[jaydee]

You'd think after this many thousands of years of vainly attempting to make civilization work, we would have learned that separating religion from government is a necessary first step. J.C. himself made that clear when he made that comment about rendering to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to god what belongs to god. I'm not in favor of organized religion in the least, but I think he hit the nail bang on the head with that one. Now if only someone would hit Dubya in the head with it.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

If the all powerful allah, God, g-d made humans, and we are the best he can do, naaah, am not impressed.
like george carlin, i´ll reverend the Sun god Inti.

 

[JRogers]

You'd think after this many thousands of years of vainly attempting to make civilization work, we would have learned that separating religion from government is a necessary first step. J.C. himself made that clear when he made that comment about rendering to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to god what belongs to god. I'm not in favor of organized religion in the least, but I think he hit the nail bang on the head with that one. Now if only someone would hit Dubya in the head with it.

Good job on totally misinterpreting that passage. You set the bar high for acts of presentism.

 

[Damn True]

I'm not a bigot, I just hate "______".

 

[Toshi]

I'm not a bigot, I just hate "______".

aren't conservatives supposed to be those who rail against moral relativism? that statement is perfectly valid in some contexts:

i'm not a bigot, i just hate people who don't piss in the sink (BS)
i'm not a bigot, i just hate people who fart in my cubicle (IRB)
i'm not a bigot, i just hate people who try to merge into my lane (MMike)

or my personal viewpoint:

i'm not a bigot, i just hate people who criticize science due to their religious beliefs, without knowing what they're talking about. in reality i don't care that much, since it's their loss, but when they try to impose their beliefs on me or on schoolchildren i do care. (arkansas, anyone? or the pseudoscientific arguments against evolution that use the 2nd law of thermodynamics without any comprehension of what a closed system is)

 

[Damn True]

General Question:
Is the desire to impose ones beliefs by voting for a democrat any different than imposing ones beliefs by voting for a republican?

I'll submit that the resistance is based soley in the fact that the problem is that the beliefs are not your own. If the other side had won you wouldn't have such a problem with the imposition of beliefs.

 

[Damn True]

aren't conservatives supposed to be those who rail against moral relativism? that statement is perfectly valid in some contexts:

i'm not a bigot, i just hate people who don't piss in the sink (BS)
i'm not a bigot, i just hate people who fart in my cubicle (IRB)
i'm not a bigot, i just hate people who try to merge into my lane (MMike)

or my personal viewpoint:

i'm not a bigot, i just hate people who criticize science due to their religious beliefs, without knowing what they're talking about. in reality i don't care that much, since it's their loss, but when they try to impose their beliefs on me or on schoolchildren i do care. (arkansas, anyone? or the pseudoscientific arguments against evolution that use the 2nd law of thermodynamics without any comprehension of what a closed system is)

You know perfectly well what I meant.

 

[Damn True]

Asians are smart, but untrustworthy in business and can't drive.
Blacks are criminals.
Mexicans are lazy.
Christians are intolerant.
Polish people are stupid.
Central Americans are drug dealers.
Italians are into organized crime.

What's the difference?

 

[Silver]

Asians are smart, but untrustworthy in business and can't drive.
Blacks are criminals.
Mexicans are lazy.
Christians are intolerant.
Polish people are stupid.
Central Americans are drug dealers.
Italians are into organized crime.

What's the difference?

You remember the Sesame Street song..."One of these things is not like the others."

 

[Damn True]

You remember the Sesame Street song..."One of these things is not like the others."

Yeah, I think they used that bit to teach kids about racism and bigotry.
Maybe you should see if Blockbuster has any of those shows, you could use some remedial study.

 

[jaydee]

Good job on totally misinterpreting that passage. You set the bar high for acts of presentism.

It's not a misinterpretation, just one of the interpretations. I'd like to see your Doctor of Theology diploma.

