• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Declaration of the Separation of the States of America

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
51
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
I believe the concept of Separation of Church and State was to prevent the Church from executing people for immorality as had been done in Europe and is now being done by the Muslims,

But clirus -- don't you want to execute people for immorality?

and to prevent the State from establishing morals as was done by the courts legalizing pornography, abortion and homosexuality.

But clirus -- isn't outlawing these things also establishing morals? Are you saying the state should do neither?

Both the Church and State are in the business of providing guidelines for people to live, so they will always be in agreement or in conflict.

The difference being that the state has a lot more muscle to actually enforce their guidelines.


Well, good thing we kicked him to the curb! We'd have to toss out the most important parts of the Constitution otherwise!

This means that not everything stated in the Bible should be made into law, but that the Bible should be bases for all Laws.

But that would mean we would need someone to tell us which parts of the Bible should be made into law.

Let me guess -- you nominate yourself, clirus?

This concept of Law is hated by Atheists because there evil cannot be made legal, and they have been very successful in legalizing pornography, abortion and homosexuality.

Which is precisely why your concept of law is untenable.

The Church and State can work together for the good of good people.

And for the detriment of you.

The Church should oppose sin/evil in obedience to God, and the State should oppose evil/sin because of health and economic reasons.

And so they do -- they just disagree with you about what sin/evil is.

Or, they realize (which you do not) that attempting to outlaw certain sins/evils would only result in the creation of even worse sins/evils -- realizing that, they prefer the lesser of the evils.

Consider the 18th Amendment, clirus -- it's precisely the sort of thing you're talking about, and it failed miserably.

Care to discuss why?

Evil is anything the Bible calls sin and physical reality shows lead to disease, death and destruction. The Bible is God's instructions on living a healthy lifestyle.

Is that all it is? I thought there more to it than that.

Adultery and homosexuality are examples of things that are evil/sin.

And attempting to quash them only leads to more evil/sin

Christians need to control the government, but not use the government. When Atheists get control of the government, they use the government to spread Atheism.

How does one control something without using it?
 
Upvote 0

TheNewWorldMan

phased plasma rifle in 40-watt range
Jan 2, 2007
9,362
849
✟36,275.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Christians need to control the government, but not use the government. When Atheists get control of the government, they use the government to spread Atheism.

But Clirus, how do you plan on getting rid of all of the Bad People®, if not by government? You gonna open up a bunch of Kool-Aid stands or something?
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

Moral frameworks are not merely established by institutions of religion, Clirus. They are the product of a vast and complex interaction between various social and cultural forces. To say that the State or the Church alone are in the business of 'establishing morals' is to discount from the equation the various other determinants at work of which the Church and State play a significant part.

Both the Church and State are in the business of providing guidelines for people to live, so they will always be in agreement or in conflict.

Then why isn't the Church condemning the Socialism occurring? Oh wait, I remember... because contrary to your claims, there is no proof that God has declared socialism evil.

The key point stated by Blackstone is that law was dictated by God himself, it is superior to all other law, and that no laws contrary to the laws dictated by God are valid.

You still face that immense contradiction in your ideology that is posed by the principle of 'whatever it takes', which by the nature of the principle, necessitates that individuals and the State must be prepared to abandon Civil Law and God's Law in doing 'whatever it takes' to achieve military victory.

This means that not everything stated in the Bible should be made into law, but that the Bible should be bases for all Laws.

And who has the authority to judge which statements in the Bible should be made into law and which shouldn't. You?

This concept of Law is hated by Atheists because there evil cannot be made legal, and they have been very successful in legalizing pornography, abortion and homosexuality.

No. The concept of the Rule of Law is hated by the principle of 'whatever it takes', since the Law can get in the way of doing 'whatever it takes'.

The Church and State can work together for the good of good people.

*sigh* Good people... you mean 'good people' in your opinion, which is based on your interpretation of the Bible, which has already been scrutinized for being immensely selective.

Evil is anything the Bible calls sin and physical reality shows lead to disease, death and destruction.

There are many things which the Bible does not mention as sin, either explicitly or implicitly, and yet which are considered evil none-the-less. For example, killing a young child who is apparently 'rude' and 'disobedient' even though they are not so much at fault if they have a severe case of ADHD or childhood bipolar disorder.

