The Gospel of Unbelief

[rtwngAvngr]

Well, why should you have any say over anyone else's beliefs? Seems like you're the one who wants the "new world order"...just so long as it's your order.

I just have my own beliefs, based on logic and morality. Moral relativism is either

A) something you retreat to when you have no clue

or

b) a concerted effort to convince people common morality and meaning have no purpose.

Which is it for you?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

How does the above statement marry with this one:

Originally Posted by gop_jeff
Indeed it does say that. However, if you read through the entire Bible, you'll see that much of the Old Testament law dealing with sanitation, animal sacrifices, clothing laws, etc., was overridden and replaced with the covenant of grace through Christ.

It's easy. Jesus said we don't have to do that crap anymore. It's called things changing, look into it.

 

[jillian]

It's easy. Jesus said we don't have to do that crap anymore. It's called things changing, look into it.

Jesus said that? Or his apostles did?

 

[LOki]

I'll remember not to set myself up in a box with you in the future.

There were plenty of outs--I even opened the door to them for you.

Despite all these arguments, it does not say anywhere in our Constitution that our government must be defined as "Secular".

Of course not. By preventing law respecting the establisment of religion, the constitution makes the government a secular (not your rejection of religion definition) institution.

However, your arguments have given me a new found respect for what the Supreme Court is facing today.

No doubt.

You may claim it, but I am not a theocrat. I believe in a "secular" government (more like definition #2).

Forgive me if I reserve acceptance of your claim considering your insistence that religion and government must necessarily be entwined.

However I don't take it quite to the extremes that you obviously do because it is inherently impossible to separate a man and his beliefs from participation in government, or should I say self-government.

The constitution clearly and explicitly prohibits religion, or religious affiliation from being a qualifying consideration for public office--what make you imply that I am in disagreement with you here?

As long as there is no establishment of religion where no person is being forced into any particular religion or set of beliefs, I am OK with people expressing their religious beliefs or any other beliefs on government property.

So am I. I only object to the governemnt expressing religious beliefs, as religious beliefs, on government property certainly; and more certainly on the private property of my home, my church, your home, your church, or anyone else's home or church. I grant you that leaves very little room for the government to express religion, but that is the intent of the consitutional separation of church and state.

I am also OK with laws being instituted that may have their fundamental origin in religious concepts as long as they are laws passed by the majority and they do not force any person into any particular religion.

I am fine with those laws too, provided only that they are not justified, or validated, by law in religious doctrine or beiliefs. I see zero conflict with the constitutional separation of church and state that a law should agree with religion--I will just draw the line where someone suggests that the law is the law because Allah deems it good.

I don't think people should have to hide their religious beliefs in this country at any time. We are supposed to have have freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

It's a good thing then that religion cannot constitutionally govern government, and government cannot constitutionally govern religion.

Per your logic we must reject all aspects of religion from all aspects of government in order to be "Secular". I find this impossible if we are to have a free country.

Demonstrate. Just be absolutely sure to use my logic rather than your logic, your fallacies of logic, or the logic you used in your wishful hope that Atheism is secularism, in order to make your point.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Jesus said that? Or his apostles did?

I don't know off hand. I just know that's the idea of it. A new covenant, a release from some of the old laws. Im really not that religious.

 

[Nuc]

Im really not that religious.

Then why are you constantly spouting off about it? Maybe you should just keep it to yourself.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Then why are you constantly spouting off about it? Maybe you should just keep it to yourself.

Im for religious tolerance and for SUBSTANTIVE discussions regarding the morals of our society which includes religious as well as secular sources. The left is virulently anti christian and seems to base it's moral reasoning on leftist dogma. They cannot be allowed to run society.

What's your two cents? Add something or stfu.

 

[dmp]

How does the above statement marry with this one:

Originally Posted by gop_jeff
Indeed it does say that. However, if you read through the entire Bible, you'll see that much of the Old Testament law dealing with sanitation, animal sacrifices, clothing laws, etc., was overridden and replaced with the covenant of grace through Christ.

Where is the problem?

 

[Dr Grump]

Where is the problem?

It appeared to me that on one hand Jeff is saying the left-leaning theologists have reinterpreted aspects of the bible to suit their own purposes, and on the other hand Jillian points out that there are some pretty nasty things said in the Old Testament and Jeff says they have been superceded by the New Testament. IOW, they have been changed. I'm just trying to suss out whether Jeff likes things being changed or not, and if he does, does he only like it when it suits his purposes.

 

[Dr Grump]

The left is virulently anti christian and seems to base it's moral reasoning on leftist dogma. They cannot be allowed to run society.

I agree re the loony aspects of the left running society, but neither should ultra conservative right-wing religious nutjobs!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There were plenty of outs--I even opened the door to them for you.

Such as?

Of course not. By preventing law respecting the establisment of religion, the constitution makes the government a secular (not your rejection of religion definition) institution.

Yes, Def.#2. Preventing law respecting the establishment of religion and total rejection of religion are two different things.

Forgive me if I reserve acceptance of your claim considering your insistence that religion and government must necessarily be entwined.

