WASHINGTON – Experts in a panel butt heads Tuesday as they debated on how religious engagement in public policy should look in 21st century American democracy against the backdrop of a presidential race, where it’s strange not to talk about one’s faith.
-
(Photo: The Christian Post)Dr. David Hollinger - Preston Hotchkis Professor of American History, University of California, Berkeley - speaking at the panel discussion entitled, ''Debating the Divine: Religion in 21st Century American Democracy,'' at the Center for American Progress on Tuesday, June 24, 2008, in Washington, D.C.
The spirited discussion, which often turned intellectually fierce, pitted Dr. David Hollinger, a University of California, Berkeley, professor with expertise in religion and politics in relations to U.S. history, against Dr. Eboo Patel, founder of the Interfaith Youth Core and an expert on the sociology of religion.
Panelists and moderator E.J. Dionne, Jr.,author of Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith & Politics After the Religious Right, readily agreed that religion has an important place in the public square. What they disagreed on is how to integrate diverse religious identities into a common civic life.
Hollinger argues that anyone who proclaims his personal faith as justification for public policy decisions should be ready to defend his religious ideas in public democratic debates.
The UC Berkeley Preston Hotchkis Professor of American History adamantly believes the public has the right to scrutinize and question someone’s religion if he claims it influences choices that affect the public.
“So proclaim your faith, assert its relevance to your political leadership, and then suffer no questions about its soundness,” Hollinger said, referencing former Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney’s speech on his Mormon faith. “Tell but don’t ask? This seems to be our motto today in the public discussion of religious ideas – tell but don’t ask.”
“It will not do to offer religious faith as reason to vote for someone or to support a public policy and then take offense if somebody asks skeptical questions about the basis for it,” he argued.
Hollinger called for “robust public debate” about religious ideas of politicians who invoke their faith to assert public policy decisions.
“One thing that might happen if we did that is that differences would emerge about which religious ideas deserves respect and which did not,” the scholar speculated. “And there might be a quarrel over which religious idea has cognitive plausibility and which did not.”
He pointed to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and his famous 2006 speech about faith and public policy. The Illinois senator had said “democracy demands that religiously motivated people translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values. Democracy requires that their proposal be subject to argument and amenable to reason.”
Based on this philosophy, Obama reasons that even if he may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, he cannot pass a law banning abortion because people of other faiths and no faith may not have the same opinion about the practice. Obama believes he can only ban a practice if it violates a universal principle held by all people.
On the other side of the debate was interfaith leader Eboo Patel, who opposes Hollinger’s call for rigorous questioning of politicians’ religious ideas. Instead, Patel, an Indian Muslim, advocates building a pluralistic society where people will respect each other’s differences. Continue >>
RSS
Good viking-
Unfortunately, you still don't get it. You may actually be surprised that I'd would have agreed to that amendment as well. LOL! But you still aren't getting it.
Since this debate can rage longer than I'm willing to put into it, we'll just have to part ways and say God Bless AMerica! Way to hang tough, though.
Rolln4him,
If the such a clause in the constitution is the evidentiary test that you suggest then I believe you have proved the opposite for the united states since Article VI of the US constitution explicitly prohibits such religious tests of office. Also if you go back and read the notes and records regarding the constitutional congress you will find that this was not lightly done but rather debated at length with specific reference amongst others to the possible elections of Muslims.
By the way the DelAware Constitution was ammended with the consent of the people in 1792 to remove the religious test.
wbmoore,
I have no disagreement with your statement at 8:01. I believe this is reflected in my 11:09pm post. You may note that my presenting of these extensive quotes was in response to rolln4him repeated challenges for evidence to support my earlier statement.
As stated in my 11:09 post my objection is when people use the "the USA is a Christian Nation" as an excuse or justification for there prejudice and discrimanatory conduct towards members of minority religions. I first made this point in regards to persons on this site suggesting that muslims "go back" to their own country's. I pointed out that many Muslims (and jews, hindus, etc.) were born right here in this country. In fact many of them have Muslim or Jewish ancestors who lived here right in this country going back to pre- revolution times. Some of these ancestors of fought in the revolutionary war for the same rights and freedoms (including religious freedom) that we also enjoy. Also some of these persons are currently serving in the armed services supporting the preservation of our freedoms for the very people who blithely suggest that they go or even be sent back to "their own country" I have to admit it does raise my hackles when I hear that kind of jingoistic , bigoted, prejudice.
That kind of attitude not only creates division in our civil life and the unity of the country it also in my opinion makes the possibility of such persons accepting the gospel.
Viking-
So after reading through the State of Delaware's Contitution of
"Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust...shall...make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: 'I, ______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration'"
I wonder what faith those guys - one was a signer of the US Constitution - had in mind when they pulled this together!?
You randomly pull out selected quotes and passages to fit your ignorance and neglect to see the overall picture.
Viking,
I suspect we could each spend months digging up quotes to support our positions and never convince the other. I found a few quotes to support my position. I know of many more. Yes, a very few of the founding fathers were deists. However, an overwhelming majority were Christian. I believe the number close to 200. Many of them were leaders in their churches. Even at least some of the universalists recognized the principles used for independence were Christian.
This nation was meant to be pluralistic to allow the free exercise of religion, as understood by the founding fathers. But it was also founded upon Christian principles, to the point where the very institutions created were based upon principles found in the Bible by the founding fathers. The overwhelming majority of the people at that time were Christian. Even the majority of people in this time claim to be Christian. This was a Christian nation in every way but name, and that was to protect the people from the tyranny they had suffered at the hands of government being involved in religion.
viking -
OK. We just disagree. I truthfully don't have time to write out an exhaustive survey convincing you of my side. Go to WallBuilders.com as they would do a far better job than I.
I do recall an interesting bit of the Constitution of the State of Delaware (Article XXII) saying this:
"Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust...shall...make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: 'I, ______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration'"
On this subject let me add I also recognize that there were many Christian Founders (as well as unitarians, Quakers, Deists, etc.) my point is that (while I fully acknowledge that judeo-Christian principles were embedded within the fabric of our laws) we were founded by definition as a pluralistic nation. I object only when people use the Christian Nation line to justify prejudicial treatment of Americans of other faiths.
It was during John Adam's administration in 1797 that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
By the way in those days they paid attention to what they were passing On June 7 1797 the treaty including this article was read aloud in its entirety to the whole senate which then approved it UNANIMOUSLY. Following which John Adams signed it.
In presenting these selected quotes I am not saying I agree with the views of these Founders only reporting what they actually said.
Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac"
From: Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.
James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
From: The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785
Benjamin Franklin stated “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From: Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1970.
Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1970.
Now some might say that the author of the Declaration of Independence, the chief writer of the Constitution, several signers of both documents, and some revolutionary patriots including the 2nd, 3rd and 4th president of the Country don’t really represent founders of the Country. So here is one more piece of historical fact that might have missed your attention.
Rolln4him,
It seems your just not happy unless your picking a fight. Ok for your authority on whether the USA was founded on Christianity as a Christian nation you site Barak Obama , John McCain and the “those outside our country”
You suggest I am out in left field. Well perhaps so but out in that field are John Adams, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin and many other “Founders of the Country. But please don’t take my word for it check it out.
Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestos encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the war of Independence:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
From:
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)
Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature."
From:
Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)
John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"
From:
The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403,
series of posts comming
wbm and proph-
No doubt that you all get it, but it sounds viking is playing games or is out in left field o things.
Have a great 4th and may God bless you! I'm going to watching the fireworks.!!!!! God, I love this nation!!!!
wbmoore,
I'm just amazed at the wealth of knowledge that you present to us. I've learned a lot from you.
Prophet, I'd have to agree with you.
My reading of history shows this country was founded on Christian principles, with the explicit requirement that the government has no right to establish a national religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. However, numerous historical documents recognize that the USA was indeed a Christian nation. Granted, there were numerous denominations, but it was still considered to be a Christian nation none the less.
President Harry Truman wrote to Pope Pius XII in 1947 that "This is a Christian nation." Certainly he did not mean we had a national religion. He meant that most of the people were Christian, and the institutions and laws of this country were profoundly influenced (founded based upon) by Christian and Jewish principles found in the BIble.
Woodrow Wilson said the same thing. Samuel Adams, a signer of the declaration of independence, and a supreme court justice, and chief justice of the Maryland supreme court, and a cousin to John Adams, wrote in 1799 "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion... ."
"Our sixth President, John Quincy Adams said "From the day of the Declaration...they [the American people] were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct""
"John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court said: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their ruler, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.""
quotes from http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html - and no I am not Catholic.
rolln,
We shall know them by their fruit. America may have been founded and built upon Christian values, but we have strayed far from those values. I would have to agree with the view that, taking America's fruits into consideration, we are not a very Christian nation. Promoting homosexual agendas, legalized abortion, porn shops, stripper bars, etc, etc. Those aren't very Christian qualities.
viking-
Got it! viking is still in fantasy land.
I don't mean to burst you perfect pious pharos - but how can I be JK'n and denigrating all at the same time.
One of the great miracles of the founding of America was that the founders intentions for ALL (not just Christians) to be able pursue life liberty and happiness. Two common ties of common sense makes this happen:
a. The laws and foundations would be founded using Christian principals (laws were put into place in the early stages of our history by looking through scripture -not Koran by the way - to justify the law they were about to form)
b. In their genius, the founders elected to not to put the word Christian in the Constitution explicitly because they wanted to prevent the very thing that has happened to other "Christian" nations - but if you read history in its context, you will find that Christianity is interwoven into every aspect of our great country.
I have serious concern for you and where you are getting your sources from. Like I've said before, you line up well with an organization that promotes heresy.
I already have told you that Obama recognizes America to be a Christian nation. Here's a video of McCain just recently saying that we're a Christian nation (video link)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9izhjnaLa3M
, the world says we're a Christian nation. So, what viking - what gives? Enlighten us a bit more of you sole crusade to educate all of use that we're not a Christian nation because of "propaganda" as you say. What propaganda are you talking about?
rolln4him,
Yes God Bless America and I will add a couplet from a song my dad (a 29 year air force veteran) taught my brothers and I when we were young.
"confirm her soul in self control
Her liberty in Love"
I know you were "JK" with me but your comment implies a denigration of Muslims and Bhuddists. Since many members of these groups serve in our armed forces placing their lives in harms way this seems less a joke then a display of bigotry.
Will continue to pray for you.
hey viking -
Did you get a chance to listen to Dr. J. Dobson the other day (Thursday)? He featured David Burton from Wall Builders Ministries.
If you didn't get the chance, you can visit Dobson's website and listen family.org or go to oneplace.com .
Blessings brother or sister and may God Bless America!!!! Or in Viking's case (who doesn't seem to recognize a Christian America) I suppose we could say Allah Bless America or Buddha Bless America or ... LOL - JK ya Vike!
Viking,
Amen!
Amen, Viking.
Only by God's grace. His mercy endures forever!!
Prophet, and wbmoore
I admire your courage and your discernment on this. Regarding family members while I know intellectually that flesh is temporary and that in the life to come every tear will be wiped away I also know my own human weakness well enough to tremble at what I might do in such a situation. I can only hope that I will be strengthened by the Grace of God through the holy spirit if I am put to the test.
Prophet, That's where I am - I think I can surrender my life (I have - to God), but I dont like the idea of watching my wife and children suffer.
Of course, that pretty much describes Christians throughout history - watching family members suffer for calling Christ Lord, and then dying themselves.
I remember years ago, I was being given personal lessons in TaeKwonDo from a 3rd degree black belt friend. I wanted to learn to keep in shape, learn discipline, and I also wanted to do some competition.
He was ex-military and wanted to teach me a lot of advanced self-defense moves, including how to "dispatch" a person if necessary.
Well, I wasn't interested in that, especially how to break a person's neck quickly and effeciently. And as much as I try to tell him my stance on it (he was also a Christian), he continued to push being able to defend yourself in a life threatening situation.
But I will say this about the topic. When it comes to me, I would not give a second thought about it. God has my life in His hands. As His Words says "If I live, I live as unto the Lord. If I die, I die as unto the Lord. So whether I live or die, I am the Lord's" So I do not fear death.
My problem comes in when it involves my family. It's easy to say I will not strike back if a man strikes me or threatens my life. But it's so much harder to refrain if my family's life is threatened.
Prophet,
Amen. It is so.
How did Jesus handle the situation? There were times when the Pharisees wanted to put their hands on him and stone him, and the Bible says that he just walked through them.
He knew his time was not yet. And as he made it clear that no man took his life, but he gave it when it was time.
Can we also have that assurance? To be able to know when it is our time, and know that death cannot come until that time?
I believe that we can get to a relationship with God that we can know.
WBmoore
I concur
Viking,
I read that website. There was nothing there I had not read before. I think the author is correct about removing ourself from a dangerous situation, unless God makes it clear to not do so. However, I think he has a predisposition to looking to defend others and self.
I have not reached the conclusions he reached. I can say that although I have not done a complete study, I believe I could scripturally support being a police officer or soldier, in defense of your country or community. I can understand people making the decision to defend their family, but I am still not convinced that is the proper reading of the text. But I still find myself unable to Biblically defend a position of self-defense.
LOL Jester - There's an Ugly Dog Contest (how that has escaped PETA or other PC nuts has me baffled) - then if if the mutt wins, you've just boosted the dumb things self-esteem and will be the pride of the town!!
Oh, earlier this summer I saw a PETA bumper sticker while traveling through a mid-west town. PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals.
Is this awesome or what????
Wbmoore,
I urge you to hold fast to your faith in the teachings of Christ. Your citations of scripture are on point. I have read the site that was offered to you http://www.foxven.com/s-self.html much of this seemed quite biblically based and sound. However the author seems to intentionally broaden the term self defense to include both avoiding conflict, persecution, capture etc. and the acts of threatening or even commiting violence against others. This conflating of the two distinct things allows him to borrow the example of Christ and the disciples in doing the former to help justify the latter. He spends a great deal of time and effort arguing around the issue seemingly attempting to obscure the plain teaching of Christ and through out the New Testament which repeatedly command against violence or aggression against others. While the author appears to be sincerely struggling with trying to come to terms with this very hard teaching of Christ it is also clear that he provides non biblical justification for those who wish to claim Christ while at the same time rejecting his commandments.
When purported Christian’s say to you Yes I know Christ said to love our enemies but he didn’t mean that to include those who physically attack us or our families or our nation etc. etc. I would encourage you to hold fast to Christ’s commandments and remember.
7:15-20 - "Be on your guard against false religious teachers, who come to you dressed up as sheep but are really greedy wolves. You can tell them by their fruit. Do you pick a bunch of grapes from a thorn-bush or figs from a clump of thistles? Every good tree produces good fruit, but a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree is incapable of producing bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. The tree that fails to produce good fruit is cut down and burnt. So you may know men by their fruit."
7:21 - "It is not everyone who keeps saying to me 'Lord, Lord' who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the man who actually does my Heavenly Father's will.
i've got a terrier/chihuahuahuahuahuahua mix. ugly little fella. i feel sorry for her. almost makes me want to put her down so she doesn't have to face the shame of other dogs making fun of her.
Gotta go walk the "killer" Chihuahua ! I call him FANG!
is that four letters?
a girl!!! I'm looking both ways for the PC Police.
Alright, we'll play hangman here's the start -LOL
----
like a what? c'mon! tell me...
wbm-
Tell your son "way to go" for me would you? Even if he didn't hold is own, there's a certain respect for someone who at least stands up and doesn't let bullies rule? LOL
Jester -
Hey guy - you type like a _____!!! LOL!
I'm a guy! can't you tell by the way I hold my hands while i type?
As far as worrying about my kids getting beaten up, My kids are homeschooled, and even so, my oldest got into a fight with a neighbor kid. And I've been teaching about love and patience and gentleness and peace making, etc. :) He held his own, regardless of teaching.
LOL- Jester - you're my kind of guy/gal
believer,
I know what you mean. Unfortunately, because I am try to follow the word (not saying I'm perfect), and because I love martial arts, this is a hard topic for me. I have read and read and prayed and prayed. The only thing I can come up with is that God will lead me when its time to worry about it or He wont. Either way, when it comes time, I'll act or not. Then we'll see what I really believe. :)
ifo mun libby libby woo woo
Simon sez........
CAST THE DEMON OUT!
Amen Daniel.
My pastor says...if it's got flesh, it aint the enemy.
wb, although I agree with these verses I'm having a hard time believing they are talking about all forms of physical abuse towards a person, would I then teach my children to allow the school bully to beat the snot out of them everyday since they are not allowed to defend themselves or even report it to the authorities based on one of the passages you pointed out. But I'll also say that there are no specific verses that say it is okay to defend oneself other than God telling the nation of Israel to do so in battle.
Just remember we wrestle not against flesh and blood.... :-)
Jester -
AMEN! Let those buggers have it! We need to start learning to "hog-tie" Satan in His tracks rather than talk the bull down.
but i know what its like. i get a little brash sometimes too. i never do that to fellow Christians, but i certainly do let non-christians have both barrels of my insult gun. LOL
jester-
Alright, alright - I'll calm down you ... fluff you! LOL
rolln,
how about a cyber-slap on your cyber-cheek to calm you down? lol.
James, I understand the thought, but that goes against Scripture. Jesus and Paul both were clear about not defending self (Mt 5:38-40; Romans 12:17-21; 1 Cor 6:7).
just my thought, but in order to protect my family and neighbors I must be present. If i do not defend for myself, and I die how can I perform the other.
wb, totally agree but just wanted to share what I've come to believe God would have us to do in this vital matter, believer
believer, I will consider this position. Its too imortant an issue to me to just grasp at strws. I will have to find Biblical support for what you suggest.
thanks.
W.
believer -
There you go! Let it out! "verbally rip their heads off" - LOL! You're getting the hang of it.
You're a great man of faith! Ummmm, but it just doesn't seem to fit you to use vicious terms, believer. Nice try though. Besides, you wouldn't want to stoop down to my level.
Lord knows, I have the highest amount of respect for you, friend. God bless!
wb, on protecting the family the husband is considered to take on the same role in the home that Christ has in the Church. Christ is the Shepherd of His sheep, the Church, and one of the key responsibilites of the shepherd is to protect the sheep, to fight off the wolves. Christ does this for His sheep, the Church and the husband does this for his sheep, his family. Just my view of this very important issue.
wbm-
I love you, man! Yes, I agree that defending like in terms of some recent examples in Iraq of soldiers laying on a grenade to save his comrades is a bit different.
Though it's rather obvious to me and I don't struggle (although always open for new info) with the subject as much as some do - I'd refer you to at least one resource, but there are many - http://www.foxven.com/s-self.html
I think that if you seek a commentary resource, you should be able to get great info..
God bless-
rolln4him,
"I can provide a host of situations for you to chew on. Your problem is that your piousness has blinded you to view scripture in context of the whole Bible so that it fits your comfortable American world. Unless you're a true pacifist (Quaker, Amish, and the like), your interpretation of the scripture we're referring to needs some careful and more broad perspective. "
I HAVE the situations. I've been in the military. I've been in martial arts. I've done the lessons on gun handling. I've ministered in the ghetto. I grew up poor.
Its not the possiblities of what can happen that I have no grasp of. Its the interpretation of scripture that allows me to be defensive that I am missing. I WANT to defend myself and my family. I just can't find a way of interpreting scripture that supports that position without ignoring what Christ said. I can't find it in scripture.
I MIGHT be able to justify dying for my family or friends (1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.). The question is, what did John mean by that. I'm not sure how that relates to defending your family/friends - there is a difference between taking a bullet for someone and fighting back. But even if I could justify defending my family, I certainly can't find biblical basis for justification of self defense.
If you can, then I would appreciate it. I try to live by what the BIble teaches, since it is the word of God. So, I'm being sincere here.
And no problem for the confusion.
rolln4him, to put it in your vernacular I did you knucklehead, I too enjoy a good fight but I do my best to fight fair because at times there are some knuckleheads who in my opinion based on their posts are knuckleheads and I would love to verbally rip-off their heads and I'm sure there are some who feel the same way towards me at times. I may have a very sore tongue as a result of biting it so hard, but at the same time it allows me to stay focused on the real battle.
Personally, if (God forbid) that my family were to be attacked, I'd rather not even live to see the offense; therefore, I'd be coming out shooting or swinging or whatever it takes to get the job done. Unlikely this is to happen at our house though - we have a vicious, attack Chihuahua!
Oooopps - sorry WBM
I can provide a host of situations for you to chew on. Your problem is that your piousness has blinded you to view scripture in context of the whole Bible so that it fits your comfortable American world. Unless you're a true pacifist (Quaker, Amish, and the like), your interpretation of the scripture we're referring to needs some careful and more broad perspective.
rolln4him,
You don't seem to be aware that you are conversing with wbmoore, not viking.
"However, we as Christians become "tunnel visionists" when viewing scripture and often have misinterpretations unless we're placed in soul-scripture-searching positions."
I have done this.
" For example, as a soldier, police officer, or having to be in a position to be the protector of your family. "
I think scripturally, it can be supported to do your job as a police officer or soldier.
"It is your God given responsibility as a Christian believer to protect your family with your life - not stand there and turn the other cheek-you ignorant pious putz."
Please support your position with book, chapter, and verse from the Bible? I *feel* as you do, however, the Bible tells me otherwise. Should I believe my feelings or the word of God? If you can support your position biblically, I would really and turly appreciate it.
" Oh Lord, I feel for your family if you are ever in that position."
I feel for anyone in that position.
viking -
Thanks for you very kind and thoughtful post. However, we as Christians become "tunnel visionists" when viewing scripture and often have misinterpretations unless we're placed in soul-scripture-searching positions. For example, as a soldier, police officer, or having to be in a position to be the protector of your family.
It is your God given responsibility as a Christian believer to protect your family with your life - not stand there and turn the other cheek-you ignorant pious putz. Oh Lord, I feel for your family if you are ever in that position.
rolln4him,
Did I miss something? I thought *I* was the one who said the roles are different for government and people and churches. Or are you refering to something else?
I was not speaking of separating one's faith from one's life. I dont believe you can really separate the spiritual from the physical, you only give the appearance of doing so.
I am simply saying that in a physical world, we have no right to individual self-defense, as I understand scripture (again, if you can prove me wrong, I'd appreciate it). But this does not mean we should abdicate our responsibilty as citizens - either of a city, county, state, or country - nor of a church. If we are soldiers, then we must be the best soldiers we can be, while staying faithful to Christ and His teachings. If we are members of the church, we must stand for the truth and defend it with words. If we are individuals, we must love God and our neighbor and that includes obeying him - even if we dont necessarily understand why.
And yes, intellectually speaking, I think I would allow people to harm me or my family so I might obey Christ. Realistically speaking, I really dont know.
Viking,
thanks for the URL.
"I do not claim in any way to be perfect in living the teachings you cite I often fall short. I believe that the gospel teaches that all do and that it is only through Christ that we are justified. "
Trust me, I'm not perfect either. And like Paul, there are times I am frustrated at myself for my failings. Its not our successes that count, I think, so much as our attitudes - the inner man. And yes, we are defintiely only justified through faith in Christ's redeeming work on the cross.
