We should life our lives according to the word of God. That is what a Christian is taught and comes to believe. It is something we call faith. Trust is another word to describe this feeling. We must learn to trust our God, that he is all knowing, wise and undeniable in his truth. I believe this is what all religions teach their followers as well. No matter the name of the God or Gods, no matter the ideology of those teachings, the message certainly has to be the same, follow your God.
The challenge to all men is the same. To believe in and follow the word of your God, while living with the words of men. In one form or another we all live in subjugation to other men. That is the reality of living. Men form governments to govern the actions of other men. Those same men may or may not follow the words of the same God. This is where the problems begin. Even when men agree on a common God, they seldom agree on exactly what that God said. Denominations are formed. There is a common denominator, the belief in God, but " values "are quite variable throughout. Among men, there have always been those that don't believe as well. That is another variable. It is for that basic reason that Government must be a secular organization. It is for that very reason the founding Fathers created that separation of Church and State that is so widely quoted and spoke of today. They were all too well aware of what happens when the leader of a nation begins to use the word of GOD to govern. It becomes personal! They understood that belief in God, Gods, or non-belief for that matter is a personal thing and can not be applied to more than one person at a time: you!
That's correct and a basic tenet one needs to understand. Are we not taught that he is our God? Are we not taught we need to accept him on a personal basis? He is our God! Are we told to share our God with anyone else? No, we are told to share our love of our God and encourage others to accept him as their PERSONAL lord and savior. God is a personal thing that is dependent upon personal belief. For that reason you can not govern a people using that belief. To attempt to do so would be in violation of the very belief you want others to accept, at least if you are a Christian it would. The ideologies of other religions do not contain the same tenets and are therefore exempt.
Now these thoughts came about during a discussion I was having yesterday. It concerns the building of the border wall. But as with most discussion the topics wandered around and the original posting was lost in the shuffle somewhere. I'll take the blame for that as my thoughts do wander around as I like to look at things from many angles. In general the thought being discussed was whether we ( the United States ) should have open borders and just allow anyone to enter at anytime. The general argument I got concerned our Christian belief in taking care of our fellow man. It is at that point I presented my thoughts about the separation Church and State. The individual I was talking with is quite well versed in the words of the Bible, and I'm certain has a strong faith and belief in those words. My contention was Government, by necessity, must be secular. Government is a separate and distinct entity but composed of individuals. It is my hope the majority of those individuals would share my Christian beliefs and act upon them accordingly. Despite arguments to the contrary I do believe our Government is predominately controlled by Christians. Therefore Christian principles are the predominant factor in determining legislation. In recent years I would have to say that isn't nearly as true as in years past, but that is another discussion all in itself. Think Roe V Wade. A Christian precedent? No, definitely a secular one. That's my Christian opinion anyway.
One point I was trying to make, I'm afraid I wasn't clear enough, was that we as individuals have our belief but government, as a whole, does not share that belief. For that reason quoting the words of the Bible can not be construed as the words of Government. In other words, Government legislation can never be the Bible or vice-versa. Islam has tried that, they call it Sharia law. That law is only applicable to Muslims. It is also the justification for taking whatever actions they deem necessary to " convert " others to their religion. There is no separation of Church and State in those countries. You can judge the result for yourselves. I mention that not to disparage any Muslims but as an example of what I am talking about.
Our government is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. John Adams famously stated, " Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. " I believe he was referring to the first amendment to that constitution. He understood completely what that amendment was saying. You can't rule the nation with the Christian Bible or any other " Bible " for that matter. It is that amendment that established that separation of Church and State. It is plain, Government is a secular thing. His thought was, our constitution is totally inadequate to the governing of any people that are not moral and religious people. That is simply because our people are the government! It's a fine distinction that requires acute observation to see. The constitution is secular! Therefore, the people must be moral and religious to make it work. The issue being, what God, what religion, what moral authority other than your own personal belief? That is what is not delineated in that constitution or its' amendments. John Adams also wrote, " A government of laws, not of men. " What was he saying there? Government is law, not men. Government must set aside your personal Gods' words and live by law. That is true even when all men believe in the same God because not all men interpret the words the same. Yes, men do litigate Gods' laws and that is central to the issue at hand.
You have those that are thoroughly versed in every word and chapter in the Christian Bible. Those words are in over two thousand languages and hundreds of versions. It is no wonder that those words , phrases and thoughts would be understood in different ways by different peoples and cultures. I don't see how it could be any other way. So, how do we determine exactly what it says? By personal belief is the short answer. Groups formed to litigate those words. I used the example in my discussion when Jesus says, give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God that things that are Gods'. I took that to mean, obey the law of Caesar and of God. Another example I like to use is, Go and sin no more. I take that to mean, don't do that again! It doesn't mean you can just keep on sinning and I will forgive you every time. These are the types of things I'm talking about when it comes to litigating the word of God. There will be those that can hurl more quotes back at you in an attempt to sway your view, there will be those that agree, and there will be those that don't believe any of it.
In the end we are left with litigation, plain and simple. There can be no litigation, no compromise when one party believes wholeheartedly in a single precept. What that precept is, isn't the issue though. It s the interpretation of that precept that causes all the problems. Boiled down to, practice what you preach! I'm afraid we all fall short in that category. I'm not excluded from any of that, I'm just a man like all others. My belief is just as valid as yours. For that reason we can not legislate on belief, rather we must legislate on fact. I must set aside my belief in favor of fact for the better good of the whole. That, to me, is a Christian precept. I have no right to press my beliefs upon you. When I determine that I do, that is the point where it becomes an ideology. Just what is the epistemic standard? Is it the word of God, as understood by you? As a Christian that is what I was taught. Does that entitle me to impose my belief upon you? No, it doesn't and that is why the separation of Church and State.
