Give unto Caesar what is Ceasars...

[Last Roman]

Many know the saying "render unto Casear what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's" Was Jesus (whether you believe in him or not) calling for seperation of church and state?

Annnnnnnnnddd GO!

[John I Tzimisces]

"And what cannot be rendered unto either Caesar, nor God, you mayest write them off, for yea, they are deductible".

I generally see that as a valid interpretation of the words of Jesus. He never claimed to be a political ruler, nor did he call for his followers to transform the apparatus of state into a mouthpiece for his faith. I think we generally believe that we feel politicians and those in government in general should simply be held to the same standards as the rest of us, and that preaching, which we are all called to do, is best done by leading by example...

So yes.

[Last Roman]

"And what cannot be rendered unto either Caesar, nor God, you mayest write them off, for yea, they are deductible".

yes, I did get the idea from that book

I generally see that as a valid interpretation of the words of Jesus. He never claimed to be a political ruler, nor did he call for his followers to transform the apparatus of state into a mouthpiece for his faith. I think we generally believe that we feel politicians and those in government in general should simply be held to the same standards as the rest of us, and that preaching, which we are all called to do, is best done by leading by example...

So yes.

Well said. And yet it is "fundamentalist" Christians that so want the Church to rule (or so it seems)

[John I Tzimisces]

yes, I did get the idea from that book

I bring that book to seminary with me
Such good times...just gotta avoid page 99.

Well said. And yet it is "fundamentalist" Christians that so want the Church to rule (or so it seems)

Fundamentalist Christians lack the inspiration (spiritual education?) to read the words of the Bible beyond just that: Words. Taking the Bible as literally as they do it destroys the point of the book.
However since we don't see any religious leaders in this country with any *real* power, I'm not too worried. If we start seeing Archbishops in the cabinet...get worried . I don't see any church in this country with a strangle hold on govt, but rather individuals who are trying to force their morals (be they supported by the church or not) on the populous. It's not up to the state to make people faithful, its up to the people...

[ENSAIS]

[QUOTE=John I Tzimisces]
Fundamentalist Christians lack the inspiration (spiritual education?) to read the words of the Bible beyond just that: Words. Taking the Bible as literally as they do it destroys the point of the book.
...QUOTE]
You also said previously "I generally see that as a valid interpretation of the words of Jesus. He never claimed to be a political ruler, nor did he call for his followers to transform the apparatus of state into a mouthpiece for his faith. I think we generally believe that we feel politicians and those in government in general should simply be held to the same standards as the rest of us, and that preaching, which we are all called to do, is best done by leading by example..."

For your second thought, that separation of church / state is a valid intepretaion of Christ's words, let me add my agreement as a fundamentalish Christian.

John 18:36 "Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kindom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delievered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."
He said this just before He was tortured then murdered. And Christ's explanation to Pilate is pretty interesting to those who think want the state and Church to be the same entity:
John 19:11a "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above."

As an inspired and educated Christian, I disagree that taking the words of the Bible literally destroys the point of the book. For example in the citations above, Christ himself makes explicit that God has given power to temporal authorities (the State), which is not a part of Christs kingdom (salvation, Christianity).

For that information, feel free to read Christ's witness to Ncodemus in John chapter 3.

I have deliberately only quoted from John (though to a well-educated Christian there are many, many passages of scripture that say the same points clearly) to hopefully encourage someone interested in looking this stuff up to be able to do so with minimal effort.

Hope it helps.
ENSAIS

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

"And what cannot be rendered unto either Caesar, nor God, you mayest write them off, for yea, they are deductible".

Damn it, you beat me to it. Hilarious.

[Barbarian-Bob]

I think he means more that you give to your earthly rulers what is theirs (tax?) and give to God what is his (your soul, your faith?)

It's a pretty interesting thought, really. If he might have meant something more.

It depends on how countries organise the union of church and state. In some countries you have to pay to be a member of the church of the state (so to speak), and in others you don't. Perhaps Jesus wouldn't have liked the former? :hmmm:

[Søren]

Not necessarly.

In a utopia (according to Christian dogma) everyone would be a christian, therefore separation of the church and state is not only unecessary, but also impossible.

However, what he was saying, is that if the state, for whatever reason, is separated from the church, then one should also respect the temporal authority. (there are other bible verses which make this explicit also)

While in general I would agree that, for practical reasons, both institutions should be separated (the church as in the communal relationship between people and god; as opposed to an organized total body, which shouldn't exist) ; I don't think this verse makes it implicit.

[Kscott]

In a utopia (according to Christian dogma) everyone would be a christian, therefore separation of the church and state is not only unecessary, but also impossible.

