Republican and Christianity

[Reynolds357]

I agree there's no point having a constitution if it isn't followed, and if the constitution does explicitly say that Christian morality must be imposed by force of law then either it has to be followed or amended.

I don't know the detail of what the constitution says, and since I'm not an American don't really have the interest to dig into it to find out.

The Constitution is a bit vague. The actions of the men who signed it make its interpretation quite easy. Much of what modern progressives say is "unconstitutional" are things that the men who signed it did.

[Boo]

The Constitution is a bit vague. The actions of the men who signed it make its interpretation quite easy. Much of what modern progressives say is "unconstitutional" are things that the men who signed it did.

However, we are blessed with clarification. Much as Luke, Paul, James, and Peter clarified God's instructions of the Gospel books; our original crafters of the U.S. Contitution wrote letters and explained the thoughts and purposes behind the contents of the constitution. We can get clarification through those letters.

But, just as the ACLU has done to the Contitution, we have people doing the same thing to scriptures.

[EarlyCall]

I'm not sure if anything in the actual platform does, but the actions of Republican leaders do. For example, the Bush Doctrine directly contradicts Matthew 5:38-39. This is just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more examples.

Here Jesus is speaking to people and instructing them on how to live as individuals and not addressing the government. But, if you can show me scripture where Jesus spoke to government officials of His day and instructed them on how to act toward other nations, I think we'd more easily draw the conclusion you are seeking here. But I have to be honest and say that short of that, I cannot come to the conclusion you do concerning the Bush doctrine.

Now I agree that we can argue the merits and even the morality of the Iraq war, taking note that there are arguments both in favor and against, but the scripture you provide really doesn't apply here in my opinion. I would add that I could use scripture about loving your neighbor and other such scripture to argue for the Bush doctrine because in the end, it killed a lot of bad guys that were hurting and killing others. How would that apply to loving your neighbor? Because we loved our neighbors so much we spilled our blood to save them from a tyrant!

But if I used the scripture in that manner, would I be using it rightly do you think?

[A Seeker]

I find this slightly disturbing. I know the constitution is a respected document and I respect that. But when parallels are drawn to scripture, and we talk about interpreting it in context of the intentions of the original authors it starts to sound a bit... Wrong! The authors of the constitution were just men. Fallible, flawed men. Men who lived at a time when What by today's standards would be shameful and shocking inhumanity was commonplace and acceptable. The constitution is no more infallible than the magna carta!

Why are we trying to second guess what they believed?

[tango]

I find this slightly disturbing. I know the constitution is a respected document and I respect that. But when parallels are drawn to scripture, and we talk about interpreting it in context of the intentions of the original authors it starts to sound a bit... Wrong! The authors of the constitution were just men. Fallible, flawed men. Men who lived at a time when What by today's standards would be shameful and shocking inhumanity was commonplace and acceptable. The constitution is no more infallible than the magna carta!

Why are we trying to second guess what they believed?

I don't think it's at all appropriate to try and consider the intentions of the people who wrote it. The fact that the constitution is being discussed in the same context as Scripture in that one way isn't inappropriate at all, any more than it is inappropriate to take my manuscript and publish it as a book the same way we did with the manuscripts of the Bible.

I also don't think anyone is saying that the constitution is infallible. The point is that if a constitution exists it needs to be followed or amended. Following the constitution requires an understanding of what it says and, if apparently ambiguous, some understanding of the context in which it was written so it can be interpreted. The very fact that an amendment is possible says the original document is not regarded as being infallible.

[A Seeker]

I don't think it's at all appropriate to try and consider the intentions of the people who wrote it.

Thats what I'm saying

The fact that the constitution is being discussed in the same context as Scripture in that one way isn't inappropriate at all, any more than it is inappropriate to take my manuscript and publish it as a book the same way we did with the manuscripts of the Bible.

You lost me here.

The point I'm getting at is that the people who wrote the bible had special knowledge, knowledge they did not write down. In some cases they walked with an incarnated God and heard his words! Unfortunately, they had to record this knowledge in verbal form which opened it to ambiguity, translation error etc etc. The people who penned the constitution had no such special knowledge, they knew less than we do now. Thats why I don't see the value in trying to second guess their intentions they posesed no knowledge or insight we don't have today. The people who wrote the bible did. Thats why they should not be considered in the same way.

I also don't think anyone is saying that the constitution is infallible.

No, nobody has said that. But sometimes the way it is spoken of in the same breath as scripture makes me wonder...

[EarlyCall]

I find this slightly disturbing. I know the constitution is a respected document and I respect that. But when parallels are drawn to scripture, and we talk about interpreting it in context of the intentions of the original authors it starts to sound a bit... Wrong! The authors of the constitution were just men. Fallible, flawed men. Men who lived at a time when What by today's standards would be shameful and shocking inhumanity was commonplace and acceptable. The constitution is no more infallible than the magna carta!

Why are we trying to second guess what they believed?

There is no need whatsoever to second guess our founders as they wrote extensively concerning their thoughts, intentions, beliefs and otherwise.

[tango]

Thats what I'm saying

Unfortunate typo. I meant to say I don't think it's at all inappropriate to try and consider the intentions behind the people who wrote it. If something could be interpreted in multiple ways we can either accept that the clauses are vague (in which case we might as well seek an amendment to either remove or clarify them), or look for whatever we can find to confirm the intended meaning.

You lost me here.

The point I'm getting at is that the people who wrote the bible had special knowledge, knowledge they did not write down. In some cases they walked with an incarnated God and heard his words! Unfortunately, they had to record this knowledge in verbal form which opened it to ambiguity, translation error etc etc. The people who penned the constitution had no such special knowledge, they knew less than we do now. Thats why I don't see the value in trying to second guess their intentions they posesed no knowledge or insight we don't have today. The people who wrote the bible did. Thats why they should not be considered in the same way.

Whatever knowledge the people who wrote it may or may not have had, if a country is to be bound by a constitution it makes sense to understand the constitution. If it is to be given any significance at all it makes sense to understand it. If people are going to figure that it's a bit vague so it should be ignored, then it makes more sense to go the whole hog and officially abandon it.

What makes no sense to me is to hold up a document as having some value, querying the exact interpretation of parts of it, and then not attempting to use whatever means are available to understand it better.

No, nobody has said that. But sometimes the way it is spoken of in the same breath as scripture makes me wonder...

Honestly I think you're reading too much into it. It's a document that has a significance to some people, just as the constitution of the local bowling club has a significance to some people. If the bowling club as a constitution then the constitution needs to be followed or amended, otherwise there's no point having a constitution in the first place.

[Boo]

The comparison is not between the U.S. Constitution and Scripture. It is a comparison of what is being done to both of them.

Back when the Contitution was written, nobody had any real problem with understanding it. The same is true with scripture - those who understood those languages and that culture also understood clearly what was written.

It is because of the changes of language and cultures that we don't understand any longer. Unfortunately, instead of recognizing our limitations to understanding and searching for that understanding of the original meanings and intents, we want to change the understanding into an idea more preferable to some people.

[A Seeker]

Unfortunate typo. I meant to say I don't think it's at all inappropriate to try and consider the intentions behind the people who wrote it. If something could be interpreted in multiple ways we can either accept that the clauses are vague (in which case we might as well seek an amendment to either remove or clarify them), or look for whatever we can find to confirm the intended meaning.

Like I wasn't confused enough already!!

The comparison is not between the U.S. Constitution and Scripture. It is a comparison of what is being done to both of them.

Back when the Contitution was written, nobody had any real problem with understanding it. The same is true with scripture - those who understood those languages and that culture also understood clearly what was written.

It is because of the changes of language and cultures that we don't understand any longer. Unfortunately, instead of recognizing our limitations to understanding and searching for that understanding of the original meanings and intents, we want to change the understanding into an idea more preferable to some people.

Now that makes sense. My question is, if they are not being compared, how can we compare what is being done to them? If its unacceptable to do something to the bible, and unacceptable to do it to the constitution, but acceptable to do it to, say, fly fishing for beginners, is there not an inferred comparison?

[tango]

Like I wasn't confused enough already!!

Oops

Now that makes sense. My question is, if they are not being compared, how can we compare what is being done to them? If its unacceptable to do something to the bible, and unacceptable to do it to the constitution, but acceptable to do it to, say, fly fishing for beginners, is there not an inferred comparison?

Only insofar as the Bible and the constitution are documents that are more significant in their impact than another text.

I can say "Having faith in God is more important than having a new iPod" and "Having fun once in a while is more important than having a new iPod". To infer from those two statements that "Having faith in God is just as important as having fun once in a while" is clearly absurd. Speaking from a perspective of pure logic it doesn't explicitly rule out the logical possibility that "having fun once in a while is more important than having faith in God", simply because it doesn't tell us anything about the relative importance of faith in God and having fun once in a while. All it does tell us is that having a new iPod is less important than either.

[A Seeker]

Fair shout.
15 chars

[Boo]

Like I wasn't confused enough already!!



Now that makes sense. My question is, if they are not being compared, how can we compare what is being done to them? If its unacceptable to do something to the bible, and unacceptable to do it to the constitution, but acceptable to do it to, say, fly fishing for beginners, is there not an inferred comparison?

OH, I don't think so. WE, in the U.S. have to comply with both U.S. and State Constitutions. We Christians live by the scriptures. All those documents affect our lives, so for anyone to monkey with any of them without authorization (following prescribed procedures) would be totally wrong.

Nobody can get authorization to change Scriptures so "bible lawyers" do it through false interpretations. They do it very well though, talking of all sorts of little details that change meanings and references, cut 'n paste text games, and just completly ignoring passages that would dispute their preferred doctrine. It becomes a nightmare trying to discern the true meaning of certain doctrines or answer certain questions by looking up references in commentaries because of the abundance of different interpretations. In the end, one has to realize that it takes personal involvement, prayer, and study to reach what we need to know.

With our State and Federal constitutions, there is a method to change "the text." When that can't happen, they use lawyers.

That is my comparison.

[A Seeker]

Nobody can get authorization to change Scriptures so "bible lawyers" do it through false interpretations. They do it very well though, talking of all sorts of little details that change meanings and references, cut 'n paste text games, and just completly ignoring passages that would dispute their preferred doctrine. It becomes a nightmare trying to discern the true meaning of certain doctrines or answer certain questions by looking up references in commentaries because of the abundance of different interpretations.

Agree 100%!

Trouble for me is that its something of an irregular verb. YOU are a bible lawyer, I am applying sound heurmanutic principles. YOU'RE trying to suggest that there is conflict in the bible, I'M pointing out that my interpretation fits better with other scriptures.

I suspect we all agree that we see that lots here! Although we'd probably disagree on where . And indeed, issue by issue.

[nimblewillsgrace]

I find it very interesting that Jesus gave up all His rights, both as God and as a Human, yet we believe it is ok to kill and demoralize others to secure ours.