Non Christian thought

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

This is the root of the problem....

No, not really, but in a way, yes. The point is that it is not in the Constitution, and the Constitution precludes it meaning what secularists want it to mean in the USA. Their misinterpretation of the concept is certainly a root problem, along with such idiotic expressions as, “You can’t legislate morality.” That Christians would buy into such nonsense is even worse, because we know better, and have no excuse for not knowing better.

 

[Baptist Believer]

No, not really, but in a way, yes.

You are dodging the question. You claimed "[t]he 'separation of church and state' is a Marxist expression." I asked where you got that idea. I would still like to know, because that would help quantify this discussion in terms of facts, not opinions.

The point is that it is not in the Constitution...

This is a foolish argument. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not in the Constitution, but the principle is. The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, but the doctrine is completely biblical.

...and the Constitution precludes it meaning what secularists want it to mean in the USA.

What do "secularists" want "separation of church and state" to mean in the USA. Be specific.

Their misinterpretation of the concept is certainly a root problem, along with such idiotic expressions as, “You can’t legislate morality.”

Red herring. Most laws legislate morality. No one here has made the foolish assertion that you are trying to use to undermine a Baptist distinctive.

That Christians would buy into such nonsense is even worse, because we know better, and have no excuse for not knowing better.

You can be sure I haven't. I don't know about you yet.

So what do you think the "secularists" mean by "separation of church and state?"

 

[Salty]

I'm not getting myself any deeper in this than to say one thing. The Evangelical Church
Alliance ordains over 70% of the US Armed Forces Chaplains. I was licensed into the ministry by the ECA ...

Ronnie - do you have a valid source for that?

I saw one stat that Southern Baptists have 20%; of all Evangelicals - if there are 70% fpr TEC - that doesen leave much for other evangelicals......

 

[Ronnie Vaughan]

Many were dually aligned. I knew of Southern Baptist chaplains who were ordained by the ECA, as well as those of many other Evangelical denominations. If you really want to know you can contact them Ecclesiastical Endorsement Applicant | ECA International

 

[Salty]

So is the ECA an actual denomination or is it jsut an endorsing organization for those who have no denomination.

 

[Ronnie Vaughan]

So is the ECA an actual denomination or is it jsut an endorsing organization for those who have no denomination.

It is an ecclesiastical endorsing agency, not a denomination. A large number of their members are non-denominational, as well as denominational. The stats I quoted may have been for the percentage of evangelical chaplains....not sure. Plus it's been over a decade since I've been involved with them. I just know it was a very high percentage of the military chaplains, especially for Baptists because they are by conviction independent.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

...So what do you think the "secularists" mean by "separation of church and state?"

Secularists are not void of any religious affections, rather their faith system is based on a non-spiritual metaphysics. They don’t believe man has a spirit, and even deny the mind. Their mythos comprises a supposedly strictly material world, their faith entirely in it.

The constitution does not bar religions from influencing or taking part in government or education, but the secularists have twisted the non-establishment clause to mean so, but only in a certain way.

By falsely claiming they have no faith system, secularists are thus able to wield undue influence in both government and education, even convincing some that secularism should be the established faith system and all others barred, a clear violation of the non-establishment clause

They especially betray their claim to have no faith system by insisting they should have representation in the military chaplaincy. Their duplicity in all of this should be obvious to anyone bothering to think about it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

 

[Hark]

Thank you for providing a link to the actual document. So many times I just see the misleading headlines and extremely selective quotes and have to go hunt down the original material to figure out what is actually true.

Saying that, I think "Restoring Constitutional Secularism and Patriotic Pluralism in the White House" is a very good plan. After reading all 28 pages, I have only a few quibbles with it. It aligns very nicely with historic Baptist convictions, so I hope the Biden Administration takes this advice.

I wouldn't agree with that so quickly, brother. This does not look anything like separation of Church & State but the title in & of itself to remove Christian influence in American culture ( not government ).

Scripture does testify about God judging nations that forget Him.

So no. I would say the title is segue to removing Christian representation in entertainment & social media as in removing Christian voice from American culture.

Psalm 19:16 The Lord is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion. Selah. 17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. 18 For the needy shall not always be forgotten: the expectation of the poor shall not perish for ever. ~ KJV

It is one thing to not get involved in the corruption of our nation as it gets worse & worse as the churches does, but to support them in forgetting about God? Our nation's founding fathers used their free speech to voice their beliefs in God & the name of Jesus Christ while serving the people in government.

So forget them. They are wrong. We need separation of atheism & State just as we need separation of LGBTQ's ideology & State otherwise, they will empower the bullies in those communities to be nothing but tyrants & they are doing it now.

