How Should We Separate Church and State

[Paidiske]

Seems to me - the Christian attitude is supposed to be - butt out of other peoples business and allow THEM to take care of themselves according to their own abilities.

On what do you base the idea that this is the Christian attitude?

Why is their wealth, or lack there of, their education level, their elected rural living, their children, their right to vote for their own reasons, ANY of your business?

Because we're a society and we're supposed to look after one another in society?

 

[mukk_in]

Religion IS separated from US Government's control -
Religion IS NOT separated from the People.

God Bless,
SBC

Thanks .

 

[Radagast]

Or are you one of those "college educated people" qualified to DECIDE "their problems", and "their solutions to the problems you have decided ARE their problems"?

I didn't say anything about "solutions." But the death rates for this demographic are well-known. This is also the demographic that has the most obstacles in sending their kids to college. It's also no secret that they are stereotyped with names like "redneck." I didn't think those were controversial facts.

The assertion that I was making was that, if you are going to analyse society in terms of power, then this group have substantially less power than the rich and the college-educated. I invite you to argue the contrary, if you disagree.

Seems to me - the Christian attitude is supposed to be - butt out of other peoples business and allow THEM to take care of themselves according to their own abilities.

The Christian attitude? Have you got, like, a verse for that?

 

[Radagast]

I didn't say anything about "solutions."

Although if I was going to, I'd probably mention job creation in rural areas through increased infrastructure spending.

 

[SBC]

I suspect we are coming at this question with totally different experiences colouring our approach.

I was born under the apartheid regime in South Africa. And the way I see it, it's not that the people who protested apartheid (and contributed to its eventual fall) were just standing against apartheid; they were standing for a particular vision of society which honoured the value and dignity of every single person in that society.

I suspect that almost every stand "against" something could be viewed, from a different point of view, as standing "for" something else, because these are matters of a clash of cultural values.

So I don't think we need to seek to make sure we never stand "against" anything. I think we need to make sure we stand "for" the right things.

Scripture teaches the focus is to STAND FOR , and the default is STANDING AGAINST and is not highlighted as a focus.

The observation is plainly seen -
anyone STANDING FOR something that DOES NOT infringe on another abates the deflection to "side line" instigation.

When STANDING AGAINST "is" the focus - there is always deflection to "side line" instigation. And the "against" becomes personal and deflected from the CAUSE, to mud slinging that THEN the mud slinging become the issue.

they were standing for a particular vision of society which honoured the value and dignity of every single person in that society.

My point precisely.

It is the same with Faith - a man can Stand WITH God, and that be the highlighted focus, and by default "without focus and highlighting", he Stands Against that which is Against God.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

I didn't say anything about "solutions." But the death rates for this demographic are well-known. This is also the demographic that has the most obstacles in sending their kids to college. It's also no secret that they are stereotyped with names like "redneck." I didn't think those were controversial facts.

You didn't have to mention solutions. You listed "their" problems.
You have decided for example, one of their problems is lack of education, particularly a college education.

Don't you think, a solution would be to find a way to "college educated" these dimwits?
Wouldn't they then be void of the "educational" problem you have identified?

My point is - Isn't that choice of feeling a "college education" would be to their benefit,
"THEIR" choice, not yours?
My point is - IF that is a concern OF "theirs" - Isn't that their choice to do something about it?

The assertion that I was making was that, if you are going to analyse society in terms of power, then this group have substantially less power than the rich and the college-educated.

Fallacy.

I invite you to argue the contrary, if you disagree.

First of all, people are the make-up of a society.
And nothing requires everyone within that society to be CLONE of what another person decides and dictates the WAY others should be, must be....in order to be "acceptable".

IOW - an individual has the right to decide HOW to live his own life.
The "dictation" or otherwise the LIMITS set on ANY individual is per the LAW.
And the basic law is take care of yourself, while not infringing on others.

Anyone can be perfectly content with living where they want, making do with what they have, tending to their own business......

Or they can NOT be content, and chase work, move to another location, go to college, get degree's, climb a corporate ladder, chase that dollar, and then dictate others must do the same and IF they don't....well, well, they are a society outcast?

Point being why is it your business, what another is content with? That you need to analyze them?

The Christian attitude? Have you got, like, a verse for that?

Sure - Choices are per the individual. The Choice IS the individuals, NOT one deciding for another what the one thinks is "acceptable".

Deut 11
[26] Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
[27] A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God,
[28] And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God

God Bless,
SBC

 

[Paidiske]

Sure - Choices are per the individual. The Choice IS the individuals, NOT one deciding for another what the one thinks is "acceptable".

Deut 11
[26] Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
[27] A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God,
[28] And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God

I suspect you'll find that the "you" in these verses is plural; and the choice is communal rather than individualistic.

