Posted on 06/28/2005 9:19:57 AM PDT by voletti
THIS week, for the fourth year in a row, President George Bush broke from affairs of state to address the Southern Baptist Convention. He promised the strict evangelical group, which has 16m members, that he would work hard to ban gay marriage and abortion, and that their “family values” were his values, too.
In the 1960s, many liberal Americans thought they had banned religion from the public square for good. Yet nowadays the president, the secretary of state and the House speaker accept the evangelical label. A packed prayer breakfast takes place every Thursday in Congress. And liberals regularly contend that one of America's two great parties is bent on creating a theocracy—backed by a solid core of somewhere between a quarter and a third of the population.
Why is the religious right as powerful as it is? The question puzzles even Americans. Their country, as a whole, is not getting more religious. The gap between it and European countries has increased, but largely because of Europe's growing godlessness. Most Americans say that religion is very important (60%) or fairly important (26%) in their lives, but Karlyn Bowman, a polling analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, points out that the figures were 75% and 20% in 1952.
What has changed is, first, the make-up of Protestant America and, second, the realignment of religious America's politics. The generally liberal mainline churches have declined, while harder outfits like the Southern Baptists have spurted forward. White evangelicals, who see the Bible as the literal truth (or darned close to it), now make up 26% of the population.
It is not just a matter of numbers but of confidence. Born-again Christians are no longer rural hicks; they are richer and better educated than the average American.
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
I don't disagree with the statement that gambling is fundamental to America, hell, the entire concept of colonization was one big gamble, as was much of what we've done as a country.
We've been the success we are because we've been more willing to play on "gambler's intuition"
However, I do not believe that, of the Prostestants that do gamble, that a majority would belong to denominations that we tend to think of as "Evangelical Born-Again", like the Southern Baptists, the Pentecostals, etc.
The Bible never teaches that Christ drank fermented fruit of the vine.
I know many Christians (I do not doubt their salvation) who do nothing but talk about the content of the book, and who have very little testimony of actual interaction or experience with Christ.
I use several translations myself. I prefer the NIV by far, as it's written in my language. The KJV just has too many anochrisms for me. It's not really my language. However, certain passages, like the 23rd Psalm just don't work in any other translation but the KJV.
The Bible doesn't use the words "grape juice." "Wine" can describe BOTH fermented and unfermented juices. Just because you see the word "wine," doesn't mean that Jesus drank hooch.
"The Bible never teaches that Christ drank fermented fruit of the vine."
Back this up
There are ramifications to the spiritual life of the entire nations when the borders cannot be controlled.
BTW, ever see the movie, California Split? It is my favorite gambling movie. Anyway there was a scene at the poker table that had Amarillo Slim in a Cowboy hat while the Elliott Gould and George Segal characters were analyzing the players including one guy they claimed looked like a Klansman. I would advise you to check out the poker tables at most casinos. The Redneck (most likely Southern Baptist) poker player is a well known type at such games.
There is documentation to prove that it was actually the other way around: that bar-room lyrics were put to the music of "A Mighty Fortress..."
One doesn't have to be particularly religious to oppose gay marriage and abortion. The fundamentalist left just doesn't get it and they never will.
If I call myself a "man from Mars" am I a man from Mars? Would like to see my collection of Unicorn horns?
That may be a political belief, but it doesn't have anything to do with religion, as far as I can tell.
We believe if the President's values were our values, he would have cried out that he has no respect for that porn star who sat at a Republican fundraiser.
Should the President really be going around pointing out the moral failings of everyone sitting in a room near him?
Does the President drink alcoholic beverages?
No.
Did you read the text of Mrs. Bush's remarks at the recent event where she all but roasted and embarrassed him? Remarks about the desparate housewives, and so forth that revealed neither of them have Biblical convictions concerning home life.
Do you have any evidence that the First Couple are anything other than a loving, faithful, devoted couple? A few jokes don't change that. Lighten up. The President seems to have no problems laughing at himself.
Does the Bible say
"Jesus did not drink wine"
or, "Amen I say to you, alcohol is the work of the work of the deciever, do not concieve it period"
I have never read anything in the Gospels that forbids the consumption of alcohol in the outright sense. I have however, read passages that prohibit divorce, a position I have yet to see embraced by any non-Catholic denomination.
Not to mention, being that Jesus's heritage was Royal House of David (actually, both Mary and Joseph, though formally through Joseph), the likelihood is, he drank wine at passover. There is even a special procedure involved in the production of "Kosher" wine.
I don't think alcohol even was a moral concern until the late 1800s, when liberal populist politicians, added prohibition on their list of desired "reforms" along with giving women the vote, repeal of the 17th amendment, income tax, etc.
That's a pretty broad question. Do you mean which English translation is the correct one? Frankly none of them are. They all have their good points and bad points. For example, the NASB is grammatically correct but somewhat wooden while the NIV is easier to read but in some cases is a little more loosely translated. Even though none is perfect they give us enough to be able to study and know God's word without all of us having to learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
There are a numerous families of texts for both the Hebrew and the Greek but amazingly enough none of the difference affect areas where doctrine is in dispute. Most of the differences involve word order (Christ Jesus vs Jes Christ) or inclusion of or exclusion of verses (The end of the Gospel of Mark is in some ancient texts but not in others). But again it is not anything that affects essential doctrines of the Christian faith.
Catholic's and Protestants disagree regarding the inclusion of the Apocrypha. I believe Jerome did not want to include it when her translated the Bible into Latin and I am pretty certain that most Jews do not recognize the apocryphal books as co-equal with scripture. But outside of that Catholic's and protestants have the same scriptures.
So what was the point of your question?
Maybe. But who patronizes those casinos?
bookmark
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.