And how the h3ll is this related to Presentism, which is the doctrine that the Scripture prophecies of the Apocalypse (as in the Book of Revelations) are presently in the course of being fulfilled?

 

[Toshi]

Asians are smart, but untrustworthy in business and can't drive.
Blacks are criminals.
Mexicans are lazy.
Christians are intolerant.
Polish people are stupid.
Central Americans are drug dealers.
Italians are into organized crime.

What's the difference?

those are all stereotypes. my opinion is that stereotypes are useful things, and shouldn't be demonized. what's bad about them is when you prejudge an individual based on the stereotype.

incidentally, this is one of my big gripes with cultural sensitivity training, which we have a lot of in med school, as you might imagine: we're supposed to be aware of the cultural backgrounds and peculiarities of people we might see (which is to say, have a stereotype about them), yet we're also taught that stereotypes are evil.

 

[JRogers]

It's not a misinterpretation, just one of the interpretations. I'd like to see your Doctor of Theology diploma.

And how the h3ll is this related to Presentism, which is the doctrine that the Scripture prophecies of the Apocalypse (as in the Book of Revelations) are presently in the course of being fulfilled?

Are you joking? First of all, I don't have a doctorate in theology but I have been going to church all my life and I'm most of the way towards a degree in Christian studies and geography. Though I do not necessarily call myself a Christian, this is part of my life. I don't claim to be an expert but I'm not Joe Schmoe. I call it like I see it.

Second, look up presentism in a dictionary. Might be a good start before you bust out some other idea and act like I'm an idiot because you don't know what the word means. It means forcing the opinions, beliefs and ideas of the modern day onto someone in the past. My point was that you are taking a modern value (separation of church and state) and forcing upon a person that didn't exactly advocate that or necessarily have a clear concept of the idea. Greco-Roman society viewed religion as a public idea that had inseparable ties to the state and public life. Jewish society, when not under the control of the Romans or anyone else, was not the same but certainly had strong ties between religion and the state, especially since it was a sacrificial cult.

I guess you can call anything "another interpretation." However, in this case, you have forced a modern idea into the mouth of a figure/writer from antiquity. I do not think that Jesus was talking about separation of church and state. He was talking about the necessity of following the state and its obeying laws, even if that state follows a religion that is different from your own and even if it sometimes acts in a way you disapprove of. Also, it distinguishes between Caeser and God, as Jesus also warns about idol worship and certain groups worshipped the emporer, who later became deified. This is not an argument that says we need to keep the church separate from the state. Rather, it is a warning that we should follow the laws of where we live and not let the state interfere with the proper worship of religion. With this understanding, a religious state actually becomes more tenable, but we cannot assume that Jesus would advocate such an idea. This says a lot about the state's relationship to the individual but nothing about the state's relationship to a feature of society. Placing the idea of church and state over this obscures the true meaning of the passage and, it seems to me, distorts what Jesus or the evangelists actually thought by placing it in a present context even though these events were recorded centuries ago, in a time where the idea of church-state separation was far from anyone's mind.


EDIT: an extension of this argument could also be made: if Jesus really wanted separation of church and state, he would have told the Herodians and Pharisees to take that denarius and shove it up their own a$$es rather than hand it over to the local governor and support the Roman pagans.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Are you joking? First of all, I don't have a doctorate in theology but I have been going to church all my life and I'm most of the way towards a degree in Christian studies and geography. Though I do not necessarily call myself a Christian, this is part of my life. I don't claim to be an expert but I'm not Joe Schmoe. I call it like I see it.

Second, look up presentism in a dictionary. Might be a good start before you bust out some other idea and act like I'm an idiot because you don't know what the word means. It means forcing the opinions, beliefs and ideas of the modern day onto someone in the past. My point was that you are taking a modern value (separation of church and state) and forcing upon a person that didn't exactly advocate that or necessarily have a clear concept of the idea. Greco-Roman society viewed religion as a public idea that had inseparable ties to the state and public life. Jewish society, when not under the control of the Romans or anyone else, was not the same but certainly had strong ties between religion and the state, especially since it was a sacrificial cult.

