# A Christian Government in America



## NCHillbilly

Reading another thread made me curious. How many would support a Christian Bible-based government in the US, where the law of the Bible is the only law of the land and everyone had to live by it?


----------



## centerpin fan

No.

The Founding Fathers got it right the first time.


----------



## formula1

*Re:*



centerpin fan said:


> no.
> 
> The founding fathers got it right the first time.



x2!


----------



## mtnwoman

I said I dunno, only because I wish....like a huge church.

But in reality, I think no, that would never work...because obviously none of us could abide and we can't make other people abide.


----------



## Ronnie T

Would you like to see a truly Christian Bible-based government".

You bet I would, and I'm certain it'd be better than what we got now.


----------



## dawg2

Depends on who is doing the "translations."  We could end up with Sharia law,  only a Christian version.

Honestly, no.  See post #2.


----------



## thedeacon

dawg2 said:


> Depends on who is doing the "translations."  We could end up with Sharia law,  only a Christian version.
> 
> Honestly, no.  See post #2.




I believe the question included the word TRULY. 

That would be great to live in a TRULY Christian Sociaty and governed by TRUE Christians, to be judged by TRUE Christians.

Is there TRULY  a TRUE CHRISTIAN here that would not like that.

If that were TRUE what would we so called Christians have to give up to have that.

The best question is, would we be willing to give up the part of the world that we love the most to live in a TRULY Chirstian country. In fact I am laughing now at the answers I anticipate. hehehehehehehe

God Bless


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> no.
> 
> The founding fathers got it right the first time.



x2.


----------



## Georgia Hard Hunter

I don't want any government telling me what to do in regards to religion. Separation of Church and State is one on the concepts that make this country FREE and GREAT. This "Christain Government" only works until it has to make its first decision of the Bible's word then half the Christian support leaves because they believe the Bible said something else and it is different than their beliefs
Not many things more volatile than Christians discussing Religion!!!!!! and not many people are more "correct" than A Christian Discussing HIS religion


----------



## hummdaddy

all christians can not even agree on their own religion ...how would they ever form a government that would work for them all and non-christians...


----------



## Ronnie T

So, most Christians are more comfortable with politics and greed, and lust for money than a  "truly Christian Bible-based government" .
Might have a point there.
Think of all the things that would change.......  It would be terrible wouldn't it.
No more hating and destroying our enemy.
No more dropping bunker-bombs on little stone homes where children live with the hopes that the 'informant' might be right.

You're right brothers.  It'd be just toooooooo scary for us to be wholey Christian.  We need a little worldliness sprinkled in there to keep us from doing stupid things, like our Lord did.
Like our good ol southern beliefs concerning the death penalty.
(for you Gordy).


----------



## SneekEE

Upon Christs return there will be a Christian Bible-based government in the US, hope the christians are in support of that govt when it comes.


----------



## SneekEE

hummdaddy said:


> all christians can not even agree on their own religion ...how would they ever form a government that would work for them all and non-christians...



The same way they did when this govt was originaly formed, b4 the civil war, before all the tax hikes, mass influx of illegal aliens, unions, ect.ect.ect


----------



## SneekEE

Georgia Hard Hunter said:


> I don't want any government telling me what to do in regards to religion. Separation of Church and State is one on the concepts that make this country FREE and GREAT. This "Christain Government" only works until it has to make its first decision of the Bible's word then half the Christian support leaves because they believe the Bible said something else and it is different than their beliefs
> Not many things more volatile than Christians discussing Religion!!!!!! and not many people are more "correct" than A Christian Discussing HIS religion



Not many things more volatile than Christians discussing Religion!!!!!! 

LOL! only draw=back to a christian only type  nation is it produces a sheltered mind that is ignorant of the depths of other  religions ability to be violently inhumane for breaking the least of its laws.But since we are not a christian only type govt it is clear we dont have anyone in this country like that.


----------



## thedeacon

I will have to say this thread has been one of the most eye opening threads I have ever been witness to.

Interpret that.


----------



## JB0704

Whether or not we consider the word "true" in the equation, we have to understand that government represents force.  Taxes are a necessity of government, they are collected through implied force.  Laws are upheld through force.  The only way to remove force is to assume complete benevolence (freely pay taxes and follow all laws without need of force) of the population, which will not happen, if it did, we are talking about a utopian society which would require no government at all.

So, if we had a "true christian govt," we would not need govt, or the "true christian govt" would have to use force.  I can't get on board with using force to advance a belief system.  I don't see where Jesus would have endorsed such a practice either.  In fact, I don't recall if Jesus ever lobbied the govt for anything.  He was more of a rebel type.

Hope that clears it up for the folks who have implied a "true christian" would endorse a "true christian govt."


----------



## hummdaddy

SneekEE said:


> The same way they did when this govt was originaly formed, b4 the civil war, before all the tax hikes, mass influx of illegal aliens, unions, ect.ect.ect



if i am not mistaken some of our great leaders believed in Diesm not Christianity


----------



## NCHillbilly

JB0704 said:


> Whether or not we consider the word "true" in the equation, we have to understand that government represents force.  Taxes are a necessity of government, they are collected through implied force.  Laws are upheld through force.  The only way to remove force is to assume complete benevolence (freely pay taxes and follow all laws without need of force) of the population, which will not happen, if it did, we are talking about a utopian society which would require no government at all.
> 
> So, if we had a "true christian govt," we would not need govt, or the "true christian govt" would have to use force.  I can't get on board with using force to advance a belief system.  I don't see where Jesus would have endorsed such a practice either.  In fact, I don't recall if Jesus ever lobbied the govt for anything.  He was more of a rebel type.
> 
> Hope that clears it up for the folks who have implied a "true christian" would endorse a "true christian govt."



What I meant in the original post by "true" Christian government where the law of the Bible is the law of the land is just what it says-no laws except those in the Christian Bible, and all laws and rules in the Bible to be followed as law. In effect, government by the Ten Commandments and the rest of biblical law: Sharia law, Christian version. This has been an eye-opening thread for me, also.


----------



## Ronnie T

NCHillbilly said:


> What I meant in the original post by "true" Christian government where the law of the Bible is the law of the land is just what it says-no laws except those in the Christian Bible, and all laws and rules in the Bible to be followed as law. In effect, government by the Ten Commandments and the rest of biblical law: Sharia law, Christian version. This has been an eye-opening thread for me, also.



Then I change my vote!!!!!

God's law, to include the Gospel of our Lord, was not formulated with the intent to be the law of the land.  It's only useful to God's people.  It teaches Christians to settle their differences among themselves with the Churches' help rather than taking each other to civil court.
It's only useful for those who willingly accept God's rule in their life.

But, a government "based" on Christianity would be a welcomed government.


----------



## centerpin fan

NCHillbilly said:


> What I meant in the original post by "true" Christian government where the law of the Bible is the law of the land is just what it says-no laws except those in the Christian Bible, and all laws and rules in the Bible to be followed as law. In effect, government by the Ten Commandments and the rest of biblical law: Sharia law, Christian version. This has been an eye-opening thread for me, also.



If the OP had been phrased like this, I suspect other "yes" votes would change to "no".


