Replies

Jesus however enforces nothing.. He changes the individual not his circumstances.. Morality then comes from the inside out, not from the outside in..

This is the crucial point, the root of Christian faith. CG apparently sees morality as a bunch of pesky "rules" being imposed on one from outside. Christianity, in stark contrast, sees morality as flowing from the order of the person; i.e., from the inside out, as you so astutely note hosepipe. When we allow ourselves to be drawn by God via the Holy Spirit, we find our hearts have been changed, and we "turn around" our lives, and are born again. This is rebirth in the Spirit, the renewal of our communion with God destroyed by Adam's fall. We order our being according to God's Truth -- voluntarily for the love of Him -- which He reveals both in the holy scriptures and in the natural world. This, then, is the true source of morality.

Morality is thus a disposition of personal character, not servile surrender to "whimsical" rules imposed by powerful mortals, theist or atheist.

Jesus draws us; He does not "order us to do this or not to do that." He came -- as you've astutely noted elsewhere hosepipe -- not to establish a religion, but to establish a thriving human family. Unlike the case of the human family (into which we are simply born and have no say about who our relatives are), this is a "family" that one is free to join or not join, as the case may be. There is no coercion, nor could there ever be.

For CG to imagine that Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell coming to power would mean the forced establishment of a theocracy is simply ridiculous. The love of God cannot be coerced; the desire to live in communion with him cannot be coerced. Does CG think these men are so abysmally stupid that they don't know that? Christians know that the imposition of religion is simply an exercise in futility.

"CG apparently sees morality as a bunch of pesky "rules" being imposed on one from outside."

Again, you assume too much. Par for the course.

" Jesus draws us; He does not "order us to do this or not to do that."

And if we disobey his orders, we burn in Hell. Nope, not orders at all....

"Unlike the case of the human family (into which we are simply born and have no say about who our relatives are), this is a "family" that one is free to join or not join, as the case may be. There is no coercion, nor could there ever be."

No coersion other than *Join or burn in Hell!*.

"For CG to imagine that Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell coming to power would mean the forced establishment of a theocracy is simply ridiculous."

Only if you ignore their words.

"The love of God cannot be coerced; the desire to live in communion with him cannot be coerced."

People can be coerced to follow the rules of someone else's religious faith. That's a fact.

" Does CG think these men are so abysmally stupid that they don't know that? "

Yes, I do. Theocracy has been attempted before; it's a fact in the Middle East. Are you so blind to think it couldn't be attempted here?

"Christians know that the imposition of religion is simply an exercise in futility."

Not all Christians know this.

Christianity, in stark contrast, sees morality as flowing from the order of the person; i.e., from the inside out... When we allow ourselves to be drawn by God via the Holy Spirit, we find our hearts have been changed, and we "turn around" our lives, and are born again...
Morality is thus a disposition of personal character, not servile surrender to "whimsical" rules imposed by powerful mortals, theist or atheist...

Jesus draws us; He does not "order us to do this or not to do that"... There is no coercion, nor could there ever be... The love of God cannot be coerced; the desire to live in communion with him cannot be coerced... Christians know that the imposition of religion is simply an exercise in futility.

I just thought this all deserved to be repeated.

There are different levels of morality. There is morality that is imposed by force, there is morality that rises from fear, there is morality that rises from reason and experience, and there is morality that rises out of love.

All different, all have their place, but the last two flow from the inside out. And of the last two, even a morality rooted in reason and experience is insufficient, except as that reason and experience are informed and guided by love.

This kind of morality is voluntary, it is freely chosen, it is a mark of character. No one can impose it.

How does any of this relate to civil and criminal law? In a civil society, laws are inevitably made by humans in order to govern themselves, to prevent collisions between free people, and to set the rules for solving collisions when they occur.

If those rules are rooted in morality and in reason, they are generally respected; where they are not, they must be imposed by force. Separating law from reason and morality only guarantees that people will lose respect for law.

A corollary to this is that people whose morality flows from the inside out need fewer laws, and less force behind those laws. Freedom rests upon self-government, and the ability to govern oneself is in the end, moral.

Laws that people impose on themselves "democratically" will inevitably reflect the attitudes of the people there. When people generally agree that Sunday should be set aside, you will have "blue laws". When over time attitudes change, and Sunday's religious significance becomes less important, "blue laws" fade away into history.

When you're talking to someone who resents the influence of morality in law, its always helpful to define which laws are so troublesome. In the end, in a free society, laws will always reflect the personality and character of the people who made them. So divorce might be difficult in Ireland and easy in Sweden; killing sick people might be difficult in Italy and easy in Holland. Since laws always reflect the moral attitudes of the people that make those laws and live under those laws, it is inevitable that they will differ from place to place and people to people.

That this is so is not a limitation of freedom, but an expression of it.