CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[breakingcontact]

Although I join GP's questions, my other primary concern would be the identity of the lesser magistrates? Who decides that? Those who are called?

A "big picture" problem arises in the sense that this same mechanism would allow things like Shariah law to be enforced in certain communities, using the exact same rationale.

I am confused by the double negative in the abortion clinic example. (Although, I do understand that double negatives are quite popular now.) You seem to suggest that a local zoning board (an agent of the government/state) might block an abortion clinic from being built, that would be appropriate. I'm probably reading WAY too much into that hypothetical, because I actually know how those things work. If the abortion clinic is an otherwise appropriate use and conforms to the applicable standards, there's no legal reason for the local board to block it. I think you're saying that the local board would be justified in ignoring the law to block the clinic.

Or are you saying that, in that instance, the local board would actually BE the lesser magistrates?

Can you elaborate on that a bit? I'm sorry if I'm missing something.

"I am confused by the double negative in the abortion clinic example. (Although, I do understand that double negatives are quite popular now.)"

This seems unnecessary. Forgive me for not being more articulate.

Yeah, the local zoning board should deny it in their capacity as a board of lesser magistrates. Would that go smoothly? Of course not.

 

[T.Lex]

"I am confused by the double negative in the abortion clinic example. (Although, I do understand that double negatives are quite popular now.)"

This seems unnecessary. Forgive me for not being more articulate.

Yeah, the local zoning board should deny it in their capacity as a board of lesser magistrates. Would that go smoothly? Of course not.

Thank you for that response, it is quite helpful.

So, the local board, elected by the people (or appointed by officials elected by the people) are lesser magistrates.

Are they lesser magistrates all the time, or only when they do things you agree with?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

9th Cir. rules Arizona school district's policy of starting school board meetings with prayers violates the establishment clause because it doesn't come within the legislative prayer exception or pass the Lemon test.

 

[JettaKnight]

As a tangent, I have been meaning to discuss church attendance with you all.

I haven't been in 2 weeks now, which is very unusual and man can I feel the difference in my spirit.

Looking forward to Sunday though I may try to attend a mid-week gathering of some brothers tonight.

Indeed missing church leaves me feeling empty.

This depends upon how you view God's law as still binding on state and man today.

More and more I'm feeling that America is a post-Christian nation and religious freedom is something to protect.

So, if I don't want atheist rallying around San Francisco "magistrates" who block the construction of a Baptist church, then I don't want to start the ball rolling by backing a (as I see it) a rogue clerk that wants to maintain the traditional view of marriage against the law.



I dunno... it's a tricky issue, this one is.

However, I'm a bit concerned about using the Madgeburg Confession - which explains resistance to forcing everyone to be Catholics (under penalty of death), to a situation whereby you want everyone, Christians and non- alike, to follow the Christian sexual ethic.


I guess this depends how far you want to carry it... Many on INGO regard Islam as evil. Is it the Gov't job to restrict them? T.Lex and I argued against other INGO'ers who wanted to block zoning of a mosque in Carmel. That's a potential situation where someone could support an intransigent board member because they believe that the government should block evil.

All this brings me back to my original statement: Be careful in the application.

 

[breakingcontact]

9th Cir. rules Arizona school district's policy of starting school board meetings with prayers violates the establishment clause because it doesn't come within the legislative prayer exception or pass the Lemon test.

They should continue to do so anyway.

 

[breakingcontact]

Thank you for that response, it is quite helpful.

So, the local board, elected by the people (or appointed by officials elected by the people) are lesser magistrates.

Are they lesser magistrates all the time, or only when they do things you agree with?

It isn't about them doing the things with which I agree.

It is about the moral law being upheld.

The moral law being upheld is actually a benefit to the non-believer as well.

 

[breakingcontact]

Indeed missing church leaves me feeling empty.



More and more I'm feeling that America is a post-Christian nation and religious freedom is something to protect.

So, if I don't want atheist rallying around San Francisco "magistrates" who block the construction of a Baptist church, then I don't want to start the ball rolling by backing a (as I see it) a rogue clerk that wants to maintain the traditional view of marriage against the law.



I dunno... it's a tricky issue, this one is.

However, I'm a bit concerned about using the Madgeburg Confession - which explains resistance to forcing everyone to be Catholics (under penalty of death), to a situation whereby you want everyone, Christians and non- alike, to follow the Christian sexual ethic.


I guess this depends how far you want to carry it... Many on INGO regard Islam as evil. Is it the Gov't job to restrict them? T.Lex and I argued against other INGO'ers who wanted to block zoning of a mosque in Carmel. That's a potential situation where someone could support an intransigent board member because they believe that the government should block evil.

All this brings me back to my original statement: Be careful in the application.

Baptists typically aren't keen on installing their faith upon the government, however the moral law =/= the faith, it is good and right to call for the government to do its job under Romans 13.

I'm not calling on the lesser magistrates to block what another group of people do with their property unless it is violating moral law.

When we shy away from advocating and demanding our government uphold the moral law, we are essentially denying that the moral law is written upon our hearts.

 

[JettaKnight]

Baptists typically aren't keen on installing their faith upon the government, however the moral law =/= the faith, it is good and right to call for the government to do its job under Romans 13.

You're asking us to do just that - install our faith upon the govt - you can't have moral law without a law giver, and without scripture it's a little tricky to define moral law.

Romans 13 is a commandment toward Christians, very, very little is directed at govt.

EDIT: IIRC, Many of the key players in the Moral Majority were Baptist, and Liberty University still has and agenda to get Christians into politics (that's not a bad thing).

I'm not calling on the lesser magistrates to block what another group of people do with their property unless it is violating moral law.