Not at all. Seperation of Church and State does not mean that religous values can not effect laws. Laws are choosen by the values of the society and if that society is all christian its laws will most likely be a reflection of that. That is not what seperation of state is about. It simply means neither the state should rule the church nor the church should rule the state. I dont see how a totally christian society has anything to do with that.

[ENSAIS]

Not at all. Seperation of Church and State does not mean that religous values can not effect laws. Laws are choosen by the values of the society and if that society is all christian its laws will most likely be a reflection of that. That is not what seperation of state is about. It simply means neither the state should rule the church nor the church should rule the state......

Good point. It also would mean that Church and State are not the same thing (that is how they are "Separate"). Christianity IS a kingdom--but not a kingdom of this world as a State is.

[AMERICARULES]

Good point. It also would mean that Church and State are not the same thing (that is how they are "Separate"). Christianity IS a kingdom--but not a kingdom of this world as a State is.

Yes, the faith calls us Christians to try to, in our own small ways, bring the Kingdom of Heaven down to earth. However, in no way does this has to do with imposing our religion on others. It more has to do with being kind to others and living moral lives.

[ENSAIS]

I see it more as being "salt" that has not lost its savor. Christ clearly says his kingdom is NOT from here, so his followers don't have a sword and don't fight to make it an earthly kingdom.

It definitely is about living a moral life. As for kindness, Luke 7:12 "Therefore whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Sounds pretty much like the golden rule...

[the Black Prince]

fundamentalist christians seems such a dichotomy, because in the way the act, fundamentalists act neither christian, nor according to the fundamental truths of the bible.

[I Have a Clever Name]

I believe he's simply commanding adherants to pay their taxes to Caesar, but to worship God. Remember - the Imperial Cult was prevalent in the Roman Empire, and the inclusion of the Emperor into the collection of gods worshipped was a requirement. Worshipping the Emperor was believed to promote loyalty and fealty. Jesus might be dissuading his adherants from giving to Caesar what is intrinsically God's - devotion and exaltation. God obviously would have no need for clinking coins with Caesar's head fashioned upon them.

Fundamentalist Christians lack the inspiration (spiritual education?) to read the words of the Bible beyond just that: Words. Taking the Bible as literally as they do it destroys the point of the book.

Fundamentalist Christians realise that if you label one canonical text as metaphorical, you're about to fall down a slippery slope. What if Jesus' life was a metaphor? What is there to indicate that Genesis is meant to be taken metaphorically? Might we not apply this to other works? Of course, fence-sitters can avoid this by selecting what subjectively they feel to be literal and what they feel to be figurative.

If 'spiritual education' means choosing what is a metaphor and what is literal based on how embarassed you are by external analysis, you're right, fundamentalists need it. They also need to come to the profound realisation that if you believe everything the Bible says, you're in trouble. Which is true, for example, Genesis 1 or 2? They can't both be correct, and so an absolutist review is non-sensical by definition.

[Last Roman]

I believe he's simply commanding adherants to pay their taxes to Caesar, but to worship God. Remember - the Imperial Cult was prevalent in the Roman Empire, and the inclusion of the Emperor into the collection of gods worshipped was a requirement. Worshipping the Emperor was believed to promote loyalty and fealty. Jesus might be dissuading his adherants from giving to Caesar what is intrinsically God's - devotion and exaltation. God obviously would have no need for clinking coins with Caesar's head fashioned upon them.

I also took that into consideration, so I'm a little on the fence.

[Last Roman]

Fundamentalist Christians realise that if you label one canonical text as metaphorical, you're about to fall down a slippery slope. What if Jesus' life was a metaphor? What is there to indicate that Genesis is meant to be taken metaphorically? Might we not apply this to other works? Of course, fence-sitters can avoid this by selecting what subjectively they feel to be literal and what they feel to be figurative.

I don't like the slippery slope argument. I think the Bible was to portray Jesus as real, but his stories as metaphors for his teachings and advice.

[Holger Danske]

I don't like the slippery slope argument. I think the Bible was to portray Jesus as real, but his stories as metaphors for his teachings and advice.

correct

[Mathias]

correct

You mean that you agree, saying that it is correct is to go a bit to far since there is no way to tell if it is correct or not. Its difficult to ask the writers of book that was written nearly 2000 years ago what was supposed to be metaphorical and not.

[I Have a Clever Name]

I also took that into consideration, so I'm a little on the fence.

Well, there is no mention of governance or religious tolerance. Rather it is focused on what the individual should provide - I cannot construe how this calls for secularism.

[the Eternal Cocoon]

Many know the saying "render unto Casear what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's" Was Jesus (whether you believe in him or not) calling for seperation of church and state?

Annnnnnnnnddd GO!

I think it was more of a reconcialation with earthly governments. You give ceasar your loyalty, and god your faith.