theocracy? yes or no

[revelarts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ggnhLrnyPI


Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks to Frank Turek author of “I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist” about the collapse of the New Atheist movement; Richard Dawkins admitting that religion may be necessary for a flourishing society; the failure of atheism in providing a sense of purpose and meaning; what prominent atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris overlooked; how only religions like Christianity and Judaism can protect a society from the worst elements of radical Islam; the spreading of social justice and woke culture in America’s churches; the case for intelligent design as a part of the story of evolution; how morality always ends up being legislated; Jordan Peterson’s utilitarian view of religion; and much more.

[Gunny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ggnhLrnyPI


Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks to Frank Turek author of “I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist” about the collapse of the New Atheist movement; Richard Dawkins admitting that religion may be necessary for a flourishing society; the failure of atheism in providing a sense of purpose and meaning; what prominent atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris overlooked; how only religions like Christianity and Judaism can protect a society from the worst elements of radical Islam; the spreading of social justice and woke culture in America’s churches; the case for intelligent design as a part of the story of evolution; how morality always ends up being legislated; Jordan Peterson’s utilitarian view of religion; and much more.What does this have to with theocracy? People having religion and government run by religion are not the same things.

[revelarts]

What does this have to with theocracy? People having religion and government run by religion are not the same things.

bingo.

[Gunny]

bingo.I'm assuming somewhere between the video and the "bingo" there's a point?

[revelarts]

I'm assuming somewhere between the video and the "bingo" there's a point?
In another thread with similar topic.
You were accusing me of wanting theocracy.

Originally Posted by Gunny http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=1022003#post1022003)
"Not your objective? Then why pages of derailing this thread? Your objective which appears to be trying to convince yourself and everyone else your are right and yours is the way appears no better than those you cite as examples.

You want a theocracy based on YOUR religious beliefs. The Ayatollah has one of those. How's that worked for Iran?

When an idea is what's best for all and doesn't infringe on your right to believe what you want, being a naysayer just because you can does nothing positive for you nor anyone else."
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?78364-MASS-PSYCHOSIS-How-an-Entire-Population-Becomes-MENTALLY-ILL



the gentleman in the video is saying nearly exactly what I said in the other thread.
but here you clearly recognize the difference in theocracy and people living with an understanding of Christian principals creating THE BEST civil society & gov't.



Originally Posted by Gunnyhttp://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=1022003#post1022003)
"People having religion and government run by religion are not the same things."


Which I'm guessing that maybe you understood anyway,
Since you never answered my questions about specific religious policies I wanted the gov't to implement in this theocracy you accused me of wanting.


President John Adams summed it up this way
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

[Gunny]

In another thread with similar topic.
You were accusing me of wanting theocracy.

Originally Posted by Gunny http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=1022003#post1022003)
"Not your objective? Then why pages of derailing this thread? Your objective which appears to be trying to convince yourself and everyone else your are right and yours is the way appears no better than those you cite as examples.

You want a theocracy based on YOUR religious beliefs. The Ayatollah has one of those. How's that worked for Iran?

When an idea is what's best for all and doesn't infringe on your right to believe what you want, being a naysayer just because you can does nothing positive for you nor anyone else."
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?78364-MASS-PSYCHOSIS-How-an-Entire-Population-Becomes-MENTALLY-ILL



the gentleman in the video is saying nearly exactly what I said in the other thread.
but here you clearly recognize the difference in theocracy and people living with an understanding of Christian principals creating THE BEST civil society & gov't.


Originally Posted by Gunnyhttp://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=1022003#post1022003)
"People having religion and government run by religion are not the same things."


Which I'm guessing that maybe you understood anyway,
Since you never answered my questions about specific religious policies I wanted the gov't to implement in this theocracy you accused me of wanting.


President John Adams summed it up this way
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."


Cherry picking. I have ALWAYS understood the difference between theocracy and society that embraces and sets its standards based on religious morality. The latter will legislate according to personal and societal morality while the former uses a religion to legislate based on that religion. We no longer live in a society that will accept the latter.

At no point did you ask do I believe people are better off with God and/or do I believe society is better off with God. You have been too busy trying to cherry pick what I post to try and prove me wrong to discuss the issue objectively. The conversation began as nothing more than an exercise on how to create a better society within society, to the point that it ultimately replaces the weak and corrupt one. There's no being right or wrong.

I repeatedly made the distinction that one cannot use "God" as a selling point to the segment of society that has all the same morals and rules but refuses to accept where they come from, and can wordsmith a logical argument without God. Why alienate or throw out otherwise good, productive people because they choose to follow their own religion or not?