When we shy away from advocating and demanding our government uphold the moral law, we are essentially denying that the moral law is written upon our hearts.

See, that's where it gets tricky - there are plenty of Christians that would describe Islam as immoral and would happily call upon our government to see it limited.

When the Confession of Madgeburg was written, I don't think a Muslim would have been too welcome in the area.

Plenty of Baptist still find alcohol immoral and may support a local city clerk that refuses to hand out liquor licenses.

What about pacifist supporting a sheriff that arrest anyone seen carrying a handgun?



It's all very interesting, but seems like it could lead to abuse. On the other hand, having Christians just roll over and accept whatever the Feds say isn't exactly appealing.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

CVS fires pharmacist who denied hormone prescription to transgender woman

Denial based on "religious or moral grounds"

 

[breakingcontact]

You're asking us to do just that - install our faith upon the govt - you can't have moral law without a law giver, and without scripture it's a little tricky to define moral law.

Romans 13 is a commandment toward Christians, very, very little is directed at govt.

EDIT: IIRC, Many of the key players in the Moral Majority were Baptist, and Liberty University still has and agenda to get Christians into politics (that's not a bad thing).

See, that's where it gets tricky - there are plenty of Christians that would describe Islam as immoral and would happily call upon our government to see it limited.

When the Confession of Madgeburg was written, I don't think a Muslim would have been too welcome in the area.

Plenty of Baptist still find alcohol immoral and may support a local city clerk that refuses to hand out liquor licenses.

What about pacifist supporting a sheriff that arrest anyone seen carrying a handgun?



It's all very interesting, but seems like it could lead to abuse. On the other hand, having Christians just roll over and accept whatever the Feds say isn't exactly appealing.

I'm asking to install our faith upon the government? No, I'm calling for the government to uphold the most basic of moral laws.

Are you not reading Romans 13: 3-6?

I don't speak for all Baptists.

Pacifists supporting a sheriff that would confiscate a handgun? These are Christian pacifists? Because if they are they are sinning in depriving a person of their *means to uphold* their obligation to defend innocent people from harm.

This is why I ask about faith backgrounds, denominations, creeds, confessions, because not all Christians believe the same thing, a great many have a very poor or flat out wrong understanding of the Bible.

 

[T.Lex]

Irony abounds.

 

[breakingcontact]

CVS fires pharmacist who denied hormone prescription to transgender woman

Denial based on "religious or moral grounds"

Christians will no doubt be forced out of many professions if they are to maintain their convictions and witness.

 

[breakingcontact]

CVS fires pharmacist who denied hormone prescription to transgender woman

Denial based on "religious or moral grounds"

Interesting article. They have a policy permitting such denial but you can get fired for falling back on that policy.

 

[JettaKnight]

Pacifists supporting a sheriff that would confiscate a handgun? These are Christian pacifists? Because if they are they are sinning in depriving a person of their *means to uphold* their obligation to defend innocent people from harm.

You're kidding, right? There are tons of Christian pacifist who support gun control and have a pretty decent scriptural basis. (I, of course, would disagree)

They would say it's a "basic moral law".

EDIT 2: Here's the view of one theologian I have much respect for (yet don't totally agree with):
https://www.prestonsprinkle.com/blog/2016/6/7/nonviolence-in-brief
He wrote a more detailed book, Fight, about it.

Christians will no doubt be forced out of many professions if they are to maintain their convictions and witness.

It will separate the wheat from the chaff.


EDIT 1: I should address this:

Are you not reading Romans 13: 3-6?

I am.

It's also clear that Paul is making declarative statements about govt., not commands. The commands are reserved to subjects of the govt.
...at least that's in the English, Paul's Greek is too complex for me to understand properly.

 

[BugI02]

Irony abounds.

In every supernova

 

[breakingcontact]

You're kidding, right? There are tons of Christian pacifist who support gun control and have a pretty decent scriptural basis. (I, of course, would disagree)

They would say it's a "basic moral law".

EDIT 2: Here's the view of one theologian I have much respect for (yet don't totally agree with):
https://www.prestonsprinkle.com/blog/2016/6/7/nonviolence-in-brief
He wrote a more detailed book, Fight, about it.


It will separate the wheat from the chaff.


EDIT 1: I should address this:

I am.

It's also clear that Paul is making declarative statements about govt., not commands. The commands are reserved to subjects of the govt.
...at least that's in the English, Paul's Greek is too complex for me to understand properly.

Sure, you can find a "Christian" who believes in abortion too. That doesn't matter to me. Defending an innocent life when you have the capacity to do so, is good and right. Failing to do so is sinful.

Romans 13 is talking about just any thugish government or true, God given authority? That answer is the latter. If it is a true God given authority it will punish evil and encourage good.

What is really wild is not how few Christians openly defy unjust law, but how many go along in silence.

 

[foszoe]

This is why I ask about faith backgrounds, denominations, creeds, confessions, because not all Christians believe the same thing, a great many have a very poor or flat out wrong understanding of the Bible.

I agree. If you (generic) are not Orthodox you (generic) are flat out wrong

 

[historian]

Romans 13 is talking about just any thugish government or true, God given authority? That answer is the latter. If it is a true God given authority it will punish evil and encourage good.
.

Ahhhh...yes...the non-thugish government of Nero....

 

[historian]

This is why I ask about faith backgrounds, denominations, creeds, confessions, because not all Christians believe the same thing, a great many have a very poor or flat out wrong understanding of the Bible.

Bless your heart.

 

[breakingcontact]

Ahhhh...yes...the non-thugish government of Nero....

Did Paul not defy the government of his time by escaping?

Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk