Originally posted by Halitose [b]Do you see the ramifications of one man in a room and how in fact that's exactly why we need politics and religion is a personal thing?
I agree with you that religion should be a personal matter. However, with Christianity there is a special time of worship and fellowship with other believers which form an integral p ...[text shortened]... stigmatised) in a respecful and amicable manner is by no means overstepping personal boundaries.[/b]
good, we have more in agreement.
It's when religion enters into politics that the church and state conflict is, as its an attempt to put everyman in the same room.
Which has been established here 2 or more men in a room gives rise to politics.
Originally posted by frogstomp good, we have more in agreement.
It's when religion enters into politics that the church and state conflict is, as its an attempt to put everyman in the same room.
Which has been established here 2 or more men in a room gives rise to politics.
Sure. Although I agree with you that the Church and the State should be seperate entities, they should both be under God. By that I mean the state should not submit itself to a certain religion, but should itself uphold the basic moral ethic while administering justice.
Originally posted by Halitose Sure. Although I agree with you that the Church and the State should be seperate entities, they should both be under God. By that I mean the state should not submit itself to a certain religion, but should itself uphold the basic moral ethic while administering justice.
Sounds good to me, but I don't really understand the "be under God" part. When you say what you mean by it, God doesn't come into the picture (which in my opinion is as it should be). Maybe I missed something there.
Originally posted by Halitose Sure. Although I agree with you that the Church and the State should be seperate entities, they should both be under God. By that I mean the state should not submit itself to a certain religion, but should itself uphold the basic moral ethic while administering justice.
The only question remains: which basic moral ethic should be upheld when the state administers justice?
Originally posted by Halitose Ah. Some examples: The right to life. The right to a fair trial. Equality before the law. Respect of property not your own. All that jazz.
You'd be surprised that these are all biblical principles.
So when Leviticus lays down the law regulating the keeping of slaves how does that equate to equality before the law?
Originally posted by Halitose Ah. Some examples: The right to life. The right to a fair trial. Equality before the law. Respect of property not your own. All that jazz.
You'd be surprised that these are all biblical principles.
what's truely is suprising about the bible is the difference between Christ's word and the god in the old testament.
The same things were part of the code of Hammurabi.
Originally posted by Halitose Ah. Some examples: The right to life. The right to a fair trial. Equality before the law. Respect of property not your own. All that jazz.
You'd be surprised that these are all biblical principles.
So, if I wanted to research tort law, where should I look in the Bible? Thanks in advance.
Originally posted by frogstomp what's truely is suprising about the bible is the difference between Christ's word and the god in the old testament.
The same things were part of the code of Hammurabi.
Originally posted by Halitose They tried that in the USSR; I concede that it was in a less radical way than you are proposing, but it just didn't seem to work. I contend that as long as you have one human in a room there is the posibility of religion in its widests sense. So long as there are humans on this planet, there will be religion.
I think first you have politics then the power dudes decide which
religion to stuff down your maw.
Don't poke fun at the foibles of the church
20 Sep '05 17:24
Back to Top