Was he incorrect? Is the magistrate exempt from the laws of God? Government is somehow neutral ground, beyond God's control and commands? Psalm 2.

Granted its been 40 years when I was in high school but I was taught that the Establishment Clause was to maintain that the government could not require membership of a religion, not that religious influence be eliminated at all costs. The line "separation of church and state" has been misconstrued as our government must not be influenced by religion but was only one of the statements made in the creation of the First Amendment, and is actually not part of the First Amendment.

"The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation establishing an official religion, and by interpretation making it illegal for the government to promote theocracy or promote a specific religion with taxes. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from preventing the free exercise of religion. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government's involvement with religion to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause."

Please explain how Psalm 2, from the Old Testament, is somehow more foundational to Christianity than Jesus?

I can see that too, mostly because these men and women interpret law from a non-biblical basis.

Not too sure that is true about Jefferson. I think at minimum he was influenced to a certain degree by things in the scriptures.

If you want to live in a country where Christ is the king of nation and the people have no say then you want to live in a theocracy.

And it's going to have to be one where every one exactly agrees.

Good luck.

How in the world is specifically rejecting Jesus as the king of the nation, not anti-Christian? How is making room for idolatrous religions a upholding of God's Commandments. Psalm 2.

Sure, he kept his own edited version of the Bible. As well, he kept his own copy of the Quran. He was well read, but definitely a Christian and religious man. However, of all of his accomplishments, he wanted 3 listed on his tombstone, including his work to secure religious liberty, specifically, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. He was a wise man, and we are wise to heed his thoughts on religious liberty.

"An act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;

That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."

OP believes Psalm 2 is the foundation of Christianity and that the US Constitution is in violation of it.

Because Psalm 2 is directly about Jesus. The whole OT is essentially about Jesus. What does Jesus being King of kings and Lord of lords mean to you?

Not my burden to toil over. Because of Jefferson, I'm free to be an atheist. If you must torture yourself over such questions, that's your choice, and, freedom to do so.

Until Jesus returns, it'll do.

Yes he was.

I’m glad you’re reading your OT, but you don’t seem to have a clue what’s going on in Psalm 2.

I don't see why it would be wrong to honor christ in one's documents, as long as you also bothered to let him tell you who gets to enforce what and how they get to do i.

Of course all kings should submit to Christ, because all *people* ever should submit to Christ. That goes without saying.

I have the impression that you are trying to socratically get somewhere so ...

Step on the gas if you are, and let's get there.

Actually, you can thank John Leland For that one.

Jefferson was all over the place on state/church relations.

Indeed you're right, I was making my comment in reference to invoking TJ in the first place with his quote, but thank you for further clarifying. TJ also drew from many others.

I've got a primer for you, OP

People came to the colonies to escape religious persecution and yet you believe it is/was not true because of the 1st Amendment ?

And on the flipside: the states enforced such. The feds were (once upon a time) strictly disallowed from doing such.

God does not coerce right now. This is the time to listen, and accept mercy. Right now. Not "Oh I'll do it later."

Later is when mercy is no longer on the table, and everyone who did not take the mercy, get exactly and only what they deserve and have earned, and that will be terrifying.

Jefferson is an absolute hot mess regarding christanity. I suspect only franklin and paine were worse. He was a great man and well worth listening to and emulating in multiple things, but not for understanding christianity.
---------------

So, when the hindu, muslim, jew, and everyone else disagree on what is the moral foundation for law ...

Well, you gotta have it out in realm of argument.

That's whatcha call "politics."

For instance, you can't have a lot of the behavior that goes on in majority muslim states in america ... if you want to uphold our laws.

There has to be a moral justification given for that. In the absence of that justification being given, people can't understand why things were decided as they were ...which is a prequisite for people respecting the stuff government tries to enforce.

Jefferson wasn't a christian.

He wasn't what we call a deist either, if you go by the dictionary definition.

All you need to do to know this is have a passing familiarity with the biblical text that's not broken by our internal biases and know somewhat of the man's personal private letters he wrote to friends and people he trusted.  https://www2.masters.edu/pulpit/files/2013/Truth-and-Life-'13/20130118-GreggFrazer-mp3

Hail Yeah Brothhhhhha

Thank you.

The seperatists came over to be allowed to establish what they believed was a purer church.

That does not mean they believed others should be allowed to have differing churches inside their political boundaries, especially not freely or openly.  They very much did not, they did not treat romans 13 and the other clear passages on the topics of who gets to enforce what as prescriptive.

They still let the world determine that for them, and they were - as virtually every single state had always been, going all the way back to the dawn of recorded history -  a sacral state. Where the state and the church were tied together in such a way that the state would only allow for that one church/religion.

This fact must be grasped or much of history is not understandable.

Roger williams did a great service to humanity by pushing away from the sacral state.

ETA: our leftists are right now trying to re-establish a new sacral state, with their worldview as the accepted religion.

(see inside the spoiler fold)
Click To View Spoiler

I believe it was meant  more as not creating a national religion like the “Church of England” . That is my uneducated thinking on it  but it does make sense to me .

Don't believe in luck, but moving forward I'm not promoting a "theocracy" like Iran, but one more like ancient Israel where the magistrate, for instance David, worked with the priests to help him rule the country. He had his duties and the priests had their duties. There was a separation, but not in an absolute sense...they worked together. I don't even propose a monarch, a constitutional republic if just fine, but on what precepts does the Christian desire his constitution to be based? One's that violate God's precepts. What can we learn from righteous Kings like Hezekiah or Josiah?

