Response to "Daniel"

Daniel's Post

My Response
I would like to begin that this post is in no way me trying to push: religion, my beliefs or a creed on anyone. It is merely my thinking as to why the religions of Christianity do not advocate liberty. See: "Christianity and Liberty"
Please, do not flame me for pushing a religion or my beliefs. I am merely providing a potential avenue when having conversations with/as Christians. I think "pushing" beliefs is good. I think letting ignorant people remain ignorant is wrong. I respect someone who disagrees with me but says so more than someone who lets me walk away mistaken.

Why The Christian Religions F*#$ us up

  
A number of the laws we see passed in our country, which impinge on our basic liberties, are those advocated by the Christian religions. True enough.
They in no way advance the cause of "the common good" for mankind, nor do they advance Christianity. No disagreement from me.
Living in a country that is predicated on one's liberty ending where another person's begin, we have a system in place already that should, when properly enacted, provide a decent and lawful society. Setting in place rules that define permissible speech/thought/action as seen from the Christian perspective violates not only the spirit of our country, but especially the plan under which God set the world. I disagree here. We live in a country (that is to say, we live under a government) which believes it has the right to initiate force or threaten violence against people who do certain things. The U.S. Supreme Court, following Jefferson, has ruled that Mormons can believe that polygamy is good, and certain "Native American" tribes can believe that their religion requires the use of peyote, but the government has the right to interdict these actions. Pluralism is a myth.
When viewing the world from a Christian perspective, I believe it is important to remember that there are 2 ways to approach it.
1-What God says he wants of man (Spiritual Christianity)
2-What man says God wants of man (Religious Christianity)		 Where does God say what He wants of man? I answer: the Bible.
A common problem I experience, when dealing with fellow Christians, is a lack of understanding of the difference. It is not uncommon, during conversations, to have Christians hold up their belief of what is right as a blueprint for humanity, then advocate why it should be advanced upon the world. Many times their view is that espoused by the Christian religion and not from study as a spiritual Christian.  
While I firmly believe that there is absolute right and wrong, in as much as God has written upon our hearts, I do not hold that, because God has said so, he requires us to force everyone to adhere to such. The key word here is "everyone." Do I as a father have a right or a duty to "force" my children not to steal, kill, or lie? How about an employer: can he "force" employees not to be drunk on the job? Can teachers force students not to exercise their right to free speech on cell phones in the middle of Algebra?

Is there, in fact, ANY area of society where someone does not have a God-given right or duty to "force" someone else to adhere to a certain standard of morality?

This is the issue of "sanctions." This issue is HUGE. I don't think "Daniel" has explored it very thoroughly.
My logic is as follows. Christianity is an extension, or rather a completion, of God's contract in the old testament. We believe that Jesus, The Christ, became the ultimate sacrifice for man's sins. Because of this, we trace the beginnings of our faith back to the old testament. So far, so good.
In the old Testament, when God gave the 10 commandments, they were for His People. This is an important aspect to be grasped and embraced. God was saying that these commandments, and the laws which we find in the last three books of the Pentauch (Leviticus, numbers and Deuteronomy) were for the people of Israel to follow. Non-Jews were not subject to the necessity of sacrificial offerings, or Talmudic law, unless they chose to accept the faith. But they were all commanded to repent and (re-)join the truth faith. Keep in mind that the Canaanites and all the other pagan "-ites" were destroyed in the Promised Land because they did not obey Leviticus. (See, for example, Leviticus 18:24-30.)
That is not to say that God did not want others to come to Him. He did, after all, create a system which allowed gentiles to be converted by professing their belief in Him, and so fall under the program He created for Israel's redemption. Christianity too is founded on the principle that ALL are welcome. Not just "welcome," but also obligated.
Now please note what I am saying here. God wants everyone to come to him, He requires it for redemption, but He doesn't force acceptance, he gives everyone the will to choose whether they want to. If they did not choose to come to Him, they were not held to the laws of Israel. They were free to choose to live in their own lands, by their own rules, worship their own gods, etc. This is kinda strange. God "doesn't force acceptance, he gives everyone the will." On the Road to Damascus, was Saul of Tarsus "forced?" He was "trembling" and blinded by God's "invitation." Others did not "kick against the pricks" as Paul did, but when they were given new minds and regenerated hearts, turned from idolatry to worship the true God. This new heart was a gift from God. Would Richard Dawkins want this "gift?" But nobody else did either. Nobody seeks God unless God first seeks them.

Until then, are they "free" to live by their own rules, killing, stealing, kidnapping, raping, and then getting re-elected to do it all again? God says, "Sure, no problem"?
The same rules apply, I believe, to Christianity today. Yes, Christ gave us the mission to spread the gospel, but he did not advocate doing so by force. As a matter of fact, he told his disciples if someone scoffs, or chooses not to believe, then they were to just walk away. "Doing so by force." What does it mean to say "by force." By government law? Who disagrees with that? Name one Christian in the United States who advocates passing a law requiring anyone to become a Christian.