The State of California is penalizing Americans for misgendering from $1,000 to $2,500 in fines &/ or one year in jail. That does not promote inclusion but resentment. There is no registrar where transgenders are registered with their proper pronoun. They can change their minds about that special pronoun & the court can't do anything about it. LGBTQ.org has 5 different kinds of transgenders listed with each having their special pronoun. The State of New York did a survey & counted over 2o different transgenders but I did not read if they each had their own special pronouns. As of last check at LGBTQ,org there is only five but that was a while ago.

Look. The State cannot force people to like everybody. Acceptance is fleeting & friends can be mean & we say things in the heat of the moment. If you call someone Vickie when she does not like to be called Vickie, is there a penalty for that? No.

A couple of decades ago it was wrong to say black & the PC word is African American. Now there is no big deal about it. You can say both. The trend to comply is done by the passive trend in social media; not by the government.

Have we seen what the Democrat has done with California? People are leaving it. Then they even try to penalize people for leaving. Let's wake up & tell the Democrats that their way has not been working ever & stop being big brother because they are not good at it.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

It is not a little amusing that you linked an article about a speech rather than the speech itself, after having posted the gem below. Indeed how hard it is to practice what we expect from others.

Thank you for providing a link to the actual document. So many times I just see the misleading headlines and extremely selective quotes and have to go hunt down the original material to figure out what is actually true.…

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

It is not a little amusing that you linked an article about a speech rather than the speech itself, after having posted the gem below. Indeed how hard it is to practice what we expect from others.

If that speech had been delivered in the context of atheism's rise to state establishment in both government and educational institutions, one might wonder how different it would have been. There was a time when Natural Law was thought to include a basic morality that would coincide with much of basic biblical morality, but that time is long past.

Atheism, materialism, naturalism, scientism, secularism, none of these can claim or offer any inherent morality, and in fact deny it. Furthermore, they provide no basis whatsoever for rights, human, civil, or otherwise. They all essentially deny the founding documents which recognize such rights. They are fundamentally antithetical to American government.

 

[Baptist Believer]

It is not a little amusing that you linked an article about a speech rather than the speech itself...

I don't know what you are talking about. I posted a direct link to the document.

If that speech had been delivered in the context of atheism's rise to state establishment in both government and educational institutions, one might wonder how different it would have been.

I doubt it would change much at all. Separation of Church and State is a core Baptist belief. George W. Truett was quite aware of the issues.

There was a time when Natural Law was thought to include a basic morality that would coincide with much of basic biblical morality, but that time is long past.

There is an inherent morality in Western culture that comes from our Christian tradition, although it is often not explicitly referenced. Because God's way of doing things aligns with truth and reality, there are pragmatic and secular reasons to accept the worth of human beings, the rights specified in the Bill of Rights, and principles of law that attempt to enhance human flourishing. It can be the foundation for evangelism IF the church is not grasping for political power to use against those who disagree with those power-users.

Atheism, materialism, naturalism, scientism, secularism, none of these can claim or offer any inherent morality, and in fact deny it. Furthermore, they provide no basis whatsoever for rights, human, civil, or otherwise.

That's a common belief in Christian circles, but it is simply not true. There are moral codes in each of those viewpoints, and even in formal satanism. We would probably not agree with everything, but there are universal moral codes inherent in civilization. C.S. Lewis does a popular treatment of the subject in Mere Christianity, for example. He uses it as a signpost that points to God.

They all essentially deny the founding documents which recognize such rights. They are fundamentally antithetical to American government.

No, sorry. You are incorrect.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

There is an inherent morality in Western culture that comes from our Christian tradition, although it is often not explicitly referenced. Because God's way of doing things aligns with truth and reality, there are pragmatic and secular reasons to accept the worth of human beings, the rights specified in the Bill of Rights, and principles of law that attempt to enhance human flourishing. It can be the foundation for evangelism IF the church is not grasping for political power to use against those who disagree with those power-users.

Living in the midst of Christian influence can give the impression that there is an inherent moral code in whatever belief one chooses. But of course that is an illusion. It seems that some experiments have been carried out that demonstrate this. Liberty, Missouri comes to mind.

But the USSR is a major example of the devaluing of human life under atheistic principles. Pragmatism is not so much a moral code as it is an excuse to do whatever is convenient whenever it is convenient. It is a murderous morality of power and oppression antithetical to American ideals.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

That's a common belief in Christian circles, but it is simply not true. There are moral codes in each of those viewpoints, and even in formal satanism. We would probably not agree with everything, but there are universal moral codes inherent in civilization. C.S. Lewis does a popular treatment of the subject in Mere Christianity, for example. He uses it as a signpost that points to God.

