Religion in government

Message boards : Politics : Religion in government
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1733232 - Posted: 9 Oct 2015, 19:31:16 UTC - in response to Message 1733195.  

I saw on Charlie Rose's program last night that Kim Davis has been married and divorced several times, has by her own admission committed adultery and had a child out of wedlock. It looks to me like her strict faith in God has some holes in it.


I don't suppose your post was directly a reply to mine.
However, her answer to what you've pointed out (and many have pointed out, many times) is that she was "saved" after these events.

"Saving" is the devil's method of harvesting a soul. You get one chance and you either do or don't, there isn't a do over.
ID: 1733232 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1733355 - Posted: 10 Oct 2015, 5:40:11 UTC - in response to Message 1733322.  

But, you and WK are focusing on the wrong thing: most Christians believe God gave them free will, with the exception of those such as Calvinists. Since most, by and large, do believe they have it as a gift or curse from God, the fact that they try to get others to behave they do in accordance with the laws of their God, they in effect go against God's gift or curse of free will.

Therefore, the discussion of the paradox (real or not) is not gernane to this portion of the discussion.

The paradox, is perhaps germane to this Subject.

Some Christian Government Officials (Kim Davis for one), believe their God forbids them to issue Marriage Certificates to those committing 'a sin'. Therefore 'The Sinner' has no free will to commit 'the sin', and must be stopped.

Other Christian Government Officials, do not believe their God forbids them. Because 'The Sinner' has free will to commit 'the sin'. And must accept the consequences.


The paradox you describe is not the one Michel describes.
Michel speaks of a God that exists outside of space and time and immune to paradoxes.
I, and now you, speak of paradoxes we humans face.
I believe emphasis should be put on something leading to your last sentence: the so-called sinner is the one that faces the consequences.
Outside of "eternal damnation", what are the Earthly consequences of being a homosexual and a homosexual marriage? At earlier points in time, it might have meant greater susceptibility to STDs. It can lead to being stigmatized. But what harm does it cause, if any? (I know there are studies, for example, on children raised by same sex parents and, at least early on, they were finding no ill effects.)
Supposing it hurts no one during life on Earth, except God doesn't like it and will eternally damn the gays (supposedly), what does Kim Davis and her kind fear? Clearly, God won't be eternally damning them for being gay, because they're not gay! So, they must (?) fear being damned for allowing others to sin. Yet, in giving free will, God gives people the choice whether to sin or not and I know of no commandment type thing that says "Thou shalt not be happy, and shallst burneth in the Burning Lake of Gehenna, if thou seest of another person that breaks one of my other thou shalt nots!"

Sarge...

Extremely interesting, and thought provoking Post.

As The Nazarene is reported to have said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone".

I do not understand, as I believe you do not understand. Why Davis (and others who believe as her) believes it is their sin, if they do not stop and/or punish other peoples sins.


Having been raised Lutheran ...
and calling myself until 2002 or a little after ...
and at least Christian for a few more years after that ...
I have friends, ones I grew up with and current ones, that are fundamentalists.
I have thrown this question out there, similarly worded. I've never received a response or satisfactory response.
So, no, I don't understand.
But I am looking for the source.
There's the story of the Good Samaritan. Certain things, we cannot stand idly by and allow to happen: seeing a person being robbed, raped or murdered. If we cannot help directly, we can call for help, etc. ... .
But I think there are many things being called sin that simply don't rise to the level of the three heinous examples I just provided. And I really doubt that they think this is just like the Good Samaritan story, My suspicions.
ID: 1733355 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1733386 - Posted: 10 Oct 2015, 10:04:37 UTC

Well Christian fundamentalists have a habit of ignoring much if not all the lessons from the new testament. They tend to focus excessively on the old testament. And that part of the bible is pretty clear about what you should do with people who 'deviate' from the rules. Usually it involves chucking rocks at those people until they are dead.

Now of course stoning people is illegal and considered murder, which is a step to far for most people, including fundamentalists, so they go to the next best thing and that is trying to stop gay people from being gay. And that takes various forms ranging from bullying gay people, sending them to pray the gay away camps and now also by trying to deny them access to certain government services.
ID: 1733386 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1733637 - Posted: 11 Oct 2015, 14:59:05 UTC - in response to Message 1733618.  
Last modified: 11 Oct 2015, 14:59:21 UTC

It is well documented that many Americans in the early years regarded the Constitution as a miracle. Many recognized it as a political achievement unprecedented in human history. They looked upon it, moreover, as an event that was actually "influenced, guided and governed" by the hand of God. This unrelenting attack on the U.S. with demands to remove all mentions of religion from government is an attack on this country from its formation.

Here are a couple of the most recognizable folks from our beginning and what they had to say:

Benjamin Franklin: "I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance [as the framing of the Constitution]... should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler in whom all inferior spirits live and move and have their being."

