Should God's Law be the Law of the Land?

[Derideo_Te]

@ Te:

Here we explore the danger of semantics, but the the same Wikipedia article you reference makes it pretty clear that positive atheism, as a clear cut philosophy didn't really get going until the 18th Century, and if I wasn't clear enough in earlier then I am making that clear now. Sure atheism, as a lack of belief in a deity, or non-adherence to a theistic belief, has existed for a long time. That isn't really what I was talking about. The vast majority of the world, even the reasonable Greeks, adhered to some form of theism before the 18th Century. There's not much debate about that.

I take your point about modern Atheism but I suspect that if any of the ancient Greeks who expressed those thoughts were alive today they would be no different to the modern Atheists. The reason for that being that today we have access to more knowledge than existed back then. Their thinking was essentially no different and given the same facts as we have today they would be in the same place now.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

@ Te:

Here we explore the danger of semantics, but the the same Wikipedia article you reference makes it pretty clear that positive atheism, as a clear cut philosophy didn't really get going until the 18th Century, and if I wasn't clear enough in earlier then I am making that clear now. Sure atheism, as a lack of belief in a deity, or non-adherence to a theistic belief, has existed for a long time. That isn't really what I was talking about. The vast majority of the world, even the reasonable Greeks, adhered to some form of theism before the 18th Century. There's not much debate about that.

I take your point about modern Atheism but I suspect that if any of the ancient Greeks who expressed those thoughts were alive today they would be no different to the modern Atheists. The reason for that being that today we have access to more knowledge than existed back then. Their thinking was essentially no different and given the same facts as we have today they would be in the same place now.

Which ancient Greeks? Their scope of beliefs and philosophy does not support such a sweeping generalization. Otherwise modern philosophy would not distinguish between the greats so much. One also should not overlook the influence that the likes of Aristotle had on the theology of multiple faiths.

Anyway, I am perfectly content that science fails to disprove the existence of God, or that scriptures fail to prove it. What truly troubles me is the schism between science and faith that society seems to have carved out for itself. In my opinion it is a far greater threat to our growth as human beings. The ancient Greeks were at least capable of considering both the physical and the metaphysical without the two being so mutually exclusive.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

@ Te:

Here we explore the danger of semantics, but the the same Wikipedia article you reference makes it pretty clear that positive atheism, as a clear cut philosophy didn't really get going until the 18th Century, and if I wasn't clear enough in earlier then I am making that clear now. Sure atheism, as a lack of belief in a deity, or non-adherence to a theistic belief, has existed for a long time. That isn't really what I was talking about. The vast majority of the world, even the reasonable Greeks, adhered to some form of theism before the 18th Century. There's not much debate about that.

I take your point about modern Atheism but I suspect that if any of the ancient Greeks who expressed those thoughts were alive today they would be no different to the modern Atheists. The reason for that being that today we have access to more knowledge than existed back then. Their thinking was essentially no different and given the same facts as we have today they would be in the same place now.

Which ancient Greeks? Their scope of beliefs and philosophy does not support such a sweeping generalization. Otherwise modern philosophy would not distinguish between the greats so much. One also should not overlook the influence that the likes of Aristotle had on the theology of multiple faiths.

Anyway, I am perfectly content that science fails to disprove the existence of God, or that scriptures fail to prove it. What truly troubles me is the schism between science and faith that society seems to have carved out for itself. In my opinion it is a far greater threat to our growth as human beings. The ancient Greeks were at least capable of considering both the physical and the metaphysical without the two being so mutually exclusive.

Isn't it just arrogance to believe that you know anything with certainty? Things that we think are true get turned upside down all the time. If you aren't willing to question your own beliefs you probably belong with the crowd who thought the earth was flat and were willing to kill anyone who said otherwise.

It's healthy to have a perspective like Jimmy_Jam where you are willing to admit that your words are opinion.

If I were Derideo_Te however I would avoid assumptions about how others would believe if they lived in a different time. It's all well and good to say, "They would think the way I do." because it makes us feel good about the way we believe, but it's not something that can be known.

 

[Derideo_Te]

@ Te:

Here we explore the danger of semantics, but the the same Wikipedia article you reference makes it pretty clear that positive atheism, as a clear cut philosophy didn't really get going until the 18th Century, and if I wasn't clear enough in earlier then I am making that clear now. Sure atheism, as a lack of belief in a deity, or non-adherence to a theistic belief, has existed for a long time. That isn't really what I was talking about. The vast majority of the world, even the reasonable Greeks, adhered to some form of theism before the 18th Century. There's not much debate about that.

