quote:

---

It doesn't have to be my logic. I think Christ Himself made it pretty clear, didn't He?

---

Agreed. Christ never seemed to put much effort into advising Caesar on how to run his empire. Which is why I get so confused by Christians obsessed with politics.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are ignoring that for a great deal of that time period the church heavily influenced the government and even was the government. The separation between church and state was forced upon the church, not chosen by it.

---

Where does the term term "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution?

---

Separation of church and state was one of Locke's biggest principles. He was a Christian, of course. Thus, using k2's logic, separation of church and state is in fact a very Christian principle.

And of course, implemented in Rhode Island by that Puritan Christian Roger Williams:

Williams declared that the state could legitimately concern itself with matters of civil order only, but not of religious belief. He rejected any state attempt to enforce the "first Table" of the Ten Commandments, those initial commandments dealing with the relationship between God and individuals. Instead, Williams believed that the state must confine itself to the commandments which deal with the relations between people: murder, theft, adultery, lying, honoring parents, and so forth.
Williams considered any effort by the state either to dictate religion or to promote any particular religious idea or practice as forced worship. He declared, "Forced worship stinks in the nostrils of God."[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams#cite_note-21][21][/url] Indeed, Williams called Constantine a worse enemy to true Christianity than Nero, because the subsequent state support corrupted Christianity and led to the death of the Christian church. In the strongest language, Williams described the attempt to compel belief as "rape of the soul" and spoke of the "oceans of blood" shed as a result of trying to command conformity.[citation needed] The moral principles in the Scriptures ought to inform the civil magistrates, but Williams observed that well-ordered, just, and civil governments existed even where Christianity was not present. Thus, he knew that all governments had to maintain civil order and justice, and decided that none had a warrant to promote any religion.
Most of Williams's contemporaries and critics regarded his ideas as a prescription for chaos and anarchy. The vast majority believed that each nation must have its national church, and could require that dissenters conform. Rhode Island was so threatening to its neighbors that they tried for the next hundred years to extinguish the "lively experiment" in religious freedom that began in 1636.

---

Thanks for the Wiki cut and paste, but that didn't answer the question. I do agree with you though that separation of church and state is advantageous to Christians. I am a big fan of Roger Williams, many of whom my Baptist brethren consider the first American Baptist! Aggrad08 erroneously declared that separation of church and state was "forced upon the church". The unlicensed Puritan ministers breaking away from the Church of England wanted no part of a state endorsed church. Jefferson's promise of "separation of church and state" to the Danbury Baptists was welcomed with open arms!

quote:

---

quote:

---

It doesn't have to be my logic. I think Christ Himself made it pretty clear, didn't He?

---

Agreed. Christ never seemed to put much effort into advising Caesar on how to run his empire. Which is why I get so confused by Christians obsessed with politics.

---

Which explains why you made a B-line to your computer to post on TexAgs when the Connecticut State Supreme Court declared capital punishment unconstitutional?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It doesn't have to be my logic. I think Christ Himself made it pretty clear, didn't He?

---

Agreed. Christ never seemed to put much effort into advising Caesar on how to run his empire. Which is why I get so confused by Christians obsessed with politics.

---

Which explains why you made a B-line to your computer to post on TexAgs when the Connecticut State Supreme Court declared capital punishment unconstitutional?

---

Sorry, didn't realize sharing a news story is equivalent to being obsessed with politics. FYI, I didn't share it because of the politics involved. If I did, I would have shared it in the Politics cesspool. I shared it because I'm pro-life and thought it was a good thing that happened.

quote:

---

quote:

---

It doesn't have to be my logic. I think Christ Himself made it pretty clear, didn't He?

---

Agreed. Christ never seemed to put much effort into advising Caesar on how to run his empire. Which is why I get so confused by Christians obsessed with politics.

