Church and State

[MooseMom]

to all of you for keeping this intense discussion civil!

Any other kind of discussion is dull.  If you can't share conflicting ideas without getting into a shouting match, then you don't really have much to share in the first place.  Besides, you can't listen well if everyone is shouting.

[HouseOfDialysis]

I'll get back to the offshoots of evolution in a bit, but this notion that our Nation was innocent seems highly romanticized to me.

I'm still a young pup of 34 years and I sense a quickening in realization of the world around us, but that's mainly due to the increase in reception and transmission of information, wants and desires, and everything else.

The access and prolific distribution of information as escalated exponentially. I firmly believe there hasn't been a further decline in our species, we just simply have access to more things happening then we did before. But I WILL WHOLEHEARTEDLY endorse the poverty of our language has plummeted sharply in the past 20 years. Lingo and slang is one thing, but to see so many young people right on up to elderly who can't articulate their thoughts and express them clearly and coherently is truly nauseating to me. I can read back when Presidents took their speeches seriously and put thought into them and not just to score bragging rights about how many shots over the bow could be fired.  I do remember when kids actually used ma'am and sir willingly and not have to be reminded.

Language is a big link for us all, but lot of us, especially Americans, have decided to side step language and go right to the fearlessness and idiot level (literally, idiot) speaking of texting grammatical rules, which there are none. They have forsaken language. Only two other things make us a people, Borders and Customs. One down, only two left, and that's pushing it.

[Hemodoc]

to all of you for keeping this intense discussion civil!

My  ...

Who's innocence do you think got lost here?  Upper class females?  I'd lay money on the fact that lower income people, especially those who weren't white, could get shifted forward in time and not be the least bit shocked by the language, the trashy behavior towards females, or the disrespect shown to other people.  They might be shocked that blacks can do it in public now without getting lynched for it, but the behavior isn't anything new.  Trash talk and disrespect were certainly common - they just were focused on a narrower segment of our population.

Dear Jbeany,

I didn't grow up with a golden spoon in my mouth at all. During my childhood starting in the late 50's, people of color, white or red, rich or poor in general treated each with respect and civility. In my grandmother's generation, she never called her next door neighbor by her first name even though they knew each other most of their lives.  My mother was a virgin when she married my father at the age of 21 even though she had quite a few boy friends along the way. Certainly my generation didn't invent sex, nor did my mother's generation not have those few that bucked societies norms. Today, the peer pressure to have a child before leaving high school is intense and accepted by this generation. Yes, America has lost a civility  and an innocence that shall not be attained again. Amber alerts for child abduction are a near daily occurrence when they were almost never heard of or even contemplated when I was growing up as a child going wherever we pleased even at a very young age with absolutely no parental supervision. In Nome Alaska, we took 10 mile or more bike rides into the middle of the tundra hunting and fishing and playing. We went ice skating, skiing, sledding all over the area only making sure we came home before dark.

Without getting into all of the social problems today and of time past, who would dare let their kids do any of the things we did as children only one generation ago. I believe I am correct in stating that is a loss of our national innocence as a culture. Is the inequality of the KKK, and other issues lost to that idea and sense that America is no longer the safe nation it once was due to many factors? My goodness, such discord over such a simple statement. Yes, we have lost that innocence that folks growing up in the last 30 years have no clue to what I am talking about. But I can readily state that those 50 and over know exactly what I am talking about. I would never let my children or grand children do the things we did as kids. If that is not loss of innocence, please tell me what it is?

[HouseOfDialysis]

It's also a matter of population increasing, those mores and taboos that come with those persons making their start in America, etc. Shaken, not stirred.

[YLGuy]

Today, the peer pressure to have a child before leaving high school is intense and accepted by this generation.

Do you have any school age children? No, it is not. 

[Bill Peckham]

Peter, I can't see anything in your alternative world that is really attributable to Supreme Court cases in '60s. Miranda rights? Life begins at viability? Mapp's effect on evidence? I think the more interesting alternate history is to imagine the change were it to happen in 1790. I'm not too sure how we should change the First Amendment - what words to suggest in their place and I think you imagine a country where the Constitution does not constrain action at the State level which would have more profound effects on our history than just eliminating the separation of Church and State.

