Christians: can you talk about which one of you has the theology right?

[Politesse]

No, you missed the main point. That reply does not engage it.


Indeed. Of course, there are people who believe that homosexual behavior is immoral, to the point that it would be just to punish it with imprisonment or similar. They are mistaken, but that is still not the point.

Jesus made no attempt to influence or change secular laws. Does this mean that we should not try to change them either? No, not necessarily. We are told to live in accordance with the existing law and in our country, that means living in accordance with the ideal of personal freedom when it does not harm others. There will be times when new laws are desirable to protect the individual from harm or injustice. This was not the case in New Testament times, when Roman rule was absolute and there was no expectation that laws would protect individual freedoms, nor were common people ever consulted on their view of the law.

So, is it unbiblical to try to change the existing law and make it more just?
Would it have been against Jesus's mandate to try to influence Roman law, and make it more just, because there was no expectation that the laws would protect individual freedoms?
Would it be against Jesus's mandate for people who live under totalitarian regimes (say, the USSR, China, communist regimes in Eastern Europe) to try to influence their laws, improve them, decriminalize homosexual behavior where it is outlawed, etc.?

I do understand that you are saying Bible literalists would believe that they are wanting "just laws", but given the founding criteria of our country they would be incorrect. We do not live in a theocracy and attempts to enact laws which reduce personal freedoms to meet their interpretation of the scripture are not in accordance with the law we live under now - so these attempts are unbiblical.

First, attempting to enact pro-democracy laws would be not in accordance with the law of many countries (from the Roman Empire to China to the USSR, or Saudi Arabia, or any in a long list). Would then attempts to change it be unbiblical?

Second, actually reducing personal freedoms by legal means (including, if needed, a Constitutional Amendment) would be in accordance to the law you live under now.

What sort of sense does that make? If insisting on a change because the Bible requires it would be immoral, refusing or resisting changes for the same reason would also be immoral.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, you missed the main point. That reply does not engage it.


Indeed. Of course, there are people who believe that homosexual behavior is immoral, to the point that it would be just to punish it with imprisonment or similar. They are mistaken, but that is still not the point.


So, is it unbiblical to try to change the existing law and make it more just?
Would it have been against Jesus's mandate to try to influence Roman law, and make it more just, because there was no expectation that the laws would protect individual freedoms?
Would it be against Jesus's mandate for people who live under totalitarian regimes (say, the USSR, China, communist regimes in Eastern Europe) to try to influence their laws, improve them, decriminalize homosexual behavior where it is outlawed, etc.?



First, attempting to enact pro-democracy laws would be not in accordance with the law of many countries (from the Roman Empire to China to the USSR, or Saudi Arabia, or any in a long list). Would then attempts to change it be unbiblical?

Second, actually reducing personal freedoms by legal means (including, if needed, a Constitutional Amendment) would be in accordance to the law you live under now.

What sort of sense does that make? If insisting on a change because the Bible requires it would be immoral, refusing or resisting changes for the same reason would also be immoral.

Have you even read the post you replied to?
Your reply is unrelated.

ETA: I would suggest reading the exchange to know what's going on, but purely for example, uth Harris claims that " attempts to enact laws which reduce personal freedoms to meet their interpretation of the scripture are not in accordance with the law we live under now - so these attempts are unbiblical."

Well, as a matter of fact, no, they can be in accordance to the law she lives under now. For example, one can attempt to pass laws that restrict freedoms, but are constitutionally valid (if needed, a a Constitutional Amendment would be passed).

But that aside, of course, it would not be in accordance to the laws of many places (from the Roman Empire to China to the USSR, or Saudi Arabia, or any in a long list) to try to pass new laws that are pro-freedom, democracy, etc. Would that make such attempts "unbiblical" for that reason?

Again, my reply to her gives you more details, if you'd like to discuss any of the matters I'm talking about.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So, we have this:

Jesus made no attempt to change Roman laws, which were totalitarian. Would that mean it is unbiblical to attempt to change totalitarian laws? If yes, please say so. If not, then it seems it is not unbiblical in that case to do unlike Jesus. But then, why would it be unbiblical to do unlike Jesus in other cases, such as trying to pass laws one considers just and that, say, ban abortion, or homosexual behavior?

Is it unbiblical to do unlike Jesus? Sometimes, but not always? When, then?

 

[Learner]

So, we have this:

Jesus made no attempt to change Roman laws, which were totalitarian. Would that mean it is unbiblical to attempt to change totalitarian laws? If yes, please say so. If not, then it seems it is not unbiblical in that case to do unlike Jesus.