There is no inherent moral code in or attached to atheism, secularism, scientism, or naturalism, and this is essentially true by definition. But if you think such exists, go ahead and share the source.

Note that this is not arguing adherents don’t recognize the need for such, only that they have no inherent basis for it, apart from what they deny. These two points should be signposts to them that they are on the wrong track in denying God.

CS Lewis is correct that historically mankind has had similar moral codes due to being descended from Adam, created in God’s image, the very thing the above disavow. By denying transcendence, mind and spirit, they deny the basis for morality and a lot more besides.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

That's a common belief in Christian circles, but it is simply not true. There are moral codes in each of those viewpoints, and even in formal satanism.

And don’t try to cloud, confuse, or derail the discussion by lumping in what you consider to be religions, for example, Satanism. Stick to those faiths which you claim are not religions.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I don't know what you are talking about. I posted a direct link to the document.

That you find it hard to follow is unsurprising. Here you just linked a post quoting the OP’s link for the OP. It was not a link you provided.

The amusement comes from your whining about others not providing links to source documents, then failing to provide Truett's actual speech or a link to it. Hast thou such?

 

[Baptist Believer]

And don’t try to cloud, confuse, or derail the discussion by lumping in what you consider to be religions, for example, Satanism. Stick to those faiths which you claim are not religions.

I don’t think I have ever claimed that that certain movements and world views are not religious. If I have, please alert me to that assertion.

That you find it hard to follow is unsurprising. Here you just linked a post quoting the OP’s link for the OP. It was not a link you provided.

Correct. I was quite pleased that the OP was thoughtful enough to provide it.

The amusement comes from your whining about others not providing links to source documents...

I now understand why I am having trouble communicating with you. You have a reading comprehension problem. I did not complain about not providing links, quite the opposite:

“Thank you for providing a link to the actual document. So many times I just see the misleading headlines and extremely selective quotes and have to go hunt down the original material to figure out what is actually true.” (Post #2)

...then failing to provide Truett's actual speech or a link to it. Hast thou such?

Here’s a link. It is well worth reading.

Look, I know you want to attack me. However I would appreciate it if you would attack any errors of fact, reason, or theology, and not try to attack me personally. Let’s raise the level of discussion.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I now understand why I am having trouble communicating with you. You have a reading comprehension problem. …

Look, I know you want to attack me. However I would appreciate it if you would attack any errors of fact, reason, or theology, and not try to attack me personally. Let’s raise the level of discussion.

You included an attack against me, and not for the first time, in the very same post you ask I not attack you. Sounds a tad hypocritical.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I don’t think I have ever claimed that that certain movements and world views are not religious. If I have, please alert me to that assertion.

Wait, are you now admitting that atheism, secularism, naturalism, scientism are religious in nature? That you earlier did not so admit but insisted otherwise has been at the root of our disagreement.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Wait, are you now admitting that atheism, secularism, naturalism, scientism are religious in nature? That you earlier did not so admit but insisted otherwise has been at the root of our disagreement.

You are mixing a number of different viewpoints together as if they have a common source.

“Atheism” is a religious point of view, making a theological claim — “there is no god or gods,” which is usually held in opposition to a religious view claiming the existence of a god or gods.

“Secularism” usually refers to the belief that civil government should be separate from religion (separation of church and state). It may or may not have a religious element. For instance, Baptists are traditionally secularists because of their religious conviction. There are those who are secularists because they see the wisdom in the position and may not be influenced by any religious notions. I am a secularist for both religious and non-religious reasons.

“Naturalism” is a vague term, but the most basic viewpoint holds to empiricism, the belief that all knowledge comes exclusively from sense experience. That does not rule out a god or gods, but requires all gods to be experienced through the senses (like when Jesus embarked on his ministry). It is not a religious view, but a reductionist epistemology.

“Scientism” (usually a term used to criticize) refers to methodological empiricism, using the various adaptations of the scientific method in areas beyond science, especially in regard to religious viewpoints. It is not a religion, but a philosophical and epistemological viewpoint.

Atheism is a religious viewpoint. Secularism is sometimes a religious viewpoint, but often not. Naturalism and scientist are not religious viewpoints, but they can be influenced by religious presuppositions.

Does that clear it up for you?

 

[Baptist Believer]

You included an attack against me, and not for the first time, in the very same post you ask I not attack you. Sounds a tad hypocritical.

If you don’t have a reading comprehension problem, why were you making false claims? And this is not the first time we have tangled. You attack me all the time.