Freedom of Religion also = Freedom from Religion?

[BwareDWare94 723]

I firmly believe that the basis of the morality that we preach in our society is based more on natural instinct than religion. I don't need Religion to tell that me that it'd be the wrong thing to do if I could choose between swerving around and missing or not moving my car at all and hitting a child on the street. Though that is an excessively outrageous example, what kicks in right there? What God says or what instinct says?

 

And you can trace that down to the most simple forms of right and wrong. It's instinct more so than religion.

 

Your teachers are full of the same thing politicians are: Shit. I'd be just as angry as you are.

Edited February 1, 2013 by BwareDWare94

[Guest Phailadelphia]

But the Constitution says nothing about a local city endorsing a religion.

 

 

How do we get "Thou shalt not put up a nativity scene on a park in a local city" from that? The Founders quite obviously did not intend for the 1st Amendment to be interpreted in this manner- just look at all the religious symbols they had, (some are still there), that are on government property. This is born from the 50's and 60's liberal courts that suddenly decided to interpret it in this manner.

 

So long as the city isn't prohibiting the free exercise thereof, I really don't get how this would be against the Constitution.

 

Not to mention, this is talking about *Congress*, as in, the Federal Congress. It says nothing about a local city. If a city got together and wanted to put an Islamic symbol on their street or something, I'd be fine with that.

 

My reaction would be "Huh, this town must be predominantly Moslem. Okay, good to know."

 

There's just this huge disconnect between me and someone who would think, "Huh, this town must have voted to put up that symbol, but by *insert religious deity here* that offends me so I'm going to sue them to take it down."

 

Just totally cannot see the other side on this one. If it offends you, keep driving.

 

You can't see how people who don't participate in a given religion are offended that their tax money is helping pay to promote it?

[RazorStar 4,025]

Morality is just people fulfilling the natural social contract. Murder, theft and such are generally detrimental to societal advances, exceptions can be made but for the most part, we do what's 'right' because society needs to move forward.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I wish getting offended at how our tax dollars are spent had more of an impact.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Law exists in a realm of ETHICS not MORALITY. There's a big difference. Ethics is what is right vs. wrong. Morality is what is good vs. bad. It's an unethical position to force somebody else's morals on others because ethics are subjective. Read the ten commandments sometime and you will understand the difference between ethics and morals.

[Thanatos 2,847]

You can't see how people who don't participate in a given religion are offended that their tax money is helping pay to promote it?

 

No, I can't see how someone can get from the Constitution that putting up a banner that says a prayer on it is somehow establishing a state religion.

 

Stop using my tax money to pay for abortion on demand, a practice I find morally reprehensible, and I'll gladly accept not having school banners stuck up, even though I don't think there's anything wrong with that constitutionally.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Thanatos19

[WindyCitySports 407]

And yea. God loves all his peoples. All the verses you made were relevent to Christians. Only.

Flat out wrong.

 

And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. John 2:2

 

But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ; by grace you have been saved. Ephesians 2:4-5

 

Did you not read these? They make it quite clear that Jesus died for the "sins of the whole world" and that even when we had lost the way, He "made us alive." You are taking a stance that is so rooted in the Old Testament, which was written before Christianity was even born. Everything that the Son of God said made it clear that God shows love toward all people and that anyone can achieve salvation, no matter how far from the path they have strayed. God is Love, not hate or hostility.

Edited February 2, 2013 by WindyCitySports

[blotsfan 2,112]

Well, I wouldn't have a problem with the banner if literally anyone who wanted could put up any banner supporting any religion.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Well, I'm late to the party.

 

By following the outlines given in his book as to what the government should do?

 

1. Wield the sword correctly- only for just war and for deserved capital punishment.

2. Protect the innocent.

3. Collect taxes to subsidize what is needed, but do not overuse it.

 

That's what he is saying governments should do. This is quite easily seen when you look at the surrounding history. Was the Roman Empire following the Bible's OT rules as to what a government should look like? Certainly not.