"What I join you in protesting is any attempt to use the badge of Christian to justify conduct that is contrary to the teachings of Christ. Some might ask surely Christ would not ask us to die rather than break his commandments but I believe that is exactly what is asked of us if necesary. I do not know if I will be able to be faithful to this commandment if it comes to the point. However I must try if I am to be true to my profession of faith. With the support of the companion perhaps I will pass the tests put before me. If so I know it will not be out of any virtue of mine but rather through the Grace of God."
Oh man. This brought tears to my eyes. It is exactly how I feel. We are called to love, which is manifested through faithful physical actions and internal attitudes. We are called to teach the Truth and obey God. If we have to die to follow what Christ said, then so be it - may Christ get the glory. I know the Holy Spirit will work to allow me to stay faithful to the end. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.
viking -
Ok, I could easily push you on the whole separate your faith personally and government involvement - we have plenty of those type of politicians like John Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, Pelosi and on and on.
But I'll hold on that and provide you another card.
Say an intruder comes into your home and starts beating on your kids or worse(God forbid). What to do? Turn the other cheek?
Are you going to deny me my cyber hug????
rolln4him,
The roles/function of government, the church, and the individual are different. The government is supposed to protect the people and so battles in various arenas. The church is supposed to defend the truth, teach God's word, help congregants grow in spiritual maturity. The individual is supposed to love God and love his neighbor - ours in a spiritual fight, where the tools are God's word, the Holy Spirit, prayer, love and the rest of the fruits of the spirit and amoror of God.
But I dont think that translates into physical defense. Again, That's my 'intellectual' understanding of scripture. I really would like someone to be able to explain these verses, and/or others in a contextual manner that does not contradict what Christ said.
If the hugging thing is a bit too close for you, I'll accept the cyber-handshake.
Thanks viking, but I still want my cyber-hug.
WB Moore
Here is the adress http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/JBPRed.htm I agree with you completely regarding the difference in judging acts and judging persons. And beyond the material and temporary flesh what is a person but the eternal soul.
Also your citations regarding the teaching of Christ at 12:48 I support as doctrinally and biblically sound. I do not claim in any way to be perfect in living the teachings you cite I often fall short. I believe that the gospel teaches that all do and that it is only through Christ that we are justified. What I join you in protesting is any attempt to use the badge of Christian to justify conduct that is contrary to the teachings of Christ. Some might ask surely Christ would not ask us to die rather than break his commandments but I believe that is exactly what is asked of us if necesary. I do not know if I will be able to be faithful to this commandment if it comes to the point. However I must try if I am to be true to my profession of faith. With the support of the companion perhaps I will pass the tests put before me. If so I know it will not be out of any virtue of mine but rather through the Grace of God.
Rolln4him,
Will continue to keep you in my prayers.
OK - back in the fight!
Yes, I'm just as antagonist at church. However, they also get to see the tender heart as well and take the package in as it is - PRAISE THE LORD! I have been close to getting kicked off the worship team a few times - the elderly in the church don't appreciate my sliding down the church aisles on my knees with a screaming electric guitar in hand or being a Jerry Lewis on the piano (yes, I do play both), but I'm joke'n. I'm not that wild - close though.
I'm really trying to lay off the coffee too!
Now, with the same meat would you answer my "comparative"? Or are you too going to be a wuss? LOL!
LOL! Way to go believer! Put some meat into it!
rollin4him, as I said I too enjoy a good fight as long as everybody fights fair and sometimes like all of us you don't fight fair when you start name calling. That said as Russ Durowitz said to the TV lady on the plane in the movie "The Kid" now will you please shut up! In your own words stop being a baby or in my words stop licking your wounds and get back in the fight!, believer
Come on - you know that we all loved that movie (may even own it).
We all grew our hair out to our shoulders, donned a broomstick as our "horse" , cardboard "breastplate for armor" and ran around our yard with a sword and armor yelling fiercely as our neighbors looked on quizzedly and thinking "isn't that the computer analyst guy - maybe he's seen too much screen"
.... haven't we???? Are you with me??
You all better not be fans of the movie "Braveheart" otherwise I'm going to be calling you names .... LOL!! JK (Just kidding-hopefully)
Perhaps, we should make a new rendition of that movie called - "Wussheart" - LOL! Sorry, I couldn't resist.
As I wait for your commentaries and this, I thought I'd say something that actually relates to the article that we're posting under.
Christians as a whole "have been turning the other cheek" in the cultural wars - much to the detriment of America. In essence, we're turned to pansies! As a result, groups such as the ACLU, the gay agenda, NEA etc. have been able to "punch the body of believers" square in the nose. In fact, most churches didn't even need a punch in the nose - they just ran before the bullies got to 'em. Others waited until they were called a few names before bolting. Yet, still others allowed for a shove or two. Most just stand around waiting until someone tells them what to do - sadly my church is somewhat in that area. So what do we do?? Do we continue turning the other cheek? I've read through scripture OT and NT studying the scriptures and have realized that - for the most part- we're missing it. The church has been clobbered so much they don't know which way is up. We've become timid and the "schoolyard bullies (ACLU and such) have been picking us off one by one. I say ENOUGH! We need to get involved and rid the evil from among us - admittedly most of the battle in on our knees in prayer!
prophet -
Boy, you must have been up late - spelling? Are you into literary forensics or something? LOL!
To my most dearest friends: believer, prophet, wbmoore and yes, even viking (as I know (s)he's lingering around) -
Allow me to provide a comparative and you can tell me what you think:
Iraq: Saddam has played cat and mouse for years with the U.S. and its allies. U.S. and allies "turn the other cheek". 9/11 occurs (punch in the face) and what should the U.S. and allies do - turn the other cheek? Sorry for the rhetorical question, but its the commentary I'm fishing for.
Holy cats Prophet - 3:06am?????
Will the real rollin4him please post up!
If I may add my two cents in to this.
I believe there are two "rolln4him's" The spelling is different between the two, as are their perspective. I've talke many times with someone with a screen name similar to rolln4him, and his Christian perspective is quite on target as opposed to the gentleman/lady presenting themself here.
rolln4him,
I love to read most of your posts. And I agree with most of what you write, if not the tone you use.
But I have to ask, do you REALLY believe what you wrote about punching?
In context, the verse is about more than just not defending oneself. Mt 5 is about being who God wants you to be - a person who loves his fellow man (enemies and brothers alike).
Mt 5:38-40
38 You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth." 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
"turn the other cheek" and "let him have your cloak" speak to not defending oneself. This is what Paul also wrote:
Romans 12:17-21
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
1 Cor 6:7
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?
As much as I would love to be able to justify self-defense (I used to study various forms of martial arts and would like to return to it), I can't find Scripture that supported the idea.
If I'm wrong, please correct me.
viking-
I couldn't resist knowing that you'll check back on this article because you are intrigued - aren't you??? Just admit it... you're looking.
Let me guess - you were the type of person that when the school yard bully knocked you down you ran away. I know I did. I turned the other cheek. But my interpretation of this scripture of "turning the other cheek" is:
If someone SLAPS you on the cheek, turn the other cheek and allow him to SLAP the other. However, if someone PUNCHES you in the face; beat the tar out of him.
Viking,
Please give the URL for the Phillips translation. I'd love to use it.
And yes, I agree with you concerning Mt 5:21-22. We need to not cause offense purposefully or call names in anger. I think in context, the calling people 'fool' was something done in frustration. Christ was big on the inner man being clean. Many of our churches fail to teach this concept. Pastors tend to focus on the outer man for some reason, perhaps because those things are more obvious.
You wrote:
"I can only conclude that while we are to judge the actions of men and take steps as directed including to expel the immoral, to rebuke those who stray from the path, to minister to those in need etc. We are not to place ourselves in the "judgment seat of Christ" and pass judgment on the state of anyone`s salvation."
I think that's the key to helping people grow in spiritual maturity - recognizing bad behavior and calling our brother on it (Jesus told us to do this in Luke 17:3). But there is a difference between judging the actions and judging the person - that is what I think Christ reserves for Himself.
And I agree, we need to live in ways that bring God glory and attract people to Him.
Viking -
Before going to bed - read a biography of DL Moody. His ministry MAY just open your pious world a bit.
Oh, viking - lighten up, give me that cyber hug you never gave me, take 2 aspirin and put yourself to bed - YOU BIG BABY!
believer-
Well, old geezer to old geezer - let's just pray we don't stoop so low as to use these acronymic methods often. Our writing skills as Americans has drifted way too much. Blessing to you, brother.
Rolln4him,
I will close by praying that you will allow Christ to give you a new heart and the spirit to lead you and support you in fulfilling the commands of Christ.
Believer,
I will take your practical advice and leave of playing the role of rolln's gadfly. I will trust in the holy spirit to ultimately speak to his heart regarding these issues. I must admit I was provoked to persistence by the way Holito8 was abused early in this thread and that may have provoked my zealousness in confronting rolln.
WB
Thanks for your posts. I was using J.B. Phillips online translation for that citation and yes it is not found such in most others. I accept your reproof in that regard. Thank you for reminding me that in presenting such arguments I should take care to use more widely accepted translations. This being said I believe the basic issue addressed at Matthew 5:21-22 applies. As do many other of Christ’s teachings of how we are to conduct ourselves as Christians. What really got the bit in my teeth was the abuse directed towards Holito8 early on. I accept completely your 7:18 posts references and when I set these against Romans 14: 10-13 (King James Version)
10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
I can only conclude that while we are to judge the actions of men and take steps as directed including to expel the immoral, to rebuke those who stray from the path, to minister to those in need etc. We are not to place ourselves in the “judgment seat of Christ” and pass judgment on the state of anyone’s salvation. I guess for the purpose of this post I will leave it at this. While others may choose to spend there efforts on deciding who is and who is not saved I will leave that job to Christ and try to concentrate on my job of spreading the Gospel and living in such a way that brings others to Christ.
prophet, thanks for the levity at 9:58 post.
rollin, what the heck did you say, I got for what it's worth, just to let you know, I like to tell it like it is, not bad for an old geezer, huh! but I forgot what lol means again? laugh out loud, hey I remembered and my response would be, ya think or duh, right!
prophet -
Where do I sign up - spaz?! LOL!!!
Hey believer --
FWIW J2LUK I like to TILII. LOL
rollin4him,
"The art of tact is to insult someone....and making them feel good about it."
P.S. I do have to make a side note. Our family has had a real issue with the whining thing. So we've had discussion and Bible readings and prayer concerning the excessive whining. So now we have a say when the whiner is turned on..."YOU BIG BABY". That's right! In fact we're working to get a oversized pacify that would be hug around the neck if you're elected as "THE BIG BABY" of the day. It brings some tremendous laughter into our home and has made many difficult situations much lighter. So if you hear me say "YOU BIG BABY" from me again- just keep in mind this little story!!!
Thanks guys - I do apologize for my name calling. I've been chastised before but I do think sometimes we hit with kid-gloves. Thanks believer for putting this matter to a close.
WB - that was the most heartfelt post I've read from you (lol- if you know what I mean - and I love you, brother).
Viking-I'm sorry this must be the most frustrating thing for you that someone doesn't concede to your concessions. One of the areas I've had to grow in was the area of learning to realize that there are times my brothers and sisters won't see my side. I'm sad you won't accept my cyber-hug as a brother in Christ, but ...
viking and rollin, I address this to both of you because I don't want either of you to think I'm talking about you but with you. I echo wb's post the Gospel is an offense to both non-believers and for lack of a better term to backslidden believers as well and it is easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar but sometimes when those flies are horse flies and biting, you'd prefer getting a fly swatter and beating the stuffings out of them. rollin like me is intense and very confrontational and will not walk away from a fight, if I were to be his mentor I would say learn to pick your battles and ask yourself is this an issue worth falling on my sword over. But right now me thinks rollin is in a defensive posture and understandably so and if he's like me even though it appears he may not be hearing your advice he is and chances are he will heed some if not most of it. I enjoy posting with both of you because you both bring much to the table, although viking I've got to admit like wb at times your really overwhelm me with all you bring at one time, but that's me. And like I said in another post I like a good verbal fight as long as we all agree to fight fair, be blessed, believer.
rolln4him,
I must admit, it DOES look as though you revel in name calling. Its like watching a child playing in the balls at a chuck-e-cheese. They pop up and pop off and disappear cackling.
