Alternative christian sects section?

[Dor]

I was not saying we should judge. Wil said would he wait for us to understand and I was saying no he was not worried about telling us we were wrong or calling us out.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Cyberpi!

But the relevance I find in the statement, "Christ (pbuh) defines Christianity" is that people do struggle and argue with the definition of who or what a Christian or Christianity is. If someone makes an 'alternative' or 'Liberal' Christian sect section, then they are just trying to define what a Christian is and to categorize the beliefs of others by it.

Well, in some sense I agree. What does one do when a select group who pretty well self-define and self-relate petition for a separation? CR has not always had the segmented Christianity boards. Way back (oh boy, does that make me sound old...) when I first got here, there were the three Abrahamic faiths (not counting the other boards, who haven't really changed much) combined with Bah'ai. When the Rasta and Hari Krishna boards opened, Brian felt it best to move them to a "modern" board.

All of the fuss in the Christianity board is only about a year or so old. We're trying to find a way to deal with it as painlessly as possible, and so far it has not been very pretty. To appease some means stepping on others' toes, and it can't be helped. Of course, the lunatics could run the asylum, and let all hell break loose. But I think the intent of this site is to allow cooler heads to prevail and encourage peaceful interaction among faiths. Not that there would be no disagreement, but that disagreement would be respectful.

In my opinion, based on experience here, there are two distinct groups that will likely never see eye to eye. They have been called by a number of names here: Mainstream / Liberal, Errant / Inerrant, Traditional / "Modern", Enlightened / Closed Minded. What it boils down to is those who hold the Bible as written as Sacred, and those who are more willing to pull from outside sources. Canonical, and Non-Canonical. That is the borderline.

The desire is to separate alledged Christian sects from alledged non-Christian sects... or to separate "WE" from "THEM". I don't recognize those divisions.

Cool. Officially this site does not recognize "we" from "them" either. Can't help what individual participants do.

They are NOT the divisions that Jesus described in the Gospels. I don't see where Jesus (pbuh) defined an alternative Christian. I don't see where he defined a Liberal or a Conservative Christian.

Yet, Jesus did differentiate. He did not take His message directly to the Gentiles, He saved that mission for Paul. He only interacted on occasion with those outside of Judaism; and most of those came to Him, not Him to them. I dare say, were He to pick up where He left off today, I doubt He would recognize the religious faith that started from His teachings. Whether that is good or bad remains to be seen, but as Christians our hope is that Christianity has evolved in good ways.

So I say with conviction that it is Jesus Christ (pbuh) who defines what a Christian is. Nobody here... take the argument to him.

In concept I agree. So, how does one deal with a Christian who doesn't do things quite the way *you* do? As an example, does it offend that I and others do not put "(pbuh)" behind His name? That was not one of His teachings. So, while one might make a lofty claim that Jesus defines the faith, which in concept I can agree with (and I think most Christians would agree with), the trouble lays in interpretation. Perhaps, does it occur to you, that what you are calling Jesus' definition, is really your interpretation? None of us were there to hear Him speak, and He is not present with us in a form we can ask, to learn what He may have actually meant.

Then, there are those that question whether the words are even His...what do we do with them?

So my advice to this forum is that if posts get clogged into repeating subjects, then just break the forum into sub-forums based on those subjects, rather than by sect. Like: Trinity, Paul, EOD, abortion, SOG vs isG, what is Holy Spirit, other Gospels...whatever. They are recurring themes.

Actually, I like this suggestion. I think it might create an administrative nightmare, but I like the basic concept. Take it to Brian if you would like, the feedback board is for just such suggestions.

