tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post7492681287470812559..comments2024-03-28T21:32:26.550+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: What is 'a Christian society'? - the example of a supreme courtBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-89522142684801770212013-10-04T18:36:24.193+01:002013-10-04T18:36:24.193+01:00@Ag - Hey, we agree! Must be true...
@Ag - Hey, we agree! Must be true...<br /><br />Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-75371784797204863012013-10-04T18:18:50.401+01:002013-10-04T18:18:50.401+01:00I have arrived at what I believe is almost the sam...I have arrived at what I believe is almost the same conclusion. When I say that Christians should want the government to be subject to God, even other Christians say that's a bad idea because having the Church mixed up in government inevitably corrupts the Church. <br /><br />But the Church doesn't have to run the government. The Church has always believed that Church and civil government are two different spheres of governance. But at the very least, a Christian should want the government to be subject to the Church in the sense of the Church being empowerd to tell the government when a law, in principle (not necessarily in outcome), violates Christian morality.Agelliushttp://agellius.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-13607554718738486312013-10-04T15:17:18.428+01:002013-10-04T15:17:18.428+01:00Let us extend this. In the absence of an encompass...Let us extend this. In the absence of an encompassing coherence to secular law, what principle, goal or ideology can be used to make it consistent (or at least not random)? Racial nationalism is one, what is best for the race? Then there is humanism, perhaps the strict opposite, what is best for everyone in the world? In practice this translates as what is best for the other. Nihilism is discarded prima facie.<br /><br />Immediately a problem stands out; how do you decide what is best even within these frameworks? Is the overriding goal to reduce harm as much as possible? To make the most amount of people happy? To ensure genetic hygiene? To keep the community as stable as possible? Every philosophical solution to these questions ends up dealing in absolutes. They have absolutely no flexibility and as a result suffer in practice.<br /><br />The only answer is religion, it is the only thing that offers stability at the top, under which pragmatism can be exercised. An irreligious society can simply not work, it will eventually collapse under the weight of its contradictions. The sacred can exist and function despite contradiction. It functions organically, whereas secular structures are mechanical.Luqmannoreply@blogger.com