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

The laws about eating pork were ceremonial and pertained to the Jewish commonwealth. Eph 2:15. The ten commandments hold a special place. Anthony Burgess’ Vindiciae Legis : or, A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants, from the Errors of Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians (1647) which is a series of thirty lectures preached in London during the Westminster Assembly says,

“But herein the moral Law is preeminent: 1. In that it is a foundation of the other laws; and they are reduceable to it. 2. This was to abide always, not the other. 3. This was immediately written by God, and commanded to be kept in the Ark, which the other were not.” (pg. 151)

 

First Jesus is not the one God. Jesus is God's Son. What God needs is irrelevant. The issue is, what has God commanded? Romans 13 tells us that God has ordained the institution of government and that institution is that instrument through which God enforces his law.

There are types of unjustified violence but justified violence is definitely condoned in scripture: http://eternalpropositions.wordpres...nd-religious-apostates-from-lawful-covenants/

 

The laws were written in the same document, the Old Testement. If you follow one, you should follow them all. Just because some bloke in 1647 made an interpretation of this, does not make it do.

God's gonna be pretty peaved with a whole lot of people... spending their lives hating the gays, yet tucking into bacon sandwiches and crayfish BBQ's.

If the gays are going to hell for breaking the law of god, they'll have lots of company down there with the hypocritical christian bigots who eat too much pig!

 

You stopped reading too soon: " The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

You have not been given a divine command to initiate violence against your fellow man. In fact, you have been forbidden from doing so.

 

And said document itself makes a distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws:

The Threefold Division of the Law by Jonathan Bayes,

This is fulfilled in the New Testament time when Jesus says in Mark 7:19

Burgess was not giving his opinion. He summarized what the bible said.

 

That is a command to private persons not magistrates. The context of our conversation is a magistrate-private person relation, not a private person-private person relation. If I allowed a criminal to kill me I would be breaking Paul's command against myself. Not everyone is a neighbor. Some people are lethal enemies. Jesus does not command genocide or corporate suicide.

 

You live in Kentucky, which last I checked was not a monarchy. You have a government supposedly of the people. Also, are you saying that the government doesn't have to follow God's law? That sort of contradicts your entire argument, no?

The key word that you missed when I said "You have not been given a divine command to initiate violence against your fellow man," is INITIATE. Homosexual marriage does no violence to you, therefore you have no right to initiate violence as retaliation.

Furthermore, you'd have to concede that if the law is changed tomorrow to allow gay marriage then you would be commanded to accept that, no?

 

The Bible has examples of using “forceful coercion as a means to true morality,” that is what killed Jesus and tried to force his disciples to shut up, but Christianity as Jesus taught it does not “support forceful coercion as a means to true morality,” our State is only maintained through education not coercion.

“Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

“Can force be used to create true morality?” No.

The Bible is real, I have one, I believe in it; the Bible does not represent one religion or belief.

 

It's an interpretation, by some bloke. "eating pig's flesh and the abomination " is pretty clear, but if you want to justify cherry picking the bible to your own sensibilities, then go ahead, you're not fooling god and you're not fooling me.

 

No, it does not support forcible coercion.

 

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

*******

Not unless you take those passages that you quoted literally, and only an unenlightened person would do that.

You misunderstand religion. That's why most atheists exist. They misunderstand religion.

The Bible tells (in the first chapter, no less) that man is God's image and likeness (no matter how it seems to material sense).

The true Christian strives to be moral because he IS God's image and likeness, so that morality and innocence are his nature. He is striving to be what he truly is.
Yes, he fails a LOT, but so what? He's trying.

And at least he knows WHY you should try and be moral. -and it's NOT so that you'll get positive payback from other human beings, like atheists are forced to think.

 

No, I didnt' completely ignore it, but we'll get to that. I generally tend to respond serially,.

Let's put it this way. Communism is a manifestation of marxist philosophy - political and economic practice. It is neither inherently moral or amoral. Under communism there are all kinds of laws that can be considered "moral". In a marxist utopia, all are equal, in the communist manifestation of that philosophy, human nature precludes such egalitarianism. There is ALWAYS an elite in human societies regardless of their operating political philosophy.

I do not advocate universal equality. Where do you get that? You confuse the theory in which human nature need not be taken into account with the practice where human nature mutates the philosophy.

I do advocate that regardless of birth everyone on the planet is entitled as inalienable rights. The US constitution being the best definition so far.

Mea Culpa, Iwas referring to the another link about protestantism vs catholicism and evil jesuit plots.

I certainly don't dispute the toll of blood brought about by communist regimes. Massive suppression is a hallmark of totalitarian regimes throughout history. However, claiming that communism and yankee capitalism are key to WW1 and WW2. Surely you are not saying that communism and yankee capitalism caused these wars are you? Other key political and economic factors such as european imperialism, national socialism, japanese imperialism, fascism, ethnic hatreds, economic desperation were also major contributors.

Please do not project. I need not "protect myself" and if I mispeak or am in error I readily admit it. I call the bible (the christian bible) a 2,000 year old book. that the old testament is considerably older is a given. Your quibble speaks volumes.

I'm sorry you did not such thing. This is the anti-catholic scree I was mistakenly referring to earlier.

The author appears to be a paranoid protestant willing to distort history to claim such scientific breakthroughs as evolution, big bang theory, the development of anthropology, communism, libertarianism, Freemasonry, United Nations Charter, and banning the bible in public schools are all evil Roman Catholic creations and plots.

I thought this was particularly hilarious:

"You can think you are a free thinker all you like, but the Secular establishment is Roman Catholic from top to bottom; thus creating any and all philosophies that divert people from the teaching of scripture and the Patriarchal culture of the Protestant Reformation.

You claimed "As for your sign, it is cute for people who have not spent their entire youth studying the history of human philosophy. Your assertion of millions of gods is ridiculous. I dare you to show me a single one of these millions of gods that does not terminate on a Babylonian Monad Philosophy. "

Well here's a little visual aid to demonstrate the timelne of the origin of some of the major religions (past and present) You can take your pick of roman gods or hindu gods or aboriginal gods (not mentioned by way older than some on this chart). Sorry but you are simply wrong.

I most certainly do have a philosophy of ethics the foundation of which is the golden rule. By extention, honesty, integrity, compassion, tolerance, individual rights of freedom of thought/expression/belief, charity, are all part of that philosphy. I call it jonism since the meaning and priorities of these elements are proprietary to myself.

You make a rather profound mistake. You appear to be saying that empricism and rationalism are inherently exclusive. This is clearly not the case as the basic claims of both are relative to the subject matter. One can be a rationalist in mathematics, and an empircist in other sciences without any conflict whatsoever. The philosophies of knowledge and it's acquisition are not absolute.

Your version holds that truth is coherence with the beliefs of an omniscient being. That every truth coheres with the set of beliefs of an omniscient being. This does not take into account the view that truth is coherence with a set of propositions believed at the limit of inquiry. Even at the limit of inquiry, finite creatures will not be able to decide every question, and truth may transcend what coheres with their beliefs.

In other words, you set of beliefs define your truths.

I do not believe that the golden rule is innate, although I beleive that many human behaviours are inate. How do you arrive at this conclusion?
AS mentioned, empiricism and coherence are only at odds when applied to the same subject matter.

[qutote]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. [/quote]

Firstly, I do not adhere to the tabula rasa theory. Locke et.al. developed this prior to any knowledge that many human behaviours are dictated by biological agents. Flight or Fight for instance is innate. All kinds of human reactions are innate.

As to my brief description, the development of human social structures MANDATES certain behaviours. these behaviours are the underpinnings of culture. I guess you are not a student of man.

Brilliant reposte. Especially since I qualified my brief description. I incorrectly assumed you would at least have some semblance of knowledge with regard to the development of human societies and cultures and the examination how of both innate and learned behaviours influence that development. There's a ton of good books not written by jesuits - (although I am a fan of the jesuit, de chardin even if some of his ideas are now obsolete.)

Your semantic processor is a little wonky. Here is a classic example of how coherence can be wrong. Your belief set includes that you (a)expressed clear and concise ideas AND that (b) I haven't read a single page of western philosophy. Since both a and b are both demonstrably incorrect, your "truth" is not.

I retract my statement on knowlege not requiring justification. I am embarrassed by the ridiculousness of that statement. I don't know what I was thinking, but I vaguely recall having to pee real bad.

