Jump to content

Is God’S Law Relevant Without Enforcement?


Greatest I am
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is God’s law relevant without enforcement?

 

Most of us follow secular laws regardless of what our religious laws say.

In fact, those who sometimes follow what they think is the laws of God are often punished by secular law if the believer breaks a secular law in following the law of his God.

We follow secular law primarily for altruistic purposes or from fear of retribution or enforcement. That and most recognize that Biblical law is draconian, outdated and unworkable.

 

Has God then become redundant as most of us follow a secular God, so to speak, who can enforce and explain the logic behind that law and change them as we evolve?

 

Does that mean that the trend of religiosity will continue to decline, as it has of late, and that the near or further history of man will result in no religion at all or in one that has little to no meaning to the daily lives of the vast majority?

 

Having said this and if you think it holds some truth, do you think the religious should be confronted to help religion die as soon as possible?

Is religion, as it is, holding back other more worthy endeavors based on reality and not myth, fantasy and magical thinking?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/why-religion-should-be-co_b_775163.html

 

"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God,

holds other people in contempt.

Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God,

there is in that man no spirit of compromise.

He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature;

he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance.

Believing himself to be the slave of God,

he imitates his master,

and of all tyrants,

the worst is a slave in power."

--Robert Ingersoll

 

This quote, if true, shows that religions will never unite or cooperate enough to help us solve problems that can only be solved by a world government or world body that is given authority by the all of the people; religious or not.

 

Is it time for secular tolerance to be moved to a more firm demand that the religious of all stripe either accept their Gods as myths only so that we can progress or should secularists lay back and allow religions to keep us in our progressive doldrums as we see our world ecology and economies cause severe hardship for all of us?

 

Regards

DL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is God’s law relevant without enforcement?

 

Most of us follow secular laws regardless of what our religious laws say.

In fact, those who sometimes follow what they think is the laws of God are often punished by secular law if the believer breaks a secular law in following the law of his God.

We follow secular law primarily for altruistic purposes or from fear of retribution or enforcement. That and most recognize that Biblical law is draconian, outdated and unworkable.

 

Has God then become redundant as most of us follow a secular God, so to speak, who can enforce and explain the logic behind that law and change them as we evolve?

 

Does that mean that the trend of religiosity will continue to decline, as it has of late, and that the near or further history of man will result in no religion at all or in one that has little to no meaning to the daily lives of the vast majority?

 

Having said this and if you think it holds some truth, do you think the religious should be confronted to help religion die as soon as possible?

Is religion, as it is, holding back other more worthy endeavors based on reality and not myth, fantasy and magical thinking?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/why-religion-should-be-co_b_775163.html

 

"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God,

holds other people in contempt.

Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God,

there is in that man no spirit of compromise.

He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature;

he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance.

Believing himself to be the slave of God,

he imitates his master,

and of all tyrants,

the worst is a slave in power."

--Robert Ingersoll

 

This quote, if true, shows that religions will never unite or cooperate enough to help us solve problems that can only be solved by a world government or world body that is given authority by the all of the people; religious or not.

 

Is it time for secular tolerance to be moved to a more firm demand that the religious of all stripe either accept their Gods as myths only so that we can progress or should secularists lay back and allow religions to keep us in our progressive doldrums as we see our world ecology and economies cause severe hardship for all of us?

 

Regards

DL

 

Really good post IMO. I can't see secular multiculturalism working at this point evidenced by our desire for border security and the ongoing backlash towards government control. And truthfully, I don't see religions working together to the same end either, given the radical natures of any religion. So I think Ingersol's statement is biased. Same problem, both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it time for secular tolerance to be moved to a more firm demand that the religious of all stripe either accept their Gods as myths only so that we can progress or should secularists lay back and allow religions to keep us in our progressive doldrums as we see our world ecology and economies cause severe hardship for all of us?

I enjoyed your post very much. I am one who also believes that religion will some day die out - at least out of power. As for our speeding forward that day - how? I see this as an evolution that will need to take its course naturally, but would love to hear your thoughts on how a secular prominence might be bolstered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think secular prominence has been shown (through studies of the european states) to rise when there is a sense of social stability - rising average incomes, a social safety net and assured health care for everyone.

 

As a firm proponent of separation of church and state (including the idea of freedom FROM religion as well as freedom of religion), I think the proper approach to religionists is to vociferously remind them that religious authority has no place in executive branch , the judiciary and in our legislative houses.

 

When they try to invoke God, the Bible, the Koran, Sharia law or other deities or scriptures in the discourse of political speech and action, they should be soundly rebuffed and reminded that religion has a place in the private sphere and not in the public.

 

I don't know that we should try to convince people (other than in contexts where such a dialog is deemed appropriate) that their beliefs are stupid or mythological. What we should do is see that government is kept free of religious influence and special treatment for religions. Secularists, like any other citizen, should insist that government officials are committed to ethical and professional conduct and speak out when they stray from constitutional principals.