James Madison: "The real wonder is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted [in the federal convention], and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment. It is Impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a Finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution."

George Washington: "[The adoption of the Constitution] will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence as any possible event in the course of human affairs can ever designate it."

To remove all traces of religion from public office, public property, and public view is to destroy another pillar which made us so successful in the past. No man is above another man! We must trust there is a higher authority on what is good or our nation will fail.

Why do you believe that others must trust the same higher authority as you? How is that not establishing a religion?
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1733637 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1733641 - Posted: 11 Oct 2015, 15:24:09 UTC - in response to Message 1733618.  

It is well documented that many Americans in the early years regarded the Constitution as a miracle. Many recognized it as a political achievement unprecedented in human history. They looked upon it, moreover, as an event that was actually "influenced, guided and governed" by the hand of God. This unrelenting attack on the U.S. with demands to remove all mentions of religion from government is an attack on this country from its formation.

Here are a couple of the most recognizable folks from our beginning and what they had to say:

Benjamin Franklin: "I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance [as the framing of the Constitution]... should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler in whom all inferior spirits live and move and have their being."

James Madison: "The real wonder is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted [in the federal convention], and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment. It is Impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a Finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution."

George Washington: "[The adoption of the Constitution] will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence as any possible event in the course of human affairs can ever designate it."

To remove all traces of religion from public office, public property, and public view is to destroy another pillar which made us so successful in the past. No man is above another man! We must trust there is a higher authority on what is good or our nation will fail.

How is these person's belief in God, true?
How is these person's belief that God guided them, true?
Are there not many more possibilities? Many of which are more likely than some mystical man in the sky?
ID: 1733641 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1733706 - Posted: 12 Oct 2015, 3:20:23 UTC - in response to Message 1733355.  

But, you and WK are focusing on the wrong thing: most Christians believe God gave them free will, with the exception of those such as Calvinists. Since most, by and large, do believe they have it as a gift or curse from God, the fact that they try to get others to behave they do in accordance with the laws of their God, they in effect go against God's gift or curse of free will.

Therefore, the discussion of the paradox (real or not) is not gernane to this portion of the discussion.

The paradox, is perhaps germane to this Subject.

Some Christian Government Officials (Kim Davis for one), believe their God forbids them to issue Marriage Certificates to those committing 'a sin'. Therefore 'The Sinner' has no free will to commit 'the sin', and must be stopped.

Other Christian Government Officials, do not believe their God forbids them. Because 'The Sinner' has free will to commit 'the sin'. And must accept the consequences.


The paradox you describe is not the one Michel describes.
Michel speaks of a God that exists outside of space and time and immune to paradoxes.
I, and now you, speak of paradoxes we humans face.
I believe emphasis should be put on something leading to your last sentence: the so-called sinner is the one that faces the consequences.
Outside of "eternal damnation", what are the Earthly consequences of being a homosexual and a homosexual marriage? At earlier points in time, it might have meant greater susceptibility to STDs. It can lead to being stigmatized. But what harm does it cause, if any? (I know there are studies, for example, on children raised by same sex parents and, at least early on, they were finding no ill effects.)
Supposing it hurts no one during life on Earth, except God doesn't like it and will eternally damn the gays (supposedly), what does Kim Davis and her kind fear? Clearly, God won't be eternally damning them for being gay, because they're not gay! So, they must (?) fear being damned for allowing others to sin. Yet, in giving free will, God gives people the choice whether to sin or not and I know of no commandment type thing that says "Thou shalt not be happy, and shallst burneth in the Burning Lake of Gehenna, if thou seest of another person that breaks one of my other thou shalt nots!"

Sarge...

Extremely interesting, and thought provoking Post.

As The Nazarene is reported to have said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone".

I do not understand, as I believe you do not understand. Why Davis (and others who believe as her) believes it is their sin, if they do not stop and/or punish other peoples sins.


Having been raised Lutheran ...
and calling myself until 2002 or a little after ...
and at least Christian for a few more years after that ...
I have friends, ones I grew up with and current ones, that are fundamentalists.
I have thrown this question out there, similarly worded. I've never received a response or satisfactory response.
So, no, I don't understand.
But I am looking for the source.
There's the story of the Good Samaritan. Certain things, we cannot stand idly by and allow to happen: seeing a person being robbed, raped or murdered. If we cannot help directly, we can call for help, etc. ... .
But I think there are many things being called sin that simply don't rise to the level of the three heinous examples I just provided. And I really doubt that they think this is just like the Good Samaritan story, My suspicions.