I too tell people where I think they are wrong, but Scripture and my wife and life have taught me that its easier for people to hear me when I'm not calling names. What I have to say (the truth) is offensive enough to many people, there is not need to make it any harder to hear.
Paul tells us to expel wicked people from the assembly
1 Cor 5:9-13
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with any who claim to be fellow believers but are sexually immoral or greedy, idolaters or slanderers, drunkards or swindlers. With such persons do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked person from among you."
The Apostle John judged whether someone was of the church
1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
John tells us how to identify someone who is not a Christian - it must be for a reason.
1 John 3:7-10
7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
While we do not know the condition of someone`s heart, we DO know what their actions tell us.
I have known plenty of people in many denominations whose lives make me question their salvation - and I use that knowledge to challenge them. Sometimes it has helped them live a more holy life, sometimes not. But I think we have that responsibility.
Viking, I have to step in here.
I do not think you are quoting the Bible when you attribute to Christ this quote, "anyone who looks on his brother as a lost soul is himself heading straight for the fire of destruction"
I have looked in the NIV, TNIV, NIV-UK, Worldwide English Version NT, Wycliffe NT, NIRV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, New Life Version, Darby, Young’s, American Standard, 21st Century King James Version, New Century Version, NKJV, CEV, ESV, KJV, New Living Translation, Amplified, The Message, NASB.
If my count is right, that's 21 versions of the Bible. That quote is not present in any of them. So then I did a search for 'lost soul'.
I DID find a quote of Jesus in the Message (which I don’t consider a decent Bible, as it’s a paraphrase) in Lk 15:8-10 where Jesus gives the parable of the lost coin saying
8-10 "Or imagine a woman who has ten coins and loses one. Won't she light a lamp and scour the house, looking in every nook and cranny until she finds it? And when she finds it you can be sure she'll call her friends and neighbors: 'Celebrate with me! I found my lost coin!' Count on it—that's the kind of party God's angels throw every time one lost soul turns to God."
But that definitely does not mention anything like what you put out there.
Seedplanter,
Thank you for your response. Good luck in your work in Chicago. I hope that when you have time you will join me in seeking to bring rolln4him back to consistency with Christ’s teachings.
Believer,
I appreciate your post of 4:12. I also believe we are remiss if we do not confront a fellow Christian when we see them in error. Seedplanters recent post referencing Paul's teaching on the subject is correct. It is from this duty that I am obligated despite the name calling and evasions to continue my efforts with rolln4him.
When he states "I also know a bunch of Catholics that won't be in heaven given their present state" He is not going as you suggest challenging those persons on seeking to lead them back to a true faith.
Further when he adamantly maintains that Jesus died for offending others despite repeated opportunities and urging to amend his words in conformance with the Gospels
I am obligated in Christian charity to continue my efforts. I would ask you to join me in urging him to reflect on the scriptures and pray for spiritural guidance on these matters.
Oh and I'd better clarify the EV Hill story. The member that "came to church with his arm in a sling" after the rebuke (I don't advocate physical rebuke but it worked for this member) was beating his wife.
So is viking a "hypocritical fool" - yes! Is there justification to use this term? Yes -based on his posts. Do I still love him/her as a brother/sister in the Lord, yes. Can we disagree? Yes! Is he a prideful baby? Yes! Do I still love him as a brother/sister in the Lord? Yes!
Hey seedplanter -
I know I've been a bad boy at times, but we must remember to rebuke with all authority. God (Jesus) both in the OT and NT used harsh terminology "fool" "Satan" "brood of vipers" and there are commentaries that bring to light that Jesus had a "holy temper" to say the least. EV Hill (pastor) had tremendous way of having that "holy temper" so to speak and one time he and his elders did some damage physically to a member of his congregation (as told at a PK event in the 90's). I think the issue of handling believers like viking - we handle perhaps differently than unbelievers - but the church for too long has been soft on rebuke and authority and emphasized the kid glove approach too long.
viking-
You're obviously not seeing the other posts around you stating your reckless regard to be incorrect. Hey, I'll even instill a bit of His Word for you: Proverbs 16:18 "Pride goes before destruction. And a haughty spirit before stumbling."
You didn't answer my question: By stating that "...implore you to embrace the teachings of JC" are you not judging?
If not, then stop your whining and arguing just to argue.
viking -
You forgot that me supposedly not answering the question had a more than likely a 3rd option - absentmindedness! LOL
Hey, but what question did I not answer. Remember, I told you that we'll have to disagree, so I hope that you didn't think I wasn't answering.
viking -
Hey your back- sorry I hurt your feeling.
Your still hypocritical (I'll forgo the "fool" thing) as if you answer my questions in simple fashion?? LOL! Stop being a hypocrite.
Viking my time is short because I am leaving to minister at the Taste of Chicago. I read your post the best I could in spite of CPs new format. The best I can say on the fly is I agree that it is dangerous to call someone a 'fool.' I have done it before and I thank God for His grace. Furthermore I myself know catholics and protestants who take God's grace for granted to the point that it is not really salvation at all, but universalism.
viking, I agree we must be very careful to judge whether someone is saved or not saved, but at the same time we do know what is required by the Scriptures for one to become a Christian and if a person is willfully living in sin and shows no desire to turn from that sin then there is a very high probability that they have not made a genuine profession of faith in Christ. I believe they are a product of cheap grace salvation/theology. There are several other things such as a lack of hunger for the Word of God, refusal to surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and no burden to see the lost come to Christ that may very well indicate a person has not made a genuine profession of faith, but ultimately only that person and God know for sure. And at the same time as a fellow Christian I would be remiss if I didn't challenge those who fit these examples to revisit their salvation experience to ensure they have made a genuine profession of faith.
Seedplanter re Mon 2:24 pm
Hi thanks for joining the discussion. Perhaps you could help me with the term seeker sensitive theories. I have read your post three times and also gone to my “dusty” bible (just joking) and reviewed your citations before responding because I did not to respond in haste. Also before sitting down to type I prayed for guidance.
First thank you for reminding me of these biblical authorities on these matters.
You first cite paul in his 2 timothy re all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching.
You will note if you review the posts between myself and rolln4him that when I remonstrate on a matter of faith I do so not by assuming authority in myself but rather by confronting his statement regarding the state of others’ souls and regarding why Christ died with biblical quotations not my words but Christ’s and Paul’s.
You go on to identify multiple scriptural authorizations for the faithful to engage in “judgment” of various kinds. I have no disagreement with this. However in reviewing all of these I find nowhere where Paul contradicts Christ’s teaching in Matthew regarding
“anyone who contemptuously calls his brother a fool must face the supreme court; and anyone who looks on his brother as a lost soul is himself heading straight for the fire of destruction”
If you can direct me to any biblical authority that contradicts Christ’s teaching I will be both amazed and shaken.
When rolln4him states “I also know a bunch of Catholics that won't be in heaven given their present state” He speaks directly in conflict with Christ’s teaching.
Also when rolln4him states “Jesus died for offending others” he speaks directly in conflict with the revelation of the gospel that Christ died in fulfillment of prophecy as a perfect sacrifice sent by god as atonement for our sins to make possible our salvation by the grace of God through faith.
I would call on you (and believer) to fulfill the teachings of Paul to join me in attempting to minister to him in regards to his statements and as Paul teaches us to attempt to help him correct his false doctrine.
Believer re Sun 1:49
Hi thanks for joining this discussion. I think you may have missed my point. I have not in my posts to Rolln4him stated at any time that we should not make judgments. I agree that we should , must and do make many judgments every day including moral judgments of the acts and statements of others. What I pointed out repeatedly is that we are instructed specifically by Christ to refrain from judging the state of someone’s soul. If I am wrong in this biblically please advise me the Biblical authority where Christ contradicts his teaching in Mathew and authorizes us to pass judgment on the state of someone’s soul.
Rolln4him, re Sun 1:28pm
Capitalizing liberty occurred as a result of my following your request that I type directly into the post rather than previewing first in other words a typo without significance. I find it interesting though that you take this typo and turn it into some sort of cabalistic meaning. As for your name calling I rejoice in being persecuted for presenting to you the words of Christ.
You claim that I fail to distinguish between a judgment on all individuals which only He can issue (presumably the judgment of a persons state of salvation) and whether a person is fit to become a member of the church. In so accusing me you attempt to run away from your own words with out being accountable.
You did not say that you knew some catholics, etc, etc who should not be admitted as members of a church. You made a judgment of their state of salvation. I have no difficulty distinguishing between a judgment of the state of a persons soul and other judgments. Also I have no difficulty distinguishing between what you originally stated and the attempts now to recast your statements without being accountable for them.
rollin4him re Sun 1:04pm
Nope. However I notice that you again chose not to respond in regards to the plain question put to you in regards to your earlier statements. If you review our past posts back and forth you will find this consistent pattern that when I ask you direct questions you either ignore them, respond with name calling or change the subject.
Truthfully, I don't know what I was thinking when I came up with rolln4him. I've posting on this site for a few years and don't know what was going through my head at the time.
Trucker???! Nope, but maybe I should; although I think I've heard truckers use worse terms than "fool"!! LOL!
seedplanter-
LOL! Yeah, I have to admit that I get a bit fired up. I can't help it. I probably hurt vikings feelings, but I'm sure the old pious kook will recover (oopps, I'm slipping a bit).
Blessings to you friend.
You're welcome and thanks for the tip. I had trouble using this new feature earlier but I tried it again and it worked. I would also like to suggest that you refrain from calling a person 'fool' no matter how much you think of the person. I am curious to know if you drive a truck (rolln4him).
seedplanter -
I appreciate the back-up. I look back and see how little I used specific scripture for my case - bad, bad, bad! I'm lazy sometimes that way.
P.S. You shouldn't have to "flag" yourself anymore. There's a delete function that works wonders if you haven't noticed it's right next to the "flag"
One more thing Viking, I want to mention that Jesus also assumed that we should judge. By telling His disciples to not be like the Pharisees he actually presupposes necessary judgment. He also outrightly declared for us to judge with righteous judgment.
Viking,
I know I'm sort of jumping into the middle of this thing, but I wanted to point out a few things. With all do respect I think that you may be indulging a bit too much in the seeker sensitive theories while your Bible is collecting dust on your shelf. Before you criticize my criticism allow me to qualify my 'judgment.'
Paul explains how Scripture is profitable for correction and instruction in righteousness. This is not possible without using proper Biblical judgment.
Paul also addresses the necessity for pastors to judge immorality in their fellowship of believers. Note, Paul judged the church of Corinth and gave a stinging rebuke to the church for not exercising judgment.
Paul also tells us to 'mark' those who cause divisions among us by teaching doctrine contrary to Scripture.
Paul wrote "...I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one." (1 Cor 5:11). Can this be possible without appropriate judgment????
Paul also rebuked Peter for accommodating Jewish customs for the sake of hoping that they would be more open to the Gospel.
Peter also gave a stinging rebuke to preachers in his second epistle.
These are a few examples of Scriptural judgment and where judgment was utilized and where judgment is in fact considered a normal part of the Christian life.
(Flagged myself due to the new format creating errors)
believer-
Ahh, you sly dog. You've probably been spying this whole thing out from day 1. I bow as you enter. You're far better at getting the Message across than I.
viking, I agree it is not our role to judge people, but what if I'm driving in a car and the driver is traveling a high rate of speed and we are approaching a very dangerous curve and if he keeps going the same speed there is a high probability we will crash, would I being judging him as a driver if I pointed out this fact to him and encouraged him to slow down?
viking-
I don't know what you mean by capitalizing liberty either. Since you've implied that I "don't embrace the teachings" you, sounds like unknowingly, cast judgment.