 

Then we have to agree to disagree on this one. Like I said, it'd be completely different if I was just commenting on my views of the subject, but I've had 5 instances I can remember where a sermon on this, or lesson was preached/taught. 3 of them between 2 Protestant churches, 1 at a Baptist church near here, and another Evangelical, from Republican heavy to Democratic heavy, and the message was pretty universal. The further governments decides to distant themselves from the moral teachings of the Bible, the worse off it'l be in the long run.

 

I don't understand your point, DMac. Are you defending the teachers' line of thought or are you agreeing that we should adhere to the moral lessons of the Bible?

 

Both. Like I said earlier, I'm not Catholic, and I could never be because there is such a thing as "The Vatican", but the assumption is that the Vatican follows your holy book.

 

If that's the case, then what's wrong with your teachers teaching you that your religious leaders, who are supposed to know your holy book in and out, and devote their lives and everything they have to follow it, should have moral lessons that shouldn't be considered for the government?

 

Flat out wrong.

 

And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. John 2:2

 

But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ; by grace you have been saved. Ephesians 2:4-5

 

Did you not read these? They make it quite clear that Jesus died for the "sins of the whole world" and that even when we had lost the way, He "made us alive." You are taking a stance that is so rooted in the Old Testament, which was written before Christianity was even born. Everything that the Son of God said made it clear that God shows love toward all people and that anyone can achieve salvation, no matter how far from the path they have strayed. God is Love, not hate or hostility.

 

This is all a giant misunderstanding because of a bad word choice on my part. I already addressed this on the previous page.

 

But while we are at it this, there's another thing I want to tackle, because this absolutely grinds my gears sometimes.

 

While we are no longer supposed to follow the teachings of the old testament in terms of how we should conduct ourselves, punishments, etc, it's still their for a reason. It doesn't matter where you look in the Bible, what God approves and disapproves of never changes. That's the reason why I bought up what happened in the old testament. Not because of the punishment in itself but because God was obviously displeased. And this was with his own people (The Jews).

 

That was the same God then as the one in the New Testament, as well as the one today, if he disapproved of something in the Old Testament, he would disprove of it today. And if he was displeased with the Jewish people and its governed leaders getting away from his word in the OT, why should non-Jews think that they are somehow different? And seeing as he disapproved of that then, what makes people think he'd approve of it now?

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I firmly believe that the basis of the morality that we preach in our society is based more on natural instinct than religion. I don't need Religion to tell that me that it'd be the wrong thing to do if I could choose between swerving around and missing or not moving my car at all and hitting a child on the street. Though that is an excessively outrageous example, what kicks in right there? What God says or what instinct says?

 

And you can trace that down to the most simple forms of right and wrong. It's instinct more so than religion.

 

Your teachers are full of the same thing politicians are: Shit. I'd be just as angry as you are.

 

Are they?

 

They are "full of shit" because they believe that their religious leaders, who they adore and look up to, who's God's supposed chosen leader of their entire religion- one of the biggest and oldest religions in the world at that... Preaches, and gives lessons that leaders should draw moral lessons from?

[Omerta+ 1,206]

You can't see how people who don't participate in a given religion are offended that their tax money is helping pay to promote it?

 

I think that something like that is pretty minor in the grand scope of things. I don't want my taxes funding Obamacare, Welfare (in it's current form), Unemployment (also in its current form), paying congress ridiculous salaries after they leave office and the free healthcare they receive, lobbyists, or the national debt to name a few. That said I have no choice and must pay them and I think all of those are outrageous wastes of my money and the money of others. We really have no choice though so why should religion be any different when truth be told it is not that big of a deal.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Well, I wouldn't have a problem with the banner if literally anyone who wanted could put up any banner supporting any religion.

 

And I'm pretty sure that's not the case- the government still feels like its against the Constitution to have any religious symbols up in a school. Which, like I said, is clearly not the intent of the First Amendment.

 

Then we have to agree to disagree on this one. Like I said, it'd be completely different if I was just commenting on my views of the subject, but I've had 5 instances I can remember where a sermon on this, or lesson was preached/taught. 3 of them between 2 Protestant churches, 1 at a Baptist church near here, and another Evangelical, from Republican heavy to Democratic heavy, and the message was pretty universal. The further governments decides to distant themselves from the moral teachings of the Bible, the worse off it'l be in the long run.

