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

To: Iscool
"you would find out that the Bible says that if you can't win them with love, cut 'em with the Sword and cut 'em deep, til you see the Blood...And that's what this pastor is doing"

Perhaps you should have clarified for the less astute that the sword in this case IS the Word of God which "is quick and powerful and sharper than any 2-edged sword" otherwise you will have those like A2J and Hodar running around all over FR claiming that you are calling for the mass slaughter of Muslims in the name Christ.

231 posted on 01/17/2003 12:15:13 PM PST by sweetliberty (RATS out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]


To: sweetliberty
Perhaps you should have clarified for the less astute that the sword in this case IS the Word of God which "is quick and powerful and sharper than any 2-edged sword" otherwise you will have those like A2J and Hodar running around all over FR claiming that you are calling for the mass slaughter of Muslims in the name Christ.

The one fella claimed to be a pastor...And yet he doesn't know this...He wanted "chapter and verse"...One would assume that a pastor in charge of a flock of sheep would have read the Bible thru at least once...Lot's of folks get the milk of the scripture but not so many get the "meat"...And there's a lot of meat there...In fact, it seems to have taken 231 posts for someone to pick up on what I was saying and what the pastor who planted the sign may have been thinking when he posted it...

267 posted on 01/17/2003 7:49:53 PM PST by Iscool (it can be pretty painful, even if you're the winner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies ]

To: sweetliberty; A2J; Hodar
otherwise you will have those like A2J and Hodar running around all over FR claiming that you are calling for the mass slaughter of Muslims in the name Christ.

See my post #265 for more info. I think I see more people on FR, et al, wanting a war (if you will) against muslim countries because they see them as a threat to our freedoms and liberties - it does not have to have anything at all to do with religion. Faith does not have to have anything at all to do with our government in those regards (or any). Christians are to lead by example, the example of Jesus, and live our lives for God. It is not to say our faith cannot play a role in goverment, through the use of morals and precepts in how we do things and the laws we make.

A christian nation is not so because the government is christian, it is one because most the people follow the beliefs and worship God in their personal life (the amish might be considered a good example of this).

It is worth noting though that non-religious moralists have no problem using their ideas in the formation of policy, anyone making laws and such uses some form of belief. If we say abortion is morally wrong we either (or both) do so based upon our faith (which is a shortcut method to our personal pihilosophy, much like those who say they follow Kant, etc) or we can say that as a society we believe it is beneficial to the common good and ideas on which we have based our society.

I can oppose abortion under the heading of my faith or I can do so under the auspices of my politics/philosophy. Taking an innocent life so you can have more fun, less responsibility, etc is (according to my views from many angles) 'wrong'. I think Hodar, and others, simply need to hear that we use other metrics because it may make them (and others) uncomfortable to think that our values come from one source and are not based on debate but on submission to what we see as a higher power. But it has been my experience that these things do come from debate and are multi-faceted even though it may not be evident.

Where we, as christians, get worried (and rightly so) is when our ability to practice our faith gets restricted by those who do not believe (thus, they are doing that to us which they fear we would do to them). Examples are when people want to force children into a public education system and teach them things we disagree with. Homeschooling alleviates that (and community standards should to, if they were allowed) but as more attacks are made on that front (and others) our ability to practice our faith without indoctrination from outside influences gets harder and harder. Thus we strive to get the government to repent of it's slippage of freedoms and not force a belief on us (or more to the point, our impressionable children).

We have, whether christian or not, a deep belief that freedom is important. Even when practice in some forms gets restricted (example, communion wine cannot be given to young children, or indian kids cannot use peyote - there is a lawsuit about that I posted an article on a few days back) we still want the most important thing - the ability to put forth the ideas we hold to each other and our children. When the state undermines that they are encroaching on the freedoms we all cherish. Schools, in this example, would do well to either leave out religion (or any philosophy) and leave that to the parents. But one could also say in a more free society the community in which the school is made and paid for should have the freedom to reflect the standards of the people of that community (whether christian, atheist, muslim, et al).

That the government makes sweeping changes which undermine the faith of a group to all areas is for it to adopt, on matters of philosophical matters, a stand (or a respect of an idea, faith, belief, etc). If they shall make no law respecting religion then why do they make laws in such regards to things which do the same thing without a God label (ie adopt a method of thought they think you need to have).

This would not be an issue if the government would stay out of the schools and not compel. Not to mention that it says 'congress' shall make no law, local school boards are not congress.

America has a rich religious tradition and a political one - there were quite a few communites which existed which were communistic based in the early chapter of American history (and communal, etc). People could experiment because they were free to do so. The job of government was not as broad and sweeping as it is now. You can still buy land, start your own community, etc - but even if everyone agrees to pay a tithe/tax and build a school it would still, at that point, come under strict guidelines.

That some think the government knows best is a statement of faith based upon someone's ideas or philosophy. The government should stick to doing what it should be doing as drawn up in the founding papers (again, open to interpretation). If community X wants to allow something that community Y does not - fine in most cases (we have, as a society and members of it agreed that we hold some truths to be both self evident and important to the well being of our society, without which the freedoms we want to use would not exist. Murder, rape, child molestation, etc are founding ideas and provide a framework to live in - as the framework grows larger and larger we have less and less room to have unique beliefs and ideas to practice).

Ok, guess I am ranting. My daughter is still not in bed - I wish I had her energy! It looks like an f-5 tornado just hit the house. I apologize for the endless babbling!

276 posted on 01/17/2003 8:47:39 PM PST by chance33_98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies ]

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