Time To Engage God's (America's) Enemies

Ths Holy Spirit of God | October 16, Year of Our Lord 2003 | Gargantua

[Blzbba]

"But, the answer to your question is: Any version anyone wants to preach! It's their right!"

OK....with you so far...



" The 1st amendment says, "Congress shall make no law..." So, you are saying that a public person = congress, and anytghing they say equals "law"?"


Hmmm...{scans previous posts} Nope - didn't say that...


" How is it that Roy Moore = Congress? How is it that his decalog = Law?"

By his position on the Supreme Court. Although it didn't "equal law", the symbolism that his actions represented -- that a Christian in a position of power could display whatever Christian symbols he liked, yet no other symbols of any other religion were being posted -- was a reason his actions were seen as Constitutionally blasphemous. Like it or not, this is a nation for all relgions, not just Christianity. I despise all things Islam -- and wish it were outlawed due to its ties to terrorism...but the Constitution doesn't allow that to happen.


" What part of "or prohibit the free exercise thereof" don't you understand?"


Well then, please don't get upset when the Buddhists ask for gov't money to display a statue of Buddha's fat ass in your state Supreme Court or town square. Constitutionally, if you allow Christians this right, you must allow other faiths this right as well.


(Personally, I see nothing wrong with Nativity scenes and the like...but I'm part of the majority faith. Please, no Christmas trees though - too pagan in origin. Most Christians need to be aware of that. Bottom line though - I don't feel that it's necessary for me to impose my faith on others. A dangerous, Arabian precedent will be set when Christians are allowed to do what they want while allowing no other faiths this same privelege. Do you not understand this?)

[Blzbba]

"I don't recall calling for a national church. Are you building a straw man?"


Yes, you are. You and others desire a Christians-only gov't with no respect or legal privelege afforded to other faiths. I wish you all would come out of the closet and admit that this is your ultimate goal - the establishment of a Christians-only gov't.

I am only responding to your straw man.

[Gargantua]

Look around you.

[azhenfud]

That's the same as in Abraham St. Lincoln's First Inaugural statement where he erroneously pledges to defend the GOVERNMENT of the United States, but his Oath of Office required a pledge to defend the CONSTITUTION.

In defense of the government as he saw it, 620,000+ fine men became immortals.

I know, that's an issue for elsewhere. I know...

[jimt]

That would go against the very essence of Christianity. Christ doesn't force Himself on anyone, and nothing I said indicates such an absurd notion, so spare me any strawmen.

I can see we share a similar view on the essence of Christianity. I would go a bit further and say that any idea of forced salvation or worship comes straight from Satan.

Baloney. Secular humanists would love nothing more! And our govt is FULL OF THEM. My freedom is being eroded more every day!

I'd agree on many fronts. But I haven't seen any recent movement to restrict religious freedom. How is that being done?

That's right - ENTIRELY SUITABLE. Is it now not suitable? Who says so? Some black-robed humanist moron?

There are thousands of books more suitable now. The KJV is not exactly "See Dick run. Run Dick run." Assuming the objective is to teach reading.

[exmarine]

Yes, you are.

I see. You know my position better than I do...right.

You and others desire a Christians-only gov't with no respect or legal privelege afforded to other faiths.

That's right. John Jay said we should "prefer and select ONLY Christians" as our leaders. Argue with him. Was he wrong? The reason he said that is bon-Christians do not have truth, do not have the moral compass (relativism is the only other option), and therefore cannot be trusted to govern according to absolute moral principles (which they do not recognize - their authority is man). I don't care if you don't like it. Having Christians as leaders does not mean we have a theocracy as our founders we all christians and that was not a theocracy. I will vote for Christians only and I will urge everyone else to do the same within my influence. Sue me. Sue John Jay's descendants. If a majority vote for such a man, what can you do about it? You will be better off as Christians don't try to STEAL other people's rights like secular humanists do. It is only because of the Christian worldivew that you live in this free land. Enjoy it - it will not last the way things are going!

I have never been in the closet. I just clean it regularly.

I am only responding to your straw man.

I built a straw man for myself? hahaha. That's not the way the straw man fallacy works. It only applies when another person erects a phoney position of mine to tear down - as you tried to do. I clearly and articulately state my positions.

[Paulus Invictus]

Must read: Davis Limbaugh's new book "Persecution" that spells out the evil agenda of the secularists and their RAT supporters. Their agenda is to destroy Judeo-Christian religions and do it openly. Satan is extending his influence and the war is on now more than ever!

[jimt]

Look around you.

(Embrace clarity.)

I do. I read a fair amount as well.

Excessive brevity is cool for mysticism, but doesn't make for clarity of your argument.

[CodeMonkey]

The South seceded for the most anti(classical) liberal reason: to defend the right of property in other human beings. That was the only "state right" that was threatened by Lincoln. As a Southerner I find the South's secession to be the real reason why the "republic died in 1860." Had the South not resorted to such extremism and emancipated its slaves voluntarily the growth of the federal government that resulted from the Civil War would never have happened and we'd be a much freer country today. Blame the South, not the rest of the Union for the Civil War. The rest of the Union was perfectly justified in forcing the South back into the Union because fighting for a right to own another human being is only a few shades less immoral than fighting for the right to slaughter ethnic minorities at will.