You hypocritical fool: You spew your demented pious rant and clueless turn around and judge a brother in Christ. You've also failed to recognize two different judgments we're talking about. 1st : God's judgment on all individuals which only He can issue (common sense) 2nd is the churches duty to determine whether a person is fit to become a member of the church. We have to- boy, do I dare say this- make a judgment of worthiness.
viking -
By saying "I urge you to embrace the Liberty found in the teachings of Christ." are you saying that I haven't embraced the teachings of Christ?
rolln4him,
First It is not my place to judge whether you or saved or not. My opinion is irrelevant. That is ultimately between you and God. Regarding my duty to those who deny Christ as Savior my duty under Christ's teachings is to minister to them not judge them. By this I mean It is my duty to take every opportunity to present them with the Gospel and in particular the teachings of Christ and to live a life such that they see the blessings of Christ's salvation manifest. Christ instructs me I am to become a fisher of men not their judge. Christ instructs me that I am to go and make disciples of all men and I am to teach them to observe all that I have been commanded. Even in these posts I have and still do attempt to fulfill this instruction by reminding you of the Teachings of Christ.
You ask if I appreciate that we can debate like this in an open and free Christian nation. I do appreciate the liberty that is provided for me in the Constitution and note that these same liberties are available to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. Secondly and more important I would let you know that it is Christ who gives me my true liberty that is available in whatever nation I reside. Third I find the question ironic comming from some one who states that if he even mentions the name of Jesus at work he would be fired. Was that earlier statement possibly exaggeration or do you consider such a state of affairs to represent a free and Christian nation. I urge you to embrace the Liberty found in the teachings of Christ.
Just another side note - viking - as I was looking through our post I thought it was interesting how you said that other believe the propaganda that we're a Christian nation. What propaganda are you talking about? Where does it come from? I'd be very interested.
viking -
Don't you just love the fact that we can debate like this in an open and free Christian nation?
viking -
So I'll ask you: Do you think that I'm saved? LOL!
viking-
By stating that you don't say one way or the other about whether a person will receive a spiritual death sentence if they deny Christ as Savior and they go to your church; you are being an irresponsible Christian. You talk about accountability? Ha!
Also, at the risk of going around in circles, I don't rescind my claim that Christ died as a result of offending others. Sorry. We just disagree here.
Are you still up for that cyber hug, Brother!
rolln4him,
well there you go again with another tactic of weak argument putting words in someonelses mouth and seeking to divert the discussion away from the Question. No I have not made any such claim that
" Everyone that goes to church is automatically a believer?" I have not claimed any judgment one way or the other as to the state of anyones salvation but my own. I do not claim to be virtuous in this only that this is what Christ instructs us in his teaching.
So again I ask you for a plain answer do you maintain your assertion contrary to the teachings of Christ as recorded in the Gospels that you "I also know a bunch of Catholics that won't be in heaven given their present state"
Also I again ask you for a plain answer do you maintain your claim contrary to the teachings of the Gospels and the letters of Paul that "Jesus died for offending others" or
do you accept that Christ died in fulfillment of prophesy as a perfect sacrifice by the will of god in redemption for our sins thus granting us the opportunity for salvation by the Grace of God through faith.
Simple yes or no answers would be fine.
Note I only ask that you be accountable for your own words.
viking-
LOL! I think you late night last night made you delirious. You're arguing for the sake of arguing. But hey, why not:
So what you're saying is: Everyone that goes to church is automatically a believer?
Do you believe that one of the pastors jobs it to protect the sheep?
Rolln4him
must say goodnight now but will review any response on the morrow.
Will have you in my prayers
rolln4him,
Those little do dads for quotes seem to show up even when I type directly into the post.
Once again I must point out that the way you state your clarification is not biblical. The Gospels do not state that Christ's teachings so offended the "people to stir the crowd into a enough of a frenzy to say "Crucify Him". The gospel states
"But the chief priests and elders persuaded the mob to ask for Barabbas and demand Jesus' execution"
but all of this is a red herring once again leading away from a plain answer to the question do you recant your claim that
"Jesus died for offending others"
or do you maintain it contrary to the teaching of the Gospels and Paul's letters.
Regarding your statement.
"You're right, I do know a bunch of Catholics, Baptist, UM and others that will not be in heaven because they - in their own words - deny Christ. They attend mass, service or whatever weekly, but they deny Christ as Lord and Savior. I didn't to condemn them; they stand condemned already. In my circle, we understand this as a given."
Despite your justification I am at a loss for how whether it is accepted as a given by your circle or not it is not in conflict with Christ's teaching
"anyone who looks on his brother as a lost soul is himself heading straight for the fire of destruction"
I have looked and looked but I can't find anywhere in the gospel where it says "Except for when our circle takes it as a given" or "Except for when they deny Christ as Lord and Savior" Could you point me to the gospel verse where such exemption and permission is given by Christ.
If you answered "yes" to my question below, then you understand where I'm coming from. Christianity prerequisite is to know that Christ died so that we may receive salvation, right?
viking -
We may be revisiting this, but ... Would you say that the message of Jesus Christ to the world is offensive?
viking-
You're totally missing it dude. That's sort of the disadvantage of these types of forums. But hey, I'll try again. Here's a clarification: Jesus offended enough people to stir the crowd into enough of a frenzy to say " Crucify Him". If that doesn't work for you than we'll just have to say we disagree. I'm trying to make it as simple as possible to help you understand where I'm coming from. You're right, I do know a bunch of Catholics, Baptist, UM and others that will not be in heaven because they - in their own words - deny Christ. They attend mass, service or whatever weekly, but they deny Christ as Lord and Savior. I didn't to condemn them; they stand condemned already. In my circle, we understand this as a given. Hopefully this clarifies a bit more for you.
I'm a bit surprised by your not being aware of either of these two organization. ARe you a monk? Seriously, Paul knew the community around him very well. It may do you some good to get out a bit.
rolln4him,
You keep avoiding giving a plain answer to whether you maintain your claim that (contrary to biblical teaching)“Jesus died for offending others"
Also I was not equating or presuming when I simply confront you with your own words "“I also know a bunch of Catholics that won't be in heaven given their present state” Do you maintain this assertion in the face of Christs teaching "anyone who looks on his brother as a lost soul is himself heading straight for the fire of destruction".
Regarding the issue of the US being founded as a Christian nation I will be happy to research "Wall builders" in the mean time at the risk of once again being accused of cut in paste I would refer you to the actual original writings of the Founders. Further I would suggest that perhaps you contemplate Christ's declaration that his kingdom was not of this world.
viking-
Yes! It use to be (before CP changed the website) that you actually were able to use another application to do posting. I do it to fight the evil people who would "flag" everyone. Long story on that topic, but I'm too lazy to use a separate application to post. Good idea to be able to relate to old post by the way. I'm lazy that way and do get caught not answering questions properly and at times make a big fool of myself. Wink wink.
Remember, I generally go for the forest rather than the trees.
rollin4him
My apologies for the little symbols that show up where quotes are used when pasting in posts. Just so you know the reason I have written many of these posts in word then pasted in was so that I could be at the same time looking at the comments I was responding to. At your request I am now copying those posts into another app so I can see them while typing directly into the post box. I hope that this makes these comments more accessible to you. I hope that you are not simply focusing on this technical issue as a way of avoiding dealing with your earlier comments.
Viking -
Again, you're equating and presuming that when I denigrate you (I look at it more as satirical) I'm judging you. Ummm, who's judging who. Nowhere will you see that I called you a heathen. You reaching your own conclusions. I do think that if you research this organization you may be surprised how well you line up with them. In contrast to that organization, you'll find a more Christian related organization called Wall Builders who's ministry it is to educate people on the fact that America is indeed a Christian nation. We don't necessarily have to invent the wheel no do we.
viking -
Since you're being such a persistent little bugger about this Christian nation bit and it seems to just bug you to know end. Someone pointed out to me a great idea. Have you heard of Wall Builders. Look it up and read away otherwise side with the heathens all you want.
As with Jesus being offensive; once again your verses don't correlate at all to the topic, so we'll just have to call this one as it is. We disagree.
rolln4him,
Thank you for your suggestion which I take as your idea of veiled denigration since though I am not familiar with them you apparently hold them in low regard. Also since you term them Heathens and suggest that they would make me "a charter member for sure" this is your cute way of implying that I am myself a "Heathen" and in so doing I point out that you again apparently break Christ's commandment against judging the state of another's salvation.
In regard to who is feeding my mind in general as shown by my posts when seeking guidance on an issue I go to the teachings of my lord Jesus Christ. Thank you for your concern yes I am very aware of the "devils trap" which would use justifications of all kinds to lead us away from the commandments of Christ's teachings.
viking -
Are you a robot or something. What's with the header? Reeelaaaxxxxx, man, it's cool. We're with you. Nobody is keeping track - that I know of anyway??? LOL!!
viking -
Now see, I was being really nice with your typing in a separate application rather than typing straight in to the post area. I could have easily have said:
"Viking- you such a dweeb by using a separate application to make sure you prideful proper grammar reputation remains in place. Only a true geeky person would ever do this. Seriously, be a man/woman and just type away - imperfections and all- you moron!"
But I didn't do that ... in my original post! LOL!
Rolln4him re your posts of Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:50 pm Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:58 pm
You state The two issues debated: The message of Jesus being offensiv to others and the FACT that America is considered to be Christian. Let's makes this easy.
I disagree that these were the issues under discussion rather I would say they were
1. your claim that “Jesus died for offending others” and 2
2. The assertion that the United States was founded as a Christian nation
First I do not agree that Jesus died for offending others. Also I point out that this is contrary to the Gospel’s and Paul’s teaching on the death and resurrection of Christ. So unless you are retracting this claim- no we are not “good to go”
Secondly regardless of the perceptions of other country’s and the nominal identification of a majority of current citizens it is a well documented historical fact that the “Founders” of this country explicitly, specifically and intentionally rejected the establishment of the country as a “Christian “ nation. To confirm this one need only actually read the documents actually written by these individuals rather than the revisionist propaganda that has been written about them. So again unless you are prepared to give up your unsupported assertion to the contrary then no we are not “good to go”
In relation to your statement “To equate my self-characterization of being brash with being judgmental is a judgment in and of itself.” I would admit yes that this is less a judgement than an observation of a demonstrated act on your part when you state as I included in that post “I also know a bunch of Catholics that won't be in heaven given their present state” It may be that you are now trying to run away from your own words but I will not let you get away with that. You must either stand accountable for them or retract them.
I would also point out that Christ was specific in what types of judgements placed one’s soul in danger. In specific he taught us “; anyone who contemptuously calls his brother a fool must face the supreme court; and anyone who looks on his brother as a lost soul is himself heading straight for the fire of destruction.” I do not judge the state of your soul but this is exactly what you do in the quoted statement.
Rather than offering you a hug I will pray that you will redirect your energy to the study of Christ’s teachings and to the hope that some day you may gain a new heart and experience the peace of Christ.
viking-
I hate to say it, but if you would look up and do some research with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, I think that you'd find that a lot of your posts would be more than welcomed with these heathens. In fact, they may make you a charter member for sure.
I have no idea who's feeding your mind, but you may be unawares to the devils trap.
viking-
As with Obama: Though he states he's a Christian, he's far from any definition of what a Christian is. A common practice of Muslims is to do what it takes (lie, steal, cheat, etc.) to gain positions of influence and then reveal your claim as Muslim. I'll leave it at that.