----------



## Michael F. Gray

It does sound good. Problem is government always anages to corrupt itself, or at least attract power hungry folks who seem to suffer that affliction. Where it's been tried it's been a dismal failure. What can work is a democracy led by born again, washed in the blood of Christ individuals who live lives tempered with honesty, integrity, and live before all as if the proverbial glass house. Not many around who want the hassle.


----------



## bohemianways

*and*



Michael F. Gray said:


> It does sound good. Problem is government always anages to corrupt itself, or at least attract power hungry folks who seem to suffer that affliction. Where it's been tried it's been a dismal failure. What can work is a democracy led by born again, washed in the blood of Christ individuals who live lives tempered with honesty, integrity, and live before all as if the proverbial glass house. Not many around who want the hassle.



with a few word substitutions you have just described EVERY "church" that has ever been created.

The examples are there down through the ages from when the prophets Jesus and Muhammad (sp?) lived until now.

Thus, given that "churches" are typically founded on fictional and time based self-absorbed writings that have been edited by a sitting "leader" to serve some sort of agenda, I personally will take a pass.


----------



## JB0704

NCHillbilly said:


> What I meant in the original post by "true" Christian government where the law of the Bible is the law of the land is just what it says-no laws except those in the Christian Bible, and all laws and rules in the Bible to be followed as law. In effect, government by the Ten Commandments and the rest of biblical law: Sharia law, Christian version. This has been an eye-opening thread for me, also.



My response would be the same, no thanks.  The Biblical laws would have to be forced on folks, and, to me, that is against the whole point to start with.


----------



## formula1

*Re:*

In Christs kingdom, there are no government officials, no boundaries, no countries, no leaders,  no kings except for Jesus Christ our Lord. He and He alone rules and reigns and we with Him. All earthly kingdoms will be swallowed up by the Kingdom of our God.  No taxes, no bills, no gas hikes, no liberals, no conservatives, no enemies for He has destroyed them all, no war, no famine, no pestilence, no life considered unworthy, no religion out of the minds of men, no pain, no imperfections, no sin and no death. I can only imagine the coming Kingdom and its' Glory, when all things are set in proper order and design.

Until that Day, man will continue to try to rule, with some success but much failure along the way, for most attempt to rule without Christ as King.

We as believers know the Power and wonder of Christs' rule for we have experienced it in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Yet though we wish it for all men, we know it cannot be forced, it must be chosen! Our Father would have it no other way!


----------



## bohemianways

*Amen...*



formula1 said:


> No taxes, no bills, no gas hikes, no liberals, no conservatives, no enemies for He has destroyed them all, no war, no famine, no pestilence, no life considered unworthy, no religion out of the minds of men, no pain, no imperfections, no sin and no death. I can only imagine the coming Kingdom and its' Glory, when all things are set in proper order and design.



So true and so utopian.  Perhaps we can get all of humanity in synch one day.

Maybe one day we can even define the question of he or she and whose kingdom if such a concept exists as it does seem to spawn directly from your notion of "no religion out of the minds of men".

Religions that came from the minds of men and the falsified and modified scriptures that are offered today as the norm are appalling at best.  They were written to influence the largely uneducated masses back in the day and to assimilate other belief structures...it was one of the most perfectly excuted literary frauds ever.


----------



## formula1

*Re:*



bohemianways said:


> Perhaps we can get all of humanity in synch one day



In synch with Jesus Christ our King at His coming, well, that's all we need.  It's coming and I hope you are onboard the train!


----------



## SneekEE

hummdaddy said:


> if i am not mistaken some of our great leaders believed in Diesm not Christianity



Usualy I am the one who is mistaken, but in this case I am positive that the only great leaders were christians.The rest were confused but have since been completly presuaded that  Jesus Christ is Lord and no man comes to the Father except by Him..


----------



## gacowboy

centerpin fan said:


> No.
> 
> The Founding Fathers got it right the first time.



Exactly!


----------



## SneekEE

NCHillbilly said:


> What I meant in the original post by "true" Christian government where the law of the Bible is the law of the land is just what it says-no laws except those in the Christian Bible, and all laws and rules in the Bible to be followed as law. In effect, government by the Ten Commandments and the rest of biblical law: Sharia law, Christian version. This has been an eye-opening thread for me, also.



Wait... what christian version of sharia law are you referring too??? As far as the 10 commandments most of our laws came from the bible originaly. I dont think anyone wants murder, theft, ect ect to become legal. Well, some may, especial those in jail for those crimes.


----------



## rjcruiser

What did Jesus tell the Pharisees when they asked what was the most important law of Moses?

He replied telling them to Love the Lord your God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself.

Imagine...if everyone loved their neighbor as themselves...I don't think we'd have any problems in society.


----------



## StriperAddict

formula1 said:


> In Christs kingdom, there are no government officials, no boundaries, no countries, no leaders,  no kings except for Jesus Christ our Lord. He and He alone rules and reigns and we with Him. All earthly kingdoms will be swallowed up by the Kingdom of our God.  No taxes, no bills, no gas hikes, no liberals, no conservatives, no enemies for He has destroyed them all, no war, no famine, no pestilence, no life considered unworthy, no religion out of the minds of men, no pain, no imperfections, no sin and no death. I can only imagine the coming Kingdom and its' Glory, when all things are set in proper order and design.
> 
> Until that Day, man will continue to try to rule, with some success but much failure along the way, for most attempt to rule without Christ as King.
> 
> We as believers know the Power and wonder of Christs' rule for we have experienced it in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Yet though we wish it for all men, we know it cannot be forced, it must be chosen! Our Father would have it no other way!



Amen. The rule of Christ in men's hearts is by invitation now, not by anything the rule of men can accomplish.

While I welcome and pray that our leaders would connect with the love and mercy of God in Christ, it is not the object of leaders to do any means of force evangelism.  This is where the true separation of the State from the Spiritual roles in the church of Christ must differ, according to the Word of God.


----------



## The Foreigner

Christ said "my kingdom is not of this world" - perhaps we should take our lead from him on this one.

Peace.


----------



## Ronnie T

StriperAddict said:


> Amen. The rule of Christ in men's hearts is by invitation now, not by anything the rule of men can accomplish.
> 
> While I welcome and pray that our leaders would connect with the love and mercy of God in Christ, it is not the object of leaders to do any means of force evangelism.  This is where the true separation of the State from the Spiritual roles in the church of Christ must differ, according to the Word of God.



Amen.
My safety in life doesn't depend upon whether or not a republican or a democrat becomes the president.  The tea party might have some wonderful goals in mind, but it isn't they who will assure my standard of living.
Not wallstreet.  I'm trying to think of a word I can use that will be proper and also not set off the auto censor.
But everything else is no more than a cow patty.
It is God thru Jesus Christ that we live for, not the government.


----------



## hummerpoo

I think Jesus showed our proper choice when He revealed His kingdom.


----------



## TheBishop

SneekEE said:


> Usualy I am the one who is mistaken, but in this case I am positive that the only great leaders were christians.The rest were confused but have since been completly presuaded that  Jesus Christ is Lord and no man comes to the Father except by Him..



