree that it's "just."

How DARE you be so arrogant as to choose that path for me? I have had relatives fight (and sometimes die) in every war this country has ever fielded, from the Revolution on down, and they did that to protect the liberties that are inalienable and guaranteed by the Constitution. And you say, "Naw, we'll toss those out."

I assure you, we'll continue to fight to protect them. Establish your theocracy somewhere else.

[Firenze]

Sister:

As a Catholic myself, I wanted to let you know that the Church is in agreement with you on this subject. This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits." This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal power. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking truth and adhering to it."

It could indeed be a better world if more people were continuously sanctified by the Body and Blood of Our Lord, but even if everyone in the world were Christian, we'd still be an imperfect world as a fallen race. Besides, the will to dominate other people sounds more like Sauron than Jesus. Jesus gives people the choice to embrace or reject him.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think righteousness can only come from faith, and faith isn't going to come from politics, but can rather only come from the Holy Spirit. However, wrong behaviors can be limited by placing laws against them.

You said it was predetermined, so governmental systems don't really matter.

[Lief Erikson]

If everything is predetermined, that doesn't mean we don't have to do anything. From our perspectives, we still have choices to make and responsibility we're accountable for.

Originally Posted by Firenze

It could indeed be a better world if more people were continuously sanctified by the Body and Blood of Our Lord, but even if everyone in the world were Christian, we'd still be an imperfect world as a fallen race.

Agreed, so long as when you say "Christian," you mean nominally "Christian," rather than Christian in truth.

Originally Posted by Firenze

Besides, the will to dominate other people sounds more like Sauron than Jesus. Jesus gives people the choice to embrace or reject him.

I'm not advocating aggressive wars of conquest against other countries, with the imposition of religion on them. I do think that destructive influences within our own society should be culled, however.

I do have "the will to dominate other people" in the same sense you do: We need a government that establishes just laws, for the benefit of society. Our disagreement lies in our different views about which laws are just and which unjust.

Originally Posted by Firenze

2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."

Out of curiosity, Firenze, when was this included in the Catechism?

The "due limits," I presume, mean that when a religious belief translates into unlawful behavior, it should be restrained by force of law. I tend to agree with that. I just have a broader perspective on what is destructive behavior than our law, as it currently stands, does. And I believe that unbelief is always going to translate into unlawful, dangerous, destructive behavior, so even if the people disagree with Christianity, they shouldn't be allowed to spread their wrong ideologies, because those ideologies spawn evil actions that will destroy people. And our leaders should all be Christian . . . There are some questions on these issues, their extent and such, that I'm still debating with myself. The question of freedom to choose Christ is a very important issue to me. I rather like the way that the North American Puritans dealt with it. They didn't make people convert to Christianity, but they imposed Christian morality in law. That meant people were free to be Christian or not, but they couldn't do wrong things. That way of setting things up seems to be pretty good to me, though I'm still waffling.

I favor strong limits on freedom of speech and the virtual elimination of freedom of religion, because of the terribly negative social repercussions they create.

It's an interesting world. Looking at it as I currently am, it just never ceases to fascinate me. We all grow up entirely enmeshed in the culture we live in. We are infiltrated on such a deeply fundamental level by the values and ideas of our cultures that it really, deeply impresses me. I'm fighting like a wildcat to get out of the overwhelming and basic biases of our time period and thinking, for they exist as powerfully in modern cultures as they do in all other cultures, including ancient cultures, and the fact that our bias is our bias doesn't make it the right bias. I think it's clear from history that society doesn't always evolve for the better.

I want to look at history and at the world scene from a perspective that breaks through the thick foliage at the top of the forest, through those branches and dense leaves and twigs. I'm slamming my head against that rooftop of modern biases right now, not really outside of them yet, but striving to get out of them. I'm trying to see from a perspective that is exterior to our society rather than interior to it. What I'm seeing is deeply, deeply interesting to me. The way history works together and functions to carry out God's plan, and the way it develops and unfolds is truly remarkable. It is amazing, natural, and strictly controlled by God.

And what I think I'm seeing may all be wrong, sure.

The world is a very, very amazing place.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

It wouldn't improve my life. It wouldn't improve the life of my family. I don't agree that it's "just."