Jesus only required HIS followers to spread the faith. The Roman laws DID change merely by convertion , although alternative attempts to change Roman totalitarian laws could ALSO be changed perhaps by violent rebellious means, just as the Jews rebelled.

But then, why would it be unbiblical to do unlike Jesus in other cases, such as trying to pass laws one considers just and that, say, ban abortion, or homosexual behavior?

Is it unbiblical to do unlike Jesus? Sometimes, but not always? When, then?

To do "unlike" in context as for example: "HE never mentions" can be a little conflicting but keep in mind : It is not (although often thought of as ) the same as doing the "opposite" to what HE preaches!

 

[Ruth Harris]

No, you missed the main point. That reply does not engage it.

That was my main point. I have no idea what you think the main point should be.

So, is it unbiblical to try to change the existing law and make it more just?
Would it have been against Jesus's mandate to try to influence Roman law, and make it more just, because there was no expectation that the laws would protect individual freedoms?
Would it be against Jesus's mandate for people who live under totalitarian regimes (say, the USSR, China, communist regimes in Eastern Europe) to try to influence their laws, improve them, decriminalize homosexual behavior where it is outlawed, etc.?

You are moving the goalposts. I was discussing the United States current day; I was not addressing totalitarian regimes around the world. So to repeat myself, is it unbiblical to change our existing law to make it more just? No.
Would it have been against Jesus' mandate to try to influence Roman law etc? Yes. He did not incarnate to address politics or the secular realm at all. He was only concerned with souls.
Would it be against Jesus' mandate for people who live under totalitarian regimes etc? I have no idea. I have never studied that viewpoint. I was only looking at our right wing believers trying to enact restrictive laws in our country.

First, attempting to enact pro-democracy laws would be not in accordance with the law of many countries (from the Roman Empire to China to the USSR, or Saudi Arabia, or any in a long list). Would then attempts to change it be unbiblical?

I repeat my last answer - I have no idea since I have never studied that viewpoint.

Second, actually reducing personal freedoms by legal means (including, if needed, a Constitutional Amendment) would be in accordance to the law you live under now.

Sure - but it has to be in accord with the Constitution and be voted in by a majority. That majority does not consist of only Biblical literalists in this country. Their attempts to enact a Christian version of Sharia law are not in accordance with existing law in this country.

This will be my last reply on this thread derail as I don't have any idea how to make my viewpoint any clearer to you, and this is far afield from the actual subject of this thread.

Ruth

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Jesus only required HIS followers to spread the faith. The Roman laws DID change merely by convertion , although alternative attempts to change Roman totalitarian laws could ALSO be changed perhaps by violent rebellious means, just as the Jews rebelled.

That does not address my question. Remember, Ruth Harris made the following remarks:

As far as wanting laws to be enacted in accordance with a literal interpretation of the Bible, my view is that it would be unbiblical to do that. Jesus never involved Himself in the politics of the day. His only concern was with the souls of people. He never addressed the Roman laws at all; only the leaders of the Jewish faith and their interpretations of scripture. He did advocate following the laws of the land even when they were unfair. Given that, I don't see how anyone could claim that legislating their version of morality in a country is biblical.

Here, she is saying that it is unbiblical to try to legislate one's own "version of morality" in a country, apparently because Jesus did not address Roman laws and was only concerned with souls. Would then be similarly unbiblical to attempt to change Roman, Chinese, Soviet, Saudi, etc., law to make it democratic, to decriminalize homosexuality (where it's criminalized), or passing some other pro-freedom law, depending on the case? Those attempts might resort not necessarily to force (though that would be an option), but also alternatively to persuasion (i.e., persuading people with the power to make changes).

She also said:

Jesus made no attempt to influence or change secular laws. Does this mean that we should not try to change them either? No, not necessarily. We are told to live in accordance with the existing law and in our country, that means living in accordance with the ideal of personal freedom when it does not harm others. There will be times when new laws are desirable to protect the individual from harm or injustice. This was not the case in New Testament times, when Roman rule was absolute and there was no expectation that laws would protect individual freedoms, nor were common people ever consulted on their view of the law.

Well, then, in places where there is totalitarianism and there is no expectation that laws would protect individual freedoms, is it unbiblical to act unlike Jesus and try to pass pro-freedom laws?

I'm just going with her argumentation, and challenging it.

To do "unlike" in context as for example: "HE never mentions" can be a little conflicting but keep in mind : It is not (although often thought of as ) the same as doing the "opposite" to what HE preaches!