You are sadly mistaken.  John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and it can even be suggested that George Washington was a diest. Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin penned the DOI, along with 2 Christians, Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman.  The constitutions author James Madison was extremely adamant, and rightfully so, about keeping religion and politics seperate.  

I would fight to the death to prevent any theocracy.  Throughout history they have been some of the most (and still are today) oppressive governments ever assembled.  They NEVER promote freesdom.  By the very definition you must surrender your beliefs to the state.   

Our forefathers had a unique oppritunity.  A clean slate to choose any government they wanted.  Yes, they were a group of men whose majority was christian.   Yet they chose to institute a government void of religion.  Why? They understood nothing good ever comes when you mix religion and politics.


----------



## polkhunt

I voted no, Governments involved in religion or based  on religion is never a good idea.


----------



## Big7

SneekEE said:


> Upon Christs return there will be a Christian Bible-based government in the US, hope the christians are in support of that govt when it comes.



Maybe I'm wrong.. (not likely but it does happen)

I thought when Jesus comes again.. He is taking the believers "home".. Not to a gooberment?


----------



## ambush80

I would get behind a Christian government if it was the UCC Christians or the Universalist Christians.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

formula1 said:


> In Christs kingdom, there are no government officials, no boundaries, no countries, no leaders,  no kings except for Jesus Christ our Lord. He and He alone rules and reigns and we with Him. All earthly kingdoms will be swallowed up by the Kingdom of our God.  No taxes, no bills, no gas hikes, no liberals, no conservatives, no enemies for He has destroyed them all, no war, no famine, no pestilence, no life considered unworthy, no religion out of the minds of men, no pain, no imperfections, no sin and no death. I can only imagine the coming Kingdom and its' Glory, when all things are set in proper order and design.



Genocide is glorious?  Also, how do you destroy them all yet have no war?


----------



## Six million dollar ham

TheBishop said:


> I would fight to the death to prevent any theocracy.  Throughout history they have been some of the most (and still are today) oppressive governments ever assembled.  They NEVER promote freesdom.  By the very definition you must surrender your beliefs to the state.
> 
> Our forefathers had a unique oppritunity.  A clean slate to choose any government they wanted.  Yes, they were a group of men whose majority was christian.   Yet they chose to institute a government void of religion.  Why? They understood nothing good ever comes when you mix religion and politics.



Well put.


----------



## pstrahin

JB0704 said:


> My response would be the same, no thanks.  The Biblical laws would have to be forced on folks, and, to me, that is against the whole point to start with.



Are you trying to say that this government that we live in now does not force us to live by their laws?


----------



## JB0704

pstrahin said:


> Are you trying to say that this government that we live in now does not force us to live by their laws?



No.  I am saying that government is force.  Being a Christian government would be using force (because it is a government) to push a Christian agenda.  I am against that.


----------



## gtparts

JB0704 said:


> No.  I am saying that government is force.  Being a Christian government would be using force (because it is a government) to push a Christian agenda.  I am against that.



So, you are an anarchist? We perhaps need to scrap all laws as being of no value. It takes force to implement the punishments associated with breaking laws. Makes no sense to me at all, but, then, I'm not you... and glad of it.


----------



## JB0704

gtparts said:


> So, you are an anarchist? We perhaps need to scrap all laws as being of no value. It takes force to implement the punishments associated with breaking laws. Makes no sense to me at all, but, then, I'm not you... and glad of it.



Somewhere along the way, I think we misread each other.  So, for the sake of clarity......

I believe in government necessary to protect rights (personal, property, speech, commerce, religion, etc).  Government has to use force to protect these rights.  I do not believe Christian values should be forced on anyone. I do not believe there should be Christian government.  Government should make religious practice a freedom, not a mandate.

Hope that clears things up.


----------



## gtparts

TheBishop said:


> You are sadly mistaken.  John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and it can even be suggested that George Washington was a diest. Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin penned the DOI, along with 2 Christians, Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman.  The constitutions author James Madison was extremely adamant, and rightfully so, about keeping religion and politics seperate.
> 
> I would fight to the death to prevent any theocracy.  Throughout history they have been some of the most (and still are today) oppressive governments ever assembled.  They NEVER promote freesdom.  By the very definition you must surrender your beliefs to the state.
> 
> Our forefathers had a unique oppritunity.  A clean slate to choose any government they wanted.  Yes, they were a group of men whose majority was christian.   Yet they chose to institute a government void of religion.  Why? They understood nothing good ever comes when you mix religion and politics.





ambush80 said:


> I would get behind a Christian government if it was the UCC Christians or the Universalist Christians.





Six million dollar ham said:


> Well put.



Gentlemen, please note the sub-forum heading. Perhaps you would like to continue this in one of the sub-forums designed for those who reject Christianity and Judaism or where discussion/ debate is expressly permitted to all comers. This isn't that place... unless the admins and mods have changed the rules without re-posting them. This thread may have been started in this sub-forum because the OP wanted feedback from Christians and Jews only. If not, it is in the wrong spiritual sub-forum.

Please read the second "sticky" in the SD&S sub-forum (posted by Ronnie).


----------



## gtparts

JB0704 said:


> Somewhere along the way, I think we misread each other.  So, for the sake of clarity......
> 
> I believe in government necessary to protect rights (personal, property, speech, commerce, religion, etc).  Government has to use force to protect these rights.  I do not believe Christian values should be forced on anyone. I do not believe there should be Christian government.  Government should make religious practice a freedom, not a mandate.
> 
> Hope that clears things up.



I just don't see where having a truly, Christian, Bible-based government necessarily means that any religion will be forced upon anyone. 

As for values, is it any coincidence that most of the values like honesty, compassion, forgiveness, etc., that are promoted in the Bible, are mirrored in many of our laws?

What values do you think should be "forced on anyone"?


----------



## JB0704

gtparts said:


> What values do you think should be "forced on anyone"?



None.  I believe rights should be protected.  

Problem with values is that they are subjective.  Consider compassion.  Many folks differ as to what compassion is.  Forgiveness?  Well, you and I might say we can forgive somebody and still throw them in jail. Christian forgiveness, like what Christ exercices, means no recognition of wrongs..no jail for the repentant...nobody wants that. Integrity can be enforced to the extent a lack of such infringes on another's rights (finance laws, etc.).


----------



## gtparts

> Originally Posted by gtparts View Post #46
> What values do you think should be "forced on anyone"?







JB0704 said:


> None.  I believe rights should be protected.
> 
> Problem with values is that they are subjective.  Consider compassion.  Many folks differ as to what compassion is.  Forgiveness?  Well, you and I might say we can forgive somebody and still throw them in jail. Christian forgiveness, like what Christ exercices, means no recognition of wrongs..no jail for the repentant...nobody wants that. Integrity can be enforced to the extent a lack of such infringes on another's rights (finance laws, etc.).



Again, it appears that you champion anarchy. Don't you recognize that at some point, so that everyone is not doing their own thing, the community standards need to be codified AND imposed on all who choose to remain in community. In fact, many points will not have universal support, to which those, who remain opposed must necessarily acquiesce.

The notion of any society requires that some individual rights be surrendered for the greater good of the populace. But it sounds like you are philosophically committed to no rule of law rather than limited personal freedom. 