---

I'd say you're the most politically obsessed Christian on this board.
Los Alamos: We Have Become Death
Treating Immigrants Like Jesus
Politicized Christology in Christianized Politics: Constantinianism of Right & Left
4 Reasons Why God Doesn't Owe Any Land To Israel
Church to fly Christian flag over American flag
Collin County Residents Condemn Proposal For Muslim Cemetery
Christians and July 4th: Celebrate with Kingdom Lenses Not Americanized Ones
Gay Marriage is the Law of the Land- And God Isn't Going to Freak Out About It
Will Evangelicals Continue to Support Torture?
Connecticut Court Upholds Abolishing Death Penalty For Existing Death Row Inmates
Armed in America
Landmark Vatican conference rejects 'just war' theory
Morocco Declaration: Muslim Nations Should Protect Christians from Persecution
What does this say about our society?

D d d d d d d derail

Utter foolishness.

By that logic, Christ never argued on the internet, yet here we are.

quote:

---

Utter foolishness.

By that logic, Christ never argued on the internet, yet here we are.

---

Absolutely horrible analogy. There was government in Jesus' day. There was no internet.

quote:

---

Thanks for the Wiki cut and paste, but that didn't answer the question.

---

The exact phrase isn't in there, but the effect is in the establishment and free exercise clauses.

quote:

---

I do agree with you though that separation of church and state is advantageous to Christians. I am a big fan of Roger Williams, many of whom my Baptist brethren consider the first American Baptist! Aggrad08 erroneously declared that separation of church and state was "forced upon the church". The unlicensed Puritan ministers breaking away from the Church of England wanted no part of a state endorsed church. Jefferson's promise of "separation of church and state" to the Danbury Baptists was welcomed with open arms!

---

It was forced upon it. That many of the people supporting this were from other denominations doesn't change that. The churches in power didn't volunteer their power away. Yes the Danbury baptist were quite happy, they were afraid or persecution because they did not belong to the Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut. They, although christian, were the minority being protected here.

quote:

---

D d d d d d d derail

---

To get back on track, what does separation of church and state mean? Your example of the Church of England, would parliament calling for a synod go against the principle of separation? Or when Constantine called for the Council of Nicea? Was the church = government at that point by him simply calling for the synod?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It doesn't have to be my logic. I think Christ Himself made it pretty clear, didn't He?

---

Agreed. Christ never seemed to put much effort into advising Caesar on how to run his empire. Which is why I get so confused by Christians obsessed with politics.

---

I'd say you're the most politically obsessed Christian on this board.
Los Alamos: We Have Become Death
Treating Immigrants Like Jesus
Politicized Christology in Christianized Politics: Constantinianism of Right & Left
4 Reasons Why God Doesn't Owe Any Land To Israel
Church to fly Christian flag over American flag
Collin County Residents Condemn Proposal For Muslim Cemetery
Christians and July 4th: Celebrate with Kingdom Lenses Not Americanized Ones
Gay Marriage is the Law of the Land- And God Isn't Going to Freak Out About It
Will Evangelicals Continue to Support Torture?
Connecticut Court Upholds Abolishing Death Penalty For Existing Death Row Inmates
Armed in America
Landmark Vatican conference rejects 'just war' theory
Morocco Declaration: Muslim Nations Should Protect Christians from Persecution
What does this say about our society?

---

Yes, you've done this before, and as I mentioned last time, those are shared here because of the religious aspect to them, not so much the political aspect. Heck, just based off the titles alone, it is clear many are criticisms of church/state mingling. But, you are MQB. It doesn't matter what I say. You'll simply ignore it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It doesn't have to be my logic. I think Christ Himself made it pretty clear, didn't He?

---

Agreed. Christ never seemed to put much effort into advising Caesar on how to run his empire. Which is why I get so confused by Christians obsessed with politics.

---

Which explains why you made a B-line to your computer to post on TexAgs when the Connecticut State Supreme Court declared capital punishment unconstitutional?

---

Sorry, didn't realize sharing a news story is equivalent to being obsessed with politics. FYI, I didn't share it because of the politics involved. If I did, I would have shared it in the Politics cesspool. I shared it because I'm pro-life and thought it was a good thing that happened.

