No. But Moses did.

Rhodium,

How true. I was under the impression that Jesus was showing us a new way. And yet for the most part the Jews of today (Reform esp.) are closer to the message of Jesus and social conservatives are more followers of Moses.

It is a wonder. And the biggest wonder is how few notice the contradiction.

I feel I should point out that a few millennia of horrible repression by state governments and majority rule tends to do that to a people.

I admit, I am always surprised that more Jews *aren't* libertarian.

Jesus was not a political figure. He was not concerned with politics, as his purpose was to bring humanity back into a relationship with God.

Having said that, what makes you think that we should be doing less? Since our mission in life is to bring others to Christ, and so to God, why is it so hard to believe that we are concerned with social mores? Sin is bad, and we see no reason to promote it, or to encourage temptation.

Having said that, I do not believe that government should be actively condemning sin, but I don't see why it should be promoting it. Abortion kills a living person. I do not want government promoting that. Casual sex damages the soul in ways that most people are unaware of, without going into the physical damage it causes. I do not want government promoting that.

Long story short, if the government is promoting, or abetting behavior that is detrimental to a relationship with God, then it is ultimately subverting the moral relationship between government and the governed that the founding fathers presupposed. This is dangerous in a republic, which we may find out to our chagrin in the years to come.

Sorry Chris,
The "government is abetting immoral behavior" argument won't fly. Unless the law says "you shall have unmarried sex", it isn't promoting or abetting anything. What IS missing is the willingness of "moral" people to say "That's not OK" on a personal level. The concept of "honorable" used to be tied to "moral". It wasn't until we lost the ability to tell someone they were "wrong"--face to--face, that we started careening down the slope.

An example. What was the last time you personally told someone who was having unmarried sex they were "wrong"? By not doing so were you abetting their behavior?

He did call for the sick to be healed, and generally for compassion. Don't recall that he was much in favor of indulging (or celebrating) ones vices.

Of course He did, and no, of course He didn't.

Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's." While that was specifically about taxation, and whether it was allowed under the Mosaic Law to pay taxes to a foreign government, the principle is clear. Your heart belongs to God, but you have to obey the laws of where you live.

And while He would have clearly been in favor of laws against murder, theft, and arson, He would have drawn a distinction between laws promoting good order and those which give cover to the law-abiding to appear righteous.

Further, He would have scoffed at those who say, "Look, I've never killed anyone, aren't I Good?". And fill in the blank: he was all about convincing people that following the law (religious or secular) was necessary but not sufficient to follow Him.

So to answer your question: He would not have cared, except to say that we should take care, because by pushing for government action we allow people cover for their own evil hearts. It's the same with charity: since the government taxes me to provide Welfare, why do I need to work at a homeless shelter?

The government is cover neither for righteousness for wickedness.

Where did Jesus or where does the New Testament tell NON-BELIEVERS what to do or how to act? Isn't it all directed at Believers?

anon, the problem is that when we do say it, we're attacked verbally, physically, and legally for "hate speech". You don't like our definition of moral?

"Oh thou hypocrite, remove first the beam from thine own eye, and then you will be able to see the mote in your neighbor's."

I recall that when he was asked a question about how the government should be run, he said, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, give unto God what is God's."

Long story short, if the government is promoting, or abetting behavior that is detrimental to a relationship with God, then it is ultimately subverting the moral relationship between government and the governed that the founding fathers presupposed

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but which god? And which religion?

The government keeps Mormons from practicing their brand of marriage, was that subverting the moral relationship between gov't and governed?
We can't do human sacrifice, is the government therefore coming between followers of Huitzilopochtli and their religious observances?

Follow the money.
.

Full disclosure: I am a Christian.

Simon: In your next post, you took the stand that I take: Do as you would have others do. To me, this is a logical extension of the "Golden Rule".