So you want a society with only those who recognize and will testify that Western societies' sense of right and wrong is Judeo-Christian? That is not only an exclusive society, but a monotheist one that recognizes the religion as law. That is by definition theocracy.

[revelarts]

Cherry picking. I have ALWAYS understood the difference between theocracy and society that embraces and sets its standards based on religious morality. The latter will legislate according to personal and societal morality while the former uses a religion to legislate based on that religion. We no longer live in a society that will accept the latter.

At no point did you ask do I believe people are better off with God and/or do I believe society is better off with God. You have been too busy trying to cherry pick what I post to try and prove me wrong to discuss the issue objectively. The conversation began as nothing more than an exercise on how to create a better society within society, to the point that it ultimately replaces the weak and corrupt one. There's no being right or wrong.

I repeatedly made the distinction that one cannot use "God" as a selling point to the segment of society that has all the same morals and rules but refuses to accept where they come from, and can wordsmith a logical argument without God. Why alienate or throw out otherwise good, productive people because they choose to follow their own religion or not?

So you want a society with only those who recognize and will testify that Western societies' sense of right and wrong is Judeo-Christian? That is not only an exclusive society, but a monotheist one that recognizes the religion as law. That is by definition theocracy.

"I repeatedly made the distinction that one cannot use "God" as a selling point to the segment of society that has all the same morals and rules but refuses to accept where they come from, and can wordsmith a logical argument without God. Why alienate or throw out otherwise good, productive people because they choose to follow their own religion or not? "

& I repeatedly made the distinction that you CAN NOT make/SELL most of the same morals without the God of the Bible.
I repeatedly asked you and FJ to do it but you never did.

What's the logical wordsmithed arguments against polygamy, homosexuality, and p0dos Gunny?
Why shouldn't someone steal or kill if it works for them, their family, neighborhood or city Gunny?

As you've pointed out, and we agree, not everyone has the same POV, religious or otherwise.

If you have (or can point to) the wordsmithed logical arguments to get society to align with what we both generally understand to be good morals for society, I'd be glad to embrace it with you.
But I'm not seeing that information coming from you. You just seem set on telling me NOT to be mention God or the Bible in a civil context, OR EVEN HISTORICAL context because "it wont work" or it alienates people, or worse it's "theocracy". (Theocracy when i say it, but not if a guy in a video says it somehow. :rolleyes:)

Funny thing is those that don't share our religious or moral views don't have a problem alienating us.
And telling us our views are wrong, hateful, outdated, and in some cases should even be outlawed to the point of the criminalizing even talking about them.
whether or not they are wordsmithed in or out of a religious framework.

[fj1200]

... and FJ to do it but you never did.

I believe I did.

[Kathianne]

It seems to me that the main issue against polygamy is that one or more partners are often not voluntarily participating in such unions. There's a real bit of slavery underlying it.

As for homosexuality, the health risks, both more recent and ancient are well documented and known. Then there is the small problem of procreation-MEN cannot be women.

Pedos-Honestly, if one doesn't understand the wrong, they should likely be castrated or shot.

[revelarts]

I believe I did.
link

[revelarts]

It seems to me that the main issue against polygamy is that one or more partners are often not voluntarily participating in such unions. There's a real bit of slavery underlying it.

Let's assume that people generally will agree that slavery is wrong and stays illegal... (even though it's been legal & common most of human history... UNTIL Christianity revealed it's problems and it was outlawed nearly world wide.)

But there are many people who don't think of polygamy as slavery at all. It's just a choice. most people that would argue for it's acceptance would not be asking for slavery but "freedom".



As for homosexuality, the health risks, both more recent and ancient are well documented and known. Then there is the small problem of procreation-MEN cannot be women.
Health risk are real but that's what Obamacare is for right?
And Aren't people free to take their own health risk? People Smoke, Drink, do recreational drugs, Base jumping as a hobby, Pick wild mushrooms, All are health risk.
Why should anyone regulate what risk some should take sexually?
Will you regulate people who heterosexually sleep around too? There's similar health risk there as well. PLUS the burden of "unwanted" children.