Again, I would plead the case that a truly Christian-based government would be far superior to anything we have ever had before, anywhere, at any time.


----------



## TheBishop

gtparts said:


> Again, it appears that you champion anarchy. Don't you recognize that at some point, so that everyone is not doing their own thing, the community standards need to be codified AND imposed on all who choose to remain in community. In fact, many points will not have universal support, to which those, who remain opposed must necessarily acquiesce.
> 
> The notion of any society requires that some individual rights be surrendered for the greater good of the populace. But it sounds like you are philosophically committed to no rule of law rather than limited personal freedom.
> 
> Again, I would plead the case that a truly Christian-based government would be far superior to anything we have ever had before, anywhere, at any time.



I'm sorry if you feel if I am unworthy of discussing said topic in this sub forum becuase I do not adhere to your particular principals of religion.  However this is not a topic on religion but rather a type of government.  It is probably in the wrong section. It would be a akin to asking if a communist government would be acceptable to card caring members of the red party, or Time magazine subscribers.  

That being said your opinion of government greatly contrasts the founders of this nation.  They had a chance to institute a christian-based government, and they were primarily christian.  So why didn't they? Becuase they knew it spelled disaster.  

Like our fore fathers I believe in government based on the rule of law.  Laws to protect individual liberties, from threats both foriegn and domestic.   You do not have to sacrifice liberties to form a society.  A society willing to place itself above the rights of an individual, must first admit that:

a. Rights are granted by the majority and are not natural rights endowed by our creator.

b.  May at anytime according to the whims of the state change those rights to suit their desires.

Our fore fathers had the understanding that societys do not have rights, individuals have rights, and they must be protected by all for all. They also understood that liberty is universal (as they framed it), by placing it in the highest priority first, the laws derived from such would be just. That all just laws are moral.  Morality on the other hand is not universal and is a poor foundation for justice.

I would suggest reading "The Rights of man" by Thomas Paine. It is a remarkable piece on government, social order and the concept of rights. 

Agian, with a clean slate, why didn't a group of men, that were a dominant majority of christians, institute a christian government when they had the chance?


----------



## Sterlo58

No
There are good reasons for separation of church and state. Nuff said, I don't like to get into these debates.


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> Our fore fathers had the understanding that societys do not have rights, individuals have rights, and they must be protected by all for all. They also understood that liberty is universal (as they framed it), by placing it in the highest priority first, the laws derived from such would be just. That all just laws are moral.  Morality on the other hand is not universal and is a poor foundation for justice.



Exactly.  That is not anarchy.  That is freedom!  Anarchy would be if we did not protect rights.

In reference to G2's response: 

Society's morality shifts over time.  Think about how different inter racial marriages are viewed now compared to 50 years ago.  There was a time when "society's morality" led some to argue for a legal prohibition of such relationships.  What if this morality was law?  We would be, rightfully so, called prejudiced.

That is just one reason why I think morality is poor basis for law, and protecting human rights is the only fair and just way to allow liberty for all.  Sure, this basis allows some stuff that is less than cool (flag burning), but at least we don't end up forcing folks to go to church and marry people of the same skin color.


----------



## gordon 2

A few individuals who participated in this thread have said that they have been surprized! by the responses to this tread.... I'd be curious to find out in what way(s)?

A quick note is that the pole is almost split numbers wise like the amercian electorate, or almost 50-50.

My view of why the founding fathers wanted to seperate religion and government for practical reasons was simply for the facts that their political worlds and history informed them. Oliver Cromwell and the "might is right" justification of British Authority was front and center to these people. Combine this with free and enlightened thinking and something had to give.



Personally I find that the way people vote might be more due to "doctrine" rather than faith. People vote from what they believe to be the purpose of christianity and the purpose of governments. Most of this belief is from  our religious doctrine, not faith.

One doctrine that jumps to my face is what the Kingdom as expressed in the Gospels means and what is the key purpose of christians. Some say it is making other christians and others say it is makeing an ever better Kingdom. And inbetween we disagree on what are the great commissions and what is the Kingdom... and like the jews of old we mix up the role(s) of civil governance and role(s) of salvation individual and to all peoples.

I wonder if what a society is, how its culture interacts, is in fact a spiritual fruit, by with christians can judge themselves? Take for example that the roman soldiers stopped flogging Paul because he was a Roman and John Ashcroft and others indicating that "universal freedom" applies only to americans. One wonders where God comes in our lives and where we walk out on Him.


----------



## gtparts

I asked, 


> Originally Posted by *gtparts*
> 
> 
> _What values do you think should be "forced on anyone"?_



Your reply follows:



JB0704 said:


> None.  I believe rights should be protected.
> 
> Problem with values is that they are subjective.  Consider compassion.  Many folks differ as to what compassion is.  Forgiveness?  Well, you and I might say we can forgive somebody and still throw them in jail. Christian forgiveness, like what Christ exercices, means no recognition of wrongs..no jail for the repentant...nobody wants that. Integrity can be enforced to the extent a lack of such infringes on another's rights (finance laws, etc.).



None? Really? I value human life, as does most of the population to one degree or another. The outgrowth of that are laws against homicide. The homicidal psychopath has no such values. He only values whatever sick pleasure he/she derives from killing. How are his/her rights being safeguarded?

You say, "I believe rights should be protected."  Really? Then I suggest you campaign against all laws, for they all place burdens on the rights of someone and are obviously the result of some value being determined and codified. "None", my friend, is to support the destruction of our legal system and foster the implementation of anarchy.

You can't guarantee the rights or freedoms of one group or individual, unless you deny the rights and freedoms of others. All laws are predicated on violation and condemnation. Legislating behavior (based on moral precepts) is the heart of any justice system, however it may be flawed.


----------



## JB0704

gtparts said:


> None? Really? I value human life, as does most of the population to one degree or another. The outgrowth of that are laws against homicide. The homicidal psychopath has no such values. He only values whatever sick pleasure he/she derives from killing. How are his/her rights being safeguarded?.



To take a life, you have to deprive another of rights.  I am not aware of the homocidal maniac's right to murder folks.

Again, values are just what individuals assign.  Rights are guaranteed by either law (speech, religion, etc.) or nature (life, liberty, etc.).  These are what must be protected.  A murderer cannot act on his compulsions without denying another individual the right to live.



gtparts said:


> You say, "I believe rights should be protected."  Really? .



Yes, really.



gtparts said:


> Then I suggest you campaign against all laws, for they all place burdens on the rights of someone and are obviously the result of some value being determined and codified.



No, why would I campaign against laws that protect rights?



gtparts said:


> That, my friend, is to support the destruction of our legal system and the implementation of anarchy..



No, it is protecting human rights.




gtparts said:


> You can't guarantee the rights or freedoms of one group or individual, unless you deny the rights and freedoms of others..





Yes you can once you define where rights begin and end (see comments below).



gtparts said:


> All laws are predicated on violation and condemnation. Legislating behavior (based on moral precepts) is the heart of any justice system.



No, you can protect rights, you can't protect values.  Use your murderer above, he values killing, but that infringes on rights.  One, you are arguing semantics.  Two, you seem to confuse values and rights.  Your, and my, rights end at the tip of your nose.