[exmarine]

But I haven't seen any recent movement to restrict religious freedom. How is that being done?

With all due respect, are you blind? How many court rulings do you need me to cite? There are dozens. And there are many more pending! The courts!

There are thousands of books more suitable now. The KJV is not exactly "See Dick run. Run Dick run." Assuming the objective is to teach reading.

I was not arguing for any particluar version, just the bible in general. However, I believe the Geneva bible was the version of choice at that time. I think the NASB is the most accurate today.

[exmarine]

By his position on the Supreme Court. Although it didn't "equal law", the symbolism that his actions represented -- that a Christian in a position of power could display whatever Christian symbols he liked, yet no other symbols of any other religion were being posted -- was a reason his actions were seen as Constitutionally blasphemous. Like it or not, this is a nation for all relgions, not just Christianity. I despise all things Islam -- and wish it were outlawed due to its ties to terrorism...but the Constitution doesn't allow that to happen.

Where in the Constitution does it say that religious symbols can't be posted? Hint: Nowhere. So, I will thank those blackguards in black robes to follow the black and white print in the Constitution and the original intent of the founders. This is a nation of LAWS (LEX REX) not arbitrary rulers. The day is coming when these morons will be DEFIED by the masses and that will mark the end of judicial tyranny in this land.

[armydoc]

"Might it be because he blesses those who obey Him,"

"There are a million+ devout, faithful, God-loving, church-going cancer sufferers (my mother-in-law, God rest her soul, was one of them) who would beg to differ with this ignorant, pious statement. You should be ashamed of this statement."


Christ did not promise a lack of suffering in this world for his followers- in fact he guaranteed suffering. If your grandmother believed in Him, then her soul is indeed with God, which is the ultimate blessing. And there's nothing at all to be ashamed about proclaiming that fact.

[exmarine]

Assuming the objective is to teach reading.

I think the objective is to instill moral character, not teach reading.

[exmarine]

By the way, Christians would not restrict anyone's right to believe in whatever religion they want or worship wherever and whenever they want. Where do you think the idea of FREEDOM comes from? Let me give you a hint:

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty. 2Cor. 3:17.

And ONLY in Christ is there freedom.

[azhenfud]

"You and others desire a Christians-only gov't with no respect or legal privelege afforded to other faiths."

I'm taking it since you include "and others", that includes this one also, so I'll respond too.

No we don't "desire a Christians-only gov't with no respect or legal privelege afforded to other faiths", but we demand the freedom of acknowledging our heritage (which is based upon faith in the God of the Bible) not be denied us or for us to be silenced or excluded by those who're willing to see all aspects of Christian morality thrown from this society in particular.

[CodeMonkey]

Which ironically the West did not have until the rise of the British Empire and classical liberalism. The West was despotic until the rise of Anglo Liberalism.

[jimt]

That's right. John Jay said we should "prefer and select ONLY Christians" as our leaders. Argue with him. Was he wrong? The reason he said that is bon-Christians do not have truth, do not have the moral compass (relativism is the only other option), and therefore cannot be trusted to govern according to absolute moral principles (which they do not recognize - their authority is man). I don't care if you don't like it. Having Christians as leaders does not mean we have a theocracy as our founders we all christians and that was not a theocracy. I will vote for Christians only and I will urge everyone else to do the same within my influence. Sue me. Sue John Jay's descendants. If a majority vote for such a man, what can you do about it? You will be better off as Christians don't try to STEAL other people's rights like secular humanists do. It is only because of the Christian worldivew that you live in this free land. Enjoy it - it will not last the way things are going!

With that statement above, I think no more conversation is necessary. I know now very clearly where you're coming from. All those who voted for Beelzebubba are now vindicated, as he was a Christian. I knows it ! I seen him carryin' his Bible !

[E Rocc]

No, there is no "wall of separation" clause, but there is an "establishment clause" in the First Amendment that has been interpreted by the Supreme Court since the late 1940s as meaning there is be a separation of church and state.

Actually the interpretation dates back to 1878, and Reynolds v. US:

At the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god; that he owes account to noneother for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

-Eric

[azhenfud]

As I said, that's an issue for discussion elsewhere, but I'd urge you to examine more closely the Southern cause.

[E Rocc]

That's right. John Jay said we should "prefer and select ONLY Christians" as our leaders. Argue with him.

Gladly. He was a religious bigot.

The State of New York has always been foremost in the pursuit of freedom of worship and religious toleration. It is true, however that her first Constitution in 1777 excluded all priests and ministers of the Gospel from her legislature and offices, and put a prohibitory religious test upon foreign-born Catholics who applied for citizenship. Herein we find an echo of the bitter intolerance of the eighteenth century, which was strongly opposed in the Convention. The naturalization disability disappeared very soon on the adoption of the Federal Constitution in 1789, and, by subsequent constitutional amendments, all these remnants of ancient bigotry were formally abolished. It is remarkable to find John Jay, otherwise most earnest in the fight for civil liberty, the leader in these efforts to impose religions tests and restraints of liberty of conscience upon his Catholic fellow-citizens.

-Eric