thesometimesaint Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 I am sure forcing people to live the commandments through the political process was God's plan all along. Sounds like a much more efficient system of getting people to live the commandments. Forget this "let your light so shine before men" approach. If they are not going to live the commandments on their own. we will get the government to pass laws. Like you said, "People will put politics over God." I like it. Let's go with this plan. And like you said, if people get angry with the church for forcing them to follow our beliefs through the laws of the country, then they probably would have rejected the gospel anyway. We are the one's God will save, not them. We are doing what God wants us to do. Oh yeah, we gotta love and testify to them. If they can't feel our love because of our political actions, that is really their problem. Cause we love them are doing this because of that love for them.That my friend was a bit of hyperbole.If all men were angels no government would be necessary.If all men were devils no government would be possible.
Storm Rider Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 Our laws, all the laws of all governments, are based on morality and the attempt to enforce fair-play, respect, honesty, and a healthy social structure among its citizens. It seems naïve to think that just because one's personal desires conflict with societal mores than governments should not have laws, specifically any laws that conflict with one's desires.
Stone holm Posted April 17, 2013 Author Posted April 17, 2013 Our laws, all the laws of all governments, are based on morality and the attempt to enforce fair-play, respect, honesty, and a healthy social structure among its citizens. It seems naïve to think that just because one's personal desires conflict with societal mores than governments should not have laws, specifically any laws that conflict with one's desires.It is all a matter of degree and protecting moral agency isn't it?
california boy Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 As you may or may not know, New Zealand will be finalizing the passage of gay marriage in that country. As here, there is in that country a discussion on how gay marriage will effect the country. some of the concerns of his constituents. It is a bit humorous, but it also illustrates how silly some of the arguments against gay marriage are to those that support gay marriage.
california boy Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 Just an update. New Zealand just passed gay marriage. I couldn't be more happy for this beautiful country where I served my mission. Hundreds of spectators in the gallery of New Zealand's parliament broke into a spontaneous rendition of the love song in the indigenous Maori language after the marriage equity bill was passed. Hearing that beautiful Malorie love song was so emotional for me. Sometimes in this seemingly endless discussion of gay marriage, we forget that for so many people it is about love and commitment. I am sure most on this board will probably not understand how touching it was for me. I know this is a bit of a derail. I am sorry for that, but wanted to share this moment. Now back to your regularly broadcasted thread.
Stone holm Posted April 17, 2013 Author Posted April 17, 2013 As you may or may not know, New Zealand will be finalizing the passage of gay marriage in that country. As here, there is in that country a discussion on how gay marriage will effect the country. some of the concerns of his constituents. It is a bit humorous, but it also illustrates how silly some of the arguments against gay marriage are to those that support gay marriage.Showed the link to my ultimate earthly authority and she not only thought it hilarious but right on the money. But we are drifting from the topic, and would hope this thread does not turn into another on gay marriage. Because of another thread I got to thinking about how the Cold War might have ended had instead of two basically secular countries (albeit one which was fairly religious as to its citizens private lives) not been the contenders, but rather had one of them been a theocracy instead. Would have the concept of mutual assured destruction still have been sufficient to keep both from pressing the launch button or would have reason completely fled the scene?
thesometimesaint Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 There has been only one country on the face of this planet that has ever used nukes in war, and that is the US.For all intents and purposes the Cold War ended with the Cuban Missile Crises. Yes the US would "win", but such a victory would be ashes in our mouths.Indian and Pakistan are both highly religious but both have deliverable nukes. Israel and Iran are highly religious, but only Israel has nukes.
CASteinman Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 Showed the link to my ultimate earthly authority and she not only thought it hilarious but right on the money. But we are drifting from the topic, and would hope this thread does not turn into another on gay marriage. Because of another thread I got to thinking about how the Cold War might have ended had instead of two basically secular countries (albeit one which was fairly religious as to its citizens private lives) not been the contenders, but rather had one of them been a theocracy instead. Would have the concept of mutual assured destruction still have been sufficient to keep both from pressing the launch button or would have reason completely fled the scene?Your belief in the majestic moral supremacy of the Secular Church is not particularly supportable by evidence. It is a matter of faith.