So I won't try and come up with any specific changes to the language I'll just say that from the beginning our Constitution allowed the enforcement of religious practices via civil and criminal laws. So small things would have changed - a tradition of no labor on Sunday maybe would have been supported by laws strictly limiting what could be done on a Sunday (more than there was).  But bigger things would have changed too. If each state established a separate religious identity what would have that meant throughout our history? For instance one can imagine that the Mexican American War might have become animated by religious differences. Perhaps an anti-catholic American administration would have pressed the war and conquered Mexico leaving an American version of the Raj south of the boarder.

In general, I think alternate history America would be less welcoming to immigrants not from northern Europe. Certainly the anti catholic biases of America in its first 100 (or 150 years) would have manifest in allowing much less immigration from Ireland and Italy. In general the Catholic church would play a much diminished role in alternate history America. Instead the Baptist Church and evangelical revival style religion would like be even more dominate through out the 1800s. Would there have been a Civil War? I don't think we can work it out entirely but I think it is likely that a smaller more traditional America would have compromised by extending slavery to the western territories below some latitude. I think this is the sort of thing that would arise out states having stronger separate identities.

I think the alternate history America would enter the 20th century quite different from the America we know. Would the Write brothers exist in the alternate history America? Would Edison? Or Ford? To what extent does freedom from state supported religion lead to, or allow to flourish, the creative genus that has fueled America's success? In general it seems like what supporters of a church state blend imagine is that we would have a more conservative, traditional culture. But with that value would come an inclination to interfere with the creative distruction that is a critical feature in the history of today's America's success.

I don't think we could have some sort of march to progress right up to 1955. Everything stays the same only Eisenhower declares an end to History My fellow Americans we have reached our destination. We no longer need to progress; let's just keep things as they are. And the states quickly ratify Ike's proposal and amend the Constitution.

When I think about growing up in the '50s and '60s vs. today, I'd say one big difference with far reaching effects is the decline of unions. I think church attendance has stayed about the same but union membership has declined along with financial security for millions of families. In general how would today's social issues turn out in alternate history America?

I think across the world unions and churches are usually allies, so I'd think this alternate history America would not be some libertarian paradise. Churches of any faith are perfectly willing to involve themselves in your life so to some degree alternate history America would feature more government involvement in the economy and it would likely feature a stronger social safety net. Women's rights history, from suffrage to reproductive rights to labor and education access would not have unfolded as it has, which I assume is a feature and not a bug to those who would want a church state blend.

If America had allowed church and state to blend we would have a very different history of the last 220 years. Maybe, a believer would say that the factor I am missing is the favor of God but I thought we already had that - I thought the North had it. I thought the guys who ran ashore on Omaha Beach had it. Didn't America under Reagan have it?

I'm saying today, in the America we know, we're fine. We face fewer immediate challenges than any generation who have come before us. And we have a better awareness of our mid and long term challenges than any previous generation. The average American today has more personal freedom than any previous average American because people are wealthier. Poverty is enslaving, wealth lets you be your own man. We are a wealthier country today than we were at any time during the previous centuries. We're just a less equitable country but that is by choice.

I'm curious Peter. What in your view would be different about our society if your understanding of the First Amendment was the basis for our society and laws?


In other words given a counter factual history of your choice - maybe starting in 1961 to keep it simpler or 1790 if you like - what would I notice in 2011 in that counter factual world that is different from the world out my window?

Dear Bill,

If the Supreme Court rulings of the 1960's had not occurred, that is an interesting question obviously which would only be speculation on anyone's part. I not only believe in the Bible, but I also believe in Bible prophecy which lists many of the outcomes 2000 years after Christ's first advent. (I do have scriptures that support the 2000 year period, but I will forego that discussion since this is mainly a secular website, but it is tolerant of Christian views to its credit.) So, while I firmly believe that the events that have happened were ordained by God's foreknowledge, it is an interesting speculation nevertheless.

Let me bite, I believe that those that honor God receive His blessings. With so many bumper stickers stating God Bless America, I suspect many folks feel likewise. I readily understand God's hand in my own life and the Bible records the historical blessings to a people that will obey His commandments. In such, are there agonies and pains and travails that this nation has undergone in the last 50 years that God would have avoided? Our Christian faith would say yes and that is our hope for this nation once again. However, Christianity is not a religion of coercion, God gave us free will and folks get to make their own choices.

