The Separation of Church and State

Hi everyone, it's good to be back. Anyway, I've been doing some serious thinking on this topic for awhile, and I thought I'd open it up for discussion on this forum.

We all know the good points to separating church from state. It would seem obvious, living as we do in a society of multiple ethnicities. But there are also many bad points to taking such action. And I'm not just looking at it from the neo-conservative-Christian point of view, but from a realistic political perspective. But I'll wait to say my peace until I get some feedback first...

I believe that they should be seperated in that Government doesnt control the Church and the Church is not the Governemt.
But I dont believe in the modern separation. (There are some Christain who think it is wrong to vote etc.)
Your friend General Lee

Doesn't it say in the Constitution that there should be a speration, but the church should still influence the State?

I'm studying it, I should know. Maybe I havent gotten that far yet.......lol I think it does though. I think the constituion IS more directed to preserving religion in government, but is often interpreted the opposite way because of the "lack" of clarity in certain passages.

So yeah, I think it does

Well, as far as I know, the constitution doesn't openly promote a government run by the Bible. I do think, however, that the founders took it for granted that this country would always be run by honest, God-fearing citizens.

Remember, at the time, democracy was viewed by some as going entirely against the teachings of the Bible. The American Revolution was viewed by many as "a rebellion led by despots and atheists." By people attempting to take the government into their own hands, and out of their God-sent king's control, they were obviously challenging the form of government accepted by the Bible. The entire theory that kings were responsible to God and God alone can be strongly argued as representing the Bible's dicatates; by people now resorting to logic and reason, they were openly -in some peoples' minds- defying the Bible and religious government.

Of course, our framers took a different point of view: that God had created all men with certain, unalienable rights. I am in no way opposed to the honorable men who founded our nation; however, if the Bible is to be taken seriously, we must admit that the idea of democracy goes against everything in the Bible. Allow me to go further on this line of thinking...

A similar issue is slavery. Ironic, huh? In the Bible, slavery is completely accepted; slavery is not scorned in any way, rather, it is bad masters that are scorned. However, beginning in the Age of Enlightenment, rationalized thinking led way to an entire new era of philosophy. Many religious persons, such as ministers, in many ways abandoned the preachings of the Bible in favor of their own logic when it came to slavery. It is easy to see that the South at the time of the Civil War was more religious as a whole than that North, though that could be owed to the influx of multi-ethnicity immigrants in northern cities. But regardless, the South was the one that clung to slavery, whereas, the North left the realm of the Bible, and waged a new sort of religious war, all according to their own logic. It was these men, who had left the teachings of the Bible for their own rationalized logic, that created the anti-slavery sentiment around the world. Emotions are far more easily conveyed than cold evidence; it was so in this case.

In short, my point is, how can the Bible be taken seriously in its effect on our government and citizens, when the most "religious" of persons, those who fought in the name of God, religion, and everything holy to man, were in fact leaving the dicates of the Holy Bible, and truely preaching their own opinionated brand of politics? This is a considerable thought, being as it is that this sentiment, spawned not even two hundred years ago, has prevailed until this date, and will most likely prevail for the rest of my lifetime and then some, even though it contradicts the Bible, and everything that has formed the foundations of the Christian beliefs for nearly two millenium: including the beliefs of rule by a God-appointed king, and the belief that slaves are a healthy part of a thriving society. Of course, there are also bad kings in the Bible. But are they ever replaced by a government representing the will of the people? Or anything vaguely like an elected body? No. And there are instances of bad masters in the Bible. But does God ever respond by denouncing slavery as unacceptable to Christianity? As far as I know, the answer is no.

Nevermind the belief of a nation whose belief lies firmly with God. But I'll have to continue this later.

Intresting, let me get back to you on this, I need to think a bit on what you've said.