I take your point about modern Atheism but I suspect that if any of the ancient Greeks who expressed those thoughts were alive today they would be no different to the modern Atheists. The reason for that being that today we have access to more knowledge than existed back then. Their thinking was essentially no different and given the same facts as we have today they would be in the same place now.

Which ancient Greeks? Their scope of beliefs and philosophy does not support such a sweeping generalization. Otherwise modern philosophy would not distinguish between the greats so much. One also should not overlook the influence that the likes of Aristotle had on the theology of multiple faiths.

Ironic!

Anyway, I am perfectly content that science fails to disprove the existence of God, or that scriptures fail to prove it. What truly troubles me is the schism between science and faith that society seems to have carved out for itself. In my opinion it is a far greater threat to our growth as human beings. The ancient Greeks were at least capable of considering both the physical and the metaphysical without the two being so mutually exclusive.

Science is under no obligation to prove anything of the sort. Said schism is not the fault of science either.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. Constitutional laws are based on natural laws that are also God's laws equally.
the Founding Fathers referenced God of nature when putting our laws in writing.
The spirit of Jesus as Justice with Mercy fulfills both sacred and civil laws,
so that is what has ultimate goverance over either church or state authority.

2. The REAL issue of whether people can reconcile with each other
under either church or state laws or both is RESTORATIVE JUSTICE.

3. The question should be really, less about separating church and state but working with both authorities/institutions equally, and more about DISTINGUISHING people who believe in retributive or restorative approaches to justice and law.

I find THAT factor distinguishes more between the sheep and the goats,
not labeling people externally in terms of church or state laws/authority.

The same spirit of truth/justice fulfills EITHER laws, and it's a matter if people
are invoking/imposing Retributive Justice that creates conflict with people
following Restorative Justice. That is the factor which makes the difference
under EITHER set of laws or authority, Restorative Justice and
making corrections with forgiveness and seeking restitution by mutual agreement where justice is protected for all; not rejecting or imposing judgment or punishment to cause political division where democratic due process is manipulated at the cost of equal justice.

Many who believe in the absolute truth of the Christian faith seem to believe that God's Laws should be the law or basis of the law in the US.

What think you?

The spirit of God's Truth is universal, but the expression of the laws is diverse and relative.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear DT: I think one of the equivalent of the Greeks today are the Buddhists.

The same way Aristotle reconciled Greek ethics with Catholic theology, where natural laws and practical wisdom are consistent with Christian values and principles, many priests have done the same with studying Buddhism to find it is consistent not contrary, and not heresy/apostasy of some sort as the Greek teachings were once rejected. The Vietnamese have intermarried for generations between Catholics and Buddhists with little issue.

Because there is confusion with atheists and "anti-theists" who become biased against theism, this is where objectivity neutrality and openness to reconciliation has been lost. Some Buddhists can be rigid and reject this way, but true Buddhism remains open and is not against Christianity. I know plenty of nontheists and atheists who do not automatically reject God and religion, and I believe all these things can be reconciled by natural laws.

@ Te:

Here we explore the danger of semantics, but the the same Wikipedia article you reference makes it pretty clear that positive atheism, as a clear cut philosophy didn't really get going until the 18th Century, and if I wasn't clear enough in earlier then I am making that clear now. Sure atheism, as a lack of belief in a deity, or non-adherence to a theistic belief, has existed for a long time. That isn't really what I was talking about. The vast majority of the world, even the reasonable Greeks, adhered to some form of theism before the 18th Century. There's not much debate about that.

I take your point about modern Atheism but I suspect that if any of the ancient Greeks who expressed those thoughts were alive today they would be no different to the modern Atheists. The reason for that being that today we have access to more knowledge than existed back then. Their thinking was essentially no different and given the same facts as we have today they would be in the same place now.

In the outline of steps for proposing to pull together a Consensus on God from various sources and perspectives represented, I'd like to ask members of the "Catholic Church" to oversee an official assimilation process with Buddhism and reconciling this with Christianity (as Aristotle did with Greeks as Gentiles under natural laws). The "Baptists" already have a special denomination for Jewish who have received and reconciled full with Christianity where there is no conflict with the faith and practice of both (called Messianic Jews). And I will also ask "Lutherans" to support the process with Muslim-Christians to resolve such issues.

(As for the trinity and spiritual healing, I will ask the Unitarian Universalists if that group would take on addressing Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Christ, and other groups that still suffer division over the Trinity issues, and how forgiveness/healing is part of reconciliation.)