Rather than define something truly obscure like a 'liberal Christian' and placing it outside of the Abrahamic religions all together as some sort of delinquent child, I'd vote to bring it back in and to organize sub-forums by subjects rather than by sects. Invite any and all people to discuss issue by issue

That invitation is there already. The only caveat ever asked was respect and politeness, with the delineation of canonical / non-canonical. The struggle came about from those who felt put upon because non-canonical views were not well received. This is an integral part of some Christian denominations, and would be the equivalent of using sources outside the Quran and Hadiths to criticize those texts...fightin' words among some, would you not agree? Therefore, the "Liberal" Christians pretty well self-defined, and sought a place of their own.

because the reality is that it IS a free-for-all. Life is a free-for-all.

Perhaps parts of the world are in a state of "free-for-all," but they are also in a state of anarchy and incivility. Polite society is *not* a free-for-all, that is called "good manners."

Further, I fail to see where a "free-for-all" attitude is conducive to *peaceful* interaction, among faiths let alone within a faith.

Error on the side of lenience and compassion.

The staff here do that very thing.

I find some relevance and corresponding verses in the Gospels in a couple of the listed 'alternative' sects that I'd like to discuss someday. Not now.

Why do you have a problem with discussing those issues where they are at? The "mainstream" board has taken a long time to build, by a lot of dedicated, long term contributors. That is something some of the newcomers fail to realize and turn a deaf ear to. The subjects desired to be discussed in the Liberal forum are there for a reason...they pose a threat of disrespect. One does not profane the name of Mohammed on the Islam board, yet there are those who are perceived to profane the name of Jesus, on the Christianity board no less. This was not acceptable. The current situation is the best fix possible under the circumstances, circumstances *requested by those who self-identify as Liberal Christians.* Give credit where credit is due...

The Liberal board is for discussion of non-Orthodox points of view, and non-canonical "scriptures" and "commentary." No one is exiled to that board, they are free and welcome to participate here...but with the understanding that certain subjects are considered disrespectful. Those subjects can be freely discussed there without fear of reprisal from the more orthodox point of view. There have been some rather nasty discussions and wars of words that no doubt would have come to blows had the participants been face-to-face. That is what we are trying to avoid.

Respect is about manners. I respect you because you respect me...if I disrespect you, you aren't going to take it well, no matter how good my intentions. I should ask apology.

Now, if I continue to disrespect, or do so deliberately, then all bets are off...explain please how disrespect leads to peaceful interaction? It doesn't.

This place is not a free-for-all, regardless of the outside world. The outside world is full of enough war and strife and disharmony and ill manners. This is a place first for peace and civility. Don't care what the opinions are.

Hope that helps.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Dor!

I was not saying we should judge. Wil said would he wait for us to understand and I was saying no he was not worried about telling us we were wrong or calling us out.

You're quite right, of course. I merely saw an argument I see sometimes to jsutify judgemental reasoning. I did take it a little out of context only because it illustrated so well what I have been trying to get across of late.

Like I said, I was not scolding you in any way.

And I agree, Christ will tell us when we are out of line. We might not understand the message, or even refuse to hear. But I know many times in my life when I have gone against my better judgement with my conscience screaming at me, I have come to regret it.

Yes, Jesus lets us know when we are out of line.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

The rules for this section are quite clear. There are certain tenents that this section takes as 'gospel' and those are sacred. Then there is a whole field of nuance to be discussed. As I see it anyone can discuss the nuance here, while respecting the tenents. ie you can't rip anyones carpet out from under them in any of the walled gardens. If you want to say their religion is poppycock, then go do it from someplace else...but it obviously won't spur intelligent discussion...just more knife throwing and sabre rattlin.

Exactly.

Now on the Liberal board...in my view, and only my view, you can discuss anything pertaining to Christianity, you can question anything...I think that leads to growth and understanding. But what you can't/shouldn't do is indicate that someone is wrong and you are right because of a tenent that is accepted someplace else...this is discussion.

I could be naive, but I think we can all play fair....if we can't, who can?

I agree, all the way around.

I really have high hopes for the liberal board, I want to see it expand and grow. It takes effort. It doesn't happen overnight.

