Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

American Government and Christianity - America's Christian Roots
Probe Ministries ^ | 2004 | Kerby Anderson

Posted on 08/29/2004 10:42:44 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-206 next last
To: Tailgunner Joe

There is a smell of revanchism in the air.


81 posted on 08/29/2004 9:54:01 PM PDT by Old Professer (The enemy is among us; he is us; we know it, we dare not say it - someone will be offended.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanFaith

It's a misnomer to assume that all opponents of the notion of a Christian American government are pagans or communists. Many Christians have a strongly-imbued fear of a government that would seek to impart a particular view of faith. This is the main reason why our primarily Christian founding fathers left religion out of our Constitution except to proscribe its establishment. That's obvious from what they wrote about their decision.

So how do we cope with those on the left who would use government to transform our culture? The same way we must cope with the religionists. I spoke with someone the other day who said that same sex "marriage" was a human right akin to the right to vote. Your camp argues that we have to Christianize the government to meet those challenges. I say definitely not. There is a better way. It takes much more thought in the short term, but in the long run we betray none of the principles on which our nation was founded.

Like the terrorists, we can't let the culture transformers goad us into dismantling our more perfect union. We have to discipline ourselves to either think within the confines of the founding fathers' vision, or revise the Constitution to exceed it. Anything less would be a betrayal of our legacy. You'll understand why I will remain skeptical about any contemporary thinker's ability to improve on such a brilliant document.


82 posted on 08/29/2004 9:56:41 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope
right to bear arms Luke 22:36

22:36

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

That's a stretch and way out of context.

Considering two phrases later

22:38

And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Considering this chapter is about Jesus being turned over to the priest and he got really pissed later at Peter for using one of those swords on a poor priest's assistant, I have no idea where you get this means citizens have the right to keep and bears arms

Read what the Apostle Peter said about submission to government in 1 Peter...specifically chapter 2:13-17. We are to have a submissive spirit. There can be no civilization without government. This goes for any type of government. We are to honor all men (red, black, Christian, pagen, etc...), because all men are intrinsically precious to God.

You are arguing my case for me, This is probably the most un-American Chapter written in the Bible

1 Peter

2:13

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

So much for addressing grievance, petitioning the government or protesting.

I always wondered how Christians can be any against any law (ordinance of man) even abortion with a line like that,   

2:14

Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

What no trail by jury? The governor decides your fate

2:15

For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

So much for freedom of speech

2:16

As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

Sorry by I like causing my government especially Democrats and RINOS "Maliciousness"

2:17

Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

First two are nice.

But the last one, If a Republic/Democracy is God's ideal why would he tell us to honour the king?

2:18

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Slaves obey your masters, even if he is a sadistic son of a *^&*(

2:19

For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.

2:20

For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

So matter how bad or cruel the government is, Shut up and take it. 

Even in our political life...see 1 Timothy 2:1-3.

Not at all, It's about praying our kings are nice to us instead of tossing his ass out if he is not.

83 posted on 08/29/2004 10:40:08 PM PDT by qam1 (McGreevy likes his butts his way, I like mine my way - so NO SMOKING BANS in New Jersey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

"Of course, they'll have the fun of pointing their gnarled fingers at the rest of us and saying, "Unbelievers! We're BETTER than you!"

LC, a lot of them are already doing that: You can feel the haughtiness and self perceived superiority dripping off of their words.


84 posted on 08/30/2004 3:37:45 AM PDT by NCPAC ((Live without Fear: Don't worry about what may happen. Concentrate on what must be done.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Modernman; risk; NCPAC
" Ah, personal attacks. The last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt."

Notice that it came right after the "victim" card a few posts earlier.

I find it so amusing that the religionists can find no greater insult to a belief set they don't like (like the strawmen of secularism and humanism) than to call them a "religion".

Also, to call someone a "hypocritical bigot", when they themselves want to have their own religion "recognized" as above all others, ,is a good bit of chutzpah as well.

85 posted on 08/30/2004 4:17:33 AM PDT by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: risk
They wrote the equivalent of "A.D." . .

Which they felt obliged to spell it out. It's a significant indication of our Christian roots. Quick quizz if some school district put "Year of Our Lord" on a proclamation would it be Constitutional?

you're saying that justifies dogmatic laws in this country?

Well most laws are based on some kind of dogma (look up the word). What I am saying, however, is that your statement "There's not a single thing about Christianity"in the Constitution is verifiably incorrect.