Thanks for your help, as I see more and more of this coming together. I keep hoping by the time it happens, a lot of this work reconciling will not be necessary "to propose" because it's already happening, faster than can be documented. We just have to point to the places and invite more people to organize around the process already taking place in various forums!

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I take your point about modern Atheism but I suspect that if any of the ancient Greeks who expressed those thoughts were alive today they would be no different to the modern Atheists. The reason for that being that today we have access to more knowledge than existed back then. Their thinking was essentially no different and given the same facts as we have today they would be in the same place now.

Which ancient Greeks? Their scope of beliefs and philosophy does not support such a sweeping generalization. Otherwise modern philosophy would not distinguish between the greats so much. One also should not overlook the influence that the likes of Aristotle had on the theology of multiple faiths.

Ironic!

Anyway, I am perfectly content that science fails to disprove the existence of God, or that scriptures fail to prove it. What truly troubles me is the schism between science and faith that society seems to have carved out for itself. In my opinion it is a far greater threat to our growth as human beings. The ancient Greeks were at least capable of considering both the physical and the metaphysical without the two being so mutually exclusive.

Science is under no obligation to prove anything of the sort. Said schism is not the fault of science either.

Noted. However, I wasn't really suggest that it was. As for fault, it rests with people, not with either the discipline of science nor the discipline of religion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Many who believe in the absolute truth of the Christian faith seem to believe that God's Laws should be the law or basis of the law in the US.

What think you?

I think you're a lying, leftist troll.

I know of ZERO Christians wanting a theocracy.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Many who believe in the absolute truth of the Christian faith seem to believe that God's Laws should be the law or basis of the law in the US.

What think you?

I think you're a lying, leftist troll.

I know of ZERO Christians wanting a theocracy.

You don't know any personally or you don't know that any exist? If it's the latter, I recommend a little research into a man named Francis Bellamy, whose work I am sure you know by heart. I would bet money that you recited it many times as a child and even perhaps as an adult.

As for the OP, your troll accusation is probably right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You don't know any personally or you don't know that any exist?

With 330 million people in this nation, any view can be found, if one digs hard enough. However, Christian support of theocracy is so rare as to be irrelevant. Far more Atheists promoting literal death camps can be found - even as they are obscure and irrelevant.

If it's the latter, I recommend a little research into a man named Francis Bellamy, whose work I am sure you know by heart.

Bellamy was a Fabian. He sought not theocracy, but socialist dictatorship. That he thought Christianity was compatible with socialist dictatorship is irrelevant to his positions.

I would bet money that you recited it many times as a child and even perhaps as an adult.

As for the OP, your troll accusation is probably right.

Yep.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Dear DT: I think one of the equivalent of the Greeks today are the Buddhists.

The same way Aristotle reconciled Greek ethics with Catholic theology, where natural laws and practical wisdom are consistent with Christian values and principles, many priests have done the same with studying Buddhism to find it is consistent not contrary, and not heresy/apostasy of some sort as the Greek teachings were once rejected. The Vietnamese have intermarried for generations between Catholics and Buddhists with little issue.

Because there is confusion with atheists and "anti-theists" who become biased against theism, this is where objectivity neutrality and openness to reconciliation has been lost. Some Buddhists can be rigid and reject this way, but true Buddhism remains open and is not against Christianity. I know plenty of nontheists and atheists who do not automatically reject God and religion, and I believe all these things can be reconciled by natural laws.

@ Te:

Here we explore the danger of semantics, but the the same Wikipedia article you reference makes it pretty clear that positive atheism, as a clear cut philosophy didn't really get going until the 18th Century, and if I wasn't clear enough in earlier then I am making that clear now. Sure atheism, as a lack of belief in a deity, or non-adherence to a theistic belief, has existed for a long time. That isn't really what I was talking about. The vast majority of the world, even the reasonable Greeks, adhered to some form of theism before the 18th Century. There's not much debate about that.

I take your point about modern Atheism but I suspect that if any of the ancient Greeks who expressed those thoughts were alive today they would be no different to the modern Atheists. The reason for that being that today we have access to more knowledge than existed back then. Their thinking was essentially no different and given the same facts as we have today they would be in the same place now.

In the outline of steps for proposing to pull together a Consensus on God from various sources and perspectives represented, I'd like to ask members of the "Catholic Church" to oversee an official assimilation process with Buddhism and reconciling this with Christianity (as Aristotle did with Greeks as Gentiles under natural laws). The "Baptists" already have a special denomination for Jewish who have received and reconciled full with Christianity where there is no conflict with the faith and practice of both (called Messianic Jews). And I will also ask "Lutherans" to support the process with Muslim-Christians to resolve such issues.