I understand, and I know that that'll probably be the case with everyone here. I respect your point of view.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

How DARE you be so arrogant as to choose that path for me?

The government already has declared that some acts are criminal. The government thus imposes upon you a path that it considers to be more moral than another. It imposes a path it considers to be better for you and better for society.

Most people disagree to some extent with some of the laws that exist, whether it's abortion on the right or the Patriot Act on the left. Everyone who votes has the right and responsibility to choose the path for themselves and for other people that they think is right. So, my "choosing a path" for you and society shouldn't be considered a problem.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I have had relatives fight (and sometimes die) in every war this country has ever fielded, from the Revolution on down, and they did that to protect the liberties that are inalienable and guaranteed by the Constitution. And you say, "Naw, we'll toss those out."

I believe in a government that offers its people "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I have a different perspective than you do on what liberty is, though. You think my perspective is tyranny, or as IR very neatly phrases it, "draconian." I, on the other hand, feel that what I am suggesting is right, free and just, and that the current structure is instead highly dangerous.

We don't have enough common ground to even begin to reach an agreement. My only hope is that I could at least get people to understand my perspective, even if they disagree with it. But I'm not overly concerned with doing that, here, because I have a lazy feeling that it's pointless.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Okay. Leaving aside the political realm for a moment, because if you're old enough to vote, presumably you do so.

Other than that, and your "laziness" in spreading the Word here, in what way does your "Christianity in Truth" (as opposed to everyone else who's a damned heathen), impact the real world? Show us the money. Show the board you lecture how you are a significantly better person because your personal relationship with Christ is all that. I don't need references and websites, for this I'll take your word, so "Worked 23 hours at the soup kitchen this week. Read to children in the oncology ward Saturday." will be fine.

I've known people who are better people because of their faith. You ain't made my list yet. So. Here's your chance. If God works through you, what does He do, other than reject history back to before the Renaissance.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I do have "the will to dominate other people" in the same sense you do: We need a government that establishes just laws, for the benefit of society. Our disagreement lies in our different views about which laws are just and which unjust.

I think the main difference is in how those laws are arrived at. Most people in the US believe in developing laws in a democratic fashion. Trial and error and real world testing, until laws are developed that provide the outcomes that a majority of the population is interested in seeing. It's a constantly evolving process.

Those who hold particularly strong religious beliefs, on the other hand, already know the outcomes they want to achieve, whether or not a majority of the population agrees with those outcomes. The question changes from, "what works for the majority?" to "how do we convince the majority that our way is correct?"

And, I'd point out that, for all the positive points of orthodox christianity, some of the negatives have caused it to fail as a basis for a political system in the past. So much so, that it is no longer the dominant political force in any major nation. Though it is still a strong minority force in many.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Those who hold particularly strong religious beliefs, on the other hand, already know the outcomes they want to achieve, whether or not a majority of the population agrees with those outcomes. The question changes from, "what works for the majority?" to "how do we convince the majority that our way is correct?"

And non-religious people don't do this? Come on!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I've known people who are better people because of their faith. You ain't made my list yet.

You didn't know him BEFORE he was a Christian! And that's the important point, IMO. As Jesus said, (paraphrase) - "it's those who are sick that need a doctor."

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And non-religious people don't do this? Come on!

Oh yes, this is a human trait, not a religious one.

As is the tendency to restrict rule-making to a pretty narrow clique of insiders.

However, IMO theocratic rules are far more likely to be immutable in the face of evidence that they don't work. e.g. when the CDC started to notice that abstinence-only programmes didn't work as well as other types of programme for preventing STDs, the Bush admin ordered them to stop looking, rather than changing the policy.

Interestingly, in some instances, I think theocratic laws can make politics easier for people to relate to because they can relate to the religious principles directly without first having to get to grips with all sorts of muddy issues around practicalities and consequences.

I think this, in part, explains the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the rise of the Religious Right in the US.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yet you didn't say what atrocities you thought I was advocating.

You based your reasoning on the Oman example only. So I replied in kind. If that’s not the case why hide your Final Plan exactly? Spell it all out here.

