John 18:36 : ' Should Religion Govern? '

[Masterblaster]

Hello..

JehovahsWitness said this...

"JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES believe our organisation to be a spiritual not a socio-environmental one and those that take the lead have no authority to issue directives , nor to police matters that are under the domain of personal conscience."

John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. "

(I doubt if this was ever said by the Jesus figure, except in scripture.)

This is the common consensus of todays quasi-Christian world. I know nothing of Islam. Judaism appears to govern, ..maybe not.

The history about this , is exhaustive.

Questions:
Is Christianity governing our Democracies?
Is this influence justifiable?
Is this influence inevitable and representative?
Should Christianity declare its political agenda ?
Would it get any votes as an autonomous political party.? I personally doubt it.

Is all this 'cloak and dagger'.why?

What is the crux of this issue?

[Masterblaster]

Hello

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Thomas Jefferson
(The Declaration of Independence)

-----
What was the great reveal of a self-evident truth?.
Did God give people the right to live freely and be happy...cannot remember him doing that in scripture. I don't remember him not doing it either.

My question is, ....why the plea to God for moral verification. This would read perfectly well as a secular text.

You have the right to live freely and happily in the U.S......at least then , secular law could pick up the blame for reneging on its promises. Is the U.S. safe? Are Americans happy?

Try getting God out of the mix and see how you get on...report back! This is a perfect example of a cosy cartel , between Church and State. Why would either ,rock the boat. The trouble with a marriage of convenience is that both sides loose integrity. The only integrity that remains is that both sides are trying to make the thing work. I have no fix for this except to witness it's happening

"
Countries in Europe were well-represented among those perceived as the most safe by all respondents. The United States did not make the top 10, instead coming in at No. 46 out of the 87 countries ranked."
https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/t ... tal-media/

Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom 1776

"We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact [Be it enacted by the General Assembly] that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

On the surface this looks like a declaration of secularism. I'm not so sure. It looks like a religious armistice, that is agreed upon, among the religious. It creates a level playing field for the competing Christian faiths of the time. Religion was central to all aspects of the evolving United States and religious refrains enlivened the political discourse both then and now. When I say religion ,I mean Christian doctrines of the various and wonderful.

I think that's right. It was not so much an armistice but an intent not to eliminate religion, because even the more religion -critical of the Founding Fathers were Deist at least, and some were quite religious, but they did not want government run by the Bible.

In Yurrup,there is not the divide between Church and State, but they find it better to run the government along secularist lines. As I said, they do not want the religions to tell them what to do. Apart from some Muslim countries (and not by any means all) this is the way Governments work - along secularist or humanist lines.

Hello

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Thomas Jefferson
(The Declaration of Independence)

-----
What was the great reveal of a self-evident truth?.
Did God give people the right to live freely and be happy...cannot remember him doing that in scripture. I don't remember him not doing it either.

My question is, ....why the plea to God for moral verification. This would read perfectly well as a secular text.

You have the right to live freely and happily in the U.S......at least then , secular law could pick up the blame for reneging on its promises. Is the U.S. safe? Are Americans happy?

Try getting God out of the mix and see how you get on...report back! This is a perfect example of a cosy cartel , between Church and State. Why would either ,rock the boat. The trouble with a marriage of convenience is that both sides loose integrity. The only integrity that remains is that both sides are trying to make the thing work. I have no fix for this except to witness it's happening
Thanks

The way I remeber it, it is answered by the Deist limitation. Though they did not believe in an intervening god, they did credit a creating one, because there was no other explanation.

This is why Darwin was suh a game -changer. He showed how it was possible to have this happen without a god.

Since then a hypothesis has been proposed for life from non -life (still theoretical) and the same with the brain, thinking and morals.Biology is near an explanation.

In short, the writers of the Constitution had no other explanation than a creator, so they used 'God' as the stopgap.According to Plato, Socrates did that when he ran out of answers, and they killed him for atheism. Nowadays we we can move beyond Deism, because of Darwin.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

That George III, was a real bad boy!

Look at the perverted ethical logic of these two statements from the Declaration of Independence

(1)He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

(2)He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

.......Which one are they using today for Border Control Policy Manifestoes, during an Election year?

The quasi-political-religous fudge often comes across as hogwash at feeding time.

Simple Question...what is a Bible loving, Gun wielding Maga Republican. ... can we blame Wuhan or are they 100%, home grown?

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello

That George III, was a real bad boy!

Look at the perverted ethical logic of these two statements from the Declaration of Independence

(1)He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

(2)He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

.......Which one are they using today for Border Control Policy Manifestoes, during an Election year?

The quasi-political-religous fudge often comes across as hogwash at feeding time.

Simple Question...what is a Bible loving, Gun wielding Maga Republican. ... can we blame Wuhan or are they 100%, home grown?

Drom what I read the problem was that after the war with France, which resulted in Canada as a British dominion Britain thought that N America should pay taxes to recover some of the expenses. The colonies were unwilling to do this unless represented in parliament. If this had been granted, there would probably not have been the war of independence. Though it might have happened because of US expansion into the native owned territories which Britain restricted.

As to the characteristic you referred to, that was there rather as a result of the civil war rather than anything from China.

[1213]

Then it seems to me that you should vote for the humanist ticket...

"Humanists" seems to be the biggest tyrants in the world.

The point of secularist administration is (as i hinted before) to stop administration along religious lines. Thus (as the US Constitution was supposed to do) politics is carried out without religious influence, even if the people running the place are religious.

I think secular administrations are the worst. For example now they seem to be arranging WW3.

