by AFL
CATEGORIES

 Military  
 Current events  
 Religion 
 Technology 
 Countries 
 Politics 
 Society 
 Other 






There are currently no top
rated posts : don't forget you can "thumb" up or down posts.

Website intro. Please login or register (it's very fast and free).



  • Index
  • » Religion - Room 1
  • » Religious Exclusion Act by Spirovsky
  •    Should governments implement acts which ban politicians or political groups who have conne

    Before I start I do NOT want the religious people to quote bible verses and I do NOT want the pseudo-intellectual atheists saying how religion should be abolished entirely (I'm not saying that atheists are pseudo-intellectuals, I'm just saying that there are atheists like that). Also, believing or not believing in God does NOT effect your level of intelligence or how righteous you are.
    Anyway, should governments put in these acts? Yes, there are those religious types who want gay marriage to be illegal. But let's not forget that most modern laws were founded on religious morals. I think these acts should be put in place to stop red-necks like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum from having influence. But, a politician who goes to church on Sunday won't be affected. I mean how many times has a politician who would have made a difference lost an election because he didn't go to church as many times as the other guy?

    Edit

#1 2013-05-02 19:14:57

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




@irishgenius 

That does NOT mean that everything written is a commandment. Do you understand what the word 'history' means? Much of the Old Testament is historical in nature, not a guide for what you are supposed to do.

If you think you can point to where in the Bible God commands the things you are talking about, by all means try. Just make sure you do so in the context intended and not just take a passage out of context.

Offline

#2 2013-05-02 19:12:20

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




@irishgenius 

Which part of what I wrote confused you?

Offline

#3 2013-05-02 17:48:07

          Ireland    irishgenius
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




@madd693 

And if believe the Bible is the divinely appointed word of God, then it dosen't matter when or by who it was written.

Offline

#4 2013-05-02 17:27:08

          Ireland    irishgenius
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




@madd693 
                       
You want me to give you the lines that encourage the above? omg

Offline

#5 2013-04-26 20:31:53

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




Any religious text must be viewed in relation to the time it was written. While all major religions believe their text to be divinely inspired, they were all written by men in context of the times in which they lived. Few writers of said texts (aside from the prophets) could imagine things we have today and even those who could had to attempt to describe them in terms the people of that day could comprehend. Imagine a prophet trying to describe modern warfare, for example. Or automobiles and airplanes. Things we fully comprehend because they happened in our lifetime did not exist nor were even considered in Biblical times. Our knowledge of the world around us is tenfold greater. All of this must be taken into consideration when reading ancient texts.

Even scholars don't agree on some things meaning today. The forbidding of eating pork, for example. Muslims and Orthodox Jews believe this is forbidden for all of time while most Christian denominations accept it was the warnings of a time when knowledge of properly preparing pork was unknown. 3000 years ago all anyone knew of eating pork was it would make you violently ill so it was forbidden as a food source and deemed 'unclean'. Surely if eating an animal makes you ill, or worse, it must mean God forbids eating that animal...or so the thought process of the time. Indeed, the only time God himself explicitly forbade a food was in the garden of Eden and for very good reason. It established free will in man.

Offline

#6 2013-04-26 19:58:47

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




@irishgenius 

You are very confused. Just because some of the things you mention are talked about in the Bible does NOT mean they are encouraged. Indeed, most are discouraged. The Old Testament in particular (and the Jewish Torah) is largely a telling of history, tradition, and prophesy. It does not set forth laws applicable today beyond the ten commandments and makes it very clear that God and God alone is responsible for moral judgement. Proverbs gives a general philosophy for life that is applicable in any time, but the things you bring up are all history.

Unlike the Qu'ran, which sets law on everything you mention, and even provides for the punishment (Sharia law), the Old Testament Bible as it relates to crime and punishment is telling you what DID happen more than 2000 years ago, not setting standards for all of time. Laws then, as now, were created based on the society and what society deems acceptable. In those times, everything you mention was socially acceptable, no matter how abhorrent they may seem in the advanced society in which we now live. 2000 years from now many of our current laws will be considered ridiculous, too, as society evolves. You can't judge the laws of MAN thousands of years ago on today's standards. That's absurd. Much of Jesus teachings were for this reason, to set man straight on a lot of the things he was doing in the name of God. Just because early Jews did things in God's name doesn't mean they were correct, only that their interpretation of what they were allowed to judge and how was skewed.