Anyway, I simply quoted him for purpose of point making - which it seems you missed this as well.
viking-
How in the world did you get how I was offended with what I would assume is my semantical statement? Truly, are you for real? Yes, I may think that you a bit formal, but I'm not sure that you know what I mean by semantical. But anyway, it would help that you would just type into the posting area rather than typing your stuff in another application like Word. I think that when you do the cut and paste thing from your outside application, then your posts don't really read well.
Rolln4him re your post Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:42 pm
I am sorry that my use of proper grammar seems to offend you. Again you refer to an article that was a quick reference to the origins of war not as you imply here in reference to the assertion made regarding the USA being founded as a Christian nation. You claim that I have provided absolutely no proof to convince you that the US was not founded as a Christian nation. Yet when I provided quotes directly from the actual founders of the nation on this subject you chastise me for cutting and pasting. Come on you can’t have it both ways. In one breath you refer to Senator Obama as Osama and denigrate him, then when his comments support your opinion suddenly you are willing to site him as a valid authority. It seems your standard consist of if something supports your existing prejudice then it is valid and if it confronts your prejudice no matter how authenticated the source you reject it as invalid or off point.
viking -
"I would point out that this Brashness includes more than just name calling and insults and extends to placing your self in the seat of judgement regarding the state of salvation of others"
To equate my self-characterization of being brash with being judgmental is a judgment in and of itself. But, hey - that's OK. I still hold to my brotherly cyberhug.
Viking -
The two issues debated: The message of Jesus being offensiv to others and the FACT that America is considered to be Christian. Let's makes this easy.
We agree Jesus can be offensive - good to go?
USA is considered to be a Christian nation - may not agree ?? Good to go?
We both believe Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Light?
Agreed?
If this works - I hand you a cyber brotherly hug.
Rolln4him re your post of Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:40 pm
I thank you for your recognition. You state God didn’t make me this way. While I accept that we are all different and come to Christ by differing paths it seems you strive in many of these posts including that comment to justify your “Brash way of saying things” I would point out that this Brashness includes more than just name calling and insults and extends to placing your self in the seat of judgement regarding the state of salvation of others (“I also know a bunch of Catholics that won't be in heaven given their present state”)
I will close my responses to your posts by again suggesting you reflect on the actual teaching of Christ.
5:21-22 - "You have heard that it was said to the people in the old days, 'You shall not murder', and anyone who does must stand his trial. But I say to you that anyone who is angry with his brother must stand his trial; anyone who contemptuously calls his brother a fool must face the supreme court; and anyone who looks on his brother as a lost soul is himself heading straight for the fire of destruction.
5:38-39 - "You have heard that it used to be said 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', but I tell you, don't resist the man who wants to harm you. If a man hits your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.
5:40-42 - "If a man wants to sue you for your coat, let him have it and your overcoat as well. If anybody forces you to go a mile with him, do more - go two miles with him. Give to the man who asks anything from you, and don't turn away from the man who wants to borrow."
5:43-45 - "You have heard that it used to be said, 'You shall love your neighbour', and 'hate your enemy', but I tell you, Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Heavenly Father. For he makes the sun rise upon evil men as well as good, and he sends his rain upon honest and dishonest men alike.
5:46-48 - For if you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even tax-collectors do that! And if you exchange greetings only with your own circle, are you doing anything exceptional? Even the pagans do that much. No, you are to be perfect, like your Heavenly Father
viking-
You love to play semantical games to puff yourself up. But, hey, I'm game - oh, lets see, where do I even begin as I yawn through your posts:
You say: "Regarding the views of others on our nation it is not surprising that those outside the country would be confused by propaganda when many people inside the country believe this myth."
Are you clueless or what?? Those outside our country get it? Just recently, Obama states recently that America is no longer a Christian nation. He seems to get it. This is a clear example of pride on your part. I can respect others that clearly recognize our own history and call it what it is; whereas you in all your wordiness and big words like "aspersion" (everyone say oooooo). Give me a break.
You've provided absolutely no proof to convince me. Like I said, the article you provided in another post was a joke. I'm still peeved that I took the time to read through some of it before I started realizing you were posturing yourself. Nice try Viking.
Rolln4him re your post of Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:35 pm
No I do not belong to this organization I am vaguely aware of it from posts and news articles. Regarding your claim that I have a bent to rewrite history perhaps you would be willing to provide historical documentation that refutes any historical statement I have made. I believe in fact that rather than just making loose claims I provided specific quotational support for my statement regarding the founding of the nation from the actual founders who were there at the time rather than impuning to them my own opinions and wishes.
Regarding your assertion that I attempt to demean scripture to fit my purpose. Again I would challenge you to back up such a claim with an example. In fact I have pointed out how your statements are in direct conflict with scripture which you respond to by attempting to cast aspersions on my character and intellect. Again these are the tactics resorted to by those whose arguments and proofs fail.
Rolln4him re your post Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:53 pm
Again I note that you are in both Biblical error and in error regarding what I can or can’t see.
In relation to your rhetorical questioniing “By the way, whenever you say that gay is a sin - you are being offensive. When you tell a Muslim that Jesus is the Way, Truth and Life, you are being offensive. Right?”
No not right. While it is possible that some one may take offense at someone speaking the truth of the Gospel this does not mean that you are being offensive. However if you were to do so while calling names and insulting the persons you were sharing the gospel with you would be both offensive and unchristian. I hope that you are not attempting as you appear to be to justify your calling people names and making gratuitous demeaning comments about others on the basis of Christ’s preaching or as an example of spreading the Gospel.
Regarding your statement “To go into the historical analysis of our Christian nation would be to much for this forum” perhaps but if you actually have historical references or documentation for such an assertion just give me the references and I will be happy to educate myself if on the other hand you can’t produce such evidence for your claim then please stop making it as a claim of fact and admit its just your opinion.
Regarding the views of other on our nation it is not surprising that those outside the country would be confused by propaganda when many people inside the country believe this myth.
In relation to the desirability of the USA being a Christian nation I support this fully if by that it is meant to follow the teachings of Christ rather than to simply practice religion of men. To be specific I will again turn to the teachings of Christ.
Matthew 19:18-21
9:18-19 - "Which ones?" he asked. "'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'Honour your father and your mother', and 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself'," replied Jesus.
19:20 - "I have carefully kept all these," returned the young man. "What is still missing in my life?"
19:21 - Then Jesus told him, "If you want to be perfect, go now and sell your property and give the money away to the poor - you will have riches in Heaven. Then come and follow me!
Rolln4him re Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:45 pm
One of the problems with your posts is that your responses indicate that you’re not paying attention to what is being said. For example your state
“Viking - you've got to be kidding me. So you don't think that Jesus' message was offensive to those at the time?” In fact if you actually read my comments I neither said nor implied that. This is a typical trick of the debater whose argument is weak. That is to accuse the other of some position which they have not taken and then to attack that rather than what was actually said. In this way you get to argue both sides of the issue without ever actually responding to the question at hand.
To be clear if you review my posts I did not deny that Christ’s teachings were offensive to some at the time. In fact several gospel passages allude to authorities at the time being in essence offended by his preaching. What I pointed out as have others is that your claim “Jesus made a ministry of offending others” and “Jesus died for offending others” are far from being “Christianity 101” in fact these comments are in direct contradiction of the teachings of Christianities first Authority Paul. For your reflection I give you from Paul’s letters to the Roman’s
3: 23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; 3:24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; 3:25 whom God set forth to be an atoning sacrifice, through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness through the passing over of prior sins, in God’s forbearance.
And
5:6 for while we were yet weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 5:7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man. Yet perhaps for a righteous person someone would even dare to die. 5:8 But God commends his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
This then is literally Christianity 101 and your statements are not in conformance with this teaching and as such can properly be defined as Heterodoxy.
It is stunning to me that a purported Christian would argue contrary to this central tenet of the faith that Christ died to redeem us from sin and provide us with the means of salvation through grace. Whether some Pharisee was offended by his preaching is irrelevant except as a weak excuse for your own behavior.
So I ask you straight out do you acknowledge that your statement “Jesus died for offending others” is contrary to the teachings of the Gospels and the letters of Paul or will you maintain your heterodoxy.
viking -
I do appreciate your mostly considerate way to debate. Very nice. God didn't make me this way. Somehow, through God's grace I've been able to witness a few come to Christ through my rather sometimes brash way of saying things. I'm sure I've run a few off too.
viking -
Do you belong to the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State by any means?
This would explain your clear bent to rewrite history and your ineffectual attempt to demean scripture to fit you purpose. I senses a real emptiness in your post friend. I don't know how I can tell, but ....
scits - Amen brother. So do you believe that our Nation was founded upon Christian principles? Or do you suppose there were some sort of parallel existence between a persons belief in Christianity and their political office. There are those politicians that claim Christianity, but vote contrary to their beliefs. Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, Pelosi, and on and on... espousing to be church members, but voting to the contrary.
rol4him "but do you know that other countries regard us as a Christian nation? Wonder why this is? "
its because most americans consider themselves christian, same reason iran, afghanistan, turkey are considered muslim countries- most of the population are muslims.
viking -
It's a given why Jesus died. Sorry you don't see the obvious offensiveness that Jesus brought to the scene.
By the way, whenever you say that gay is a sin - you are being offensive. When you tell a Muslim that Jesus is the Way, Truth and Life, you are being offensive. Right?
To go into the historical analysis of our Christian nation would be too much for this forum, but do you know that other countries regard us as a Christian nation? Wonder why this is?
viking-
Darn! I missed some good stuff. Sorry to have missed out. I had this article marked on another computer.
Viking - you've got to be kidding me. So you don't think that Jesus' message was offensive to those at the time? WOW! All I have to do is say Jesus in my workplace and I'm fired. For what.... not understanding the Hebrew or Greek. LOL!
I was thinking you were an intellectual, viking, but I think I'll rescind that comment.
Rollin4him,
your comment that Jesus died for offending others would be a human interpretation of the events and completely at odds with the direct teachings of the Gospel which as Holito points out makes it plain that Christ died in fulfillment of prophesy to bring the grace of salvation to the world by serving as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. The idea that you put forward that he died for offending someone (presumably the powers of that time) leads us back to the path of anti-semitism ("the jews killed Christ") by denying our own pesonal responsibility as sinners. In order to truly comprehend the magnitude and intimacy of my responsibility for the suffering of Christ I must understand that even if not one other human had ever sinned the enormity of the love of God would have resulted in this sacrifice being just for me.
This is why when persons say to me for example 9-11 changes everything. Surely Christ did not mean that in this circumstance we are to follow his commandment to love our enemies, to do good to those who harm us, to turn the other cheek, to not fear him who can destroy the body but rather him who can destroy the soul that I say in my mind "get thee behind me Satan (adversary)" I do not read in the Gospels where Christ said follow my commandments EXCEPT when you are provoked by Muslims, or love your enemies EXCEPT when they are terrorists.
Now I do not claim to be perfect in following Christs commands but I acknowledge my failing rather than try to justify my sin by perverting the teachings of Christ.
Rollin4him,
your statement "It was a given - not an established law - that we espouse Christian principles throughout our laws and governmental structures."
Is simply factually inaccurate. If you research the actual writings of the founders and of the actual history rather than popular myth regarding the founding of this nation you will quickly find this. Everyone is entititled to their own opinion but not to their own facts. If you want to believe that this Country SHOULD have been founded as a Christian that is your right. But when you say it was "a given that we espouse Christian principles throughout our laws and governmental structures. You are simply factually wrong.
The facts are much more complicated than your posts indicate you understand. For example in recent years there has been much ado about the issue of public display of nativity scenes at Christmas time by goverment agencies with the ACLU and others opposing them. But did you know that in the early history of our nation it was unlawful to celebrate Christmas or make any Christmas displays in the State of Mass. due to the Theocratic control of the legislature by the church.
When debating it is important to first get your facts straight before venturing a conclusion.
