Replies

people shouldn't lie even at home, generally speaking, unless they need to in order to protect themselves and those around them.

My comments speak for themselves.

They sure do...
... talk about moral ambiguity, that exception to the 'no lying' clause is big enough for most felons to drive a stolen armored car through with the murdered guards painting the floor with their blood...

Did Jesus LIE when he said 'lazarus is sleeping' when HE knew good and well that laz was dead, and that his disciples believed he was telling them that laz was taking a nap?

hey, we all have our own measure of what can be said truthfully or not... and that is the point, what ONE person believes is right or wrong to do in a situation, is up to them and God... ie. in the Old Testament, nathan speaking for God, claimed that GOD gave David all of his WIVES, plural. In the new testament, Jesus said one man one woman was best, but stopped far short of calling multiple spouses... adulterers. Today, Christians call multiple mariages an abomination, it is illegal and immoral.

Who changed it all? God? Jesus? the Christian majority?

No matter... but the point is "I am the Lord, I change not... " seemeth to be NOT exactly right. And yes, I understand the theological debates ad infinitum about progressive revelation, but to buy into it, "it is written" pretty much has to go to the circular file.

bottom line is, YOU don't know for everyone, what is necessarily moral or not, based on a simplied list like 'no lies' 'no adultery' 'no stealing' etc.

As principles... they are great... but the broad sweeping "we are a christian nation obey our laws based on God's revealed and objective truths," line of reasoning, is clearly dependent on whose list we are looking at in its context, culturally, socially and historically.

What was wrong yesterday, may not be wrong today, because of what we now know... What we thought was right yesterday, might be immoral today because we have the means to do it better or in a way that benefits the lives of others in a way that it might not of, yesterday or yesteryear.

The founders were wise to write specifics OUT of the constitution... I don't want the tyrrany of the 51 percent, whoever that may be, impacting the freedoms of the entire nation... in the name of THEIR consensus regarding God's will... Europe did that to exterminate non catholics... for centuries. We don't need that here. and God willing, we never will.

Finally ... something you've said in this thread that I can agree with completely and whole-heartedly.

If you leave it at that, it sounds fine. But if, because the Founders kept religious specifics out of the Constitution, you follow that they were not Christian or that this is not a Christian-founded nation, you insult them and re-write factual history. And, if you contend the Founders left a wide berth for religion so that it may be inclusive and protective of such nonsense (my word) as Satanism, Wiccan, Islam, etc, you also mis-represent them. Point in fact, were they here to be accused of this today, I suspect a challenge to a duel would shortly ensue.