US Russian Hoax

[RandyPNW]

But in a Christian society, in particular, minority views that are the antithesis to Christian beliefs are not just exercises in free speech, but actually a temptation. The pull towards paganism is a threat even to those with Christian convictions because we are weak towards things like greed and sexual permissiveness. It's best not to allow public temptations to get established and to multiply like a cancer in a Christian society.

So it will be to people like you to decide what is "temptation" and therefore not permissible in the public square? That's the antithesis of freedom and certainly not what this country was founded on.

America was, I believe, founded on a compromise between Christians and Deists. Unless one side wins the bulk of the population, the Constitution is basically a truce, and not a treaty.

Our Constitution, from my perspective, is a "living document" expressing a continuing truce, but not an established treaty. My wish is for a Christian society, but the pendulum has moved towards Deism or full-blown religious pluralism.

It is religious belief that forms the philosophy behind political beliefs, atheism being only one kind of religious belief. Both Judaism and Christianity spell out what temptation to sin is. It isn't *my idea,* but rather, a common belief held by either religion, depending on how serious the adherents of each religion are.

That's what Scriptures said to the ancient Hebrews under the Law of Moses!

Which nobody today is suggesting should be the foundation of a modern society. Except you and the Taliban I guess.

If so, I'd be proud to be the only one to stand up for God like Phinehas of old. Numbers 25.

[CadyandZoe]

What's different about it? I mean, what do you think will be different?

Answering for myself: renewed creation, humanity, etc. We won't think, act or behave sinfully. God is just and righteous. Big differences, no?

During that time, will we need laws or politics? Perhaps not? What if someone knows what is the right thing to do in every situation, and they always do it? Would he or she need a law? A government? A police?

[Athanasius]

During that time, will we need laws or politics? Perhaps not? What if someone knows what is the right thing to do in every situation, and they always do it? Would he or she need a law? A government? A police?

I have no idea what the new creation will be like, but some of these things imply their inverse (like law, police) and I very seriously doubt either will be required, at least, in the form we're both thinking.

All I know is, is that the church in the present creation has so put me off that my idea of 'heaven' is being able to get as far away from other Christians for the equivalent of a trillion years if I wanted, and for that to be fine. The church should maybe think about that one for a bit, because I'm not the only one who feels that way.

[Fenris]

America was, I believe, founded on a compromise between Christians and Deists. Unless one side wins the bulk of the population, the Constitution is basically a truce, and not a treaty.

America was founded on the concepts of freedom and consent of the governed. Nothing about "Christians" vs "deists".

Our Constitution, from my perspective, is a "living document"

If it's a "living document" then it's possible to find all sorts of things in it. Like the "right to have an abortion".

It is religious belief that forms the philosophy behind political beliefs,

Actually the concepts of democracy and free speech are Greek, not Christian and not Jewish.

If so, I'd be proud to be the only one to stand up for God like Phinehas of old. Numbers 25.

I'm aware. Most of history's zealots are less charitably judged.

[RandyPNW]

America was founded on the concepts of freedom and consent of the governed. Nothing about "Christians" vs "deists".

That's untrue. Have you read this:
WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

Actually the concepts of democracy and free speech are Greek, not Christian and not Jewish.

Where did the Greeks get it if not from the consent of the governed? That existed as far back as the 1st king. So democracy is simply the elimination of the king, leaving people to govern themselves.

What made American philosophy "Christian Democracy" is the fact that the consent of the governed involved Christian peoples whose laws were based on the Bible and on the Gospel of Jesus.

Calvin may have proposed a kind of Christian constitutional government that was democratic. I don't claim to have any great knowledge of this. I just know that some reference Calvin as a model leading to American democracy.

The separation of Church and State into separate compartments, religious and secular, was a kind of checks and balances against political autocracy and even religious autocracy. The idea was to use God's Law as a model keeping political abuses of all kinds in check. This is, to some degree, at the core of the democratic spirit, to hold all leadership accountable for how they govern.

[RabbiKnife]

Many in the 1770s would nit make a distinction between deist and Christian

[Fenris]

That's untrue.

No, it's very true. The enlightenment ideas of thinkers like John Locke underpin the founder's thinking. And Locke was opposed to religious uniformity.

