Political Systems/society And The Church

[Justified Saint]

Reconstructionist types?


And one can look to this world without sacrificing the next. We are called to be stewards of creation, not self-resigned nihilists who say "to hell with it all" like a lot fundamentalists do.

[kujo]

[quote name='Budge' post='1298604' date='Jun 19 2007, 06:42 PM']When church and state become totally emeshed, there is no more accountablitiy.

For a truly free society, the church should not merely be an ARM of the state.

or vice versa.

Theocracies always fail.

Dominionists look to this world and ITS POWER.

It is interesting how RECONSTRUSTIONIST TYPES AND CATHOLICS look more to THIS WORLD, then the real kingdom of Jesus Christ.

"MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD"

Does that ring a bell?

I think that one is in the catholic BIble too.[/quote]

While I would agree that theocracies are certainly undesirable, I don't think it's fair to assume that a government which is guided by basic morality--"thou shalt not kill" for instance-- will become an "arm" of the Church. I believe in democracy, a system which says that we have can make [i]choices[/i]; however, I think that it is the job of the government to restrict activities that are morally-detrimental to society. Abortion, pornography and euthanasia come to mind.

As for your usual attack on the Catholic Church, pish-posh, Budge. I've realized that the reason you are so angry all the time is because your spirit is rebelling within you while you spew-out your incomplete, intellectually-arrested theology. Come back home, my sister.

Edited June 20, 2007 by kujo

[Groo the Wanderer]

Dunno what the Church should function in. Prolly a non hereditary monarchy..

I DO know what system we have in the world today, by and large. Seems to me to not be democracy, oligarchy, or thocracy. Everywhere I look seems to be evidence that we live in an idiocracy....


tired...going to bed now.

[kujo]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1298823' date='Jun 20 2007, 02:29 AM']Dunno what the Church should function in. Prolly a non hereditary monarchy..

I DO know what system we have in the world today, by and large. Seems to me to not be democracy, oligarchy, or thocracy. Everywhere I look seems to be evidence that we live in an idiocracy....
tired...going to bed now.[/quote]

While I appreciate your humor, it doesn't really add to the debate as a whole.

[Budge]

A Christian should be working on preaching the gospel, letting the Holy Spirit change hearts not giving in to the temptation to use theocracies which are always corrupt, and force of law to FORCE "good" behavior.

[Budge]

A Christian should be working on preaching the gospel, letting the Holy Spirit change hearts not giving in to the temptation to use theocracies which are always corrupt, and force of law to FORCE "moral" behavior.

[kujo]

[quote name='Budge' post='1298868' date='Jun 20 2007, 10:20 AM']A Christian should be working on preaching the gospel, letting the Holy Spirit change hearts not giving in to the temptation to use theocracies which are always corrupt, and force of law to FORCE "moral" behavior.[/quote]

Again, Budge, no one is advocating for a theocracy. But are you trying to say that politicians shouldn't be guided by the Holy Spirit as well?

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Budge' post='1298604' date='Jun 19 2007, 05:42 PM']When church and state become totally emeshed, there is no more accountablitiy.

For a truly free society, the church should not merely be an ARM of the state.

or vice versa.

Theocracies always fail.

Dominionists look to this world and ITS POWER.

It is interesting how RECONSTRUSTIONIST TYPES AND CATHOLICS look more to THIS WORLD, then the real kingdom of Jesus Christ.

"MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD"

Does that ring a bell?

I think that one is in the catholic BIble too.[/quote]

The problem with your rhetoric is that it is all or nothing. The church and the state can work cooperatively without "totally emesh"ing themselves together.

I don't think theocracies are viable, but I would point out that Israel was a theocracy then a theocratic monarchy.

If you feel hurt by Republicans, then stop voting Republican. Don't make ridiculous statements.

[GodChaser]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1298823' date='Jun 20 2007, 12:29 AM']Dunno what the Church should function in. Prolly a non hereditary monarchy..

I DO know what system we have in the world today, by and large. Seems to me to not be democracy, oligarchy, or thocracy. Everywhere I look seems to be evidence that we live in an idiocracy....
tired...going to bed now.[/quote]

I've watched that movie as well.

It was hilarious as all heck. I loved it. But it is kinda unrealistic, it will about 5 years before we see stuff like that!

