I think I should be but I'm willing to negotiate.
The Bible came from the Catholic Church, so the answer is easy there. If the Catholic Church has no authority, then the Bible has no authority.
That answers your question: "who are the arbiters of the bible?"
But, you had a preamble to the question: "If the US is governed by biblical principles..." I guess I will have to look at the chat below. I am one Catholic who likes the Separation of Church and State. I think it is good for both Church and State. I don't think a Christian Theocracy was established.
I believe the founders of this country were influenced by Christianity and it's version of the bible Yet I believe there were few Catholics among the founding fathers.
If the Catholic Church did not have the authority to decide what was in the Bible and what was not, then the Bible cannot be trusted. There was no "Bible" until around 390 AD. There were many letters, gospels, etc. Only some of them became books of the Bible when the Catholic Church published an official canon. Protestants would have to have a theory that the Catholic Church had authority from God to establish the Bible, but then lost that authority later. The only problem there is that such a theory goes against the Bible itself, which mentions Peter being declared pope (although that term wasn't used at the time), being given the keys to the gates of heaven, and Jesus declared that Hell would not prevail over the Church He established. Protestants must argue that Hell had prevailed over the Church at some point later to declare the supremacy of the Bible over the Church, but the Bible argues against that.
Not to mention that Luther sought to exclude many books from the Bible in the 1500s, over 1000 years after the Bible canon was settled. He wasn't totally successful. Some of the books he wanted removed still remain, but several were removed. He basically said, "I'm the arbiter now." Not a very convincing position.
And, you did ask your question on a Notre Dame forum, after all, so a Catholic bias could be expected.
To your point: I believe you are correct. Catholics were generally not allowed to hold office or even vote, so there were few in the leadership of the new country. Charles Carroll did sign the Declaration of Independence. I think the theory was that religious discrimination by Protestants would be illegal in the new country.
Religious discrimination was strong against Catholics and protected for years. The KKK for one, It took about a175 years for a catholic to overcome it in the White House.
understand.
PI does not refer to a pope being granted the power of never being wrong. It does not empower the pope ate all, but actually does the opposite. It protects the Church from a corrupt pope. A pope may be corrupt and try to change Church teaching, but PI prevents him from ever changing the doctrine of the faith. Even the Medici era did not result in doctrinal change.
In the present day, we see what I believe to be a pope who wants to, but cannot change the doctrine of the Church.
Marriage is still a sacrament between one man and one woman. Abortion is still a grave moral sin and the killing of innocent life. You see Francis trying to work around the edges constantly, and leaving questions he should quickly handle unanswered and unaddressed, but never does he change the doctrine of the faith.
PI is a fail safe that limits the power of a misguided or simply bad pope. The popes do not differ in their handling of doctrine of the Church.
Obviously 16 years of Catholic education could never measure up to your level of papal knowledge.
precisely because of the “Infallible Door” that you do not want to open, yet is a point at the heart of your false claim.
I also had 16 yrs of Catholic education (and 10 more in secular education). I learned most of the Catholic faith from home and from later in life. Many Catholic schools aren’t really that (#jesuitslookingattheirfeetuncomfortably).
Popes have differed on nondoctrinal issues, but not doctrinal ones…..such as that abortion is a mortal sin that is the killing of a living human being.
Save your condescension. You are arguing with yourself and look like a fool.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
That's a new one.
Chris94 likes to talk about what Jesus said. What Jesus said comes to us from the Church. Chris94 tries to diminish that connection so that he can exclude as much of the morality of the Church as he can from every day life.
And the societal values of the past few centuries have been rooted in those principles.
When I talk about it, it's generally philosophical. At one point, the general population was aligned in their values. People prioritized values differently and the had different opinions on how to apply those values in a practical way in their daily lives, but it was all derived from one place.
I could go on for hours and hours about creating culture using values and traditions. It's something that I studied extensively through my twenties and have it implemented successful across disparate teams throughout my career. Having common values is paramount. If you want to do away with those values, I'll listen to your argument for why, but you'd also better have another set of values to replace the old values. If you don't have replacement values, chaos will ensue.
at operational level we are governed by the principle of separation of church and state.