---

I do agree, life is a moral issue. As you stated that you posted it not because it involved legislation, I and other like-minded Christians, post things completely because it either supports our Biblical worldviews and thus we're pleased, or events that part of the counter-culture running contrary to God's will and thus we're disappointed. Sometimes legislation is involved, and sometime it's not. If laws are created, interpreted, or executed that support moral institutions ordained by God, I am all for them. I don't rely on them though, but do absolutely recognize that government was established by God and is necessary due to the rabid depravity of mankind.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Quote:Utter foolishness.

By that logic, Christ never argued on the internet, yet here we are.

---

Absolutely horrible analogy. There was government in Jesus' day. There was no internet.

---

You missed the point.

quote:

---

Forgive, I think you're overstating the amount of power the church (east or west) actually had.

---

I think the church has had enormous social and political power at times. Do you deny this? The RCC damn near ran Europe from the 1450s to the late 1600's.

quote:

---

Will it be the Church's fault in 500 years if society has decided to adopt the Church's position (unwavering and documented as such since ~100 AD) that abortion is evil? Will it be their fault that it took so long?

---

As far as I know, the church has held a pretty consistent view of abortion as being wrong. In modern times, the church is exceedingly well documented for its struggle against the acceptance of abortion and for its open position in favor of secular law prohibiting abortion. This hasn't been the case for gender equality. I'm open to the possibility that I may be historically ignorant. . . . but when has the church ever actively crusaded for women to have equal rights to marry who they want, own property, vote, hold office, have control over their own reproduction. Women, in most Christian denominations are still forbidden to hold position in the clergy. This blows my mind. Catholic Answers has this to say:

quote:

---

While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:116), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:1114), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:3438).

---

I don't mean to sidetrack this discussion toward women in the priesthood - its merely an example. The church has a long, and continuing, history of viewing woman as not being suitable for certain responsibilities, rights, or privileges. I hope no one will take this opportunity to lecture us all on how men and women are biologically different and that we are built for different tasks. I call Bull****. Can you honestly tell me that no woman alive today is qualified to be a priest or that no woman is better than the worst male ordained person? Because a person was born with a vagina, they are not suitable to 'teach or have authority over a man'?

quote:

---

You blame the Church for society's recalcitrance, when the move toward the good has clear roots in the Church.

---

To be clear on my position here - I believe that the church seeks power. I believe that since the beginning its goals have been power and control by using fear, sense of meaning and belonging, love, and any other feeling or psychological tool at its disposal to mask its self righteousness and greedy ambitions. TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR - this is how I feel about institutionalized religion, and not how I feel about Christians in general. Many of you here are fantastic human beings in my book.

Yes, many social trends have some beginning or aid within the church. But they aren't driven because the church has been crusading for thousands of years for racial and gender equality and fiiiiiiiinnnaaaaaly people are starting to listen. I feel like you are looking back at thousands of years of history and pointing to the couple guys who disagreed with the religious establishment and saying 'Look, we did this! This was all our idea! We had this idea thousands of years ago, but decided to hold back the idea until now.'

Your 1600 year old saints and priests may have been in favor of women having equal rights, but the church did not embrace their position until they saw a political and social movement that threatened their grip of power if they refused to jump on board. Can you imagine if the Chruch today still openly and blatantly opposed women having equal legal rights? Imagine all the revenue that they would be missing out on.

quote:

---

Yes, you've done this before, and as I mentioned last time, those are shared here because of the religious aspect to them, not so much the political aspect.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Quote:Utter foolishness.

By that logic, Christ never argued on the internet, yet here we are.

---

Absolutely horrible analogy. There was government in Jesus' day. There was no internet.

---

You missed the point.