To answer specifically, I suspect America would look a lot more like the 1950's, hopefully without all of the racial inequalities that existed at that time, but where people respected those that looked out for them whether a politician, policeman, fireman or even us disparaged doctors. The world today is one where respect of other people has been shredded, most especially with respect to life itself. Was it perfect in the 1950's? Absolutely not, but I remember well growing up in Alaska which remained isolated from the turmoil of the 1960's found in many American cities and it is indeed one of the most cherished times of my life. The Alaska of the 1960's had a true frontier spirit alive and well which remains in many places in Alaska today. It may be a poor analogy to America in old times, but I do believe it represents the unique American experience that spread across the nation from coast to coast. Divorce rates were lower, families had a mother and father and usually a large number of children that actually spent time together. Those that would not profess Christianity nevertheless shared many uniform "Christian" principles that were the fabric of our American society. Sounds like Richie and Fonzie would come around the corner in such a time, but truly, America has lost an innocence that shall never be regained.

I believe many folks would readily go back to those days if possible. Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the clock, but it was fun thinking about it for a little bit.

[Hemodoc]

Bill, I have never advocated nor will I advocate for merging church and state as you have implied. Separation of church and state has served america well, but today we have a much different interpretation of what it means to this nation. Today, it essentially means freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion. It is simple fact that the 1st amendment was  limitation upon the federal government and not the state or local municipalities. The incorporation of the 1st amendment into the 14th was when that changed.

I firmly believe in states rights as did the founding fathers. Please note the 10th amendment, perhaps the most ignored amendment we have.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The thread has migrated quite a bit. My contentions by the historical documents including several state constitutions, several Supreme court rulings are that America was at one time a Christian nation. I have never ventured at any time that we were a theocracy and I do support the separation of church and state as originally intended by the founding fathers.  The current interpretation in my opinion does not line up with that intent, but I am not a Supreme Court judge so my opinion doesn't matter much in the course of events. Nevertheless, if you follow the historical cases from our earliest days, the current interpretation is a reversal of several earlier rulings. So be it, that is the world we live in today.

As far a purchasing power and wealth, we are on the verge of the next generation not doing as well as ours. We do have a lot of neat toys here in America, but the trends are not good at all at this time.  But sticking to the church and state issue, going back to the reason for the 1st amendment is a study in European history and the dangers of church and state upon the freedom of religion. England has the church of England, and many Catholic nations were ruled in concert with the Vatican. Need I go into the story of King Henry VIII?

Here is an excellent essay summarizing the issue in the historical context:

Separation of Church and State - Summary of Fact Vs. Deception

The current implied meaning of the "Separation of Church and State" metaphor and its use is just the opposite of what was intended and what historical facts justify. Our framers feared a state denominational church based upon European history. The constitutional restrictions were targeted at our government to prevent it from making a denominational religion the state church. We actually embraced the Christian Theism doctrinal religion as the state religion. Now we are rejecting any expression or symbol of our doctrinal religion, which our framers embraced. We are treating the doctrinal religion of our heritage like a virus that must be expunged from the public square. We also have inverted the original intent of the "Separation of Church and State" metaphor. The oppression that the Christian Theism religion is now undergoing through the ACLU and activist judges is the same evil that the establishment clause in our constitution was intended to prevent. Our current state religion of humanism is using the full power of the government to oppress the nonconformists to its doctrine, which is exactly the opposite doctrine of Christian Theism.

http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm

http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state-2.htm

[Hemodoc]

Bill, I would add one more historical fact. Rhode Island under Roger Williams, the person who organized the first Baptist church in America is also the father of separation of church and state in America, a fact little known and glossed over in today's discussions.  It was meant as a protection of the church from the state, not the state from the church.

  Along with some followers, the Williams's  traveled into the Narragansett territory to the south of Massachusetts.  Here he purchased land from the Indians and founded Providence, Rhode Island.  In 1638, Roger Williams organized the first Baptist church in North America.  The destinctinves of baptism by immersion for believers only and separation of church and state were included in the church's doctrinal statement.

http://www.allaboutbaptists.com/history_Roger_Williams.html

[Bill Peckham]

I think this is crux of it - We are treating the doctrinal religion of our heritage like a virus that must be expunged from the public square.


What are the examples? In our Public Square individuals, whether elected officials or private citizens proclaim the importance of Jesus in their life regularly. The courts have held that public funding of religious nature is not allowed. It isn't the act that is not allowed, it isn't the words spoken, it's the public funding.


I am at a loss as to the importance of public funding of religious events.

[Hemodoc]

I think this is crux of it - We are treating the doctrinal religion of our heritage like a virus that must be expunged from the public square.


What are the examples? In our Public Square individuals, whether elected officials or private citizens proclaim the importance of Jesus in their life regularly. The courts have held that public funding of religious nature is not allowed. It isn't the act that is not allowed, it isn't the words spoken, it's the public funding.


I am at a loss as to the importance of public funding of religious events.

Dear Bill, who is asking for public funding of church activities. The Bible speaks against this in more than one place. In addition, the article never mentioned anywhere public funding.  Those that follow the Bible understand that Jesus wishes His church to be supported by His followers only.

III John 7     Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles.

I actually looked at the Bush faith based organizations getting Federal money as a dangerous precedent and erosion of our constitutional protections. He who has the gold rules. Many churches refused these funds based on Bible teachings.

On the other hand, just last month, one more case against the ten commandments came down the pike. Indeed, Christianity is being purged from the public square just as mentioned in the article above.

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20110617/NEWS01/106170302/Mansfield-Ten-Commandments-battle-pitched-U-S-Supreme-Court?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFrontpage

[Bill Peckham]

Which Ten Commandments? Don't different faiths have different versions of the Ten Commandments? I think those passages of the Bible (Exodus 20:2–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21) has 14 or 15 declarative statements so how those are parsed varies.

Of the ten, the first five by most counts (first four in the Catholic/Lutheran tradition) don't play a role in criminal or civil courts. Justice is blind to your moral qualities. The second five (or six) are actual crimes and their prosecution is based on existing criminal law - with the possible exception of neighbor's wife coveting. But if we assume it's nonconsensual then that's against the law. So no, I don't think any poster is appropriate in a court room, and a poster of Ten Commandments doesn't belong there.

[Hemodoc]

Which Ten Commandments? Don't different faiths have different versions of the Ten Commandments? I think those passages of the Bible (Exodus 20:2–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21) has 14 or 15 declarative statements so how those are parsed varies.

Of the ten, the first five by most counts (first four in the Catholic/Lutheran tradition) don't play a role in criminal or civil courts. Justice is blind to your moral qualities. The second five (or six) are actual crimes and their prosecution is based on existing criminal law - with the possible exception of neighbor's wife coveting. But if we assume it's nonconsensual then that's against the law. So no, I don't think any poster is appropriate in a court room, and a poster of Ten Commandments doesn't belong there.

Bill, the choice to be a Christian is one of the liberty to do such or not. The liberty of a nation to determine who they will call upon is also based on liberty. Those people at the start of our nation placed that choice in the hands of the God of the Bible. Today, America has chosen in so many ways to make the God of the Bible unwelcome in our institutions any longer. Historical documents record that this was not the case in 1789.  Times change and choices change.

As far as the 10 commandments, I would take your statement and state that they were here first and our laws followed. Looking at the history of the English common especially from Blackstone and it becomes evident that many of the freedoms and law granting those freedoms came directly from the Bible and were codified into the English law. In fact, if you read the story of Charles Finney, the famous evangelist of the 1800's, he started his career as a lawyer and was converted to Christianity by studying Blackstones commentary on the English common law.

Charles Finney 1792-1875
American evangelist and educator. Charles Finney was born at Warren, Connecticut, but two years later his family moved to upstate New York, where he received his early education in frontier schools. As a young man, he studied law and set up practice at Adams, New York.