Sure. So, is trying to legislate on the basis of one's moral beliefs against what he preached?
If not, then why would be an attempt to pass laws that one considers just - like banning abortion or homosexual behavior, for the people who considers such bans just - be against what he preached?
Is it because the US is based on freedom somehow, and that would be against the US law?
Well, actually, it would not be against US law if the proposal includes the constitutional steps required. But apart from that, is an attempt to change the law in a way that goes against the legal system, against what he preached? Would it be/have been against what he preached to try to persuade some powerful people in Rome, or the USSR, or Saudi Arabia, etc., to make changes in the law to make it more just?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That was my main point. I have no idea what you think the main point should be.

I addressed one of your points. You did not address my reply, but repeatedly misrepresented it.

You are moving the goalposts.

No. I'm now challenging some of your claims.

I was discussing the United States current day; I was not addressing totalitarian regimes around the world. So to repeat myself, is it unbiblical to change our existing law to make it more just? No.
Would it have been against Jesus' mandate to try to influence Roman law etc? Yes. He did not incarnate to address politics or the secular realm at all. He was only concerned with souls.

Okay, thank you for that answer. But that you were not addressing totalitarian regimes around the world is beside the point, given the rationale(s) you give in the Roman case, and which is applicable to the USSR, China, or Saudi Arabia:

First, you say that it would have been Jesus' mandate to try to influence Roman Law because "He did not incarnate to address politics or the secular realm at all. He was only concerned with souls.". Well, with that criterion, it would be against his mandate to try to influence laws in all cases. But moreover, you give another argument: You claim that

We are told to live in accordance with the existing law and in our country, that means living in accordance with the ideal of personal freedom when it does not harm others. There will be times when new laws are desirable to protect the individual from harm or injustice. This was not the case in New Testament times, when Roman rule was absolute and there was no expectation that laws would protect individual freedoms, nor were common people ever consulted on their view of the law.

Well, as I pointed out, there are plenty of other regimes where the same rationale would apply, because they are totalitarian and there is " no expectation that laws would protect individual freedoms".

Would it be against Jesus' mandate for people who live under totalitarian regimes etc? I have no idea. I have never studied that viewpoint. I was only looking at our right wing believers trying to enact restrictive laws in our country.

But that is not the point. Even if you have not thought about it, you provided a rationale that applies to them as well. Which one? This one:

We are told to live in accordance with the existing law and in our country, that means living in accordance with the ideal of personal freedom when it does not harm others. There will be times when new laws are desirable to protect the individual from harm or injustice. This was not the case in New Testament times, when Roman rule was absolute and there was no expectation that laws would protect individual freedoms, nor were common people ever consulted on their view of the law.

Sure - but it has to be in accord with the Constitution and be voted in by a majority. That majority does not consist of only Biblical literalists in this country. Their attempts to enact a Christian version of Sharia law are not in accordance with existing law in this country.

No, that is not how the laws in your country work. There is no need for a majority to vote for them. States pass laws, and there is a need for a majority in state legislatures, or in some cases, special majorities. In some cases, it is put to a popular vote, but that is not usually the case (and not mandated constitutionally, at least not in most cases).
Now, some restrictions of freedom would be against the US Constitution. But then, the people trying to pass them do not agree with that (and neither do the judges and justices they want appointed), so it's unsurprising that they do not find their actions unbiblical (well, it would be unsurprising even if they agreed with one of the means you proposed for testing whether something is unbiblical). Moreover, sometimes, they try to pass the required Constitutional Amendment - which also does not require a popular vote.

This will be my last reply on this thread derail as I don't have any idea how to make my viewpoint any clearer to you, and this is far afield from the actual subject of this thread.

Okay, so goodbye.

 

[Politesse]

Have you even read the post you replied to?
Your reply is unrelated.

ETA: I would suggest reading the exchange to know what's going on, but purely for example, uth Harris claims that " attempts to enact laws which reduce personal freedoms to meet their interpretation of the scripture are not in accordance with the law we live under now - so these attempts are unbiblical."

Well, as a matter of fact, no, they can be in accordance to the law she lives under now. For example, one can attempt to pass laws that restrict freedoms, but are constitutionally valid (if needed, a a Constitutional Amendment would be passed).

But that aside, of course, it would not be in accordance to the laws of many places (from the Roman Empire to China to the USSR, or Saudi Arabia, or any in a long list) to try to pass new laws that are pro-freedom, democracy, etc. Would that make such attempts "unbiblical" for that reason?

Again, my reply to her gives you more details, if you'd like to discuss any of the matters I'm talking about.

You're talking about whether or not it would be "unbiblical" to do this or that; she made it clear that she does not think it Biblical to force other people to do things on the basis of Scripture in her original posting. All of the specific cases you describe would fall under that heading. Whether some law/regime/leader is Biblical or not is irrelevant if you don't believe the Bible should be the basis of law in the first place.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You're talking about whether or not it would be "unbiblical" to do this or that; she made it clear that she does not thiunk it Biblical to force other people to do things on the basis of Scripture in her original posting. All of the specific cases you describe would fall under that heading.

