Change, or resistance: where is the line drawn?

[Justin (Wiccan)]

"But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (I Timothy 1:8-10)

Jefferson, there's quite a gap between the assertion that the law is good, and the assertion that Christians have the duty to impose that law as a criminal code. And as you well know, the "Mosaic Criminal Code" idea is only part of Christian Recon--some of them (such as Gary North) would keep a democratic form of government, but only Christians would have the vote. ("The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel." Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p. 87.)

Ancient Israel was called to go and build a nation. Where were Christians told to do this?

 

[Truppenzwei]

My honest reading - church and state should be separate. I agree with this, and to be honest - I think for all that we have a state religion over here, I honestly think that when I look at our government - church is more separated from state over here than it is in the US, where supposedly you have that separation written in to your laws.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

My honest reading - church and state should be separate. I agree with this, and to be honest - I think for all that we have a state religion over here, I honestly think that when I look at our government - church is more separated from state over here than it is in the US, where supposedly you have that separation written in to your laws.

I, too, see the wisdom of church-state separation, and oppose the concept of a state church ... but it's for different reasons than one might think. Look at history: every single attempt to create a "Christian government" or a "Christian state" has ended badly, for the state to be sure, but more importantly for Christendom. The biggest "black eyes" that the CHurch has ever received in history are those that it inflicted on itself by trying to be a government, or to impose its will upon the government.

I cannot be but persuaded--considering the history--that if Bob Enyart's story ever became true, it would be disastrous for America, and a complete and total travesty of Christianity.

Edited to add: At the same time, I cannot see any sense whatsoever in the hypersensitive anti-religious paranoia occasionally displayed by folks like the ACLU. There is absolutely no way that a Christian can be elected to office and expected to leave his faith at the door--nor should he (or she) ever be asked to do so. But at the same time, there is also no way that, if that elected official attempts to impose his will on the rights or freedoms of others that are guaranteed by law, such behavior should be tolerated.

It's a balancing act, to be sure ... and one that I'm fairly sure will never be completely "solved," though I feel that things are getting better.

 

[Truppenzwei]

I don't actually think having a state religion is that bad a thing - as long as it's governmental powers are limited.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I don't actually think having a state religion is that bad a thing - as long as it's governmental powers are limited.

I can--people who belong to it solely for the social acceptability, who go to Church on Sunday, then live "like the Devil" the rest of the week.

 

[GuySmiley]

OK, some of the folks here would like to impose some fairly radical change on the US Government. I've read Bob's "Day One," of course, and while he's quite enthusiastic about what changes should be made, he gives absolutely no hints about how the change would be started. For the depth and bredth of the changes Bob wants, the current US Constitution would have to no longer be in force. Anyone have any speculation about how this would be accomplished, without violating Rom 13?

More fundamentally, what is the specific line between working for change and "resisting the power?"

[Note to Mods: if this needs to be moved to Politics, cool--I started here because it deals in part with Bob's "Day One."]

Over the course of billions of years, random typographical errors will slowly change the constitution. Eventually, with enough errors the constitution will read so that it allows Bob's proposed system.

Or . . .

As TOL grows in popularity, the american masses will come here, learn the truth and become Christians. Of course the public would then demand constitutional ammendments which will allow the proposed system. All due to TOL!!

Edit: Sorry for this post in advance, Im in a mood.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Over the course of billions of years, random typographical errors will slowly change the constitution. Eventually, with enough errors the constitution will read so that it allows Bob's proposed system.

Or . . .

As TOL grows in popularity, the american masses will come here, learn the truth and become Christians. Of course the public would then demand constitutional ammendments which will allow the proposed system. All due to TOL!!

:rotfl: I'm gonna have to rep that post!

 

[Poly]

Over the course of billions of years, random typographical errors will slowly change the constitution. Eventually, with enough errors the constitution will read so that it allows Bob's proposed system.

Or . . .

As TOL grows in popularity, the american masses will come here, learn the truth and become Christians. Of course the public would then demand constitutional ammendments which will allow the proposed system. All due to TOL!!

Edit: Sorry for this post in advance, Im in a mood.

 

[Truppenzwei]

I can--people who belong to it solely for the social acceptability, who go to Church on Sunday, then live "like the Devil" the rest of the week.

Did I say church?

 

[Jefferson]

Jefferson, there's quite a gap between the assertion that the law is good, and the assertion that Christians have the duty to impose that law as a criminal code.

I'll highlight the pertinent words in the verse that make my point:

"But we know that the law IS (ie. present tense, for today) good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (I Timothy 1:8-10)"

So, you see, we Christians are commanded to use the Old Testament Law as long as we acknowledge that the Law is not for us but for the lawless, ungodly, etc.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

So, you see, we Christians are commanded to use the Old Testament Law as long as we acknowledge that the Law is not for us but for the lawless, ungodly, etc.

Ah, but wait a moment, Jefferson--where is the authority? Where are you told to make a government to "use" this law on us? It is the assertion that the law is good if used lawfully, but the unanswered question is thus: is it "lawful" to obtain political power?

There are further questions: what precisely are you going to do with the Christians if you ever gain political control: will they be under no law? And can it be established that the "law" that is referred to here the Mosaic Law?

 

[Jefferson]

Ah, but wait a moment, Jefferson--where is the authority?

In the U.S. Constitution. Any citizen of legal age can run for congress, the body which makes law.

Where are you told to make a government to "use" this law on us?

That goverment is already in place in the U.S. Biblical Law can be installed one law at a time under our system.

It is the assertion that the law is good if used lawfully, but the unanswered question is thus: is it "lawful" to obtain political power?

