What ever happened to RESPECT

[H2Andy]

This is the typical smokescreen thrown by the "secular America" crowd.

well, this statement shows little respect for the other
side in the argument. it shows contempt for those who
don't agree with you.

Please take the time to explain how placing a statue of the ten commandments is "making a law"

Please explain how allowing, not forcing, the teaching of creation in school is CONGRESS "making a law"

i doubt that if the writings of the finest jurists in America
can't convince you, that i will be able to. all i can say is
read the Supreme Court's opinions on that subject.

bottom line is, you lost the argument. move on.

To use this to outlaw the teaching of religion is a very secular and twisted interpretation.

you're half right. it IS a secular interpretation, and that's
what's so great about this country that I love with all
my heart.

but it is not twisted. again, that's just you calling the
other side names rather than engaging in respectful
dialogue.

 

[bwerb]

Sorry to leave the party for a bit...work calls...I'll be back later.

(Just for the record...reading between the line in a couple of the above responses...I believe I have been labeled a "Liberal Christian" and an evolutionist...you'll actually find that I'm no where near "Liberal" in my faith and as far evolution is concerned...I believe that everything was Created by the Creator. I don't think that believing in an ancient universe or aligning scientific evidences negates that. I have some serious doubts about "macro-evolution" from a scientific standpoint namely that I believe much of the fossil record indicates multiple forms appearing simultaneously fully formed in different locations and there are no "transitional" forms but...I'm open to the possibility that all of us are working with the best knowledge we have currently available and that my faith isn't damaged in the slightest to say that I don't believe ANY of us know HOW it all came about from a physical mechanics standpoint. That I can basically get responses from the "Josh McDowell school of Apologetics" in response to my questions and probes doesn't really open up the dialogue...and hits one of my earlier points, namely that it amazes me how Christians can tear each other apart to the point of more or less declaring "if you don't believe THIS exactly as I do, they you really aren't a Christian at all and your whole faith is a lie" is complete bunkum.)

I shall return...

 

[Green_Manelishi]

i doubt that if the writings of the finest jurists in America
can't convince you, that i will be able to. all i can say is
read the Supreme Court's opinions on that subject.

The finest jurists? Ha, that is funny. This is the same body (with different members) that found the right to abortion in the BOR even though it says nothing about the subject. It's the same black-robed tyrants who've been elevated to law-makers by liberals who cannot achieve their agenda via the legislative process. These are the jurists that crowed, to the howls of protest from liberals, about "states rights" in 2000 but do not want the states to regulate abortions (killing) within their own borders? Oh, boy.

bottom line is, you lost the argument. move on.

Actually, you are refusing to play because you will not win.

that's just you calling the
other side names rather than engaging in respectful
dialogue.

Referring to someones non-spiritual beliefs as secular is now vicious name calling? Andy, check a dictionary.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

It's the same black-robed tyrants who've been elevated to law-makers by liberals who cannot achieve their agenda via the legislative process.

Um ... seven of the nine sitting members were appointed by Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush.

Now there's a crop of "liberals" for ya ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Um ... seven of the nine sitting members were appointed by Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush.

Now there's a crop of "liberals" for ya ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Let us not forget there was at least one recommendation that was "Borked" because of his strict views on the Constitution; meant what it said, said what it meant.

Matters not to me WHO appointed them. They've been elevated to a status not intended by the US Constitution.

Don't know enough about "tricky dix politix" to judge whether or not he was liberal or conservative. Let's face it Republican does not always mean Conservative, nor does Democrat always mean Liberal.

Ford was an accident and my recollection is that he was liberal.

Reagan was a conservative.

Bush the elder? Liberal.

 

[The Chairman]

Liberals try to interpret it differently

That's funny, true disciples "interpret" it much the same way.

Since God gave us His Word, perfectly, we know what the translation should be.

I beg to differ. God has done his best work through IMPERFECT humans. Only God is perfect, and I would hope that you at least accept that your understanding of the scriptures may be less than perfect. If not, than there is no reason to continue a dialogue with an unreasonable person.

Matthew 16:6 "Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

For those not familiar with the times, these were two groups of people who felt they had a monopoly on the truth. Anytime an individual or man sets up "their understanding" of the scriptures as superior to another's they have indeed been infected by their "yeast". Pride bloats up, even couching itself in religious terms and beliefs. Rather than humbly seeking the "truth" they had devolved into merely proving that they were right.

Christianity was so incredibly different to them in that it did away with "the law", and dealt with the heart alone. Once you get the heart right, you don't need no steenkin laws. Unfortunately, it only takes only a small amount of yeast to infect an entire batch. Religious intolerance, debating things which have little bearing on eternity, as well as outright hate and scorn are all part an parcel to this "yeast infection".

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Christianity was so incredibly different to them in that it did away with "the law", and dealt with the heart alone.

Christ Himself stated the He did NOT come to abolish the law but to fullfill it. The law was merely an indicator that the standard was/is perfection and we will all be found lacking. Christ "fullfilled" the law in that He was perfect and sinless (even as a man) and was therefore acceptable under the law.

Paul (?) wrote we need to be careful under grace as well that we do not use it as license to do whatever we choose while claiming Christ's sacrificial atonement. "The Law" is still important but it is no longer the yardstick against which we are judged.

Oh it's a terrible thing for a(n unsaved) sinner to fall into the hands of an angry God. I think that's a paraphrase.

 

[bwerb]

Here here Pete!

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in you philosophy.

Hamlet: Act 1, Scene 5

Which brings us back to the original post...the lack of respect is so sad when it is so eagerly displayed amongst and between believers over issues which have no effect or bearing on eternity.

(I think most Christians (and others) have a large list of questions we'd like answered...we won't have the truth until the day we die, until then, we can discuss, debate and reason but ultimately, none of us really know or will really know until then.)

 

[The Chairman]

The point is... none of us have a perfect understanding of the scriptures or a monopoly on the truth. No one.

Consequently, none of us should look down on what another believes... ever. Seeking truth should never stop. Changing your beliefs should be a daily thing. The change may not seem great, but we should be growing in the grace and not just trying to stay at a stand still. "Take heed those who think you stand..." and you can fill in the blanks.

 

[bwerb]

As Augustine once said: In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things love.