[Mistagin]

A few responses:

Originally Posted by avb3

Religious leaders of nations have done such a great job over history, haven't they? Iran - religious leaders run it, Hitler, practicing Catholic, endorsed by Pope Pious the what ever number he was, King Henry the Eight, established Church of England, King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established the Spanish Inquisition.

All religious people. And let us not forget those wonderful religious leaders who sent children on a Crusade to get slaughtered.

Yeah, I feel really comfortable with the precedence set by leaders who are religious and use their religion to run their countries.

See my other post. I would argue there is plenty of precedent to be uncomfortable living under the rule of leaders who govern by the tenets of their atheism too!



Code of Hammurabi was in fact much more comprehensive as a civil law instrument then the 10 Commandments or many of the Moses statements. Much of the 10 commandments and Moses subsequent statements mirror the Code of Hammurabi.
Here is the 'chicken and egg' argument that always comes up in these sorts of discussions. Which came first. God's 'law' didn't come into existence when He gave it to Moses. It articulates something of the nature of God (justice, righteousness, goodness, love) and how humans ought to live in relationship with one another and God. And since God is always concerned for the well-being of people and that we live in good, productive, beneficial society, is it not logical to suggest that things like Hammurabi's Code and the 10 Commandments could have the same inspiring roots? That God communicated His desire for humans to develop good societies, thus the laws / moral codes to do so, to Hammurabi and others as well as Moses?

Your argument falls apart; lots of moral law available prior to the bible, laws that are still applicable today.
I don't think it's true to say my argument falls apart at all, although there are lots of moral law and code 'outside' or 'prior' to the Bible - in your way of thinking about it, it is true to say that 'ours' (Western) moral law and code is still based basically on Judeo-Christian tenets. And, speaking from a comprehensive Biblical Christian worldview, since God - as the Bible says - was 'in the beginning' - and since His law which is presented in the Bible is God's - then - logically - God's law was present 'in the beginning'. So from a Biblical Christian worldview God's law predates any and all humanly defined law or code.



Actually, as I indicated above, yeah, lots of harm is done in the name of religion. Many religious people do good, and so do some of the organizations, but that does not detract from the fact that much of the world's wars are and have been because of religious differences.
We can agree on this one - for sure. However, let's not forget that there are 'just' and right reasons to go to war. Nevertheless, war by it's nature is a breeding ground of evil.



I assume that means you hope to be one of the 144,000?
No, not all Christians hold to the number 144,000 being a literal number. I believe 144,000 is a symbolic number, as are a lot of numbers in the Bible. I believe it is intended to communicate absolute completeness, and refers to the total number of the saved. So in that regard, I don't "hope to be one of the 144,00 - I know I am . But there are others who look at that number literally. Can I offer a word of advice? I will anyway - please grow beyond your hangup on literalism - as I've pointed out, not all of the Bible is literal - or meant to be literal. Taking such a view towards it is extremely superficial and severely limits ones understanding of what God communicates in it.

Wasn't Calvin the one who copied Vlad Dracul of Transylvania and tortured some of those opposed to him, and then put their heads on a stake? Nice guy to model a religion after.

No. You are wrong on so many levels here. Dig deeper and find out who Calvin really was. He wasn't perfect and was complicit in the death of a man he and his community leaders in Geneva considered to be a heretic. Part of that can be attributed to the times. Calvin was a rather reluctant signatory to the order to that event and it was out of his hands.

Also, Calvin had no intentions of creating a 'religion' for others to follow, He, as did many other 'reformers' of his time, seeing the 'wrongs' in the church of his time, sought to reform the church, bring it back to the church as Jesus calls it to be. Calvin stood on the shoulders of godly people that preceded him, taking his understanding of theology right from the Bible and codified it systematically into a theological 'branch' called "Reformed". Today there are over 80 million people worldwide who look to him as a leader God provided in a particular time to help the church be a Christ following 'body' that honours God. Calvin was highly intellectual and logical in his approach and he was instrumental in developing and clarifying particular understandings of a Biblical Christian worldview. I am proud to claim him as part of my theological heritage. And I'm sure God said to him, when he arrived in heaven, "Well done, good and faithful servant!"