What you are doing is applying the logic of the 21st century to the thought process of MAN many centuries earlier. That is a fatal flaw in the argument you are trying to make. As times change and societies change, thoughts on crime and punishment get refined. What is acceptable in one society is not in another. Less educated countries tend to be more barbaric in their legal process than highly educated ones, for example.

You are taking the Bible out of context and either you haven't read it in it's entirety, or you don't comprehend it's meaning. You can NOT take a passage here or there and claim the Bible encourages something. You must be able to differentiate what is simply history and tradition from what is commanded. Read the Ten Commandments to see what GOD sets forth as law, then read the Bible in that context. Anything that does not fit within those 10 commandments as far as law is concerned is a telling of history, not what the Bible tells you to do. Early Jewish laws have little to do with what is encouraged today. The Ten Commandments are literally set in stone for all of time.

Last edited by madd693 (2013-04-26 20:07:20)

Offline

#7 2013-04-26 13:57:24

          Ireland    irishgenius
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




@madd693 

It also encourages:
Murder of Unclean wives,Husbands and lovers
Gaybashing
Cannibalism
Sexism
Slavery
and alot more

Offline



   

#8 2013-04-25 03:16:01

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




The Bible encourages the following:

-Hard work to achieve self sufficiency
-Charity
-Saving money to leave an inheritance to your children

The Bible discourages:

-Borrowing money
-Ignoring neighbors in need

The Bible abhors:

-Flamboyant showing of wealth
-Frivolous waste of wealth

The Bible condemns:

-Putting wealth acquisition ahead of worshiping God

It is the prideful showing of wealth and putting money before God that condemns man, not money itself nor the acquisition of it. God blessed many with incredible wealth because he knew they would be good stewards of it, using it wisely and to glorify God.

When you see legitimate charitable foundations set up by ultra wealthy people, that is not only acceptable by the Bible, it is applauded. When you see people fritter away their money irresponsibly or use it to manipulate others or to boast they are putting money above God. THAT is what the Bible condemns, not the wealth itself, but rather the unacceptable use of it.

I can even give you an example where an act of charity would be condemned in the Bible. Garth Brooks made a multi-million dollar donation to a hospital to help with construction of a new building. His condition of the 'gift' was that the building be named after his mother. (Prideful use of money). When the building ultimately wasn't named as he insisted, he attempted to sue to get his donation returned for 'breech of contract'. The supposed charitable donation wasn't a donation at all but a flamboyant action by Brooks.

Jesus when questioned on his view of taxes said "render unto Cesar that which is Cesar's and unto God that which is God's" He didn't say give all your money to Cesar and let him decide what's best for everyone. No where does the Bible even suggest that Governments are a replacement for charity. Jesus taught and led by example that healing the sick and helping the poor was the responsibility of the individual, not of the Government. From Biblical time until this very day religious organizations have established and run non-profit hospitals to heal the sick, shelters to house the homeless, soup kitchens to feed the hungry, etc. And they do so far more efficiently than any Government could because there is much less bureaucracy involved. THAT is the Bibles ideal way to serve, not through Government agencies.

Last edited by madd693 (2013-04-25 03:23:27)

Offline

#9 2013-04-25 02:38:50

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




@calibur 

Out of context.

The 'rich man' Matthew describes is not referring to wealth, but rather to a man who loves wealth more than God. He is saying that a person who chooses money above God will not enter the Kingdom of heaven.

Multiple passages in the Bible make that distinction clear, including some I have already posted.

Offline

#10 2013-04-25 01:59:13

          United States    calibur
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




@madd693 

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. " Matthew 19-23-24

Offline

#11 2013-04-24 23:29:07

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




@calibur

A couple of examples from the Bible:

 

 Proverbs 10:22 says, "The blessing of the Lord brings wealth, without painful toil for it." 

 

God blessed many men with great wealth. If he scorned wealth, he surely wouldn't entrust his most faithful with it. Solomon, Job, David, and Abraham were all blessed with tremendous wealth after gaining favor with God.

It also says wealth comes from work, not from laziness

 

 He who works his land will have abundant food, but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment" (Proverbs 12:11)

"All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty" (14:23) 

"Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth. He who gathers crops in the summer is a wise son, but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son" (10:4,5)

"One who is slack in his work is a close relative of one who destroys" (18:9)

 

What is scorned is laziness and putting money above God. Hard work is encouraged with the promise of wealth being a primary motivator. Communism encourages/demands hard work solely to the benefit of the community, not for individual gain to any large degree.

The Bible does not scorn wealth, it just teaches there is a greater responsibility that comes with it.

 

 To whomever much is given, of him will much be required; and to whom much was entrusted, of him more will be asked.