Pedos-Honestly, if one doesn't understand the wrong, they should likely be castrated or shot.
-- look I agree 100%--
but there have been those ... since the 1930s who've been trying to push that line in Europe and the US
the lawywer Alan Dershowitz has even said he wanted to lower the age of consent.
--In 1997, Dershowitz argued against statutory rape laws, saying the age of consent should be 15, Bruck reports. “There must be criminal sanctions against sex with very young children, but it is doubtful whether such sanctions should apply to teenagers above the age of puberty, since voluntary sex is so common in their age group,” he wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed.--
And that's just the outer edge. You've seen some to the ped0 books they've been putting into schools, picture books no less, and are saying they'll defend them to the end. taking children to sex shows and inviting convicted ped0s into schools to read to children in the libraries.

it's "freedom" Kath.
So Beyond your feelings what's the logical argument to keep them out?
Their feelings are just as passionate as yours. Why shouldn't every 1st grader understand any/every kind of sexual activity? "Experts say...."
In fact your boomer feelings are simply 'hateful' and 'phobic' in their minds.

[Kathianne]

Let's assume that people generally will agree that slavery is wrong and stays illegal... (even though it's been legal & common most of human history... UNTIL Christianity revealed it's problems and it was outlawed nearly world wide.)

But there are many people who don't think of polygamy as slavery at all. It's just a choice. most people that would argue for it's acceptance would not be asking for slavery but "freedom".


Health risk are real but that's what Obamacare is for right?
And Aren't people free to take their own health risk? People Smoke, Drink, do recreational drugs, Base jumping as a hobby, Pick wild mushrooms, All are health risk.
Why should anyone regulate what risk some should take sexually?
Will you regulate people who heterosexually sleep around too? There's similar health risk there as well. PLUS the burden of "unwanted" children.


-- look I agree 100%--
but there have been those ... since the 1930s who've been trying to push that line in Europe and the US
the lawywer Alan Dershowitz has even said he wanted to lower the age of consent.
--In 1997, Dershowitz argued against statutory rape laws, saying the age of consent should be 15, Bruck reports. “There must be criminal sanctions against sex with very young children, but it is doubtful whether such sanctions should apply to teenagers above the age of puberty, since voluntary sex is so common in their age group,” he wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed.--
And that's just the outer edge. You've seen some to the ped0 books they've been putting into schools, picture books no less, and are saying they'll defend them to the end. taking children to sex shows and inviting convicted ped0s into schools to read to children in the libraries.

it's "freedom" Kath.
So Beyond your feelings what's the logical argument to keep them out?
Their feelings are just as passionate as yours. Why shouldn't every 1st grader understand any/every kind of sexual activity? "Experts say...."
In fact your boomer feelings are simply 'hateful' and 'phobic' in their minds.

All of your counterarguments are applicable to those who wish to use against religious pleas also. Those that care, care. Those that don't, don't. For those that don't, religion is unlikely in their lexicons.

[revelarts]

All of your counterarguments are applicable to those who wish to use against religious pleas also. Those that care, care. Those that don't, don't. For those that don't, religion is unlikely in their lexicons.
you are correct.
The thing is many people who are not religious still see the value in the religious POV.
and literally have no strong counter to any of the "modern" arguments.

And NO Hard BASIS for not allowing ANYTHING to move forward.

Believe it or not many atheist/secularist like professor Jordan Peterson and others see the REAL history of the values we share. That the values did IN FACT come from Christian/Biblical ideals that were codified into western law and promoted in the culture as norms.
AND that these norms promote the MOST freedom and agree CLOSER to REALITY than the BS that's being promoted today.


And here's the thing, Christianity, at it's best, will go along anyone to do good. They don't have to be Christians.
Many atheist and people who don't care about religion are NOT necessarily PUT OFF by Christians standing up against a lot of this mess simply because they do it while wearing a Bible verse t-Shirt or wearing a collar. Pro-Life Atheist work with Religious pro-lifers. and we use all the same arguments PLUS religious reasons.
But if we don't show up and say so against all this other crap, what are we doing as Christians?

I suspect Many people are wondering where we are? Rather than feeling "alienated" by our religious talk.
And i'm sure some are far more disgusted to see many Churches going along with the perversions and insanity, as they are looking around for someone standing against it with them.

But bottom line, at this point, should we care much what people think?
God is real and he'll deal with people wherever they are. It's my understanding that Christians are supposed to tell the truth, with kindness. & Not worry so much about whether we're sure it will "work". That's His job. Do we have faith for that much? do we know better? The people that God touches will get it completely and come to Him. And along the way some few will just get the benefit of dodging/escaping some the modern crap because "religious" people and their allies took a minute to tell "the experts" they are wrong & need to stop.

[Kathianne]

you are correct.
The thing is many people who are not religious still see the value in the religious POV.
and literally have no strong counter to any of the "modern" arguments.

And NO Hard BASIS for not allowing ANYTHING to move forward.

Believe it or not many atheist/secularist like professor Jordan Peterson and others see the REAL history of the values we share. That the values did IN FACT come from Christian/Biblical ideals that were codified into western law and promoted in the culture as norms.
AND that these norms promote the MOST freedom and agree CLOSER to REALITY than the BS that's being promoted today.


And here's the thing, Christianity, at it's best, will go along anyone to do good. They don't have to be Christians.
Many atheist and people who don't care about religion are NOT necessarily PUT OFF by Christians standing up against a lot of this mess simply because they do it while wearing a Bible verse t-Shirt or wearing a collar. Pro-Life Atheist work with Religious pro-lifers. and we use all the same arguments PLUS religious reasons.
But if we don't show up and say so against all this other crap, what are we doing as Christians?

I suspect Many people are wondering where we are? Rather than feeling "alienated" by our religious talk.
And i'm sure some are far more disgusted to see many Churches going along with the perversions and insanity, as they are looking around for someone standing against it with them.

But bottom line, at this point, should we care much what people think?
God is real and he'll deal with people wherever they are. It's my understanding that Christians are supposed to tell the truth, with kindness. & Not worry so much about whether we're sure it will "work". That's His job. Do we have faith for that much? do we know better? The people that God touches will get it completely and come to Him. And along the way some few will just get the benefit of dodging/escaping some the modern crap because "religious" people took a minute to tell "the experts" they are wrong & need to stop.

I've no doubt that you are a good person, a good Christian. You have your beliefs and walk the walk, I respect that.

My nature and the faith I grew up with, inspired to live my faith, so that others might follow. I insist on respect for my beliefs, as I give to others in return. One doesn't have to agree with all, to treat others-that aren't harming you-with respect.

Thus, while I choose faith, I also know and respect many who believe or rather do not believe differently. I have friends that are not religious, yet they certainly live within the parameters of what I consider Christian, including believing in 'life.' They want only the best for their children, grandchildren, and country.

[revelarts]

I've no doubt that you are a good person, a good Christian. You have your beliefs and walk the walk, I respect that.

My nature and the faith I grew up with, inspired to live my faith, so that others might follow. I insist on respect for my beliefs, as I give to others in return. One doesn't have to agree with all, to treat others-that aren't harming you-with respect.

Thus, while I choose faith, I also know and respect many who believe or rather do not believe differently. I have friends that are not religious, yet they certainly live within the parameters of what I consider Christian, including believing in 'life.' They want only the best for their children, grandchildren, and country.

agreed, plenty of non christians are disgusted by the modern crap.
as i said
---And here's the thing, Christianity, at it's best, will go along anyone to do good. They don't have to be Christians.
Many atheist and people who don't care about religion are NOT necessarily PUT OFF by Christians standing up against a lot of this mess simply because they do it while wearing a Bible verse t-Shirt or wearing a collar. Pro-Life Atheist work with Religious pro-lifers. and we use all the same arguments [I]PLUS religious reasons.
But if we don't show up and say so against all this other crap, what are we doing as Christians?---


I know non-christians who are open minded enough NOT to be put off by my beliefs, just as I'm not by theirs.
They are not so sensitive that they can't stand to work with someone whose "religious".
Not long ago some non-christian folks in city council actually started quietly requesting the churches to step up and help in the schools.
As long as we're not acting like -Westboro church-. I don't think we need to be as afraid of offending people as is being made out here.

[Kathianne]

agreed, plenty of non christians are disgusted by the modern crap.
as i said
---And here's the thing, Christianity, at it's best, will go along anyone to do good. They don't have to be Christians.
Many atheist and people who don't care about religion are NOT necessarily PUT OFF by Christians standing up against a lot of this mess simply because they do it while wearing a Bible verse t-Shirt or wearing a collar. Pro-Life Atheist work with Religious pro-lifers. and we use all the same arguments [I]PLUS religious reasons.
But if we don't show up and say so against all this other crap, what are we doing as Christians?---


I know non-christians who are open minded enough NOT to be put off by my beliefs, just as I'm not by theirs.
They are not so sensitive that they can't stand to work with someone whose "religious".
Not long ago some non-christian folks in city council actually started quietly requesting the churches to step up and help in the schools.
As long as we're not acting like -Westboro church-. I don't think we need to be as afraid of offending people as is being made out here.

Maybe I'm misunderstand what you want? It sounds like we are in agreement, while I believed you were advocating a 'cultural' agreement or something like based upon 'Christian beliefs'? That we share values isn't surprising to me, regardless of some other differences. We both seem to be in agreement that many agree with our values, whether or not they agree with our beliefs.

[revelarts]

Maybe I'm misunderstand what you want? It sounds like we are in agreement, while I believed you were advocating a 'cultural' agreement or something like based upon 'Christian beliefs'? That we share values isn't surprising to me, regardless of some other differences. We both seem to be in agreement that many agree with our values, whether or not they agree with our beliefs.
right
I'm not saying that EVERYONE has to believe what i believe. What i'm saying is that non-christians have no real historical or philosophical basis to resist any of the woke crazies ideas.
Decent non-Christians POVs are based in the same FEELINGS that the woke folk's are.

Decent folks believe in the same morals as you or I but they just don't have foundation for it. Just "gut feeling", traditional upbringing plus some common sense.

I'm saying we should not be afraid to say what we believe and work with anyone who aligns with those beliefs.
And that saying what we believe and talking about the history of culture will at times strengthen our case ...and sometime might weaken it in a civic arena.
But that AS Christians we are told to say it no matter what. because it's not just "our religion" it's THE TRUTH. Reality.
it doesn't matter if others don't believe it.
the sun and stars aren't real because we can see them.
they'd still be real even if everyone was blind.

God's not subject to our belief, people will find out eventually.

[Gunny]

"I repeatedly made the distinction that one cannot use "God" as a selling point to the segment of society that has all the same morals and rules but refuses to accept where they come from, and can wordsmith a logical argument without God. Why alienate or throw out otherwise good, productive people because they choose to follow their own religion or not? "

& I repeatedly made the distinction that you CAN NOT make/SELL most of the same morals without the God of the Bible.
I repeatedly asked you and FJ to do it but you never did.

What's the logical wordsmithed arguments against polygamy, homosexuality, and p0dos Gunny?
Why shouldn't someone steal or kill if it works for them, their family, neighborhood or city Gunny?

As you've pointed out, and we agree, not everyone has the same POV, religious or otherwise.

If you have (or can point to) the wordsmithed logical arguments to get society to align with what we both generally understand to be good morals for society, I'd be glad to embrace it with you.
But I'm not seeing that information coming from you. You just seem set on telling me NOT to be mention God or the Bible in a civil context, OR EVEN HISTORICAL context because "it wont work" or it alienates people, or worse it's "theocracy". (Theocracy when i say it, but not if a guy in a video says it somehow. :rolleyes:)

Funny thing is those that don't share our religious or moral views don't have a problem alienating us.
And telling us our views are wrong, hateful, outdated, and in some cases should even be outlawed to the point of the criminalizing even talking about them.
whether or not they are wordsmithed in or out of a religious framework.

The discussions of where our morality comes from and what can we do to make current civilization better and dump the dead wood clinging to it are two, separate discussions. In the latter case, only that people agree on what is good/bad, right/wrong is necessary to move forward. Getting stuck at the gate arguing over why people believe in that morality gets nowhere but stuck at the gate.

The idea is move forward. We've already got a government that can't get anything done because of itself and quibbling over and keeping the people divided over contrived differences.

[Gunny]

linkIt's stated several times in the original thread.

[revelarts]

....

Pedos-Honestly, if one doesn't understand the wrong, they should likely be castrated or shot.



....
-- look I agree 100%--
but there have been those ... since the 1930s who've been trying to push that line in Europe and the US
the lawywer Alan Dershowitz has even said he wanted to lower the age of consent.
--In 1997, Dershowitz argued against statutory rape laws, saying the age of consent should be 15, Bruck reports. “There must be criminal sanctions against sex with very young children, but it is doubtful whether such sanctions should apply to teenagers above the age of puberty, since voluntary sex is so common in their age group,” he wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed.--
And that's just the outer edge. You've seen some to the ped0 books they've been putting into schools, picture books no less, and are saying they'll defend them to the end. taking children to sex shows and inviting convicted ped0s into schools to read to children in the libraries.

it's "freedom" Kath.
So Beyond your feelings what's the logical argument to keep them out?
Their feelings are just as passionate as yours. Why shouldn't every 1st grader understand any/every kind of sexual activity? "Experts say...."
In fact your boomer feelings are simply 'hateful' and 'phobic' in their minds.





https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFWyDVya0AAwq7x?format=jpg&name=small

[Black Diamond]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFWyDVya0AAwq7x?format=jpg&name=small

Guy belongs in a straight jacket.

[fj1200]

link

Back in the life, liberty, property, not legislating morality argument of yesteryear (as in last year).

[Gunny]

Guy belongs in a straight jacket.You are being too kind. People like this should be shipped to Gaza immediately to fill in the need for reinforcements in Hamas' lines.

[revelarts]

Back in the life, liberty, property, not legislating morality argument of yesteryear (as in last year).
still don't see a link but ok,

"life, liberty, property,"
By whose definitions?