If I might offer a friendly suggestion, it would help if there were more effort spent on thoughts and concepts, and less about what others "are" or think. It didn't take me long to realize I was not welcome. Be that as it may...

 

[Dor]

Hey I am just glad someone posted there since I did.
I was afraid I broke the board posting on it.

 

[juantoo3]

Hey I am just glad someone posted there since I did.
I was afraid I broke the board posting on it.

Yeah, funny how that works...

 

[Prober]

Kindest Regards, Cyberpi!

What it boils down to is those who hold the Bible as written as Sacred, and those who are more willing to pull from outside sources. Canonical, and Non-Canonical. That is the borderline.

Love the way you pull that thought together. It's what I've been thinking but couldn't think of a way to say.

 

[Saltmeister]

The Liberal board is for discussion of non-Orthodox points of view, and non-canonical "scriptures" and "commentary." No one is exiled to that board, they are free and welcome to participate here...but with the understanding that certain subjects are considered disrespectful. Those subjects can be freely discussed there without fear of reprisal from the more orthodox point of view. There have been some rather nasty discussions and wars of words that no doubt would have come to blows had the participants been face-to-face. That is what we are trying to avoid.

Respect is about manners. I respect you because you respect me...if I disrespect you, you aren't going to take it well, no matter how good my intentions. I should ask apology.

Now, if I continue to disrespect, or do so deliberately, then all bets are off...explain please how disrespect leads to peaceful interaction? It doesn't.

This place is not a free-for-all, regardless of the outside world. The outside world is full of enough war and strife and disharmony and ill manners. This is a place first for peace and civility. Don't care what the opinions are.

That kind of makes me wonder.

Sure, we do live in a very liberal, democratic and free world. Sure, we shouldn't forbid people from doing what they want to do, but when is it not wrong to tell people off, concerning religion and cultural attitudes.

Of course, that doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with breaking the speed limit. That has nothing to do with cultural (and religious) attitudes. That's about personal safety. But consider abortion, stem-cell research, body-piercing, kissing in public, plastic surgery, teenagers having a right to make their own decisions, etc. That's about cultural attitudes, not "legal," non-cultural issues like personal safety, medical negligence, paying one's taxes, robbing banks, etc.

The issue here is that it's disrespectful to criticise people on being "liberal" or "causal" about certain cultural and religious concepts. On the other hand, is it disrespectful, also to assert concepts in a place where "less liberal" and "more conservative" audiences might be listening, living and breathing?

Does a "democracy" mean that all "attitudes" should be acceptable?

(I am aware that CR is not a so-called "democracy," in the sense that the attitudes of conservative and traditional, as well as liberal and untraditional members are protected.)

Another example. Asian cultures tend to be more "shy on sex." A few decades ago, you'd be unlikely to see couples kissing in public in China. It was considered rude. My mother reports something different nowadays. China has changed.

What happens when traditional-minded citizens go to more liberal countries? Should the liberal-minded people respect the fact that there are traditional-minded tourists (guests) in the country? Quite obviously the tourists have no right to enforce their values on another country, but . . . is it always possible to not be offended by liberties in another culture? Should liberal-minded people respect (by their own volition), the values of traditional-minded citizens.

Of course, liberal-minded people can't go to other countries and do what they want just because they think the idea of liberty is better than a culture that is more restrictive.

Borders are disappearing, cultures are mixing. Liberties are being tolerated, but still, what about those who are staunchly conservative? Do we just ignore them? Are they just wrong?

Don't they have a right to be respected too?

Liberty can be seen as a kind of arrogance. It may even be seen as a selfish, self-absorbed, self-indulgent attitude -- I can do whatever I want. A nation can be proud of its liberty, but that may be seen as a rude, ugly form of arrogance by a country that has a different system of manners.