 

[SBC]

On what do you base the idea that this is the Christian attitude?

God provides us with LIBERTY to choose our path. The Christian attitude should be to honor and butt out of what another chooses, that DOES not infringe on another.

Because we're a society and we're supposed to look after one another in society?

Look out for? What does that mean to you? Decide who is acceptable and who is not? And if you analyze them and determine they ARE NOT acceptable, butt in and show them HOW to do what you think IS acceptable?

Because I believe looking after another is more to the point of opening your ears, and listening to an other, who ASKS for a helping hand. NOT barging in and deciding an other WANTS your help, and then you decide "they" have somehow ASKED "ALL" of society to meet ALL of their needs.

If someone has asked YOU for a helping hand - WHAT is stopping you? And what does THAT have to do with me or anyone else?

I am asked all the time to give a helping hand to others. And I am glad to help them. And what does that have to do with YOU or anyone else or the whole of society? Nothing!

God Bless,
SBC

 

[Paidiske]

Look out for? What does that mean to you? Decide who is acceptable and who is not? And if you analyze them and determine they ARE NOT acceptable, butt in and show them HOW to do what you think IS acceptable?

Because I believe looking after another is more to the point of opening your ears, and listening to an other, who ASKS for a helping hand. NOT barging in and deciding an other WANTS your help, and then you decide "they" have somehow ASKED "ALL" of society to meet ALL of their needs.

If someone has asked YOU for a helping hand - WHAT is stopping you? And what does THAT have to do with me or anyone else?

I am asked all the time to give a helping hand to others. And I am glad to help them. And what does that have to do with YOU or anyone else or the whole of society? Nothing!

I now have no idea what you're talking about.

Looking out for others in a society, to my mind, means things like universal government health care and education.

It's got nothing to do with acceptability and I have no idea where that came from.

But the thing is, some things are too big to be done by individuals. I can't provide health care for someone on my own the way our society providing a hospital can. I can't provide an education for someone the way our society providing a school can. Having a society which has these basic structures open to everybody is part of what I see as the basic social contract; we live as a society, we look after one another.

 

[SBC]

I suspect you'll find that the "you" in these verses is plural; and the choice is communal rather than individualistic.

Yes a WHOLE group who INDIVIDUALLY agreed to be obedient.

Ex 19

1. [8] And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[rjs330]

How much do we allow, though? Don't you believe it goes too far --and beyond "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression" --when groups are allowed to form and granted permission to protest in public while they are carrying guns and chanting things like "Blood and soil...." and "Jews will not replace us"? How is that not terrorism?

Or thing like "pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon!" From a BLM March. Freedom of speech covers the most hated speech as well as the nice speech. That's why we have the first amendment. The bad speech is why it was written so the government can't decide what people can say. That's why we have counter protests and blogs and Twitter and anywhere else where we as a people can say "those guys are absolutely wrong.". They share their opinion and I share mine. If they threaten you directly that's different because that is against the law. But blanket statements with no direct threat is protected. And should be as much as I abhor the statement.

 

[mkgal1]

they were standing for a particular vision of society which honoured the value and dignity of every single person in that society.

My point precisely.

It is the same with Faith - a man can Stand WITH God, and that be the highlighted focus, and by default "without focus and highlighting", he Stands Against that which is Against God.

I'm confused how that's your point precisely....because you seemed to be arguing against it. There are often two sides when a person "makes a stand for something"--and it's typically in the perception of others whether it's a "negative" or "positive" stance. We can't manage the perceptions of others.

Also....there are times when a person has to get specific and communicate more precisely (to borrow your word) in order to make their point more clear. By saying things like (to use a less emotionally-charged phrase) "I'm not going to cause inconveniences to many other people by waiting for one person....so please be on time for the meeting tomorrow" a person could be described at "hating tardiness" but also "loving/appreciating punctuality" (depending on their perception). Dr Henry Cloud has a whole chapter about that in his book, 9 Things You Simply Must Do...titled "principle 6: hate well" (as a side-note).

What's interesting is you seem to be flipping from one side to the other. At first you posted this (in response to my OP):

Why? What does that accomplish, but to keep a continuous focus on HATE ?
Where is that taught in Scripture?

but then posted this:

I am not sure why you feel compelled to speak AGAINST "hatred and bigotry".

Hatred means a strong dislike.
Bigotry means intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

I am not opposed to having a strong dislike of something.
Nor am I opposed to not tolerating opinions of others I don't agree with.

Even though I was mentioning a specific circumstance---what happened in Charlottesville, VA.

Using vague terms like "I stand with God" just doesn't get clear enough in a lot of situations (because, as we mentioned earlier.....each person's ideology forms their theology). A lot of these White Supremacists/Neo Nazis claim they *are* "standing with God" (and the KKK has been a self-proclaimed "christian" group often using the Bible to support their behavior). So ambiguous terms and vague phrases aren't useful, in my opinion (unless a person is trying to use that ambiguity to masquerade their agenda and cause confusion and doubt).