Life?
Slaves weren't "life".
Embryos aren't "life".
In Germany "imbeciles" weren't "life"....

Liberty?
liberty to teach preschoolers about sex?
Liberty with all drugs?
Liberty to marry brother, sisters & animals ? ...

Property?
Same issue about definitions.

You seem to ASSUME most people agree on the definitions and morals of yesteryear... farther back than last year.

[fj1200]

still don't see a link but ok,

"life, liberty, property,"
By whose definitions?

Life?
Slaves weren't "life".
Embryos aren't "life".
In Germany "imbeciles" weren't "life"....

Liberty?
liberty to teach preschoolers about sex?
Liberty with all drugs?
Liberty to marry brother, sisters & animals ? ...

Property?
Same issue about definitions.

You seem to ASSUME most people agree on the definitions and morals of yesteryear... farther back than last year.

We already had the discussion; you didn't like my answer. Just don't tell me I haven't answered. And to the bold... highlights the base problem; not even Christians will agree on all of those things let alone the non-Christians agreeing if the morality of the Bible is your premise.

[revelarts]

We already had the discussion; you didn't like my answer. Just don't tell me I haven't answered.
OK Seriously,
Is YOUR PERSONAL VERSION of Life, Liberty, Property ...from last year your answer?
If so, no problem. Got it.
Just know, it's not well defined. And has no foundation... outside of the post Christian culture it sprung from.



And to the bold... highlights the base problem; not even Christians will agree on all of those things let alone the non-Christians agreeing if the morality of the Bible is your premise.

Most Christians will come a lot closer to the same definitions than they would without Christianity.
...especially IF they're the types that actually follow though on their beliefs in all areas of life including politics.
You know, like conservative follow though on promoting & defending ALL of the constitution they love -cough-

& many Non-Christians already agree with many of the ideals and principals even if they don't necessarily want to live up to them themselves. they respect Jesus and the teachings of the Bible.
Many People who Cheat on their spouse will still say it's wrong, and have a natural disgust for some sexual practices.
Many Drinkers & Drug addict will agree that it's BETTER NOT to over drink/drug. and don't want their kids doing it.
Many people kinda get the idea that if everyone followed the 10 commandments & the the golden rule FROM THE BIBLE the world would be better off not worse. (even though they don't like the idea of "religion".
& As i posted elsewhere even many atheist now admit they'd RATHER live in a nation where the ideals of Human equality and freedoms promoted by the BIBLE/Christianity are codified in LAW rather than in Muslim or WOKE versions of secular gov't..


The problem is that it some people hear that last part and think I'm talking about Making and FORCING NEW religious laws on people. and can't think strait to understand that What I'm really talking about Using the Websters dictionary of 1828 for definitions and generally going back the U.S. laws of 1970-1980 and of course the constitution (to clean up those laws even farther).

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/liberty

[fj1200]

OK Seriously,
Is YOUR PERSONAL VERSION of Life, Liberty, Property ...from last year your answer?
If so, no problem. Got it.
Just know, it's not well defined. And has no foundation... outside of the post Christian culture it sprung from.

Except for a Constitutional foundation that is.


Most Christians will come a lot closer to the same definitions than they would without Christianity.
...especially IF they're the types that actually follow though on their beliefs in all areas of life including politics.
You know, like conservative follow though on promoting & defending ALL of the constitution they love -cough-

& many Non-Christians already agree with many of the ideals and principals even if they don't necessarily want to live up to them themselves. they respect Jesus and the teachings of the Bible.
Many People who Cheat on their spouse will still say it's wrong, and have a natural disgust for some sexual practices.
Many Drinkers & Drug addict will agree that it's BETTER NOT to over drink/drug. and don't want their kids doing it.
Many people kinda get the idea that if everyone followed the 10 commandments & the the golden rule FROM THE BIBLE the world would be better off not worse. (even though they don't like the idea of "religion".
& As i posted elsewhere even many atheist now admit they'd RATHER live in a nation where the ideals of Human equality and freedoms promoted by the BIBLE/Christianity are codified in LAW rather than in Muslim or WOKE versions of secular gov't..

The problem is that it some people hear that last part and think I'm talking about Making and FORCING NEW religious laws on people. and can't think strait to understand that What I'm really talking about Using the Websters dictionary of 1828 for definitions and generally going back the U.S. laws of 1970-1980 and of course the constitution (to clean up those laws even farther).

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/liberty

I'm going to parrot Gunny here, you're kind of all over the place. Do I want laws with a biblical foundation? Maybe. It it great that atheists would like ideals based on the Bible/Christianity? Yes. Do I wish we had a society with a higher set of morality? Yes. Do I want to live in a theocracy? No. Can you mandate morality via definitions from 1828 and laws from 1970? No.

