Does the Bible support forceful coercion as a means to true morality?

I said nothing about doctrine, just that the Bible has many versions.

Law should be secular. Religious law should only affect believers and only then never in a way that transgresses secular law.

Nothing against your links contents but I'll stick with the scholars.

 

Decency and oppression have nothing to do with it. The point is that religion has no place in secular life and certainly none in secular law. I am consistent with that, I give no quarter to any religious influence in secular life. I am fine with Muslims in any society using Sharia provided it doesn't breach secular law. Same with Jews and Halakhah and their use of beth din, no problems.

 

Does the Bible support forceful coercion as a means to true morality?

The bibles support whatever someone decides to interpret them as supporting.....always have and always will.

- - - Updated - - -

Does the Bible support forceful coercion as a means to true morality?

The bibles support whatever someone decides to interpret them as supporting.....always have and always will.

 

You're from Australia. Run your country however you choose. Being that it started out as a prison, it clearly has a different foundation than we do. But the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was not designed to scrub all Christian influence from law as it is frequently bastardized to do today.

 

And this has what to do with the topic?

 

I don't have to do better. It is the most basic universal point. Taking existence to its most objective conclusion, the point of life is survival, therefore anything that harms survival is wrong. Inflicting harm, whether physical or psychological, on a person harms their survival.

 

It doesn't, but he wants it to...really, really bad.

 

Good morals are simply commonsense healthy living. But I honestly don't see homosexual marriage controversy as a morality issue. To me marriage is policy designed for a purpose. And that purpose is to encourage heterosexuals to be in some sort of commmitment when the accidental baby is conceived.

Its just good, commonsense, time-proven policy.

But its true that when commonsense is thrown to the wayside---chaos (AKA Immorality) steeps in.

 

There is a difference common decency based morals, such as laws again murder and laws based on personal objective morals, such as laws against gay marriage.

 

No, you may starve alone if you choose. Of coarse a peson whom exibits homo chariteristics before the age of 12 should not be lumped in with the immoral.

 

What "such things" are you referring to? Now I know this was a special act, not natural law, but they were commanded to cleanse the land of canaan of their idolatry by their conquest. I understand that the gospel is not to be forced onto pagan nations by the sword. That is not my intention. The points are these:

1.All nations, whether Christian or non Christian have a natural right to use force to promote moral behavior among their people.

2.Nations who have entered into Covenant with the Lord, as our original 13 colonies were under the Solemn League and Covenant via the British Empire, have the right of coercion to keep their people faithful to that covenant (which this country has failed to do).

 

Jesus didn't promote that (according to what I was taught).

 

To begin, you completely avoided my refutation of secular philosophy. COMPLETELY IGNORED IT!

Now to the reply from the above quote

Are you saying that I am conflating the philosophy of communism with the activity of the particular communist subject? Are you saying that Communism, with respect to theory, is a-moral? Your words are very ambiguous.

So then why do you advocate universal equality? That is Communism.

I gave documented history of my allegations. It is no conspiracy theory. Communism killed over 100 million people and WW1 and WW2 killed almost that many. Communism and Yankee Capitalism were key to those events. That is no conspiracy theory.

I did not quote the New Testament in the OP. I quoted the Old Testament. Your escape then is pointless. You are appealing to emotionalism to protect yourself from having to face the fact that you mis-spoke.

I just showed you from the link that you have no precise thinking. I have utterly eviscerated empiricism and thus the Enlightenment and the Scientific revolution, at least as it pertains to demonstration. I understand that many contradictory theories can have their uses but that is operation not demonstration.

Actually those were the pantheistic religions that the Abrahamic tradition rejected. You learn this in the first semester of western civilization.

Philosophy. If you are saying that a philosophy can be distinguished from the practice of that philosophy I agree. What I am saying is that you have no Philosophy of Ethics.

I will link this to you one more time and it will be the last time:
http://eternalpropositions.wordpres...r-philosophy-to-the-university-of-louisville/

To summarize: Empiricism cannot define a sensation or show how sensation produces abstract ideas or objects at all; it cannot identify numeric substances; its core principle in the development of scientific laws, induction is the formal fallacy of asserting the consequent and thus there is no justification whatsoever for the existence of numbers and mathematics.

