Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Watts · 10-21-2005, 02:40 PM

Christians are called to be the salt that gives whatever government we live under its flavor.
We're not commanded to establish theocracies.
The government we live under in the United States isn't perfect, but I think it's the best thing going right now. Not too many people are floating rickety boats from Florida to Cuba.

PaperCut · 10-21-2005, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by singletrack1

This would be directed at Rhutchin. Which laws of the Bible would we use?

And whose interpretation will you use? Christian, even those within the same denomination, can not agree on many issues.

P.

newtype_alpha · 10-21-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrbitV2

Lol, I don't think anyone would be able to argue in those circumstances.

Speak for yourself. Viva la Resistance! :devil3:

Stumpjumper · 10-21-2005, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaperCut

And whose interpretation will you use? Christian, even those within the same denomination, can not agree on many issues.
P.

For a theocratic society I choose none. It is the worst idea under the sun. In fact, I would say that secular humanism is as close to a practical application of Jesus's teachings as you can get (not an idealistic application mind you, but I am not an idealist).

BadBadBad · 10-21-2005, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I don't know that I would classify those who reponded as "regular" Christians

"Regular" Christians. Ha! That's a good one!

Quote:

My first statement was "I can go with a religious society." There is nothing here about gov'ts and theocracies. The alternative to a "religious society" is a "non-religious society."

While we're on fallacies, how about false dichotomy?

Quote:

If people had read this accurately, their comments would have targeted the kind of religious society - Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu - one would have. My response is that a society that was even a mixture of all religions (which would exclude atheists) would be better than a society of atheists.

Yeah right. Like that has worked all throughout history including currently.

And what's the difference between a religious society of non-Christians where their morals are not based upon the Christian God and a society of atheists where their morals are not based upon the Christian God?

Quote:

My second comment was, "I choose the Bible as the basis for our laws."

Which Bible would you use as a basis, and what would you do about the riots in the street when you chose the wrong one?

Quote:

Again, in a pluralistic "religious" society, only those laws taken from the Bible that the majority of "religions" agreed to submit to would be enacted.

So in other words you're proposing anarchy with no laws? Perhaps I'm mistaken. I'm sure the Muslims would be more than happy to put down their holy scriptures and rely on your Bible as the basis for their laws and morality.

Quote:

I suspect that you might get agreement on the obvious laws (re: murder, theft, adultery). If society was constrained to accept only those laws identified in the Bible and were only ruled by that subset of laws on which the majority agreed, you would have a better society than that not constrained to be ruled by the laws of the Bible.

Why don't you write those laws out for us, and we'll take a look? Oh, and btw, why just be restrained to the Bible? If we're simply going by majority rule, why not laws and morals from other religions as well?

Quote:

If people could read, and only regular "Christians" (implying that one is actually a Christian) then responded, maybe you would get responses that actually address the issue you seem to have wanted to raise (although I am not sure that you even understand the issues you raise, or if you do, perhaps my statements have nothing to do with them).

Those Scottsman. You got to love 'em. :rolling:

Stumpjumper · 10-22-2005, 04:40 AM

This thread got me thinking about an article I read in Harpers last summer and its available online: The Christian Paradox is a good insight into how those "atheistic" European societies are actually much better at being "regular Christians" than the Religious Right in this country. Personally, I think its the liberal views that these countries follow that make them act more "Christ-like" not the fact that they are less religious. But, I think it goes to show that you do not need a theocracy to follow the teachings of Jesus.

America is coming pretty close to being a fascism of the Religious Right. Look at the fruits Rhutchin:

Quote:

In 2004, as a share of our economy, we ranked second to last, after Italy, among developed countries in government foreign aid. Per capita we each provide fifteen cents a day in official development assistance to poor countries. And it’s not because we were giving to private charities for relief work instead. Such funding increases our average daily donation by just six pennies, to twenty-one cents. It’s also not because Americans were too busy taking care of their own; nearly 18 percent of American children lived in poverty (compared with, say, 8 percent in Sweden). In fact, by pretty much any measure of caring for the least among us you want to propose—childhood nutrition, infant mortality, access to preschool—we come in nearly last among the rich nations, and often by a wide margin.

ETA: There is also no scriptural foundation for establishing a theocracy.

Berthold · 10-22-2005, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seebs

With one exception: If God physically shows up and wants to run the place, I won't argue.

How to know it's really Him?

BadBadBad · 10-22-2005, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by singletrack1

This thread got me thinking about an article I read in Harpers last summer and its available online: The Christian Paradox is a good insight into how those "atheistic"
European societies are actually much better at being "regular Christians" than the Religious Right in this country. Personally, I think its the liberal views that these countries follow that make them act more "Christ-like" not the fact that they are less religious. But, I think it goes to show that you do not need a theocracy to follow the teachings of Jesus.

Yeah, what exactly is an atheistic society anyway? Has there ever been one?

So, what you're saying is that you don't need Jesus at all to have a moral society? These non-religious societies aren't following the teachings of Jesus you know. Perhaps it's because there's nothing morally special about Jesus' teachings?

On your comments about the level of US financial contribution to other countries, keep in mind we are not a theocracy. We're not a religious nation or an atheistic nation in Rhutchin's context. It's not the "fascist" religious right that is holding back on our religious obligation to be Christ-like as a country and help other countries. However, the religious certainly are in the majority, and with that majority, they could influence the government to be more generous.

Why do they need the government for that? If they are organized enough to influence the US government, they are organized enough to raise money. Those two things are pretty closely related. Why not just stay out of politics and donate the money they collect for politics to people who really need it? Prayer in school or starvation of children in Africa? Which is a more noble Christ like objective? Why do they need a theocracy to accomplish the latter? I suspect that you would agree that it's merely hypocrisy that they spend all their money on the former.

BadBadBad · 10-22-2005, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by singletrack1

A static book as the basis of all morality causes all sorts of problems.

Are you saying that the Bible isn't a basis for morality? Would you agree that gods are not the basis for morality? Would you agree that there's no evidence of gods being the basis for morality? If not, then what is the evidence?

Stumpjumper · 10-22-2005, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadBadBad

Are you saying that the Bible isn't a basis for morality? Would you agree that gods are not the basis for morality? Would you agree that there's no evidence of gods being the basis for morality? If not, then what is the evidence?

Hi BBB

I think that morality has evolved along with humans. I think that we would recognioze such a thing like morality whether or not there was a Bible. I also think that people who do not believe in God are just as capable of being moral as theists (which is why I find theocratic societies ridiculous).

However, I do view the strong commandment to love as a profound and ideal application of morality. If we were to follow the statement "in all things love", would laws even be neccesary? Now, the fact that social morality has evolved and that following the commandment to allow love to guide our actions would result in a much more moral society makes me believe that love and morality have an ontological origin. If God will or abstract presence was the source of morality you would not need to believe in God to be affected by that influence. Kind of like you don't have to believe in the sun to experience its warmth. Of course, many here would disagree.

Also, the Bible has spiritual and moral teachings and I do find that those found within are usefull and profound.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-21-2005, 02:40 PM	#21
Peter Watts Banned Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: In a house Posts: 736	Christians are called to be the salt that gives whatever government we live under its flavor. We're not commanded to establish theocracies. The government we live under in the United States isn't perfect, but I think it's the best thing going right now. Not too many people are floating rickety boats from Florida to Cuba.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.