And FYI; your IF wasn't quite big enough up above. By orders of magnitude.

[revelarts]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/america-religion-decline-non-affiliated/677951/?trk=article-ssr-frontend-pulse_little-text-block

The True Cost Of The Churchgoing Bust
theatlantic.com
" As an agnostic, I have spent most of my life thinking about the decline of faith in America in mostly positive terms. Organized religion seemed, to me, beset by scandal and entangled in noxious politics. So, I thought, what is there really to mourn? Only in the past few years have I come around to a different view. Maybe religion, for all of its faults, works a bit like a retaining wall to hold back the destabilizing pressure of American hyper-individualism, which threatens to swell and spill over in its absence...."

(the rest is behind sign up page/paywall)
Aaaand also commented on in the video below



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJbzPyGjktg

[revelarts]

Just FYI

A Quick answer to the question, was the U.S. set up as a "Christian Nation".

https://rumble.com/v5bm991-was-the-us-founded-as-a-christian-nation-short-through-reply.html

One of the items mentioned:
the "prayer" at the end of the Declaration of Independence.
...WE, THEREFORE, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor....


others millage may vary.

BTW?
Did they Create a theocracy? Or Assume a Theocracy?
Since they publically appealed to the JUDGE of the World for help? AS representatives of the people of the U.S..

Did it HURT the efforts to mention God?

.....

Seems the 1st part of course makes it clear that the founders felt subject to God's laws in some form or fashion.

...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 man- kind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation....


theocracy?

[fj1200]

theocracy?

Which theocrat was established as the head of government? Which religious governing body is the final word? By which religious tenets are we to be governed? Where can I find a listing of the laws I need to follow? Please refer further to the founding documents for my reference.

[Kathianne]

It seems to me that rev is trying to argue that the religious references by some founders in founding documents and private writings establishes the actual establishment of government?

Contrarily I see that the founders for the main were religious/spiritual men, establishing a government that would be led by men they hoped would be likewise moral, by a secular rule government, based upon laws with limits by the instrument of establishment-The Constitution. By agreement from the Constitutional Convention, their first work of import was incorporating the Bill of Rights or the First Ten Amendments to the Constitution, which included the First-establishing the right to practice OR not one's religion and FORBIDDING the establishment of a state religion.

[revelarts]

Which theocrat was established as the head of government? Which religious governing body is the final word? By which religious tenets are we to be governed? Where can I find a listing of the laws I need to follow? Please refer further to the founding documents for my reference.
exactly.

It's not a theocracy.
And yet, the Founders -as representatives of the people- DID assume GOD as the foundational background for the rights & actions of everything they proposed. That he stood as Judge over "the world". The one who made Nature and natural Law they were appealing too.

So even when those who founded the U.S. called on God directly, in official documents for help, AND they point to God and the Bible for guiding fundamental principals that if strayed from will have negative consequences.

Somehow the U.S. is not a Theocracy.
wow, what a concept.

It's NOT promoting theocracy to promote the same thing TODAY. The assumption of God as judge & creator of the earth & all nature. That the biblical principals are STILL foundational to the IDEA of rights, & that if strayed from it will have negative consequences for the country.
That we should call on God for help as a nation.

It's not theocracy.

Even if it sounds like it to some folks, or rubs some the wrong way.

[revelarts]

It seems to me that rev is trying to argue that the religious references by some founders in founding documents and private writings establishes the actual establishment of government?
.

No, I'm not saying that.
I asked if it was.

My point from the beginning of the thread was that, calls for moves toward biblical morals, direct reference to God and even the Bible does NOT mean I'm calling for theocracy.

The Founders did all of that and we do not have a "theocracy".

What they created in this govt is one PATTERNED on a Christain Framework.
A Christian understanding of reality.
A Christain understanding about humans & human nature.
A Christian understanding of the source of and kinds of rights of men.

They did not include the details of Faith
But operated on the foundational structure.

And understood that operating on any other foundation would lead in negative directions.
However the door was left open to move wherever folks collectively wanted to go, in the light of the freedoms they understood to be the natural right that all humans have ... under God.

[fj1200]

exactly.

It's not a theocracy.
And yet, the Founders -as representatives of the people- DID assume GOD as the foundational background for the rights & actions of everything they proposed. That he stood as Judge over "the world". The one who made Nature and natural Law they were appealing too.

So even when those who founded the U.S. called on God directly, in official documents for help, AND they point to God and the Bible for guiding fundamental principals that if strayed from will have negative consequences.