(As for the trinity and spiritual healing, I will ask the Unitarian Universalists if that group would take on addressing Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Christ, and other groups that still suffer division over the Trinity issues, and how forgiveness/healing is part of reconciliation.)

Thanks for your help, as I see more and more of this coming together. I keep hoping by the time it happens, a lot of this work reconciling will not be necessary "to propose" because it's already happening, faster than can be documented. We just have to point to the places and invite more people to organize around the process already taking place in various forums!

Instead of a "Consensus on God" have you considered that it might be better to have a "Consensus on Belief" instead? Not only does that not make any presumptions but it has a better chance of success if it sets goals of respecting all beliefs and the freedom to have none too.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. The Jehovah's Witnesses support a Theocracy.
2. If you consider that we take what Judges rule as God's word on the law of the land,
then we run the risk of acting like a theocracy if we don't have
democratic check on Judges exercising divine right to rule over everyone else!

You don't know any personally or you don't know that any exist?

With 330 million people in this nation, any view can be found, if one digs hard enough. However, Christian support of theocracy is so rare as to be irrelevant. Far more Atheists promoting literal death camps can be found - even as they are obscure and irrelevant.

If it's the latter, I recommend a little research into a man named Francis Bellamy, whose work I am sure you know by heart.

Bellamy was a Fabian. He sought not theocracy, but socialist dictatorship. That he thought Christianity was compatible with socialist dictatorship is irrelevant to his positions.

I would bet money that you recited it many times as a child and even perhaps as an adult.

As for the OP, your troll accusation is probably right.

Yep.

 

[emilynghiem]

Instead of a "Consensus on God" have you considered that it might be better to have a "Consensus on Belief" instead? Not only does that not make any presumptions but it has a better chance of success if it sets goals of respecting all beliefs and the freedom to have none too.

Hmmm maybe you and I already see this from different angles.
I think you are telling me that people who see things as you do
would need an entire forum set up differently to include everyone and encourage participation,
and maybe just centering on God is going to leave people out with no interest. Good point!

From my angle trying to get people to agree on beliefs is not going to work
because even if you agree there is one God and everyone has a different
approach and system from there, then all the beliefs thereunder become independent.
What is preventing unity among the diversity
is people DON'T believe it's all coming from the same source or God.

Like a family agreeing to go shopping at one MALL, and picking one that INCLUDES all the diverse choices where not everyone has to agree what they want,
and then from there you can go wherever and buy whatever you want.
But you can't even get going if you are still squabbling over
who is going to drive to which place because one meets 49% of the interests
and the other meets 51%. Actually that's a good metaphor for the two parties,
not covering the whole nation equally but only half the members each.

The other thing,
peopel don't believe "the other person will agree to resolve things"
so both point the finger at each other as the naysayer
and you wonder why nobody is getting to YES
when everyone is saying I would agree with XYZ, but that other person won't!
Well let's ask, let's document who agrees to what.

People will not agree to the same representation of God
but we can agree all the portraits are of the same subject
just different angles, styles and media so it comes out different in expression.

After that, we can deal with any other differences.

Thanks DT you are very thoughtful
and there are others who are going to
fall in line with your approach, and not mine, and vice versa.
So we need everyone's input to define the best groups to team up with, in order to
try to represent the different branches out there.

We need *everyone* to feel welcome to say "but I don't see it that way,
I need to be with a team/partner who approaches it like this
if I am going to feel included comfortable and represented in this process"

You can tell I believe in Universal Salvation, can't you?
Just ask, just knock and a door is opened. No need to leave anyone out.

 

[emilynghiem]

CORRECTION:
Should be AQUINAS who reconciled Greek writings of Aristotle as natural/practical wisdom
with Catholic theology.

NOTE: Aquinas later had such a sudden ephiphany that he was shocked into silence and never wrote again; stating that whatever realization he had, it basically voided all the volumes he wrote before, about 900? I think he must have had a Buddhist moment of oneness transcending generations and realized some great connection that surpassed all written laws/history that he could not share cuz no one would get it.

Dear DT: I think one of the equivalent of the Greeks today are the Buddhists.

The same way AQUINAS reconciled Greek ethics with Catholic theology, where natural laws and practical wisdom are consistent with Christian values and principles, many priests have done the same with studying Buddhism to find it is consistent not contrary, and not heresy/apostasy of some sort as the Greek teachings were once rejected. The Vietnamese have intermarried for generations between Catholics and Buddhists with little issue.