Our government says it is and we are under the laws of our government.

There are further questions: what precisely are you going to do with the Christians if you ever gain political control: will they be under no law?

The Bible says that even the king in a theocracy is under the law. When Christians follow the moral law of the Old Testament it is supposed to be out of love, not obedience. That's what it means when it says we are not "under the law." It doesn't mean we have God's okay to murder, rape, steal, etc. It also means we are not "under the law" for the purpose of salvation. A Christian can murder, rape, steal, etc., and still go to heaven, he just will have few, if any, rewards.

And can it be established that the "law" that is referred to here the Mosaic Law?

Yes. In context, the verses just preceding read: "Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and [of] a good conscience, and [of] faith unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. (I Tim. 1:5-7)

 

[Zakath]

In the U.S. Constitution. Any citizen of legal age can run for congress, the body which makes law.

Actually to sit in the House of Representatives, one must be at least 25 years of age and have been a citizen for at least seven years (Article 1, Sect. 2, Clause 2).

To sit in the Senate, one must be at least 30 years of age and have been a citizen for at least 9 years (Article 2, Sect. 3, Clause 3).

The President must be at least 35 years of age and have been a natural born citizen prior to his election (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5).

:readthis:

It's those pesky laws again...

 

[Jefferson]

That's what I meant Zakath; the legal age to be a congressman.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Actually to sit in the House of Representatives, one must be at least 25 years of age and have been a citizen for at least seven years (Article 1, Sect. 2, Clause 2).

To sit in the Senate, one must be at least 30 years of age and have been a citizen for at least 9 years (Article 2, Sect. 3, Clause 3).

The President must be at least 35 years of age and have been a natural born citizen prior to his election (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5).

:readthis:

It's those pesky laws again...

Pedant.

 

[Yorzhik]

I guess I'll jump in. Any country should be run on Christian principles. The reason is that any other way results in unnecessary death at worse and injustice in general at best.

The biblical principle is that God does not like injustice and unnecessary death. The only way to have a government that doesn't promote injustice and unnecessary death is to implement a Christian gov't system, and the only people that know how to do that is Christians.

However, there is one more thing - all people who know the right way to govern (as a complete package) will be Christians, but not all Christians will know the right way to govern. Non-Christians may get part of the system right (like Ayn Rand).

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I guess I'll jump in. Any country should be run on Christian principles. The reason is that any other way results in unnecessary death at worse and injustice in general at best.

The problem with that is historical examples--I don't think there has ever been an attempt to run a state by "Christian Standards" that didn't result in unnecessary death and injustice.

Perhaps that's because Christian Principles are much easier to implement on an individual level than on a state level. I'm still persuaded that the kind of changes needed to live as a Christian need to come from within: they cannot be imposed from without by force of law. Well, let me clarify that--they can be imposed, but not successfully, and such an "imposition by force" results in a sullen compliance, rather than joyful obedience.

Additionally, there's the problem of whose interpretation of "Christian Principles" should one use? Even on this forum, there are enough self-proclaimed Christians who cannot agree on what the Bible means to result in confusion and endless debate.

Maybe Thomas Jefferson had it right when he talked about that "wall of separation" in the letter to the Danbury Baptists.

 

[Jefferson]

I'm still persuaded that the kind of changes needed to live as a Christian need to come from within: they cannot be imposed from without by force of law. Well, let me clarify that--they can be imposed, but not successfully, and such an "imposition by force" results in a sullen compliance, rather than joyful obedience.

So you think we should get rid of our Biblical laws against rape since many wannabe rapists restain themselves with a sullen compliance rather than joyful obedience?

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

So you think we should get rid of our Biblical laws against rape since many wannabe rapists restain themselves with a sullen compliance rather than joyful obedience?

First and foremost, our laws against rape are not "Biblical," but secular.

Secondly, no I don't advocate getting rid of such laws--they serve a secular purpose.

See, I think that's the biggest problem with the logic--you act as if anything that agrees with your point of view must perforce be "Biblical," even if it clearly came from secular sources. Some of our laws are certainly informed by the Bible, but almost all of our current legal code is based on secular law--which, in turn, is based on the Constitution, which in its own turn is based on the Humanist values of folks like John Locke. (This is before Humanism was considered a "completely secular" philosophy.)

You may choose to concentrate on the Biblical "root" of our laws, but that is not the only root to that tree.

 

[Jefferson]

First and foremost, our laws against rape are not "Biblical," but secular.

Secondly, no I don't advocate getting rid of such laws--they serve a secular purpose.

See, I think that's the biggest problem with the logic--you act as if anything that agrees with your point of view must perforce be "Biblical," even if it clearly came from secular sources. Some of our laws are certainly informed by the Bible, but almost all of our current legal code is based on secular law--which, in turn, is based on the Constitution, which in its own turn is based on the Humanist values of folks like John Locke. (This is before Humanism was considered a "completely secular" philosophy.)

You may choose to concentrate on the Biblical "root" of our laws, but that is not the only root to that tree.

Whenever humanist governments have not (yet) overthrown a specific Bible based law that has existed in this country from the time of the puritans (complete with scripture verses encoded in the case laws) you can call those laws "humanist" if you want but that does not make them any less Biblical.

But that's beside the point. Lets take another example. How about perjury. Biblical law states that someone who brings a false accusation in a court of law should receive the same punishment that the accused would have received if found guilty. This would drastically cut down on the number of frivolous cases brought to court these days. But this would also mean there would be a much lesser need for such a large number of attorneys in this country which would mean a lot of attorneys would have to find other jobs.

Are you against such a law being "imposed" on the U.S. just because attorneys would not receive the law with "joyful obedience?"