I understand how some religious people would be hesitant to either agree or disagree with my last post. Am I saying that the Bible is wrong for not denouncing slavery? Or am I denouncing the Northern clergy of the time for spreading anti-slavery sentiment, and by doing so, leaving the path set by the Bible? Of course, as long as I consider myself a Christian, I have to put my belief in the Bible. But, that would mean that the clergymen of the North who fought slavery, were in fact straying from the Bible. This is disturbing to many people, since slavery is commonly considered the biggest no-brainer 'evil' in this world. What does this say for the Bible? I'm not going to venture an opinion on that; I'll be the first to admit I am no Bible scholar. But if so many people who consider themselves good Christians "disagree" with the Bible on this, it definitely deserves alot of thought.

Could it be that the Bible is possibly "outdated"? Remember, the Bible has no "admendment" system, and is supposed to represent Absolute Truth, in it's entirity. Can Absolute Truth include slavery? Today, we live in a society where 'tollerance' is the name of the game, and the media is saturated to the point of uselessness with political correctness. So either we in our "advanced" logic, are wrong, or the Bible is wrong. I don't see any other way around it.

Alright, so you think that the bible does not oppose slavery? Intresting when every aspect of Salvation and deliverance is focused on being free. Free to choose whether to serve God, or not.
I'm going to cut right to the chase.
Lets say you're trying to prove that the bible does condemn slavery. The first thing would be to know where to look for an article of judgement, or condemnation, correct? Well
In Ezekiel 27, we find God passing judgement of Tyre. Tyre was central to the ANE slave trade. This same thing is once again picked up by John in Revalation 18 in his eschatological oracle of judgment against Roman, under the pseudonym of Babylon. Once again, the slave-trade is placed in the emphatic position, but this time at the conclusion of the catalogue of vices for which imperial Rome is culpable (18:13). Alright, now, you tell me, if you were a slave master that realised what these oracles of judgment were directed toward you're profession, what would you do? I know I would seriously consider a career change. I think this is a good reason to say that the Bible oposses slavery. And the Israelites took slaves from the people they conquered. AKA prisoners of war. Oh, and check this out.

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)
Hmmm.......intresting.
The slavery in the Bible is NOTHING like what we see today, or what was practiced by nations such as Rome. In fact, it was volentary. People who were starving would sell THEMSELVES into slavery in order to survive. This is what Slavery was. It was recently mentioned to me that Philemon had a slave. He did, as I have researched. But Paul wrote a letter to Philemon after Onesimus escaped and had become converted to Christianity. This is the contents of that letter.
"Appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good — no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.
He was asking Philemon to release his slave from bondage, how Onesimus became a slave in the first place I do not know.

Heres a nice little verse.

1. Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. (1 Corinthians 7:21-23)
   

The bible is easily misunderstood because it is compared to modern day times. Things are a lot different now, the people, and the laguage they speak. Slavery was not what it is now, therfore you cannot say that it condones The Slavery of today. And also you cannot say that the North was waging a holy war, because slavery was and is not the same as it was thousands of years ago.

You're dear and very exausted friend, Oppie.

Btw, God warned people about having a king rule over them. He warned them of taxes, and other types of tribute that would be put on them. They refused to listen.

The Opposition wrote:

Alright, so you think that the bible does not oppose slavery? Intresting when every aspect of Salvation and deliverance is focused on being free. Free to choose whether to serve God, or not.

Oppie, I am not trying to find fault with the Bible. To the contrary, if you could inform me of something I'm missing here, I'd appreciate it. But nothing you've said is very conclusive. In the above paragraph, you say that in your opinion, Salvation and Deliverance is focused on being free to choose whether to serve God or not. How does this affect your condition of physical freedom? I take it that God and Christianity offer spiritual freedom, and that sounds like what you're defining: freedom to choose, not necessary physical freedom.

The Opposition wrote:

I'm going to cut right to the chase.
Lets say you're trying to prove that the bible does condemn slavery. The first thing would be to know where to look for an article of judgement, or condemnation, correct? Well
In Ezekiel 27, we find God passing judgement of Tyre. Tyre was central to the ANE slave trade. This same thing is once again picked up by John in Revalation 18 in his eschatological oracle of judgment against Roman, under the pseudonym of Babylon. Once again, the slave-trade is placed in the emphatic position, but this time at the conclusion of the catalogue of vices for which imperial Rome is culpable (18:13). Alright, now, you tell me, if you were a slave master that realised what these oracles of judgment were directed toward you're profession, what would you do? I know I would seriously consider a career change. I think this is a good reason to say that the Bible oposses slavery.