Because there is confusion with atheists and "anti-theists" who become biased against theism, this is where objectivity neutrality and openness to reconciliation has been lost. Some Buddhists can be rigid and reject this way, but true Buddhism remains open and is not against Christianity. I know plenty of nontheists and atheists who do not automatically reject God and religion, and I believe all these things can be reconciled by natural laws.

@ Te:

Here we explore the danger of semantics, but the the same Wikipedia article you reference makes it pretty clear that positive atheism, as a clear cut philosophy didn't really get going until the 18th Century, and if I wasn't clear enough in earlier then I am making that clear now. Sure atheism, as a lack of belief in a deity, or non-adherence to a theistic belief, has existed for a long time. That isn't really what I was talking about. The vast majority of the world, even the reasonable Greeks, adhered to some form of theism before the 18th Century. There's not much debate about that.

I take your point about modern Atheism but I suspect that if any of the ancient Greeks who expressed those thoughts were alive today they would be no different to the modern Atheists. The reason for that being that today we have access to more knowledge than existed back then. Their thinking was essentially no different and given the same facts as we have today they would be in the same place now.

In the outline of steps for proposing to pull together a Consensus on God from various sources and perspectives represented, I'd like to ask members of the "Catholic Church" to oversee an official assimilation process with Buddhism and reconciling this with Christianity (as Aristotle did with Greeks as Gentiles under natural laws). The "Baptists" already have a special denomination for Jewish who have received and reconciled full with Christianity where there is no conflict with the faith and practice of both (called Messianic Jews). And I will also ask "Lutherans" to support the process with Muslim-Christians to resolve such issues.

(As for the trinity and spiritual healing, I will ask the Unitarian Universalists if that group would take on addressing Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Christ, and other groups that still suffer division over the Trinity issues, and how forgiveness/healing is part of reconciliation.)

Thanks for your help, as I see more and more of this coming together. I keep hoping by the time it happens, a lot of this work reconciling will not be necessary "to propose" because it's already happening, faster than can be documented. We just have to point to the places and invite more people to organize around the process already taking place in various forums!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear DT: I think one of the equivalent of the Greeks today are the Buddhists.

The same way Aristotle reconciled Greek ethics with Catholic theology, where natural laws and practical wisdom are consistent with Christian values and principles, many priests have done the same with studying Buddhism to find it is consistent not contrary, and not heresy/apostasy of some sort as the Greek teachings were once rejected. The Vietnamese have intermarried for generations between Catholics and Buddhists with little issue.

Because there is confusion with atheists and "anti-theists" who become biased against theism, this is where objectivity neutrality and openness to reconciliation has been lost. Some Buddhists can be rigid and reject this way, but true Buddhism remains open and is not against Christianity. I know plenty of nontheists and atheists who do not automatically reject God and religion, and I believe all these things can be reconciled by natural laws.

I take your point about modern Atheism but I suspect that if any of the ancient Greeks who expressed those thoughts were alive today they would be no different to the modern Atheists. The reason for that being that today we have access to more knowledge than existed back then. Their thinking was essentially no different and given the same facts as we have today they would be in the same place now.

In the outline of steps for proposing to pull together a Consensus on God from various sources and perspectives represented, I'd like to ask members of the "Catholic Church" to oversee an official assimilation process with Buddhism and reconciling this with Christianity (as Aristotle did with Greeks as Gentiles under natural laws). The "Baptists" already have a special denomination for Jewish who have received and reconciled full with Christianity where there is no conflict with the faith and practice of both (called Messianic Jews). And I will also ask "Lutherans" to support the process with Muslim-Christians to resolve such issues.

(As for the trinity and spiritual healing, I will ask the Unitarian Universalists if that group would take on addressing Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Christ, and other groups that still suffer division over the Trinity issues, and how forgiveness/healing is part of reconciliation.)

Thanks for your help, as I see more and more of this coming together. I keep hoping by the time it happens, a lot of this work reconciling will not be necessary "to propose" because it's already happening, faster than can be documented. We just have to point to the places and invite more people to organize around the process already taking place in various forums!

Instead of a "Consensus on God" have you considered that it might be better to have a "Consensus on Belief" instead? Not only does that not make any presumptions but it has a better chance of success if it sets goals of respecting all beliefs and the freedom to have none too.

I think you are right, the thread on "God should not have Attributes" is more open and inviting the type of sharing of perceptions that I am asking for. but it has to start from an open viewpoint and invite the others in, and cannot start from a perceived bias. thanks!
there is one person who felt left out of that thread cuz it sounded like rejecting perceptions of God which is biased also. so if we can keep people in, that could still work or else have multiple threads where ppl do feel comfortable sharing and not feel excluded as a minority.