Somehow the U.S. is not a Theocracy.
wow, what a concept.

It's NOT promoting theocracy to promote the same thing TODAY. The assumption of God as judge & creator of the earth & all nature. That the biblical principals are STILL foundational to the IDEA of rights, & that if strayed from it will have negative consequences for the country.
That we should call on God for help as a nation.

It's not theocracy.

Even if it sounds like it to some folks, or rubs some the wrong way.

Yeah, it's the best so far. I really have no idea which way you're trying to go or if you're trying to go a different direction than we've previously discussed but I don't think I can do better than what I posted a page ago.


Do I want laws with a biblical foundation? Maybe. It it great that atheists would like ideals based on the Bible/Christianity? Yes. Do I wish we had a society with a higher set of morality? Yes. Do I want to live in a theocracy? No. Can you mandate morality via definitions from 1828 and laws from 1970? No.

[Kathianne]

No, I'm not saying that.
I asked if it was.

My point from the beginning of the thread was that, calls for moves toward biblical morals, direct reference to God and even the Bible does NOT mean I'm calling for theocracy.

The Founders did all of that and we do not have a "theocracy".

What they created in this govt is one PATTERNED on a Christain Framework.
A Christian understanding of reality.
A Christain understanding about humans & human nature.
A Christian understanding of the source of and kinds of rights of men.

They did not include the details of Faith
But operated on the foundational structure.

And understood that operating on any other foundation would lead in negative directions.
However the door was left open to move wherever folks collectively wanted to go, in the light of the freedoms they understood to be the natural right that all humans have ... under God.

I think the rub, as it were, is that the 'under God' that you're looking at, has to be a personal decision, it cannot be forced or even earned. Like the basic tenet of our system, it's an individualistic choice. No force, no law.

[revelarts]

I think the rub, as it were, is that the 'under God' that you're looking at, has to be a personal decision, it cannot be forced or even earned. Like the basic tenet of our system, it's an individualistic choice. No force, no law.

It seems that people think that since I & others (including many founders) believe & ASSUME that everyone is in fact under God. Whether they choose to believe it or not.
That somehow I want to force others to believe it, and maybe even by law.

People don't have to believe the earth is round... or that water is wet.
But if we're going to live together in a decent & peaceful way, if we're going to act collectively in a decent & peaceful way. It's better if we coming from the same page, but people are free to believe what they want.
In general there are some knock on standards/reality most agree on, even if we don't agree on where they came from.


However if folks seriously promote OTHER views as foundational. Atheism, Atheistic/Communism, Agnostic/Capitalism, Buddhism, Islam, Scientism, Atheistic/Enlightenment, Soft Deism, fill in the blank Philosophy...
Anything other than a Christain framework You Do not have a background to talk about Human rights or even what a human is in the way most people understand it.

If God didn't create man. and man is another animal in an impersonal universe like a bacteria, then all "meaning" is just made up.
And all human actions are simply reactions, like balls on a pool table.

Folks don't have to think deeply about WHY they assume humans are valued, or why they think certain things are right or wrong.
But it's false to think that the constitution & bill of rights just sprang up out of several NON-religious ideas and can be sustained by a majority Non-religious - Anti-religious - differently religious people.

bottom line if people LIKE the constitution & Bill of Rights
and the idea that Morals are Real, that Right & Wrong do exist
that humans are valuable
that Humans have rights.
that everyone's rights are equal --rich poor male female, race, OR RELIGION etc.
that humans are more valuable than animals
that there are 2 genders
etc..

All of that & more that some folks take for granted, ONLY collectively grows out of the idea that everyone is under GOD.

But If folks do not want to believe that everyone is under GOD, of course that's their choice, but they've kicked out/ignored the foundation of the that list of concepts that flows from it.

So what I'm saying is that folks shouldn't assume those trying to promote the idea that everyone is in fact under GOD, are out to take their freedom of choice. Religious or otherwise.
It's the opposite.
It's grounding the realistic framework for the freedoms we all today assume we have.

the only people who should be very concerned about this POV are those who want to promote PURE anarchy.
Total freedom without ANY boundaries or laws.

the Christian framework promotes the MOST freedom under God's REAL WORLD fixed boundaries of Morals and the reality of fallen/flawed human nature.

[revelarts]

From someone's(not mine) twitter/x DM conversation.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GcBq7e4WgAEZ0gb?format=jpg&name=small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GcBq7e4X0AA7KDm?format=jpg&name=small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GcBq7fka8AAfAgY?format=jpg&name=small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GcBq7e4XYAAwKhR?format=jpg&name=small