NBC Offends Christians Again

[Dr. Shane]

The Religious Right is not trying to force anyone to accept Christ. There are trying to pass legislation based on Christian principles. And, of course, Ellen White supported that in general. Our cause for concern is when they try to control the relationship between an individual and God.

We see this happening in many countries. In some countries a church must regestar and be approved by the state. In some countries certain religions are forbidden. In some countries evangelism is forbidden - which includes handing out literature or broadcasting radio and/or TV.

[Nicodema]

Shane, 501©(3) status in our country poses a great threat to this relationship between the individual and God, because the government can essentially use it as a point to strongarm churches and other non-profit orgs who cannot afford to operate effectively without it. The interest and dictates of the government will always prevail over ANY organization that wishes to enjoy 501©(3) status, and they will of necessity curry favor, and compromise with, the State to retain it.

[Dr. Shane]

I disagree. I suspect the Christians in China or parts of the muslem world would be more than happy to operate without 501©(3) status.

Also note that even if the government will not grant 501©(3) status to a group - perhaps because they are afflicated too much with a political party - they are still free to buy property, evangelize and worship God as they desire.

[Nicodema]

I was talking about OUR nation, Shane, and the difficulties that could attend those who now enjoy 501©(3) status. Going from a budget based on such a status to one that is not is quite a hefty transition. Most would not be able to afford it, I would think.

[Dr. Shane]

The whole 501©(3) is based on a religious belief and zealous defenders of seperation between church and state may want to oppose it.

The idea is that a church's money is God's money. So we make churches tax-exempt because since God's authority is higher than man's authority, man doesn't have the right to tax God. Non-religious charities have been and still are allowed to gain this status which may make it less offensive but is based on a respect for religion.

So are bankruptcy and collections laws. The Bible requires us to forgive a debt after seven years.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Quote:

---

you are saying that the central issue here is NOT one of character/spirit -- the desire to coerce the consciences of others -- but rather one of whether the specific legislation is "against the Law of God"?

---

BINGO! ... Christ died on the cross because He couldn't change the law of God. We are not opposed to laws that regulate behavior between man and his/her fellowman. We are opposed to laws that regulate behavior between man and God. Earthly governments have the right to pass laws that regulate behavior between their citizens. They do not have the right to pass laws to regulate behaviors between their citizens and God.

---

Yes but who is going to define which issues are "religious" in nature and thus matters of behavior between individuals and their God, and which are matters answerable to the State? You mention baptism rites, etc. in the last paragraph of your post, below:

Quote:

---

The govenment doesn't have the right to pass a law that mandates everyone support a church, requires church membership in order to hold public office

or forbid a religious rite like baptism.

---

The fact of the matter is that marriage is also a religious rite and how it is defined varies from faith to faith as well as from denomination to denomination within Christianity, even. This takes marriage OUT of the realm of traffic laws, property laws, etc. and places it FIRMLY within the realm of religious liberty.

There is a very excellent article on this in Spectrum which I strongly recommend you read:

Click Marriage: A Religious Liberty Issue?

[Dr. Shane]

Marriage involves two people so it is about behavior between two people and thus is within the jurisdiction of the civil government to regulate.

Consider the case of some ancient religions that practiced human sacrifice. That religious practice is forbidden in most countries today and it is within the jurisdiction of the civil government to forbid it because it involves behavior between two people.

Religious liberty issues that are dealt with in our world today are governments that do not allow Bibles, do not allow Christians to assemble together, do not allow Christian baptism or communion and do not allow evangelism.

Assembly is a behavior involving more than one person, however when people are assembling for worship it becomes an issue between the individuals and their god. If they assemble to plot against the government or such, then the civil government has the right to regulate that.

In the US, religious liberty abounds. It is hard for us to even grasp religious persecution. Note that the liberal churches that marry gay people are allowed to do so. The government doesn't step in and stop it. Those marriages are valid within that denomination. Just because the government doesn't recognize the marriages as being legal does not take away from the fact that the denomination is allowed to perform and recognize them within their religion.

[Dr. Shane]

I will start a new thread in the Religious Liberty section regarding Gay Marriage and Religious Liberty.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Marriage involves two people so it is about behavior between two people and thus is within the jurisdiction of the civil government to regulate.

---

No it isn't. Marriage involves an issue of religious liberty as it is defined by religious texts. I take it you did not read the article.

[Dr. Shane]

I did read the article and started a new thread in religious liberty.

We can discuss it more there.