I honestly think you are looking for something to argue with here.

My position has and always will be that rights exist until they infringe on the rights of another.  Values wil change, and should not be legislated.

I hope you can see the difference.


----------



## TheBishop

JB0704 good reply.

GT, I think you have lost the meaning of definable rights.  There are no _rights_ you have to surrender in order to form a happy, healthy, and vibrant society.  Rights are unalienable.  We are endowed with them upon the gift of the first right, life.  The essence of liberty is the right to the disposal that life in the pursuit of our own individual happiness. These are the only true rights.  We can only claim them if we allow others the same right.  To impose on those rights, by force, or fruad, as an individual or group is to concede your own claim to those rights. 

This is the underlying principal shared by the creators of this nation.   They instituted a government of men to protect these rights, then created a constitution granting the people secondary rights to protect themselves against government.  



> The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.


  Thomas Jefferson


----------



## gtparts

JB0704 said:


> To take a life, you have to deprive another of rights.  I am not aware of the homocidal maniac's right to murder folks.
> 
> Again, values are just what individuals assign.  Rights are guaranteed by either law (speech, religion, etc.) or nature (life, liberty, etc.).  These are what must be protected.  A murderer cannot act on his compulsions without denying another individual the right to live.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, really.
> 
> 
> 
> No, why would I campaign against laws that protect rights?
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is protecting human rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you can once you define where rights begin and end (see comments below).
> 
> 
> 
> No, you can protect rights, you can't protect values.  Use your murderer above, he values killing, but that infringes on rights.  One, you are arguing semantics.  Two, you seem to confuse values and rights.  Your, and my, rights end at the tip of your nose.
> 
> I honestly think you are looking for something to argue with here.
> 
> My position has and always will be that rights exist until they infringe on the rights of another.  Values wil change, and should not be legislated.
> 
> I hope you can see the difference.



And exactly where do rights come from? Obviously, rights vary from place to place, time to time, and from culture to culture. Rights that have their origin in human values, then, aren't and cannot be absolute.

And all legislation is based on values. Further more, laws do not guarantee rights. Laws merely impose some form of punishment or compensation AFTER codified rights are violated. Laws have been used to deprive people of their "rights",.... another consideration.


----------



## gtparts

TheBishop said:


> JB0704 good reply.
> 
> GT, I think you have lost the meaning of definable rights.  There are no _rights_ you have to surrender in order to form a happy, healthy, and vibrant society.  Rights are unalienable.  We are endowed with them upon the gift of the first right, life.  The essence of liberty is the right to the disposal that life in the pursuit of our own individual happiness. These are the only true rights.  We can only claim them if we allow others the same right.  To impose on those rights, by force, or fruad, as an individual or group is to concede your own claim to those rights.
> 
> This is the underlying principal shared by the creators of this nation.   They instituted a government of men to protect these rights, then created a constitution granting the people secondary rights to protect themselves against government.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson



And who endows us with those inalienable rights? It is certainly not granted by the mere fact that one is alive (examples: capital punishment and abortion). People are denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness every day. We even do such things to ourselves. So much for the philosophical idea of inalienable rights.

The idea that our government grants us rights is laughable. We, the people, created the government to preserve our basic rights by yielding power to government and some of our rights, in the bargain. Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. And, again, government fails to protect those rights. A murder victim is no less dead when government finally arrives and punishes the murderer. Racial, age or sexual discrimination occurs and then (maybe) the miscreant gets tried and convicted after the fact.


----------



## JB0704

gtparts said:


> And exactly where do rights come from? Obviously, rights vary from place to place, time to time, and from culture to culture. Rights that have their origin in human values, then, aren't and cannot be absolute.
> 
> And all legislation is based on values. Further more, laws do not guarantee rights. Laws merely impose some form of punishment or compensation AFTER codified rights are violated. Laws have been used to deprive people of their "rights",.... another consideration.



Ok GT, you have lost me now.  I am not really certain what we are debating anymore.

Where "rights" come from is debatable according to an individual's worldview.  Freedom of speech is not guaranteed in the Bible, neither is freedom of assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms is nowhere in the NT.  I do believe "rights" should be defined and should be defensible from a philosophical, not religious, position.  The problem with religion is that everybody sees it differently. You and I may agree on some aspects, others won't.  For instance, I believe some rights are endowed by our creator, as the founders indicate, and others are guaranteed by govt.  Free speech is often limited by religion (see Islam's treatment of those who draw cartoons of Mohammen, Christianity, when taken to extremes, would limit one's ability to speak out against the church).  However, guaranteeing rights is the primary role of government in a free society (thus the reason I scratch my head at your anarchy claim).   Protecting your right to live over your neighbor's right to kill is an acceptable use of force.  Making you and your neighbor go to church, IMHO, is not.

Lets take a step back and consider your position.  Our society currently "values" a progressive tax structure which punishes achievement.  It is societal values which are triumphing over property rights.  Our current tax code is written in such a way, and influenced in such a way, that the masses can claim the ownership of other's property.  These values will change over time, and we can see this currently.  But, if we had well defined property rights which were protected, such an aggression would be limited. 

I agree that laws deprive certain "rights," but do not see where it is relevant to the topic.  The discussion was whether or not we would impose a Christian govt.  I saw this as an imposition of Christian values.  I do not see where there is a biblical context for using force to persuade folks to live a "christian life."  Jesus never did it.  I don't think I will jump on board either. 

I know that kind-of meandered around, but I am really having a tough time understanding why you think forced Christianity would be an ideal, when in fact, there could not be a "truly Christian government."  One concept eliminates the other.  Christianity is all about choosing God through faith, and government is force.


----------



## TheBishop

> And who endows us with those inalienable rights?



Yaweh, allah, jesus, satan, it really doesn't matter the name.  Our forefathers left the term ambigous and just creator.



> It is certainly not granted by the mere fact that one is alive (examples: capital punishment and abortion).



Yes it most certainly does.  Your examples one is a punishment for infringement on others rights, and one is a matter of definition.  For me the only logical time to grant the right to life is at conception.




> People are denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness every day. We even do such things to ourselves. So much for the philosophical idea of inalienable rights.



Where and Why? Does that means its right? Please give me an examples. It is an impossiblity to infringe on one own rights. 




> The idea that our government grants us rights is laughable.



Agreed. I do not think anyone has suggested that.



> We, the people, created the government to preserve our basic rights by yielding power to government


Yes.



> and some of our rights, in the bargain.



NO!  What rights must we yield to government? 



> Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. And, again, government fails to protect those rights. A murder victim is no less dead when government finally arrives and punishes the murderer. Racial, age or sexual discrimination occurs and then (maybe) the miscreant gets tried and convicted after the fact.



You lost me on the rest.


----------



## TheBishop

gtparts said:


> And exactly where do rights come from? Obviously, rights vary from place to place, time to time, and from culture to culture. Rights that have their origin in human values, then, aren't and cannot be absolute.
> 
> And all legislation is based on values. Further more, laws do not guarantee rights. Laws merely impose some form of punishment or compensation AFTER codified rights are violated. Laws have been used to deprive people of their "rights",.... another consideration.



