The hell is this world with all types of calamities and demons possessing persons that send their peers to kill to others in order to take their oil to make riches the big corporations like shell, exxon, chevron, and others like BP , that is why those are the top companies of the ranking in Fortune magazine. Do not be fools thinking is "WAR ON TERROR" those WARLORDS are using our taxes to pay for services of a few. The real CHRISTIANS do not kill to others, JESUS was a WARLORD? never!, if you gays are following the RED APOCALIPTIC HORSE you are in the wrong place. be away of such bunch of lies and their business.
Christian Soldiers
The growing controversy over military chaplains using the armed forces to spread the Word.
Jun 19, 2009
-
Posted By: ELIASID @ 08/20/2009 4:17:47 AM
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 06/29/2009 12:32:19 AM
I'm sorry to shatter your achy, breaky, but, Accepting Jesus Christ is not about making one's life "easy". If it were, do you think this world would be in the shape it's in? Too many "preachers" are turning Christianity into a slot machine: "Put your faith in and get what you want". WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!! Christianity is about serving God according to "GOD's" way and His way is through the atoning death of His Son Jesus Christ. Look at all the death's happening lately. This world talks about "spirituality, but when someone dies, they say "so and so is dead", like all of a sudden, "that;s it". Where's the spiritual "talk"? There is an eternal side once you cross the boundaries of death. Do you want to spend eternity in Heaven? Or do you want it in a "place of torment"? It's one or the other. We who live for Jesus Christ have been given God's Holy Spirit. And The Holy Spirit bears witness, we are God's People. WE KNOW Jsus is The Way, The Truth and The Life. God's Spirit is inside us. We no longer have a desire to live for this world. We are to love ALL people to show His Love to others but they decide to either accept Him or reject Him. ALL YOU PREACHERS OUT THERE WHO ARE MISLEADING PEOPLE BY SAYING "ACCEPT JESUS AND HE WILL BLESS YOU WITH WHATEVER YOU WANT" had better start telling it like it is. "HE DIED THAT YOU MAY LIVE. The blessings come "ONLY" when you become obedient to His Word. Sometime, He holds our blessings until we go to be with Him. If you're not reading and studying His Holy Bible, getting to know Him, Jesus said, "if you are ashamed of me and my word, You, I will be ashamed of.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/29/2009 2:15:11 AM
The story she just posted has nothing to do with ACEPTING Jesus. It's about being forced and coerced to say you accept Him, and that you accept Him on someone else's terms. Are you saying that's ok? If so all I can say is I am so very very thankful that we have a political system designed to protect me from insane fanatics like yourself.
-
Posted By: leahT @ 06/29/2009 7:00:03 PM
its not about being forced, its about either you belive or not. you want eternal life or not. its your decision, thats why got gave us freedom.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/29/2009 10:50:04 PM
the story that I assume he was responding to was indeed about being forced. It was about being coerced into saying you believe in God whether you do or not, not only that but being forced to accept someones particular view on God. Whether that story is true or not his response seems to indicate that he doesn't have a problem with it when he says that accepting Jesus is not about making life easy. He seems to think it's ok to violate a person's god-given free will and constitutional liberty to coerce and forcefully convert someone.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 06/30/2009 1:46:32 AM
You are right. The choice is your's. You have that freedom. Just like a woman who has the right to abort, forcing that child under her enslavement. I have the right to refuse marrying. focing a woman to remain an unwed mother. Islamists blow themselves up, forcing everyone around them to end their life. Christians pray in public, and it outrages those around them. I'm sure catholics would'nt like it if I did'nt kneel before the pope to kiss his ring, or his foot or whatever he wanted kissed. Islamist's would'nt like it if I drew allah with daffy duck riding his back. Did I force you to read these words? No. You read them "of your own accord". When someone sees or hears something they "don't like hearing or seeing", AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!THEY'RE INTRUDING ON MY RIGHTS". Who's rights overrides who's? If everyone's god really exist, then on judgement day, "the god's" will have to fight each other to have the final authority. There is only "One God". And He will judge all. Do you really want to wait until you're dead to find out? There is NO purgatory. After death, their is judgement. If purgatory really existed, what would be the difference between this life and Heaven? Everyone would still have their hatred in their hearts. God loves. And His people are to love all. EVEN when we're hated. You hate me for following Jesus? Good! It reinFORCES my knowing I belong to God and not this world. The choice is your's. My choice is "follow Jesus Christ:."HE" gives me my liberty. Not a cold statue standing in a bay out in the cold.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/30/2009 2:38:11 AM
Wow I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make with all this fanatical raving. Are you trying to say that simply not liking something is the same as complaining about someone trying to coerce and forcefully convert you? Are you actually saying there's no differece between the two? Sure sounds that way to me. Maybe I'm wrong but it's hard to tell with the way you're ranting. I dont' hate anyone for following Jesus, that's an erroneous assumption on your part. I think it's kinda of curious though how you keep saying you don't belong to this world and you're not living for this world yet here you are down in the trenches slinging mud just like all the rest of us.Just another squabbling voice among many. Seems kind of prideful and petty for someone that's supposedly so detached and above it all. I also think it's funny that you say blessed are the meek and the peacemakers yet your behavior doesn't seem meek to me in the slightest. Far as all the bible-thumpin hellfire stuff goes that doesn't mean anything to me.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 06/30/2009 3:33:34 AM
We are to live at peace with everyone. Even if it means turning away from you. But we speak what we know. This world is not our home. So like Jesus said, "you cannot go where we are going". We're also "bold as lions". So carry on with your blasphemies. You'll give an account one day.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/30/2009 3:59:56 AM
But your not turning away from me. You're on here spewing belligerent rants at me. How is that keeping the peace or being meek? I just don't see it.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/30/2009 12:24:27 PM
But your not turning away from me. You're on here spewing belligerent rants at me. How is that keeping the peace or being meek? I just don't see it.
What he means is that he only needs to proclaim the Gospel to you and you can either receive it or reject it on your own terms. Then you are left with the consequences of your decision. As for him or her spewing belligerent rants towards you I would beg to differ. Your first response towards this post shows that you were being antagonistic towards this person at the offset.
The bible also says Rom.12 [18] If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
Notice it says if it be Possible!
As for being meek you need to read the bible. Don't think that when dealing with someone that you have to cower to them. He can also speak in power and boldness. I posted some scripture for you to demonstrate what I'm saying not to so-call thump biblical passages at someone who stated that he doesn't believe. But only as reference....Selah!
1Cor.4
[18] Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.
[19] But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.
[20] For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
[21] What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?
Matt.15
[7] Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
[8] This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
[9] But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
[10] And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
[11] Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
[12] Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
[13] But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
[14] Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/02/2009 1:47:15 PM
You can quote the Bible all you want, it still won't make a reasonable person believe in it. The book contradicts itself. Old Testament tells us one thing, and the New Testament turns around and tells us another. Jesus tells a guy who asks him how to achieve salvation to follow the Commandments, and Paul turns around says that the laws are a curse and we are saved by belief in Jesus alone. Here's an example. Please compare this: Romans 4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
And this: James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Matthew 9:16-17 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
As you can see, the New Testament itself gives us two instructions on how to be saved, and both instructions contradict each other. On one hand Paul tells us that no one will be saved based on his works, and on the other hand James, Mathew and Jesus himself tell us to follow the commandments in order to be saved. No Christian preacher I asked this question could give me a reasonable answer that I would understand. How am I supposed to accept this book as a word of God?-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/02/2009 9:51:38 PM
First of all, you'd better look up Matt. 9:16,17 . The story you are talking about is in Luke 10:17-31. "FAITH" is involved "with" works. Read the complete verses and you will see FAITH is included. Don't misguide people by only telling one verse. Give them the entire context. "FAITH" "WITHOUT" "WORKS" "IS" "DEAD".