The way I look at it is, within the framework of our Constitution, people have all kinds of ideas and beliefs that are translated to or reflected in our laws and government. You can't tell a person to only have "secular" thoughts.

The constitution clearly and explicitly prohibits religion, or religious affiliation from being a qualifying consideration for public office--what make you imply that I am in disagreement with you here?

Yes, the Constitution, Article VI, says "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

It is your pov that our government must "be secular" that makes me think you disagree. Our government consists of not only laws but representatives as well, including representatives who are religious. Our government also includes expression of religion such as things like "In God We Trust" printed on our government money.

So am I. I only object to the governemnt expressing religious beliefs, as religious beliefs, on government property certainly; and more certainly on the private property of my home, my church, your home, your church, or anyone else's home or church. I grant you that leaves very little room for the government to express religion, but that is the intent of the consitutional separation of church and state.

How do you get around "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"?

I am fine with those laws too, provided only that they are not justified, or validated, by law in religious doctrine or beiliefs. I see zero conflict with the constitutional separation of church and state that a law should agree with religion--I will just draw the line where someone suggests that the law is the law because Allah deems it good.

Who cares what somebody says or claims about a law? As long as it is not establishing religion it passes the test.

It's a good thing then that religion cannot constitutionally govern government, and government cannot constitutionally govern religion.

Yes that's a good thing. However, it is not a good thing to have all expression of religion stamped out of our system. The ACLU crowd would have an apoplectic fit if they had to endure all the religious expression of earlier days in America.

Demonstrate. Just be absolutely sure to use my logic rather than your logic, your fallacies of logic, or the logic you used in your wishful hope that Atheism is secularism, in order to make your point.

Don't you accept the definition that secular means the rejection of all things religious?

 

[dilloduck]

If the Constitutuion seriously intended to erect this huge wall between Church and State, why did they not forbid religious people from running for office, voting and assembling to present thier grievances ?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It appeared to me that on one hand Jeff is saying the left-leaning theologists have reinterpreted aspects of the bible to suit their own purposes, and on the other hand Jillian points out that there are some pretty nasty things said in the Old Testament and Jeff says they have been superceded by the New Testament. IOW, they have been changed. I'm just trying to suss out whether Jeff likes things being changed or not, and if he does, does he only like it when it suits his purposes.

Let's put it this way; When the change is part of the narrative of the bible itself, it is valid. That doesn't mean ANYONE can just it to suit their needs, especially not to the extent where killing babies is a-ok, similar to removing a wart as I've heard suggested.

 

[Dr Grump]

If the Constitutuion seriously intended to erect this huge wall between Church and State, why did they not forbid religious people from running for office, voting and assembling to present thier grievances ?

I don't think there is supposed to be a huge wall between church and state. Just a chain fence.....

 

[Dr Grump]

Let's put it this way; When the change is part of the narrative of the bible itself, it is valid. That doesn't mean ANYONE can just it to suit their needs, especially not to the extent where killing babies is a-ok, similar to removing a wart as I've heard suggested.

Still sounds like a dollar each way IMO....

 

[dilloduck]

I don't think there is supposed to be a huge wall between church and state. Just a chain fence.....

really?---then why did they put such a big gate in it. How stupid to let religious people run for office, vote and petition the government if they were to be separate from it?

 

[Dr Grump]

really?---then why did they put such a big gate in it. How stupid to let religious people run for office, vote and petition the government if they were to be separate from it?

The way I see things is that voting for religious people is fine. Them then foisting their religious views on you via legislation is not. It it possible to be religious in your private life and secular in public (IMO)...

 

[dilloduck]

The way I see things is that voting for religious people is fine. Them then foisting their religious views on you via legislation is not. It it possible to be religious in your private life and secular in public (IMO)...

Ever think that maybe ideas that are "foisted" on you by a religious person are not necessarily a "religious" ones. If secular people can have morals that are not religious, would not the same be true of the religious?

 

[Dr Grump]

Ever think that maybe ideas that are "foisted" on you by a religious person are not necessarily a "religious" ones. If secular people can have morals that are not religious, would not the same be true of the religious?

True! It's all in the delivery. For me, if you said "God says thou shalt no covet thy neighbour's wife/husband", I'd think you might be trying to foist some religious dogma on me. If you said "Hey, Grumpy, don't sleep with your neighbour's wife/husband", I might not take it as religious doctrine. But in saying that, it is a bit of a red herring. The vast majority of people who are anti-gay on this site have that opinion due to their religion (this being an example of religious doctrine being forced upon others)....

 

[dilloduck]

True! It's all in the delivery. For me, if you said "God says thou shalt no covet thy neighbour's wife/husband", I'd think you might be trying to foist some religious dogma on me. If you said "Hey, Grumpy, don't sleep with your neighbour's wife/husband", I might not take it as religious doctrine. But in saying that, it is a bit of a red herring. The vast majority of people who are anti-gay on this site have that opinion due to their religion (this being an example of religious doctrine being forced upon others)....

And you would accept an anti-gay message as long as it weren't wrapped in religious text?