Christian Marriage is a lifelong 1m1w covenant

Post Reply New Topic

I'll bite.

What evidence do you have that supports your assertion that any specific laws were religious in origin. Which specific religion do you claim as the origin for said laws? We've seen the ethical stance of religions evolve in line with, and in response to, societal ethics. I argue that religion is a by-product of civilisation, not the cause of it. The ethics of religious groups broadly reflect society, not the other way around - though there's arguably some seepage in both directions.

An example of a society which has no history of religion or faith can be found in the Pirahã:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/n ... ett-amazon

If I said to you that I believed in and could prove the existence of unicorns, would you bother to debate it or rightly dismiss it out of hand? Crazy people don't make rational statements. They spout nonsense. Religion is nonsense made up by fearful people of the past to control others. It deserves no more than that to counter it. I'm not going to waste time researching and posting something that wouldn't prove anything. That is the point, I guess. You have spent your life researching to prove that nonsense. I'll not rise to that bait. When a hypothesis that can't be proven true or false is presented, it's not considered worthy of discussion. The only exception is in math, where in any given consistent system, you will have statements that can be neither proven or falsify. Fermat's last theorem was thought by many to be one of these statements until someone sat down for seven years and finally proved it to be true. It's a little mind bending, but math and physics can do that to you...

Okay, go ahead and provide me with a rough list of your political principles if you'd like to bite. Do you believe in the Bill of Rights? What do you agree with in the Declaration of Independence?

My evidence is that there are a mountain of instances where religion was in the conversation.

You're right that it isn't as simple as "religion informs societal ethics", but there is a tug and pull between the two, areas where there has been harmony and areas where there has been disagreement. So saying that there is a religious basis for modern and secular political ideas in no way is a statement that there is a one way relationship.

As for a specific piece of evidence, see Seward's "higher doctrine" speeches and debates, or Plato's Republic in which he uses his model of the soul to build a picture of his ideal society that is run by "philosopher-kings". During the Renaissance and Enlightenment eras Plato's Republic had big impact on people's political ideas.

Consider also Hobbes, Locke, and Roussea's numerous references to Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, Epictetus' Golden Sayings, Martin Luther, and the Bible amongst other philosophical and/or theological sources.

I am not homophobic but it's true two women or men together without a contribution of sorts from the opposite sex cannot produce a zygote and thus cannot procreate by themselves.

The lines are being drawn, people; on which side do you stand?

Why would stating the blindingly obvious make you "homophobic"?

Why must we take a side? I choose not to.

Apparently this is no longer acceptable in the modern world of identity politics. If you're not actively supporting a side, you're considered an enemy.

The world has gone to Sith.

Apparently this is no longer acceptable in the modern world of identity politics. If you're not actively supporting a side, you're considered an enemy.

The world has gone to Sith.

I wonder which politician is the in cognito Sith Lord?

Donald Trump.

"Identity politics"?! Well, then in that case, fine - if they are going to be so unbearably unreasonable, then I will choose to oppose "gay marriage"!

No law has any bearing on salvation, and the NT is considered the primary tool for determining which ethical ideas of the OT are relevant today. It must also be noted that there are ethical instructions that the NT didn't address, and as such they still stand. But if you read Romans it is clear that God's ethical instructions in the penal justice system are prescriptions, and by that I mean that they are not requirements but instructions that are there for our benefit. The scriptures are explicit when they say that the only unpardonable sin is "blaspheming the holy spirit" (which means not accepting a relationship with God). His instructions are for our pleasure, not for us to hate ourselves and others.

There are also numerous references in the OT too, that the Law wasn't adequate for the situation, and ritualizing good behavior and learning it by rote does not make us right with God. It is our love for Him that makes us right with Him. As much as God punishes the Hebrew nation in order to set it right, He also forgives them numerous times and through His prophets gives numerous references to a better and more final justice system: the satisfactory justice system.

As for a consensus: most Reformed theologians agree with this notion of the free gift of grace. Some older order Churches and it's theologians, such as Roman Catholicism, believe for instance that performing a work is an example of accepting grace and we must continually accept grace. They also believe that there are cardinal (grave) and venial (acceptable) sins, so we must confess our sins to a priest and do appropriate penance. In any case the great majority of Christendom agrees that there is only one unforgivable sin, and there has been a landslide of scholarly material as of late against any concept of grace that doesn't agree that it is a free gift.

I happen to be a nondenominational Christian myself and would very much like to share my own understanding of grace if you are interested. I believe there is something in the Bible called "radical grace" and have spent the last ten years of my theological career at EPS and St. Anselm's establishing the concept with numerous language studies. My main academic bent on theological issues has been that I've prioritized anthropology and historical methodology over using preconceived theological notions to conform seemingly disparate texts to my own understanding.

I am not really an expert, but I think that part refers to insects that walk on 4 legs.

Which ones are those?

Insects have six legs.