First, Ruth made the claim about "As far as wanting laws to be enacted in accordance with a literal interpretation of the Bible, my view is that it would be unbiblical to do that. ", so "unbiblical" was not my choice of words, but hers.

Second, she made it clear that she thinks it is unbiblical to do that (see above), but provided two arguments (mostly, and with variants; see my replies to her posts for details) for that.

The first one is that Jesus did not concern himself with Roman laws, but souls. That one would apply to even attempts to change laws in the US.

The second one is that Rome was totalitarian and their was no expectation that laws would protect individual rights, and Christians are told to "live in accordance with the existing law and in our country...". That would make it unbiblical to try to change Roman, Soviet, Chinese, Saudi, etc., law, because there is/was no such expectation in those places.

For more details of my arguments challenging her claims, you can take a look at my replies to her (if you insist, I can copy and paste and make the fully detailed arguments in my replies to you as well, but what for?).

 

[Politesse]

That would make it unbiblical to try to change Roman, Soviet, Chinese, Saudi, etc., law, because there is/was no such expectation in those places.

Only if your goal in doing so was to impose your religious views on others. Your proposal, that Christians would be unable to take political action because it is "unbiblical", portrays them all as using the Bible as the sole measure of whether or not to do something. This is exactly the attitude that Ruth was observing the flaws of. Our civil community is one of many religious convictions, and imposing one over others is wrong even by Biblical standards. Jesus did not combat the Roman state, nor did he try to prevent others from doing so. Rome was irrelevant to his ministry, which was about guiding individuals, not deciding the fate of nation-states on religious grounds. Do you understand now?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Only if your goal in doing so was to impose your religious views on others.

No, in general. Take a look at the full quotation. I said

The second one is that Rome was totalitarian and their was no expectation that laws would protect individual rights, and Christians are told to "live in accordance with the existing law and in our country...". That would make it unbiblical to try to change Roman, Soviet, Chinese, Saudi, etc., law, because there is/was no such expectation in those places.

,

The full source of "live in accordance with the existing law and in our country..." is the following paragraph:

Jesus made no attempt to influence or change secular laws. Does this mean that we should not try to change them either? No, not necessarily. We are told to live in accordance with the existing law and in our country, that means living in accordance with the ideal of personal freedom when it does not harm others. There will be times when new laws are desirable to protect the individual from harm or injustice. This was not the case in New Testament times, when Roman rule was absolute and there was no expectation that laws would protect individual freedoms, nor were common people ever consulted on their view of the law.

Notice that she is talking about when it is acceptable to attempt to change secular laws, not when it is acceptable to change secular laws in accordance to some religion-based morality.

Additionally, recall that the first paragraph in which the charge of unbiblicalness is raised is the following one:

As far as wanting laws to be enacted in accordance with a literal interpretation of the Bible, my view is that it would be unbiblical to do that. Jesus never involved Himself in the politics of the day. His only concern was with the souls of people. He never addressed the Roman laws at all; only the leaders of the Jewish faith and their interpretations of scripture. He did advocate following the laws of the land even when they were unfair. Given that, I don't see how anyone could claim that legislating their version of morality in a country is biblical.

Notice the last sentence in that paragraph, which implies that attempting to legislate one's "version of morality" (i.e., one's moral beliefs, irrespective of the source) in a country is unbiblical (as opposed to "biblical"; they seem to be used as contradictory in this context).

Your proposal, that Christians would be unable to take political action because it is "unbiblical", portrays them all as using the Bible as the sole measure of whether or not to do something.

I'm not proposing that Christians would be unable to take political action. I'm saying (among other things) that that is implied by the given rationale(s) that in totalitarian countries, in would be "unbiblical" to try to change laws for the better for moral reasons.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This is exactly the attitude that Ruth was observing the flaws of. Our civil community is one of many religious convictions, and imposing one over others is wrong even by Biblical standards. Jesus did not combat the Roman state, nor did he try to prevent others from doing so. Rome was irrelevant to his ministry, which was about guiding individuals, not deciding the fate of nation-states on religious grounds. Do you understand now?

That is a different rationale (i.e., different from that given by Ruth Harris), but it's interesting to discuss it as well. Your claim is that it's wrong by Biblical standards to attempt to impose one's religious convictions. But how about one's moral convictions?
Surely, people who try to make laws more just, are also often trying to impose their moral convictions on others - not to force them to agree with them, but to force them to do as the people trying to enact laws believe people ought to behave.

