Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Reductio ad absurdum and the Separation of Church and State
Philosophers tell us that Truth cannot contain falsity, so reductio ad absurdum is an argument that theists must be willing to answer. The Catholic Church having set precedents historically of taking over the Government (Machiavelli [the authoritative manual for opressors] writes that it was commonplace in Chapter 11 of "The Prince" to consider them legitimate Governments in their own right,) the Protestant Christian as well as the Catholic finds himself continually explaining to the Atheist that the Church is NOT taking over the Government, but if it did, it would not be the "end of the world." The most absurd reduction of the argument that Christianity is untenable, oppressive and intrusive is of course to force it to its most oppressive extreme. A similar reductio ad absurdum already exists for the Atheist: Communist government. In this context there are unrelated things that we should note ~Christ's government was not a commune or an ecclesia, but rather a Kingdom. Nor was it an earthly kingdom, or they would have made him King by force in Jno 6:15. [I believe that some Catholics call it 1st John, to distinguish it form 2nd, 3rd and 4th Johns.] As such, true Christianity does not threaten earthly Governments. ~Islam is probably subject to the same reductio ad absurdum argument, but doesn't shy away as readily as Atheism or Christianity from forcibly making the point in 'the temporal realm,' (as Machiavelli would have put it.) Islam would like to establish a worldwide Caliphate, and rule with Sharia law worldwide. ~The point of the founding Fathers was this: we have experienced in times past that Governemnts can be oppressive. Let's not let Atheism put Christianity out of business Judicially and Politically, only to face an Islamic Caliphate we both do not want. ~Study Machiavelli to avert opression, so that those who read it with the motive to opress will find their job more difficult. Solomon said that by the knowledge of God, the depths are broken up (Pr 3:20) - Knowledge is Power. ~Occassionally debate the Separation of Church and State publically - if we do not, the Devil will advocate his own play. To This point I have neglected to answer in another way the discussion of believers in Government. Prominent members of Government in History have been Christians. George Washington was a believer in God. So was Jefferson, however grudglingly (he was a Deist.) If the discussion of Slavery is the example of an oppression that God's government did not alleviate (based that the apostle Paul did not advocate insurrection,) some would argue that the Bible teaches slavery, and point to prominent historical figures who were Christian and held slaves. The question MUST be asked: When it was legal, is the Atheist the only person on earth who held no slaves? Is the Atheist the one who has fought for the liberty we all now share as Americans? Christianity is understood as a fight for liberty from sin. The opposite is slavery to sin (Jno 8:34.) If sin is not an option, one may be a slave to righteousness (Ro 6:18.) The fact is that God has given man choice in the matter, so that "...where the spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty," (2 Cor 3:17.) Philemon 1 is the closest the apostle Paul ever came to addressing the issue of Slavery directly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment