What would a consistently Christian social order look like?

Great Debates
41

Libertarian Evangelicalism :smiley:

Incidentally, Catholicism doesn’t completely forbid the death penalty for societies in which it may be necessary to protect them from violent criminality.

And the Catholic antipathy to the death penalty is a very modern phenomenon. It can be reversed.

I might be willing to give up the death penalty in exchange for life w/o parole under subsistence conditions.

Remember- the OP is “What would a consistent C’tian order look like?”
Not necessarily “how can we build one?” (Though I do see it as a historic inevitability- probably tho not until the direct Millenial rule of JC. And His rule
will be a lot tougher than mine G)

42

Was there anything in the teachings of Jesus, specifically, that indicated a desire to create a political system consistent with his teachings?

BTW, right away your plans would send me in search of asylum elsewhere. I’m a little more of the “take no thought for the morrow” variety Christian. I don’t believe in living (and dying) by the sword and would not have a militia. Wouldn’t want to combine religion and politics at all to begin with.

You forgot the law about Christians shouldn’t judge other people. That trumps a lot of your other laws.

The Farm (One of my favorite successful communities since 1971 – Includes Hippie Museum!)

43

Sorry, but you don’t get to cherry pick. You said you wanted a society based on the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. You made no reference to “historic Christianity” or “modern liberal Christianity.”

If you want to confine yourself to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, you get no army. Jesus was utterly explicit in his demand for pacifism.

Sorry, but again, you’re cherry picking and bringing in things other than the teachings of Jesus or the Apostles (unless Paul said something about it, I don’t remember). But Jesus was explicitly against the death penalty - “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and all that. No death penalty for you, either.

Once again, you’re making stuff up. Where in Jesus’ or the Apostles’ teachings does it say that Caesar doesn’t get to claim more than the tithe of 10%?

As someone else pointed out, this is simply you telling everyone what sort of society you’d like to see, then retconning it into a “Christian society.” If this is to be based on the teachings of Jesus or the Apostles, then you ought to cite the passages of the teachings of Jesus or the Apostles that support your view.

44

In my reading of the New Testement;Jesus could not have been a Pharisee…He called them white washed tombs, hypocrite’s, sons of Satan, etc. It was the only group he seemed to despise. He said the Publican’s prayer was heard, not the Pharisee’s. he chose the Good Samaritan (probably a pagan) as an example of how to live. The Pharisee’s were the letter of the law keeping,wearing their religious symbols on their person’s. He said," Not every one who say’s Lord, Lord will enter heaven but he who does the will of my father" He accused them of not seeing the plank in their own eye,but the speck in others. Pretty strong language …if he was a Pharisee.

Monavis

45

That’s because the Bible is incorrect on this count. The Pharisee’s, in real life, weren’t the letter of the law. They were more concerned with the spirit of the law. We know this from much of their historical writings and figures. The teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the Pharisees mesh quite nicely, for the most part.

46

This country was not founded on christian ideas or culture. It was founded on ideas from Greece, Rome, and to a certain extent, the Iroquois confederation. Democracy is from Greece. The republic system comes from Rome. I read a quote from George Washington at work which states this quite nicely. I do know that Falwell claims the opposite, but I don’t buy it. And as others have said, you still have to watch out for the “reconstructionists” and “dominionists” and various other loonies.

47

“Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary,”, issued by George Washington(?):
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
-4 November, 1796

Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:
“For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.”
“. . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

John Adams:
Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.

Thomas Jefferson:
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marls the lowest grade of ignorance, if which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

48

Actually the Good Samaritan was presumably a Samaritan.

Although negotiations for the Treaty with Tripoli were begun under the administration of George Washington, it was actually signed by President John Adams, and written by Joel Barlow. See here for more details.

As to the OP, his “Christian nation” sounds a good deal more appealing than that of the Rushdoonyites, or many other “Christian social orders” I’ve seen proposed (although I still probably wouldn’t like it much). However, as others have pointed out, since a lot of it sounds less like the Will of God or Teachings of Jesus than it does like the Ideas of FriarTed, I would question a.) why this particular set of political ideas should be set up as having come from God Almighty, which strikes me as a dangerous thing to do to any human being’s ideas; and b.) just how stable it would really be, given that on the one hand we would have accepted the principal of “Christian law” or “Biblical law”, but on the other hand many of these ideas don’t seem uncontroversially grounded in anything from the Bible. Once a country declares the teachings of Jesus and the Bible to be the foundation of its political order, I would very much fear that all this nice libertarian talk about free exercise of religion for all and no religious tests for political office would come unde a lot of fire as not really being supported by any particular Biblical teaching, and being pretty directly contradicted by a whole raft of passages from the Bible and precedents from the histories of “Christian nations”.

49

I was using the Bible,because that is how it seems to me that Friar Ted was using it as an example of what Jesus was. I could not see how Jesus could be a Pharisee and despise them so…The only people he spoke of with such contempt. I am not a Christian and find the Bible innacurate in a lot of places Using the Bible I just see more of the Pharisees in the fundamentalist Christians than others. When they ask What would Jesus do? I think,“not what you are doing!”