If my son hits his sister, do I have a right to stop this "by force?" Employers, teachers, landlords, employees: what are their rights and duties when confronted with sin?
When Paul spoke of right and wrong, he only told those churches to address sinful behavior within the confines of the believers. He did not tell them to go into the street and yell at the idolaters, promiscuous and thieves. I disagree. Unless by "yell" you mean "be an obnoxious jerk about it."
Paul went further to even advise those within the church that, on matters of faith, and expressions of such to God, these things should be left at the individual level. I'd like to see the chapter and verse for that. Did Paul miss what Jesus said?
When Peter had his dream that all foods were now clean, there was a great schism in the early church. Remember, most Christians at this point were Jewish. They had lived all their life believing in the kosher law. To be un-kosher was a sign of defilement. Even after Peter successfully explained that such edicts were no longer necessary, many still adhered to them. Paul seeing the schism widen, pointed out that, as a believer, it was best to do no thing which would cause another to stumble. If you believed something was OK, and another did not, then in the interests of love and community don't do it in front of the aggrieved. It does you no harm to abstain and great harm for the other, inasmuch as he would believe you doomed. Peter at first did not understand the meaning of his dream, but he never concluded that it meant that he could now eat pigs and dogs. He understood it to mean that the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles.

In any case, Paul's command to not eat meat sacrificed to idols in front of those who mistakenly thought it was a sin to do so (a completely different issue) has nothing to do with what a believer should do if a fellow believer wants to kill his children, get addicted to heroin, drive drunk, or marry barnyard animals. 
All that, to say this.  
Where did the Christian religions go so far off the message of Christ? I don't see the gap. I criticize churches as much as anyone. But I'm really not seeing the big problem here.
The Christian religions find great need in getting their believers out in force to compel, through laws or pressure, others to adhere to their way of thinking. I see atheists telling Christians they can't sing Christmas carols, but I don't see Christians forcing atheists to sing them.
However, with many of these pushes the Christian religion is not saving people's souls by forcing them to legally comply with the rules of Christianity. Even the most spiritual Christian never follows all the rules, for we are human. If following the rules were necessary, we wouldn't have needed the supreme sacrifice. So if following the rules doesn't save them, should we really force someone to adhere to the rules of our faith? Cui Bono? Remember Christians, we believe it is our faith which saves us, not acts. Acts are a sign of belief, but were they enough Christ's death wouldn't have been necessary. The words here might be true, but the meaning of the paragraph is all wrong.

I don't see anything in the Bible that should lead a Christian to lower moral standards rather than continually raising the bar. 
Spiritual Christianity recognizes that while what others may be doing is wrong, it doesn't affect the outcome for non-believers lives one way or the other, because if they don't believe in Christianity they are excluded from the contract. Being excluded from the contract in and of itself is enough for permanent separation from God, so what good does our advocacy for Christian religions special laws do? If I'm a landlord, and I have a tenant who subscribes to vicious, anti-Christian child porn -- worse than Hustler, advocating sado-sexual torture, and pathologically anti-religion -- can I threaten to evict him if he doesn't stop? Is my own family safer if I allow him the freedom to fill his brain with this sewage? Will he get closer to God this way?
An example of a law pushed by the Christian religion is the blue laws evident in many states, especially in the south. Christian religions, with some well-meaning albeit misguided spiritual Christians, pushed for the enactment of this law, primarily as a way to keep the Sabbath day holy. Whether a ban on alcohol is a Christian belief, or one pushed by certain Christian religions, is a topic for another day. The fact is that this law in no way can be construed to benefit everyone. It merely passes the test of making the religious feel that they have made one small step in their effort to save the world. But it does not "save" the non-believers, it merely infringes on their God given free will. Every government "law" infringes on "God-given free will." This is a bumper-sticker, not careful analysis. Sabbath laws were not considered "unconstitutional" until the ACLU persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court that they were -- in 1961.
Another example would be the christian groups that push so hard to legally ban Harry Potter books, or burn library collections on the premise that they advocate witchcraft. If I'm paying taxes to build libraries, why should I be gagged from expressing my views as to which books should be included?

Should the government be involved in library-building? No.
Yet these same christian religionss would not hesitate to praise C.S. Lewis as one of the greatest christian authors of the 20th century, a man known for proseletizing in bars, while drinking and who also authored another book that had witches, "The chronicles of Narnia". Narnia does not "advocate" witchcraft. Even low-IQ Christians can see this. Does the Bible say we shouldn't interfere in the "God-given free will" of groups that want to turn America into another Haiti?
That is not to say that the spiritual Christian should not actively engage in his government at all levels. Rather, he should ask himself when sitting in church, listening to his pastor advocate a call on congress to pass new laws. "Will this law be for the benefit of all our community? Will it only encroach on liberty where necessary so as to benefit all of us? Or is it a law that addresses a social issue Christians would adhere to anyway but does nothing more?" What about laws against child-abuse. What about those who believe they have a right to exploit children?
Better it is in the latter instance to live your life by what you perceive is right and wrong, show your beliefs in your actions, and address wrong in those places where it applies directly to you, for example within the community of believers. When it comes to impinging on the liberties of non-believers through our mores and values we are essentially saying, "God gave you free will, but he didn't mean it, or was confused, and so I shall help you see the error of your ways." I am an anarchist. I don't believe in government violence.

That doesn't mean I don't believe in laws.

I also don't believe in "free will." If I see someone raping your sister, I will attempt to impose my morality on him. If I see you raping your daughter, I will impose my morality on you. Does this make me less Christian or more?
And this is why the Christian Religions F*%$'s us up. It presumes to relegate a set of laws that apply only within a set and enforce it on the group. It impinges on liberties of all men and turns their heart away from God instead of towards Him by hardening their hearts at the sound of a "bible thumper". God's law applies to every human being. "Bible thumper" is the last epithet of the murderer, thief, and liar.
Remember, Christianity did not bring us the Crusades, it was the Christian religions, by presuming to do that which they felt God couldn't. How presumptuous. I defend the Crusades. (Well, not exactly.) Criticizing Christianity and the Crusades in an age of mass atheistic genocide is like criticizing cars for CO2 emissions when your sun is going super-nova.
Daniel Kevin Craig