Concerning religious beliefs, I am thinking that although all beliefs should be heard, liberal and conservative (sorry for using labels), there should be mutual respect between all parties. Conservative believers shouldn't lord it over liberal believers and vice versa. Conservative believers could announce, in the knowledge that liberal believers might be reading, that they understand their views won't be accepted by everyone, and vice versa for liberal believers.

I guess liberal, unorthodox views can be seen as just as arrogant as conservative/traditional views. I think it goes both ways. This world doesn't belong to people with one attitude, it's supposed to be shared.

In that sense, CR is better, not worse, than a democracy. A democracy is one extreme. A draconian theocracy is quite another. CR is the middle ground.

What do you all think?

Nevertheless, to be safe, it's probably best not to announce ultra-liberal views if that makes you conspicuous. You might get into a fight . . . But even if you do have a ultra-liberal view and someone picks a fight . . . don't retaliate or reciprocate. Don't assert your views at all. Just state them. Discuss, don't fight. Just be thoughtful. Stay cool.

I've seen that a lot on these forums. From time to time, people post views that aren't considered part of "mainstream Christianity," and people start crying foul. What makes it worse is when the people posting the "unorthodox views" fight back. Why not just give it a few days to cool off? The thing about an online identity is that nobody really knows who you are. I can imagine people have judged me by what I've posted, but that's expected. you must all think I'm a weirdo. But as I said, that's expected. And yet none of you know my address or how I look like. So why should I pick a fight?

I've had that experience lots of times -- playing online computer games. One time it was chess -- my favourite strategy game. I get beaten. Again and again. Some of the people I play against are rude. I get frustrated that I don't fit in. Then I decide I'm not going to play these stupid online computer games anymore -- forget it. These people are not my friends and never did me any good.

So I withdraw . . .

 

[Saltmeister]

The Liberal board is for discussion of non-Orthodox points of view, and non-canonical "scriptures" and "commentary." No one is exiled to that board, they are free and welcome to participate here...but with the understanding that certain subjects are considered disrespectful. Those subjects can be freely discussed there without fear of reprisal from the more orthodox point of view. There have been some rather nasty discussions and wars of words that no doubt would have come to blows had the participants been face-to-face. That is what we are trying to avoid.

Respect is about manners. I respect you because you respect me...if I disrespect you, you aren't going to take it well, no matter how good my intentions. I should ask apology.

Now, if I continue to disrespect, or do so deliberately, then all bets are off...explain please how disrespect leads to peaceful interaction? It doesn't.

This place is not a free-for-all, regardless of the outside world. The outside world is full of enough war and strife and disharmony and ill manners. This is a place first for peace and civility. Don't care what the opinions are.

That kind of makes me wonder.

Sure, we do live in a very liberal, democratic and free world. Sure, we shouldn't forbid people from doing what they want to do, but when is it not wrong to tell people off, concerning religion and cultural attitudes.

Of course, that doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with breaking the speed limit. That has nothing to do with cultural (and religious) attitudes. That's about personal safety. But consider abortion, stem-cell research, body-piercing, kissing in public, plastic surgery, teenagers having a right to make their own decisions, etc. That's about cultural attitudes, not "legal," non-cultural issues like personal safety, medical negligence, paying one's taxes, robbing banks, etc.

The issue here is that it's disrespectful to criticise people on being "liberal" or "causal" about certain cultural and religious concepts. On the other hand, is it disrespectful, also to assert concepts in a place where "less liberal" and "more conservative" audiences might be listening, living and breathing?

Does a "democracy" mean that all "attitudes" should be acceptable?

(I am aware that CR is not a so-called "democracy," in the sense that the attitudes of conservative and traditional, as well as liberal and untraditional members are protected.)

Another example. Asian cultures tend to be more "shy on sex." A few decades ago, you'd be unlikely to see couples kissing in public in China. It was considered rude. My mother reports something different nowadays. China has changed.

What happens when traditional-minded citizens go to more liberal countries? Should the liberal-minded people respect the fact that there are traditional-minded tourists (guests) in the country? Quite obviously the tourists have no right to enforce their values on another country, but . . . is it always possible to not be offended by liberties in another culture? Should liberal-minded people respect (by their own volition), the values of traditional-minded citizens.

Of course, liberal-minded people can't go to other countries and do what they want just because they think the idea of liberty is better than a culture that is more restrictive.

Borders are disappearing, cultures are mixing. Liberties are being tolerated, but still, what about those who are staunchly conservative? Do we just ignore them? Are they just wrong?

Don't they have a right to be respected too?

Liberty can be seen as a kind of arrogance. It may even be seen as a selfish, self-absorbed, self-indulgent attitude -- I can do whatever I want. A nation can be proud of its liberty, but that may be seen as a rude, ugly form of arrogance by a country that has a different system of manners.

Concerning religious beliefs, I am thinking that although all beliefs should be heard, liberal and conservative (sorry for using labels), there should be mutual respect between all parties. Conservative believers shouldn't lord it over liberal believers and vice versa. Conservative believers could announce, in the knowledge that liberal believers might be reading, that they understand their views won't be accepted by everyone, and vice versa for liberal believers.

I guess liberal, unorthodox views can be seen as just as arrogant as conservative/traditional views. I think it goes both ways. This world doesn't belong to people with one attitude, it's supposed to be shared.

In that sense, CR is better, not worse, than a democracy. A democracy is one extreme. A draconian theocracy is quite another. CR is the middle ground.

What do you all think?

Nevertheless, to be safe, it's probably best not to announce ultra-liberal views if that makes you conspicuous. You might get into a fight . . . But even if you do have a ultra-liberal view and someone picks a fight . . . don't retaliate or reciprocate. Don't assert your views at all. Just state them. Discuss, don't fight. Just be thoughtful. Stay cool.

It's possible that some people might welcome your views as they don't want to same boring humdrum of tradition.

I've seen that a lot on these forums. From time to time, people post views that aren't considered part of "mainstream Christianity," and people start crying foul. What makes it worse is when the people posting the "unorthodox views" fight back. Why not just give it a few days to cool off? The thing about an online identity is that nobody really knows who you are. I can imagine people have judged me by what I've posted, but that's expected. you must all think I'm a weirdo. But as I said, that's expected. And yet none of you know my address or how I look like. So why should I pick a fight?

I've had that experience lots of times -- playing online computer games. One time it was chess -- my favourite strategy game. I get beaten. Again and again. Some of the people I play against are rude. I get frustrated that I don't fit in. Then I decide I'm not going to play these stupid online computer games anymore -- forget it. These people are not my friends and never did me any good.

So I withdraw . . . The good thing is, when I withdraw, I practically disappear. I am one out of a trillion logging on. They will probably never see me again.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Saltmeister!

Seems I don't get to converse with you very often. Good post, worth a response!

Sure, we do live in a very liberal, democratic and free world. Sure, we shouldn't forbid people from doing what they want to do, but when is it not wrong to tell people off, concerning religion and cultural attitudes.

Of course, that doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with breaking the speed limit. That has nothing to do with cultural (and religious) attitudes. That's about personal safety. But consider abortion, stem-cell research, body-piercing, kissing in public, plastic surgery, teenagers having a right to make their own decisions, etc. That's about cultural attitudes, not "legal," non-cultural issues like personal safety, medical negligence, paying one's taxes, robbing banks, etc.

I'm trying to follow your thoughts here, but it is a little confusing. I have heard some people argue that laws, *all* laws, are moral constructs, even traffic laws. I'm not fully certain I agree with that, but I do see something that confuses me. Why should *not* things like abortion, stem-cell research, etc, have a legal component to go along with the moral component?

The issue here is that it's disrespectful to criticise people on being "liberal" or "causal" about certain cultural and religious concepts. On the other hand, is it disrespectful, also to assert concepts in a place where "less liberal" and "more conservative" audiences might be listening, living and breathing?