Most of them do not believe in one god. If there is some absolute singularlity in principle behind a polytheist religion, it is not so in practice and last i looked, religion is practiced. For example, whilst hinduism does actually distill to a singularity, in practice it worships hundreds of individual "gods", it also predates the babylonian monad concept.

Innovation? the christian bible does not teach the whole father/son/holy/ghost schtick? I was under the impression that it was at Nicene 325 that constantine ordered christ to become devine, for marketing purposes.

In other words, the entire relationship between christ and god was a human invention. The very foundation of the christian church was made up by a committee. qu'elle suprise.

 

Are you suggesting that the word magistrate implies monarchy?

No. I believe the government has an obligation to follow God's law. What makes you think differently?

I never said I did. I believe that is the State's prerogative.

Define accept.

 

I am from the South and I can assure you the United States Government is thoroughly maintained by coercion. http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/the-end-of-the-antebellum-south-by-drake-shelton/

Can you support the idea that Jesus refuses coercion from the scriptures?

Your quotation was stated before the civil war.

I'll need more than your opinion.

You do NOT believe the Bible. The Bible teaches a sociology that you reject as a Lincolnist. It teaches slavery and Patriarchy: Principles you Lincolnist Communist-Universal Equalists despise. And it most definitely claims to teach one doctrine:

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Jud 1:3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

Act 15:25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul

1Ti 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen

Rom 15:5 Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus:

1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

Act 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul
2Co 13:11 Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

Phi 4:2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.

Zep 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

There is no mention of eating pig flesh as an abomination in the Mosaic law. Abominations are either idolatry, or something sexual in the bible. Maybe a few minute exceptions, but nothing pertaining to the dietary laws.

You are an emotionally unstable person; that is clear. You have not addressed any of the many scripture proofs I have given.

- - - Updated - - -

Assertions, speculations, no arguments. Moving on.

 

JUST LIKE I THOUGHT YOU WOULD DO, YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED MY REFUTATION OF EMPIRICISM. COMPLETELY IGNORED THE FOUR ARGUMENTS!

Yes you did! You didn't address the sensation issue, the identity issue, the induction issue or the mathematics issue. None of my arguments were even touched.

That is dishonest at best. Read through Engels' Principles of Communism. You will find the words evil and good used many times in a moral sense. Economics deals with human relations and those are moral.

Your exact words from post 5:

"The state should only enforce morality to the extent that common human morality informs the laws and equal rights."

You write like you don't know what you are talking about. That was totally nonsensical.

Entitled as inalienable rights? Do you even think through your sentences? What are you talking about?

Open your western history manual. Read about the Counter Reformation. It is no conspiracy theory.

Well the word cause is ambiguous. I believe they are formal causes yes.

Which was strongly connected to the Yankee Capitalists, per Charles Sumner's connection with Prince Metternich, a Papal Knight.

You don't even read what i write! The book Trading With The Enemy that I cited goes into detail on how Hitler was funded by Wall Street.

If you are referring to the depression:

Charles Higham says,

“Joseph J. Larkin resembled [Senator Nelson] Aldrich in his immaculate tailoring, perfect manners, austere deportment, and in his dedication to The Fraternity. A distinguished member of a Roman Catholic family, he had received the Order of the Grand Cross of the Knights of Malta from Pope Pius XI in 1928. He was an ardent supporter of General Franco and, by natural extension, Hitler.” (Charles Higham , Trading with the Enemy, (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1983) p. 42.-Taken from EJP’s VA, 2001.)

Still unable to get honest.

Denying it is not the same thing as proving it. I have had the heads of the departments at a local major University, specifically the head of the mathematics dept., admit this stuff to me. You are kidding yourself! Wake up!

Ad hominem.

Why? You do realize that an assertion of one's opinion is not an argument?

I notice you ignored this.

You are conflating a chronological series with a logical one. Just because they call them different names, does not mean they are meaningfully different.

And of course you ignore all the requirements for that affirmation. How does one arrive at the possession of a universal with only particular experience? How does sensation produce abstract ideas?

Well there are different theories of rationalism, but rationalists have traditionally held to a priori structures as their principle affirmation and yes, empiricism cannot believe this.