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/03/2009 6:36:41 AM
I am not trying to mislead anyone. The point I made is very clear. Paul tells us that we will not be saved based on works. If I am to believe you stating that it is the combination of faith and works, how about Paul? Was he wrong? Or were the others wrong? I'm confused. You did not give me a reasonable answer, and no one can. It is impossible. Just like it is impossible to logically explain the concept of Trinity.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/03/2009 11:33:41 AM
We are saved "through" Faith. But out of love for Jesus, God and THE HOLY SPIRIT, we are to "show" our faith by the "works" we do. Jesus says to "show love to one another". If you were moving from one house to another, and you were trying to load something heavy and I saw you but I did'nt offer to lend you a hand, by helping, is that showing you any love? (that is just an example). No. It shows it does'nt matter to me if you cause yourself bodily injury.We ARE NOT saved through works. We are saved "through faith". But "in" faith, we are to have works to show we love God by "helping" others. But as for the scripture Matt.9:16,17 you posted yesterday, That is about old and new wineskins. Jesus was saying you cannot put new wine in old skins. In other words, He fulfilled the law. He "did'nt" abolish the law. He fulfilled it. Therefore, We are no longer bound by law, We are saved by "GRACE", through faith because of what Jesus has done "AT THE CROSS". What we "do" will not save us. Who we are "IN CHRIST" for what He has done is our salvation. Obeying the ten commandments was "never" given to "save" anyone. They only have shown what God requires us of man to obey Him. But they could'nt save him. But as I was reading what you wrote earlier, You sounded like you were trying to say, we are saved by works. WRONG!!! IT's FAITH that saves us. (FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST)
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/03/2009 5:39:54 PM
So, works are not necessary? For Paul said that they are not. It is faith that matters. So, are you saying that we don't need to follow the commandments?
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/03/2009 9:09:52 PM
You did'nt read what I said, did you quazimoto. We are saved "through" faith. But we show our "faith" "with" works. I could give you a glass of cold water and at the same time, hate your guts. (a faithless man would do that) Or I could give you a glass of cold water in the Name of Jesus and in obedience to Him, love you with kindness even if you throw it back in my face. "FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD".
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/03/2009 11:34:31 PM
I did read what you wrote. And by the way, insulting those who disagree with you is not a Christian way to act. What I am saying is that Paul stated specifically, that works don't save us. But Jesus stated specifically that one should follow the commandments to be saved. Period.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 1:12:44 AM
Jesus said to follow "HIS" commands. There's a difference from the "ten" commandments and "HIS" commandments.
(John 14:15)-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/05/2009 7:55:18 PM
In any case, why did it have to be Jesus to die on the cross for me? The main reason I am not a Christian is because I don't see why did God have to be born on Earth to die for my sins? God came to Earth and die so that He could forgive us. Makes no sense. Why could it be someone else? Whey couldn't he make any person die for us all? There are always people who are ready to sacrifice themselves for an idea or belief. We had early Christian martyrs, and even today's suicide bombers. Why couldn't God pick a sacrifice among us and had to be born as Jesus to die for us?
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/06/2009 12:04:29 AM
Jesus was the "only" perfect sacrifice possible. He was God's own Son. Jesus xame to earth as a man so He could experience what man experiences through life as a man . "But Jesus never sinned:. He was the only perfect sacrifice possible. It could'nt be any other because "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Jesus Christ is the "only" atonement for our sins. He paid our debt because He loved us enough to sacrifice himself so yhat we may live. Anybody else could've / would've had hatred in their hearts for certain people. God needed someone for "US ALL".