 

[mkgal1]

What is happening here IS - a thread was opened TO STAND AGAINST something. And that STANDING was perpetuated BY a cleric, and the purpose of this thread was to FIND how many agreed with the cleric.

As soon as SOMEONE did not jump on board - the ones WHO agreed with the cleric - began attacking the ones who DID NOT JUMP on board.

The INTENT of this thread was to get people to STAND AGAINST, the white race, by Christians Bashing them, and ANYONE who does not join in, becomes ALSO attacked.

You don't even SEE, the crux, is Christians promoting;
the black race IS too poor, too uneducated, too powerless, too intimidated, too ignorant to take care of a nuisance, JUST as any other person afforded the same rights to do so.

So WHERE are the Christians proposed SOLUTIONS for these poor, too uneducated, too powerless, too intimidated, too ignorant to take care of a nuisance?

Oh, ya right - hold court in the public platform - declare those white men terrorists and what? Send them to Gitmo? Because that is where terrorists are housed. And for what? Because they were a nuisance to other people?

Excuses are old and worn out.

How about the FACTS for a change - WHAT DID these people DO to alleviate a nuisance?

No...that's not what the intent of this thread has ever been (I don't know how you think you can know the intentions of another person, anyway). Also.....no one is attacking anyone (so far). Some callous words have been written about others though. Like this:

Oh good grief -

without power -
impoverished -
rural -
white -
without college degrees -
suffer death
their children suffer educational disadvantages
their children suffer employment disadvantages

subject to bigotry
subject to college educated people
vilified by names, they call themselves

their "problems" are not widely broadcast.

Well that IS funny to say the least.

and:

If some people are stupid enough to go infringe on an others permitted and reserved time to gather and be instigators ... humm ... who is in the wrong? I sure do not blame the people who arranged the event.

A problem I see is that often....when a person stands FOR something....it's often perceived that they are standing *against* another group of people. That's not what this is about at ALL. To believe in unity, reconciliation, healing, and genuine love is to believe that everyone benefits (but until perceptions change....there's going to be wrestling, because some believe that for some to gain others --usually them selves-- have to lose). It's not about winning and losing.

This thread was intended to be a discussion...and I pray some day that will be possible.

 

[mkgal1]

Just for reference--this is what occurred in Charlottesville, VA (and what instigated Rev'd Rob Lee's sermon)

On Friday night, ahead of tonight’s planned rally, members of the alt-right and white supremacist groupsmarched through the streets of Charlottesville, VA carrying torches and chanting slogans steeped in the history of bigotry. “Blood and soil,” a Nazi ideology of so-called purity based on ethnicity and national origin, “Jews shall not replace us,” and “white lives matter” were among their rallying cries.

Some counter-protesters clashed with the white supremacists near a statue of Thomas Jefferson, but many remained in a peaceful prayer vigil at St. Paul’s Memorial Episcopal Church. Clergy from many different faiths and from across the nation were present, answering a call from the bishops of the Diocese of Virginia. For some time, the white supremacists surrounded the church, but they were eventually disbanded by police for unlawful assembly. Traci Blackmon, a United Church of Christ minister tweeted that the police weren’t letting people inside the church go out for their own safety.


Rev. Winnie Varghese asked those gathered in the church to invoke in prayer “those upon whose shoulders you stand today, those whose footsteps you follow.” “Let’s take that Love to the streets,” she said in the conclusion of her prayer. Dr. Cornel West spoke this morning at First Baptist Church, saying, this would be the “biggest gathering of a hate-driven right wing in the history of this country in the last 30 to 35 years.” He cited Virginia as having “a long history of racism and fighting racism.”

....and I believe most everyone knows what happened on Saturday--with a person driving a car and murdering Heather Heyer.

and on Sunday:

As Virginians grappled Sunday with the deadly aftermath of a white nationalist protest, state leaders didn’t preach about unity from their offices or on TV — they went to a historically black church in Charlottesville.

“We come to you this morning to reassure you that the Commonwealth of Virginia and all of us that are in this together will not and do not condone white supremacists that brought their hatred and bigotry to the Commonwealth of Virginia,” Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam told Mount Zion First African Baptist Church, to roaring applause.

“That’s not what we’re about. So I am here this morning, as your lieutenant governor, and also as a doctor, to start the healing process.”

Less than 24 hours had passed since a driver plowed into demonstrators protesting against white nationalists in Charlottesville.


Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe holds hands and prays with Dr. Alvin Edwards, pastor of Mt. Zion First African Baptist Church, Aug. 13, 2017, in Charlottesville, Virginia. (Credit: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Heather Heyer, 32, was killed. Two Virginia state troopers monitoring Saturday’s protests from the sky, Lt. H. Jay Cullen and Trooper Berke M.M. Bates, were killed when their helicopter crashed.