Stone holm Posted April 17, 2013 Author Posted April 17, 2013 Your belief in the majestic moral supremacy of the Secular Church is not particularly supportable by evidence. It is a matter of faith.Well I don't believe in a secular church, I believe that to have been a myth promulgated by Elder Maxwell, but I do understand what a religious government is, and I do understand that religion is not something easily negotiated with and is sometimes irrational in that as far as this world is concerned and a few would be willing to completely sacrifice this world for a vision based on the next which was my point
CASteinman Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 Well I don't believe in a secular churchWell, of course you do. You just call it "secular government". But that's what it is.I believe that to have been a myth promulgated by Elder MaxwellI accept that you have rejected his teachings. Would it matter to you if he was not the only one? Probably not. but I do understand what a religious government is, and I do understand that religion is not something easily negotiated with and is sometimes irrational in that as far as this world is concerned and a few would be willing to completely sacrifice this world for a vision based on the next which was my pointWell, if that was your point, you should have made it, instead of going on a rhetorical question tangent that has been shown so far to be answered in the negative. As I said, you have a faith in this stuff. The actual evidence of the world (the secular evidence) does not support your views.
Ahab Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 The word "church", in itself, without the additional assumptions some people commonly associate with that word, simply refers to an assembly of people which has been called to gather together. Many people commonly assume that any church is a church that has been called together by Jesus Christ, as if any and every church is an assembly of people that HE has called together, but that ain't necessarily so.Thus, a "secular church" is any assembly of people which has not been called to gather together by Jesus Christ. Or, if you want to extend it a bit further, by anyone who isn't calling the assembly together for any so-called "religious" reason, as the word religion is commonly understood.We could get into a big ole rigamarole about how any church is either a church of God (our Father/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit) or a church of Satan (someone else who also considers himself to be God), with all people who are gathered together for any reason by anyone considered as a religious organization of some kind and in either one of those 2 camps, and that would be correct too, but the main point I'm trying to make is that an assembly of people which has been called to gather together isn't necessarily a church of Jesus Christ.
Stone holm Posted April 18, 2013 Author Posted April 18, 2013 The word "church", in itself, without the additional assumptions some people commonly associate with that word, simply refers to an assembly of people which has been called to gather together. Many people commonly assume that any church is a church that has been called together by Jesus Christ, as if any and every church is an assembly of people that HE has called together, but that ain't necessarily so.Thus, a "secular church" is any assembly of people which has not been called to gather together by Jesus Christ. Or, if you want to extend it a bit further, by anyone who isn't calling the assembly together for any so-called "religious" reason, as the word religion is commonly understood.We could get into a big ole rigamarole about how any church is either a church of God (our Father/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit) or a church of Satan (someone else who also considers himself to be God), with all people who are gathered together for any reason by anyone considered as a religious organization of some kind and in either one of those 2 camps, and that would be correct too, but the main point I'm trying to make is that an assembly of people which has been called to gather together isn't necessarily a church of Jesus Christ.The implication which is being drawn is that anyone who believes in a secular government is therefore not a religious person. Further, if you believe in separation of Church (in the religious sense) and State that then you are somehow excluded from the Church and belong to this mythical secular church which by implication is evil hence Satanic. Which argument I call BS.
CASteinman Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 The implication which is being drawn is that anyone who believes in a secular government is therefore not a religious person. Totally wrong. There is no such implication.Further, if you believe in separation of Church (in the religious sense) and State that then you are somehow excluded from the Church and belong to this mythical secular church which by implication is evil hence Satanic. Which argument I call BS.Strawman.
Stone holm Posted April 18, 2013 Author Posted April 18, 2013 Totally wrong. There is no such implication.Strawman.Really? I think that is precisely the implication. What other implication is there?
CASteinman Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 Really? I think that is precisely the implication. What other implication is there?I don't know that there was any implication. There was a main point: "the main point I'm trying to make is that an assembly of people which has been called to gather together isn't necessarily a church of Jesus Christ."I would have changed it to "an assembly of people which has been called to gather together isn't necessarily a religious church", but it wasn't my statement. If you wanted to see an implication you could have a justification for saying that the implication is that there are two Churches -- the Church of Jesus Christ and all others including the Secular Church or as you put it "secular government". But that is not the same thing as saying that if you are a secularist you are not religious.