Chris: I think that the government needs to promote "traditional" morals, rather than "Christian" morals. Of course, these overlap to a great extent--the difference is in the arguments you make in their defense. I believe that many of Christ's teachings can be shown to have substantial social benefits, which means that they should be attractive to the population even if they're not Christian at all.

anon, and SDN: As a Christian, I've condemned sin--privately and publicly--on a regular basis. Fellow Christians generally take the criticism well. Non-belivers don't like it if you tell them "God says . . . ", but will often admit to their error if you can demonstrate negative consequences (e.g. pain caused to a loved one). I'm from a conservative area, but I've still learned from experience how to make my argument. If every individual calling themselves Christian personified the approach Simon describes in his next post, it would go a long way in restoring a "honorable" culture.

commonchild2: Yes. However, as I've already said, I believe that people whose actions line up with Christ's teachings are a positive influence. I cannot impose His requirements on others, but I sure can encourage them.

Loren Heal: Amen. It is a simple (and beautiful) thing, really; personal responsibility.

OregonGuy: What money? The only income for the congregation I attend (~300 members, 4 paid employees: preacher, secretary, part-time custodial services) is voluntary dontations from members. ~90% of our budget is directly related to preaching & teaching, which includes benevolence work.

The answer to the question is no. Christ had almost nothing to say to those outside of the proto-church (Israel). The question ought to be: Did Christ help the romans build their false God-State?

Consider the change in roles of church & state since the beginning of the Great Apostasy (the French Revolution).

The church preached the gospel, healed the sick, relieved the widow & orphan, housed the homeless, fed the hungry, educated the ignorant, catechized the children, and so on.

Sound familiar? It should. This is all stuff the state is doing now. The religion of Atheism is converting the state into their church. When this project is complete, the next project will be to convert the Church-State into a God-State.

Christians don't do well under Church-States, and they do even worse under God-States like Cesar's Rome, Pharaoh's Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon, Stalin's Russia, and Hitler's Germany.

Christian's who support socialism and the social gospel (which is "another gospel"), are building a false church and, eventually, a false god, and will end up being "fed to the lions" by the abomination they helped build.

If you are a Christian, you are a heretic in the Church-State, and eventually you will be excommunicated if you don't "repent".

Long story short, if the government is promoting, or abetting behavior that is detrimental to a relationship with God, then it is ultimately subverting the moral relationship between government and the governed that the founding fathers presupposed. This is dangerous in a republic, which we may find out to our chagrin in the years to come.

You mean like the First Amendment? The very idea of allowing "heresy", "apostasy" and atheism to freely flourish is anathema to the idea of Christendom. Recall the mindset: which is worse, that which can harm the body or that which can kill the soul? Our Medieval forebears would obviously choose the latter as being worse. Where exactly are you drawing the line here?

We've been having a similar discussion over here, more specifically regarding the example of the NT church:

http://eschatonimmanere.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/sunday-school-for-socialists/

I know of no passage in the New Testament that promotes anything resembling theocracy (eschatology aside, not directly applicable to question) or gives any guidance on how the government should run itself, morally or otherwise.

David

Once again, the bigots crawl out into the open.

Are we to infer that no one should advocate government solutions to moral problems?(whatever the hell "moral problem" is supposed to mean) I dare say not. The stupid question is inspired by nothing but hatred of a particular strain of religious believer. All others are exempt.

Is child abuse a "moral problem". Racism? Theft?

Pathetic.

ccofer,

There are vices and there are crimes both are moral problems. On vices people differ. On crimes there is unanimity.

For instance - even thieves do not want their stuff stolen.

But hey. Perhaps the crime of blasphemy should be severely punished. Or adulterers put to death. There is morality to uphold after all.

On crimes there is unanimity.

In what universe is there unanimity on crime? Is there unanimity on incest? (which is morally indistinguishable from homosexuality)

Pederasty?

Is there unanimity on tax evasion? Polygamy?

You don't seem to have a very firm grasp on the argument you are trying to make.

Surely you can come up with something better.

But hey. Perhaps the crime of blasphemy should be severely punished. Or adulterers put to death.

Since when is blasphemy criminal? Are you reduced to simply making shit up to defend your stupid premise?

Is this the best you have to offer?

Geez.

Some US states still have blasphemy laws on the books from the founding days. Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws states, for example:

Section 36. Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy

from the same wiki:

The last U.S. conviction for blasphemy—at least that of any significance—was of atheist activist Charles Lee Smith. In 1928 he rented a storefront in Little Rock, Arkansas, and gave out free atheist literature there. The sign in the window read: "Evolution Is True. The Bible's a Lie. God's a Ghost." For this he was charged with violating the city ordinance against blasphemy. Because he was an atheist and therefore couldn't swear the court's religious oath to tell the truth, he wasn't permitted to testify in his own defense.