Really, "Brutus" no comments on ANY of this?
The repetition is becoming ... brutish.
ID: 1733706 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1733802 - Posted: 12 Oct 2015, 17:07:53 UTC
Last modified: 12 Oct 2015, 17:08:22 UTC

The Sarge Who:

"It's my, my, my i-i-interpretation.
Founding Fathers this,
Founding Fathers that.
I know what they said and you don't,
George Washington hit me over the head with a whiffle Constitution bat.
I wish all these people that can't read and interpret it
my way
would just
f-f-f
fade away.
My, my, my, i-i-interpretation!"
ID: 1733802 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1733830 - Posted: 12 Oct 2015, 20:18:08 UTC

I'll have to read that more closely later. Sure doesn't look like you've answered "Why does a fundamentalist feel they must stop another from sinning?"
ID: 1733830 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1733832 - Posted: 12 Oct 2015, 20:53:11 UTC - in response to Message 1733830.  

I'll have to read that more closely later. Sure doesn't look like you've answered "Why does a fundamentalist feel they must stop another from sinning?"
Huh, Because a Fundamentalist must do God's work, even though God is all powerful! It is lust for power, one of those deadly sins.
ID: 1733832 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1733876 - Posted: 13 Oct 2015, 1:01:24 UTC

Brutus:

1) Sorry, this isn't philosophy. This is some people telling other people how to live their day-to-day lives.
2) While I formulate my answer to your post, I'll ask you something else: do you believe only the Left seeks absolute power?

Side-note: I grew up 6 hours from Boston and about 4 hours or so from Philadelphia and Gettysburg. 6 hours from Manassas. Most of those places, and historical sites, visited more than once. I read many of the documents or large portions of them as a kid of my own choice, not just when it came up in school.
ID: 1733876 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1734458 - Posted: 15 Oct 2015, 19:12:33 UTC - in response to Message 1733945.  

1) In the time I was busy typing up my response, you posted this?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=78253&postid=1733802#1733802

WTH is that? I quote things from our founders and you imply their message has changed?

2) I don't see the question "Why does a fundamentalist feel they must stop another from sinning?" in the post you expressed surprise in by my lack of comment.

I said, "Kim Davis is a special case. I'll admit she's kinda weird. I'm sure there are many, many other county clerks who experienced conflict of conscience but they never made the news because they found ways to work around the federal government dictate that all county clerks will issue same-sex marriage certificates. I'm sure there was a way for Kim Davis to work around it."

3) If talking about whether or not someone will burn in hell for eternity if they follow the law based on a God that exists outside of space and time and is immune to paradoxes is not philosophy, then what is it?

4) You asked, "do you believe only the Left seeks absolute power?"

Right now, the left has never been closer to seizing absolute power domestically. In my comment I said, "Our founders intentions were to limit the centralization of power. When power is centralized, the individual loses freedom because any form of centralized power leads to tyranny. Churches, being run by MEN, throughout history have demonstrated they are susceptible to the failings of human nature also. And our founders wanted to try to prevent this nation from the failings from *that* form of centralized power, just as much as they were trying to prevent the centralization of power in any other group of MEN."

I'm beginning to lose confidence in you again Sarge.

I totally agree with you about the problem with men. However, what you are pointing out is the Patriarchy as opposed to individual men who can also end up being oppressed by the patriarchy if they do not conform to societal norms (eg gender orientation).

Most mass shootings are done by men.
Most terrorist acts are done by men.
Men use religion to oppress others. Women, such as Kim Davies also help reinforce the Patriarchy by getting into a position of power over others and using it to impose Patriarchal ideals. In the end this isn't about religion at all. Certainly not Christianity. Its about Patriarchy.

So yes, I agree, we need to deal with the problem of men in our society.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1734458 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1734472 - Posted: 15 Oct 2015, 20:45:23 UTC - in response to Message 1733945.  

3) If talking about whether or not someone will burn in hell for eternity if they follow the law based on a God that exists outside of space and time and is immune to paradoxes is not philosophy, then what is it?

Theology?
ID: 1734472 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1734532 - Posted: 16 Oct 2015, 1:35:12 UTC - in response to Message 1733804.  
Last modified: 16 Oct 2015, 1:37:30 UTC

But to try to narrow my comment down to what you've presented, all I see are philosophical debates about free will and whether or not someone will burn in hell for eternity if they follow the law based on a God that exists outside of space and time and is immune to paradoxes. (?)


Whether you did not read the other posts or are feigning ignorance, I do not know.

This is not philosophy. It was Michel that brought up (much as I.D. did about 2 years ago) that God exists outside of time and space and is immune to paradoxes (such as how can He both be omniscient and give us free will). I brought those points up merely to tie together other discussions in this or similar threads and to make the point that we are not God(s), so the paradoxes Michel claims God is immune to does not apply to us: we are faced with paradoxes. As I elaborated, Clyde found it an interesting point.

I asked if we are given free will (presuming the existence of the [Christian] God), how is it so many fundamentalists seek so often at so many levels to interfere with the free will of others? Particularly when the acts they condemn do not create Earthly emergencies, such as robbery, rape and murder do create.