I guess you can call anything "another interpretation." However, in this case, you have forced a modern idea into the mouth of a figure/writer from antiquity. I do not think that Jesus was talking about separation of church and state. He was talking about the necessity of following the state and its obeying laws, even if that state follows a religion that is different from your own and even if it sometimes acts in a way you disapprove of. Also, it distinguishes between Caeser and God, as Jesus also warns about idol worship and certain groups worshipped the emporer, who later became deified. This is not an argument that says we need to keep the church separate from the state. Rather, it is a warning that we should follow the laws of where we live and not let the state interfere with the proper worship of religion. With this understanding, a religious state actually becomes more tenable, but we cannot assume that Jesus would advocate such an idea. This says a lot about the state's relationship to the individual but nothing about the state's relationship to a feature of society. Placing the idea of church and state over this obscures the true meaning of the passage and, it seems to me, distorts what Jesus or the evangelists actually thought by placing it in a present context even though these events were recorded centuries ago, in a time where the idea of church-state separation was far from anyone's mind.


EDIT: an extension of this argument could also be made: if Jesus really wanted separation of church and state, he would have told the Herodians and Pharisees to take that denarius and shove it up their own a$$es rather than hand it over to the local governor and support the Roman pagans.

i like your reasoning and that of andyman. the only problem with it, is that the ultimate uncertainty on it, its its own foundation. which is what is the actual value of the bible or torah as a factual record, rather than a phylosophical book.

its of zero value any reasoning solely deducted from the validity of its "facts" when such validity has not a universal absolute value.

 

[JRogers]

i like your reasoning and that of andyman. the only problem with it, is that the ultimate uncertainty on it, its its own foundation. which is what is the actual value of the bible or torah as a factual record, rather than a phylosophical book.

its of zero value any reasoning solely deducted from the validity of its "facts" when such validity has not a universal absolute value.

Doesn't matter. The point was the jaydee made an argument about what Jesus meant (and note in my response, I use "writer" and "evangelist as terms interchangable with Jesus so as to avoid the debate of how much of the gospels is Jesus and how much is the writer) in a particular passage without any respect to historical facts. I ignored the question of what Jesus "actually" believed and said and concentrated on what jaydee did: what is reported in the gospels. When looking at that, we need to consider the time and place it came from, which I took to be the primary flaw in his statement.

The historical facts about Roman society that I talk about are not based on religious documents; they are from countless sources that are as valid as any kind of history we have of the ancient world.

I like Andyman a lot and enjoy his posts, but don't equate us too much. I have a feeling that his beliefs are very different than mine. My argument was not religious nor does it advocate any acceptance of a religious creed; it was historical and fact-based, not faith based. Not saying that Andyman's posts are based entirely in the world of the believer (obviously not true), but simply that our outlooks are different, primarily because he is a member of a church and subscribes to a religion, whicle I do not.

 

[jaydee]

JRogers, I defer to your definition of presentism, though there seem to be as many definitions and examples of it floating around as there are dictionaries.

In any case, whether or not you think Christ had any intentions toward separation of church and state or whether the "render to Caesar" passage has any bearing on it, or whether the following passage has any bearing on it is irrelevant: "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36).

As was pointed out above, the factual accuracy of the Bible is suspect, so we don't know what Christ really said in his own words. If I am ascribing to him opinions, beliefs and ideas he couldn't possibly have had in his times, then you are in effect saying that he is not speaking to modern people, because these features define our era. This is fine with me, because I view the Bible as simply a charming collection of stories anyway. As a valuable a guide to living in the current time, it ranks up there with "The Cat in the Hat".

I don't know how I was drawn into a religious argument, because my original post was just to offer my opinion that we should have learned by now that we need to separate church and state, for reasons that have been argued about since as early as the 17th century, though I believe Thomas Jefferson first brought it up in the US. George W Bush is the most convincing argument for this separation in our times. Please remove my reference to Christ and Caesar from your memory and take exception with my church/state opinion if you like.

