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 ...
So then, what portion is acceptable?
I don't think Freemasonry is Satanic.
Catholics have been able to join the Masons officially since John XXIII.
However, my guess is, someone who is a devotee of the 700 club will not be joining the Masons any time soon.
Amen!!!!!!!! Legalism in the Church is the problem! Or a fight started on the color of carpet in the Church and us four and no more started the corner store church without carpet! ;)
In an era before refrigeration and pateurization, grape juice would naturally change character due to natural yeasts. It is probable that most of the wine consumed in Biblical times had an alcohol content well below the 12-15% common in modern wine. Even pagan cultures like those of ancient Greece or Rome diluted their wine with water. Conversely, the alcohol content of wine would help purify water of contamination.
It may be wise from a health standpoint to avoid beverage alcohol. Christians are in various points in Scripture admonished to be sober. Avoidance of alcohol or other mind-altering substances is a very simple and foolproof way of maintaining sobriety. However, the use or non-use of beverage alcohol is a matter of Christian liberty. Romans 6:12 admonishes us to "let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body." This goal can be achieved through either teetotalism or the occasional and moderate use of beverage alcohol.
Interesting that the first state to institute Covenant Marriage (basically marriage that excludes the possibility of no-fault) was in fact Louisiana, and that in fact, this was primarily a project pushed by the state's Catholic clerics.
If drinking wine (or other alcohol) is such a big sin, then it would have been mentioned as such in the Bible. BTW, I knew a Reverend Ray from Milwaukee who drank lots of beer. I know because I met him at the Indy 500 when got mad when he saw some preaching types railing against drinking. I wondered why he got so worked up until he identified himself as a preacher and explained that that drinking alcohol is NOT forbidden in the Bible and all the handwringing about drinking as some sort of sin (unless done to excess) is a colossal waste of time.
The verse tells what people said about what they observed, and they were WRONG in both cases. The verse does not define the content of "wine."
Alcoholic wine is used in the Passover ceremony. (most of the time)
So, are you telling me that Jesus, who is the son of God, without sin, would celebrate Passover, when celebrating Passover (by your definition), would be a "sin". Are you going to seriously contend that passover is sinful.
Drinking a glass of wine, and doing kegstands are two different things entirely.
You're reaching and finding arcane definitions. I find it hard to believe that the translators of the Bible into English would have deliberately picked a word with an ambiguous definition. Putting the religious issue aside, the KJV of the Bible is a literary masterpiece. The use of such an ambiguous definition would have been a major failing on the parts of the authors/translators.
Futhermore, I'm not aware of any other translation of the Bible into non-English languages that leaves any doubt that Jesus created wine.
Uh, no, that verse was a condemnation against the Temple authorities who had held both JTB and Christ in contempt.
The intent is clear, the Temple Priests tried to discredit Jesus by calling him a "glutton" and a "drunkard" in contrast to JTB that did not drink wine, which makes it plainfully clear that Jesus drank wine, otherwise, the Temple authorities wouldn't have leveled the "drunkard" charge against him
Doc Holliday was actually the most feared of the gunfighters in the Old West. Why? Because he was diagnosed with TB and figured a death from a bullet was quicker and less painful than dying from TB. Therefore in every gunfight situation he always had the edge because he really did not fear death since he was already dying. I've read about some of his exploits BEFORE he met up with Wyatt Earp and it is quite astonishing the number of gamblers and others he dispatched. In fact, I don't think there would be a Wyatt Earp legend without Doc Holliday. Just before Doc Holliday died in a Colorado sanitarium, his last words were, "This is funny!" It was funny to Doc Holliday because he did everything he could to get shot to death in a gunfight but still ended up dying from TB.
Apples and oranges comparison. "Hail Marys" contradict SBC theology. The Lord's Prayer contradicts neither, therefore, it's a false comparison.
I'm a lifelong Protestant. I got flamed on a thread once for saying that, in the end, Catholics and Protestants have far more in common than not. After many lengthy replies pointing out various doctrinal differences, I replied to them all by saying something to the effect of this:
Who has more in common with a Catholic - a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, Daoist, a Confucianist, or a Protestant?
We're all part of the same family.
If you have drunk so much happy sauce that Hillary starts looking cute to you, then figure you had too much to drink.
The KJV by definition contradicts Catholic theology, and yet many Southern Baptists want that version to be taught in public schools, and they want it to be taught as the "official version", in regards to the ordering of books and all, and that also contradicts with Catholic theology
It's not a false comparison.
i know, that what i memorized it in. it was a horrible day for me when the JBQs started turning to NIV. besides, "thou shalt not..." jist sounds more impressive.
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.