They fill the vacuum with secular beliefs that reduce or eliminate the value of individual human lives. Or the vaccum is filled with a different religion, as we increasingly see with Islam in some West European countries.
Hitler, Stalin, and Mao built their power under similar circumstances.
Christianity was certainly involved, so was rationalism, Judaism selectively, Greek and Roman philosophers too. The founders were careful not to create a theocracy.
Even if Christianity was the primary influential factor in the birth of our nation it wasn't codified in any way. I think going on for hours and hours in this discussion would be cool.
My original query, if we accept that this is a Christian nation who are the arbiters?
And I think there is a distinction between being a Christian nation and being a nation whose values are built on Judeo-Christian principles. We don't live in a theocracy.
(no message)
However, it seems to arise every time we have a debate. In my opinion if we formed this nation on Christian values God was disappointed more than a few times. In fact, I believe this nation was built on Capitalist values and Christian values. There was a blending of the forces.
You can be a Christian capitalist, or not.
You could argue that voluntary socialism is in line with Christianity, even called for...it is voluntary charity taken to the maximum extent. Many early Christian communities were this way, as were many religious orders.
I would, however, argue that capitalism is more allowable by Christian doctrine than enforced socialism, though. Capitalism allows for free conversion to charitable principles (and therefore conversion of the soul...of both the giver and the receiver). Enforced socialism/communism does not allow that, and indeed it seeks to do away with charity altogether (allowing for no conversion of the soul).
Catholicism has rules, but people are free to disobey them. The Church should only use persuasion to abide by them, not the force of secular authority. Whenever the wall of separation of Church and State is breached, and the Church gains secular power, the Church loses the moral authority of persuasion. Governments use force to coerce behavior of their citizens. There should be limits on the topics governments address through force; there is no reason to limit the persuasiv power of the Church...it is just free speech after all.
Absent new prophets, I see no alternative.
What exactly is the point here? Every law ever created enforces some moral assumption of those who created it. Anyone who tells us that he is creating laws divorced from his sense of morality is either lying or ignorant, so the real question is, "Whose set of moral beliefs" are true and which ones function the best in society?
(no message)
(no message)
Do you even know anything about Jesus? He loves everyone.
Replace “love” with “get a big kick out of.”
He didn't specifically condemn sex with children, after all. So, by your logic, if you support it, and Jesus didn't specifically say it was wrong, then you are good, and Christians should not be able to argue against you.
I’m pointing out - again - that maybe it’s a bit weird to make something He never talked about at the center of a faith based on what He said.
But obviously I’m pissing into the wind.
Take it up with Him when you see Him. And you will.
(no message)
I personally don't care if people like to dabble with other people's holes where the shit comes out. I don't think the government should condemn it in any way...as long as it is voluntary, and kept out of our schools (e.g., away from the children learning from authority figures).
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
He believes that the other 99.9% of the Bible has nothing to do with Christianity. He thinks he gets a victory in any debate with a Christian if Jesus didn't explicitly address an issue.
Jesus being God, He condemn homosexuality plenty.
Chris' issue ultimately isn't with me.
(no message)
(no message)
You create a concept of "heart of the faith" to diminish the moral authority of the faith. In your mind, anything that is "inside the faith" but outside the "heart of the faith" can be safely disregarded, and no one need worry about it. You thereby try to diminish the scope of faith (for example, to exclude homosexuality and abortion). It is a debate trick, and it is disingenuous. The faith is the faith.
No one who believes in Christianity uses this concept of "heart of the faith" unless they are trying to find an excuse for their inability to believe in all of the faith. So, only those who stand against the faith use that concept to debate.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
He called it "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." He never published it. All mention of the divinity of Christ, his miracles, his resurrection, etc. was excluded. He was attempting to distill the practical philosophy from Jesus, and separate it from the claims of divinity.
(no message)
(no message)
The Bible is the inspired Word of God. Written by men as directed by the Holy Spirit. The Lord Jesus Christ is God, therefore anything in Scripture is God's word. So, when the Apostles speak of homosexuality as sin, it is God = Jesus speaking.