The Bible’s consistency gives me a self-attestation of its truth pursuant to the Coherency Theory.

Didn’t ask what? The point was the golden rule is innate. I admit that men do not need a written bible of pages and ink to know fundamental moral principles. But that in itself betrays your empiricism, because empiricism does not believe in innate forms.

Citing a historical event does not explain the process; you've given it no account. John Locke was consistent to admit that man is a tabula rasa, a blank slate with no innate forms, PRECISELY BECAUSE, knowledge begins with sensation. If knowledge begins with sensation then, an innate form which is by definition a priori is precluded.

You are seriously clueless as to just how clueless you are.

It is precise thinking and the history of western philosophy which you obviously have not read a single page of.

Tell that to a philosophy professor. He will laugh at you.

So if I said I flying spaghetti monsters were real, I would not need to justify my statement then on your own logic.

Wow! You admitted my argument. I am aware of most of these and they operate off of a monad. They believe that the ultimate principle behind all things is an absolute singularity, THE ONE.

That is the Latin Triunism that I have shown to be an innovation. The Bible, the Pre-Nicene and Nicene Fathers did not teach that the One God was a trinity. They taught that the One God was the Father. See Nicene Creed 325 and read it in the original Greek.

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/drakes-triadology-stuff/

 

Yep, if there was one thing that Jesus taught, it was to use force on your fellow man...

 

Truth must have an account.

 

Well those are the moral principles. Do we seriously have to have a discussion on how the mosaic law advocated coercion? The essential point of the OP was that force can be used to create true morality.

 

And my point is that you are using the word versions deceitfully. The word versions does not mean contradictory versions. Distinction does not necessarily imply hostility.

You are using the word secular deceitfully as well. I believe that there is a separation in function between church and state. That does not mean that the state's function is a-religious. The state is secular in that it is not the church. But that does not mean that the state has nothing to do with religion and philosophy. I think you are conflating institution with theory. Every institution administrates a certain philosophy. That does not mean it is the church though. This is your deceit exposed. Secondly, empiricism can provide no justification for law. Can you smell law? Can you taste it? This was the problem in the pre-socratic era.

You keep conflating theory with institution-religion with the Church.

Which shows me you didn't read a single paragraph of the link. My first argument against sensation is based on the 60 year Graduate level career of Gordon Clark. My argument against Identity is based on a number of scholars most notably Mary Louise Gill in the conference held at Oriel College in Oxford. My argument against induction is based on Hume and Bertrand Russel. My argument against Mathematics is based on the 30 year professional career of Morris Kline from NYU. You have nowhere to run.

 

Making general accusations is so much easier than documenting them.

- - - Updated - - -

Define common sense.

 

But Jesus didn't promote many things that Christians believe in that he didn't speak on many issues. Here is why:

Mat 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law

 

Can you show me where Jesus speaks for or against the practice of bestiality?

 

As you wish; still doesn't mean your right tho. One of the beautiful things about our country is that you have the freedom to believe as you wish. You get to believe in the faith of your choice and likewise I get to believe in what I do.

 

Huh? Is something tugging at your conscience...or heartstrings?

I can show you where Jesus said to love your enemies as well as your neighbors, to offer the wicked man no resistance, to not judge or condemn but to forgive, and for soldiers to do no harm to any man, though.

 

Which means the bible can also enforce the rule about christians not eating pork or working on the sabbath. And being as Americans eat HUGE quantities of pork, and shop, travel etc... at weekends, you chose to ignore the bible and god.

So which is it? Some of gods laws or none of them?

 

You didn't answer the question. The question was designed to teach you one primary thing: Jesus did not nor did he need to speak on all the issues of religion. The moral law had already been written and he did not come to do away with the moral law (Mat 5:17).

The passage about loving your enemies is personal not national. Jesus clearly gave warrant to use weapons in self defense.Luke 22:36. With reference to the smiting on the cheek passage this regards insults. A smite on the cheek is not life threatening. If someone threatens your life that is when Luke 22:36 applies.

 

The bottom line is Jesus doesn't need man to enforce His law and he certainly doesn't condone violence against your fellow man.