You really need to read this:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/


----------



## gtparts

JB0704 said:


> Ok GT, you have lost me now.  I am not really certain what we are debating anymore.
> 
> However, guaranteeing rights is the primary role of government in a free society (thus the reason I scratch my head at your anarchy claim).   Protecting your right to live over your neighbor's right to kill is an acceptable use of force.  Making you and your neighbor go to church, IMHO, is not.



Follow me here:
1) The populace finds an act by one person or group against another person or group is a grievous  miscarriage, unfair, and offensive.
2) They get their legislators to pass a law making the act illegal and providing some guidelines for punishing those who transgress the new law.
3) An individual or group violates that law, are caught, tried by their peers, found guilty, sentenced, and punished.

Now, the question is, "Has the government succeeded in protecting the rights of the victim(s)?" Obviously not! If it is murder, the victim is still dead. If it is a scam on old people, most often their bank accounts is still "cleaned out". The only way to protect rights, then, is to PREVENT the violation from ever happening. So, let's not delude ourselves into believing that government can achieve that end. They only respond AFTER the right has been violated.   




JB0704 said:


> Lets take a step back and consider your position.  Our society currently "values" a progressive tax structure which punishes achievement.  It is societal values which are triumphing over property rights.  Our current tax code is written in such a way, and influenced in such a way, that the masses can claim the ownership of other's property.  These values will change over time, and we can see this currently.  But, if we had well defined property rights which were protected, such an aggression would be limited.
> 
> I agree that laws deprive certain "rights," but do not see where it is relevant to the topic.  The discussion was whether or not we would impose a Christian govt.  I saw this as an imposition of Christian values.  I do not see where there is a biblical context for using force to persuade folks to live a "christian life."  Jesus never did it.  I don't think I will jump on board either.



Impose?? The OP merely asks to contrast the current form of government with one that is based on Christianity. What tenets of the Christian faith do you find so repulsive? Love your neighbor as yourself? Return good for evil? Take care of widows and orphans? Where does it say that Christianity must be forced upon the unwilling? Can you not see the difference between a faith-based government and a mandated faith initiative? There is no reason to believe that a Christ-based government would be oppressive to non-Christians. Such is simply not part of the Christian faith.




JB0704 said:


> I know that kind-of meandered around, but I am really having a tough time understanding why you think forced Christianity would be an ideal, when in fact, there could not be a "truly Christian government."  One concept eliminates the other.  Christianity is all about choosing God through faith, and government is force.



Again, what causes you to fear the implementation of a Christ-based government? Christ never forced His teachings on anyone. He only said that to follow Him, one must believe and completely subordinate themselves to the will and purpose of their Father in heaven. That is exactly what Jesus demonstrated in His own life, nothing more and nothing less.

The only point I will concede is that every government on Earth, instituted by men, will at some point exhibit corruption. A Christianity-based government, instituted by men, will inevitably have that problem. The question is, "Will it be any different than the corruption we have seen under our present form of government." Not likely. In fact, I would suggest that our present form is already, at least in part, Christianity-based. Is the present corruption the result of included Christian principles or the absence of those principles?


----------



## TheBishop

> Follow me here:
> 1) The populace finds an act by one person or group against another person or group is a grievous  miscarriage, unfair, and offensive.
> 2) They get their legislators to pass a law making the act illegal and providing some guidelines for punishing those who transgress the new law.
> 3) An individual or group violates that law, are caught, tried by their peers, found guilty, sentenced, and punished.



What you speak of here is mob rule, better known as a democracy.  Again you show a fundamental lack of understanding of what kind of country our fore fathers designed. They set up a REPUBLIC, to prevent such scenerios as you suggest.  They did not want laws based on the whims of the masses. 



> Now, the question is, "Has the government succeeded in protecting the rights of the victim(s)?" Obviously not! If it is murder, the victim is still dead. If it is a scam on old people, most often their bank accounts is still "cleaned out". The only way to protect rights, then, is to PREVENT the violation from ever happening. So, let's not delude ourselves into believing that government can achieve that end. They only respond AFTER the right has been violated.



Agian our fore fathers understood this.  They trusted men to be good men knowing that no amount of legislation could prevent evil deeds by men agianst men.  The understood law to be post de facto, and set up them to punish not prevent.  What they did try to prevent was an out of control tyrannical government.  They gave us a document that could prevent such a tradgedy but unfortunately the elected have trampled on that document.  




> Impose?? The OP merely asks to contrast the current form of government with one that is based on Christianity. What tenets of the Christian faith do you find so repulsive? Love your neighbor as yourself? Return good for evil? Take care of widows and orphans? Where does it say that Christianity must be forced upon the unwilling? Can you not see the difference between a faith-based government and a mandated faith initiative? There is no reason to believe that a Christ-based government would be oppressive to non-Christians. Such is simply not part of the Christian faith.




You have yet to answer my most fundamental question on this topic.  It seems you want to ignore the obvious. maybe I need to type it in bold big letters.

*Why with a clean slate, did a group of men, whose majority was christian, not institute a christian government when they had the chance? *



> Again, what causes you to fear the implementation of a Christ-based government? Christ never forced His eachings ton anyone. He only said that to follow Him, one must believe and completely subordinate themselves to the will and purpose of their Father in heaven. That is exactly what Jesus demonstrated in His own life, nothing more and nothing less.
> 
> The only point I will concede is that every government on Earth, instituted by men, will at some point exhibit corruption. A Christianity-based government, instituted by men, will inevitably have that problem. The question is, "Will it be any different than the corruption we have seen under our present form of government." Not likely. In fact, I would suggest that our present form is already, at least in part, Christianity-based. Is the present corruption the result of included Christian principles or the absence of those principles?



Your excactly right, and this in part answers the question above.  Corruption eventually leads to tyranny.  The present corruption has absolutely nothing to do with any christian principals.  It has everything to do with your first statement, people treating this country like a democracy, and people willing to sacrifice liberty for things like security,  forced equality, and social engineering. 

A good and just government needs no other foundation but individual liberty.  

You have still yet to answer : What Rights must we surrender in order to form a society?


----------



## JB0704

gtparts said:


> The only way to protect rights, then, is to PREVENT the violation from ever happening.


 
Only to the extent that the punishment is not a deterrent.  There are a lot of things Iwould do if I would not end up in jail for doing them.

On this thought, if a government were christian based, wouldn't repentance be the end of the legal system.  A sin (crime) would be forgiven, and there would be "no record of wrongs" (had to throw some corinthians out there).  I don't want that, and I don't think anybody on here wants it either.



gtparts said:


> Impose?? The OP merely asks to contrast the current form of government with one that is based on Christianity. What tenets of the Christian faith do you find so repulsive? Love your neighbor as yourself? Return good for evil? Take care of widows and orphans? Where does it say that Christianity must be forced upon the unwilling? Can you not see the difference between a faith-based government and a mandated faith initiative? There is no reason to believe that a Christ-based government would be oppressive to non-Christians. Such is simply not part of the Christian faith.?



