With respect to the existence and views of God (q1&q2), I believe His concern for us can be likened to that of a parent for a beloved child on the verge of adulthood. Does that parent have opinions on the moral behavior of his or her child? Of course; but the parent elects not to interfere with the choices of the near-adult, because the parent realizes that at this point the loved one must begin taking responsibility for his or her own decisions. If a parent lets a child fall, does that signify a lack of caring, or acceptance of the importance of hard lessons. I believe the latter.
WRT the nature of God (q3&q4), descriptions of the Abrahamic God (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) certainly present some aspects of God. However, all attempts to portray Him are limited to concepts that we humans can understand. I believe that His nature is such that it is not only beyond description, it is beyond any possibility for our comprehension. So no characterization is going to be accurate.
WRT to the applicability of God’s laws and their relationship to secular politics (q5 thru q9), I think my views are contained in what follows.
Ceremonial Law has been dismissed as a means of Salvation. But that does not mean that it has no value as a guide for daily living and for informing one’s beliefs about right and wrong. Therefore, it would not be improper to continue following the Ceremonial Laws as long as they are kept in the proper perspective – a good way to live, but not the way to be saved.
In that light, it would still be proper to abstain from eating the unclean foods, to abstain from sexual intercourse in all of the proscribed forms (including during menstruation), and to live temperately. Portions of this must, of necessity, be modified due to the need to obey the laws of the land in which we live. (The United States is not a theocracy as was Ancient Israel, after all. We are not even an officially Christian country, although we are a religiously tolerant country. At least we are supposed to be, in my view.) Thus, it is not possible to stone to death those who violate certain points of the Deuteronomic Law, even if living in a closed community of believers (as with the Amish). But those members of ‘communities of believers’ unwilling to abide by the standards of their chosen community can and should be excluded from that community.
I believe that God had some reason for asking Ancient Israel to follow the precepts given. Some of the reasons can be guessed. For example, the people of that era had no conception of bacteria, fly-borne diseases, and various other microbes; they also had little by way of sanitization and refrigeration. So it was to their advantage that God gave them dietary laws which minimized their risk of food-related illnesses. As another example, while it is proper to regularly appear before God in a formal setting like a church service, and while it is not a sin for a married couple to have sex, God has stated that we shouldn’t present ourselves to our spouses AND present ourselves to Him on the same day; hence the law of ceremonial uncleanliness after sex. (Being ceremonially unclean should not be thought of as a sinful state; merely a condition of unsuitability for formal presentation to God.) Other of His laws and precepts are not so easily understood or guessed. But I’m comfortable with accepting that He had SOME purpose in giving those laws, whether or not I understand, and so I had best heed them.
I don’t expect others to hold the same views I do, and so don’t expect them to practice what I do. I won’t try to tell you to do what I’m doing, and I hope you won’t tell me to do what you’re doing. All must make their own choices, and accept whatever consequences arise from them.
Each individual is responsible to God for his or her response to the prompting of the Holy Spirit upon the heart. That, I believe, will be the standard of judgment. If I believe one thing to be wrong and another thing to be right, then I will be held accountable for following those beliefs. If someone else does not have the same convictions on those matters, they will not be held to account for them in the same way.
One may be tempted to ask at this point, “What of the crazy person who believes killing is ok?” To that my response is that this particular person is not following what the Holy Spirit is telling him. Because I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit is inconsistent in what He prompts people to do; only our responses to Him are inconsistent.
What is more, I will be held accountable for what the Holy Spirit has told me, not what others have said which I know clearly contradict God’s teaching. So when I’m standing before God being asked to give an account of my actions, it will not be sufficient to say (in a whiny voice), “But everyone else said it was ok!” Neither your local minister, nor the President of the United States, nor even the head of the largest religion in the world can excuse you from what you know to be God’s requirements.
My reaction to other human beings, regardless of any similarities or differences between their beliefs and my beliefs, should be one of respect and concern. However, I must be cognizant of any effect their beliefs and actions may have on my convictions, and govern my contact accordingly. As you may recognize, enough exposure to any condition will begin to affect the onlooker. For example, if I am exposed to enough murder and carnage, I will eventually become jaded and find it less shocking than at first. Likewise, the strength or weakness of my faith will regulate the extent of my contact with those of differing beliefs. (Herein lies the source of so many Christians’ reluctance to associate with “sinners”; they’re afraid that they may succumb to the temptation to do what the sinner is doing.) I just need to be secure in my faith, then I won’t fear to come into contact with the convictions of others.
The extent to which religious laws influence political laws is, and should be, relatively limited in this country (U.S.) due to the Constitutional mandate for separation of church and state. However, like so many points, this too is the subject of much debate and political wrangling. My view is that public laws should not try to dictate religious morality. Those who hold religious views should follow their beliefs voluntarily, not because they’ve been legislated; neither should they try to impose their views on others. Force is not the way of the God they profess to follow (this is true for the God of all three Abrahamic faiths, as well as many others). God allows people to choose to believe or not believe, to follow or not follow, as they individually desire. Forced worship is meaningless!