[GodChaser]

[quote name='kujo' post='1298886' date='Jun 20 2007, 08:50 AM']Again, Budge, no one is advocating for a theocracy. But are you trying to say that politicians shouldn't be guided by the Holy Spirit as well?[/quote]
I have to agree with budge there Kujo. Our Politicians aren't lead by the holy spirit, but a spirit of something very, very dark.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1298927' date='Jun 20 2007, 11:20 AM']I have to agree with budge there Kujo. Our Politicians aren't lead by the holy spirit, but a spirit of something very, very dark.[/quote]

I think the point is that if we were to work to improve the government, politicians could be guided by the Holy Spirit. Nobody thinks that all (or even the majority of) American politicians are willfully guided by the Holy Spirit.

[kujo]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1298927' date='Jun 20 2007, 12:20 PM']I have to agree with budge there Kujo. Our Politicians aren't lead by the holy spirit, but a spirit of something very, very dark.[/quote]

I think it's pretty sanctimonious of you or Budge or anyone else to presume to judge the hearts and intentions of EVERY politician in our country.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Budge' post='1298604' date='Jun 19 2007, 05:42 PM']"MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD"

Does that ring a bell?

I think that one is in the catholic BIble too.[/quote]
Are we not called to build God's kingdom on earth? I seem to remember that some where... "Thy will be done [b]on earth[/b] as it is in heaven." Is there no kingdom of heaven on earth?

Do you disagree with [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/567.htm"]this[/url]?
[quote]567 [b]The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ[/b]. "This kingdom shone out before men in the word, in the works and in the presence of Christ" (LG 5). The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Its keys are entrusted to Peter.[/quote]

What about the last line of [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/782.htm"]this paragraph[/url]?
[quote]782 The People of God is marked by characteristics that clearly distinguish it from all other religious, ethnic, political, or cultural groups found in history:
[clipped]-Its destiny, finally, "is the Kingdom of God which has been [b]begun by God himself on earth[/b] and which must be further extended until it has been brought to perfection by him at the end of time."[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1298868' date='Jun 20 2007, 08:20 AM']A Christian should be working on preaching the gospel, letting the Holy Spirit change hearts not giving in to the temptation to use theocracies which are always corrupt, and force of law to FORCE "moral" behavior.[/quote]

Yeah, whenever anyone suggests that abortion should be outlawed or even restricted, that any prayer or religious display be allowed in public, or that homosexual "marriages" or "civil unions" should not be legally recognized by the state, or that homosexuality/transexuality should not be taught to public school children, etc., the secularist liberals start screeching about the dangers of "theocracy."

And whenever anyone suggests that civil law should in any way reflect basic morality, rather than oppose it, Budge predictably chimes in babbling about "Dominionism," and spouting off inane conspiracy theories.

But it is rather touching to see the Bible-thumping Budge joined in such cozy unity with the militant atheists, radical secularist liberals, and "gay-rights" activists on this matter.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1298581' date='Jun 19 2007, 04:04 PM']The one America had for some time....when the Constitution was still adhered to.[/quote]
You mean back when abortion was a crime, not a "right," when the states enforced anti-sodomy laws, when obscenity and pornography were not considered protected "free speech," and when the Ten Commandments could be posted in courtrooms and public school classrooms without some Federal judge ordering them hauled away?

Edited June 21, 2007 by Socrates

[journeyman]

I never thought I'd see the day . . . but (at least on this page,) I'm with Budge

Just reflecting on the American experience, where to be a "full" citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you had to be a Puritan; and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, you had to be an Anglican; I wouldn't want to go back in history and live in a place where I would be persecuted by the rest of the population because they don't think I'm a person because of my beliefs

Law making started out as "life and death" morality . . . thou shalt not kill is a shared moral belief, for which there is little or no objection from persons of any faith background, or none at all . . . thou shalt not steal . . . same deal

When any group uses the force of the state to make others conform to something that is not the equivalent of a life or death threat common to all . . . realizing that the force of law aka the power of the state is wielding a power of life and death . . . that's coercion . . . coerced behavior is involuntary . . . and at least in the Judeo/Christian environment, immoral

[Socrates]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1299168' date='Jun 20 2007, 09:35 PM']I never thought I'd see the day . . . but (at least on this page,) I'm with Budge

Just reflecting on the American experience, where to be a "full" citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you had to be a Puritan; and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, you had to be an Anglican; I wouldn't want to go back in history and live in a place where I would be persecuted by the rest of the population because they don't think I'm a person because of my beliefs