Does a "democracy" mean that all "attitudes" should be acceptable?

Well, in my opinion, there is a distinction between acceptable and tolerable. I am reminded of a saying I learned recently:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

(I am aware that CR is not a so-called "democracy," in the sense that the attitudes of conservative and traditional, as well as liberal and untraditional members are protected.)

It is easy to lose sight of this, I am pleased you haven't. We are all here at the benevolence of our gracious host, a host who has every right to pull the plug and boot us all to the curb if he so chose. Not that he would, but the point is that the only "vote" that counts is his.

What happens when traditional-minded citizens go to more liberal countries?...liberal-minded people can't go to other countries and do what they want just because they think the idea of liberty is better than a culture that is more restrictive.

The onus is on the traveller. To study up on the culture before going there (so as not to be too surprised). And to conduct themselves respectably when there. "Respectably" meaning: not causing a scene in public, acting like a child not getting things *their* way, and generally carrying the attitude that the country they are in and the citizens of that country are somehow second class and backwards / unenlightened. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. This is not an invitation to compromise one's principles, neither is it an invitation for an arrogant attitude.

Liberty can be seen as a kind of arrogance. It may even be seen as a selfish, self-absorbed, self-indulgent attitude -- I can do whatever I want. A nation can be proud of its liberty, but that may be seen as a rude, ugly form of arrogance by a country that has a different system of manners.

True. Which is why to conduct oneself with respect for the culture one is travelling through. Better to find the good in people and places, in my opinion, than to dwell on the bad.

Concerning religious beliefs, I am thinking that although all beliefs should be heard, liberal and conservative (sorry for using labels), there should be mutual respect between all parties. Conservative believers shouldn't lord it over liberal believers and vice versa. Conservative believers could announce, in the knowledge that liberal believers might be reading, that they understand their views won't be accepted by everyone, and vice versa for liberal believers.

I guess liberal, unorthodox views can be seen as just as arrogant as conservative/traditional views. I think it goes both ways. This world doesn't belong to people with one attitude, it's supposed to be shared.

I'm all for better manners around here. Goodness knows I've been doing my share, trying to spread that particular gospel.

In that sense, CR is better, not worse, than a democracy. A democracy is one extreme. A draconian theocracy is quite another. CR is the middle ground.

What do you all think?

Thank you...I think.

Gotta go for now, maybe the rest later. I think I hit the high points. G'nite!

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Great post Salty!
---------------------------------------------

We are all here at the benevolence of our gracious host, a host who has every right to pull the plug and boot us all to the curb if he so chose. Not that he would, but the point is that the only "vote" that counts is his.

It's good to get along with one's host!

On the other hand: Brian would be sitting up alone at midnight furtively watching a hit counter if it weren't for the people who make this forum. Yeah, it's his terrarium, but it's a cool social experiment. It's kinda hard to legislate egalitarianism, and it's hard to set up a terrerium that never needs to be hosed out. But it's the people participating and reading those google banners that make this a community. Without us there ain't no forum.

Chris

 

[Prober]

Great post Salty!
---------------------------------------------



It's good to get along with one's host!

On the other hand: Brian would be sitting up alone at midnight furtively watching a hit counter if it weren't for the people who make this forum. Yeah, it's his terrarium, but it's a cool social experiment. It's kinda hard to legislate egalitarianism, and it's hard to set up a terrerium that never needs to be hosed out. But it's the people participating and reading those google banners that make this a community. Without us there ain't no forum.

Chris

What if we all really live in a petri dish in god's bathroom in the medicine chest?

 

[Saltmeister]

I'm trying to follow your thoughts here, but it is a little confusing. I have heard some people argue that laws, *all* laws, are moral constructs, even traffic laws. I'm not fully certain I agree with that, but I do see something that confuses me. Why should *not* things like abortion, stem-cell research, etc, have a legal component to go along with the moral component?