The Bible is God's instructions on living a healthy lifestyle.

The Bible, alone, does not give enough advice on how to live a healthy lifestyle in the physiological, psychological and social dimensions of health.

Christians need to control the government, but not use the government. When Atheists get control of the government, they use the government to spread Atheism.

How so? I challenge you to prove this.

Besides, if your ideology permeated government policy, I did think people would be more frightened of that ideology harnessing government to spread itself.
 
Upvote 0

clirus

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2004
3,208
106
✟3,900.00
Faith
Baptist
But Clirus, how do you plan on getting rid of all of the Bad People®, if not by government? You gonna open up a bunch of Kool-Aid stands or something?

The Atheistic Lifestyle has disease, death and destruction associated with it, thus there is no need to take any action to eliminate Atheists.
 
Upvote 0

clirus

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2004
3,208
106
✟3,900.00
Faith
Baptist
To Mithrandir Istar

clirus quote

Christians need to control the government, but not use the government. When Atheists get control of the government, they use the government to spread Atheism.

Mithrandir Istar quote

How so? I challenge you to prove this.

Response

However, after the November 2006 mid-term elections Democrats won a majority of the formerly Republican-controlled House,[citation needed] and in early 2007, Democrats re-introduced a bill in the House similar to the 2005 legislation.

Now repeat after me: I accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and commit to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

Domestic partnership in Oregon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On July 8, 2005, Oregon state senators approved legislation to allow same-sex civil unions. As originally written, Oregon Senate Bill 1000 would create civil unions and prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, public accommodations and public services.[2] The vote at the Oregon State Capitol in Salem was 19-10 in favor of the measure.

The Republican Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, Karen Minnis, announced that she would not let the bill be passed. On July 21, the House performed a series of moves where the bill was amended, removing most of its language and replacing it with different text (seen by some to be a "gut and stuff"[3] maneuver). The new text of Senate Bill 1000 no longer contained language about sexual orientation, prohibition of discrimination, nor civil unions. Instead, it reaffirmed the recent state constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage and proposed to create "reciprocal beneficiary agreements".[4] "Reciprocal beneficiaries" could be any two people prohibited by law from marrying each other, such as a "widowed mother and her unmarried son", and would not have the rights and obligations of married persons, specifically excluding employer-granted benefits such as health insurance or retirement benefits. Reciprocal beneficiaries would be granted inheritance rights, and the power to make medical or financial decisions if the reciprocal beneficiary was incapacitated.

The changes effectively killed momentum to pass the bill, which died in committee.

However, after the November 2006 mid-term elections Democrats won a majority of the formerly Republican-controlled House,[citation needed] and in early 2007, Democrats re-introduced a bill in the House similar to the 2005 legislation. The bill adopted the term "domestic partnership" to describe these unions; the terms "marriage" or "civil union" were absent. This bill enjoyed a relatively easy passage through the legislature, when compared to its 2005 predecessor. Passed by the House on April 17, 2007 (by a vote of 34-26) and by the Senate on May 2, 2007 (by a vote of 21-9), Governor Kulongoski signed the Oregon Family Fairness Act on May 9, 2007. The law was scheduled to take effect January 1, 2008, but was delayed by a preliminary injunction until after a hearing on February 1, 2008, where the injunction was lifted.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

And this demonstrates how Democrats spread Atheism... how? Atheism is a belief system that professes that there is no god(s). Where does this show the spread of that belief system?
 
Upvote 0

TheNewWorldMan

phased plasma rifle in 40-watt range
Jan 2, 2007
9,362
849
✟36,275.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The Atheistic Lifestyle has disease, death and destruction associated with it, thus there is no need to take any action to eliminate Atheists.

Wait a minute. I'm confused here. One constant theme of your posts is that Christianity is under siege, that atheists are massing, ready to wipe us poor Christians out, plotting and scheming.

Now you're saying that atheism will die out on its own and "there is no need to take any action to eliminate atheists?"

Can you get your story straight?
 
Reactions: Archaeopteryx
Upvote 0