If you agree that it's often morally acceptable to try to pass legislation on the basis of one's moral convictions (if not, please let me know), then you seem to be excluding moral convictions based on religion. I would exclude them too because of my view on religion, but why would you exclude such moral convictions? After all, you are a Christian, so you do not reject religion-based beliefs in general. Do you reject moral convictions based on religion, then? In other words, do you think it's rational to have moral beliefs based on religion? (at least sometimes).

 

[Politesse]

This is exactly the attitude that Ruth was observing the flaws of. Our civil community is one of many religious convictions, and imposing one over others is wrong even by Biblical standards. Jesus did not combat the Roman state, nor did he try to prevent others from doing so. Rome was irrelevant to his ministry, which was about guiding individuals, not deciding the fate of nation-states on religious grounds. Do you understand now?

That is a different rationale (i.e., different from that given by Ruth Harris), but it's interesting to discuss it as well. Your claim is that it's wrong by Biblical standards to attempt to impose one's religious convictions. But how about one's moral convictions?
Surely, people who try to make laws more just, are also often trying to impose their moral convictions on others - not to force them to agree with them, but to force them to do as the people trying to enact laws believe people ought to behave.

If you agree that it's often morally acceptable to try to pass legislation on the basis of one's moral convictions (if not, please let me know), then you seem to be excluding moral convictions based on religion. I would exclude them too because of my view on religion, but why would you exclude such moral convictions? After all, you are a Christian, so you do not reject religion-based beliefs in general. Do you reject moral convictions based on religion, then? In other words, do you think it's rational to have moral beliefs based on religion? (at least sometimes).

You are really hung up on this idea that Christians ought to act always and only in accordance with whatever is "Biblical"; both of the Christians you are conversing with have clearly rejected this position. Morality is more complicated than trying to pervert ancient wisdom literature into legal advice. Of course one can act in the cause of moral right, why wouldn't one? The reason it is bad to impose doctrines on others is because it is a moral wrong to do so. Biblically or otherwise. And yes, moral convictions are inevitably influenced by religion, but that doesn't mean everyone who is religious is also a literalist theocrat, nor must or should be.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are really hung up on this idea that Christians ought to act always and only in accordance with whatever is "Biblical"; both of the Christians you are conversing with have clearly rejected this position.

Not remotely. Not only am I not hung up, but I believe they ought not to. I'm discussing the claims made by you. You are just misconstruing my points, despite the fact that I'm very careful in making them, and repeatedly clarify them.

Morality is more complicated than trying to pervert ancient wisdom literature into legal advice. Of course one can act in the cause of moral right, why wouldn't one?

The reason it is bad to impose doctrines on others is because it is a moral wrong to do so.
Hold on. What do you mean by "impose doctrines on others"?
We are not talking about forcing others to have believe that the doctrines in question are true, or forcing them to profess agreement.

We are talking about passing laws that punish people for failing to comply with some of their moral obligations. Now, also, the person supporting the laws does not have to believe that it's okay in all cases to pass laws that punish wrongdoings. But they believe - as nearly all of us do -, that there are cases in which it is permissible or even praiseworthy to support laws that punish certain, specific wrongdoings - of course, there is disagreement about which wrongdoings those are, and also whether some behaviors are wrongdoings.

Now, it is not - in general - wrong to support laws that punish some specific wrongdoings. So, what is it that you claim is a moral wrong? Is it to pass/support laws that punish people for some specific wrongdoings, when the person passing/supporting the law believes that the behavior they punish is morally wrong on the basis of their religious beliefs? Is it something else?

And yes, moral convictions are inevitably influenced by religion, but that doesn't mean everyone who is religious is also a literalist theocrat, nor must or should be.

Obviously. And obviously - or it should be obvious - I'm not remotely arguing for that. I'm trying to discuss some of your claims. And one of them is the claim that it is wrong to "impose doctrines on others". What do you mean by that?

Imagine a person believes - because of their religion - that abortion is murder, and they support keeping it banned - or, if she is a lawmaker, votes for that -, as it happened last year in Argentina. Is that an instant of "impose doctrines on others"?
What if she believes - because of her religion - that it is wrong to, say, use strong physical punishments against dogs, or cats, or horses, or other animals, and supports banning those behaviors? Would that count as "impose doctrines on others"?

 

[Learner]

That does not address my question. Remember, Ruth Harris made the following remarks:


Here, she is saying that it is unbiblical to try to legislate one's own "version of morality" in a country, apparently because Jesus did not address Roman laws and was only concerned with souls. Would then be similarly unbiblical to attempt to change Roman, Chinese, Soviet, Saudi, etc., law to make it democratic, to decriminalize homosexuality (where it's criminalized), or passing some other pro-freedom law, depending on the case? Those attempts might resort not necessarily to force (though that would be an option), but also alternatively to persuasion (i.e., persuading people with the power to make changes).

She also said:

Jesus made no attempt to influence or change secular laws. Does this mean that we should not try to change them either? No, not necessarily. We are told to live in accordance with the existing law and in our country, that means living in accordance with the ideal of personal freedom when it does not harm others. There will be times when new laws are desirable to protect the individual from harm or injustice. This was not the case in New Testament times, when Roman rule was absolute and there was no expectation that laws would protect individual freedoms, nor were common people ever consulted on their view of the law.

Well, then, in places where there is totalitarianism and there is no expectation that laws would protect individual freedoms, is it unbiblical to act unlike Jesus and try to pass pro-freedom laws?

In regards to "persuasion", I can well agree with your underlined above ; "persuading people with the power to make changes" as an alternative option but I would also add a different type of "persuasion": Persuasion to see reason (what ever it is).

It is interesting to read Ruth's post, as my take on the biblical viewpoint seems to be the same as Ruth's regarding law changes. (I'll attempt to explain below)

To do "unlike" in context as for example: "HE never mentions" can be a little conflicting but keep in mind : It is not (although often thought of as ) the same as doing the "opposite" to what HE preaches!

Sure. So, is trying to legislate on the basis of one's moral beliefs against what he preached?
If not, then why would be an attempt to pass laws that one considers just - like banning abortion or homosexual behavior, for the people who considers such bans just - be against what he preached?

It would be unbiblical in the sense that it would be taken as being "forced upon " someone, which is also, not so dissimilar as to Politesse's "forcing a religious belief" on someone elses belief.

I think I saw briefly a mention somewhere just browsing over, on the same line containing " changing laws" and "current times" either by Ruth or Politesse, if I'm not mistaken which does highlight a valid point. It most certainly would not be viable to pass laws based on one's belief, when of course ,there is a whole wide variety of different groups currently today. Decades ago this would have been more widely acceptable (not to mean its perfect) if a nation is greatly predominant of the same faith as the one who changes the law. Although no Christian examples (are there any still in existence?), oddly enough it happens in Islamic nations perhaps some Hindu nations or parts.

In short (lack of articulation) It goes against Jesus to be unwise ,a trouble maker or a (civil)warmonger.

 

[Politesse]

Imagine a person believes - because of their religion - that abortion is murder, and they support keeping it banned - or, if she is a lawmaker, votes for that -, as it happened last year in Argentina. Is that an instant of "impose doctrines on others"?
What if she believes - because of her religion - that it is wrong to, say, use strong physical punishments against dogs, or cats, or horses, or other animals, and supports banning those behaviors? Would that count as "impose doctrines on others"?

If one's only rationale is religious doctrine, yes.

In my opinion at least, (not "the Bible", which is largely monarchic in outlook owing to its time of writing) governments should serve all citizens, not just those of a certain religious identity. But that doesn't mean they could not try to, by more diplomatic means, convince others that they ought to agree with this position in terms they would all recognize and accept.

For Jesus, Paul, etc, this was not an option nor something that would even have crossed their minds as a possibility, as they did not live in a democratic system. Short of converting the Roman emperor or rebelling and converting some local warlord, such action would have been impossible. But Jesus does oppose legalism on general principle, especially legalism which becomes a burden and a barrier between a person and God.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It would be unbiblical in the sense that it would be taken as being "forced upon " someone, which is also, not so dissimilar as to Politesse's "forcing a religious belief" on someone elses belief.

But whenever laws are passed that impose some punishment on people who behave in a certain manner, that is forced upon the population. That applies to a ban on abortion (at any stage of the pregnancy), but also to a ban on infanticide, or a ban on, say, beating horses, dogs or other non-human animals as a means to control them (or whatever other reason), or for that matter, a ban on bank robbery.

The people who support any of those laws generally believe (most of them believe) that the laws in question are just, and that the people who behave in the manners the law bans deserve punishment, and moreover, that it is permissible (or even praiseworthy, morally obligatory) to support such laws.

Are all of those laws "unbiblical"?
If so, pretty much all criminal codes are entirely unbiblical.
If not, then what would make them unbiblical?
Are they unbiblical when the (relevant) moral beliefs of the people supporting the laws are based on religion?

In short (lack of articulation) It goes against Jesus to be unwise ,a trouble maker or a (civil)warmonger.