Government, by its nature, is imposed on the population.  A christian government would have to get its money somewhere, so it would have to collect taxes.  Those taxes would have to be collected thruogh implied force.

People should choose the ideals, then live them.  Not be forced at the point of a gun to live a moral life.  Taking care of orphans, feeding the poor, loving your neighbor are all the most appealling aspects of Chrisitianity to me.  But none of these actions should be from compulsion.  If they were, then you are advocating for socialism.




gtparts said:


> Again, what causes you to fear the implementation of a Christ-based government? Christ never forced His teachings on anyone.?



This is my whole argument.  Government, by definition, does everything through force. 



gtparts said:


> The only point I will concede is that every government on Earth, instituted by men, will at some point exhibit corruption.?



This is also my dillemma with church.  I do not fear Christianity, I fear Christians.  Particularly the ones who would force another to live according to thier interpretation of morality.  If a person is moral through force, then they are not really moral.  Morality exists when we choose it.



gtparts said:


> A Christianity-based government, instituted by men, will inevitably have that problem. The question is, "Will it be any different than the corruption we have seen under our present form of government." Not likely.



I think our current government is better because it gives more personal freedom than one that would force Christian morality on folks (see results of today's Sunday liquor sales vote for a good example of forced morality).


----------



## TheBishop

> This is also my dillemma with church. I do not fear Christianity, I fear Christians. Particularly the ones who would force another to live according to thier interpretation of morality. If a person is moral through force, then they are not really moral. Morality exists when we choose it.


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> A good and just government needs no other foundation but individual liberty.



Well said.  I absolutely agree.


----------



## TheBishop

JB0704 said:


> Well said.  I absolutely agree.



I would restructure the government with a christian like you anyday!


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> I would restructure the government with a christian like you anyday!


----------



## gtparts

TheBishop said:


> What you speak of here is mob rule, better known as a democracy.  Again you show a fundamental lack of understanding of what kind of country our fore fathers designed. They set up a REPUBLIC, to prevent such scenerios (sp)as you suggest.  They did not want laws based on the whims of the masses.



Check line (2). What I described is a republic. You must have missed that one.



TheBishop said:


> Agian (sp) our fore fathers understood this.  They trusted men to be good men knowing that no amount of legislation could prevent evil deeds by men agianst (sp)men.  The understood law to be post de facto, and set up them to punish not prevent.  What they did try to prevent was an out of control tyrannical government.  They gave us a document that could prevent such a tradgedy but unfortunately the elected have trampled on that document.



Then you would agree that no government protects our rights. They may very well define them, but they only respond and seek to punish and/or secure restitution. Our rights are not guaranteed until the government can assure no infringement will occur. Until then, rights can only be lost.... and, hopefully, restored. Obviously, a murder victim cannot have their life, liberty, or their ability to pursue individual happiness restored. So, let's dispense with the idea that any government can ensure rights.



TheBishop said:


> You have yet to answer my most fundamental question on this topic.  It seems you want to ignore the obvious. maybe I need to type it in bold big letters.
> 
> *Why with a clean slate, did a group of men, whose majority was christian, not institute a christian government when they had the chance? *



It is really not relevant to the OP, but the obvious answer is that wicked men in power sought to forcefully subjugate the population in various ways, including attempts at forcing one religious system over all others. The flight to the New World was in many instances motivated by greed (think Spanish conquistadors, for one), but the early colonial efforts in settling this land that later became the original thirteen colonies ( note: Forming a new nation was not really a consideration in the 1500's, 1600's, nor the early 1700's) and was strongly motivated by a desire for religious freedom; not to live free from any religion, but to practice religion in their own way.) The forefathers had 250 years of history to help convince them to shape a new government that allowed religious freedom independent of government meddling.



TheBishop said:


> Your excactly (sp) right, and this in part answers the question above.  Corruption eventually leads to tyranny.  The present corruption has absolutely nothing to do with any christian principals.  It has everything to do with your first statement, people treating this country like a democracy, and people willing to sacrifice liberty for things like security,  forced equality, and social engineering.
> 
> A good and just government needs no other foundation but individual liberty.



Individual liberty must be tempered by the societal institution of government placing reasonable and acceptable restrictions for the greater good of the entire population. Everybody doing as they please, based on unrestricted, individual liberty, is the very definition of anarchy. 



TheBishop said:


> You have still yet to answer : What Rights must we surrender in order to form a society?



We all give up something. Do you pay taxes? Are you restricted from owning and using certain weapons? Could you be forcibly conscripted into military service under past draft laws? Are you allowed to print and distribute legal tender or is that reserved as a right and responsibility of our government? Can you manufacture and distribute legitimate medical drugs or cut hair without the proper permits/ licenses? I think you get my point.


----------



## gtparts

JB0704 said:


> Only to the extent that the punishment is not a deterrent.  There are a lot of things Iwould do if I would not end up in jail for doing them.



How well is punishment working as a deterrent (except in the case of capital punishment)? If it were a reality, we wouldn't have to punish anyone but the first offender. Everyone else would discard the very idea of risking violating the law. As for incarceration, ever hear of recidivism?



JB0704 said:


> On this thought, if a government were christian based, wouldn't repentance be the end of the legal system.  A sin (crime) would be forgiven, and there would be "no record of wrongs" (had to throw some corinthians out there).  I don't want that, and I don't think anybody on here wants it either.



(Love that you made the Corinthian comment.)
There is a major consideration that must be taken into account. Spiritual repentance and the receiving of forgiveness does not do away with the consequences for breaking civil laws. It didn't in biblical times, it doesn't today, and I can't imagine that such would be the case in a Christian-based government, today or in the future. "Christian-based" could not be understood as perfect, as long as humanity administers the government. 




JB0704 said:


> Government, by its nature, is imposed on the population.  A christian government would have to get its money somewhere, so it would have to collect taxes.  Those taxes would have to be collected thruogh implied force.



Sounds like the same "sticking points" we have in the present form of government.... any form of government.



JB0704 said:


> People should choose the ideals, then live them.  Not be forced at the point of a gun to live a moral life.  Taking care of orphans, feeding the poor, loving your neighbor are all the most appealling aspects of Chrisitianity to me.  But none of these actions should be from compulsion.  If they were, then you are advocating for socialism.



I wouldn't disagree with any of what you have typed in this paragraph. I just don't know why some interpret "Christian-based government" as being one that makes Christianity compulsory. It isn't evident from Scripture.





JB0704 said:


> This is my whole argument.  Government, by definition, does everything through force.



Actually, that may be true of some forms of government, but if you look at our founding documents, you will see that the states made mutual pledges to the federation, all the while retaining for the states and individual certain rights not seceded to the new national government. In short, we gave up something as individuals to gain something as a community.




JB0704 said:


> This is also my dillemma with church.  I do not fear Christianity, I fear Christians.  Particularly the ones who would force another to live according to thier interpretation of morality.  If a person is moral through force, then they are not really moral.  Morality exists when we choose it.
> 
> I think our current government is better because it gives more personal freedom than one that would force Christian morality on folks (see results of today's Sunday liquor sales vote for a good example of forced morality).



Why do you argue against yourself? You say that morality cannot be forced and in the next breath assume that Christians are convinced that they can. Most Christians I know are far smarter than that. 

