Evidence for God from Science

Define common good.
In theory it is what is good for all.
In reality it is, at best, that majority deciding with is acceptable for the time, that will, hopefully, lead to a betterment of the lives of that majority.
How many times have the majority been wrong? does consensus equal being right? is what is good based on what the majority agree is good?
You see the slippery slope we get?

Sure. But the implication that tossing religion into the mix will somehow make it better is silly.

Ed: But the implication that tossing religion into the mix will somehow make it better is silly.

So, how would you define that - mixing religious beliefs with politics?

If people have whatever spiritual/religious beliefs, those are part of their makeup, how they think about issues. That would go equally for those whose religious beliefs are "none of the above" / that don't believe that there is anything more than nature. And both sets of people have various moral beliefs that stem from all sorts of influences. A huge problem with many with spiritual beliefs is whenever one group thinks that they should treat others who hold different beliefs than they do as inferior or with contempt, or want to marginalize them as to rights everyone else has. And that is often because religious affiliation becomes a useful political base from which right and wrong is often viewed as secondary in importance to whatever one's affiliation is - meaning, they overlook all manner of wrongful things and actions of people they consider their own/they self-identify with religiously. Christianity as modeled in the Bible asserts such petty, politically based religiosity is wrong. Period! So, whenever we see those identifying themselves as Christians, and they don't want to treat others fairly and as they would like to be treated, then you know they aren't living out their Christianity (that is, IF they are Christians) as per Scripture.

PaulSacramento wrote:Define common good.
In theory it is what is good for all.
In reality it is, at best, that majority deciding with is acceptable for the time, that will, hopefully, lead to a betterment of the lives of that majority.
How many times have the majority been wrong? does consensus equal being right? is what is good based on what the majority agree is good?
You see the slippery slope we get?

It is a slippery slope, I agree.
History has shown us many examples of majority being wrong. Slavery has been brought up in this thread and is a the perfect example of how a ingrained belief held by the majority was morally wrong. Brave individuals, many of them Christians slowly, with so much persecution brought about a change.
It took a social and moral compass, that the pioneers to the cause paid dearly for to slowly bring about a societal change. Slavery was abolished though in the end due to the shift in belief by majority.
Ironically though every contentious issue of this decade is either political or religious. I'm not sure it's ever been any different.
Slavery was allowed for so long because of religious ideology and politics.
If a democracy is worth its value it has to reflect the majority otherwise the even slipperier slope is dictatorship. It's placing the moral compass unto a few and every model in history has shown this is a slippery slope that leads to disaster for a society.
The greater evil is often discussed and whilst democracy has it's flaws it is our best model. It takes into account every voting individual. Every religion, every moral compass, every political persuasion. If society votes by general consensus for an outcome regardless of whether we agree every single time the outcome is preferable and safer for society at large than a select few making those decisions.
A majority being wrong paves the way for a shift in thought and majority being right. We've seen this time and time again. It's not a perfect system but it's a close as we can hope for.
The alternative....to take away the majority, the general consensus and leave policy to a select few is dangerous, much more so than the current model.
It's a recipe for disaster.

RickD wrote:

melanie wrote:I don't think liberal, progressive, conservative, Marxist, communist, nationalist, socialist or any other political persuasion has any biblical conjecture what so ever.
I think it's disingenuous to suggest scripture backs any political persuasion or dismisses another.
I think Jesus was pretty clear in His message that the matters of heaven and heart were His agenda.
Back then Jesus held no affiliation to anything political or to government..... What an insult to suggest in the 21st century that would be any different.

The problem with that Mel, is that conservatism, progressivism, communism, Marxism, etc., aren't purely political movements. They're philosophical as well. Which would mean that scriptural arguments can be made for or against certain ideas within those systems.

Personal conviction which is for some steeped in religion and scripture will never escape the political arena. Nor should it.
It is for many the basis of their political persuasion. Or a major contributing factor.
But it is so subjective......
What makes one person vote a particular way based on scripture can be the exact contributing scripture/factor that makes another vote the exact opposite.
So arguments can be made based on the bible, but to be honest in that delivery in must be done in a manner of personal humility. Not as an all encompassing scriptural view of biblical text and therefore the Christian moral political agenda.
That is what I take offense too....
And moreover I think it's disingenuous and not in line at all with scripture or the teachings of Jesus.

melanie wrote:

RickD wrote:

melanie wrote:I don't think liberal, progressive, conservative, Marxist, communist, nationalist, socialist or any other political persuasion has any biblical conjecture what so ever.
I think it's disingenuous to suggest scripture backs any political persuasion or dismisses another.
I think Jesus was pretty clear in His message that the matters of heaven and heart were His agenda.
Back then Jesus held no affiliation to anything political or to government..... What an insult to suggest in the 21st century that would be any different.

The problem with that Mel, is that conservatism, progressivism, communism, Marxism, etc., aren't purely political movements. They're philosophical as well. Which would mean that scriptural arguments can be made for or against certain ideas within those systems.

Personal conviction which is for some steeped in religion and scripture will never escape the political arena. Nor should it.
It is for many the basis of their political persuasion. Or a major contributing factor.
But it is so subjective......
What makes one person vote a particular way based on scripture can be the exact contributing scripture/factor that makes another vote the exact opposite.
So arguments can be made based on the bible, but to be honest in that delivery in must be done in a manner of personal humility. Not as an all encompassing scriptural view of biblical text and therefore the Christian moral political agenda.
That is what I take offense too....
And moreover I think it's disingenuous and not in line at all with scripture or the teachings of Jesus.

I see what you're saying. The same bible, which was used by abolitionists to justify the rights of African slaves, was also used by slave owners, to justify owning slaves.

yes, exactly.
And with most issues there is a similar conundrum; a biblical ideal can be drawn from either side

melanie wrote:yes, exactly.
And with most issues there is a similar conundrum; a biblical ideal can be drawn from either side

Sure. Just like liberals twist scripture to fit their worldview.

Well, there are verbatim Scriptural absolutes so clearly stated that they should transcend reasonable opinion (need for Salvation, what that means, Who God is, what happened to Jesus / the Cross and Resurrection, that Jesus was also fully God). And then there are the relentless but understandable debatables - OEC vs. YEC, etc.

Philip wrote:So, how would you define that - mixing religious beliefs with politics?

Not religious beliefs, religion. Obviously everybody has beliefs and their political judgements are impacted by those beliefs. It couldn't be otherwise.

Where things get ugly is when religious groups start diving into the political arena and vice versa. Religion turns politicians into inflexible zealots and politics turns sincerely religious people into ruthlessly unprincipled pragmatists.