Law making started out as "life and death" morality . . . thou shalt not kill is a shared moral belief, for which there is little or no objection from persons of any faith background, or none at all . . . thou shalt not steal . . . same deal

When any group uses the force of the state to make others conform to something that is not the equivalent of a life or death threat common to all . . . realizing that the force of law aka the power of the state is wielding a power of life and death . . . that's coercion . . . coerced behavior is involuntary . . . and at least in the Judeo/Christian environment, immoral[/quote]
Perhaps you might care to explain specifically what proposals you see as currently threatening the institution of "theocracy" in America.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1299168' date='Jun 20 2007, 10:35 PM']Law making started out as "life and death" morality . . . thou shalt not kill is a shared moral belief, for which there is little or no objection from persons of any faith background, or none at all . . . thou shalt not steal . . . same deal[/quote]
Little or no objection? You do realize there is an abortion debate going on? Because I see abortion as murder and believe the government should protect the innocent life of the unborn, does that mean I want to setup a theocracy? Did Bush setup a theocracy by vetoing an embryonic stem cell research bill twice?

Ditto for stealing. There are large arguments going on as to what is theft. Do a search on just about any copyright or patent case.

The truth is we do legislate morality. That's no question. The question is whose morality will be backed by law. [url="http://www.amazon.com/Legislating-Morality-Wise-Legal-Possible/dp/0764222287"]Here is a great book on the issue[/url].

I don't believe in establishing a theocracy, but I also don't believe any intersection of faith and government is a theocracy.

[quote]When any group uses the force of the state to make others conform to something that is not the equivalent of a life or death threat common to all . . . realizing that the force of law aka the power of the state is wielding a power of life and death . . . that's coercion . . . coerced behavior is involuntary . . . and at least in the Judeo/Christian environment, immoral[/quote]
History does not support this.

[Socrates]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1299168' date='Jun 20 2007, 09:35 PM']I never thought I'd see the day . . . but (at least on this page,) I'm with Budge

Just reflecting on the American experience, where to be a "full" citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you had to be a Puritan; and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, you had to be an Anglican; I wouldn't want to go back in history and live in a place where I would be persecuted by the rest of the population because they don't think I'm a person because of my beliefs[/quote]
I am not aware of any modern-day attempts in America to bring back official state religions (and the bit about people not of the state religion not being considered "persons" is bunk, anyway).

[quote]Law making started out as "life and death" morality . . . thou shalt not kill is a shared moral belief, for which there is little or no objection from persons of any faith background, or none at all . . . thou shalt not steal . . . same deal

When any group uses the force of the state to make others conform to something that is not the equivalent of a life or death threat common to all . . . realizing that the force of law aka the power of the state is wielding a power of life and death . . . that's coercion . . . coerced behavior is involuntary . . . and at least in the Judeo/Christian environment, immoral[/quote]
Several major problems with your statements here.

You seem to almost be implying that law should simply reflect unanimous popular opinion.

As Kamiller pointed out, "thou shalt not kill" is far from unquestioned today, either by the law or by the people's opinion, as the legalization of abortion and the controversy surrounding it proves. And many people are also now ok with human euthanasia.
There are very few actual "shared moral beliefs" which no one questions.
And are you implying that if, say, a majority of people decided that stealing was ok, then it should no longer be against the law?

And the enforcement of [i]all law[/i] involves "coercion," and there are many laws which do not involve a "life and death threat."
Should we abolish traffic/parking laws, building codes, all taxes, poaching and trespassing laws, etc.? After all, these all involve "coercion" and obeying them may go against the wills of many.
Interestingly, most liberals who scream at any restrictions on behaviors regarded as immoral, have no problem with such laws and regulations, and often want more of them than many of us conservative so-called "theocrats" do.

[Budge]

With you there.

One bad thing about the Catholic church is its fornication with kings as warned of in Revelation...

Diplomatic corps, UN promotion, involvement in every governmental agency, visits from every world dicator from Chavez to formerly Arafat...theres a problem there.

As for the hearts and minds of politicians

Actually the town mayor and council members are probably ok people with good intentions, but higher up you go the deeper the corruption. I really believe that to get high up in politics, means a certain degree of selling out and connections to moneyed and other interests...sad to say but that is the reality of the world today.

[quote]
Do you disagree with this?
QUOTE
567 The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ. "This kingdom shone out before men in the word, in the works and in the presence of Christ" (LG 5). The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Its keys are entrusted to Peter.

[/quote]The second coming has not happened yet.