In the NW corner of our state is Cloudland Canyon State Park. There are signs and railings to keep visitors from going over the edge on the moss-covered rock and falling to their deaths. Some are smart enough to understand and obey the signs. It is called "heeding the warnings". The laws concerning Sunday sales of beverage alcohol only serve as a warning. The laws do little to actually stem the heartbreak caused by the combination of irresponsible people and beverage alcohol. Those that choose to, will make purchases Monday through Saturday. But, I have never heard anyone say, " I want to drink till my judgment is impaired and total my new car." or "Nothing would make me happier that to know my child will be an alcoholic. The more jobs he loses, the better." or maybe, "Serves my niece right for getting plastered, aspirating in her vomit, and dying as she lay unconscious on the floor. Stupid kids! My brother and sister-in-law should just be philosophical and get over it." Those laws may stimulate discussions that save us from many human tragedies. If they do, wouldn't it be better to have the laws than do without them?


----------



## TheBishop

> Check line (2). What I described is a republic. You must have missed that one.


 
No you described mob rule. That laws are left to be decided what ever is inline with the times.  It is most certainly should not be that way.  




> Before anything can be reasoned upon to a conclusion, certain facts, principles, or data, to reason from, must be established, admitted, or denied. Mr. Burke with his usual outrage, abused the Declaration of the Rights of Man, published by the National Assembly of France, as the basis on which the constitution of France is built. This he calls "paltry and blurred sheets of paper about the rights of man." Does Mr. Burke mean to deny that man has any rights? If he does, then he must mean that there are no such things as rights anywhere, and that he has none himself; for who is there in the world but man? But if Mr. Burke means to admit that man has rights, the question then will be: What are those rights, and how man came by them originally?
> 
> The error of those who reason by precedents drawn from antiquity, respecting the rights of man, is that they do not go far enough into antiquity. They do not go the whole way. They stop in some of the intermediate stages of an hundred or a thousand years, and produce what was then done, as a rule for the present day. This is no authority at all. If we travel still farther into antiquity, we shall find a direct contrary opinion and practice prevailing; and if antiquity is to be authority, a thousand such authorities may be produced, successively contradicting each other; but if we proceed on, we shall at last come out right; we shall come to the time when man came from the hand of his Maker. What was he then? Man. Man was his high and only title, and a higher cannot be given him. But of titles I shall speak hereafter.
> 
> We are now got at the origin of man, and at the origin of his rights. As to the manner in which the world has been governed from that day to this, it is no farther any concern of ours than to make a proper use of the errors or the improvements which the history of it presents. Those who lived an hundred or a thousand years ago, were then moderns, as we are now. They had their ancients, and those ancients had others, and we also shall be ancients in our turn. If the mere name of antiquity is to govern in the affairs of life, the people who are to live an hundred or a thousand years hence, may as well take us for a precedent, as we make a precedent of those who lived an hundred or a thousand years ago. The fact is, that portions of antiquity, by proving everything, establish nothing. It is authority against authority all the way, till we come to the divine origin of the rights of man at the creation. Here our enquiries find a resting-place, and our reason finds a home. If a dispute about the rights of man had arisen at the distance of an hundred years from the creation, it is to this source of authority they must have referred, and it is to this same source of authority that we must now refer.


 Thomas Paine rights of man.




> Then you would agree that no government protects our rights.



No our governments main function is to protect and preserve individual rights. 



> They may very well define them, but they only respond and seek to punish and/or secure restitution.



No our rights are natural born rights. Government defines nothing. 



> Our rights are not guaranteed until the government can assure no infringement will occur.



Our constitution and citizenship guarantee rights again government does not. Government is instuted among men to protect our natural rights.



> Until then, rights can only be lost.... and, hopefully, restored. Obviously, a murder victim cannot have their life, liberty, or their ability to pursue individual happiness restored. So, let's dispense with the idea that any government can ensure rights.



No but it is supposed to ensure justice for the infringement of those rights.  No government can ensure rights, it is up to an ever vigalant and aware populace to do so.



> It is really not relevant to the OP, but the obvious answer is that wicked men in power sought to forcefully subjugate the population in various ways, including attempts at forcing one religious system over all others. The flight to the New World was in many instances motivated by greed (think Spanish conquistadors, for one), but the early colonial efforts in settling this land that later became the original thirteen colonies ( note: Forming a new nation was not really a consideration in the 1500's, 1600's, nor the early 1700's) and was strongly motivated by a desire for religious freedom; not to live free from any religion, but to practice religion in their own way.) The forefathers had 250 years of history to help convince them to shape a new government that allowed religious freedom independent of government meddling.



That is the best thing I have read from you.



> Individual liberty must be tempered by the societal institution of government placing reasonable and acceptable restrictions for the greater good of the entire population. Everybody doing as they please, based on unrestricted, individual liberty, is the very definition of anarchy.



NO,NO,NO!


> We all give up something. Do you pay taxes?



Yes unfairly.



> Are you restricted from owning and using certain weapons?



Yes and I shouldn't be.

Co





> uld you be forcibly conscripted into military service under past draft laws?



Yes, But it would only be in defense of my rights and others.



> Are you allowed to print and distribute legal tender or is that reserved as a right and responsibility of our government?



Yes actually you can.  It must be backed and interpreted to have some value.  You just can't counterfiet existing currency.  Look up berkshares, berkshires. 



> Can you manufacture and distribute legitimate medical drugs or cut hair without the proper permits/ licenses? I think you get my point.



No but agian I see this as a overreach of government powers.  Let the market decide.  If I want to buy drugs from a street vender, it my decision, not yours. If I choose to let some bum off the streets be my doctor what concern is of yours?


Do not commit murder becuase its illegal?
Do not steal becuase its illegal? 
Do not prostitute yourself becuase its illegal?

I would wager no, as do most good people.  You assume that people will seek chaos if we did not have government to hold our hand.  I say no.  We are no longer hunter gathers, of segregated tribes.  We are a species that thrives in social orders, we seek them out.  Those orders do not erode becuase of freedom.  They erode when too many impose their will for the sacrifice of a few.


----------



## ryanh487

The last time this happened, we had the dark ages. 

But according to the Bible, it will happen again with people who THINK they are serving God but are massively deceived, and will persecute the true people of God in the name of God.


----------



## willie

JB0704 said:


> Whether or not we consider the word "true" in the equation, we have to understand that government represents force.  Taxes are a necessity of government, they are collected through implied force.  Laws are upheld through force.  The only way to remove force is to assume complete benevolence (freely pay taxes and follow all laws without need of force) of the population, which will not happen, if it did, we are talking about a utopian society which would require no government at all.
> 
> So, if we had a "true christian govt," we would not need govt, or the "true christian govt" would have to use force.  I can't get on board with using force to advance a belief system.  I don't see where Jesus would have endorsed such a practice either.  In fact, I don't recall if Jesus ever lobbied the govt for anything.  He was more of a rebel type.
> 
> Hope that clears it up for the folks who have implied a "true christian" would endorse a "true christian govt."



Matthew 10-34


I am come not to bring peace, but the sword...


----------