The challenge to all men is the same. To believe in and follow the word of your God, while living with the words of men. In one form or another we all live in subjugation to other men. That is the reality of living. Men form governments to govern the actions of other men. Those same men may or may not follow the words of the same God. This is where the problems begin. Even when men agree on a common God, they seldom agree on exactly what that God said. Denominations are formed. There is a common denominator, the belief in God, but " values "are quite variable throughout. Among men, there have always been those that don't believe as well. That is another variable. It is for that basic reason that Government must be a secular organization. It is for that very reason the founding Fathers created that separation of Church and State that is so widely quoted and spoke of today. They were all too well aware of what happens when the leader of a nation begins to use the word of GOD to govern. It becomes personal! They understood that belief in God, Gods, or non-belief for that matter is a personal thing and can not be applied to more than one person at a time: you!
That's correct and a basic tenet one needs to understand. Are we not taught that he is our God? Are we not taught we need to accept him on a personal basis? He is our God! Are we told to share our God with anyone else? No, we are told to share our love of our God and encourage others to accept him as their PERSONAL lord and savior. God is a personal thing that is dependent upon personal belief. For that reason you can not govern a people using that belief. To attempt to do so would be in violation of the very belief you want others to accept, at least if you are a Christian it would. The ideologies of other religions do not contain the same tenets and are therefore exempt.
Now these thoughts came about during a discussion I was having yesterday. It concerns the building of the border wall. But as with most discussion the topics wandered around and the original posting was lost in the shuffle somewhere. I'll take the blame for that as my thoughts do wander around as I like to look at things from many angles. In general the thought being discussed was whether we ( the United States ) should have open borders and just allow anyone to enter at anytime. The general argument I got concerned our Christian belief in taking care of our fellow man. It is at that point I presented my thoughts about the separation Church and State. The individual I was talking with is quite well versed in the words of the Bible, and I'm certain has a strong faith and belief in those words. My contention was Government, by necessity, must be secular. Government is a separate and distinct entity but composed of individuals. It is my hope the majority of those individuals would share my Christian beliefs and act upon them accordingly. Despite arguments to the contrary I do believe our Government is predominately controlled by Christians. Therefore Christian principles are the predominant factor in determining legislation. In recent years I would have to say that isn't nearly as true as in years past, but that is another discussion all in itself. Think Roe V Wade. A Christian precedent? No, definitely a secular one. That's my Christian opinion anyway.
One point I was trying to make, I'm afraid I wasn't clear enough, was that we as individuals have our belief but government, as a whole, does not share that belief. For that reason quoting the words of the Bible can not be construed as the words of Government. In other words, Government legislation can never be the Bible or vice-versa. Islam has tried that, they call it Sharia law. That law is only applicable to Muslims. It is also the justification for taking whatever actions they deem necessary to " convert " others to their religion. There is no separation of Church and State in those countries. You can judge the result for yourselves. I mention that not to disparage any Muslims but as an example of what I am talking about.
Our government is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. John Adams famously stated, " Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. " I believe he was referring to the first amendment to that constitution. He understood completely what that amendment was saying. You can't rule the nation with the Christian Bible or any other " Bible " for that matter. It is that amendment that established that separation of Church and State. It is plain, Government is a secular thing. His thought was, our constitution is totally inadequate to the governing of any people that are not moral and religious people. That is simply because our people are the government! It's a fine distinction that requires acute observation to see. The constitution is secular! Therefore, the people must be moral and religious to make it work. The issue being, what God, what religion, what moral authority other than your own personal belief? That is what is not delineated in that constitution or its' amendments. John Adams also wrote, " A government of laws, not of men. " What was he saying there? Government is law, not men. Government must set aside your personal Gods' words and live by law. That is true even when all men believe in the same God because not all men interpret the words the same. Yes, men do litigate Gods' laws and that is central to the issue at hand.
You have those that are thoroughly versed in every word and chapter in the Christian Bible. Those words are in over two thousand languages and hundreds of versions. It is no wonder that those words , phrases and thoughts would be understood in different ways by different peoples and cultures. I don't see how it could be any other way. So, how do we determine exactly what it says? By personal belief is the short answer. Groups formed to litigate those words. I used the example in my discussion when Jesus says, give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God that things that are Gods'. I took that to mean, obey the law of Caesar and of God. Another example I like to use is, Go and sin no more. I take that to mean, don't do that again! It doesn't mean you can just keep on sinning and I will forgive you every time. These are the types of things I'm talking about when it comes to litigating the word of God. There will be those that can hurl more quotes back at you in an attempt to sway your view, there will be those that agree, and there will be those that don't believe any of it.
In the end we are left with litigation, plain and simple. There can be no litigation, no compromise when one party believes wholeheartedly in a single precept. What that precept is, isn't the issue though. It s the interpretation of that precept that causes all the problems. Boiled down to, practice what you preach! I'm afraid we all fall short in that category. I'm not excluded from any of that, I'm just a man like all others. My belief is just as valid as yours. For that reason we can not legislate on belief, rather we must legislate on fact. I must set aside my belief in favor of fact for the better good of the whole. That, to me, is a Christian precept. I have no right to press my beliefs upon you. When I determine that I do, that is the point where it becomes an ideology. Just what is the epistemic standard? Is it the word of God, as understood by you? As a Christian that is what I was taught. Does that entitle me to impose my belief upon you? No, it doesn't and that is why the separation of Church and State.
No comments:
Post a Comment