I never said Taliban, and I do not mean Taliban, and neither did I say or mean "Taliban-like."

You want a theocratic dictatorship in effect. No? If so then the Taliban is a clear example of one and therefore a legitimate response example to give when you give examples like Oman or Saudi Arabia.

Now if you DON’T want a Christian theocracy where the bible is the word of the law then please tell us what you have in mind exactly…

Some people in society choose the right religion, but there are a massive tide of evil ideologies that now lure people down destructive paths.

Frankly I think thinking like that is a kind of “evil ideology� because it goes directly counter to THE most important aspects of a free and open society: freedom of religion (and freedom FROM religion…). Free speech. The right to liberty and to buy property and the pursuit of happiness (in whatever form that takes…). Etc.

Remember, the founding fathers themselves understood that these and other “unalienable� rights were “self evident� and endowed BY A CREATOR as such! So I find it ironic that you reject these fundamental notions of freedom and liberty based on the warped logic that they are counter to the way our country was founded when in fact that’s clearly wrong. Puritans didn’t found the United States of America (In fact, the Puritan "revolution" in England was a total failure and was replaced by the Restoration). God fearing white men who found all forms of tyranny (be they religious or secular) unacceptable founded this country. And they would find your notion of establishing a kind of Christian authoritarian state to be both unpalatable and counter to everything they believed in and worked for. And they would most definitely fight your attempt to reduce our society to such an unacceptable state by any means necessary as they did under a previous tyranny…

Lief if you want your society to be one controlled and choked by a Christian fundamentalism then go find an island somewhere where everyone can live under your extremist ideology and leave the constitution alone. You have no right to impose that belief system on those who reject it from the start anymore then I have a right to force jews into ovens because I believe its for the best of society because my holy book tells me so…

You could of course also raise arms and attempt a revolution here in the name of your god and your twisted logic as to the betterment of society. And Im sure you could learn some things from say Iran that you could find useful in this engagement… Even from the former Soviet Union… Because as far as Im concerned a religious dictatorship is the same as a secular dictatorship.

I think that we experienced an incredible gift and blessing, throughout the time of the Christian kingdoms. That era is tragically over, and we have chosen a nightmare instead.

And I think you are incredibly over top and misguided not to mention wrong about the wonders of Christian Totalitarianism which has had quite a messy history in fact. God wont be president. Humans will. And therefore you will always open the door to the kind of abuse humans inevitably perform on other humans especially when you hand them something as powerful as virtual absolute power. It corrupts absolutely you know… Good morals or not…

What we have seen over time is a radical shift in what is legal, since the Christian era ended. And that includes the United States. Lots of things are being legalized nowadays which used to be illegal, in the name of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and expression, and all the rest. I think that turning back the clock pretty far would do our society good.

And many would agree… Racists… slave owners… homophobes… bigots of all stripes… Anti-Semites… bobber barons… are you sure you want to be part of that crowd really? If you ask me things were a lot worse in those days for a lot of people. We may have become more decadent and valueless (which I feel is debatable) but we certainly have made huge positive strides in the past 300 odd years of society introspection that our democratic system allows.

But also, you were saying that we should be allowed to do these various IMO immoral activities because they are natural instincts for us.

No I did not say that. I said we need to find a better way to maintain the health of our society without strangling it in the name of protecting it…

I think that government should definitely include Christian morality in the laws, because that is the law of the universe, and it's being proven over and over again by numerous modern data and personal experiences of most people to be best for everyone.

That’s as amusing as it is terrifying.

Oman is a good example of a country that has certain laws in place that run counter to modern Western freedoms, but which have major observable benefits that have come to their society from those laws.

Only if your measure is low divorce rates and low crime rates. We can impose that fairly easily at the expense of so much. An iron fist will do quite nicely for those kinds of results. But that’s far from some religious utopia…

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And non-religious people don't do this? Come on!

As Gaffer said, it's a human trait. But it's a trait that the secular accept and attempt, with varying degrees of success, to overcome. They may have strong beliefs about what the think is right or wrong, but a good enough argument can change the minds of even the most stubborn.