Rollin4him,
you suggest that I miss the forest for the trees and ask me to skip the pride and give you some man chow. Later you also seek to demean Holito8 with the comment You debate like a girl. Then you seek to cover this dismissing of the substance of his/her comment by referencing your wife as a good debater in the same way a racist would say "don't get me wrong some of my best friends are..."
If by Man Chow you mean join you in insulting others and using sarcasm and derisive comments to make your points. I choose not to. However if you wish to discuss an issue in light of the actual teachings of Christ I would be happy to do so.
Rollin4him,
you state that Jesus made a ministry of offending others. I disagree. I believe that any spirit led reading of the gospels shows that Christ did not gratuitously insult others or seek to provoke them in order to feel superior. Rather when offense occurred it was because the hearer was confounded by his or her own hypocrisy or their heart of sin was offended by the truth of God revealed in Christs words. Others have already commented on your allusion to Christ's rebuke of Peter. I am familiar with the passage. In fact if you study your Greek and Hebrew you will come to find that the word translated to English as Satan is in fact the term Adversary or one who opposes the rightful path. This passage shows us that when someone urges us to depart from the hard path before us and tempts us with giving in to our self interest and preservation of our life at the expense of going against the will of god then they are an adversary of our keeping the commandments of Christ.
Rollin4him,
While I doubt that you have the humility to actually consider any point of view but your own I will try to respond to some of your posts.
on 6/26 at 12:26 you complain of me copy and pasting my posts. In fact the only copy and paste I sent to you were biblical verses of the words of Christ. I am sorry for you if you consider that to be "blah, blah, blah tactics" I always consider the teachings of Christ to be the core of my belief that speaks to my heart.
"But hey, enlighten us - if it isn't based on ideological and religious grounds, then what do you suppose wars are based"
A: SIN! You'll note that Jesus won the war by letting himself be murdered...
As to the root issue...each person will be judged by God as an individual. There is always a choice to do what is right. Many of the muslim world has been lead to believe that all their ills are caused by a greedy America. This doesn't seem to explain all the rich muslims with the oil not making the muslim world any better nor does it ignore those who do.
Simply put...the world is more interested in propaganda vs. the permanent truth of God. It's easier to blame someone else than it is to accept responsibility to God for our fellow man.
Quite frankly, it's the same lie in the muslim world that our greed as a nation has been pushing for years.
hilito -
You said "He only offended those who were not of God." Your kidding me, right?
You debate like a girl. Are you? I'm not saying that girls aren't good debaters (I'm married to one), but your nice little interpretation indicates you female. Just a speculation.
hilito -
You don't think Jesus' ministry was an offensive ministry? LOL! Jesus died for offending others. Christianity 101.
Peter hurt? That's a cute way to put it. I chose offended. It's quiet obvious that when Jesus rebukes, you're "out of line" - this is a given.
I hope you're reading the posts in context before you comment.
Assuming you're a brother in Christ, Jesus made a ministry of offending others. How about Jesus' statement to Peter; "get behind me Satan"! We're all different parts of the Body of Christ, so when your prideful, intellectual posturing gets in the way of another part of the Body of Christ's work, the "get behind me, Satan" may just come your way. Does that mean Peter wasn't a believer? Of course, not. Was it offensive? YEP! Viking, you know your in a forum where your intellectual posturing mean little to 99% especially when you don't hit the issue.
Jesus did not make a ministry of offending others. He rebuke Peter justly.
Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Jesus came to be our Savior, our Lamb of God. He knew He had to die in order for grace to come without His sacrifice there would be no redemption. He rebuke person for says this should not happen. Satan does not want anyone to be saved. He killed thousand of childern searching for One. He accuses us before God continually. Jesus came to reveal the error of the Pharisees in office. They were suppose to tell the people God commandment and offer correct sacrifice. But they were not doing it. Thus, Jesus had to come bring for correction, instruction, and be our Salvation. He only offended those who were not of God. God disciplines those who He loves. Why? God longs that no man perish.
Does that mean Peter wasn't a believer? Of course, not. Was it offensive? No, it wasn't. Peter was in error. It might have hurt his feeling. But God has to correct you when you are wrong espically when you are in his face speaking out of line.
viking -
Last post before I go to bed.
JHS has obviously been sporting with me on this thread as well as others. That's between us.
I may have missed your comments pertaining to the myth of our country's founding. The world see us as a "Christian" nation. God has, no doubt, allowed us to be the strongest nation in the world. It was a given - not an established law - that we espouse Christian principles throughout our laws and governmental structures. We are quickly losing what has made this nation great - adherence the the Bible and the word of God. The ACLU as well as other like it, have been successful in taking down the 10 commandments from our governmental building, prayer out of school and the list goes on. You don't have to be a Biblical scholar to know what comes from God after a nation loses it's godly focus.
viking -
Assuming you're a brother in Christ, Jesus made a ministry of offending others. How about Jesus' statement to Peter; "get behind me Satan"! We're all different parts of the Body of Christ, so when your prideful, intellectual posturing gets in the way of another part of the Body of Christ's work, the "get behind me, Satan" may just come your way. Does that mean Peter wasn't a believer? Of course, not. Was it offensive? YEP! Viking, you know your in a forum where your intellectual posturing mean little to 99% especially when you don't hit the issue.
Viking -
The problem with you pride bearing intellectuals is you only see the trees and not the forest. My comment concerning religion is the the root of war is the forest. Obviously, a country defending itself reaches for it's religious and ideological basis that ultimately provides the will to fight.
Now Viking - comment without the trees now. Skip the blah blah and pride and provide some common man chow.
Viking -
For the love of God, I hope and pray that your Biblical knowledge is a tad better than your blah, blah tactics to win the lost.
viking -
I actually wasted my time and checked out your website you provided. Next time you provide a website, be sure to provide something that actually addresses the issue. There was absolutely nothing pertaining to the issue at hand you old quack. Stop copy and pasting your posts and actually write something from your heart.
Rollin4him on the secular issue of the origins of war. While I would be happy to provide you at some point with a extensive bibliography of historical and scholarly work on the subject here is a quickly accessible website that illustrates the lack of knowledge underlying your comment.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0002.htm
Rollin4him,
No I did not miss 9-11. I ask you as you use sarcasm and insult did you miss the following.
12:34-37 - "You serpent's brood, how can you say anything good out of your evil hearts? For a man's words depend on what fills his heart. A good man gives out good - from the goodness stored in his heart; a bad man gives out evil - from his store of evil. I tell you that men will have to answer at the day of judgment for every careless word they utter - for it is your words that will acquit you, and your words that will condemn you."
Rollin4him,
What confused me about your posts is the seeming disconnect between the implication of your handle and purported Christianity with the views espoused in your posts. To illustrate this I would refer you to the words of Christ.
How happy are the humble-minded, for the kingdom of Heaven is theirs
Happy are those who make peace, for they will be sons of God!
"You have heard that it used to be said 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', but I tell you, don't resist the man who wants to harm you. If a man hits your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.
"You have heard that it used to be said, 'You shall love your neighbour', and 'hate your enemy', but I tell you, Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Heavenly Father. For he makes the sun rise upon evil men as well as good, and he sends his rain upon honest and dishonest men alike
"Don't criticise people, and you will not be criticised. For you will be judged by the way you criticise others, and the measure you give will be the measure you receive
7:21 - "It is not everyone who keeps saying to me 'Lord, Lord' who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the man who actually does my Heavenly Father's will.
7:22-23 - "In 'that day' many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we preach in your name, didn't we cast out devils in your name, and do many great things in your name?' Then I shall tell them plainly, 'I have never known you. Go away from me, you have worked on the side of evil!'"
Perhaps you would re read your own posts while reflecting on the commandments of Christ. I do not say that these commandments are easy only that they are what Christ calls us to.
Rollin4him
I am sorry you did not bother to read the introductory paragraph to my presentation of quotes from the founding fathers. If you had you would note they were not in fact in relation to your historically unfounded comments regarding the religious origin of all wars but rather in relation to the allusions in some posts to the myth of the founding fathers establishing the U.S.A. as a "Christian nation"
Viking -
That's wonderful that you take the Muslims as good doers overall, but maybe you missed 9-11. Yeah, may you missed the eery silence from the Muslim community. It wasn't until weeks of pressure from the media that there were some reluctant "brave" muslims sheepishly condemning the attacks - under their breath. I've confronted some of my muslim friends about this and they didn't say a whole lot either.
Viking -
What's confusing you about my posts. You say that war is not based from ideological and religious pretexts. I hope your quotes of the founding fathers wasn't your proof of your assertion which I'm assuming that's not your proof - because that would be embarrassing.
But hey, enlighten us - if it isn't based on ideological and religious grounds, then what do you suppose wars are based
Daniel Paul,
Thank you for your attempts to restore debate to this thread rather than just an exchange of insults and barbs. While I recognize that there are real terrorists in the world and that some of them misuse the Muslim faith as an excuse for their behavior which is condemned not only by our faith but by theirs as well I also recognize that like you over a Billion Muslims also did not fly airplanes into towers. I believe that it has been a tragic and enormous mistake to accept what I believe to be Godless terrorists misrepresentation of themselves as Muslim just as I do not accept those who would murder in the name of Christ as Christian.
James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
From:
The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785
Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."
From:
Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.
Some comments have been made in this thread which perpetrate the myth that the founding fathers established the United States as a Christian nation. I believe that it is important that as Christians we not misrepresent the truth to support agendas. In evidence of the mythic nature of this assertion I present the following quotes.
John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"
It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
From:
The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814
Hi rollin4him, one would assume from your name that perhaps you profess to be a christian which is why your posts are so confusing to me. They just don't seem to square with any of the teachings of Christ that I am familiar with in my Bible studies.
Re your claim that every war known to man is based on ideological factors which in turn is based on religious convictions is simply historically untrue. While religion has frequently been used as an excuse and a tool in promoting the willingness of the common people to participate in warfare which did not benefit them but rather was for the profit and benefit of those in charge it is rare indeed where religious differences were the true basis of war. This is simply a myth that continues to be perpetrated by those who seek to pervert and misuse religion as a mask for their own agendas.
One point that seems to keep being missed is that the extream Muslims have only one goal. They want western culture removed from the planet to "purify" the planet from the "great satan". The "great satan" isn't Bush in their minds. The "great satan" is western culture. They would rather die than co-exist with western culture.
Now, with that said, exactly what can you do? You can fight them over there or over here (unless you are willing to destroy everything America stands for).
I know this is difficult for some to understand because it is so wrong to our way of thinking. That's the problem. We only think in "our way of thinking" because we believe it is the only way people think.
Truth be known, there are many variations on 'wrong'...many of them right here in America. I believe the Bible is correct and anything that doesn't line up with that is wrong. Still, I don't go around running airplanes full of people into buildings killing thousands and say it's the will of god now do I?
My last comment was a TIC (tongue in cheek) comment aimed at jhs. Obviously, there are great American warriors fighting on the front lines of Iraq and Afgan that are dems. Get'm dems.
Shuck -
Oh, didn't you know that the only reason those democraps join the military is for the signing bonus. It's all about the money - LOL
shuck - great post.Thanks for the holes I never got to in JHs' comments. I've always have said that I like it when people like JHS come to Christian sites. They sharpen our spiritual sword.
In spiritual terms JHS, the bigger picture is the war going on between not flesh and blood, but by the spiritual rulers. Sounds like you're on the wrong side JHS. Repent from you evilness and accept Christ as your Lord. Catholicism does not have the power to save, only Christ. I do know Catholics that are Christians, but I also know a bunch of Catholics that won't be in heaven given their present state - much like there are Baptist that aren't Christians and Lutherans that aren't Christians etc. There must be that personal relationship with the Lord, Jesus and there is no other way. Our discussion means nothing to Him in the big picture.
