Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: kbowman@eng.auburn.edu (Kevin Bowman) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Imposing Christian morality on nonbelievers Message-ID: Date: 19 Feb 91 03:16:28 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Auburn University Engineering Lines: 74 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >In article gchin@eng.sun.com (Gary Chin) writes: >>In article , DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes: >>> It's becoming more common for Christians to attempt (through boycotts >>> or legislation) to impose their moral standards on nonbelievers. > >>Laws don't prevent sin, they point out sin. > >I don't beieve any law was ever passed that had anything to do with the >sinnful nature of the act in question. 'Sin' is a religious concept and >term and is, to my knowledge, not used in legal procedings. It would be misleading to think that simply because the word `sin` is not explicitly stated in legal proceedings that this concept has no place in legal thought. Laws are made to both regulate and instruct its citizens on what is acceptable behavior within that society. There is an implicit metaphysical assumption that the nature of its citizens are such that they do in fact break these laws and must therefore be restrained or they will continue to do so. This metaphysical presupposition is called a `sinful nature' in Christian terminology and is the reason that laws are passed. > > If Christianity were suddenly surpassed by, oh, say, Islam as the >dominate religion in this contry, would you feel it was ok for the >Islamics to pass laws based on their conception of what 'god' tells >them is right and wrong? Oh, me thinks not! The same line of reasoning >applies to what you are saying. You arrogantly assume that the >inherent truth of your possition is self evident to everyone willing >to look. Rival conceptions of God in Christianity and Islam are not nearly as relevant as by what basis one defines ethics and how that should be administered in society. How do we define what is acceptable and inacceptable behavior? During Hitler's, Stalin's, and Pol Pot's respective reigns the meaning of ethics and the value of human life were vastly different than those considered by most in Western Society. Their conception of ethics were primarily derived from the notion that man is the automonous arbitrater of what is right and wrong , i.e what is moral. Can any human stand and arrogantly tell another what is right or wrong? Man starting from himself (an agnostic) cannot give any philosophically compelling reason why anyone should be ethical if they don't want to be. But the theist recognizes from the revelation of God that we are responsible to someone higher than ourselves and can not simply do what we wish either to ourselves or to someone else. There also seems to be this idea that seperation of Church and State is anti- thetical to the basic tenets of Christianity. This is not the case. Since the destruction of Israel there has not been a theocracy nor will there be one until the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. Until then we live under Gentile rule. A citizen of such a country is not required to adhere to all of the theological tenets of Christianity because that is not the role that God has ordained for the state to fulfill. This does not mean, however, that a state is emancipated from God's decrees but must uphold justice, peace, and order. This means that while a state should not require a citizen to pledge allegiance to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord it should demand that a citizen not murder, rape, steal,etc. from his/her fellow neighbor. >Being a witness is fine... I encourage you to show us what a good >Christian should be. But I draw the line when you start to try and >make us be what you consider to be a good Christian through the >ledgislation of laws that affect everyone. > >Jeff Lindborg > Should we then allow Jeff Lindborg to legislate what *he* thinks is moral and just on everyone else. It is a prevalent myth that the laws that we have today are somehow morally `neutral` and are `self-evident` to everyone. We must decide whose morality we are going to enforce on others, not if. I realize that my theistic presuppositions are at variance with what others believe. But I have seen no reason to give mine up and accept someone else's, agnostic or otherwise. Kevin Bowman