Well, that's progress, anyway.

What values do you propose we adopt in lieu of Christian values?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You act like it's either/or.

And I've told you my politics are Rawlsian.

Oklahoma isn't the South. ;-)

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You act like it's either/or.

Because it IS either/or. Either Christian values, or something else.

And I've told you my politics are Rawlsian.

By which I take it that you think morality has no place in the public sphere?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

>>TTTorso wrote: How does waging of war fall into any Christian worldview? <<

As an individual Christian, I acknowledge that a literal reading of the New Testament gives no reason for supporting any war. Jesus is quoted in Matthew 5:44 as saying, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." And Paul writes in Romans 12:14, "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them."

As a Christian citizen, Romans 13:1-7 specifically teaches that human government is ordained by God and that we are to obey government because government does not bear the sword in vain. Human governments are given the responsibility to punish wrongdoers. Many Christians believe that governments, which protect religious freedom and other human rights, deserve our support, even when this means going to war.

No it ISN'T!!! It's NOT an all or nothing affair.

Just because all "A's" are "B's", does NOT mean that all "B's" are "A's".

For example: All baseball players are union members, but not all union members are baseball players.

We can agree on some of your christian principles, such as not killing or stealing from one another, but disagree on others, such as homosexuality.

You can read more about Rawls elsewhere.
http://web.missouri.edu/~philrnj/rawls.html

You're views on Rawls are way -off.

It is in the Big 12 South. ?

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

when these moral values are virtually no impact on most people's life when the issues like economy etc. do have a critical impact on anyone's life...


I'd have to disagree. I think this country is swirling the drain morally and it affects me and my family continually. This country is being ruled by lawyers and the courst and I feel it's not working out too well. The President's ability to appoint judges is very important. I'm hoping he'll appoint better judges then a liberal president would and perhaps the downward spiral will slow down.

where did matthew did 5.44?? how was the course?

sorry...couldn't help it....

No it ISN'T!!! It's NOT an all or nothing affair.

We can agree on some of your christian principles, such as not killing or stealing from one another, but disagree on others, such as homosexuality.

Naturally, but the fact remains that we, as a people, are going to have some sort of consensus on issues like homosexuality, and that consensus is going to be the result of a commonly held value system. The value system comes first. You don't agree with injunctions against killing and stealing because you look at those issues from a Christian perspective, you disagree with them because your value system deems them to be wrong- you just happen to have come to the same conclusion as Christians.

You're views on Rawls are way -off. That may be. How do you envision a Rawlsian society operating?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Was there a clause in there excluding the Nazi government? Certainly obeying Hitler wouldn't have fallen in line with the teachings of Christ.

Was there a clause in there excluding the Nazi government? Certainly obeying Hitler wouldn't have fallen in line with the teachings of Christ.

Well, just so long as you're not trying to be inflammatory or anything.

FWIW, this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"But there are limits to civil obedience, and to the competence of civil authority. As domestic obedience is not to be carried to the extent of rebellion against the civil government, so neither is the State to be obeyed as against God."

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

http://www.christiananswers.net/menu-ag1.html

Plenty of links/articles regardings Christians, The Bible, and Government.

As a side ... particularly interesting articles regarding Christianity and the history of our govnernment and the ability to be a "Christian Nation" (i.e., formed on Christian principles, Christianity is the majority religion, etc) while allowing for the freedom of religion of others.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Historically even persecuting governments have served God's purpose as even a cursory examination of the Assyria, Babylonia, and Roman empires will reveal. In fact each of those events were prophesied well in advance to the nation of Israel - repetitive warnings to that afforded them ample opportunity to alter the course of their history. In the case of the Nazis no such prophesy exists so then you have to make you own call based on prayer and doctrine or some other basis. Was Hitler a just man? You tell me. Was Saddam a just man? You tell me. Does Bin Laden have a politcal mandate to speak for Islam? You tell me. All I can tell you is that ulimately for me it is a matter of conscience.

I think you missed my point, or maybe I just didn't make it very well (probably the latter). I think Afghanistan was/is necessary. From a purely moral perspective, I think going into Iraq will ultimately be a good thing. Hussein is a villain and needs to be drawn and quartered (or buried to his neck in fireants...take your pick). My opinion is that you can only lead the horse to water, you can't make him drink. At some point the Iraqi people are going to have to take a stand and take the lead and we need to get the job done and get the hell out as soon as possible. We have tipped the scales in their favor. At some point we have to seriously decide when it is time to back off, get our troops out of harms way and let them decide their own fate. Once we have tipped the scales in their favor, it should be left to them to decide their future. As for Afghanistan, there were mulitple factions fighting the taliban before we even went in there...unfortunately the taliban were winning. The Iraqi's on the other hand, or at least some, seem to be complaining really loudly about their new freedom. Maybe they really do want democracy, but I think it remains to be seen.

---

_________________________________________________
That is just one more group of people that should be thrown screaming from a helicopter- George Carlin

I think vitus provided the disclaimer above that is satisfactory. As far as prophecy goes, there are a lot of things in Revelation that have people worried about our current global situation. When I get myself a new Bible I'll brush up on that and ask more questions here. A bit off topic from this thread, but have you read The Bible Code Jeff? Kind of interesting in a far out mathematical way.

Correct. The 'REAL' south is Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia south of, and including Atlanta (some union sympathizers loitered in north georgia, so they are right out.) and Memphis, TN.....oh yeah...we let South Carolina in because they started the war. ;)

---

_________________________________________________
That is just one more group of people that should be thrown screaming from a helicopter- George Carlin

I would agree with this. The only thing I would add is optimism. My daughter (16 years old) gives me endless grief about my optimism. She is 16, so I suppose she must be right.

Still, freedom is not an imposition. I believe the Iraqis will step up. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that they will, but you are right. It remains to be seen.

Dan,

I agree that the Christian faith and the term "Christian" has become watered-down and misunderstood. My pastor uses the term "Christ follower" now. It may just be semantics, but it makes a point and avoids the "religion" and emphasizes the relationship with Jesus Christ.

Now as to "why it matters..." If you do away with moral absolutes, if everything is relative -- including morality -- then the nation is headed down a dangerous path. Someone on the regular slowtwitch forum has a sign-off that says something like "today's heresy is tomorrow's truth." To a "liberal" that might sound optimistic. To me, it sounds terrifying.

Consider this "poem" by a guy named Steve Turner. Really think about it. What should we believe in?

CREED:

We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin
We believe everything is OK as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher,
although we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens, they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in "Masters and Johnson."
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the terrorists would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.

We believe that there is no "absolute truth"
excepting the "truth" that there is no "absolute truth."

We believe in the rejection of creeds, and the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky,

And when you hear: State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten! Troops on Rampage!
Gangs go Looting! Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker



Peace --
Ray

"I think marriage is a religious institution and should be left as such"

Can you explain that statement? I was married in a Courthouse but not in Church. Am I not married in your eyes?

Now as to "why it matters..." If you do away with moral absolutes, if everything is relative -- including morality -- then the nation is headed down a dangerous path.

This is the crux of my struggle. I believe in freedom ... the ability to do almost anything unless it infringes upon another's rights. To do that the citizens must display a tremendous amount of responsibility and virtue. As a group, we are not ... or at least we are continually sliding backwards.

I do not feel that it is the govenrment's job to sit back and let America turn into a cesspool of immorality. IMO, people also have the right to live in a place where they don't have to be a hermit in order to avoid it all (call it "pursuit of happiness" if you will).

It's quite obvious where the founding fathers intended morality to come from. We're continually getting away from that and a "nationwide" morality must come from somewhere. As you say, morality is relative. One person may think sex with a willing minor is just fine, whereas others do not ... just one example.

My struggle is "where is this morality permitted to come from?" The majority (democracy)? The Supreme Court? Congress?

We talk as if morality is not legislated ... but I hear very few complaining that heroin is not legal, that one cannot marry their sister, cousin, or multiple women, etc. Ceratain immoralities, such as adultery, divorce (dramatic negative affect on society) are permitted, whereas others are not.

I'm wondering where the line gets drawn and who draws it?

Again, I'm basically a libertarian (freedom contain only by the equal rights of others) ... but I also feel that the government is not required and let the country go to "hell in and handbasket" (to use an old phrase) just because people have become more selfish, immoral, and irresponsible. Most citizens of other countries never worry about such things because they are told what they will do .... here, we share the burden of making the decision.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear. You don't have to agree with my opinions...that is why they are called such.

---

_________________________________________________
That is just one more group of people that should be thrown screaming from a helicopter- George Carlin

I think his question was fair - You said that you think marriage should be a religious institution. Do you not consider someone not married in a religious institution (I assume you would recognize Jewish, Muslim, christian etc marriages all with equal merit) not married? If so, I think we've found a true source of differing opinions that won't be reconciled...at that point I think I'd feel a little better...

I, as a Roman Catholic, believe that marriage is a sacrament, just like Holy Communion and is given by God, not man and to be between a man and a woman for the purposes designed by God. Therefore, I believe that the government has no business being in the marriage business. I do not recognize civilly-performed "marriages" as marriage. I have no problem with two people formalizing a mutual living arrangement through the government (recognizing that it is their perogative to follow or not follow the teachings of a religion or church), I just don't believe it is a "marriage."

If a man and a woman unite "before God," regardles of whether or not they believe in the same God, church, or version thereof that I do, then I have no problem with them calling it a marriage.