But Oppie, while slavery is the topic issue, why don't both of your sources denounce it as a whole? I believe it is because, as I said before, the Bible holds cruel masters in contempt, not necessarily the institution of slavery. In this instance, both Rome and Tyre speak for themselves; they represent bad masters who were cruel to their slaves, thus drawing the scorn of these passages. I don't see how it speaks ill of slavery in general.

The Opposition wrote:

And the Israelites took slaves from the people they conquered. AKA prisoners of war. Oh, and check this out.

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)
Hmmm.......intresting.

True, God freed the Israelites from slavery. But they obviously had no qualms with owning slaves of their own. These, the people Moses led out of Egypt, turned around and kept slaves of their own. How can God have accepted this? How could the Israelites have done this, unless they felt that what they were doing was in no way looked down upon by the Bible?

And for your quote, it pertains to kidnapping. Yes, I can definitely see the crime in kidnapping a person, to sell them for profit in slavery. But this wasn't the 'usual' method of the slave trade at all. You know this; I've discussed it in the Slavery topic. Believe it or not, the slave trade entailed many honest businessmen doing honest business.

The Opposition wrote:

The slavery in the Bible is NOTHING like what we see today, or what was practiced by nations such as Rome. In fact, it was volentary. People who were starving would sell THEMSELVES into slavery in order to survive. This is what Slavery was.

Well, first of all, you actually see slavery today? (I didn't know you vacationed in China, or the Middle East lol) I think what you mean, is that slavery, as it is portrayed in the Bible, is very different from slavery as it is portrayed in history books. And you couldn't be more correct. This is my entire point: why is it that we see such two, stark contradictions, between commonly accepted "history", and the Bible itself, without some one wondering, 'what's going on'? I think, it's because to question either one of these two stances is to raise some truely troubling questions within ourselves. If we are Christian, then we cannot even think for a minute that the Bible is wrong; but to therefore look at it from such a stance, is to doubt our moral values, concerning the "evil" of slavery. These questions are troubling, but for all the more reason, they deserve real answers.

The Opposition wrote:

It was recently mentioned to me that Philemon had a slave. He did, as I have researched. But Paul wrote a letter to Philemon after Onesimus escaped and had become converted to Christianity. This is the contents of that letter.
"Appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good — no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord."
He was asking Philemon to release his slave from bondage, how Onesimus became a slave in the first place I do not know.

I am not familiar with this story, but from what you're saying, it sounds as though Paul wrote a letter in favor of freeing his son. Where is the part about condemning slavery as a whole? Did Paul ask Philemon to free all his slaves, or to not ever again engage in slavery?

The Opposition wrote:

Heres a nice little verse.


1. Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. (1 Corinthians 7:21-23)

All this says to me is that those who believe in God will forever be free. And this once again goes back to whether it implies physical or spiritual freedom. Once again, I take it to mean spiritual freedom. How else do you explain the line saying to the effect that 'free men called by the Lord become Christ's slaves'? If we are to take it literally, then all free men who come to believe in the Lord become Christ's slaves. (Does this mean we have to work on a plantation when we get to Heaven? ) Whereas all slaves who Believe become free.

Taken in a literal context, this makes absolutely no sense at all. If you believe that we all are technically Christ's slaves, how does the condition of servitude exempt some (slaves who come to believe) from honoring Jesus in this way? But, if you take it as figurative, describing the beauty of religion and its acceptance of all, by giving all of man spiritual freedom, then it becomes clear.

The Opposition wrote:

The bible is easily misunderstood because it is compared to modern day times. Things are a lot different now, the people, and the laguage they speak. Slavery was not what it is now, therfore you cannot say that it condones The Slavery of today. And also you cannot say that the North was waging a holy war, because slavery was and is not the same as it was thousands of years ago.

You're dear and very exausted friend, Oppie.

Yes, times have changed. But look up "slavery" in the dictionary. It pertains to human bondage. That simple. Though people might have changed between the present time and the days of Imperial Rome, the basic definition of slavery hasn't changed. It has always been the same.

My point is, what should we believe, the Bible, or history books, even if our moral values tend to sympathize with the history books? But this is assuming that the Bible condones the "evil" of slavery. But is slavery the real evil? Or is it the mistreatment of slaves? Taken in careful thought, though slavery itself may be as undesirable a lot as any, and very possibly "an evil" in itself, it is easy to see that the more 'evil' of the two are poor masters who mistreat their slaves, thus giving slavery an image of pure torture, which in truth it wasn't.

And this is exactly how I see the Bible's take on it. So, in the end, I'll go with the Bible over the history books. And I don't feel as though I am compromising my moral values in any way.

"A similar issue is slavery. Ironic, huh? In the Bible, slavery is completely accepted; slavery is not scorned in any way, rather, it is bad masters that are scorned."

Then why the heck did God use it to punish the Israelites huh??? Perhaps you should read a little into the book you are so fiercely discussing. Chew on that while I write my post for the rest of your comments. By the way why didnt you respond to what I said about your view on he king thing. Oppie couldent have a valid point, could he?

Alright, here we go. You obviously find fault with the Bible. Read what you are saying Stuart. It is as plain as day. It effects it because freedom includes control over your own BODY. That is how.
Point #1
Are you trying to account for everyone in Tyre and in Rome? Good luck with that.
Point#2
Stuart you are not listening to me. The "slaves" the Israelites had were not forced into doing what they did. they had pay. They were there by choice or for punishment, so stop trying to coincide the two. And it didnt say just kidknapping, it said that if there was a kidknapped slave IN YOUR POSESSION that you would be put to death. I say that covers a LOT of poeple dont you think? Including everyone that owned a slave during the CW.

Point#3
Stop it. You are completely dismissing what I just said.

Point#4
Yes he was discounting slavery as a whole
Paul is considered one of the greatest apostles that ever lived. He is a role model, and therefore he has influence. Philimone was no idiot, and he knew what is right one day is not wrong the next. If thats not clear then read the book. Obviously its not because Onesimus was not his son. Paul for that instance was speaking figuretively.

Point#5
No it doesnt! You are not getting it Stuart. Do you know the difference between serving and being a slave? Christians are servants to Christ by choice. PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL. God isnt down here with an iron fist making us give our tithes, or making us go to church. We honor him because we want to. A relationship with God is like having a best friend. Its not about wearing nice clothes or having a title.
point#6
Look up slavery in the Bible Stuart. Then you look up slavery in the dictionary. There are many subcatogories of the word slavery and I dont think I need to repeat the one I have been talking about again. SLAVERY IS THE EVIL. Dont play head games with me. Keeping slaves is evil, you cannot justify keeping someone and forcing them do to things against there will! Wasnt Jesus's life about being humble?? How can you be humble is you subjecate another man! Jesus didnt have slaves, and neither should we.

I'm afraid you dont see very well at all. I suggest you start reading. Because blindly believing something is not what God tells us to do.

I think you made him mad, Stuart....

*Civ runs away screaming*

Ok back on topic

He didnt make me mad. But what he is suggesting, as far as I see, is that God is double minded and he has different standards. That is impossible and I cant begin to think that. But, however, if there were proof of his point, let it be known, I'll accept it. I await your responce Stuart.

Yeah Oppie! That was some post.

You are freaking my out IBG......... lol jk.


BACK TO TOPIC(even though we arent technically ON topic with this slavery thing)

I can't make a full response at the moment, I'm short on time, but I will say this:

1. I NEVER said or implied that God was of two minds. I DID say that extremely religious people acting in God's name actually contradicted the Bible.

2. I don't care if you're upset, Oppie, you're really dragging this thing WAY off-topic. If I wanted to do an in-depth Bible discussion, I would have gone to the Bible topic. Obviously. This is supposed to be about the church's role in a balanced government; I only brought into question the actions of many religious leaders of the Christian population in America prior to the Civil War. I'd be happy to carry this on with you in the Bible topic.

3. You want me to show you proof that God is of two minds? Well, first of all that's entirely the opposite of what I've been saying, but anyway, we won't find any evidence for that point in the Bible. For obvious reasons.


That's all for tonight. Cya.

Alright Stuart listen to me. I am not angry with you. I am simply very passionate about stating what I believe.
And I'm afraid you did imply that God is double mined, or has different standards. By this passage here.
"A similar issue is slavery. Ironic, huh? In the Bible, slavery is completely accepted; "
And this one.
"But does God ever respond by denouncing slavery as unacceptable to Christianity? As far as I know, the answer is no."
By saying this, you are saying that God condones slavery. Which scriptures that I have found( Exodus 21:16/Ezekiel 27/ Revelation 18:13), and the lifestyle and teachings of Jesus Christ tell me that he does not. And by saying that the bible may be the right way, even if it condones slavery, you say that God has different standards, which would make him, double-minded. I'm sorry if I offended you, and I'm sorry for going offtopic. This will be my last post on this matter here. If you still wish to speak to me about this, I to am willing to continue as well in the bible topic.
Your apologetic and very,very tired friend, Oppie.

If God had two minds, he would cease to exsist. God cannot be of two minds. He is the same yesterday, today, and tommorow. However, he allows people to make mistakes and make thier own choices. That is the only thing I can think of that God would allow Slavery. Beyond that, it is an abomination in his sight.

But, if he stopped everything that was wrong, he would have to destroy the world, and take away our free agency to make choices. Since he will not do that, people will act as they please, until Judgment Day comes.

NOTE: I would have put this in the Bible topic, but I wanted to quote Oppie:

The Opposition wrote:

And I'm afraid you did imply that God is double mined, or has different standards. By this passage here.
"A similar issue is slavery. Ironic, huh? In the Bible, slavery is completely accepted; "
And this one.
"But does God ever respond by denouncing slavery as unacceptable to Christianity? As far as I know, the answer is no."
By saying this, you are saying that God condones slavery. Which scriptures that I have found( Exodus 21:16/Ezekiel 27/ Revelation 18:13), and the lifestyle and teachings of Jesus Christ tell me that he does not.

Please note that neither of my sentences that you quoted contradict each other, or imply that God contradicts himself. How on earth can you think I'm saying God is of two minds? Seriously, just because my opinion doesn't reflect yours, you feel that I'm saying God is of two minds? Oppie, I don't think you've considered the possibility that you might not be 100% correct here. In fact, I think you're wrong in this instance. And I know you're only trying to spur debate, but, please, don't fight the Bible.
By trying to accuse me of stating God is of two minds, you assume that you are right in thinking that slavery is an evil. Maybe, just maybe, slavery itself is not considered an evil in the Bible, especially considering the time of its creation. You yourself claimed several times, in several topics, that slavery then was much different from slavery of the modern age. I have heard from several knowledgable sources that the Bible itself scorns cruel masters, but not the practice of slavery itself. I didn't make this up, believe me.
If you want to define 'slavery', technically, everyone who has a job is a slave. Of course, they get a few hours of the day off (so did slaves in the Southern United States, plus Sundays), but while on the job, they are supposed to invest 100% of their labors to that job, period. That is slavery, though it is slavery that pays by the hour, not up front. And slaves that were never able to gain any reward for their labor whatsoever, were most likely only slaves to begin with because they were prisoners of war. And I most definitely remember you yourself claiming that "prisoners of war deserve such punishment." In short, you are the one who is contradicting yourself all over the place. If you keep flip-flopping like this, your nickname might go from "Hillary" to "John Kerry."

You act as though you provided legitimate Bible passages that prove that slavery is denounced by the Lord. However, they are very weak in this respect. As long as these passages are ambiguous enough for us to continue debating on, they make very poor "evidence."

I agree with IBG, in that our God is a forgiving God who will allow us to commit our own mistakes. But, it would be foolish to imply that the Bible never contradicts itself. I think the best examples of this are the familiar lines: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," and "turn the other cheek." These obviously give conflicting messages. They also clearly show a difference of mind between God and Jesus. How is this explainable, considering they both represent the same religion? It's simply one of the twists of Christianity. Not everything is fully explainable, nor does everything make sense according to our logic. But that is what defines religion: faith.


But to state my point in short:

Slavery IS accepted in the Bible. What aren't accepted are cruel masters. This is fact. The Bible is a BIG book, and you were only able to produce a few passages, that, if taken in a certain intonation, might, in some people's minds, cast a slight shadow over slavery. Although, I don't see how you could see it in such a way. Slavery is a part of the story of the Bible, as well as part of the story of Man. It is accepted as an institution of the earth; though certainly not one of the most favourable, it does not necessarily represent slavery as evil, especially considering that slaves were constituted of convicts, POWs, etc., in other words, the scourge of society.

Oppie, why are there a million and one different sects of the Christian church? It's because a million and one people have found a million and one different ways to "interpret" the Bible. There will always be people debating, till Judgment Day, the true meaning of the Bible. We can only try to be the best individuals we can be during our lives.

Oppie, I didn't see your post about kings, sorry. Please explain though: how did God "warn" us about kings? (and in the Bible topic, please)


And so, getting back to topic, I'd like to continue discussing the good and bad to separating church from state.

General Stuart wrote:

I agree with IBG, in that our God is a forgiving God who will allow us to commit our own mistakes. But, it would be foolish to imply that the Bible never contradicts itself. I think the best examples of this are the familiar lines: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," and "turn the other cheek." These obviously give conflicting messages. They also clearly show a difference of mind between God and Jesus. How is this explainable, considering they both represent the same religion? It's simply one of the twists of Christianity. Not everything is fully explainable, nor does everything make sense according to our logic. But that is what defines religion: faith.

I agreed with most of your post but this part.... Those passages are not contradictions. You are just not taking them in context. Also to say that Jesus and the Father contradict each other is saying that God is fallible. Unless you dont believe that Jesus is God.
Your friend General Lee

General Stuart wrote:

I agree with IBG, in that our God is a forgiving God who will allow us to commit our own mistakes.

True, our God is a forgiving God, but he is also a Mighty and JUST God. He will let no sinner go unpunished.

General Stuart wrote:

But, it would be foolish to imply that the Bible never contradicts itself. I think the best examples of this are the familiar lines: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," and "turn the other cheek." These obviously give conflicting messages.

You're quoting out of context Stuart. I don't have time to type it all out right now, but I will later.

General Stuart wrote:

They also clearly show a difference of mind between God and Jesus.

Jesus and God are the same person... they have the same mind. Hebrews 1:3 says:
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.


Thats all for now. I'll be back. With that, I shall put this in the Bible section.

Edit: Civ, being a blonde, didn't realise she had no power over the books section. Oppie, would you please merge the topics together?

I'd post a reply but I might get yelled at for going off topic. Or I might get called another name like Hillary Clinton or John Kerry.
*flinches*

Alright, we found a topic for your digression, Oppie. Now you can reply about the topic at hand. And I won't call you Hillary or Jon Kerry, I promise. Unless you deserve it.

Basically, should religion be strongly included in government, or even included at all? At this time, it would seem so, but looking back, America only exists because at one point religious government had gotten way out of hand, to an extreme, and created religious fugitives who sought freedom to practice as they saw fit. Now, the needle's swung over to the other end of the spectrum: a disturbing lack of religion in our government. So, if government can't by law keep the "needle" balanced, should it just forget about it altogether, and leave it entirely up to the people?

I know it goes much deeper than this, but this question should be good enough to get a discussion going.

Alright fine. Actually I dont really care what you call me:lol: Anyway, I think it should be. "Religion" offers the most solid form of government available, honest conduct and a virtous veiw of various issues that present themselves.