Where did the Greeks get it

It's a Greek invention. As is freedom of speech. Those are not biblical ideas.

What made American philosophy "Christian Democracy" is the fact that the consent of the governed involved Christian peoples whose laws were based on the Bible and on the Gospel of Jesus.

I don't think the founders viewed America as a "Christian Democracy". My goodness, the Constitution specifically prohibits a religious test for office holders. Article 6 Section 3.

Calvin may have proposed a kind of Christian constitutional government that was democratic. I don't claim to have any great knowledge of this. I just know that some reference Calvin as a model leading to American democracy.

Calvin's ideas are not relevant.

The separation of Church and State into separate compartments, religious and secular, was a kind of checks and balances against political autocracy and even religious autocracy. The idea was to use God's Law as a model keeping political abuses of all kinds in check.

That's...not checks and balances. That's the idea of the freedom to practice religion as one sees fit. Or to not practice at all. You do know that the first people who came here from Europe were fleeing religious persecution, right?

[Athanasius]

Where did the Greeks get it...

They were a philosophical people, you know. The Greeks had two terms, isegoria (political speech, basically) and parrhesia, which is like the idea of speaking frankly (although not necessarily freely). Were you privileged in the ancient world or not, because that mattered too. If one offended the state, or civic religion, or corrupted the youth, then there was no recourse to the authorities about first amendment rights. These were nascent ideas, philosophically grounded, but not rights as we understand them. But then, this is exactly what you have in mind with your theocracy, so I doubt you'd take issue with the practice.

Just remember that hemlock is bitter, so maybe keep that in mind if you ever find yourself at the head of said theocratic state. Protestants do like to be parrhesiastic.

[RandyPNW]

They were a philosophical people, you know. The Greeks had two terms, isegoria (political speech, basically) and parrhesia, which is like the idea of speaking frankly (although not necessarily freely). Were you privileged in the ancient world or not, because that mattered too. If one offended the state, or civic religion, or corrupted the youth, then there was no recourse to the authorities about first amendment rights. These were nascent ideas, philosophically grounded, but not rights as we understand them. But then, this is exactly what you have in mind with your theocracy, so I doubt you'd take issue with the practice.

Just remember that hemlock is bitter, so maybe keep that in mind if you ever find yourself at the head of said theocratic state. Protestants do like to be parrhesiastic.

Socrates wasn't my hero--Jesus was. To form a specifically Christian democracy, or what I call a "theocracy," free speech has to have a social context, informed by the Law of God. If democracy doesn't begin with universal moral principles that are spelled out, if only generally, it produces chaos.

Your word breadth amazes me! parrhesiastic? Takes my breath away!

[Fenris]

To form a specifically Christian democracy, or what I call a "theocracy,"

Theocracy : a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

This is not the same as a democracy.

[RandyPNW]

No, it's very true. The enlightenment ideas of thinkers like John Locke underpin the founder's thinking. And Locke was opposed to religious uniformity.

Can't agree. The philosophes of the Enlightenment took "Reason" far down the road and away from Christian dogmatism. While it is true that those who framed the American Constitution were largely Deists or accepting of them, to ignore the less political Christian leaders and movements in America at the time is to completely miss my point.

I see this "Compromise" between Deism and Dogmatic Religion to involve a watered down version of Deism or Enlightenment Philosophy to allow for more of a Christian expression and tolerance of the same. The less-tolerant form of Enlightened thinking in Europe led to the French Revolution, which seemed to lack any agreement between Catholicism and Enlightened political classes.

It's a Greek invention. As is freedom of speech. Those are not biblical ideas.

The principles of popular representation are hardly new. The specific form of democracy enjoyed today are modern forms of the same. The King kept the Lords in check, and the Lords kept the King in check. And this came to be codified by political law. Ultimately, the Middle Class kept both King and Lords in check, and the result was Democracy.

I don't think the founders viewed America as a "Christian Democracy". My goodness, the Constitution specifically prohibits a religious test for office holders. Article 6 Section 3.

Deists or Enlightenment Thinkers would emphasize freedom *from* Religion. Christian Dogmatists would emphasize freedom *for* Religion. Freedom for Religion necessarily involves Christian underpinnings that some would refer to as "Theocracy."

Calvin's ideas are not relevant.

