"Non-Believers" View of Bible-Believing Christians

[Bob White]

Unless I'm mistaken didn't Jesus ask us to follow his example a couple thousand years before Sheldon did?

 

Not that Mr. Sheldon isn't a fine writer but din't God already provide us with a book that explains that point fairly clearly?

 

So the BSA is largely Christian, isn't the country?

 

 

 

 

[Bob White]

Unless I'm mistaken didn't Jesus ask us to follow his example a couple thousand years before Sheldon did?

 

Not that Mr. Sheldon isn't a fine writer but din't God already provide us with a book that explains that point fairly clearly?

 

So the BSA is largely Christian, isn't the country?

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

Bob,

You reference should have read 1Peter 4:14-16. Good reference, BTW.

 

Yup. God chose me. I didn't choose Him. I know that for a fact.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Prairie_Scouter]

So, the "book" that you're referring to would be the Bible, or maybe the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or ....?

[Hunt]

I'd like to address the question of what constitutes being "arrogant." A dictionary definition of the word is: 1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance. 2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak.

I don't believe it is fair to use this word to describe a person who simply believes that he is right about something. I don't even think it necessarily describes a person who believes he has been called by God for a particular mission. I don't think it is arrogant to try to persuade other people that you are right and they are wrong, especially if you are doing out of altruistic motives.

All that being said, I think a big part of the answer to Rooster's original question is that many Christians have acted and spoken arrogantly, and all Christians end up being tarred with that brush. Some really have tried to impose or force their views on others (i.e., by requiring the teaching of creationism in the schools). I also think too many Christians have spent too much time on trying to suppress sin among non-Christians rather than trying to spread the Good News.

Another point about strong religious beliefs--for many people, they arise from definitive religious experiences, as opposed to study. When this is the case, people cannot be convinced by argument that their beliefs (and thus their experiences) are wrong. It also means that such people don't preference their statements with, "Of course I might be wrong about this, but..." This is not necessarily arrogant (although it can be).

[Prairie_Scouter]

I doubt that you'd find many people with any kind of problem with someone who is deeply religious, and lives their religion in a devout, pious way, using their example to try and show others the "right" way.

 

Unfortunately, that's not what we see most of the time now. It's not enough that people have a belief in a certain way of living. Those who might be called "activists" want to put those beliefs into law so that we ALL have to live that way. Those who espouse those views in public forums, the leaders of these efforts, all seem to have a public persona that smacks of "arrogance", a belief that "my religion is better than yours, so I'm going to ram mine down your throat". I think that this activist group represents a very small group of extreme conservative Christian elements. But it's there, nonetheless. There is, I think, a vast majority of Christians who look for areas of commonality in their views with others, rather than the minority who only care about impressing their views on others.

 

On these forums, there are several posters who have strongly held religious beliefs. I think it is wonderful that they have that level of faith. There are posters who will simply share what they believe on these topics, and there are those who ask how others DARE to question what the Bible might be saying. Within the limits of their own religious groups, they should implement those beliefs as they fit. But, I draw the line at having those beliefs impressed on everyone in Scouting.

[Rooster7]

Hunt,

 

Excellent points.

 

Prairie_Scouter,

 

Concerning "religiously inspired" movements to create laws, if the purpose of the proposed law is to make others ("non-believers", "non-followers", whatever) to conform to a particular faith, then I would certainly agree with you.

 

However, most proposed laws usually concern one's behavior which purportedly violates the moral standards of a community. For example, we as a society believe that underage drinking is wrong, so we've created laws to penalize individuals who contribute to that end. It shouldnt matter if you think its wrong because teenagers arent ready to drink at that age or if someone else believes its always wrong to drink, especially children. What matters is, the majority has decided that its wrong. Its difficult enough to get consensus on most laws much less factoring peoples moral rationalization for the same. Where one obtains his/her moral foundation, should remain a personal matter. Thus, it should be of no consequence if ones moral foundation is religiously based or not. In other words, if we as a country decide to create a law, then it shouldn't matter why the majority voted as they did. So long as the law is designed to uphold a moral standard and not the practice of a religion. I have no problem with religious folks voicing their opinions and trying to create a law to uphold that standard.

 

I think the day we as a nation start to consider ones religious background as a basis to determine whether or not a law is valid we are truly walking a thin line if not a nonexistent one. All laws have a moral premise. If we nullify all laws which may have been inspired by ones deeply held faith-based beliefs, then perhaps only atheists are qualified for the bench. I find that to be a scary prospect. Those who have no agreeable or common moral foundation to reference are the only ones qualified to determine if a law is valid. God help us should that day arrive.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The current legal standard is that all laws must have a "secular purpose"; if the ONLY purpose of the law is to advance some religious tenet or religious view, it isn't a valid law. For example, in Stone v. Graham (1980), the opinion begins "Held: A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."

[Prairie_Scouter]

Rooster, in concept I agree with you, but I think this gets kind of sticky in areas where people might not agree with legislation being passed.

 

I doubt that you'd find anyone who'd have a problem with laws designed to curb underage drinking. These are primarily designed to protect people not yet of legal age.

 

But, what happens, for example, if the U.S. passes a law completely outlawing abortion? Not with the common sense caveats that many would view as essential, but the more extreme legislation that's been proposed by some that would make abortion procedures 100% illegal. These proposals are all based on religious teachings; I have yet to see one that is based on medical issues. What then, do we tell the young husband who's wife is about to die because of a problem with the fetus that cannot be corrected by an abortion due to a law passed in response to a particular religious belief that the husband doesn't share?

 

What happens if the federal government passes a law outlawing gay marriage? What do you tell the partner unable to visit their partner in the hospital because of a "family only" policy, and they can't be considered family because of a law based on a religious belief that they don't happen to share?

 

What if the government passes a law mandating the teaching of Creationism in place of Evolution? Will the teaching of Evolution then have to go "underground" because of the passing of law favoring a particular religious point of view?

 

What about a slightly different issue, but another one where religion comes into conflict with law? Should children of Christian Scientists be allowed to die from easily treatable conditions because the parents don't believe in the use of modern medicine?

 

Yes, in the U.S most of our laws have some sort of religious underpinning. (although we seem to play footloose and fancy free with "thou shalt not kill" all the time, for some reason). I think most of those laws reflect teachings that most religions in the U.S. have in common not only with each other but even with non-believers. We're now heading into areas of conflict, tho, where we're trying to pass laws that favor particular religious views. I don't know if that can be done legally or not, but I expect we'll see a lot of court cases challenging those laws if they do ever get passed. You run into problems when you start dealing with issues where there are differing opinions of what constitutes moral behavior. I don't think it's a simple matter of majority rule.

 

 

[stlscouter]

The current "secular' standard for lwas comes stems from the aculturalization WE the people in concert that stems from a moral/belief not the result of one human's rational thought process. Public law including those against murder, stealing, honoring people (slander, libel) etc also have a BIBLICAL/religious stem. Whether that is Christianity or some other belief system. No one person or group of people operated in a vaccuum to set these guidelines and to deny that is unreasonable.

 

The if/then proposition then is if the men who wrote the DI and the Cons. ascribed thier founding guidelines and remediation of unforeseen problems to self-evident rights granted by the creator then where do atheists get their rights from? For if there is no creator for them there can be no rights unless they take them or usurp power by substituting "Nogod" as the creator.(This message has been edited by stlscouter)

 

sorry we were both posting at the same tim

 

\So name the one thing that ALL of us can agree on-(the tower of Babel notwithstanding) water is wet?(This message has been edited by stlscouter)

[Rooster7]

stlscouter,

 

I think we're in agreement.

 

Merlyn,

 

"What if" - the majority of Americans voted (or rather elected representatives) to outlaw murder because God's law and/or spirit inspired them to do so. Would you argue before the Supreme Court that the law should be overturned because it was "religiously inspired"? And frankly, how could you prove such a claim? Polls?

 

Prairie_Scouter,

 

"What if" - the majority of Americans felt that abortion was murder and voted (elected representatives) to ban its practice? Does it really matter why they feel its wrong? I think not. If we as a nation decide that abortion is wrong and elect folks to ban the practice - then WE (as in the We the People) should be able to do just that. It's not right for the government or anyone else to demand that we reveal our motives. It's our country and we are entitled to embrace the moral standards of our choice. Personally, for the vast majority of the cases, I feel abortion is wrong.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[evmori]

Rooster7,

Excellent points! And for the record, abortion is murder. The only reason it's legal is because it's a medical procedure.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Rooster7 writes:

"What if" - the majority of Americans voted (or rather elected representatives) to outlaw murder because God's law and/or spirit inspired them to do so.

 

To defend it in court, they'd have to show that outlawing murder has a secular purpose. As this is trivially easy, they would succeed.

 

Would you argue before the Supreme Court that the law should be overturned because it was "religiously inspired"?

 

Only if there is no secular purpose; with murder, there clearly is such a purpose. For a law with no secular purpose, see e.g. Stone v. Graham.

 

And frankly, how could you prove such a claim?

 

By having the attorneys arguing in favor of the law explain what secular purpose the law serves. If they can't come up with ANY non-religious reasons for a law, it deserves to be struck down.

[stlscouter]

then of course, it would prove conculsively, that the law is an ass?

 

I would submit that the millions of words and thousands of pages contained in the law books therefore cannot stand in the face of the 1500 pages contained in an ordinary BIBLE, whose moral imperatives, lessons directions and commandments man has tried and failed to improve on.(This message has been edited by stlscouter)

[Prairie_Scouter]

Rooster,

I think we're generally in agreement that the voters of the country should be able to pass any law they want that doesn't violate the Constitution. My only concern in this area is that I don't want us to become a nation run by religious laws ala some countries in the Middle East. That would be an extreme condition, I think, but one that we should all be careful of. That's really no different than my concerns about the Patriot Act with its "trust us" mentality.

 

Ed,

"For the record", abortion is murder? I think you mean, "In my opinion, abortion is murder", don't you? I'll grant you that some states have passed laws to grant the fetus "person" status, although I question the political motivation for doing so. Beyond that, it's a matter of belief as to when life actually begins. Religiously, I would suppose that the belief would be that the spirit is "injected" at the moment of conception. Impossible to prove, of course, but a valid belief. Medically, an embryo isn't considered a pregnancy until it is implanted in the womb. No implantation, no pregnancy. After that, I think it becomes a lot of personal opinion. In my case, I think that once a fetus has developed to the point that it can live on it's own outside the womb without dramatic technology intervention, it deserves to stand on its own. So, I don't like the idea of very late term abortions. But, that's just me. Generally, I don't like the idea of abortion as a method of birth control, but I think that in the bigger picture, the woman has to retain control over her body. Again, just my opinion.