My initial intention was to talk about what happened when people posted views that might offend conservative and traditional members. That was in response to what you said on the Christianity forum not being a "free-for-all." I kind of diverged from that topic a bit . . .

Nevertheless, I thought I might comment on what you've just said on "laws."

To start with, let's suppose there were no laws. What happens when things go wrong? What happens when people are jealous, envious and think they're being treated unfairly or disadvantaged? People want the same level of dignity as the person living next door. If my neighbour has a nice house, for dignity's sake I'd want one too. Ideally, everyone would have the same amount of property. If I have a mansion, everyone else deserves one too. If I get to play fun computer games, everyone else gets to enjoy something just as good. Everybody deserves the same thing. Everybody is equal.

But that doesn't work (practically) in life. We don't all end up with the same things, even though we believe we deserve it. That means that we all have to work hard to acquire what we want.

That creates complications. We are all working towards that long-held dream where we can live in a nice comfortable house, relax, watch television, and live out the rest of our days.

Your dream could be that:

1) You get a job
2) You work hard for seven years
3) You accumulate money and hope to be able to buy a house and start a family
4) During the seven years you will find a mate.
5) After the seven years you get married and live out the rest of your days.

But it doesn't happen. Life gets complicated. There might be unexpected expenses. You might have relationship difficulties with your partner. Your dreams don't come to fruition. But you still want what you dreamed for.

Your options now to get what you still want:

1) Kill/murder whoever is stopping you from achieving your life-long ambition
2) Steal
3) lie and cheat
4) take someone else's work and effort and pass it as your own; save the effort and avoid wasting any more time
5) use other underhand tactics to get your way

You can either achieve your dreams the honourable way or do something "evil" to get what you want. In the midst of all this "wrongdoing" it would be unfair for those who were honest if the dishonest ones were able to achieve more. This kind of behaviour, I guess, was what caused Noah's flood.

But even if there was no dishonesty, some people are more fortunate than others because they are born into wealthy families. Should we then complain that some kids are richer than others because they have rich parents? Perhaps we should separate kids from their parents so that nobody is better off regardless of whether you're rich or poor. Everyone starts from scratch.

But who would want to separate kids from their parents?

This is where we start writing the rules for our society. First we have a monetary system. Value is represented numerically using coins and notes, not through feelings, emotions and relationships. Next we deal with crime, rules on how business is conducted, paying taxes, etc. But why do we have rules? Because we want everything to be fair. Legal systems evolved long ago because of a need to make things fair for everyone. Everybody is accountable to the legal system that rules their lives.

The thing about legal systems, though, is that they're about ruling ourselves. They're about justifying life without God's intervention. Justice is about justifications. The legal system uses a system of rules that say who gets what and the rules are part of the justification on who gets what. The justifications are part of our personal dignity as human beings -- they define our level of satisfaction with life. Every injustice is a blow to our personal dignity. We go to court to restore our personal dignity.

The rules are a way of saying (provided everyone follows the same rules) that regardless of who you are, everyone gets the same treatment. Everyone is rewarded and punished equally. Reward and punishment fits the situation.

But that's only if God didn't exist. Ideally, God replaces any legal system that humanity constructs. God Himself justifies the people. Instead of a book of rules it's a personal God with whom we have a personal relationship. God decides who gets what rather than a legal system with its complex, twisted, spaghetti-like implementation of impersonal rules.

We may all see things differently. Some believe that God establishes His authority through a legal system. Others may not. I believe that God's authority is effected through a personal interaction with individual human beings, not through a social structure. In other words, He bypasses whatever structure we set up to operate in His absence.

But then who can understand God?

I think as long as we allow politics to affect our decisions, we will never understand how God does things. God doesn't need politics. Politics is the way in which we structure the world. We are so used to thinking in terms of the politics of this world that we expect God to act through the framework we have constructed ourselves.

Politics is about structure, but God can deal with us personally. Our error is often in using politics to define God.