 

[jaydee]

For the record, I didn't see JRogers' last post before I sent my last one.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Second, look up presentism in a dictionary. Might be a good start before you bust out some other idea and act like I'm an idiot because you don't know what the word means. It means forcing the opinions, beliefs and ideas of the modern day onto someone in the past. My point was that you are taking a modern value (separation of church and state) and forcing upon a person that didn't exactly advocate that or necessarily have a clear concept of the idea. Greco-Roman society viewed religion as a public idea that had inseparable ties to the state and public life. Jewish society, when not under the control of the Romans or anyone else, was not the same but certainly had strong ties between religion and the state, especially since it was a sacrificial cult..

Exactly............good point...............

I guess you can call anything "another interpretation." However, in this case, you have forced a modern idea into the mouth of a figure/writer from antiquity. I do not think that Jesus was talking about separation of church and state. He was talking about the necessity of following the state and its obeying laws, even if that state follows a religion that is different from your own and even if it sometimes acts in a way you disapprove of. Also, it distinguishes between Caeser and God, as Jesus also warns about idol worship and certain groups worshipped the emporer, who later became deified. This is not an argument that says we need to keep the church separate from the state. Rather, it is a warning that we should follow the laws of where we live and not let the state interfere with the proper worship of religion. With this understanding, a religious state actually becomes more tenable, but we cannot assume that Jesus would advocate such an idea. This says a lot about the state's relationship to the individual but nothing about the state's relationship to a feature of society. Placing the idea of church and state over this obscures the true meaning of the passage and, it seems to me, distorts what Jesus or the evangelists actually thought by placing it in a present context even though these events were recorded centuries ago, in a time where the idea of church-state separation was far from anyone's mind.

Again excellent point.............

EDIT: an extension of this argument could also be made: if Jesus really wanted separation of church and state, he would have told the Herodians and Pharisees to take that denarius and shove it up their own a$$es rather than hand it over to the local governor and support the Roman pagans.

You're hitting on all cylinders...................Jesus was a trouble maker of His time, but He knew who not to mess with (the Romans), they weren't the problem, even though the Jews thought they were.

Anyway, great post JR...........................

 

[JRogers]

In any case, whether or not you think Christ had any intentions toward separation of church and state or whether the "render to Caesar" passage has any bearing on it, or whether the following passage has any bearing on it is irrelevant: "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36).

As was pointed out above, the factual accuracy of the Bible is suspect, so we don't know what Christ really said in his own words. If I am ascribing to him opinions, beliefs and ideas he couldn't possibly have had in his times, then you are in effect saying that he is not speaking to modern people, because these features define our era. This is fine with me, because I view the Bible as simply a charming collection of stories anyway. As a valuable a guide to living in the current time, it ranks up there with "The Cat in the Hat".

I don't know how I was drawn into a religious argument, because my original post was just to offer my opinion that we should have learned by now that we need to separate church and state, for reasons that have been argued about since as early as the 17th century, though I believe Thomas Jefferson first brought it up in the US. George W Bush is the most convincing argument for this separation in our times. Please remove my reference to Christ and Caesar from your memory and take exception with my church/state opinion if you like.

I do not consider this to be a religious argument; it is literary and historical. Your point stands well enough on its own without the reference and I am an advocate of church-state separation but I think that you might exaggerate Bush's tendency to mix the two. However, I do take exception to the idea that "he is not speaking to modern people" and your suggestion that because we cannot force our own ideas on Jesus, he lacks relevance.

