[avb3]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

Let's go out on a speculative limb here: if Jesus were the leader of our country would he, obviously being informed by his religious worldview, be, in your opinion, a good leader? A bad one?

One would probably have a rather dogmatic situation, and I'm not sure that is what we want. You know, certain inflexibilities. Apparently, he was not big on divorce (personally, I would prefer it did not exist, but fully understand why we need it).

He probably would shock a lot of Christians by changing the Sabbath back to Saturday. Most Christians of course don't know it was not changed until the 4th century. Can you imagine the discussions around that one?

His sermon on the mount seemed to hold a distaste towards wars. That would shock a bunch of people if that was brought into practise. I mean, one can only turn the other cheek for so long. What is the definition of insanity? Something about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

He would probably go back to that graven image thing, and outlaw all crosses, iconography and other paraphernalia of Christian religious emblems. Just saying, you know. If he's the one who made the law, you'd think he would follow it, right?

We would probably be stripped of our right to use pagan practises; you know, like the Christmas tree, Yule logs etc. There would probably be a realignment of religious holidays; I mean, let's face it, using the first Sunday after a full moon past the spring equinox as the basis for celebrating a resurrection sure seems very pagan like. That one would have to go, I'm sure.

We would certainly get a clarification of baby versus adult baptism. Gosh, that one subject alone can fill pages of discussion. Weird, huh, since all sects take there teachings from an inerrant bible.

There would be a clarification of which bible to use; Catholic Bible has more books then the Protestant, and then of course, the Mormons, who consider themselves as Christians, would get clarification on Moroni. Wouldn’t that be a shock to the system if the determination was that, yup, that vision is to be included.

I mean, let us think of all the similarities of various religions.

Moses went up on mountain, no witnesses, came back and said, hey, look what I have, these are God's laws.

Some time later, same part of the world, Mohammed went hiding in a cave, no witnesses, and the angel Gabriel came and revealed the koran to him.

Lo and behold, come about 1800 and something, the angel Moroni revealed itself to Smith, no witnesses, up on a mountain, gave him some golden tablets, and said build on that old stuff everyone believes in.

Abraham had a ton of visions with angels, but no witnesses.

BTW, when Jesus went and did his prayer stuff in the garden of Gethsemane, his disciples kept falling asleep, right? So who was the witness to what Jesus said and did, when all were sleeping? Hmmmm, curious, isn't it?

There sure is a whole bunch of mystical stuff that happens when there are no witnesses, don't you think? Tons of angels appearing to whisper stuff to men removed from those they preach to afterwards.

So, yeah, it would be quite a turmoil. I mean, just think of the mess our constitutional laws would be in. Separation of church and state? Phfffft... out the window. The Queen head of the Church of England... cancelled. Etc. Etc.

Calvin never did what you say he did, at least not personally. That does not say none of his followers did, and he objected vigorously.*

Lets just say most historians would say Calvin was deeply involved, to the point where his signature is on documents. “I was just following orders” was not an excuse at Nuremberg, nor is it here.

Right - so what produces that 'bad-ness'?

Including religious leaders? Egomaniacs, greed, jealousy, power, and control are a few of the things I can think of.

*- nah, you aren't God!!!

In light of our discussions here, I will refrain from commenting on any “oh my god” utterances that may have been moaned in my presence

How do we know right from wrong, and why don't we do right? How is it that we are doing a pretty good job at defining a civil society? What contributes to that? Does it have anything to do with particular worldviews? If so, which ones?

I kind of like Penn Jillette's 10 Suggestions:

• 1. The highest ideals are human intelligence, creativity and love. Respect these above all.
• 2. Do not put things or even ideas above other human beings. (Let's scream at each other about Kindle versus iPad, solar versus nuclear, Republican versus Libertarian,*Garth Brooks*versus*Sun Ra— but when your house is on fire, I'll be there to help.)
• 3. Say what you mean, even when talking to yourself. (What used to be an oath to (G)od is now quite simply respecting yourself.)
• 4. Put aside some time to rest and think. (If you're religious, that might be the Sabbath; if you're a Vegas magician, that'll be the day with the lowest grosses.)
• 5. Be there for your family. Love your parents, your partner, and your children. (Love is deeper than honor, and parents matter, but so do spouse and children.)
• 6. Respect and protect all human life. (Many believe that "Thou shalt not kill" only refers to people in the same tribe. I say it's all human life.)
• 7. Keep your promises. (If you can't be sexually exclusive to your spouse, don't make that deal.)
• 8. Don't steal. (This includes magic tricks and jokes — you know who you are!)
• 9. Don't lie. (You know, unless you're doing magic tricks and it's part of your job. Does that make it OK for politicians, too?)
• 10. Don't waste too much time wishing, hoping, and being envious; it'll make you bugnutty.

Pretty common sense stuff that would not be a bad foundation for any society, don't you agree?


We may disagree, but I do appreciate an honest debate. You will not change my mind, nor I yours, but it is good to discuss without getting into personalities.