At one point, Gov. Terry McAuliffe asked the congregation for a moment of silence to honor Heyer and the troopers, “who lost their lives yesterday doing what they loved doing — fighting for freedom.”

~Virginia Leaders Rally at Black Church After Hate-Filled Event Turns Deadly

 

[mkgal1]

His time could be spent better elsewhere. The world is politics. It has no purpose in Christianity as well as Christianity in politics.

I don't know what could be considered more in line with things that are eternal or considered more a part of the Kingdom of God than love and the acknowledgement of the full dignity of all. It doesn't get any simpler than "God is love".

You say "his time could be spent better elsewhere"....but maybe you should take a look at Twitter to see the incredible and uplifting responses he's getting. He's making an impact (I believe a very positive one for the Kingdom of God)....and that's what's getting him this recognition. People recognize genuine love, humility, and a lack of hypocrisy (and seem to be hungry/thirsty for it).

 

[SBC]

I now have no idea what you're talking about.

Looking out for others in a society, to my mind, means things like universal government health care and education.

Oh, well I disagree. I don't want to participate in your ideas, nor be forced to pay for your ideas, that you want to participate in.

But the thing is, some things are too big to be done by individuals.

Actually there were ONLY a few things Constitutionally identified, that were too big for individual states to deal with individually, and thus Federalist Government is to justly deal with those things......and? the really cool part....the people can be free to take care of themselves.

I can't provide health care for someone on my own

Why not? What do you require that God has not already provided?

the way our society providing a hospital can.

Then if that IS your choice, you pay for it.

I can't provide an education for someone the way our society providing a school can.

Why not? What do you require to provide another with education?

IF having someone else educate you, you pay for it.

Having a society which has these basic structures open to everybody is part of what I see as the basic social contract; we live as a society, we look after one another.

This is a country established on Liberty. You want other people to provide you with services AND you want others to be compelled (forced) to pay for what YOU want. -
While I elect to exercise and enjoy MY Liberty, and provide for myself, and pay for myself things I choose, while NOT being forced to pay for what YOU want.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[mkgal1]

But the thing is, some things are too big to be done by individuals.

Actually there were ONLY a few things Constitutionally identified, that were too big for individual states to deal with individually.

Not "individual states"--"individuals".....as in one single person on their own.

 

[mkgal1]

the really cool part....the people can be free to take care of themselves.

Tell that to the lady with no family that needs a memory-care facility to take care of her because of early onset Alzheimer's.....or to the parents with a child born with cerebral palsy that will never be able to earn enough money to be self-sufficient (and are struggling financially because of health care bills).

 

[SBC]

Tell that to the lady with no family that needs a memory-care facility to take care of her because of early onset Alzheimer's.....or to the parents with a child born with cerebral palsy that will never be able to earn enough money to be self-sufficient (and are struggling financially because of health care bills).

Why? You think you are the exception, to have hardships or know people with hardships?
You are not unique, nor are they. I don't have to tell anyone anything about their own hardships. I've had plenty and never thought YOU or anyone else should be burdened with MY hardships, because it is just as easy to say I CAN, as saying I can't.

Greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. There is no can't if you trust God.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[mkgal1]

Why?

You have to ask WHY it's pretty unfair to say to someone in those circumstances to "take care of themselves"?

You think you are the exception, to have hardships or know people with hardships?
You are not unique, nor are they. I don't have to tell anyone anything about their own hardships. I've had plenty and never thought YOU or anyone else should be burdened with MY hardships, because it is just as easy to say I CAN, as saying I can't.

Greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. There is no can't if you trust God.

No.....I don't believe I'm unique in knowing (and recognizing) those with circumstances that I wrote about. That's exactly why I feel strongly about it (because it's not RARE)....and spiritualizing it doesn't really help. The circumstances I gave were a bit more than just "hardships", however.

The Body of Christ has a function. We are His hands and feet...His active participants.

This man--below-- had "hardship" as well.....but Jesus didn't seem to believe he was supposed to "take care of himself":

>>>Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"

He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, with all your mind, [Deuteronomy 6:5]; and your neighbour as yourself [Leviticus 19:18]."

He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live."

But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbour?"
— Luke 10:25–29, World English Bible

Jesus replies with a story:

Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbour to him who fell among the robbers?"

He said, "He who showed mercy on him."

Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
— Luke 10:30–37, World English Bible
******************************************
Jesus simplified and summed up the entire law into two lines.....yet it's still a struggle for people to figure out this whole "Christianity" thing (speaking in a general sense).

Asserting ideas like everyone needing to care for their own selves is just like passing by on the other side.