Kim Davis is a special case. I'll admit she's kinda weird. I'm sure there are many, many other county clerks who experienced conflict of conscience but they never made the news because they found ways to work around the federal government dictate that all county clerks will issue same-sex marriage certificates. I'm sure there was a way for Kim Davis to around it.


How is it you think mentioning her name means you addressed the question "if we are given free will (presuming the existence of the [Christian] God), how is it so many fundamentalists seek so often at so many levels to interfere with the free will of others? Particularly when the acts they condemn do not create Earthly emergencies, such as robbery, rape and murder do create."

???

I'm not going to quibble over whether I asked "fundamentalists" or a particular "fundamentalist" such as Kim Davis. I would have been at least somewhat satisfied with a reason or the reasons Kim Davis felt the matter was so important, both in an immediate Earthly sense as well as for her eternal soul and the eternal soul of others to deny marriage licenses. (Again, this is not philosophy. Her action, or inaction, based on her beliefs, had an impact on the lives of many.)

All you did was mention her name and state workarounds were possible. How does that answer the question?

It's just another struggle for absolute power.


Clyde indicated he found my proposed reason interesting. That if the "sin" does not rise to the level of causing an immediate Earthly danger, then it must (?) mean fundamentalists believe if they allow another to commit what in their view is a sin, it does not have an impact on the fate of just the sinner, but also on those that did not condemn the sin.

This should have been very clear.

Gary's suggestion was that they do it for power. This may very well be true and may be the reason or part of the reason. But what of my thought, that not condemning the sin also condemns the non-condemner's fate?

Speaking of power: more could be said, but suffice it to say, other things you brought up in your post were not in response to what I said and what I asked. Some of it, at least, was in response to the thread title and specific issues brought up in this thread by others.

It does make it a little more difficult to follow, but to a degree, it is understandable.

But when you don't point out when you're addressing what parts and to whom you are speaking and then don't even really answer my question (which was asked because of your several posts in the past about your faith) ... well, why do you think you get the responses (or lack of response) that you do?

You clearly missed the point of my question.

I don't expect you will respond or, if you do, as you seek power (and have been corrupted by power before), you will seek to exercise your power of your posting style to wrest the conversation in the direction you wish it to go. It doesn't change the fact that my post was on topic and I asked a good question that others found interesting. I would have preferred if you'd raised your other points in a separate post and I really wish you could have tried to answer what was clearly the main point of my question.
ID: 1734532 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1734538 - Posted: 16 Oct 2015, 2:02:17 UTC - in response to Message 1733945.  

3) If talking about whether or not someone will burn in hell for eternity if they follow the law based on a God that exists outside of space and time and is immune to paradoxes is not philosophy, then what is it?

What law would a Christian not be following by permitting others to marry?
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1734538 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1734544 - Posted: 16 Oct 2015, 2:33:24 UTC - in response to Message 1734517.  

So yes, I agree, we need to deal with the problem of men in our society.

Very illuminating opinion.

Isn't it just? I'm only using the same reasoning I've seen time and time again on these forums. I see lots of finger pointing at one group or another and lots of labels, for example your favourites of left wing and right wing. I've seen finger pointing at mental illness, colour and faith, and now Guy (AKA Brutus) has bought up the one obvious common denominator in so many of our problems.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1734544 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1734561 - Posted: 16 Oct 2015, 4:16:50 UTC - in response to Message 1734538.  

3) If talking about whether or not someone will burn in hell for eternity if they follow the law based on a God that exists outside of space and time and is immune to paradoxes is not philosophy, then what is it?

What law would a Christian not be following by permitting others to marry?


And let's consider answers both from the point of view of Earthly laws and "God's" laws. (The latter being my question.)
ID: 1734561 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1734598 - Posted: 16 Oct 2015, 9:40:02 UTC - in response to Message 1734532.  

I asked if we are given free will (presuming the existence of the [Christian] God), how is it so many fundamentalists seek so often at so many levels to interfere with the free will of others? Particularly when the acts they condemn do not create Earthly emergencies, such as robbery, rape and murder do create.

A paradox happens when two statements are both true and mutually exclusive. The original paradox, namely we have free will and God is omniscient is a paradox because it would appear that having free will and having someone know everything we do before we know it are things that are supposedly mutually exclusive, yet both are also regarded as true.

Your question is not at all a paradox, because having free will and then using that free will to try and impose your views/will onto others is not at all mutually exclusive. Nor is it hypocritical or otherwise against the Christian teachings. There is no command in the bible that says you shall not try to impose your views onto others. In fact, in some parts its quite the opposite, basically saying 'convert or die' (mostly the old testament, which happens to be the testament most fundamentalist Christians like the most).
ID: 1734598 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Religion in government


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.