86 posted on 08/30/2004 5:29:54 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

"Notice that it came right after the "victim" card a few posts earlier."

Whenever anyone plays the "victim" (or "racism") card, I automatically dismiss their argument. Automatically.

Anyone who cannot make his or her argument without crying "victim" is not worth listening to, even if he/she has an opinion worth considering.


87 posted on 08/30/2004 6:34:20 AM PDT by NCPAC ((Live without Fear: Don't worry about what may happen. Concentrate on what must be done.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: risk
Many Christians have a strongly-imbued fear of a government that would seek to impart a particular view of faith.

Count me in, in this regard. The Founders had not so distant bad memories of the Church of England, and good reason to protect their new republic from repeating these mistakes.

Like the terrorists, we can't let the culture transformers goad us into dismantling our more perfect union. We have to discipline ourselves to either think within the confines of the founding fathers' vision, or revise the Constitution to exceed it. Anything less would be a betrayal of our legacy. You'll understand why I will remain skeptical about any contemporary thinker's ability to improve on such a brilliant document.

The arrogance and impenetrable ignorance of these "contemporary thinkers" is at times astounding. The Founders gave us the perfect balance of being able to practice whatever kind of spirituality that we are led to by our own free-will, without elevating one form of religion or spirituality above others.

88 posted on 08/30/2004 7:56:29 AM PDT by Hat-Trick (Do you trust a government that cannot trust you with guns?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: risk

>> Well you're in good company. Jerry Falwell, who said that America deserved to be attacked on 9/11, agrees with you. So does Pat Robertson. I'll bet you could get a job at Coral Ridge ministries. They'd love to have someone on deck like you who's so quick to spit out a blob of propaganda for the cause. I'll bet you could make a career out of it.

Nice comback, risk. But it will not cover your idiotic defense of the A.C.L.U.


89 posted on 08/30/2004 8:48:19 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

>> Ah, personal attacks. The last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

What a comeback! (It does not change the fact that anyone who justifies the A.C.L.U. is an idiot.)


90 posted on 08/30/2004 8:51:30 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: risk

>> The televangelists and the other nabobs of Christian revisionism play right into the hands of leftist propagandists. See, they cry, the religious right wants to undo two hundred years of religious freedoms in our country!

Baloney. Christian-hating historical revisionists are the ones who are trying to destroy our religious freedom.


91 posted on 08/30/2004 8:54:12 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
Our grave mistake was allowing that communist front group, the ACLU, have a voice in public policy.

Absolutely. To protect our rights, groups like the ACLU must be censored. (Rolls eyes)

92 posted on 08/30/2004 9:16:18 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

bump


93 posted on 08/30/2004 9:17:07 AM PDT by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: malakhi

>> Absolutely. To protect our rights, groups like the ACLU must be censored. (Rolls eyes)

Who said anything about censorship, malakhi? Jeesh...


94 posted on 08/30/2004 9:21:00 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: AmericanFaith
Too many parents are letting the liberal media raise their children for them. Someone needs to step in and do something.

"It takes a village", eh?

I don't find your nanny state ideas any more appealing than Hillary's.

95 posted on 08/30/2004 9:22:15 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AmericanFaith
Call me an extremist, but I am not an anarchist

You aren't an anarchist. You are a religious socialist. Believing in traditional moral values doesn't, of itself, make you a conservative.

96 posted on 08/30/2004 9:23:39 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Ah, "It Takes A Village", huh?

Heheh, you beat me. Good posts, LC.

97 posted on 08/30/2004 9:24:26 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Thus, they want the government to FORCE those others to recognize their "superiority".

One would think, after the last 70+ years, that they would understand the danger of giving the government this kind of power.

98 posted on 08/30/2004 9:27:43 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
I don't find your nanny state ideas any more appealing than Hillary's.

Yeah, and us uppity Jews don't sit well with some folks either.

Need that government to make us raise are kids Christian we do.

*vomit*

99 posted on 08/30/2004 9:56:29 AM PDT by Bella_Bru (It's for the children = It takes a village)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
Who said anything about censorship, malakhi? Jeesh...

You did, PF. Let me quote you again:

Our grave mistake was allowing that communist front group, the ACLU, have a voice in public policy.

To disallow them from having a voice in public policy would be to censor them.

I strongly disagree with the ACLU on most occasions. But they have as much a right to express their views as anyone.

100 posted on 08/30/2004 10:31:28 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-206 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson