This refers to one of the big reasons people came to America to begin with - to escape religious persecution. It was therefore determined that NO religion should be allowed to have authority in state affairs, thus no one religion would have the opportunity to dictate their standards to the population as a whole.
Where do governments derive their authority to make moral decrees
2Pe 2:9 The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
2Pe 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
A question that diverged from the topic entirely. That is to say - How much influence Christianity should have on state affairs? As opposed to - How do you determine what is/is not moral?
No, it has a great amount of relevancy.
Answer this question: Is God the only guide to what is and isn't moral, or is there some sort of guide that has legitimacy above or equal to God's commands?
There we go again mixing apples and oranges - Absolutely God is the Final and Ultimate Authority! No argument there. Again the original statement was that the U.S. Constitution disallows any religion from being the determining voice in government. The reason for this was to prevent the abuses of religious persecution which had were common place in Europe.
It's not a non-sequitor, it's just going from the tree branch to the root.
back to merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur
non sequitur-
1.
: an inference that does not follow from the premises;
specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2.
: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said
Your logic - the Independence of the state from religious control = Denial of Gods Ultimate and Final Moral Authority. Does not follow.
Meets the criteria of definition 1.
: - a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
If by picking and choosing you mean opening to leviticus, numbers, exodus, or deuteronomy and saying, "Oh, I don't like this, so clearly God wouldn't approve of it, thus this must be some kind of metaphor!" Then no, I do not do that. Even thought it would be advantageous when it comes to creating a "humanly acceptable gospel."
If by picking and choosing you mean, that we as humans are fallible and often make mistakes when attempting to understand God's word, then absolutely.
Which is it you speak of? The latter isn't picking and choosing in the way we commonly (at least here in Missouri) use the phrase.
People are rarely so frank in their misrepresentation of Gospel. THAT at least would be honest. Let me give you an illustration:
In 15 places in the old testament usury (interest on money) warned against, frowned upon, or out right forbidden.
Exo_22:25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
Neh_5:7 Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them.
Pro_28:8 He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.
So on and so forth. Since capitalism absolutely relies on interest for gain and investment purposes - the typical conservative Christian will say "Well, they meant
excessive interest." or "Investment is not
really usury." or some variant of the same.
That is what I mean.
Not that some Christian liberals are not just as guilty on other issues. No moral high ground for the general population.
I do not recall my saying, "He that posseseth liberal political opinions, must hence forth forfeit scripture."
My point is that we should appeal to scripture for moral guidance, not political philosophies.
I agree entirely. Again our position is not that we are scripturally "right" and conservative Christians are scripturally "wrong". Rather that our political position is not inherently any more immoral than theirs.
Go for it. I seek to keep my moral views in line with scripture. (thus my change on my positions of capital punishment, torture, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, abortion, pornography, and many more)
So do we. Although I must confess a rather morbid curiosity re: your position on torture.
I was once on the other side of the fence. I've only professed belief in the existence of God, the resurrection of Christ, etc etc for about 16-17 months, devoutly so only within the last ~12. This is why we must appeal to God for moral authority. God is the only objective and binding source.
Each political view must be evaluated with scripture. To say that anything has moral authority above or equivalent to God, would be heresy. This is why I asked how we are to determine the (im)moral qualities of an action.
I agree again. God is the Ultimate and Final Measure of and Authority on morality.