---

No, your point is a bad one and was "supported" by an even worse analogy. Christ was focused on His kingdom and how His followers interact with this world. He never seemed to be too keen on advising the empires of this world on how to do their business. His focus was ushering in His kingdom, and that's not done by man's politics.

quote:

---

How about the church of England. Was that church free of earthly political influence? Was it the government, or was the government it? Or the Orthodox church in Russia...during the tsars, during communism, during the soviet era, today. Which is which? It gets confusing. Because the fact is the church cannot be the government, and when it begins to act as such (or when it is assumed, consumed, defaced to that end) it ceases to act as the Church. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

---

This is basically a no true scotsman statement. The reality is the church played it's fair share government. The relationship was often complex, but their influence was pretty significant in many areas and times. More than enough to effect the change we are talking about. Saying that when they started playing government they ceased being a church is disingenuous.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Thanks for the Wiki cut and paste, but that didn't answer the question.

---

The exact phrase isn't in there, but the effect is in the establishment and free exercise clauses.

quote:

---

I do agree with you though that separation of church and state is advantageous to Christians. I am a big fan of Roger Williams, many of whom my Baptist brethren consider the first American Baptist! Aggrad08 erroneously declared that separation of church and state was "forced upon the church". The unlicensed Puritan ministers breaking away from the Church of England wanted no part of a state endorsed church. Jefferson's promise of "separation of church and state" to the Danbury Baptists was welcomed with open arms!

---

It was forced upon it. That many of the people supporting this were from other denominations doesn't change that. The churches in power didn't volunteer their power away. Yes the Danbury baptist were quite happy, they were afraid or persecution because they did not belong to the Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut. They, although christian, were the minority being protected here.

---

Have you read any of the exchanges between the Danbury Baptist and Jefferson? It's quite evident that the wall of separation between Church and State is greatly beneficial to all who believed that the church is accountable to God alone in all ecclesiastical matters.

Gentlemen,


The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Quote:

quote:

---

Quote:

quote:

---

Quote:Quote:Utter foolishness.

By that logic, Christ never argued on the internet, yet here we are.

---

Absolutely horrible analogy. There was government in Jesus' day. There was no internet.

---

You missed the point.

---

No, your point is a bad one and was "supported" by an even worse analogy. Christ was focused on His kingdom and how His followers interact with this world. He never seemed to be too keen on advising the empires of this world on how to do their business. His focus was ushering in His kingdom, and that's not done by man's politics.

---

I was intentionally making a poor analogy to illustrate how poor your point was.

quote:

---

Here's a different challenge, then. If we don't want to credit the founding of this nation to Christian ideals, find me a document that gives a rationale for human freedom, the value of a human life, human equality without invoking divine providence, the divine image, or other Christian tenets. Find me a voice arguing for the principles of classical liberalism without using the Church, the Bible, or God.

---

Buddhism. Or at least buddhism if we consider their concept of Buddha as being distinguished from our concept of the divine or of God. I think most Buddhists would anyway. In either case, ideas of human freedom, value of human life, equality, etc. all very much pre-date Christianity.

quote:

---

The modern secularists want to claim this fruit as their own, when in reality they misappropriate it. Its as illogical as arguing for the benefits of eating apple pie while saying that apple trees are useless.

---

I agree 110%, and I would never say that Christian morality is useless. I would only object to a claim that human beings were incapable of love, compassion, empathy, and of valuing each other prior to the inventions of any of the thousands of gods or prior to the entering onto the scene of your particular God.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Quote:

quote:

---

Quote:

quote:

---

Quote:Quote:Utter foolishness.

By that logic, Christ never argued on the internet, yet here we are.

---

Absolutely horrible analogy. There was government in Jesus' day. There was no internet.

---

You missed the point.

---

No, your point is a bad one and was "supported" by an even worse analogy. Christ was focused on His kingdom and how His followers interact with this world. He never seemed to be too keen on advising the empires of this world on how to do their business. His focus was ushering in His kingdom, and that's not done by man's politics.

---

I was intentionally making a poor analogy to illustrate how poor your point was.

---

I'd disagree about my point being bad. Christ was focused on His kingdom, not man's. He was focused on His followers living out His kingdom here and now, not getting Caesar to change things from the top down. I think that's a good example to follow.

Your position just ignores all of the OT which is par the course for you, so carry on!

"Jesus is what God had to say".... except for all that other stuff he already said!