[Masterblaster]

Hello 1213

You say - "I think secular administrations are the worst. For example now they seem to be arranging WW3."

You and TRANSPONDER appear to be 'joined at the hip',...it is very entertaining to observe. What you say is very true but it should come as no surprise. If you look at the whole thing, (Post 13), the ethics of it is based on resourcefulness and self interest, within conflict. Why would it change now?
Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Then it seems to me that you should vote for the humanist ticket...

"Humanists" seems to be the biggest tyrants in the world.

The point of secularist administration is (as i hinted before) to stop administration along religious lines. Thus (as the US Constitution was supposed to do) politics is carried out without religious influence, even if the people running the place are religious.

I think secular administrations are the worst. For example now they seem to be arranging WW3.

That is a bash of humanism without any validation that I can see. And at the moment the only ones at war or nearly are all heavily theistic nations, that happen to be dictatorships. The only one that is secularist (China) seems to be doing its' best to stay out of an actual war.

I think your problem is that you repeat Rightwing religious propaganda, rather than see the situation as it really is.

[1213]

That is a bash of humanism without any validation that I can see. And at the moment the only ones at war or nearly are all heavily theistic nations, that happen to be dictatorships. The only one that is secularist (China) seems to be doing its' best to stay out of an actual war.

By what I see, China is at war with it's own people who seems to live in prison like state, with the insane social credit system. But maybe you think that a society that must held everyone in tight control is a paradise on earth? Trudeau the tyrant and many of his ilk seems to admire the basic dictatorship of China. But maybe they are not real humanists.

Maybe it is true that no western politician is a real humanist. That could explain why they are directing world to WW3. But, I don't see how you can say that Russia, Ukraine and Nato countries are heavily theistic. Unless you think they worship Satan with their actions.

[TRANSPONDER]

That is a bash of humanism without any validation that I can see. And at the moment the only ones at war or nearly are all heavily theistic nations, that happen to be dictatorships. The only one that is secularist (China) seems to be doing its' best to stay out of an actual war.

By what I see, China is at war with it's own people who seems to live in prison like state, with the insane social credit system. But maybe you think that a society that must held everyone in tight control is a paradise on earth? Trudeau the tyrant and many of his ilk seems to admire the basic dictatorship of China. But maybe they are not real humanists.

Maybe it is true that no western politician is a real humanist. That could explain why they are directing world to WW3. But, I don't see how you can say that Russia, Ukraine and Nato countries are heavily theistic. Unless you think they worship Satan with their actions.

'Maybe you think' is the old muck - slinging by insinuation.

I'll tell you what I think. Dictatorships are bad and not what humanism is about. Atheists (as has been noted) tend to swing liberal, sometimes just when they deconvert, because with religion come the temptation to rightist religion and religious dictatorships, from Galtieri to Saddam, and from Putin to Iran, and if you don't recognise that, you have nothing to add to the discussion but religious propaganda.

True, China is treating its' own people badly, but it's leaving religion alone, so long as it plays ball. Your political idea is apparently that it is the democratic West that is rushing to WW3. That is so far from the actuality and merely parroting Rightwing religious propaganda that you really have nothing to add of value to the discussion.

I don't see how you can point to any Nato, European or Western country and say they are not theistic. Either Christianity is entwined in their culture and the thinking in their governments, or it is not. You shift the goalposts in a very obvious way to make the get out 'heavily theistic'. Both Russia and Ukraine are Orthodox and Putin has his Ex KGB buddies running the Orthodox church to keep it in line with dictatorship and warlike aggression. You can look at Iran for 'heavily theistic'.

The US is imbued with a very Christian culture but (unless a Republican like Reagan or Bush gets in) it tends to be run on secular rather than Rightwing Religious political lines. I need hardly point up the present support of the Republican party for Warlike Dictators and their aggression, threatening the war you spoke of, whereas US support would nip this conflict before it gets to the Polish border and would avoid that world war and China would think again.

But all you can do is fume about Trudeau, who plays almost no part in any of this. because he is a hate icon for the Religious Right to which I can guess you belong.

[1213]

...Atheists (as has been noted) tend to swing liberal...

Everyone swings liberal, when it is about their own rights. But, most people, when they get liberty and power, became instantly anti liberal towards ideas they don't like. By what I see, atheists are not different in that from most of the people. On the contrary, they seem to have stronger tendency for totalitarianism, maybe because fear can influence them more.

True, China is treating its' own people badly, but it's leaving religion alone, so long as it plays ball.

By what I know, "they’re closing churches, jailing pastors – and even rewriting scripture".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... tion-bible

Also:
Who are the Uyghurs and why is China being accused of genocide?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037

I don't see how you can point to any Nato, European or Western country and say they are not theistic. Either Christianity is entwined in their culture and the thinking in their governments, or it is not. You shift the goalposts in a very obvious way to make the get out 'heavily theistic'. Both Russia and Ukraine are Orthodox and Putin has his Ex KGB buddies running the Orthodox church to keep it in line with dictatorship and warlike aggression.

It is interesting that you think western countries are religious. Atheists often tell me that they are not, when they try to show that secular countries are good. Russia may be Orthodox, but how can you say Ukraine is? Didn't they just ban the whole religion?

"Ukrainian parliament votes to ban Orthodox Church over alleged links with Russia"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... ith-russia

But all you can do is fume about Trudeau, who plays almost no part in any of this. because he is a hate icon for the Religious Right to which I can guess you belong.

I think right and left are just different sides of socialism (=communism), I think I am above that evil doctrine.