Separation of church and state OK to Christians?

not only is it ok, it is ABSOLUTELY NECCESSARY.separation of church and state, and the secular government is what allows freedom of religion. when the state holds a set of religious beliefs to be true, it excludes all other beliefs. instead, the state must disregard any faith at all, and thus allow every faith. the government has no business, right, or jurisdiction over the religion of its citizens. it is not even a matter that should come close to being governed.as for avoiding amoral governments, not that a secular government is amoral, "give unto caesar..."

you're counting funny. but that's ok, i never could get a straight answer on how to count those. i count 13 or 14. this the verse in question?

quote:

---

Exd 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

---

two things i must bring up.1. the covenant is just that -- a covenant. it is an agreement. god did something for them, they are to do something for god. they owe him, basically, and it's their duty. why "they" you ask? because unless this verse applies to you, the agreement doesn't either:

quote:

---

Exd 20:2 I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

---

2. the "them" in verse five applies to idols. it is a modification of the first bit, about making no graven images. strictly speaking, the two verse combined don't forbid practices like in the babylonian religion, where they would make images of themselves offering to an aniconic deity (like yahweh). they would also make images of their offerings (bronze serpent), or images of the seat of their god (cherubim). these are okay by the ten commandments.however, when jeroboam does something similar with a calf (and it was probably the same thing, mind you) it's a sin. in other words, idolatry is a word thrown around to slander enemies.and, like i said, the christian tradition is:

quote:

---

Mat 22:21 ...Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

---

jesus is separating religion from politics. because he has to, in order to keep judaism intact. no, they are told to have love and compassion on even their so-called enemies. this is combined with an earlier tradition of KILLING other beliefs. and as a christian, i'm saying no we should not. because the government that mandates a faith does not neccessarily mandate MY faith. or YOUR faith. it allows us our choice on the matter, and that choice is cornerstone of salvation, is it not?

"there is one true god... and his name is allah."all monotheistic religions say that. of course it's freedom of religion. what if my one true god is different than yours?

actually, genesis is downright henotheistic. abraham, isaac, and jacob never seem to object to other people's gods or idols.

i try. i'm more interested in knowing the truth than a biase perspective. i'm also accepting of the fact that the bible is occasionally wrong. well, i was suggesting one possible motivation for jesus to tell people to be subordinate to caesar. you see, judea at that point was roman colony so to speak. wrong word, i know. but look at who ran the show. caiphas passes jesus on to herod. herod even admits he has no authority, he has to send jesus to pilate. pilate was roman, under caesar. any authority herod (a jew) had under pilate was allowed to him strictly because he play along.it turns out that romans and jews got along reasonably civilized. the romans respected the jewish faith to a degree. they would allow jews to abstain from mandatory roman god worship, because they knew they'd have a situation on their hands otherwise. nobody wanted a rebellion. the romans just wanted to sit on the top of everything, and generally didn't care how the everyday people went about their lives, as long their allegiance was to rome.well, ok, not everybody wanted to avoid a rebellion. there were groups of messianic jews to who thought their messiah was come to lead them in a war against rome, and that god would punish their oppressors. this is what some looked for in jesus. and technically he did it, but it ook him 300 years and a very persuasive roman emporer. but jesus was not the only messiah of his day. there are a few others whom history remembers. one was apollonius. another apparently waged actual war on the city of jerusalem and failed.but jesus was not that kind of messiah. he was more interested in making people think the right way, and treat each other with love and compassion, than killing a bunch of romans. so to him, reforming judaism was probably the goal, and NOT upsetting rome.so basically, what he said was: put up with the people in power. give them what they want. god's put them there, and god will remove them in due time. for now, worry about giving god what he wants, and the government what they want, and everyone will be happy.the society jesus lived in basically mandated separation of religion and government, since the jews could not morally engage in the religion of the ruling empire. and that empire basically only excercised their secular powers over the jews in exchange for compliance. and jesus did not have a problem with that. you can, but that's not really the best analogy. how would you feel if the government kept slapping your hand for what you believed in? these are "i want a lollipop!" kind of issues, really. imagine if your faith came under LEGAL attack. how would you like it? put yourself in another's shoes for a moment -- it's the christian way. no, but it means that SOMEONE has no choice on the matter. and that's all that matters. remember -- schools are government run. and i think manipulating children in that matter is morally abhorent, even if you do in the right direction. no. i've demonstrated before that this could mean just about anything. for instance, i can defend execution of divorced couples with the bible. simply put: the part of the bible containing the societal laws were for THAT society to set up their theocracy. unless you want to live under enforced levitcal standards. and the part of the bible contain the christian principles are humanistic, internal moral truths, not governable laws.neither set is a good model for government. no, but infringing on belief educationally, or by saturating the society (news, etc) is also equally unacceptable.

you managed to point out the bit i forgot: as christians, it's our DUTY to be compassionate and understanding and accepting of others.but the bit we both left out:doing so is good publicity for our religion.

the anti-christ predictions in revelation, in the traditional end-times reading, doesn't the antichrist basically set up a theocracy?

shh. leave my gross misinterpretations of the text alone. that is the idea. however, that's probably just the accusation the text is making: in reality it's probably refering to a real historical figure metaphorically, who was not the god of his own religion, just really self-absorbed.also, isn't the idea that he will effectively trick a lot of christians? i dunno, i'm not too clear on revelation anymore. i should read it again.