If you had the opportunity to speak with a judge regarding the death penalty, would you take it?

quote:

---

Your position just ignores all of the OT which is par the course for you, so carry on!

"Jesus is what God had to say".... except for all that other stuff he already said!

---

Start with Jesus and read everything through the lens of Christ. I look to the Word made flesh.

quote:

---

If you had the opportunity to speak with a judge regarding the death penalty, would you take it?

---

I'll speak to anyone about the inconsistency of the death penalty w/ my faith.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you had the opportunity to speak with a judge regarding the death penalty, would you take it?

---

I'll speak to anyone about the inconsistency of the death penalty w/ my faith.

---

Even Caesar?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you had the opportunity to speak with a judge regarding the death penalty, would you take it?

---

I'll speak to anyone about the inconsistency of the death penalty w/ my faith.

---

Even Caesar?

---

I'm not going into it trying to get the law changed. The law isn't the problem. It's the heart. My concern isn't changing laws, but w/ changing hearts. I think that was Christ's concern, so I try my best to mimic that.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Quote:Your position just ignores all of the OT which is par the course for you, so carry on!

"Jesus is what God had to say".... except for all that other stuff he already said!

---

Start with Jesus and read everything through the lens of Christ. I look to the Word made flesh.

---

And that is where you err.

He did not contradict what came before, but built upon it. Since the Word made flesh did not address everything within the rest of the Word, you have to take the rest of it at face value.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you had the opportunity to speak with a judge regarding the death penalty, would you take it?

---

I'll speak to anyone about the inconsistency of the death penalty w/ my faith.

---

Even Caesar?

---

I believe He's the exact representation of the nature of God. If I want to see what God looks like, I look to Jesus. I don't look to the partial images based on an extremely limited view of God's nature. Call that erring all you want. Doesn't really matter. I don't see all scripture as equal, and certainly give more weight to the red letters than the drastically limited pictures we see in the OT.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you had the opportunity to speak with a judge regarding the death penalty, would you take it?

---

I'll speak to anyone about the inconsistency of the death penalty w/ my faith.

---

Even Caesar?

---

I'm not going into it trying to get the law changed. The law isn't the problem. It's the heart. My concern isn't changing laws, but w/ changing hearts. I think that was Christ's concern, so I try my best to mimic that.

---

The Connecticut judges' hearts were not changed. Their ruling of the law was. So why the thumbs up on your thread?

quote:

---

I believe He's the exact representation of the nature of God. If I want to see what God looks like, I look to Jesus. I don't look to the partial images based on an extremely limited view of God's nature. Call that erring all you want. Doesn't really matter. I don't see all scripture as equal, and certainly give more weight to the red letters than the drastically limited pictures we see in the OT.

---

How do you feel about all the "so sayeth the Lord" passages? Maybe we should print those in red too.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you had the opportunity to speak with a judge regarding the death penalty, would you take it?

---

I'll speak to anyone about the inconsistency of the death penalty w/ my faith.

---

Even Caesar?

---

I'm not going into it trying to get the law changed. The law isn't the problem. It's the heart. My concern isn't changing laws, but w/ changing hearts. I think that was Christ's concern, so I try my best to mimic that.

---

The Connecticut judges' hearts were not changed. Their ruling of the law was. So why the thumbs up on your thread?

---

Because the result is still a positive. Fewer people will be killed by the state. I will always be glad about that.

Okay, this thread is serving as a great reminder of why I haven't been posting here much the past few days. Back to the MLB board for me. Go Rangers!

quote:

---

I believe He's the exact representation of the nature of God. If I want to see what God looks like, I look to Jesus. I don't look to the partial images based on an extremely limited view of God's nature. Call that erring all you want. Doesn't really matter. I don't see all scripture as equal, and certainly give more weight to the red letters than the drastically limited pictures we see in the OT.

---

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
-John 1:1


God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son of Man have existed together from before the foundation of the world. It's weird that as God decreed wrath (including capital punishment) throughout the generations, you'd think at some point Jesus would have gotten fed up told him to "knock it off".