|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 24, 2007 15:07:42 GMT -4
Err... not from Christianity, if that is what you are suggesting. Didn't we go over this?
But I can understand and test my computer, so I don't have to take on faith that it is in fact a computer and that I can in fact understand why it does what it does. Faith in a deity is nothing like that.
And there are lots of deities out there. Why should one be more right than another? How, as mere humans, are we to know which is right?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 24, 2007 15:40:36 GMT -4
Err... not from Christianity, if that is what you are suggesting. Didn't we go over this? It came from Christian countries - countries with strong Christian backgrounds. Yes we did go over it a bit, and the point stands that nations with Christian backgrounds tend to favor democracy, free expression, and freedom of religion more than nations of other religious traditions. We're mixing metaphores a bit here. I'm not saying "God is like a computer", I'm just pointing out that we accept many things that we don't fully understand or don't have personal knowledge of. In fact its something of a necessity in order to function in modern society. That being said, I think everyone can come to understand a great deal about God's character and nature on a very personal level. In fact you can even test God. Obey a few of His commandments and see if the promised results follow. Why should one be more right than another? Well, the human conception that most resembles the real God is the most correct version, of course. Even if he doesn't exist at all then one version was right - that of the atheists. How do we know which one is right? Test out each version. Study the writings involved, pray, obey some of the commandments and see what results, rely on your own innate sense of right and wrong to help you see which path maches up the best. If God really is out there and really is concerned with individuals then He will help you find Him. It does require some faith - at least enough to make a serious search.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 28, 2007 12:52:36 GMT -4
First, I'd say that democracy might well be a reaction to Christianity, not a product of it. When Christianity has been the law or has had strong influence over the law, it has acted as a brutal and oppressive force. Secular democracy makes Christianity seem palatable, as it restrains Christianity's most basic instinct to control its subjects.
But, of course, everyone thinks his or her conception is closest and most correct. When examined, scripture seems to have all the earmarks of very human writings. How can we determine anything from scripture, when we mostly don't know when it was written or who wrote it? Aren't we back to just making a subjective call about what is right and what is wrong?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 28, 2007 19:08:11 GMT -4
First, I'd say that democracy might well be a reaction to Christianity, not a product of it. When Christianity has been the law or has had strong influence over the law, it has acted as a brutal and oppressive force. Secular democracy makes Christianity seem palatable, as it restrains Christianity's most basic instinct to control its subjects. Nonsense. The Bible teaches recognition and submission to secular authority and recognizes a seperation between the two. "Render the things which are Caesar's unto Caesar, and to God the things that are God's." When one group or another has used Christianity as their excuse to brutalize and oppress it was not "Christianity" that was doing the oppressing, but the group. In fact Christianity in such instances was being abused. Chistianity itself doesn't have instincts, so it's a non sequitor to say it has a basic instinct to control its subjects. Individual rulers may see in Christianity convenient excuses to control their subjects, but that again is an abuse of Christianity, not Christianity itself. And we did go over this already, and I already told you a method for determining which is correct and which is not. You may call it subjective if you wish, as it involves individual action, but it reflects and objective truth.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 29, 2007 19:41:44 GMT -4
"Nonsense" right back at you. A recommendation to pay taxes to Caesar has nothing to do with promoting democracy or promoting a separation of Church and State.
Rome was nothing like a secular state and submission to authority is definitely not the defining idea of democracy.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 29, 2007 23:53:43 GMT -4
So you concede that it does involve submitting to secular authority?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 30, 2007 17:50:11 GMT -4
What?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 30, 2007 18:39:11 GMT -4
The whole thing about "rendering to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's" is not just taxes - it's submission to secular authority. It would have been very controversial at the time, because the Jews considered Rome to be an occupying power, and not paying taxes was one of the few methods of protest open to them. Publicans (tax collectors) were hated. Jesus was effectively saying that good Christians should obey secular laws, even if they were widely regarded as unjust. That's why I cited this particular example. No it doesn't have much to do with democracy, but it does have quite a bit to do with the concept of seperating church and state.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 30, 2007 19:47:49 GMT -4
In the context of that story, Jesus is avoiding a trap by saying that one can give to the government and give to God at the same time - but he says nothing about whether the government and God should or should not be connected. So his statement appears to have nothing at all to do with the separation of church and state.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 31, 2007 10:43:55 GMT -4
Jesus wasn't just avoiding a trap, he was also teaching a principle, and that principle was that the authority of the world can be accepted without offending God. It may not be a fully developed "seperation of church and state" doctrine, but it is certainly a foundation for it. Other incidents in his ministry where he respected secular authority, and where Paul did so later, support the idea that a good Christian can also be a good citizen, even if your leaders are not Christians.
|
|