I disagree. The union of Church and State outside of Catholicism is a form of Theocracy that applies to Constitutional thinking by Christian Dogmatists.

That's...not checks and balances. That's the idea of the freedom to practice religion as one sees fit. Or to not practice at all. You do know that the first people who came here from Europe were fleeing religious persecution, right?

My wife is English. I have to hang my head every Independence Day! Once again, I disagree with you. The concept of the separation of Church and State has become more doctrinaire as of late. It used to just refer to the separate compartments of rule by the State and by the Church.

They were indeed a "checks and balance" system used against one another. To say otherwise is pure ignorance of European history, and I don't think you're ignorant--I just think you come from a very different place than me.

I'm very much aware of how and why Jews have come to adopt a more liberal view of American law and practice. I'm very happy to see more conservative Jews, but the vast majority would assume the more liberal position to protect themselves against Christian oppression. Do you agree, or am I off the mark?

[IMINXTC]

John Calvin was a despised autocrat.
Why don't you be a witness for Christ and quit trying to run the world  - unless you don't understand the great commision?

[Fenris]

Can't agree. The philosophes of the Enlightenment took "Reason" far down the road and away from Christian dogmatism. While it is true that those who framed the American Constitution were largely Deists or accepting of them, to ignore the less political Christian leaders and movements in America at the time is to completely miss my point.

To pretend that they were trying to create a "Christian" state is to ignore facts. Which you seem quite capable of doing when you don't like them.

I see this "Compromise"

There was no compromise. The founders had a vision and enacted it. They had no desire to create a "Christian state" of any sort. They understood, as you apparently do not, that religion and government make a horrible mix.

The principles of popular representation are hardly new. The specific form of democracy enjoyed today are modern forms of the same. The King kept the Lords in check, and the Lords kept the King in check. And this came to be codified by political law. Ultimately, the Middle Class kept both King and Lords in check, and the result was Democracy.

And this has nothing to do with your contention that democracy is biblical.

Deists or Enlightenment Thinkers would emphasize freedom *from* Religion. Christian Dogmatists would emphasize freedom *for* Religion. Freedom for Religion necessarily involves Christian underpinnings that some would refer to as "Theocracy."

No, having the freedom to practice religion as one sees fit  is not "theocracy".

I disagree. The union of Church and State

There is no union of church and state. Have you ever heard of the First Amendment? It begins thus: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

My wife is English. I have to hang my head every Independence Day! Once again, I disagree with you. The concept of the separation of Church and State has become more doctrinaire as of late.

See the above. I don't know what you're talking about, but it isn't the on that we live in.

I'm very much aware of how and why Jews have come to adopt a more liberal view of American law and practice. I'm very happy to see more conservative Jews, but the vast majority would assume the more liberal position to protect themselves against Christian oppression. Do you agree, or am I off the mark?

I'm a life long political conservative and even I would adopt a liberal position to protect this country from Christian persecution.  See how easy it is to alienate your political allies with this nonsense talk of a Christian state?

[Athanasius]

Socrates wasn't my hero--Jesus was.

Peter Kreeft has a book called 'Socrates meets Jesus'. It's an interesting read if you're ever between books.

To form a specifically Christian democracy, or what I call a "theocracy," free speech has to have a social context, informed by the Law of God. If democracy doesn't begin with universal moral principles that are spelled out, if only generally, it produces chaos.

That's fine, just don't call it free speech when it isn't.

[RandyPNW]

To form a specifically Christian democracy, or what I call a "theocracy,"

Theocracy : a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

This is not the same as a democracy.

That is only one definition, or one that is pretty ambiguous--too general. When priests rule, the thought is that God rules by revelation to His leadership. Political leaders can also lead by divine revelation, eg King David. Therefore, any political system, including monarchies and democracies, can in effect be theocracies.

Anyway, that's how I'm using the term "theocracy." When God's Law becomes the basis of political rule, the nation is in my judgment a "theocracy."

Obviously, theocracies can be false theocracies or bad theocracies. For example, Islam is a false theocracy because it is based on a false religion, a false concept of God, and a false Law of God, though some of tat Law may be true.

And a bad theocracy would be like some corrupt Catholic nations in the past who led by using God's Law, rather than, ruling by divine revelation. The Law of God, then, became a tool of abuse, to retain political power, rather than to administer God's justice.