I see several problems with that. Some of them are (in no particular order):

1. Who is a trouble maker or a (civil) warmonger?

Take, for example, the abortion debate in Argentina. Last year, the Chamber of Deputies passed a law decriminalizing abortion in the first 12 weeks, but the Senate rejected it, so abortion remains criminalized. There is no significant risk of civil war, but the people who demanded decriminalization were sure making trouble. Then again, you could say that those opposing it were making trouble. But who were the ones making trouble? Most of the supporters of the law saw it as a step forward towards less unjust laws, whereas most of those opposing it saw it as a law that decriminalized heinous acts of murder.

So, how does one asceratain which side is the trouble-maker?

2. Sometimes, making trouble is indeed a good thing to do. In order to decriminalize, say, homosexual behavior, it may well be necessary to make trouble (arguably, in the US laws banning homosexual behavior were always unconstitutional, but there surely are countries where they were not), in the sense that it alters the statu quo, it makes a lot of people very uncomfortable, etc.

3. Going by the Gospel's account, Jesus himself engaged in trouble-making, and broke the law. This include the Sabbath law, but also, his assault on merchants. For example:

https://openenglishbible.org/oeb/2016.1/read/b040.html

12 Jesus went into the Temple Courts, and drove out all those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers, and the seats of the pigeon-dealers, 13 and said to them, “Scripture says ‘My house will be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a den of robbers.”

That seems to be a clear case not only of trouble-making, but of imposing religious laws on people who clearly believed otherwise (I would say it was also morally unacceptable behavior on his part, but that's another matter; here, I'm just challenging the claims of unbiblicalness).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If one's only rationale is religious doctrine, yes.

Alright, so you are making a distinction between only religious doctrine as a rationale vs. other rationales. That's fair enough. I do not think that your position has much biblical support going for it, though. This is not a problem for your position.

That aside, when it comes to imposing doctrines on others, the rationale often is not only religious doctrine.

Take, for example, the claim that homosexual behavior is always immoral. People may believe that because of their religion (say, Catholicism), but they also may have an alternative rationale (say, Thomism, the Perverted Faculty Argument, etc.). Now, they may not, on that basis, believe homosexual behavior should be banned, but they believe that same-sex marriage is (literally) impossible (even if the law says otherwise, those would not be marriages), and thus nothing called "marriage" (or "matrimonio", etc., depending on the language) should be allowed, as it would sow confusion, etc. So, their rationale is not only religious.

Similarly, on the basis of Thomism, they may well believe that abortion is always murder, because of their beliefs about substances and the like. And even if they go with religious doctrine, the doctrine itself may be based on a philosophy. After all, the Bible does not say much about abortion. But Catholicism has 3 sources of dogma, not just scripture, but also Catholic tradition and the magisterium of the church. The latter are in turn influenced by some philosophies, most notably Thomism. As a result, Catholics who believe that abortion is murder might believe so on the basis of either religion + philosophy, or religion alone but the latter influenced by philosophy, etc.

In my opinion at least, (not "the Bible", which is largely monarchic in outlook owing to its time of writing) governments should serve all citizens, not just those of a certain religious identity. But that doesn't mean they could not try to, by more diplomatic means, convince others that they ought to agree with this position in terms they would all recognize and accept.

Sure, I agree. That does not seem biblical, but much better than biblical.

For Jesus, Paul, etc, this was not an option nor something that would even have crossed their minds as a possibility, as they did not live in a democratic system. Short of converting the Roman emperor or rebelling and converting some local warlord, such action would have been impossible. But Jesus does oppose legalism on general principle, especially legalism which becomes a burden and a barrier between a person and God.

Converting powerful Romans (eventually, the emperor himself) seems to have worked fine for some Christians, though that took some time.

However, for Jesus, that would have been impossible given no superhuman powers. However, had the actions attributed to him in the Gospel been real (as nearly all Christians believe), then surely that would have indeed been an available option. In other words, there was a very high chance that he might convert very powerful Romans - including the emperor -, had he made before them displays of power similar to those described in many parts of the Gospel. Granted, someone might claim that he is God so he knew they would not convert. But for a person not making that assumption, it seems very probable that some of them would have converted had they seen those displays.

 

[Learner]

But whenever laws are passed that impose some punishment on people who behave in a certain manner, that is forced upon the population. That applies to a ban on abortion (at any stage of the pregnancy), but also to a ban on infanticide, or a ban on, say, beating horses, dogs or other non-human animals as a means to control them (or whatever other reason), or for that matter, a ban on bank robbery.

The people who support any of those laws generally believe (most of them believe) that the laws in question are just, and that the people who behave in the manners the law bans deserve punishment, and moreover, that it is permissible (or even praiseworthy, morally obligatory) to support such laws.