Take a different example. Some people might call Henry David Thoreau an environmentalist. Well, that would be wrong to say. Environmentalism was not in existence yet when he wrote, there are clear disparities between him and current movements and the scientific facts and cultural developments that have led to environmentalism had not taken place in his time. Does that mean his writing is useless to us or that environmentalist causes cannot use his ideas without fault? Of course not. Jesus lived a long time ago and is society was profoundly different from ours. Does that mean he does not speak to the modern person, religious or not? Of course it doesn't. In each case, we cannot ascribe the labels and ideas of the present onto a figure in the past. Their ideas are still eternal and applicable to our lives but in order to consider "what they meant" we must look at history. If we too readily apply our own ideas to anything, we become the authors and the works lose their relevance.

 

[Skookum]

I hope that I am wrong but the thing that really burns my britches is that the whole election was never really about the important issues. It was Kerry talking about Viet Nam, who cares. Bush calling Kerry a flip flopper and a liberal, who cares. Swifties, who cares. Gay marriage, who cares. There was never any real discussion about the deficit, paying for the baby boomer retirements, unemployement, an effective strategy on terrorism. It was all about baseless spin, but I guess that is nothing new.

If I felt that Bush was re-elected because people were voting on the issues I would probably be happy. But from the people I have talked to, they voted for him because of a feeling of patriotism left over from 9-11, not because they thought he has done a good job. But again I could only argue against him and offer that Kerry wasn't as bad. Either way it was a game of spin and the Republicans did a much better job.

What really scares me now is Bush feels he has a mandate and may go to even further extremes.

And among the fools a voice unheard.....

 

[JRogers]

And among the fools a voice unheard.....

Meh. I could have summed it up: politics is politics. Just the way it is. Besides, if people were smart enough to care about and vote on the actual issues then we wouldn't have a problem. The politician's job is to get elected and that isn't done by laying out complex plans and grand strategies.

 

[Skookum]

Meh. I could have summed it up: politics is politics. Just the way it is. Besides, if people were smart enough to care about and vote on the actual issues then we wouldn't have a problem. The politician's job is to get elected and that isn't done by laying out complex plans and grand strategies.

Yah this thread was getting pretty dumb at the end regardless of what you believe. A big fat meaty argument get's stretched as thin as a blade of grass. And when religion is the topic people wanna argue over just that, a blade of grass.

 

[JRogers]

Yah this thread was getting pretty dumb at the end regardless of what you believe. A big fat meaty argument get's stretched as thin as a blade of grass. And when religion is the topic people wanna argue over just that, a blade of grass.

To repeat what I have already said, I was not making a religious argument. I was clarifying something that I thought was wrong would have otherwise gone unchecked. So much is said about Christianity in this country and others by nonbelieving liberals (sort of like me, actually) who do not fully understand what they are saying. It polarizes the issue based on manufactured "inherent," black and white differences. Lame.

Besides, what I posted was way more interesting and thought out than the previous three pages of vague, one sentence, personal accusations of racism.

ps- no offense meant to jaydee. debate is fun

 

[jaydee]

And how exciting would this place be if everyone agreed with everyone else. It would be like "The Waltons". I'd rather watch "The Osbournes".

 

[narlus]

Jesus Christ... how many time are you going to leave RM today?

I contend, you ain't going anywhere and that you'll be posting again tomorrow and the day after, and the day after the day after....

So cheer up, ride your bike and post on RM later.

looks like either Neurosis is touring the galaxy or bomber decided not to return...hasn't been by these parts since that post.

 

[valve bouncer]

The Golden Age of PAWN.

 

[mykel]

Anybody longing for the sanity of W?
We are so fucked.

 

[rideit]

Roosevelt 2020

 

[Pesqueeb]

Anybody longing for the sanity of W?

No.

Only through the lens of Trump could the W administration look "good". That doesn't make it any less destructive and awful.

 

[mykel]

No.

Only through the lens of Trump could the W administration look "good". That doesn't make it any less destructive and awful.

Apparently you missed the tongue firmly ensconced in the cheek.

 

[kidwoo]

Look man, I'm going to need a safe word if you keep reminding me of the existence of damn true.