While reading Blackstone's Commentaries on Law, Charles Finney noted continuous references to the Holy Scriptures. Blackstone repeatedly mentioned the Bible as the highest authority. This moved Finney to buy a Bible, and he soon was reading it more than law.

http://www.firesofrevival.com/charlesfinney/

Up until the 1960's the God of the Bible was considered the highest authority in America, even by our own Supreme court.  America has bravely stepped away from this and declared that man is now the highest authority in this land supplanting our dependence on the Lord God of Israel abased on our ability to reason. I firmly believe that this is a terrible mistake. The bumper stickers  stating God bless America while well meant become meaningless in light of the overwhelming support of removing the God of the Bible from all American governmental institutions including our public schools. That is America's choice today, but I would suggest that there are always consequences for our choices. I believe this one is a grave error. But so be it, God gave us free will and expects us to exercise it whether we make the right or wrong choices. 

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, do you think that Congress today in 2011 feels that the God of the Bible is the highest authority in the land?

When you state that "America" has stepped away from God as the highest authority, who exactly do you mean?

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc, do you think that Congress today in 2011 feels that the God of the Bible is the highest authority in the land?

When you state that "America" has stepped away from God as the highest authority, who exactly do you mean?

America is a uniformly secular society today with pockets of Christianity while in the 1700's it was uniformly a Christian society with pockets of secularism. In our highest court of the land, the 10 commandments, the basis of the common law which makes up the fabric of our constitution is no longer allowed. I would categorically state that the Supreme court believes its authority is higher than God's in this nation. It rulings since 1961 support that opinion.

As far as congress, most of them likewise are overwhelmingly secular. Even within the GOP, the tea party who openly support God and Country are a minority within the GOP.

On the other hand, Jesus does not impose Himself upon anyone. They are free to accept or reject His offer of eternal life. I don't believe in forcing folks against their wills, nor does God. When Samuel anointed Saul as the first king of Israel, God told Samuel essentially that the people had not rejected Samuel as their leader, they had rejected God.  God allowed this but did direct Samuel to warn Israel of the consequences of this choice.

I Samuel 8:5     And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
6     ¶ But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
7     And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8     According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
9     Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10     ¶ And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
11     And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12     And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13     And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14     And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15     And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16     And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17     He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18     And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
19     ¶ Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;


I believe America is now heading toward the consequences of their free choice to reject the God of the Bible.  Indeed, separation of church and state interpreted as freedom from religion is a very popular notion among a large majority of Americans.  Blackstone was right, God is our highest authority. America did not tax the church until January 1, 1984 when Ronald Reagan began taxing the church of God through the Social security act. The founders dared not tax God who gave them their blessings and their freedom. I don't look upon Reagan in rose colored glasses at all as many of my fellow Christians do. Perhaps they simply don't understand how dangerous the power to tax is over the church. Chief Justice John Marshall so declared years ago that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Ronald Reagan did more damage to the church of America than most of us in the church understand. I believe those full consequences are yet to come to fruition yet as well. The irony of not only taxing the church but turning it into a tax collector at the same time goes against the tenants of Christianity.  I firmly believe that this has not escaped God's attention.

Where is the protection of the church FROM the government anymore? Everyone is so concerned that the church will influence in any manner the government yet it is the government that has the power to destroy and not the other way around.  In such, the first amendment is beginning to become meaningless in it's original intent of protecting the church from the powers of the rulers. What is even more remarkable is how few people even know of the "evolution" of the first amendment, nor apparently disagree with the current interpretation.

[HouseOfDialysis]

"On the other hand, Jesus does not impose Himself upon anyone. They are free to accept or reject His offer of eternal life. I don't believe in forcing folks against their wills, nor does God."

Unfortunately, some of God's followers more fervent throughout the centuries do not share your laid back attitude. These are the people who I do not get along with to put it politely.

[Willis]

Which Ten Commandments? Don't different faiths have different versions of the Ten Commandments? I think those passages of the Bible (Exodus 20:2–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21) has 14 or 15 declarative statements so how those are parsed varies.

Of the ten, the first five by most counts (first four in the Catholic/Lutheran tradition) don't play a role in criminal or civil courts. Justice is blind to your moral qualities. The second five (or six) are actual crimes and their prosecution is based on existing criminal law - with the possible exception of neighbor's wife coveting. But if we assume it's nonconsensual then that's against the law. So no, I don't think any poster is appropriate in a court room, and a poster of Ten Commandments doesn't belong there.

I think the easiest way to decide if something might potentially violate mixing religion with civil activities would be to imagine if those Ten Commandments were instead a passage from the Koran or the Bhagavata. (I'm a Christian if that matters.) If a majority in a community voted for such displays, then that is just as much a tyranny of the majority and a violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Hemodoc]

Which Ten Commandments? Don't different faiths have different versions of the Ten Commandments? I think those passages of the Bible (Exodus 20:2–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21) has 14 or 15 declarative statements so how those are parsed varies.

Of the ten, the first five by most counts (first four in the Catholic/Lutheran tradition) don't play a role in criminal or civil courts. Justice is blind to your moral qualities. The second five (or six) are actual crimes and their prosecution is based on existing criminal law - with the possible exception of neighbor's wife coveting. But if we assume it's nonconsensual then that's against the law. So no, I don't think any poster is appropriate in a court room, and a poster of Ten Commandments doesn't belong there.

I think the easiest way to decide if something might potentially violate mixing religion with civil activities would be to imagine if those Ten Commandments were instead a passage from the Koran or the Bhagavata. (I'm a Christian if that matters.) If a majority in a community voted for such displays, then that is just as much a tyranny of the majority and a violation of the First Amendment.

 

Dear Willis,

Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating that America re-adopt Christianity against the will of the people.  As the example from Samuel above demonstrates, not even God would do that. If folks wish to turn their backs upon the God of Israel and seek their own gods or no gods, so be it.  All I am stating is that God did create the heavens and earth and we shall all give account of everything we have done in our bodies whether good or bad on the day of judgement whether you believe in Him now or not.

Philippians 2:3     Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4     Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5     Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6     Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7     But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8     And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9     Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10     That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11     And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
12     Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

[Hemodoc]

"On the other hand, Jesus does not impose Himself upon anyone. They are free to accept or reject His offer of eternal life. I don't believe in forcing folks against their wills, nor does God."

Unfortunately, some of God's followers more fervent throughout the centuries do not share your laid back attitude. These are the people who I do not get along with to put it politely.

Dear House,

If you wish to know what the Bible is all about, simply read it for yourself. You don't need to listen to man, since Jesus came, you can go directly to Him without any mediator since He is our mediator directly.

God bless,

Peter

[HouseOfDialysis]

I've read the Bible, probably more than the average Christian, but since I have to deal with God's adherents and not God on a daily basis, I tend to take my impressions of God from His followers.

I know this is going to come off as slightly prickish, but it's not meant as such. Trying to prove God through the Bible is like trying to prove Superman through a comic book.

Believe it or not, I'd actually like to believe in gods and be able to relax about accomplishing all that I want to in this life and be comfortable in the knowledge of knowing. I don't feel, sense, or have the slightest inkling towards anything supernatural, so whereas I appreciate some aspects of various religions, from their moderating effects on behavior to great charity work from Mormons and Evangelicals alike, I get nowhere near these devoted people such as my own mother, who is a Carmelite lay nun, by the way. She converted to Catholicism after her transplant, actually.

[Willis]

Which Ten Commandments? Don't different faiths have different versions of the Ten Commandments? I think those passages of the Bible (Exodus 20:2–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21) has 14 or 15 declarative statements so how those are parsed varies.

Of the ten, the first five by most counts (first four in the Catholic/Lutheran tradition) don't play a role in criminal or civil courts. Justice is blind to your moral qualities. The second five (or six) are actual crimes and their prosecution is based on existing criminal law - with the possible exception of neighbor's wife coveting. But if we assume it's nonconsensual then that's against the law. So no, I don't think any poster is appropriate in a court room, and a poster of Ten Commandments doesn't belong there.

I think the easiest way to decide if something might potentially violate mixing religion with civil activities would be to imagine if those Ten Commandments were instead a passage from the Koran or the Bhagavata. (I'm a Christian if that matters.) If a majority in a community voted for such displays, then that is just as much a tyranny of the majority and a violation of the First Amendment.

 

Dear Willis,

Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating that America re-adopt Christianity against the will of the people.  As the example from Samuel above demonstrates, not even God would do that. If folks wish to turn their backs upon the God of Israel and seek their own gods or no gods, so be it.  All I am stating is that God did create the heavens and earth and we shall all give account of everything we have done in our bodies whether good or bad on the day of judgement whether you believe in Him now or not.

