Bible War!

[utvolpj]

Oh, you mean like the framers of the Constitution did?
Christian principles apply to all. It is Christians that do not always practice what we preach. I am guilty.

they may have used the bible as a guide but the US was never intended to be a country ruled by religious laws. Some of them stated that specifically (and there were those who were more diest than Christian)

 

[T-TownVol]

You can argue the law in a lot of different ways....... some choose to see it as christian laws while others would say the christians borrowed from cultures that predated theirs....

Either way, you are going to make someone mad!

I do not see your logic on the Constititional delagates. There is no arguing that they looked to the Bible AND they leaned on World history. So, both are true and I do not know how that could make anyone mad.

 

[orange+white=heaven]

"Whenever "A" attempts by law to impose his moral standards upon "B," "A" is most likely a scoundrel..."

- H.L. Mencken

 

[T-TownVol]

they may have used the bible as a guide but the US was never intended to be a country ruled by religious laws. Some of them stated that specifically (and there were those who were more diest than Christian)

All you did was restate my point. I did not say that the Country was run by the Church.

 

[KB5252]

You can argue the law in a lot of different ways....... some choose to see it as christian laws while others would say the christians borrowed from cultures that predated theirs....

Either way, you are going to make someone mad!

I went through a period of doubting God and religion as I knew it. For a couple of years I studied different religions and saw many similarities and differences. Many Christian beliefs were borrowed or based upon the beliefs of other cultures as you said. This would make sense being that the Jews spent much of their history either wandering through or settled in lands which had drastically different cultures. This is very evident in the Old Testament. For example the Arc of the Covenant is similar in many ways to descriptions of Egyptian "boxes" that the preists used.

 

[I40VOL]

I was raised within a super strict legalistic Indy Baptist Church who decided there were not strict enough and dropped their Indy title to become Distinctively Baptist.

Their church slogan is, "What good Baptist churches used to be, we still are.".

For 6 years I went to church to run the sound system and that was a pretty low point in my life.

Then for some reason I went to a church that my pastor called the whore of the devil for being a liberal Satan worshipping church.

It was not too long before I moved my membership to a Southern Baptist Church and that is where I have been ever since. My main like for the SBC is their collective missionary work which I think makes total sense.

Though I am not foolish enough to believe that Methodists, Wesylans or any one else doesn't basically believe the same thing that I do.

When I was young I attempted to reach God through rules and regulations and now I am the complete opposite seeking a personal relationship on a daily level. That is super special to me!

When you break it down, christianity is simple and we make it complicated. I used to get caught up in stupid fights such as baptism...... A special preacher talked about not having scriptual baptism and used the example of a glass of water and pouring dirty water in to it saying that the church had lost its witness for letting people of other denominations, ie the ones I listed above into their churches.

Meanwhile, your next door neighbor just died and went to hell because you were arguing over something trivial instead of talking to them about Jesus!

Christianity is about love and spreading the gospel!

Sorry, I get fired up.............

:thumbsup:

hey OE.....I'M ON YOUR SIDE MAN!!!!

 

[lawgator1]

If laws are based on scripture then how is that not forcing religion on those that do not care for it? (not really at you LG) Does basing it on the teachings of JC not alienate non-believers (like Jews, Muslims, etc)?

Oh, you mean like the framers of the Constitution did?
Christian principles apply to all. It is Christians that do not always practice what we preach. I am guilty.

they may have used the bible as a guide but the US was never intended to be a country ruled by religious laws. Some of them stated that specifically (and there were those who were more diest than Christian)

I do not see your logic on the Constititional delagates. There is no arguing that they looked to the Bible AND they leaned on World history. So, both are true and I do not know how that could make anyone mad.

There is an enormous difference between a) having your morality at least informed by religion, and b) having religion directly influence law-making.

Part of the problem is that a lot of the philosophical principle, if you will, in the Bible is not unique to the Bible. The so-called golden rule (treat others as you would be treated), for example, has a strong relationship to one of Kant's imperatives (act as though the maxim of your action was universalized).

Second, there are a lot of people who believe that some portion of the law, particularly the Constitution or other framer-ideals, come from the Bible when in reality they come from some other source. Its just that the ideal is common to both the Bible and these other sources and so people assume that it was religion-inspired when it may not have been.

Certainly Christians recognize that it is possible to be good or to do good things for or by people that are non-believers. So, its not that the Bible has a lock on all things moral or good.

On the other hand, just because a principle is found in the Bible does not mean that implementing the principle, at least in the big sense, is enforcing religion on the rest of society. The fact that the Bible instructs not to kill, for example, does not mean that all laws against murder in this country are based in religion.