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/06/2009 8:36:11 PM
So, what you are saying Jesus was the only possible sacrifice because he had no sins? How about the original sin? Jesus was a son of Mary, and thus was a descendant of Adam and Eve. So, he carried the original sin that according to Christianity is carried by all humans. Thus, Jesus could not be a perfect sacrifice you are talking about.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/07/2009 2:18:42 PM
Jesus was not "Joseph"s" son. Jesus was "God's Son" He was conceived in the womb by The Holy Spirit. (ie. mireaculous birth) GOD sent HIS SON to die for us, therefore, Jesus Christ "WAS INDEED THE ONLY SINLESS ONE WHO WAS ACCEPTABLE. But if you can't handle that, bo about with your life.
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/07/2009 5:43:53 PM
But was Mary completely sinless? Was Mary free of original sin and thus pure, or did she carry the original sin and was thus impure like the rest of us?
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/08/2009 3:15:00 AM
ask a catholic. they know alot more about "her" then Christains do. We don't look to her. As far as we are concerned, she's up there singing "blowin in the wind" with Peter and Paul.
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/09/2009 4:09:40 AM
Let me rephrase it. Was Mary free of Original Sin, or did she carry it just like all other humans? Because if she did carry the Original Sin, she was thus impure, like the rest of us. And as Job 14:4 states: "Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!" Thus, unless you believe that Mary was free of original sin Jesus was impure because he was born to an impure woman, since your Bible states that no pure thing can come out of impurity. On the other hand, if you do believe that Mary was free of sin, that means that anyone can achieve the same thing she did without resorting to acceptance of Christs death for our sins.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/09/2009 11:45:24 AM
With God, ALL things are possible. And as far as your argument goes, Why don't you try re-reading that? Job was talking about "man" not "God". Job's friends were trying to comfort him but he was explaining from the human stand point. "With God, ALL things are possible........so ....let the ignorant be ignorant. Besides, that would make your koran nothing but a book of blasphemies. (seeing nothing pure can come from anything unpure). You said it yourself, the koran has been "changed. (by impure man). God never changes. And He Never will.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/09/2009 1:32:24 PM
But Mary was "man," that is she was human. Yeah the all things are possible with God thing is a convenient explanation that Christains fall back on when they can't explain a contradiction or incongruity in any other way. I suppose it works well enough for you within your "logical" system of Christianity, but it just doesn't do it for me. Why would a god say that nothing pure can come from the impure, then require you to worship someone born from an impure human?
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/14/2009 11:16:48 AM
God didn't say this but a man siad this! Reading comprehension is required here and if you are going to read to book of Job then you will see the human perspective of this life and all that goes on. Now read God's response and you will know that he questioned Job for darkening his counsel without knowledge! In other words, speaking out of his ignorance.
Job.38
[1] Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
[2] Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
-
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/10/2009 5:51:37 AM
I never said that Qur'an has been changed. In fact, I stated that it has not been changed. I did however state that the Bible was changed. One of the people who "determined" what should stay in the Bible and what should go was emperor Constantine. And dare I remind you that Constantine was a pagan and died a pagan. So, how can I accept a book that has been edited by a pagan as a word of God? Moreover, how can I accept the words and opinions of Paul and others as a word of God? You also said that God never changes. Actually if you read the Bible very carefully you will see that he somehow does change. The God of the Old Testament and the one of the New Testament are very much different if you look at what they did and what they promise.
-
Posted By: Trooper101st @ 07/13/2009 10:25:19 AM
-
-
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/09/2009 11:49:54 AM
Tell you what, you believe what you want about it. And I'll believe allah and muhamed were homosexual lovers.
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/10/2009 6:00:15 AM
And once again you resort to insults because you cannot give a logical explanation. And the sad thing is you know that there is no logical explanation. And that is why you are mad at me. As far as Allah and Muhammad (PBUH) being homosexual lovers, it is not possible. Allah is not a human being and is not like a human or any other creature in the universe. So, a sexual relationship between a man and a higher being that does not have a gender and does not reproduce is impossible, and certainly cannot be qualified as homosexual. Moreover, homosexuality is a major sin in Islam. And since Muhammad preached to Arabs demanding them to return to the faith of their forefather Abraham who worshiped Elohi (Allah) you just called God the Father a homosexual. Oh, by the way, going back to your statement that God doesn't change, how come the same God teaches us to take an eye for an eye in the Old Testament and teaches forgiveness and to love your enemies in the New Testament?