Philippians 2:3     Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4     Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5     Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6     Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7     But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8     And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9     Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10     That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11     And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
12     Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Hemodoc

I agree with you and I'm a lover of Paul's writings (not all Christians are so fond of Paul). But I'm not sure what your point was with that post?

 

[Hemodoc]

Which Ten Commandments? Don't different faiths have different versions of the Ten Commandments? I think those passages of the Bible (Exodus 20:2–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21) has 14 or 15 declarative statements so how those are parsed varies.

Of the ten, the first five by most counts (first four in the Catholic/Lutheran tradition) don't play a role in criminal or civil courts. Justice is blind to your moral qualities. The second five (or six) are actual crimes and their prosecution is based on existing criminal law - with the possible exception of neighbor's wife coveting. But if we assume it's nonconsensual then that's against the law. So no, I don't think any poster is appropriate in a court room, and a poster of Ten Commandments doesn't belong there.

I think the easiest way to decide if something might potentially violate mixing religion with civil activities would be to imagine if those Ten Commandments were instead a passage from the Koran or the Bhagavata. (I'm a Christian if that matters.) If a majority in a community voted for such displays, then that is just as much a tyranny of the majority and a violation of the First Amendment.

 

Dear Willis,

Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating that America re-adopt Christianity against the will of the people.  As the example from Samuel above demonstrates, not even God would do that. If folks wish to turn their backs upon the God of Israel and seek their own gods or no gods, so be it.  All I am stating is that God did create the heavens and earth and we shall all give account of everything we have done in our bodies whether good or bad on the day of judgement whether you believe in Him now or not.

Philippians 2:3     Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4     Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5     Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6     Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7     But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8     And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9     Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10     That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11     And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
12     Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Hemodoc

I agree with you and I'm a lover of Paul's writings (not all Christians are so fond of Paul). But I'm not sure what your point was with that post?

 

Just trying to make the point that even though folks don't believe in Jesus here and now that does not in any fashion diminish the fact that He is real and so is His Holy word.  All will stand before Him and give account of everything done in the body, whether good or bad. Hopefully folks will read and understand that He came to save the lost to give all eternal life.  I have no doubt that those promises are real.

God bless,

Peter

[MooseMom]

What happens if you believe in the existence of God but have doubts about His benevolence?

[jbeany]

I think a lot of the reading in the Bible shows he's not benevolent quite a bit of the time. 

[MooseMom]

I think a lot of the reading in the Bible shows he's not benevolent quite a bit of the time.

He seems to be a scary dude, capricious at best.  When people tell me to trust in God and to have faith, I'm not sure what it is I am supposed to trust Him with, nor am I sure in exactly what I am supposed to have faith.

All I know is that He took my innocent baby and maimed him, and I find it very difficult to "have faith" in such a deity.  I am told that I am supposed to believe that God has His hand in everything, that He has a plan for us, but I don't want to be a part of any plan that hurt my innocent child.  So I have a real problem talking about God.  I do believe He exists, but His existence frightens me.

[Hemodoc]

I think a lot of the reading in the Bible shows he's not benevolent quite a bit of the time.

He seems to be a scary dude, capricious at best.  When people tell me to trust in God and to have faith, I'm not sure what it is I am supposed to trust Him with, nor am I sure in exactly what I am supposed to have faith.

All I know is that He took my innocent baby and maimed him, and I find it very difficult to "have faith" in such a deity.  I am told that I am supposed to believe that God has His hand in everything, that He has a plan for us, but I don't want to be a part of any plan that hurt my innocent child.  So I have a real problem talking about God.  I do believe He exists, but His existence frightens me.

Dear Moosemom, I know the struggles you have had with your child, but I fail to understand why you would blame that on God. Jesus, created all things and then came down to earth in the from of a man and then gave His life a ransom for ours.  Sorry, but that is not scary to me at all, that is the ultimate act of love anywhere in the universe. In so doing, He has already overcome the world and all of the evil within.  Sorry, I just don't attribute my Lord and Saviour as a scary dude.

John 3:16      ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17     For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.