Well I hold to an intuitionist view of mathematics and numbers, though nothing close to the claims of some intuitionists. But I do that because I know empiricism cannot produce numbers. So when you continue saying

I have to laugh at you.

I am not asking for omniscience and I don't claim to have it myself. I just want a basic coherent theory of the major fields of philosophy: Metaphysics. epistemology, ethics and politics.

JUST LIKE I THOUGHT YOU WOULD DO, YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED MY REFUTATION OF EMPIRICISM. COMPLETELY IGNORED THE FOUR ARGUMENTS!

No. truth is the propositions of scripture. The way that is verified and attested to is coherence.

Sort of, but a very sloppy way to put it. My view is that all the propositions of the bible are coherent and consistent with one another and able to produce a complete theory.

You are conflating the word coherence with the word omniscience.

No. My belief is that the Protestant canon of scripture contains all demonstrable knowledge that God has willed to reveal to mankind. All the propositions deduced from the canon are not beliefs, they are knowledge.

It is a universal principle of justice pursuant to the 6th commandment. It is a universal and thus must be innate or revealed. In this case it is both.

What are you talking about? Their theories of demonstration are totally different. One is inductive, the other deductive.

Thus, before Darwin. This escape technique will not help you either: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/eighteen-theses-against-behaviorism-by-drake/

Of course I am which is why I know you are mistaken. Most people do not believe that their thoughts and feelings are mere chemistry.

I have spent years studying that. You have failed to show my lack of knowledge on these issues. To the jesuit thing: See, told you. I always find the devil in the details.

No. The bible says nothing about Drake Shelton expressing anything.

That was my opinion. Not a demonstrable truth in the philosophical sense.

And Neoplatonism which very clearly perfected the monad theology also had many lower gods on the chain of being. So what?

Depends on what you mean. Does the bible teach that there is a divine trinity of father son and hs? Yes. That does not mean that all three are one being and one God. That is the point.

You are under the exact same deception that the Roman Catholic Church has programmed the christian with. You think the word divine means the one God. Divine pertains to nature. The One God, to person: The Father alone.

Depends on what you mean by relationship.

Yeah, I read Holy Blood Holy Grail too when I was young and in college. I didn't even bother to read any of Dan Brown's plagiarisms. Just as a ps, I notice the final conspiracy theory comes out. I always get a good laugh from people who berate me for believing in conspiracies because in the end I always find their naive and more grossly ignorant conspiracy theories.You see, I always find the devil in the details.

 

No, I'm suggesting that you live under a government where the people are an integral part of the government so the distinction you're trying to draw is meaningless.

Your statement that, "That is a command to private persons not magistrates." I didn't see any exemptions for officers of the government listed in the scripture.

Nope. The state doesn't have that right either. The state has no rights.

To endure without protest.

 

Funny how all the verses you claim represent one religion and belief in the Bible all come from the New Testament; obviously the Bible does not represent one religion or belief. Sacrificed any birds lately? Getting instructions from the hive mind, need tinfoil?

I am from the South, and we elected the first Republican Governor since reconstruction not long ago, but I moved further south. Wees be got tha vote in Florida too, and can run for office, and massa lets us read anything we want. If the United States Government used coercion I must have missed it. So can you give me an example of coercion? Were you forced to vote for Obama? Did the United States Government coerce you into strange sexual positions, or were you probed recently by MJ-12?

“Can you support the idea that Jesus refuses coercion from the scriptures?”

If you cannot find the Golden Rule you must not have the same book, it is the Holy Bible, try King James Version, and just skip all that stuff in the old and go right to the new; the Golden Rule prohibits coercion.

Lincolnist Communist-Universal Equalists?

Hang out with Ed Toner much?

 

yes, but then we get into the problem of WHOSE Church is going to rule

Cahtolics say homosexuality is wrong

most other noncatholic ones do as well

But Catholics say divorce and remarriage is wrong (as long as the marriage is valid) and noncatholic churches do not agree

and there are other things that are not agreed on...

and people go ballistic over their religious views ... human nature

so... uh...

Even so, i think some effort should be made to run society by the rules MOST christians agree on

 

Okay. You win. I do not believe in the bible. Now. Stop trying to enforce your idea of christian morality upon me.