And notice that I italicized orthodox. Many, in fact, probably a majority, of the religious in the US are willing to look past strict adherence to scripture for what seems to work for society. But the orthodox, which is how I would classify Lief, believe that scripture trumps all. They will never go against scripture, no matter what evidence is presented to them. The best you can hope for, in their case, is to attempt to persuade them that their interpretation of their own scripture is inaccurate as applied to a given situation.

Basically, to the secular, you argue a situation on it's own merits. To the orthodox, while you might argue a situation on it's own merits, how it ties in with a given book of scripture is also essential. If it seems okay in the real world, but doesn't mesh with scripture, it's wrong.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You didn't know him BEFORE he was a Christian! And that's the important point, IMO. As Jesus said, (paraphrase) - "it's those who are sick that need a doctor."

I don't agree that that's the important point. If you'd like to tell me that Lief used to be a mass murderer, and, now that he's found Christ, he only beats his kids, go ahead. But that won't get him anywhere I accept him as an authority on a system of government that applies his faith to ME. If I found out that "True Christianity", about which he seems to feel he's the only local authority, gave him the power to accomplish something other than enormously long posts about his divine personal revelation, I might check out his system. Right now, there's no reason.

I know about cults, and I've heard these stories before. I don't know if Lief is his own one man cult, or if there's a little nest of them somewhere, but the trend of his recent conversation is cultish, not "Christian." I don't need to see people of faith defamed by this lunacy.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

. Many, in fact, probably a majority, of the religious in the US are willing to look past strict adherence to scripture for what seems to work for society.

Well said, oft forgotten. From this side of the pond, these more moderate voices don't get heard so much as your Jerry Falwell types.

Thankfully they're definitely in the majority over here. Churches here tend to campaign on issues like poverty, climate change and nuclear disarmament rather than abortion and gay marriage.

I guess the Anglican church has kinda made a virtue out of fudging certain issues. Unfortunately it is slowly being pulled apart by the anti-gay brigage.

[Lief Erikson]

Insidious Rex, reading your post, I think we've gone as far as we're going to be able to go in discussing this.

There's just one point on which I'd like to clarify my views.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You could of course also raise arms and attempt a revolution here in the name of your god and your twisted logic as to the betterment of society. And Im sure you could learn some things from say Iran that you could find useful in this engagement… Even from the former Soviet Union… Because as far as Im concerned a religious dictatorship is the same as a secular dictatorship.

I don't believe in using military means to force a change here. I think that using force to preserve the integrity of a nation that already has chosen God as its chief rather than man is valid. Paul said in the Epistles that when there was a wicked man in a church who was rejecting instruction repeatedly, eventually he had to be expelled. That was using force in order to keep the church pure. Doing the same for a nation that has devoted itself to God looks valid to me. Jesus did something similar also, when he brought a whip to the backs of merchants selling their wares in the Temple of Zion. He was stamping on their ideology because it was a disgrace to God in a nation that was set apart for God. But at the time the New Testament was written, the Church did not dominate any countries, so we can't know for sure that those scriptures should be applied in the way I think they should be applied.

The Old Testament supports my conclusions very clearly, though. It is more focused upon what laws are just for societies, or at least for Israel, whereas the New Testament focuses more on the individual.

My main point is that I don't believe in conquering a nation in the name of Christ. I don't think that that is Christian at all. However, maintaining purity in a nation that has devoted itself to God is a different matter.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I know about cults, and I've heard these stories before. I don't know if Lief is his own one man cult, or if there's a little nest of them somewhere, but the trend of his recent conversation is cultish, not "Christian." I don't need to see people of faith defamed by this lunacy.

This is not a mainstream view in the least, though it once was . I don't know of anyone aside from me who holds it now, though many modern Christians hold to remnants of it and have improved upon the understanding of the Medieval Church in other ways. So don't worry.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I've known people who are better people because of their faith. You ain't made my list yet.

