Ministers Who Say Moore Acted Improperly Should Tear Daniel Chapter 6 Out Of Their Bibles!

Chuck Baldwin Ministries ^ | 08-28-03 | Baldwin, Chuck

[Pan_Yans Wife]

That they aren't proves they are either ignorant of the lawlessness of this federal judge's actions, or they do not have the courage of their convictions.

My immediate response to this sentence, is to question whether or not they have any convictions, let alone courage.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP

[LasVegasMac]

please search before posting. This was posted 8 minutes before your post.

LVM

[The Brush]

Daniel chose not to listen to the King in matters of his personal life.
I wouldn't look upon Daniel as an example in this instance. I look to Christ who said "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's."
Taking the Ten Commandments away did not lessen their value, I believe the judge showed himself a poor example by not giving the matter to God. He let his pride cloud his thoughts and it cast Christians in a bad light. (In my opinion)

[Woahhs]

He let his pride cloud his thoughts...

While various restatements of this assertion have been floating around FR since the beginning of the Ten Commandments controversy, I have yet to see ONE quote from Justice Moore that could be construed as prideful.

My question is: if the Justice doing nothing but standing up for his convictions, and his theistic detractors were in fact seeking plausible deniability for their own cowardice, how could one prove it to other coward's satisfaction?

[jra]

"My question is: if the Justice doing nothing but standing up for his convictions..."

I've met Justice Moore. I've heard Justice Moore speak.

It appears, especially after he's been through the SAME scenario in his previous judgeship, that he ran for the SCOTAL simply to test the constitutionality of this issue.

This tack, IMO, is misguided.

His job as the Chief Justice is to mete out justice, regardless of his personal beliefs. In this realm, he's failed miserably.

A block of stone shouldn't be made into the litmus test for godliness or conservatism, and that's what he's made it into, to the detriment of the entire justice system.

[Woahhs]

His job as the Chief Justice is to mete out justice, regardless of his personal beliefs. In this realm, he's failed miserably.

What rulings from his bench are you calling into question?

[feedback doctor]

While various restatements of this assertion have been floating around FR since the beginning of the Ten Commandments controversy, I have yet to see ONE quote from Justice Moore that could be construed as prideful.

My question is: if the Justice doing nothing but standing up for his convictions, and his theistic detractors were in fact seeking plausible deniability for their own cowardice, how could one prove it to other coward's satisfaction?

I do not question his intentions or character. But I look at the result. Everybody is talking about Judge Moore, but I sure don't hear them talking about God.
Another poster on this thread is correct, where you stand on this issue of a block of stone should not be a litmus test for being conservative or Christian

[Woahhs]

A block of stone shouldn't be made into the litmus test for godliness or conservatism, and that's what he's made it into, to the detriment of the entire justice system.

Why not?

Precisely how has the justice system suffered?

[Woahhs]

Everybody is talking about Judge Moore, but I sure don't hear them talking about God.

Then you ain't listenin' pal...

[feedback doctor]

Everybody is talking about Judge Moore, but I sure don't hear them talking about God.

Then you ain't listenin' pal...

I'm listening and hearing people who know Him talk about Him some, but the ones who need to be reached ain't talking about Him, there just talking about the circus they see.

[Woahhs]

but the ones who need to be reached ain't talking about Him, there just talking about the circus they see.

FRiend, this is not an evangelistic effort. If you expect it to be, you are operating under a set of unsupportable assumptions. It IS an effort to roll back the increasingly prevalent assumption that religious expression is incompatable with civil administration and leadership.

I'm sorry if Justice Moore doesn't fill all your aspirations on what a Christian civil administrator should be, but I can tell you he sure fills mine. But then, I'm not expecting him to convert the country. I'm expecting him to stand against the proposition that a monument to the philosophical and religious underpinnings of our civilization does not constitute an establishment of religion.

Oddly enough, that's very close to what he says he's trying to do.

[Woahhs]

BTW...have you never read about the ruckus Paul caused among the Ephesians?

[jra]

I'm referring to his decision to ignore the order to remove the monument.

His opinions on the matter are irrelevant. He obeys the order--regardless--or he should step aside as CHIEF JUSTICE.

[keats5]

"BTW...have you never read about the ruckus Paul caused among the Ephesians?"

Sure have. And what about Revelation, where Christians are urged to go underground or even accept death before they accept the mark of the beast, who will be the ruling authority at that time.

[Theodore R.]

I thought that I was the only one posting Chuck Baldwin columns because they generate such hostility from many of the contributors.

[Woahhs]

I'm referring to his decision to ignore the order to remove the monument.

I know. I'm just pointing out the fact your complaints and criticisms of Justice Moore are completely circular. You denounce his record because he won't bow to usurpation, but the only thing in his record you criticize is that refusal to bow.

Kind of like arguing to put your dog to sleep because it bites everytime you kick it, I'd say.

[Woahhs]

And that has relevance how?

[Theodore R.]

*ping*