Are all of those laws "unbiblical"?
If so, pretty much all criminal codes are entirely unbiblical.
If not, then what would make them unbiblical?
Are they unbiblical when the (relevant) moral beliefs of the people supporting the laws are based on religion?

Unbiblical could cover a wide spectrum of laws by the term , perhaps, now thinking about it, this question may have had all sorts of varied answers from believers, because it includes everything from the OT i.e. Ten commandments and the NT. Is it then anti-Christian? Case by case it may be yes and no depending on each part on the list. Similar to the posts where Jesus did not set out to change totalitarian laws: Christians should not be involved in law changing where a large group of people would be in utmost opposition, finding the newly installed laws to quite offensive to their way of life. Christians "However" should have that same freedom to preach unhindered , unrestricted as anyone else with freedom , to preach about abortion and that it is unbiblical and not acceptable by the faith , available for those who wish to hear (Christianity in this case as the moral basis).

I see several problems with that. Some of them are (in no particular order):

1. Who is a trouble maker or a (civil) warmonger?

Take, for example, the abortion debate in Argentina. Last year, the Chamber of Deputies passed a law decriminalizing abortion in the first 12 weeks, but the Senate rejected it, so abortion remains criminalized. There is no significant risk of civil war, but the people who demanded decriminalization were sure making trouble. Then again, you could say that those opposing it were making trouble. But who were the ones making trouble? Most of the supporters of the law saw it as a step forward towards less unjust laws, whereas most of those opposing it saw it as a law that decriminalized heinous acts of murder.

So, how does one asceratain which side is the trouble-maker?

Just as I mentioned above , imposing a law that registers ONLY to a certain group is enticing trouble and mayhem. It would still work for Christianity anyhow should the law for pro-choice be in place. People do have to choose, not to ... It is Christianity's duty (to use the word) "Persuade" people to see a reasonable pov.. as they see it by Jesus's standards. But I must mention..To the extreme there are communities of faith that keep to themselves but co-exist harmoniously. Like the Amish or Quakers for example who don't get involved with law-of-the-land politics, apart from having a representative but must have their freedom to do as they do like everyone else should.

2. Sometimes, making trouble is indeed a good thing to do. In order to decriminalize, say, homosexual behavior, it may well be necessary to make trouble (arguably, in the US laws banning homosexual behavior were always unconstitutional, but there surely are countries where they were not), in the sense that it alters the statu quo, it makes a lot of people very uncomfortable, etc.

Mixed societies surely must agree then that homosexual behaviour must be treated in the same way as heterosexual behaviour. No sexual behaviours in public ,most obviously in fron of children , on childrens TV airtime etc.etc.. In this scenario , the Christians duty is to merely preach (dependent on belief type) homosexuality is unbiblical ... just to those who want to hear.

3. Going by the Gospel's account, Jesus himself engaged in trouble-making, and broke the law. This include the Sabbath law, but also, his assault on merchants. For example:

https://openenglishbible.org/oeb/2016.1/read/b040.html

12 Jesus went into the Temple Courts, and drove out all those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers, and the seats of the pigeon-dealers, 13 and said to them, “Scripture says ‘My house will be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a den of robbers.”

That seems to be a clear case not only of trouble-making, but of imposing religious laws on people who clearly believed otherwise (I would say it was also morally unacceptable behavior on his part, but that's another matter; here, I'm just challenging the claims of unbiblicalness).

No disputing you there but thats not the same when you're among the same people of the same faith.

This discussion has helped me a little more now to make certain decisions. (I certainly won't be a politician at all lol).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Similar to the posts where Jesus did not set out to change totalitarian laws: Christians should not be involved in law changing where a large group of people would be in utter opposition, finding the newly installed laws quite offensive to their way of life.

In the past, in many American states, slavery was legal. Making it illegal was offensive to the way of life of a large group of people, who were in utter opposition. However, it is not the case that Christians who worked to change those laws behaved immorally because of it. So, the claim above is false.

That is only an example. There are plenty of cases of not just unjust, but extremely unjust laws that have the support of large groups of people who would be in utter opposition if changed, finding the proposed laws quite offensive to their way of life.

Mixed societies surely must agree then that homosexual behaviour must be treated in the same way as heterosexual behaviour.

I do not know what you mean by "mixed societies", but actually, many societies ban homosexual behavior - or, for that matter, they ban conversions from Islam to Christianity, or deconversions from Islam to atheism.
The point is that sometimes, making trouble is a reasonable course of action. It depends on the case how much trouble.

No disputing you there but thats not the same when you're among the same people of the same faith.

But they were not people of the same faith. They surely disagreed with Jesus about what was acceptable. He used violence to impose his view.