 

[joevol320]

There is an enormous difference between a) having your morality at least informed by religion, and b) having religion directly influence law-making.

Part of the problem is that a lot of the philosophical principle, if you will, in the Bible is not unique to the Bible. The so-called golden rule (treat others as you would be treated), for example, has a strong relationship to one of Kant's imperatives (act as though the maxim of your action was universalized).

Second, there are a lot of people who believe that some portion of the law, particularly the Constitution or other framer-ideals, come from the Bible when in reality they come from some other source. Its just that the ideal is common to both the Bible and these other sources and so people assume that it was religion-inspired when it may not have been.

Certainly Christians recognize that it is possible to be good or to do good things for or by people that are non-believers. So, its not that the Bible has a lock on all things moral or good.

On the other hand, just because a principle is found in the Bible does not mean that implementing the principle, at least in the big sense, is enforcing religion on the rest of society. The fact that the Bible instructs not to kill, for example, does not mean that all laws against murder in this country are based in religion.

examples like killing and stealing are easy not to argue with. the majority will agree. but when you start dealing with topics like abortion, homosexuality, and other immoral acts, that's where Christians get accused of "forcing their beliefs." on other people. because in the world's eye it's not as bad as killing or stealing, even though the Bible talks a great deal about topics such as Homosexuality.

 

[joevol320]

Of course, why?

really, so what part turned you off?

 

[lawgator1]

examples like killing and stealing are easy not to argue with. the majority will agree. but when you start dealing with topics like abortion, homosexuality, and other immoral acts, that's where Christians get accused of "forcing their beliefs." on other people. because in the world's eye it's not as bad as killing or stealing, even though the Bible talks a great deal about topics such as Homosexuality.

Well that is sort of the point. Obama is telling Dobson that more people would be interested in his side of the abortion issue if it wasn't framed only in terms of religion, whereas Dobson is saying that he wants to frame his argument in terms of religion and that its good enough for him.

Abortion is sort of a unique subject, though.

Where it gets really interesting is homosexuality and same-sex marriage. A certain number of people against allowing it are against it purely based on religion. Still others are opposed for some other reason, perhaps purely sociological and without religious context.

What happens is that those arguing against it based on some empirical and non-sectarian reason get annoyed by the fact that everyt ime they make an argument, the other side of the issue labels them religious. Even if they aren't.

The same can happen on issues traditionally seen as the ground for the left. Take capital punishment. There are a large number of people who oppose capital punishment on religious grounds. There are others who oppose it because they think it is administered poorly, along racial lines, etc.

In other words, pick an issue like this and you will find some people aligned with the religious right but who resent the religious component because they think it discredits their more reasoned approach.

Not saying who is right and who is wrong. Just saying that the role of religion in policy-making is an intriguing and complex thing. People should not, IMO, be too sold on it one way or the other.

 

[joevol320]

Well that is sort of the point. Obama is telling Dobson that more people would be interested in his side of the abortion issue if it wasn't framed only in terms of religion, whereas Dobson is saying that he wants to frame his argument in terms of religion and that its good enough for him.

Abortion is sort of a unique subject, though.

Where it gets really interesting is homosexuality and same-sex marriage. A certain number of people against allowing it are against it purely based on religion. Still others are opposed for some other reason, perhaps purely sociological and without religious context.

What happens is that those arguing against it based on some empirical and non-sectarian reason get annoyed by the fact that everyt ime they make an argument, the other side of the issue labels them religious. Even if they aren't.

The same can happen on issues traditionally seen as the ground for the left. Take capital punishment. There are a large number of people who oppose capital punishment on religious grounds. There are others who oppose it because they think it is administered poorly, along racial lines, etc.

In other words, pick an issue like this and you will find some people aligned with the religious right but who resent the religious component because they think it discredits their more reasoned approach.

Not saying who is right and who is wrong. Just saying that the role of religion in policy-making is an intriguing and complex thing. People should not, IMO, be too sold on it one way or the other.

there is a big difference between morality of capital punishment and homosexuality. The Bible specifically talks about it in the new and old testiment, God destroyed 2 cities by fire because of Homosexuality and immorality. As for the death penalty, i've not seen anything in the Bible specifically says it's wrong or right.

i see what your saying about the role of religion, but i look it at it from a black and white position with very little gray. personally i don't think we as a nation should encourage or embrace ideas that go against the Bible such as homosexualism, abortion, teaching evolution as fact, or encouraging 6th graders to experiment sexually.

 

[truefan]

there is a big difference between morality of capital punishment and homosexuality. The Bible specifically talks about it in the new and old testiment, God destroyed 2 cities by fire because of Homosexuality and immorality. As for the death penalty, i've not seen anything in the Bible specifically says it's wrong or right.

i see what your saying about the role of religion, but i look it at it from a black and white position with very little gray. personally i don't think we as a nation should encourage or embrace ideas that go against the Bible such as homosexualism, abortion, teaching evolution as fact, or encouraging 6th graders to experiment sexually.