"Oh yeah something else, they are called republicans, who:"
1) "wrap themselves in Jesus"
Well, that is the whole point of our existance. I fail to see your arguement here.
2) "and the American flag,"
Excuse me? If you don't have any sense of respect for your country then I suggest you leave. No country's perfect but I would gladly live here than any other communist/dictoral one!
3) "demand tax cut for themselves"
Okay soooo only Republicans are rich. I'll keep that in mind. Tax cuts are supposed to stimulate the economy but because we keep switching in and out of parties will never see any kind of lasting effects.
4) "while at the same they send everyone elses kids to fight."
I didn't know the draft had been issued much less that we only send democrats to Iraq. I'm sorry, if you sign up for the military you better be ready to fight. I'm sick and tired of people getting upset when their kids have to go to war. Well what did you expect when you joined the military? To sit on your butt in an office and collect your free money? There really is a sense of the easy way out nowdays isn't there and if you suddenly have to do something your being oppressed. Give me a break people! We have the military for a reason, if you don't want to die for your country don't sign up! It's that simple.
jhs - by the way, they'll lock up your priest for hate speech and close all the catholic charities since they won't hire gays like what has already taken place. Dobson will be locked up too, so you won't have to worry about him. This site will be shut down so we won't obstruct the utopian peace Obama talks about and you won't have to worry about those religion right quacks. Then you'll be able to have gay pride parades marching down Pennsylvania Ave. orgies and all like the ones that are going on in San Fran this past year. WOW! Utopia. Free sex, and no more religious right to hinder the way. Let's all drink and be marry!!!!
You're right! November is coming - lol. I actually hope that the democraps do get full unrestricted control of the government. They'll solve everything. Make friends with the Muslim extremist and the gay agenda (boy, those two I'm sure will just sit around with ol' Obama to have tea together and talk how peaceful things will be) LOL!!!
rolln4him
for the record I am not an Isolationist, I am very much for war if it's the right war, this red neck bible thumping attitude is exactly what has got us in the mess we are in now. I am just willing to admit it, your not.
rolln4him
"Pelosi was going to change things "
it hard to do when bush vetoes anything and everything that is going to hurt his wealthy friends, but that ok Novembers coming.
Now you're hitting the "hate" button. We know which group of people use this word frequently. Go ahead, hit that button a few more times. Get it out of your system - jhs.
By the way, has you shake your tolerant hands with muslim extremist, I would have to say I respect the Iranian leader - he say it out there for all to hear. Israel is Satan and American is the Great Satan and there will be no more. The little man speaks big words, but trust me - once they get a nuke, they'll use it. Remember mister Isolationist, we did this in WW1 and WWII and lost lots more lives than if we would have taken action earlier.
Of course, you know that the democraps are angels - right? Pelosi was going to change things - ummm - what happened?? Nothing!!! Check out her clothing, can we all say tailor made and from the most expensive designers none to man! Change? Ha! Remember what a relief Clinton was when he came to the WH? Ha. The womanizer couldn't keep his pants on. You stick with them JHS, they'll do you good somewhere along the way. LOL
rolln4himThanks for answering the question politian style - I'll simplify -
Yes you would have gone to war but stopped with Afghanistan and left Suddam Hussein to mock coalition and boast of his Cat and Mouse tactics as well as provide a safe haven for terrorists. Interesting?
What would you do with Iran?
.
REPLY IRAQ WAS CORNERED AND YOU KNOW THE CIA DROPPED THE BALLAND BUSH LIED, NOW YOU WANT GO TO WAR WITH IRAN? THIS IS THE KIND OF THINKING THAT SHOWS WE NEED A NEW DIRECTION. You war mongers are really people that hate anybody that does not look like you or agree with you, your no different than the people you hate so much!!!!
You got me JHS - LOL!
I ask about Iran to find if you're consistent with your isolationist mentality.
rolln4him;
"Your comparison to people that are greedy, liars and such in horrendously pathetic. Are there groups of people that with Liar Rights or People for the Greedy Way? Think about your logic before you post."
Oh yeah something else, they are called republicans, who wrap themselves in Jesus and the American flag, demand tax cut for themselves while at the same they send everyone elses kids to fight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for answering the question politian style - I'll simplify -
Yes you would have gone to war but stopped with Afghanistan and left Suddam Hussein to mock coalition and boast of his Cat and Mouse tactics as well as provide a safe haven for terrorists. Interesting?
What would you do with Iran?
Now now...some people aren't playing well with others....
As for the issue at hand... the purpose of the American democracy was to allow people the freedom to choose for themselves what they would believe. It wasn't to make people leave their religious beliefs at the door when they left their homes.
A problem with America is that we have lost track of our foundations. We have also lost touch with the rest of the planet unless it's about money. We don't take the time or effort to understand other points of view (not I did NOT use the word accept). We have trouble doing that in peace here on this site...what would make anyone think we don't have that problem on a global scale?
rolln4him :
I suppose you listen faithfully to Limbaugh and the like and clap like a seal at everything they say?
rolln4him :
"What would you have done DIFFERENTLY after 9-11?"
Finished Afghanistan, we had Saddam cornered and strong support from our allies, Iraq was a expensive diversion that made cheny very rich and other republican related enterprises, this war is so outsourced to private companies that used to be done by the military themsleves. If the total numbers of people who died in this war came it would be greater than 8,000 to 10,000, but since they only count the troops it's around 4,000 because the rest are private companies.
rolln4him;
"Your comparison to people that are greedy, liars and such in horrendously pathetic. Are there groups of people that with Liar Rights or People for the Greedy Way? Think about your logic before you post."
Yes in answer to your question, they are called republicans
Chances are you won't be able to answer the question of 9-11 simply because you know that you were caught up with the rest of us Americans during this time (outside of Muslim groups who were actually celebrating in the closets). We were united to go after the cowards who were boasting all over the Internet how they showed us something. Now, several years later, we don't hear a whole lot from the Obama (oops - I mean Osama - Freudian slip) crown now do we. They're cowering in some mountain hole licking their wounds and on occasion come out from their hole and knock off one our own.
Now if the Democraps were in control (oh, btw they are in control of Congress) at the time and would have pulled the troops out like whimpy democraps they are, we would be repeating history all over again - leaving the Iraqis to the onslaught of the radical Muslim extremist. You know - the ones who kill gays, women and children without a flinch.
We're the most stable thing for them right now, and there are countless Iraqis that are thanking us now. You're just reading the wrong news channels.
jhs -
OK, let me help you with you politician style of answering questions for the common people.
Gays rights - yes
Abortion - yes in some cases
Your comparison to people that are greedy, liars and such in horrendously pathetic. Are there groups of people that with Liar Rights or People for the Greedy Way? Think about your logic before you post.
I'll try again with the question you still haven't answered.
What would you have done DIFFERENTLY after 9-11?
rolln4him
Catholic boy?
Huh. in answer to your questions homosexuality and abortion are sins and for that matter glutony, greed [which is rampant in this country] and lying [Iraq would qualify], and since I go to a Catholic church I think you can tell that I accept Jesus as the way of salvation.
With that said the hostility of people on this boards to gays and those who have had abortions is stunning. Either they do not know gay people or are just too sheltered. The have rights whether we like it or not, and Jesus died for them too. But this repent or off with your head makes you no different than those you criticize.
We can't invade every country that us mad, and as far as the world, we ought to be talking to Iran and Korea, just like Carter did with Egypt and Israel and Reagan did with the former Soviet Union.
Things cannot continue with us being bogged down in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan at a standstill not to mention the US economy.
Well educated unfortunately doesn't equate with intelligence, especially if your a public school product. Your also a typical Democrap as you don't answer the question . Like - what would YOU have done after 9-11????? Come on "armchair" democrap? Give some real solid answers, not just shoot others down. That certainly doesn't take more than a grade school education.
Jhs -
I apologize for the "moron" bit. You more the man not name calling back outside of leftist gibberish like neo-con or whatever.
You still haven't answered my questions though -
Do you think homosexuality is sin?
Do you think abortion is an atrocity?
Do you believe that Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven?
I'd answer this for you, but I know what you're going to say Catholic boy!
rolln4him
moron huh? I am well educated, I, unlike you am able to see where we have made mistake and admit we should do things differently. 9/11, thats what Afghanistan is for, but because we took our eye off the ball, we have to retake ground. My nephew is there as we speak.
Name calling, well I was just in NYC and if you ask them if Iraq was a good idea you would not like the answers.
You wrap yourself in Jesus and the American flag and much like the rest of your party use fear to stay in power.. all I can say is the gig is up... we now know better.
ifeelfine72--
I think it depends on which religion we're talking about and whether or not any of its basic tenets of faith are: the forced conversion, enslavement, 2nd class status and humiliation, or death for all others who "do not believe in Allah and the last day".
Any religion that doesn't believe in those things...well, I'm not sure the adherents need to be grilled but certainly I don't think questions about their faith are off limits. I wouldn't mind anyone asking me about my faith, if I were running for office. I don't see why a politicians faith shouldn't be open to questions, but if we're talking about some secular-leftist pile-on and McCarthy-esque tactics (funny how the left so often invokes McCarthyism, and yet it seems to be their preferred tactic wherever and whenever they can get away with it, doesn't it?) with hearings or something, then no, I don't support that.
john 14-6: Do you subscribe to Hollingers idea that if you use your religious views to create public policy then those religious views should be open to rigorous debate and scrutiny?
The irony of these comments from Patel is just too sweet. Yes, Muslims have a long tradition of "respecting" other religions in "pluralist" societies...it would be worth a guffaw if it weren't so utterly typical of multicultural hogwash.
I highly recomend "From Tyndale to Madison: How the Death of an English Martyr led to the Bill of Rights" by Michael Farris.
“One thing that might happen if we did that is that differences would emerge about which religious ideas deserves respect and which did not,” the scholar speculated. “And there might be a quarrel over which religious idea has cognitive plausibility and which did not.”
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE "RELIGION" WITHOUT CHRIST. RELIGION IS DEAD AND MEANS NOTHING WITHOUT THE POWER OF GOD BEHIND IT. IT IS ONLY A SET OF DEAD RULES OR MORAL STANDARDS WITH NO BASIS IN TRUTH. ONE RELIGION BECOMES NO MORE VALUABLE THAN ANY OTHER.
A RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS CHRIST HOWEVER, IS LIVING, BREATHING,ACTIVE AND IS ANIMATED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Which religious idea has plausibility? There's only ONE that was acceptable when the nation was birthed and there's only ONE that gives us a basis for our form of government today - Judeo-Christianity.
Under NO OTHER religious system does man have any individual intrinsic value (endowed by their Creator -Judeo-Christian God - by certain inalienable rights) except under the Judeo-Christian worldview.
American government, the way the founders envisioned it DOES NOT work under any other religious system.
WHICH "VIEW" of Christianity should we follow? That which best fits the image, character and Word of God.
By the way, I'm sick and tired of those like JHS that seems to think it's America's fault. We as Americans need to kick some ________ before they do it to us. We waited in WWI and WWII, but had to eventually go in (at the expense of more lives) later and show the world you don't mess with AMericans (black ones, hispanic ones or whatever). These are the same Americans that still believe in family, god and country.
JHS - do you have your GED yet?
Every war known to man is based on ideological factors which in turn is based on religious convictions. Eventually, they collide. Last time I checked, the Islamic militants were the ones that attacked America, but you're so blinded by the religious left that you can't see or think straight. If you're so bright, what would you have done after the twin towers? Gone to Osama and shake his hand and tell him we're sorry we don't understand you yet all in the name of diversity? Give me a break! Try telling that to the thousands of innocent lives that were taken you moron!
Meetings like this drive people in the bible thumping belt nuts. If you don't think just like them your not a "christian" and your on the slip and slide to hell. But invading Iraq makes since to them. Go figure.