 

 

Offline

#12 2013-04-24 05:50:38

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




@calibur 

 

  Lots of religion de-emphasizes self, and scorns the rich man. 

 

You are mis-characterizing. Teaching humility is not the same as de-emphasizing self. Most all religions teach humility but also teach self reliance followed by charity. The 'rich man' isn't scorned except where he is prideful because of his riches, not criticizing wealth.

People often mistake "money is the root of all evil" as being a biblical passage. In fact it is not. The actual passage is "LOVE of money is the root of all evil". Putting personal wealth above all else is scorned, not the wealth itself.

Offline

#13 2013-04-24 02:51:32

          United States    calibur
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




@madd693 

What religion are you talking about? Lots of religion de-emphasizes self, and scorns the rich man. this is in line with communism.

Offline

#14 2013-04-24 02:20:14

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




@calibur 

 

  But the two are not necessarily intertwined- there CAN in theory be a communist theocracy. 

 

In practice there could not be. I didn't mean to imply that there was some written 'communist rule' that mandates atheism, only that in order for Communism to succeed, organized religion, at the very least, must be repressed in order to limit/prevent an uprising of the populace. Religion and Communism are directly at odds with each other making religion a dire threat to a Communist system.

Communism is MUCH more than just an economic system. It is a complete social system where all property is owned/controlled by a single, self perpetuating entity (Government) under the guise of 'community' ownership. For Communism to work, the populace has to reject the ideal of self in favor of community. Organized religion is directly at odds with that. Most religions advocate self responsibility both for actions and sustenance. They teach hard work reaping personal benefit and generally encourage/require sharing that benefit with others. Communism is the antithesis of that. It demands hard work to benefit the community with no personal reward.

Offline

#15 2013-04-24 01:51:48

          United States    calibur
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




@madd693 

Communism, by definition, EXCLUDES organized religion. It is intentionally an atheist form of Government that PROHIBITS religion.

Communism is an economic system. Admittedly it invites authoritarianism and, by extension, forced atheism. But the two are not necessarily intertwined- there CAN in theory be a communist theocracy. This wouldn't be full Marxism, as THAT includes atheism. But I digress.

Offline

#16 2013-04-23 14:16:23

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




@maps12

 

 Though I really can't consider protestants Christians, they are like a differentreligion of their own. 

 

So you ONLY consider Catholics 'Christians', then? That is what a protestant is...a Christian denomination that does not view the Catholic orthodoxy as superior and does not recognize the Pope as the leader of the church. Protestant comes from 'protest'. It was those who were protesting the Catholic churches authority and splintered from it. Every other Christian denomination would be considered 'protestant'.

Offline

#17 2013-04-23 14:09:32

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




 

 ah, but the USSR fell with athiesm! 

 

The USSR fell because it was Communist, which mandates atheism. The atheism itself had nothing to do with the fall of the republic. It's economic model was it's undoing, not it's stance on religion.

Offline

#18 2013-04-23 14:06:14

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




People are free to vote for someone for whatever reason they choose. Religion has nothing to do with it. In the USA the populace clearly wants it's leaders to at least profess Christianity whether they practice it or not. Not a single person has ever been elected to the Presidency proclaiming to be anything other than a Christian. No Jews, Muslims (at least outwardly, Obama may be an exception but he claims Christianity), atheists, etc. Even Catholics have a very hard time being elected with Kennedy being the only one to date. Romney being a Mormon probably cost him the last election as many Christians stayed home rather than vote for someone of a faith they don't consider Christian.

If your concern is that religious organizations support candidates monetarily while being tax exempt then you are still starting with the wrong premise. Many tax exempt, non-religious organizations support candidates. Planned Parenthood donated $1.4million to Obama's last campaign, for example. That organization, which has a primary income from performing abortions, is the antithesis of a religious organization. It is a very slippery slope you are walking on when you start mandating which organizations have a right to support political candidates and which do not.

Offline

#19 2013-04-23 13:42:31

          United States    madd693
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




 

 communsim and christianity go hand in hand. 

 

Huh? Now I have to question if you are actually Russian, and if you are, how old you are. Communism, by definition, EXCLUDES organized religion. It is intentionally an atheist form of Government that PROHIBITS religion.

Offline

#20 2013-03-22 22:41:19

          United States    calibur
               Reply
   0    

Re: Religious Exclusion Act




@Lenin 

Absolutely.

Offline

Board footer

Created by AFL, powered by FluxBB
© 2011 theworlddebating.com