 

So you're just going to take their word for it?

 

Do you know who the Bereans were? They were a group of people that Paul went and preached to. Rather than take the apostle Paul at his word, they searched the Scriptures to ascertain whether what he said was true and Paul commended them greatly for it.

 

I encourage you to do the same. Your pastors who have preached this are incorrect if they are saying the government has some sort of moral responsibility to use the Bible for its laws. They're also simply factually incorrect- look back at history, look at the governments that used the Bible for its system. The Inquisition was born out of one of those governments. The Crusades were born out of those governments. The Thirty Years War, St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the Hugoenot persecutions, etc. They were all born from politicians that believe in a law because they think God's word told them to put this law forward.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Thanatos19

[Duck Fallas 209]

I try to keep my politics out of my religion and my religion out of my politics.

 

I am a Mormon and should be as pissed as the rest of my church that Mitt Romney wasn't elected president. However, Romney was nowhere near the strong candidate by the end of the election process as he seemed at the start, so even if I were registered to vote here in Washington state, I would not have voted for him.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

And I'm pretty sure that's not the case- the government still feels like its against the Constitution to have any religious symbols up in a school. Which, like I said, is clearly not the intent of the First Amendment.

 

 

 

So you're just going to take their word for it?

 

Do you know who the Bereans were? They were a group of people that Paul went and preached to. Rather than take the apostle Paul at his word, they searched the Scriptures to ascertain whether what he said was true and Paul commended them greatly for it.

 

I encourage you to do the same. Your pastors who have preached this are incorrect if they are saying the government has some sort of moral responsibility to use the Bible for its laws. They're also simply factually incorrect- look back at history, look at the governments that used the Bible for its system. The Inquisition was born out of one of those governments. The Crusades were born out of those governments. The Thirty Years War, St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the Hugoenot persecutions, etc. They were all born from politicians that believe in a law because they think God's word told them to put this law forward.

 

I had established my position on it far before I ever had any confirmation from a teacher of any sort. My pastor from back home has gone out of his way multiple times to make sure that we do our own reading/studying so we can see for ourselves. And even if he didn't, my mom who was a devout Catholic before she turned Evangelical reminds me to read my own Bible (cause she knows how much I neglect that) every time I speak to her on the phone. And it makes perfect sense to me, as am individual.

 

The book is perfect, if it wasn't I wouldn't believe in it's words, and as far as moral standards go, it's pretty straightforward. It can only be misinterpreted and used to lead people astray when they themselves don't want to think for themselves, that's the biggest difference b/w a real Christian in comparison to other faiths. It isn't the Bible's fault if people get led astrayed from it's laws, it's their own fault, and the fault of individuals who know better but don't say anything.

 

And in the case of Catholics, and other denominations where there's leaders who make the rules, and followers who follow them, if you- as a person can't trust your own religious leaders, who make rules that you are supposed to follow... And these same people are supposed people who are "directly chosen" by God himself to lead you, to be able to give moral lessons at their best to governments, and other leaders... Is that really the right religion for you then?

[OSUViking 505]

The book is perfect, if it wasn't I wouldn't believe in it's words, and as far as moral standards go, it's pretty straightforward. It can only be misinterpreted and used to lead people astray when they themselves don't want to think for themselves, that's the biggest difference b/w a real Christian in comparison to other faiths. It isn't the Bible's fault if people get led astrayed from it's laws, it's their own fault, and the fault of individuals who know better but don't say anything.

 

The Bible, contrary to popular belief, is not perfect. The Early Church convened and picked the books they wanted to be in the Bible. What their reasons for this were? I'm not sure. I'll go ahead and say that they were putting in the books that they figured would be convey Christ's message. However, it was ultimately crafted by humans and is thus not perfect.

[WindyCitySports 407]

This is all a giant misunderstanding because of a bad word choice on my part. I already addressed this on the previous page.

 

But while we are at it this, there's another thing I want to tackle, because this absolutely grinds my gears sometimes.