(no message)
Doesn't answer the question about it governing our nation.
Religion offers the only objective moral standard available. Whether secular humanists or atheists are willing to accept it, their moral beliefs are formed and guided by religious principles. In the case of those living in Western societies, Judeo-Christian principles. The same also goes for nominal Christians who excise much from the holy book to allow their religion to conform to their worldly beliefs and preferences. They still operate upon religious beliefs, regardless if they realize it or not. There is no moral basis for outlawing murder apart from religion. The argument from secular humanists and atheists to outlaw it is entirely utilitarian. Big surprise that the countries which have attempted to divorce religion from their systems are the same ones in which we see enhanced efforts by the state to help those who offer little or no utility to euthanize themselves, the ones that have the least restrictions on abortion, the ones that offer children more opportunities to permanently damage their bodies. When human life cannot be sacred, and there is no "sacred" in secular humanism or atheism, anything is possible and anything is ultimately permitted. The 20th century is a catalog of mass genocides and the murder of dozens of millions, perpetrated by those who believed they weren't accountable to any higher power. David Berlinski once said to an audience: "I have in front of me a rather remarkable button. If you should press it, yours will be untold riches and everything else you desire. And the only consequence to pressing it, beyond your happiness, is the death of an anonymous Chinese peasant. Who among us would you trust with this button?" Berlinski is a self-describe agnostic, by the way.
Now I ask you, how would we construct a justice system that is moral without a foundation in religious principles of some sort? If you or anyone argues that "The Golden Rule" shall govern it, then I will ask, as I always do, "Why?" Why is it wrong to harm someone? Upon what basis do you conclude that, apart from religion? If the argument is, "I won't hurt you so that you won't hurt me," then that is a consequentialist argument, not a moral basis. And what of those times when I or someone else is completely secure and unthreatened by anyone? Is The Golden Rule inoperable or out the window in such situations? And where does this idea come from that you or I have an inviolable right to our own bodies and lives? By what standard do secular humanists or atheists make this claim? Why should human life be elevated over the lives of other living beings or organisms in secular humanism or atheism?
You ask "how would we construct a justice system that is moral without a foundation in religious principles of some sort" Which faith determines what is moral? Can they be wrong and influenced by culture or hunger rather than morality?
And what religious values did they follow to become the most prosperous and tolerant country/countries? I'd probably start there.
(no message)
You understand my point. Are you really going to argue that anyone else is doing much better?
RR said that. The problem with saying no one is doing better is we shouldn't compare ourselves, We should be better than the rest of the world.
As for tolerance I believe we are back sliding. We still have a long way to go.
Human beings are usually wrong. How is that an argument for replacing it with some secular mumbo-jumbo which, in the end, borrows central principles from the religion predominant in that geographical area? No one actually believes that everything in the Bible is up for debate. No one. The more figurative parts are indeed up for debate. At that point, we do our best to ascertain the intended meaning. Going to a system based upon utilitarianism isn't an alernative.
A sense of right and wrong - or what rules can hold society together - can be the result of a secular philosophy too.
The answer to your “why” questions is that it is good for society.
People use justifications that some things are good for society, when some of those things should be considered objectively evil. Lots of examples in history of very bad things being considered good for society (or, more accurately, a sub-set of society)
Better to use secular justifications that things are good for all individuals, and are therefore (secularly) moral. Intentional homicides are, for the most part, condemned in societies that respect the individual more than society as a whole.
When individuals are the primary unit of society which is to be protected, then justice is usually done.
When groups of people become the primary unit of society (whether by religion, or ethnicity, or sexual persuasion, or whatever) becomes more valued than individuals, then evil things start to happen.
Proper Christianity loves all individuals and condemns (through persuasion, not power) acts alone, and if everyone lived by that, society would be freaking amazing. Warped Christianity (used for political gain) condemns individuals, and suffers the same problem the Left suffers when it values sub-group powers rather than individual freedoms.
The Bible was built on discourse? That would imply its teaching are up for debate, no?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)