McCulloch wrote:The United States of America fought a war against the King of England establishing the world's first secular nation. Included in the ideas behind that rebellion was the idea that no one should be taxed without representation in their government. The writers of the Bible taught obedience to the King and to pay taxes. In the next century, this same nation fought one of the bloodiest wars in their history to settle the issue of slavery. Bible believing churches were split, on either side of the issue. Now we all recognize slavery as an evil, but at the time, using the Bible, the issue could not be resolved.
HeavensGate wrote:I think you may confuse “secular� as meaning non-religious. You will find in the biographies of many of the founding Fathers that they were quite religious, in fact Christian. They certainly got it right though as no amount of coercion or political clout can make one iota to faith, and conversely, no amount of political coercion will compliment social morality for the good of that society.
The champions in the main part were in fact Christians that believed in Biblical principles. And Good men and women, regardless of belief, will attest to the basic principles of the Bible that all men are equal. I am not sure where you were going with this in relation to my original post. I do agree that the Church has succumbed at times to the romance of political power and hegemony, but in these cases you speak of it was nothing of the sort. There were many influence at platy over the whole sorry saga. Financial and political, religious?, this is questionable. You do not really see a policy of slavery in the bible, but you do see an amelioration of it throughout it. There are many hard facts about the use of slavery over time, indeed, we still have no seeming political indigence to solve the current problems of child, sex, and economic slavery that is crippling third world countries. If fact, if we really dig deep enough, there is much of a problem in New York as there is in Sydney.
Well, a few of the founding Fathers were quite religious. Others were not. However, Adams and Jefferson prevailed on them to try something that had not been tried before. That is to separate the functioning of the government from the influence of religion. That is the meaning of secular. They espoused enlightenment principles which are directly contradictory to the recorded teachings of Jesus including no taxation without representation and the right to rebel against an unjust ruler.
McCulloch wrote:Then early in the twentieth century, women finally won their long struggle to participate in the electoral process. The writers of the Bible teach that women are more easily deceived than men and should be subject to them.
HeavensGate wrote:This is simply not true. Another thread perhaps.
1 Timothy 2:9-15 wrote:Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
Paul, in finding support for his practice of not allowing a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, went to the example of Adam and Eve, indicating that this principle he believed was universal to all of humanity.
McCulloch wrote:The twenty-first century will see the biblical prejudice against same sex relationships overthrown from our legal systems.
HeavensGate wrote:I am prejudiced against your prejudiced statement above. I know the use of words can underpin and support your particular case, but the bible does not prejudice anything, and where it makes statements about human behaviour, it usually gives a reason why. Have you investigated those ‘reasons’?
The writers of the Bible seldom give reasons for prohibited activity, other than, "God does not like this" or "It is unclean or unnatural." Except perhaps for the example of the subjugation of women, that is because women are more easily deceived. What reasons are given by the biblical writers for opposing gay rights?
HeavensGate wrote:I am prejudiced against your prejudiced statement above. I know the use of words can underpin and support your particular case, but the bible does not prejudice anything, and where it makes statements about human behaviour, it usually gives a reason why. Have you investigated those ‘reasons’? I do find that the appeal to being in the 21st century a little wearying. We are no more modern that Adam, and as time pass by, a little less intelligent. The 21st century may just go down as the most failed generations in history. Don’t forget our precursors were the 20th century where the level of violence outstripped all recorded history.
This is factually wrong. Even including the genocides and the world wars, the odds that a person would be put to death deliberately by another person, whether as a result of war, criminal activity or execution, was lower than it had ever been in all of human history.
Pinker
McCulloch wrote:None of these issues would have been resolved the way that they were, if people used the principles taught in the Bible as their moral guide.
HeavensGate wrote:McCulloch, what then is the moral compass we should use? Is there such a guide? Is there truth at all?
Of course there is moral truth. Do you think that moral truth is something that God wrote down for you? Or maybe it is something we discover together, like all other important truths.