 

While we are no longer supposed to follow the teachings of the old testament in terms of how we should conduct ourselves, punishments, etc, it's still their for a reason. It doesn't matter where you look in the Bible, what God approves and disapproves of never changes. That's the reason why I bought up what happened in the old testament. Not because of the punishment in itself but because God was obviously displeased. And this was with his own people (The Jews).

 

That was the same God then as the one in the New Testament, as well as the one today, if he disapproved of something in the Old Testament, he would disprove of it today. And if he was displeased with the Jewish people and its governed leaders getting away from his word in the OT, why should non-Jews think that they are somehow different? And seeing as he disapproved of that then, what makes people think he'd approve of it now?

This doesn't have much to do with what we are talking about. Obviously, there are sins. They include homosexuality, non-belief, and everything else we have talked about. The discussion has been, though, whether or not God loves sinners and shows mercy to them. It is clear he does, as I have already pointed out.

 

I REFUSE to accept that the God that I have been worshiping all of my life will damn people to hell because they were born gay or born into a non-Christian family. God is merciful, and he loves all of His children, regardless of how far they stray.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Amen to that.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I had established my position on it far before I ever had any confirmation from a teacher of any sort. My pastor from back home has gone out of his way multiple times to make sure that we do our own reading/studying so we can see for ourselves. And even if he didn't, my mom who was a devout Catholic before she turned Evangelical reminds me to read my own Bible (cause she knows how much I neglect that) every time I speak to her on the phone. And it makes perfect sense to me, as am individual.

 

The book is perfect, if it wasn't I wouldn't believe in it's words, and as far as moral standards go, it's pretty straightforward. It can only be misinterpreted and used to lead people astray when they themselves don't want to think for themselves, that's the biggest difference b/w a real Christian in comparison to other faiths. It isn't the Bible's fault if people get led astrayed from it's laws, it's their own fault, and the fault of individuals who know better but don't say anything.

 

And in the case of Catholics, and other denominations where there's leaders who make the rules, and followers who follow them, if you- as a person can't trust your own religious leaders, who make rules that you are supposed to follow... And these same people are supposed people who are "directly chosen" by God himself to lead you, to be able to give moral lessons at their best to governments, and other leaders... Is that really the right religion for you then?

 

The trouble is not with the Bible. I agree, it is perfect, it is inerrant. The trouble is with fallen man trying to interpret the Bible- and people in power using certain verses out of context for their own ends.

 

If we could actually do precisely what the Bible says, and have confidence that the man we put in power won't misuse his power for his own ends, then I'd say Amen, let's use the Bible to form all of our laws.

 

To want the government to do that in this fallen world, with sinful men in power, is not only naive, but it is also dangerous.

 

As to your other point. Catholicism is not Christianity. That is not to say that a catholic cannot be a Christian, but Catholics are fundamentally in error on a key doctrinal point- that is, the only thing required to be saved is belief in Christ. They believe you need other things as well. There are other errors, but that one is against a key doctrine of Christianity. The Catholic belief in limbo and purgatory are another couple of extra Biblical beliefs. They put far too much weight on the shoulders of their religious leaders, who are flawed, fallen men just like everyone else.

 

This may be where your entire worldview is coming from- if you have been heavily influenced by Catholic beliefs, I can entirely see why you might want men in power to use the Bible. The Pope is a fallen, flawed, human being like anyone else. He makes mistakes. So does any other person who is in power, and to give them the ability to say, "This statute is now law, not because I am telling you, but because God is," is extremely dangerous. It allows them to control the masses of a country and always- without a single exception in the entirety of the existence of the human race- leads to disaster.

 

Accepting a leader's word on something just because of who they are is clearly anti-Christian. The apostle Paul comes to a group of people and preaches a sermon to them and they double check him against Scripture. Paul says this is a great thing. If they were commended for double-checking the apostle Paul, then we should also double-check things that are said by our religious leaders.

 

In a perfect, sinless world using the Bible solely would be an awesome way to run a government. The fact is, we are in a fallen world, and you absolutely CANNOT do this. Madison sums this up perfectly:

 

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” -James Madison

Edited February 3, 2013 by Thanatos19

[BwareDWare94 723]

The Bible is perfect?

 

Let's talk about the bears who mauled forty-two children/lads.

