Page 4 of 5 [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

25 Apr 2017, 2:25 pm

Ignotum wrote:
The only way to truly remove any trace of religion in government would be to ban public religious practice. So basically what the USSR did and the modern Chinese government does, which, as I'm sure doesn't need to be mentioned, are two totalitarian states.

So no, I don't see a total division of faith and state in the west any time soon.


The point is having a government that is not based on religion...banning religious practice would defeat the purpose of freedom of religion. Of course you cannot remove any form of religious belief and spirituality and that can influence people...but that is different than having written laws to enforce a particular religious belief. It is quite possible to have secular laws while still maintaining freedom of religion.


_________________
We won't go back.


tensordyne
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 2 Apr 2017
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 209
Location: Kirkland, WA

25 Apr 2017, 2:39 pm

Hey all, interesting replies all around! By 'Revealed Truth' I was more looking for something like the following from (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm):

Quote:
Revelation may be defined as the communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature.
The truths revealed may be such as are otherwise inaccessible to the human mind — mysteries, which even when revealed, the intellect of man is incapable of fully penetrating. But Revelation is not restricted to these. God may see fit to employ supernatural means to affirm truths, the discovery of which is not per se beyond the powers of reason. The essence of Revelation lies in the fact that it is the direct speech of God to man....


Kind of have a problem with the notion above, which is what is meant by the phrase "Revealed Truth". Not sure there is anything supernatural at all, and even if there is, why should I take any persons word for it? Followed by the even further stretch of then taking other peoples' word for it, that something magical happened, based on written testimony from long ago, written by people who see magic in everything.

If your truth can be rediscovered by others, that seems like a minimum condition for it to be true. Revealed Truths, by definition, do not meet this condition.


_________________
Go Vegan!


tensordyne
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 2 Apr 2017
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 209
Location: Kirkland, WA

25 Apr 2017, 2:48 pm

Secular!

Sweetleaf wrote:
The point is having a government that is not based on religion...banning religious practice would defeat the purpose of freedom of religion. Of course you cannot remove any form of religious belief and spirituality and that can influence people...but that is different than having written laws to enforce a particular religious belief. It is quite possible to have secular laws while still maintaining freedom of religion.


Here, Here! Strongly, strongly, agree! :)

If someone goes in front of Congress and they say that their God gave them a Dream to enact a Law, I do not respect that. If they say the same thing, and then say that they worked out the details of how it would work in a Secular (moral) way, cool! Inspiration comes from all places.

Do you know what I mean?


_________________
Go Vegan!


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

25 Apr 2017, 3:04 pm

tensordyne wrote:
By 'Revealed Truth' I was more looking for something like the following from (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm):
Quote:
Revelation may be defined as the communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature...
... The essence of Revelation lies in the fact that it is the direct speech of God to man....

Kind of have a problem with the notion above, which is what is meant by the phrase "Revealed Truth".

What you see there is the result of "discovery" or whatever having been boxed by someone claiming some kind of monopoly on the matter. Realizing the earth travels around the sun rather than the sun around the earth was a revelation or "discovery" over which the religious leaders of the day nearly put Galileo to death. So when they say "Revelation may be defined as...", I wonder who gave them the authority to decide how revelation may be defined!


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,873
Location: temperate zone

28 Apr 2017, 3:03 am

leejosepho wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
You still havent answered my question: why do you equate "pluralism" with "suppressing religion"?

I do not.



So what is your problem with GWB's speech then?

How does GWB's speech "breach the divide between church and state"?



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

28 Apr 2017, 8:15 am

naturalplastic wrote:
...what is your problem with GWB's speech...?

I do not have one.

naturalplastic wrote:
How does GWB's speech "breach the divide between church and state"?

No religious commentary would have been needed to say perpetrators of terror would be pursued and prosecuted.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,873
Location: temperate zone

28 Apr 2017, 9:59 am

leejosepho wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
...what is your problem with GWB's speech...?

I do not have one.

naturalplastic wrote:
How does GWB's speech "breach the divide between church and state"?

No religious commentary would have been needed to say perpetrators of terror would be pursued and prosecuted.


:lol:

In the first sentence you deny having a problem with his speech.
In the next sentence you state a problem that you have with his speech!
:lol:

But he didnt make any "religious commentary" in his speech.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

28 Apr 2017, 10:05 am

naturalplastic wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
...what is your problem with GWB's speech...?

I do not have one.
naturalplastic wrote:
How does GWB's speech "breach the divide between church and state"?

No religious commentary would have been needed to say perpetrators of terror would be pursued and prosecuted.

In the next sentence you state a problem that you have with his speech!

I have no problem with his speech, I was simply making reference to it in relation to the topic of this thread.

naturalplastic wrote:
But he didn't make any "religious commentary" in his speech.

He certainly did, and you have already talked about that also. He talked about Islam and about good Muslims and bad Muslims as if he even had any expertise on the matter and/or any authority to even do so.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

28 Apr 2017, 10:10 am

Christianity believes in spirits, which are called powers and principalities, said to have authority over countries, like the patron deity or guardian angel. So, it is possible to worship a god of state, both figuratively and literally. Besides those people who make an idol of politics, according to the Christian worldview, it is not possible to divide faith and state, as the highest echelons are not of flesh and blood.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,873
Location: temperate zone

28 Apr 2017, 7:10 pm

leejosepho wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
...what is your problem with GWB's speech...?

I do not have one.
naturalplastic wrote:
How does GWB's speech "breach the divide between church and state"?

No religious commentary would have been needed to say perpetrators of terror would be pursued and prosecuted.

In the next sentence you state a problem that you have with his speech!

I have no problem with his speech, I was simply making reference to it in relation to the topic of this thread.

naturalplastic wrote:
But he didn't make any "religious commentary" in his speech.

He certainly did, and you have already talked about that also. He talked about Islam and about good Muslims and bad Muslims as if he even had any expertise on the matter and/or any authority to even do so.


Commenting on religion is not breaching church and state. Making laws about religion is. He was not making a law.


Are you saying you approve of GWB commenting on religion? Or do you disapprove? If you approve then it makes sense for you to say that you "have no problem with his speech".



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

28 Apr 2017, 7:49 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Are you saying you approve of GWB commenting on religion? Or do you disapprove?

Neither, just making reference to it in relation to the topic of this thread.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================