Monavis

50

It was my opinion that a Samaritan was not held in very high esteem(in those times).Thanks for the info.

Monavis

51

In my view the term “Christian social-political system” is an oxymoron.

By its very nature a political system is coercive. The early church members voluntarily gathered to give each other strength and comfort in the hope for a better tomorrow to be provided by Jesus and spreading the word.

Nothing in the New Testament would suggest to me that Christians should participate in the political process or attempt to control society at large. Indeed, my understanding is that all power comes directly from God.

52

Hey, don’t forget the Dutch!!

The ‘Republic of the 7 United Provinces’ also had its influence.
The constitution was also inspired by the Utrecht Union the Dutch ‘constitution’ of 1579. Which was followed by the declaration of independence (Plakkaat der Verlatinghe) in 1581.

53

THAT’S EXACTLY why Jesus spoke so harshly to some Pharisees- they were closer to his doctrinal views. His teachings resonate quite well (except RE divorce) with the Pharisee leader Hillel who lived about a generation before him Vs. the harsher teachings of the Pharisee leader Shammai.

I think this thread is about played out. When I get some time, I’ll post some non-pacifist comments by JC & the Apostles, the Biblical passage justifying limiting taxes to less that the tithe (the prophet/judge Samuel considered it tyranny), and possible locations I think such a society as I hope to see may emerge.

54

I strongly disagree, they thougt they were better than others; Look at the way the Publican prayed, and the Pharisee who stood in the front of the Temple thanking God that he was not like “those” Publicans,it wasn’t their politics, but their so called piety that he despised.! He said the law was made for man, not man for the law.

Monavis

55

So by using a Pharisee in a parable, Jesus therefore condemned every Pharisee everywhere at every time as being self-righteous &/or hypocritical???

No- the reason the parable worked is because Pharisees were considered good devout Jews & Jewish publicans were considered traitors to their people. Jesus was standing this on its head showing that in God’s eyes, a Pharisee who was self-righteous was spiritually lesser than a repentant publican.

He also said the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The principle may extend to the Law in total but that’s not what he said.

Sorry, but there are a lot of good books on Biblical history & culture which will clarify things for you. Or just google up +“Jesus”+“Hillel”

56

No, Jesus didn’t say all of the Pharisee’s, just the one’s who flaunted their religious ideas,He said in the Bible I read(at least 24 times) “You Pharisee’s” So he despised the one’s he came in contact with, (just as most Christians are not judgemental), just the one’s who would have you believe they are so religious, and spend their time worrying about others,instead of making sure they live without judgement of others. There is a difference in one who is spiritual and one who is religious.

I have read many books that you have indicated over a period of many years. You have your right to think as you do, and i agree to dis agree with you

Monavis

57

As a post script I would add read Luke 12,verse 1.

58

I will say, that in my defense of the Pharisees, I did overlook perhaps the major aspect of their religious teachings- that of the Oral Law. It was a mixed blessing to the Israelite faith. On one hand, it provided clarity & guidance where a face-value reading of Torah did not. On the other hand, it could so micromanage life with an array of excruciatingly detailed regulations as to become oppressive. Also, it gave those who could master such regulations the appearance of piety & righteousness with which they could mask a less-than-godly character. Jesus was speaking against the abuse of the Oral Law to oppress people & to present an illusion of piety & goodness.

There were very good aspects to Pharisaic teaching- the Afterlife, the Resurrection, the Messiah, the regard of the Prophets & the Writings as Sacred Scripture along with Torah. Jesus was totally with them in all this. I’m rushed right now, but I believe there is a corresponding Gospel passage in which Jesus cautions them to beware the leaven of both the Pharisees & the Sadduccees.
The Sadduccees, being the priestly class, were headquartered in Jerusalem. The Pharisees, being a more populist group, were all over. So JC naturally had more clashes with the P’s than the S’s- especially as he worshipped in their synagogues. It was also from the P’s that his more upper-class followers came.

59

Matthew 16:6, 11-12

60

Jesus wasn’t against the Pharisee’s religion,just their flaunting of it,(like today’s fundamentists). I do not remember any time that he put down pagans or people of other beliefs. I am not a Christian but I believe there is good in all religions,and some bad. The divinity part of Jesus he seems to apply to all people, the Kingdom Of God is in you.nHis referance to the 81st or 82d Psalm. He (if he really lived) I would think it better that he would have stayed on earth in stead of supposedily of going to Heaven; since he said the Kingdom of God is with in you, he would not have had to go anywhere. Some times it is harder to live than to die, I use that because of the people who commit suicide. A person can be misquoted,I know I have had people misquote me,and ther would be less division in the world if Jesus were here to defend what he meant.

I respect a person’s right to their beliefs,but do not think they should force it on others through the government, as some would like to do. I think they are weak in their faith and are afraid if someone differs with their’s they may be wrong.

Monavis