Stone holm Posted April 19, 2013 Author Posted April 19, 2013 I don't know that there was any implication. There was a main point: "the main point I'm trying to make is that an assembly of people which has been called to gather together isn't necessarily a church of Jesus Christ."I would have changed it to "an assembly of people which has been called to gather together isn't necessarily a religious church", but it wasn't my statement. If you wanted to see an implication you could have a justification for saying that the implication is that there are two Churches -- the Church of Jesus Christ and all others including the Secular Church or as you put it "secular government". But that is not the same thing as saying that if you are a secularist you are not religious. I have heard the argument that "humanism" is a religion which is usually the opening volley for those who support teachers leading prayers in school, or teaching creationism in science classes, or passing religious based laws. The argument is that if you are trying to stay neutral that the neutrality is a religion and since it is a religion if you advocate religious neutrality in public matters you belong to something other than the Church. Elder Maxwell was clearly projecting this as an evil. And by calling it the secularist church, he was also strongly implying that it was Satanic. This argument taken to its logical conclusion would have branded nearly all of the founding fathers as Satanist. It is , however, sheer nonsense.
CASteinman Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 I have heard the argument that "humanism" is a religion which is usually the opening volley for those who support teachers leading prayers in school, or teaching creationism in science classes, or passing religious based laws. The argument is that if you are trying to stay neutral that the neutrality is a religion and since it is a religion if you advocate religious neutrality in public matters you belong to something other than the Church. Elder Maxwell was clearly projecting this as an evil. And by calling it the secularist church, he was also strongly implying that it was Satanic. This argument taken to its logical conclusion would have branded nearly all of the founding fathers as Satanist. It is , however, sheer nonsense.I think you have made a variety of logical errors in this and come to a bad conclusion. 1. What others say is not what Maxwell said yet you link them.2. The argument is not that neutrality is a religion. It could be, but that is not the argument. 3. You did not recognize what Maxwell was projecting as bad.4. It might well be that what he was talking about was satanic -- but there was no implication of it.5. There is no logical conclusion that would brand nearly all the founding fathers as satanists unless you start with a false assumption -- that they were nearly all secular.
Tacenda Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 http://www.upworthy.com/this-new-zealand-politician-unleashes-one-of-the-funniest-gay-marriage-speeches-on-record-2Saw this on FB. The guy is pretty funny but very serious at the same time. He speaks alot of what is discussed here, I believe.
CASteinman Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 As you may or may not know, New Zealand will be finalizing the passage of gay marriage in that country. As here, there is in that country a discussion on how gay marriage will effect the country. some of the concerns of his constituents. It is a bit humorous, but it also illustrates how silly some of the arguments against gay marriage are to those that support gay marriage.Political
Stone holm Posted April 19, 2013 Author Posted April 19, 2013 PoliticalNo not political just a demonstration of what happens when you interject religion in forming policy.
CASteinman Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 No not political just a demonstration of what happens when you interject religion in forming policy.Totally political.
thesometimesaint Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 All laws, at least in the US, must serve a secular purpose, and not a overtly sectarian one. If anyone wants to live under a sectarian state, there are a few Middle Eastern ones I can think of.
CASteinman Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 All laws, at least in the US, must serve a secular purposeThat is the mantra of secularists. If your point is that secularism is winning, I believe the apostles have indicated as much in their speeches.
Ahab Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 The implication which is being drawn is that anyone who believes in a secular government is therefore not a religious person. What do you mean by "believe in", as it relates to anyone who "believes in" a secular government? I believe people in governing positions of any society are an assembly of people who have been called together to act in behalf of the people they govern, based on what they believe is good for their society, but I wouldn't say I believe in them, at least not in the same sense that I believe in Jesus Christ. I do believe secular governments exist, if by a secular government you're referring to an assembly of people who as a collective body don't endorse a particular religion, but as individuals they do endorse their own personal religion. The word religion, at its core, refers simply to a way of life, and everyone has a way of life, thus everyone has a religion.Further, if you believe in separation of Church (in the religious sense) and State that then you are somehow excluded from the Church and belong to this mythical secular church which by implication is evil hence Satanic. Which argument I call BS.That is a bunch of BS.
Recommended Posts