I have little interest in proving myself for your list. But I will briefly mention that, thanks be to God, I have the strength to express views such as the ones I just have here, in spite of knowing that I'll be strongly personally attacked for it, and in spite of knowing that I'm not likely to convince anyone. That strength, for me, comes from Christ.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And notice that I italicized orthodox. Many, in fact, probably a majority, of the religious in the US are willing to look past strict adherence to scripture for what seems to work for society. But the orthodox, which is how I would classify Lief, believe that scripture trumps all. They will never go against scripture, no matter what evidence is presented to them. The best you can hope for, in their case, is to attempt to persuade them that their interpretation of their own scripture is inaccurate as applied to a given situation.

Basically, to the secular, you argue a situation on it's own merits. To the orthodox, while you might argue a situation on it's own merits, how it ties in with a given book of scripture is also essential. If it seems okay in the real world, but doesn't mesh with scripture, it's wrong.

I agree with almost all of this, though I have never liked your way of using the term "real world" to refer to your own position, as opposed to our fantasy land .

And I'll mention that the reason I wouldn't accept the evidence you provide is because it's overwhelmed, in my opinion, by the evidence supporting the literal accuracy of the Bible.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think the main difference is in how those laws are arrived at. Most people in the US believe in developing laws in a democratic fashion. Trial and error and real world testing, until laws are developed that provide the outcomes that a majority of the population is interested in seeing. It's a constantly evolving process.

Those who hold particularly strong religious beliefs, on the other hand, already know the outcomes they want to achieve, whether or not a majority of the population agrees with those outcomes. The question changes from, "what works for the majority?" to "how do we convince the majority that our way is correct?"

The reason the question changed is that Christians believed that God revealed what works for the majority already. So all the testing process that finds out what works is a waste of time. And I think that events and data have strongly shown that they were right.

One of the difficulties of modern secularism is that folks have been willing to throw Christianity out of law before checking out what the results would be and before conducting the tests you advocate. As a result, a lot of people, particularly at the time of the Enlightenment but also since then (another major, horrible turning point in history came directly after WW2), got used to certain behaviors that according to Christians are immoral, and enjoyed them. And then bias set in. Once you get used to something, you don't want to stop. So now studies are pouring in that show the negative consequences Christianity would predict for those behaviors and ideologies, but the beliefs are too ingrained to be easily changed. So the question for secularists too is not one of "trial and error and real world testing." I believe that that's a lie that many people hold dear. Instead, the question for them is what suits them. And Christianity is assumed to be wrong. That's where the whole Enlightenment and anti-Victorianism outlooks come in. And because Christianity is assumed to be wrong, people keep jumping ahead and enacting laws without knowledge of what the results will be.

This recent rush to legalize homosexual marriage without the studies that will show it's safe is a case in point. The legalization of sexual promiscuity and homosexuality itself, without the evidence to show that either were safe, was another case in point. And according to BBC, we've seen the negative repercussions for sexual promiscuity, and according to inked's article, we're now getting a better idea of what homosexuality produces too. And those results aren't good.

For Christians, the outcomes are pre-determined because, based upon the Bible, we already believe we know what works. And looking at now the evidence available that shows the repercussions of modern immorality, we can see that the Christians from the past were correct in their Biblical outlook.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And, I'd point out that, for all the positive points of orthodox christianity, some of the negatives have caused it to fail as a basis for a political system in the past.

The religious wars between Catholics and Protestants that produced in Enlightenment, what you'd view as the symptom of the failure, only occurred after Christianity had dominated Europe and the Eastern Empire, along with Russia and some other places, for over a thousand years. It was 1,260 years from the year Constantine came to the throne to the decade that the division between Protestants and Catholics became irrepairable, to be precise. That's a pretty long period.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So much so, that it is no longer the dominant political force in any major nation. Though it is still a strong minority force in many.

I don't view the Catholic-Protestant religious wars as having been inevitable, and they were the cause of the Enlightenment, and the Enlightenment was the cause of the collapse of the system. If people stopped believing in Christ, they stopped practicing Christianity, which results in behaviors that damage society badly, and that damage produces further unbelief, which produces deeper damage- and it all came to a head with the World Wars in the twentieth century. That was really the end.

But it's not the system that was the problem.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Why do you start with the Enlightenment? Your POV predates the Renaissance. It hasn't been current since then.

*checks off that Lief's individual form of Christianity enables him to posture in many locations, despite feedback he's obnoxious* Yeah. That's the example Jesus set. @@