[tlj009]

I'm not suggesting that you believe that. But it seems like you're saying that we ought to offer a sinful world a gospel-flavored social contract. I'm saying instead to offer them something with real transformative power. The gospel itself.

Nothing can replace the gospel. What I am saying is that we also have an obligation as American citizens to try to shape our laws in a way that we feel is best for our society. Christianity is our basis for our morals and how we live our lives. You are placing a requirement for Christianity to have no influence on the way that we vote. So we have a couple of choices:

1) We can start looking for other reasons outside of Christianity to vote the way that we believe is right. That really seems at least a little dishonest because you have already made your decision and are looking for support for that decision. That is how facts and information get twisted.

2) We can deny Christ's influence in our lives while inside the voting booth. Simply not a good thing to do.

I see no way around it. If we are not allowed to have Christianity affect the way that we vote, then we are basically saying that Christianity has no legitimate place in our society. Then it is no longer OUR society but THEIR society.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Then it is no longer OUR society but THEIR society.

Well, that's pretty much what Hebrews declares it to be.

You missed a third option: Let your Christianity influence society in non-political ways and vote, if you choose to exercise that right [it is not an obligation], your conscience, recognizing that some political decisions have little religious content.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by tlj009

What I am saying is that we also have an obligation as American citizens to try to shape our laws in a way that we feel is best for our society.

I am not convinced of any such obligation.

We can deny Christ's influence in our lives while inside the voting booth.

Our faith ought to inform everything we do. Just because I disagree that our purpose when voting is to legislate the state into the church doesn't mean I think we should ignore Christ's influence.

[tlj009]

Posted by Nate:
Well, that's pretty much what Hebrews declares it to be.

You missed a third option: Let your Christianity influence society in non-political ways and vote, if you choose to exercise that right [it is not an obligation], your conscience, recognizing that some political decisions have little religious content.

And that I feel is a valid argument except for one thing, if you are going to be separate from a society then you should be separate. I don't believe that you should vote on one issue but then deny that you should vote on another issue. I can understand not voting out of indifference but I don't understand only being able to vote on certain issues. For example, if I vote against slavery and abuse on moral grounds, then I should be able to vote against homosexuality on the same grounds.

Posted by slap_j
I am not convinced of any such obligation.

OK. If you don't think that people should vote for the betterment of society, then what do you think they should vote toward?

Our faith ought to inform everything we do. Just because I disagree that our purpose when voting is to legislate the state into the church doesn't mean I think we should ignore Christ's influence.

Again I didn't say that we should legislate the State into the Church. And for some reason I am getting a little confused as to what your argument is. Is it that we shouldn't let our Christian values affect our voting because our society includes nonChristians?

Or is it that the government simply should not have any say whatsoever in any kind of morality? If that is the case, then I agree that everything from marriage to welfare should be left to the people. The problem with that is simply that it does not reflect our current government or our past government for that matter. From what I can tell, our laws were always based on Christianity.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Abusing the slaves most definitely is unChristian.

Define "abuse" (I can already tell you that you are likely going to end up, once we are done, with a definition similar to "treating them in an unChristian way", which is a tautology)

But I thought we were discussing *having* slaves, not abusing them.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by tlj009

If you don't think that people should vote for the betterment of society...

What I said was that I don't recognize such an obligation that is bound up in being a citizen.

Again I didn't say that we should legislate the State into the Church.

Apologies if I'm wrong, I don't quite recall where we started--but--weren't you saying that we should ban same sex marriage because the bible's description precludes such a thing? My argument is that when the state talks about marriage it's encroaching on turf where it doesn't belong and consequently everything it says should be ignored. That's all. I'm not sure what that has to do with voting or checking your values before you do so considering the decision on whether to vote at all comes prior to deciding which way to vote.

From what I can tell, our laws were always based on Christianity.

I'm sure there was some influence. But the basic framework is based on enlightenment values. Constitution, natural rights, etc.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

From what I can tell, our laws were always based on Christianity.

You may want to do a little more research. More than half the commandments, and almost nothing from outside them, is represented. We don't even follow the biblical "king-slaves" structure.

As mentioned, we are based more on the enlightenment (that a government exists by the consent of the governed) and ancient Greek beliefs (that none are above the law, government by the people, inalienable rights).

[tlj009]

What I said was that I don't recognize such an obligation that is bound up in being a citizen.

And I think that there is definitely such an obligation. Not a requirement but I think obligation is the right word.

Apologies if I'm wrong, I don't quite recall where we started--but--weren't you saying that we should ban same sex marriage because the bible's description precludes such a thing? My argument is that when the state talks about marriage it's encroaching on turf where it doesn't belong and consequently everything it says should be ignored. That's all. I'm not sure what that has to do with voting or checking your values before you do so considering the decision on whether to vote at all comes prior to deciding which way to vote.

I guess that I have been imagining things. I had it in my head that somebody was arguing that we shouldn't let our Christian beliefs influence us when we vote because we are living in a secular society. But now that I look back, I can't find that.

My argument wasn't necessary that we had to vote against same sex marriage. My argument was that we have to go into the situation knowing that same sex marriage is wrong and from there weigh the other consequences of outlawing it. Those consequences would include giving the government power that it shouldn't have. On the other hand, I don't like the attitude that we have no right to vote a certain way just because there may be some nonChristians in our society that disagree with us.

I'm sure there was some influence. But the basic framework is based on enlightenment values. Constitution, natural rights, etc.

I am sure that enlightenment values are a huge part of it. But I have also read a good several writings from back then indicating the influence Christianity had. The statement that our laws are based on Christianity came from a judge’s opinion while convicting someone of blasphemy. And apparently, there were quite a few convicted of blasphemy.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I am sure that enlightenment values are a huge part of it. But I have also read a good several writings from back then indicating the influence Christianity had. The statement that our laws are based on Christianity came from a judge’s opinion while convicting someone of blasphemy. And apparently, there were quite a few convicted of blasphemy.

In some states yes. It has since been ruled unconstitutional. Something about establishment and freedom of speech.

But if we are discussing state laws, then some are indeed Christian.