 

The reason for such a stand is clear to anyone who does not have a bias to make their religious views politically powerful: There is more than one religion out there. There are multiple worldviews out there. To put the "Christian worldview" in power over say the Islamic, secularist or Pastafarian will lead to oppression of others - even others within Christianity. That is a proven historical fact. Secularism is the just and the most humanitarian position for a country. It sees to it , at least in principal, that people aren't discriminated agains and oppressed for being in the minority religion or non-religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is God’s law relevant without enforcement?

 

Most of us follow secular laws regardless of what our religious laws say.

In fact, those who sometimes follow what they think is the laws of God are often punished by secular law if the believer breaks a secular law in following the law of his God.

We follow secular law primarily for altruistic purposes or from fear of retribution or enforcement. That and most recognize that Biblical law is draconian, outdated and unworkable.

 

Has God then become redundant as most of us follow a secular God, so to speak, who can enforce and explain the logic behind that law and change them as we evolve?

 

Does that mean that the trend of religiosity will continue to decline, as it has of late, and that the near or further history of man will result in no religion at all or in one that has little to no meaning to the daily lives of the vast majority?

 

Having said this and if you think it holds some truth, do you think the religious should be confronted to help religion die as soon as possible?

Is religion, as it is, holding back other more worthy endeavors based on reality and not myth, fantasy and magical thinking?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/why-religion-should-be-co_b_775163.html

 

"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God,

holds other people in contempt.

Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God,

there is in that man no spirit of compromise.

He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature;

he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance.

Believing himself to be the slave of God,

he imitates his master,

and of all tyrants,

the worst is a slave in power."

--Robert Ingersoll

 

This quote, if true, shows that religions will never unite or cooperate enough to help us solve problems that can only be solved by a world government or world body that is given authority by the all of the people; religious or not.

 

Is it time for secular tolerance to be moved to a more firm demand that the religious of all stripe either accept their Gods as myths only so that we can progress or should secularists lay back and allow religions to keep us in our progressive doldrums as we see our world ecology and economies cause severe hardship for all of us?

 

Regards

DL

 

Really good post IMO. I can't see secular multiculturalism working at this point evidenced by our desire for border security and the ongoing backlash towards government control. And truthfully, I don't see religions working together to the same end either, given the radical natures of any religion. So I think Ingersol's statement is biased. Same problem, both sides.

 

If neither system will work then that does not leave us much in the way of direction to go.

As to government control. If we did not want it, we would shed ourselves of it.

Truth is we want that power to protect and enforce our rights.

Man likes rules to take care of those who will go to chaos.

 

Regards

DL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it time for secular tolerance to be moved to a more firm demand that the religious of all stripe either accept their Gods as myths only so that we can progress or should secularists lay back and allow religions to keep us in our progressive doldrums as we see our world ecology and economies cause severe hardship for all of us?

I enjoyed your post very much. I am one who also believes that religion will some day die out - at least out of power. As for our speeding forward that day - how? I see this as an evolution that will need to take its course naturally, but would love to hear your thoughts on how a secular prominence might be bolstered.

 

Basically the same way we have chosen to deal with J W and blood transfusions.

Stand up to idiocy and protect the young.

See below where we could do the same against that carnage and child abuse.

 

African witches and Jesus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

 

Jesus Camp 1of 9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOqGhcwwE1s

 

Regards

DL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think secular prominence has been shown (through studies of the european states) to rise when there is a sense of social stability - rising average incomes, a social safety net and assured health care for everyone.

 

As a firm proponent of separation of church and state (including the idea of freedom FROM religion as well as freedom of religion), I think the proper approach to religionists is to vociferously remind them that religious authority has no place in executive branch , the judiciary and in our legislative houses.

 

When they try to invoke God, the Bible, the Koran, Sharia law or other deities or scriptures in the discourse of political speech and action, they should be soundly rebuffed and reminded that religion has a place in the private sphere and not in the public.

 

I don't know that we should try to convince people (other than in contexts where such a dialog is deemed appropriate) that their beliefs are stupid or mythological. What we should do is see that government is kept free of religious influence and special treatment for religions. Secularists, like any other citizen, should insist that government officials are committed to ethical and professional conduct and speak out when they stray from constitutional principals.

 

The reason for such a stand is clear to anyone who does not have a bias to make their religious views politically powerful: There is more than one religion out there. There are multiple worldviews out there. To put the "Christian worldview" in power over say the Islamic, secularist or Pastafarian will lead to oppression of others - even others within Christianity. That is a proven historical fact. Secularism is the just and the most humanitarian position for a country. It sees to it , at least in principal, that people aren't discriminated agains and oppressed for being in the minority religion or non-religion.

 

No argument here.

I would point out that as shown in the links above, that some religions should feel the oppression of law as they hurt their children.

 

Regards

DL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.