[Thanatos 2,847]

You mean the young men mocking the prophet of God? One of the more widely misunderstood passages in Scripture.

 

This guy isn't 100% correct on everything, but pretty close: http://www.ukapologetics.net/07/elishah1.htm\

 

AiG is a little better I think: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/11/12/feedback-elisha-little-children-and-bears

Edited February 3, 2013 by Thanatos19

[OSUViking 505]

You mean the young men mocking the prophet of God? One of the more widely misunderstood passages in Scripture.

 

This guy isn't 100% correct on everything, but pretty close: http://www.ukapologetics.net/07/elishah1.htm\

 

AiG is a little better I think: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/11/12/feedback-elisha-little-children-and-bears

 

I already mentioned this and it ties into your "fallen man" point, but the Bible is not perfect. The Early Church gathered to form the Bible as we know it today, and they left out many books written throughout the supposed period of the New Testament. Just the fact that man formed the New Testament goes to show that it is not perfect.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Bible says God killed 42 small children: "No, you can't take it at exactly face value, you have to interpret it!"

 

Bible says God created world in 6 days: "The Bible is flawless! All science is wrong!"

[OSUViking 505]

The Old Testament also extensively depicts genocide through the destruction of Egypt and the conquering of the Promised Land.

 

EDIT:

 

A concentrated source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_violence#Genocide

 

Wikipedia sites its claims itself, so if you want to question the claims you can go and read them.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Vikingfan465

[Thanatos 2,847]

Bible says God killed 42 small children: "No, you can't take it at exactly face value, you have to interpret it!"

 

Bible says God created world in 6 days: "The Bible is flawless! All science is wrong!"

 

It doesn't say they were killed, and it doesn't say they were small children. They were around the same age as Elisha, as the same word is used to describe him, and he is somewhere between 20 and 25 years old at the time. The majority of the things people bring up against the Bible, from the OT at least, are translational issues. I'm sorry that Hebrew doesn't go directly into English, but if you have learned any two languages, then you know that NO language can translated directly into another and something is almost always lost in translation.

 

Same thing with Genesis 1 and the six days thing. Although this has also been influenced by fundamentalists- nowhere does the Bible say how old the earth is, even if God did create it in six 24-hour days. That doesn't at all mean the earth is young.

 

I already mentioned this and it ties into your "fallen man" point, but the Bible is not perfect. The Early Church gathered to form the Bible as we know it today, and they left out many books written throughout the supposed period of the New Testament. Just the fact that man formed the New Testament goes to show that it is not perfect.

 

They left out several books, these are collectively known as the Apocrypha. There are very good reasons why they were left out, none of them should be in the Bible. They were not written by the apostles or someone who knew the apostles, and most were written by people claiming to be someone they were not.

 

The Bible is perfect, despite being put together by man. It is God's word, and God is capable of protecting it. While interpretations may vary, and while I may not understand every passage, the books that are in the Bible are the ones that are supposed to be in the Bible, and the books that are left out of the Bible are the ones that are supposed to be out. There is a reason the vote was near unanimous.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Thanatos19

[OSUViking 505]

 

 

 

 

They left out several books, these are collectively known as the Apocrypha. There are very good reasons why they were left out, none of them should be in the Bible. They were not written by the apostles or someone who knew the apostles, and most were written by people claiming to be someone they were not.

 

I don't really think it matters what the message of the books left out were, the Church leaders still left them out. By that definition it makes the Bible no more than propaganda (that's not to be taken offensively... most documents throughout history have been some form of propaganda).

 

The Bible is perfect, despite being put together by man. It is God's word, and God is capable of protecting it. While interpretations may vary, and while I may not understand every passage, the books that are in the Bible are the ones that are supposed to be in the Bible, and the books that are left out of the Bible are the ones that are supposed to be out. There is a reason the vote was near unanimous.

 

Anything crafted by man cannot be perfect. Before you say that because it came from God it is perfect, I should also point out that man came from God and he is not perfect. Also, for a person like me, I have to factor in that there might not be a God out there. With the possibility that there isn't, it isn't safe nor fair to declare a document put together by religious leaders to be perfect when no such treatment is given to other documents.