Not tortured at all, and you can freely enjoy your atheism.

A more accurate statement, I'll consent

I swear, some the the christians here worry a LOT about stuff. Must be tiring.

Except ...

The king was a moral step down.

Even the OT says this. Explicitly.

(I Samuel 8:4-18)
[4] Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah;
[5] and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.”
[6] But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD.
[7] The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.
Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day--in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods--so they are doing to you also.
[9] Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”

[10] So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king.
[11] He said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots.
[12] He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.
[13] He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers.
[14] He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants.
[15] He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants.
[16] He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.
[17] He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.
[18] Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

Theocracy has the church having access to the power of the sword.

If we are going to treat his word as authoritative, than we don't get to guess at stuff.

If the church were allowed to have access to the sword to enforce teaching, we would have to be able to find that in the meaning of the text. It is not there.

You cannot have a truly christian state without taking this seriously. You will have accepted something else besides God's revelation to man as your authority.


Ancient national israel, the political group God had that covenant with, ended. It no longer exists. God established no such covenant with any other political group. He has intead spread his rule worldwide, by other means, and has not empowered goverments to do it.

Government is here to make society possible.

ETA on the flipside, to repeat myself - government does not have the right nor the ability to define what is right or wrong. You have to be able to do that to make and apply law. God defines that and he has in his word.

yeah i don't get it

i'm a Christian and it give me a LOT LESS to worry about IMO.

i'm good with God which is very comforting.  

That part has zero to do with religion and everything to do with conflict of interest

Video because concepts and ideas aren't read

What conflict of interest, and pretty much everything in a Christians life has to do with religion. When the government makes law are they not telling us what is moral and required? I just happen to think Jesus is King....of everything, my God ruleth omnipotent. Don't all Christians think this?

Christians...are you enjoying be ruled over by heathen? Do you desire something else? Like godly men being in government? Did God chastise Israel severely with unrighteous kings like Ahab? Is He chastising us because we love a constitution that codifies pluralistic idolatry?

I love these threads - it's like watching Star Trek nerds argue over the definition of a Klingon word.

Well, you haven't said how I'm incorrect, please tell me?

The federal government is given specific powers by states

The states give up monies to fund this specific power

The arbiter of last resort to decide whether what the federal government did is Constitutional is the federal government itself.

That's my answer to the government question. The answer to your second question is that my only master is the God of creation, the heavens and the earth. This really isn't a hard concept to me. Ignore stupid government, get to know the creator of the universe better and contemplate his greatness. Easy.

I can't speak for others, but not worried at all. Christians have been talking about the relationship between the church and the state for a really long time. If you find it boring or whatever, then okie dokie.

Nope.

One is a written document, written by some VERY smart men.

The other is superstition & voodoo.

Yes, human kingship was a step down, I agree. But what do you desire, rank heathen like Biden having the sword or godly men, that fear the Lord to have the sword? That understand explicitly that they have limited sovereignty? Do you want a constitution to uphold the kingship of Christ and His moral laws or a constitution that violates said laws?

uh ...

NO.

The meaning of the text of cotus is what determines that.

As in any contract situation with multiple establishing parties, enforcing that always falls - ultimately - to the parties that made the thing.

One of the bigger reasons that our fedgov is a necrotic disaster ... is because it has been allowed to functionally determine what is and is not according to the constitution.

We may or may not ignore bad government, but does God? I don't think so. He has quite a bit to say about government in the OT and NT.

Trolls appear in the Norse Pagan religion and mythos.

Not very Christian, Tom.

Careful you will upset our resident atheists.

It wasn't merely a step down.

Look at the bolded part. It's clear.

It was a flat out rejection of God as king.

At this point, I suspect you are yanking my chain, because I have made my answer clear, multiple times, on what you have asked here. I don't think you'd be asking if you were reading what I posted instead of just skimming it. My nose is not tweaked about it or anything, but it's really odd on your part.


As for what sort of politicians?

(Exodus 18:13-23)
[13] It came about the next day that Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood about Moses from the morning until the evening.
[14] Now when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people, he said, “What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge and all the people stand about you from morning until evening?”
[15] Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God.
[16] When they have a dispute, it comes to me, and I judge between a man and his neighbor and make known the statutes of God and His laws.”
[17] Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “The thing that you are doing is not good.
[18] You will surely wear out, both yourself and these people who are with you, for the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone.
[19] Now listen to me: I will give you counsel, and God be with you. You be the people’s representative before God, and you bring the disputes to God,
[20] then teach them the statutes and the laws, and make known to them the way in which they are to walk and the work they are to do.
[21] Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens.
[22] Let them judge the people at all times; and let it be that every major dispute they will bring to you, but every minor dispute they themselves will judge. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you.
[23] If you do this thing and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all these people also will go to their place in peace.”

Lol.

John 8:7

Some seem to think I don't know what Psalm 2 is about. It's about Christ and God the Father's decree that He is the King of all the kings of the earth, that they should obey Him (kiss the son) or they will perish. That's just a quick go over, there's more to the Psalm.

I'm one of them.....I still think this thread is stupid though.

US Christians have a pretty bad persecution complex.