[QUOTE=Noushi]Umm, I've been tooling around the net doing some reading. Seperation of church and state seems to be an extension of americans' first amendment rights. As far as I can tell it's main purpose is to prevent government from having authority over religion, not vice versa.

ie it really has nothing to do with this debate. Just a sidenote.[/QUOTE]

It's a two-way street, yo. The founding fathers wanted to make sure that a) government wouldn't interfere with civil liberties and b) nothing would come between the will of the people and the legislators.

[QUOTE=super deluxe]I think (correct me if I'm wrong here and misinterpreting, Joz), that what he meant is that morality isn't always drawn from the Bible. Jefferson et. al. weren't Christians for the most part, they were deists. Their sense of
"morality" comes instead from French philosophers who theorized about the state of nature before there was a government. The idea was that in the state of nature certain overarching ideas prevailed, and that we still follow those. The purpose of government is to for people to give up some of their rights in order that the government protect them from other people taking their rights. This isn't really legislating morality, it's more enforcing a certain value system exchange (I don't think morals and values are the same at all).[/QUOTE]

Spot on :thumb:

I'd rep you again, but I can't :upset:

[QUOTE=super deluxe]I think (correct me if I'm wrong here and misinterpreting, Joz), that what he meant is that morality isn't always drawn from the Bible. Jefferson et. al. weren't Christians for the most part, they were deists. Their sense of
"morality" comes instead from French philosophers who theorized about the state of nature before there was a government. The idea was that in the state of nature certain overarching ideas prevailed, and that we still follow those. The purpose of government is to for people to give up some of their rights in order that the government protect them from other people taking their rights. This isn't really legislating morality, it's more enforcing a certain value system exchange (I don't think morals and values are the same at all).[/QUOTE]

first, no matter what they say those philosophers have mainly the same beliefs as what was layed down by God in Exodis and Levidicus.

lowsound

Hey guys

hey ry welcome to debate central, just join in if you are the political type

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]first, no matter what they say those philosophers have mainly the same beliefs as what was layed down by God in Exodis and Levidicus.

lowsound[/QUOTE]

But that doesn't mean anything.

They based their political philosophies on secular things. They didn't say "God believes life is sacred, therefore murder is illegal" or anything like that. They talked about our secular rights, and how they should be protected, and that is mainly where the founding fathers got their inspiration from, and that's what our government is based on, not morals or God.

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]first, no matter what they say those philosophers have mainly the same beliefs as what was layed down by God in Exodis and Levidicus.

lowsound[/QUOTE]

Uh, no not really. Thomas Hobbes says that in the state of nature, life is "nasty, brutish, and short", and people are constantly out to take advantage of each other. Without an overarching power to "keep them in awe" people will knock each other over the head and take stuff.

John Locke, on the other hand, has a state of nature where property conflict leads to the creation of the social contract.

Rousseau...well, it involves "happy savages"

It doesn't have anything to do with morality.

[QUOTE=The JoZ]But that doesn't mean anything.

They based their political philosophies on secular things. They didn't say "God believes life is sacred, therefore murder is illegal" or anything like that. They talked about our secular rights, and how they should be protected, and that is mainly where the founding fathers got their inspiration from, and that's what our government is based on, not morals or God.[/QUOTE]

but what you failed to see in my point is that the same things that are "secular" in there eyes are basicly the same thing that is stated in the bible. ya they might have "come up" with their own ideas and ideals but you can still see the root of it in the bible.

lowsound

hmm

[QUOTE=super deluxe]Uh, no not really. Thomas Hobbes says that in the state of nature, life is "nasty, brutish, and short", and people are constantly out to take advantage of each other. Without an overarching power to "keep them in awe" people will knock each other over the head and take stuff.

John Locke, on the other hand, has a state of nature where property conflict leads to the creation of the social contract.[/quote] this is addressed in number and deutarominy.[/quote]

Rousseau...well, it involves "happy savages"

It doesn't have anything to do with morality.[/QUOTE]

i never said that it did, i said "beliefs"

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]but what you failed to see in my point is that the same things that are "secular" in there eyes are basicly the same thing that is stated in the bible. ya they might have "come up" with their own ideas and ideals but you can still see the root of it in the bible.

lowsound[/QUOTE]

Just because something is in the Bible does not mean someone was inspired by it.

As SD pointed out, the Enlightenment thinkers did little to no talking about God. It was all about man.

yeah I would like to join in. The topic is morality?

I feel I should point out that the philosophers you're talking about tended to be religious men. John Locke has a publication entitled [i]The Reasonableness of Christianity[/i].

As to philosopher's tending to have the same views on morality as those laid down by the Bible, I find that an interesting statement. Ethics and morality are one of the largest branches of philosophy. This is not something that would happen if everyone shared the same beliefs.

[QUOTE=The JoZ]Just because something is in the Bible does not mean someone was inspired by it.

As SD pointed out, the Enlightenment thinkers did little to no talking about God. It was all about man.[/QUOTE]

man was created by God, since that is true all men have some knowlage about God and naturally some of our beliefs are bassed on this unknowingly

lowsound

[url]http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/heritage/heritage17.html[/url]
read up

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]this is addressed in number and deutarominy.[/quote]

Rousseau...well, it involves "happy savages"

It doesn't have anything to do with morality.[/QUOTE]

i never said that it did, i said "beliefs"

lowsound[/QUOTE]

I'm not buying it. The whole point of the Enlightenment is that thinkers based things in reason and empirical evidence. Each of those philosophers arrived at their ideas by a rational train of thought, not a "belief."

Also, I've read Numbers and Deuteronomy, and they're books of the Jewish law, not social contract theory...So if you could clarify that for me a bit I'd be interested.