The millenial kingdom is not yet here.

This is more of the distortions of amillenialism.

[quote]
What about the last line of this paragraph?
QUOTE
782 The People of God is marked by characteristics that clearly distinguish it from all other religious, ethnic, political, or cultural groups found in history:
[clipped]-Its destiny, finally, "is the Kingdom of God which has been begun by God himself on earth and which must be further extended until it has been brought to perfection by him at the end of time."[/quote]

When was every tear dried?

to think THIS is the millenial kingdom, this world full of war, evil and moral decade, you folks are sadly mistaken.
[quote]

Yeah, whenever anyone suggests that abortion should be outlawed or even restricted, that any prayer or religious display be allowed in public, or that homosexual "marriages" or "civil unions" should not be legally recognized by the state, or that homosexuality/transexuality should not be taught to public school children, etc., the secularist liberals start screeching about the dangers of "theocracy."[/quote]Actually are you naive enough to think outlawing abortion is actually going to STOP it?

I used to be a UU, and UUs are of course hooked into the feminist world, they already have the abortion underground set up. It is far easier to induce an abortion now, you dont even need medical training any more. They dont need to go back to the days of the wirehangers anymore.

Also most gays are not interested in marriage or even hetero notions of "monogamy" The few cases where they have fought for marriage has had more to do with financial matters. If you think that a theocracy or more RULES and regulations is going to STOP homosexual people from having sex, youre dreaming.
[quote]
And whenever anyone suggests that civil law should in any way reflect basic morality, rather than oppose it, Budge predictably chimes in babbling about "Dominionism," and spouting off inane conspiracy theories.[/quote]

Civil law that is accountable not run by a church to independent and free Christian people actually is far more moral.

Some here almost seem to dream of a theocratic Fascist state to take sin out of the world.


[quote]
But it is rather touching to see the Bible-thumping Budge joined in such cozy unity with the militant atheists, radical secularist liberals, and "gay-rights" activists on this matter. dry.gif
[/quote]Actually they are far less likely to convert to Jesus CHrist when they see all these fascist theocratic supporters running around who want to FORCE them to be good via sending them to jail. I am not talking about matters of violent crime or protecting the weak from strong, but those who want to change the world to be Christian not through the gospel and change of hearts but via force of law. They think Christians are more about power and control rather then about Jesus Christ. Another way that the Catholic Church has led more people to reject the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
[quote]
You mean back when abortion was a crime, not a "right," when the states enforced anti-sodomy laws, when obscenity and pornography were not considered protected "free speech," and when the Ten Commandments could be posted in courtrooms and public school classrooms without some Federal judge ordering them hauled away?[/quote]

So did those laws STOP abortions or homosexuality? Was Prohibition a success? I think there is a place for laws like that, but when a Christian thinks law is going to solve all the worlds problems and that the govt and courts can remake the world for God, there is a BIG TIME PROBLEM.

Your imagined Theocracy, would cancel free speech, would bring back inquisitions, would bring back torture {oops thats already happened}
[quote]

When any group uses the force of the state to make others conform to something that is not the equivalent of a life or death threat common to all . . . realizing that the force of law aka the power of the state is wielding a power of life and death . . . that's coercion . . . coerced behavior is involuntary . . . and at least in the Judeo/Christian environment, immoral

[/quote]Im with you there.

Im glad to have someone agree with me for once.


Abortion should be illegal in that it is protecting weak from the strong and could save a few lives, but to think that govt is going to do away with abortion totally considering where abortion technology is now, where you can just take a pill [and there are other methods] youre being hopeless naive to think the force of law could end abortion.

[quote]
I don't believe in establishing a theocracy, but I also don't believe any intersection of faith and government is a theocracy.[/quote]

Churches are to remain seperate from the state, when they intertwine they become totally compriomised, and I say this of all the Protestant and evangelicals who signed up.

I will have nothing to do with a chuch that takes state money for its charities or services for instance, because of all the rules, I posted on this a long time ago, faith based intiatives was going to make even prolestyzation of those being served illegal. That is the sort of stuff I am talking about.

[quote]You seem to almost be implying that law should simply reflect unanimous popular opinion.[/quote]

well when most of America was protestant Christian it did and it reflected Christian values.

Considering YOUR church is the one that promotes multicultualism, and the values of other religions and cultures, it is interesting how you see their being intertwined with govt as a good thing.

As for you being "conservative" Socrates, I dont think so...

conservative used to mean smaller government.