 

The Bible has many versions. The New Testament has many contradictions. The two statements are separate.

Secular is used in the correct context, meaning non-religious in this sense. The law of the state should be secular, that is, not entwined with religion. Religious law, Canon Law, Sharia, Halakhah and so on, should only affect adherents to that religion and only then while it does not breach the secular law of the state.

I read the links. Not all of the content but enough to allow me to come to the conclusion that I will leave the debate to the scholars. Particular points, views, positions, assertions and so on can be debated between scholars who understand the content of the debate and also the normal rules of academic discourse.

 

The god of the Bible is a tyrant, why wouldn't Christians want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship?

 

You are conflating a republic with anarchy. There are distinctions in the people. Some hold public office, some do not.

You didn't see any MENTION of magistrates in that command. It was a command to private persons, not magistrates. Jesus said he did not come to do away with the law Mat 5:17-19 and the law has plenty of commands to the ruling body distinct from the private common people. Romans 13:4 says that governing authority, "does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."

Yes it does.

Rom 13: 13 Every [a]person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore [c]whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for [d]good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

Then no. Only lawful Government qualifies as the ordinance of God. (Gen. 14:13-16, Ex. 7-14, {These are both before the theocracy}Judg. 3:8-11, Judg. 3:12-30, Judg. 3:31, Judg. 4, Judg. 6-8, Judg.11-12, Judg. 13-16,1 Sam 14:43-45, 2 Sam. 16:15; 2 Sam. 18:6-8, 1 Kgs. 17:3; 1 Kgs. 19:3,1 Kgs. 18:40, 2 Kgs. 1:9-13,1 Chron 12: 1-18 (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) helped David resist Saul} 2 Chron. 23:12-15, Hos. 8:4, Mt. 10:18, 10:23, Rev. 12:14)

If Civil Government does not minister good to the people it is not the ordinance of God, "for the throne is established by righteousness" (Prov. 16:12)”

Romans 13 is to be understood in the way George Buchanan describes,

“Paul, therefore, does not here treat of the magistrate, but of the magistracy--that is, of the function and duty of the person who presides over others, nor of this nor of that species of magistracy, but of every possible form of Government. Nor does he contend against those who maintained that bad magistrates ought to be punished, but against persons who renounced every kind of authority; who, by an absurd interpretation of Christian liberty, affirmed that it was an indignity to men emancipated by the Son of God, and directed by God's Spirit, to be controlled by any human power. To refute this erroneous opinion, Paul shows that magistracy is not only a good, but a sacred and divine ordinance. “ [George Buchanan, De Jure Regni Apud Scotos; A Dialogue Concerning The Rights Of The Crown In Scotland (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, [1579] 1982), p. 269. This quote can also be found in the 1843 edition of Lex Rex on page 269. Referenced from GP’s work]

 

And the significance of your statement is what exactly?

I dealt with this already in post 51 and 55.

?

Our entire way of life was destroyed. We used to operate off of an agricultural way of life which provided the most freedom. Now we no longer have the right to own property. WE have the privilege of using property. A Yankee Globalist grid was imposed upon us against our will. Most of our factories, farm, cattle, and machines were either stolen or destroyed by the Yankees, leaving the south unto this day impoverished in many places.

The Yankees imposed Yankee Capitalist industry on to us and the Yankee Public schools against our will which teaches outright lies and infects the children with gross immoralities and enable the genocide of Europeans. All of the public office holders here are bought and paid for. WE have no representation.

The choices are controlled and thus not choices. Yankee Capitalism and Communism are in many respects the same system:
http://eternalpropositions.wordpres...nism-the-anti-thesis-of-the-global-synthesis/

Actually the Yankee army did indeed perform hundreds of acts of rape in the South:

http://eternalpropositions.wordpres...part-7-war-crimes-against-southern-civilians/
“Can you support the idea that Jesus refuses coercion from the scriptures?”

Nonsense: http://eternalpropositions.wordpres...s-the-abolitionist-appeal-to-the-golden-rule/

 

I understand this is a problem right now. We need to conduct a long national council and settle some issues. The theology that comes from that council should be the established religion.

Disagreements are nothing new, and national and ecumenical councils have been very effective in dealing with these issues.