Jesus guys...how many pages will this go on for? :lol:

[QUOTE=e p]yeah I would like to join in. The topic is morality?[/QUOTE]

it keeps changing, just join in when you feel like you have something to say.

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]man was created by God, since that is true all men have some knowlage about God and naturally some of our beliefs are bassed on this unknowingly

lowsound[/QUOTE]


(I dont know whats going on in this deabte here)

but I would like to point out that, unless I am misunderstanding you, saying that man was created by God being truth is a very brash statement.

[QUOTE=Noushi]I feel I should point out that the philosophers you're talking about tended to be religious men. John Locke has a publication entitled [i]The Reasonableness of Christianity[/i].

As to philosopher's tending to have the same views on morality as those laid down by the Bible, I find that an interesting statement. Ethics and morality are one of the largest branches of philosophy. This is not something that would happen if everyone shared the same beliefs.[/QUOTE]

But when it came to government, they kept religion out of it totally, or at least for the most part.

The main point was that religion should not be used to influence politics and legislation, and the fact that religious philosophers made lasting influences on politics, without having anything to do with religion, makes the point even stronger.

[QUOTE=wwjd388][url]http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/heritage/heritage17.html[/url]
read up[/QUOTE]


You have presented us with a link to a religious organization's agenda website, not exactly an unbiased report.

That don't fly.

[QUOTE=super deluxe]Rousseau...well, it involves "happy savages"

It doesn't have anything to do with morality.[/QUOTE]

i never said that it did, i said "beliefs"

lowsound[QUOTE]

I'm not buying it. The whole point of the Enlightenment is that thinkers based things in reason and empirical evidence. Each of those philosophers arrived at their ideas by a rational train of thought, not a "belief."

Also, I've read Numbers and Deuteronomy, and they're books of the Jewish law, not social contract theory...So if you could clarify that for me a bit I'd be interested.[/QUOTE]

in one of those book (or maybe the one after) there is a section about how the land is given out and how borrowing money and land should be delt with. it also states that if you sell land to someone of another tribe every 7 years it is transfered back to you. this was to make it so that one tribe could not over power others.

lowsound

hey guys.
got myself an Mp3player today :D
(yay Pantera everywhere)

[QUOTE=Valdris]hey guys.
got myself an Mp3player today :D
(yay Pantera everywhere)[/QUOTE]

warning political debate going on, join if you want

lowsound

It clearly doesn't look like a political debate to me. ;)

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]i never said that it did, i said "beliefs"

lowsound

in one of those book (or maybe the one after) there is a section about how the land is given out and how borrowing money and land should be delt with. it also states that if you sell land to someone of another tribe every 7 years it is transfered back to you. this was to make it so that one tribe could not over power others.

lowsound[/QUOTE]

Who's to say they didn't get that from the Egyptians or the Babylonians (a la Hammurabi?)

[QUOTE=e p]It clearly doesn't look like a political debate to me. ;)[/QUOTE]

are you cracked out?

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]warning political debate going on, join if you want

lowsound[/QUOTE]
sorry
*runs*
*Spektates*

[QUOTE=super deluxe]Who's to say they didn't get that from the Egyptians or the Babylonians (a la Hammurabi?)[/QUOTE]

acording to the bible, they got that from God.

lowsound

I think I'll stay out of this.

Who wants to have a YIM jam? I'm pretty bored.

[QUOTE=PaulSimonon]I think I'll stay out of this.

Who wants to have a YIM jam? I'm pretty bored.[/QUOTE]

you could join in then you wont be board

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]acording to the bible, they got that from God.

lowsound[/QUOTE]


If this is relevent, a lot of it has to do with cultural diffusion of the area with cultures such as Egyptian, Jewish, etc.

And before I meant to say this doesn't look like a political debate because it isn't. It's more of a religious/philosophical debate.

Dude, you're totally missing the point.

Even if these philosophers/leaders got their ideas from God, they didn't tell people how to behave because God said so.

[QUOTE=PaulSimonon]I think I'll stay out of this.

Who wants to have a YIM jam? I'm pretty bored.[/QUOTE]

Dude.

I need some recording equipment. Otherwise I would definately be there.

riley_wiggett

yim

i cant download it for some reason so i have to do it on emessenger. i dnno if it will work.
unless some one can send me the download thigny over msn....

[QUOTE=The JoZ]Dude, you're totally missing the point.

Even if these philosophers/leaders got their ideas from God, they didn't tell people how to behave because God said so.[/QUOTE]

how didn't they? God said not to kill, what is a law of the land. killing is illagal,

lowsound

[QUOTE=e p]If this is relevent, a lot of it has to do with cultural diffusion of the area with cultures such as Egyptian, Jewish, etc.
[/QUOTE]

it is possible that this policy was influenced by the Egyptians or Babylonians, however, that doesnt' sound like the sort of thing that woudl have happened in such patrilinear societies, where whatever you possessed was passed down to your sons....reverting land back to the original owner after seven years doesn't seem like an Egyptian or Babylonians practice

lowsound

It says you aren't on RTL.

[QUOTE=The JoZ]But when it came to government, they kept religion out of it totally, or at least for the most part.

The main point was that religion should not be used to influence politics and legislation, and the fact that religious philosophers made lasting influences on politics, without having anything to do with religion, makes the point even stronger.[/QUOTE]

My post was intended to point out that even though many philosophers were very religious that morals and ethics is still one of the most debated subjects.

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]how didn't they? God said not to kill, what is a law of the land. killing is illagal,

lowsound[/QUOTE]

But there is nothing on the books that says it's illegal [b]because God said so[/b]