Ultimately the case was dismissed as a violation of free speech. But you will note the region in which it occurred. Currently the last region that is strongly Republican. That should be a clue.

Why not go back to the pilgrim days to prove whatever perverted point you were trying to make? If a case dismissed 80 years ago is solid intellectual ground, why not 250? After all, reality is irrelevant. I expect some pathetic reference to Torquemada any second now.

Making shit up. Its fun and easy. No need to be serious or be taken seriously.

Why not save time and embarrassment by simply saying that you detest non-atheists?

ccofer,

I didn't make anything up. In fact I cited a source. That you would say something so obviously false in the face of evidence on the page does not speak well of you at all. You will of course correct me if I have misinterpreted your position re: making stuff up.

Now the fact that it is 80 years old matters not for the simple reason that it conveys an impression and impressions last far longer than changed circumstances.

This is the impression many people have of Republicans ever since Nixon decided on the "Southern Strategy" i.e. that Nixon invited the racists that Johnson kicked out of the Democrat Party into the Republican Party.

We should counter that impression. It might help the Republicans get a few more votes.

If I thought the Republican Party was racist I wouldn't be a Republican. Still, the impression is out there.

And to the matter at hand: because of the Southern Strategy and the reputation of the South as a bastion of religious zealots something will need to be done about that as well.

It is not a matter of what is. It is a matter of branding. Kind of like Detroit once built shoddy cars. They still have that reputation although the cars from Detroit are much better than they once were.

Perceptions need to be changed - not just facts.

Government is an exercise in coercive moral structuring. This will be allowed, that will be forbidden. It is not difficult to discern the broad shape of the moral structure the human race shares. Where we disagree is in the details. If you think that abortion is not a problem, that's fine for you. I think it is tantamount to murder. How are we to reconcile these views? We use our political power to do so. Right now, the American,on the whole, seem to believe that abortion is something that should be grudgingly tolerated. I accept that result, because I am instructed to allow the civil authorities to rule in their sphere. I do not have to like it, and I can continue to believe that allowing it to be practiced unfettered is bad for the individual and for the nation.

You may be interested to know that I am a recovering drug addict, and I am very ambivalent about decriminalizing drug use. On the one hand, the addict in me sees the danger of condoning casual drug use. This has already happened on a grassroots level, as anyone can see. The result is more people (how many more we don't know) are inclined to try drugs. On the other hand, I acknowledge the failure of the drug war, and I would rather see the tremendous efforts expended on keeping drugs out of the hands of consumers applied elsewhere as a practical matter.

My Christianity and libertarian streak often cause paradoxes to arise in my personal philosophy. Does any of this help you to understand? You asked the question, after all.

Chris,

If you understood the science of addiction you might not be so hard on drug users. Addiction is a deficiency disease - just as diabetes is. Read the first two if you don't read the rest, although reading all of them would help your understanding.

The NIDA says Addiction Is A Genetic Disease

PTSD and the Endocannabinoid System

Class War

Treatment vs Recreation

Round Pegs In Round Holes

Is Addiction Real?

Heroin

I just said I am an ex-addict. I understand the genetic theory of addiction. I am an ex-addict. I underwent a 30-day in-patient recovery program, during which I learned a great deal about not only the genetic predisposition to addictive behavior, but also the sociological factors that lead to the desire for escape that drug use assuages.

Did I mention that I am ex-addict? Did I mention that my father died of alcoholism? Would you care to patronize some more?

Chris,

I'm not a mind reader. Nor do I know anything about your knowledge base.

In addition if you look at:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/04/ptsd-and-endocannabinoid-system.html

You will find that there is a decay in the need for external chemicals to compensate for those the body doesn't make. So the fact that your program worked for you may only mean that enough function in your body was restored so that you could get by without external help. At this point we have no good way of measuring that except to note that every year 5% of those "addicted" quit drugs on their own and with rehab the rate is increased to 5% a year.

Which is to say rehab is mostly a con. You might as well account that prayer will cause a solar eclipse to end.