“Because secular society has no common goals it goes along with whatever force is at hand.”

The idea of “common goals” is interesting and tends to liken mankind, more to the social nature of ants, working within the framework of a “common goal” than the creatures which we are, distinguished from ants and “lower orders” of animals by our individual “freewill”.

A society moulded by a single hand, presumably with a “common goal”, such as a catholic society, did not produce better outcomes but if considered over the life of such church-state collaborations, produced and institutionalised the worst of “common goals” and a barbarous repression enforced with the use of terror and torture on a massive scale.

Just as the “Divine Right of Kings” carries little credence in these days of mere “constitutional monarchs”, contemporary society does not resemble the rigid and stratified structure of the middle ages society, where “scribes”, (who needed to also be priest in order to be allowed to read and write) were men of power, who used that power (the definition of the common goal) to institutionalise and inflict their monolithic religious views (the common goal) across society in general.

If the “price” for exercising “freewill” is the loss of the “common goal”, then it is a bargain, which every individual should be very pleased about.

“The church must get used to the fact that it exists as an alien body in a strange land.”

And on that note we can certainly agree.

(However, I still do not understand, why all the tax dispensations?)

Finally of God and Religion. Anyone who pretends they are the same is deluded.

We can each find our own way to God without the intercession of religions or the religious. What is in a mans heart is what matters. Not the robes, organisation or authority of any theology, Christian, Muslim, new or old.

The continual defining of "democracy" with other words, in this case "liberal democracy" simply demonstrates the main issue. We don't have democracy in Australia.

This writer defines our government type as liberal democracy. I would suggest oligarchy is closer to the truth.

I am also baffled by people who quote parts of the Bible or other books written by man as some sort of proof of a particular religion or point in history. The Bible is simply a collection of stories collected and collated a couple of hundred years after someone named Jesus was apparently preaching his idea of religion. Nothing more.

Interesting post sells. I agree with much of what you have said. My point of departure is the use of either or logic.

The church has indeed not done a great job of being a church, and there is a lot of focus on the culture war at the moment, with many evangelicals trying to transform the culture from a top down approach. To abandon all attempts at legislating good morals (as they are the best way for a society to prosper), or defending the existence of God is both unloving and foolishness. To ignore the great commission and loving our neighbour would also be unloving and foolishness.

It is only in the combination of the two can we truly be good and faithful servants, investing all the opportunities and talents wisely. To abandon the former will put Christianity on the same level as the flying spagetti monster, a hopelessly implausible story. To abandon the later, leaves the job half done, with no demonstration of the true power of God's grace.

Consider the parable of the sower, where some seed fell on rocky ground and some fell on good soil. Defending the existence of God and creating a moral society is like ploughing the ground to break up the rocks, so that it becomes good soil. The Christian community's witness of grace, love and truth is the throwing of the seed. Both aspects are needed.

It is interesting to note how atheists and secularists try to deny the Church of Christ a role in society. Their ill informed views of what the gospel of Christ is about as demonstrated by Col Rouge as he tries to identify it with some aspect of pseudo-Christian history. A history that has no resemblence to the teachings of Christ or the truth of the gospel.

Quote, "A society moulded by a single hand, presumably with a 'common goal', such as a catholic society, did not produce better outcomes but if considered over the life of such church-state collaborations, produced and institutionalised the worst of 'common goals' and a barbarous repression enforced with the use of terror and torture on a massive scale."

RobbyH is amazed that Christians quote the text of their belief. Again she is ill informed about the gospel of Christ and assumes it is merely a text and not an eternal grace of living.

Quote, "I am also baffled by people who quote parts of the Bible or other books written by man as some sort of proof of a particular religion or point in history. The Bible is simply a collection of stories collected and collated a couple of hundred years after someone named Jesus was apparently preaching his idea of religion. Nothing more.

It seems that this argument states that without Christ in our lives, all society would devolve into hedonistic, immoral ways.

Patently wrong.

Christ serves/served a purpose. In his time and intervening years, People less educated did not fully comprehend the complex world around them and their place in it. Hence a ‘guiding light’ in times of need. ‘God’ abated the fear of the times. Now, with education for all (well, sort of…) people are much better informed, the mind is capable of considered thought and people understand the world better.

So, where does this leave Christ? Obsolete? Mission accomplished? Somewhere in the middle?

We have left a man-made doctrine, based on documents and beliefs from a society with little understanding of the universe and less understanding of themselves. Holding onto these dogmas is limiting and damaging to both the world and the person.

To quote a not-so-great man “What is in a mans heart is what matters.” (Thanks Col). It’s the character that any God would be interested in, not how the dogma is slavishly followed or how hysterical one becomes in praising its name. If analysed, two are pretension and image only, the other has substance. Guess which.

Humans have ‘grown up’ and are capable of considered thought – both about the world and their place in it. People are capable of choosing a course of action – and to be held accountable for it. In those rare cases where responsibility can be shifted, there is the State to accommodate and find answers to remedying the shift in future.

To believe that a lack of religion (or belief in God) will lead to a ‘do as I feel’ society is insulting to the good, ethical people in it and blind to the fact that there are as many ‘religious’ people doing wrong as not.

Ethics/values/morals are followed and useful as they assist the individual as well as order society. Not because ‘someone told me to do it’. To believe humans aren’t capable of this on their own simply shows the lack of faith one actually has.

Excellent posts Reason and Col.

The foundation for morals/ethics that many religious people choose to ignore is that of philosophy. It is a method of rational inquiry into any issue.

In this case as a basis for moral and ethical values, philosophy is free of dogma; it allows people to ascertain for themselves a valid and meaningful way to exist in harmony with others and with the environment.

I am always insulted when it is argued that one cannot live a moral life without religion. This is a form of blackmail, which occurs frequently on this forum.

The beauty of philosophy is that it can be applied to any field of thought from science or politics through to religion itself.