You’ll also argue that Rome didn’t have generals.
There is no escaping the connection between Judeo-Christian religion and the emergence of what we consider western, liberal societies.
There is more to it than that. I will say Judeo-Christian teachings were part of it, but also the political ideologies of the Enlightenment. Such as the philosophies of John Locke, Voltaire, and Montesquieu.
Theistic rationalism is the true basis for modern western secular society in my opinion.
Luckily for Enlightenment thinkers, their ideas were tolerated in the Judeo-Christian societies they took shape in.
It’s a good thing Europeans were guided out of Norse religions, Celtic polytheism, druidry, Slavic paganism, and steppe nomadic mysticism. Locke would have had a tough sell if those populations weren’t converted centuries prior.
He would also have a tough sell in much of the world today.
Back to my over-arching point, there’s nothing imaginary about people’s deeply held beliefs about the supernatural. They shape our world.
One could argue it’s the influence of the pagan societies that adopted Christianity on Christianity which allowed the emergence of western societies as we know them. It’s not as if the Roman Empire adopted Christianity and had a total reset.
What exactly were Jesus’ opinions on freedom of speech, the press and gun ownership? Democracy?
Western culture’s greatest debt is to philosophy and that was a Greek invention. What exactly does the Bible have to teach us about logic?
Tell that to Spinoza.
I have never heard anyone classify the actual belief held by people as imaginary - just what is believed in.
I am tempted to agree with you, but where modern liberal society has headed… I am not so sure anymore.
Well we’re witnessing what happens to our society when people abandon religion. Other forces are in play for sure, but our society was much healthier, physically and figuratively, when belief in God and Christian thought was at the center of it.
Arguing atheistically, if I have to choose my neighbor, a devout Christian would be high on the list.
Portland OR, Seattle WA and San Francisco are the least religious large cities in the USA, for the record. Their policy priorities are very different.
1 Like
I just cannot help but responding. 
Luke 22:36, “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
I know that a sword isn’t quite the same as a gun. But you do with the sword as you see fit, considering that it was a very capable self defense weapon of that day.
Matthew 26:52
Matthew 26:52, “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
And where was the place of Peter’s sword? The Jerusalem Pawn Shoppe? “Put up again:” back from where he drew it.
John 18:10, "Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath.…"
You realize that your interpretation means we can bear arms but not use them.
You are making the mistake of trying to connect our concept of rights, which limit what the government may do with regard to citizens, to a theological concept of what is permitted by God.
1 Like
This is a pragmatic statement very much like Matthew 7:1, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”
If you judge people, you too will be judged by others.
If you fight with a sword, you too will be fighting with another using a sword.
I would choose someone like me.
I don’t give a flying fuck about religion and just want to be left alone.
But, I will help anyone that asks for it - if I can.
My area is the bible belt and I would not want a lot of these folks as neighbors… lol.
1 Like
I get it. I moved away from the bible belt as a young man. Now, as I live in a state where policy priorities that aren’t compatible with Christianity are implemented and having a profound effect on the lives of me and my loved ones, I am giving serious thought to returning to the bible belt. Not for any religious reasons, but for practical considerations surrounding affordability, opportunity, quality-of-life and social conditions.
If you want to be left alone, Christians are pretty good about that in most respects if you compare them to other religions. They are particularly good about that if you compare them to atheist societies, who absolutely don’t leave you alone. Or your kids. Again, it isn’t a coincidence that liberal thought sprung up and took root in Christian societies, where you can have these sort of ideas without getting your head lopped off or similarly dire consequences.
Back to the thread topic, there’s a reason that Muslims can live happy, productive lives in Israel, and it has everything to do with the religious teachings and traditions they base their society upon. They could have all fled to Gaza if they wanted to live under theocratic despotism, but they didn’t.
1 Like
Or, maybe it’s about being judged by God.
But only one might die in this scenario. Jesus says all will die by the sword.
1 Like
I would bet those policies aren’t compatible with common sense, not just Christianity.
The same teachings and traditions that led to the Crucifixion? Israel’s government and its policies owe more to modern Western values than the Torah.
To add to your Bible lesson:
We need to look further concerning judgment from God.
Hebrews 9:27, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:”
No. Whether you judge others or not, once you die, you will face judgment from God.
Now we need to determine what “they that take the sword” means. I have picked up a very nice sword, but I would say that I will not likely perish with the sword. A large number of people have picked up a sword. Will all of those perish with the sword? So that is not likely to be the meaning.
“Take the sword” must have a specific meaning. There is a little hint at Bible word meaning that is called “The Rule of First Mention.” That is, if you want a little more information as to a word’s meaning and significance, there is much that might be found with the first use of that word in the Bible.
“Take” is first mentioned in Genesis 3:22 after Adam and the woman have eaten fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the LORD God is passing judgment on them.
Genesis 3:22, "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"
This is not eating a single piece of fruit from the tree of life, for Adam and the woman, had been doing that every day before this event. Here “take” means live on the fruit from the tree of life. The LORD God drove them out of the garden that had the tree of life so that they could not “take” (or live) on the fruit of the tree of life.
So, it could be interpreted that all they that live by the sword shall perish with the sword.
Ahhh, but Jesus said you will be judged by the same standards you judged others.
The problem with this approach is that it disregards the fact that Genesis is from the Old Testament while the Gospels are from the New Testament. There are many centuries in between the the two books and language changes over time. You are also using a translation, of which there are several versions.
The rule of first mention only makes sense if the same people, in the same period, wrote all of the books of the Bible. What you’re doing is like comparing Beowulf to The Mayor of Casterbridge.
This only works if one believes the Bible is univocal in nature. It’s most certainly not. Univocality is something imposed onto the text by followers of it.
Even within single books of the Bible it is not univocal. The first story of creation is actually 2 separate accounts, with Genesis 1 added to later editions of the text.
That is what He said,
Matt 7:1, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
But the judgment from God is spelled out for those who don’t make the Judgment Seat of Christ in Rev 20:11-15. summed up in verse 15 as “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” There is no mention in those verses as to how the person judged anyone else.
And yet, isn’t it remarkable how much it helped to understand “take the sword?” Which you clearly didn’t seem to understand. BTW, I didn’t either until today when Genesis 3:22 added some clarity.