Do you believe this actually happened? If so, because the Bible said so?

 

[KB5252]

Do you believe this actually happened? If so, because the Bible said so?

Well, there is some evidence for this story by the Dead Sea. At least that these two cities existed and fell victim to some disaster.

 

[truefan]

Well, there is some evidence for this story by the Dead Sea. At least that these two cities existed and fell victim to some disaster.

Yes, I am aware of the existence of the cities. I was asking if he believed GOD made this happen.

 

[utvolpj]

there is a big difference between morality of capital punishment and homosexuality. The Bible specifically talks about it in the new and old testiment, God destroyed 2 cities by fire because of Homosexuality and immorality. As for the death penalty, i've not seen anything in the Bible specifically says it's wrong or right.

i see what your saying about the role of religion, but i look it at it from a black and white position with very little gray. personally i don't think we as a nation should encourage or embrace ideas that go against the Bible such as homosexualism, abortion, teaching evolution as fact, or encouraging 6th graders to experiment sexually.

again, why should one be forced to abide by rules created by a book they do not believe in? The Bible is not law for many, many people in the US and should not be presented as such.

 

[BigPapaVol]

there is a big difference between morality of capital punishment and homosexuality. The Bible specifically talks about it in the new and old testiment, God destroyed 2 cities by fire because of Homosexuality and immorality. As for the death penalty, i've not seen anything in the Bible specifically says it's wrong or right.

i see what your saying about the role of religion, but i look it at it from a black and white position with very little gray. personally i don't think we as a nation should encourage or embrace ideas that go against the Bible such as homosexualism, abortion, teaching evolution as fact, or encouraging 6th graders to experiment sexually.

I can appreciate your viewpoint and at some point in the past agreed to a very limited extent, but I was just dead wrong. In our nation, with our founding fathers' fixation on freedom from religious tyrrany, supporting law with a religious document is just unacceptable. Law needs to be supported by concensus and nothing else.

 

[allvol123]

again, why should one be forced to abide by rules created by a book they do not believe in? The Bible is not law for many, many people in the US and should not be presented as such.

Well if you live in America, you are not forced to, you don't like the laws you can seek to change them or leave. That being said, unless you agree with every law on the books, which is impossible, then you are going to be forced to abide by some things you disagree with. Where they come from is irrelevant.

 

[volsforever27]

I can appreciate your viewpoint and at some point in the past agreed to a very limited extent, but I was just dead wrong. In our nation, with our founding fathers' fixation on freedom from religious tyrrany, supporting law with a religious document is just unacceptable. Law needs to be supported by concensus and nothing else.

Unless it's gay marriage?

 

[KB5252]

Yes, I am aware of the existence of the cities. I was asking if he believed GOD made this happen.

What does it matter to you if he does or doesn't and how does that effect you. So turn the question around, do you believe he made it happen? If not then why? What evidence do you have that it did not? I can state simply that I have no evidence to support that it did but believe it anyway. And by the way the Bible stated there were these two cities that were since lost to history. It seems to me that the Bible was right about the cities existence so why shouldn't I believe the rest of the story?

 

[utvolpj]

Well if you live in America, you are not forced to, you don't like the laws you can seek to change them or leave. That being said, unless you agree with every law on the books, which is impossible, then you are going to be forced to abide by some things you disagree with. Where they come from is irrelevant.

I don't agree with every law but I vehemently disagree with laws passed because the bible said so. Where they come from is exactly the issue in question.

 

[utvolpj]

Unless it's gay marriage?

or maybe "unconstitutional laws" would be better

 

[allvol123]

I don't agree with every law but I vehemently disagree with laws passed because the bible said so. Where they come from is exactly the issue in question.

What laws have gone through your legislature with the "because the bible says so" rule?

 

[volsforever27]

or maybe "unconstitutional laws" would be better

I was referring to BPV's post, but I'm not really sure why you think people are going to post the Gospel of Luke on a wall and say "do this".

 

[utvolpj]

What laws have gone through your legislature with the "because the bible says so" rule?

I don't know...ever heard of gay marriage? Or maybe the anti-abortion people are doing it out of concern for the mother?

 

[utvolpj]

I was referring to BPV's post, but I'm not really sure why you think people are going to post the Gospel of Luke on a wall and say "do this".

because of posts like this

personally i don't think we as a nation should encourage or embrace ideas that go against the Bible such as homosexualism, abortion, teaching evolution as fact, or encouraging 6th graders to experiment sexually.