-
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/09/2009 12:32:18 PM
For God did not send His Son into the world to codemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of The Only Begotten Son fo God. (John 3:17,18)
-
-
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/08/2009 12:38:35 PM
Let's see if I can answer this the way funky would, You got off the subject. It does'nt say anything about Mary being completely sinless. The topic was about "conception by the Holy Spirit". Maybe after she got some pee,pee, maybe she sinned with a little lust in her thoughts. Who knows? "All have sinned and fallen short of The Glory of God". God was pleased with her. She found honor in the sight of God. He chose her to bring JESUS CHRIST into the world. No she was not completely sinless. But God Was and Is. And so was Her, God's Son. I believe it is time for me to find another page to have discussions with, seeing you both question things you "obviously" want to remain ignorant about. So, qozi and funky, carry on with your little agnorances and say good-bye. Bye.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/09/2009 11:01:04 AM
lol actually he stayed right on the subject, and the reason you're leaving is because you can't actually answer his question. You're explanation is inadequate. If Mary was not sinless, and your Bible says that you can get nothing pure from what's not pure, then how can Jesus have been pure? Maybe there is someone who can explain that but apparently you can't.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/09/2009 1:56:06 PM
you'll see on yor day of judgement. but as for not being able to answer his and your blasphemous disbeliefs, my job is to proclaim JESUS CHRIST and that's what I'll do. if God wants me to throw pearls before swine, He will give me the answer. But I can see you're not worthy of it.
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/10/2009 6:11:57 AM
Well, I guess you can say that your job is to proclaim Jesus Christ. But if you cannot logically explain the doctrine to back it up I say you are not doing a very good job. How can you tell others to follow a certain teaching if you yourself don't know it? How can you preach what you don't know?
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/09/2009 2:28:18 PM
lol yeah ok, nice self-righteous rant there to avoid answering the question. Far as not being worthy I can just as easiliy turn it around and say that your religion, at least your interpretaion of it, is not worthy of me. Didn't you say you were leaving? I'm pretty sure you said that. I thought you were done talking to us ignorant disbelievers.
-
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/09/2009 2:04:21 PM
I can see you do not belong to God and neither does this webpage. """have nothing to do with wickedness''''.I done said all I need to say. This page is no longer worthy of my company. Blaspheme all you want, but as far as i'm concerned, "as for me and my home, we will serve The Lord Jesus Christ". Webpage deleted.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/09/2009 10:23:49 PM
lol that's hilarious that you actually typed out webpage deleted. What a dramatic note of finality there. How do you delete a webpage anyway? It's still here even if you're not looking at it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/05/2009 7:50:37 PM
So, what you are saying is that Ten Commandments of the Old Testament should not be followed?
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/06/2009 12:15:07 AM
Jesus said to ...."love The Lord with all your heart". That is the greatest commandment of all. The second is just as important, Love you neighbor as you love yourself. All other commandments hang on these two. Jesus writes His Laws in our hearts. No, The ten commandments are guides showing what God requires of man. We are not bound by the law though. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Out of love for Him We want to obey all of God's commands, ordinances, laws. He does'nt strike us down when we disobey Him. He forgives us but we are still disciplined when we are disobedient to Him.
-
-
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 1:56:41 AM
Jesus called the pharisees "a brood of vipers, Matt. 3:7 - Matt. 12:34 - Matt. 23:33 - Luke 3:7. Insulting?
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 1:26:13 AM
I can see you just do't get it. Unless it's because you can't find anything else to argue about. Or, maybe you know people will beat their brains out trying to explain it to you. I won't. "But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear my voice, AND I KNOW THEM, and they follow me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither will anyone snatch them out of my hand. My Father who has given them to me, is greater than all, and NO ONE is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one. (JOHN 10:26-30)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/30/2009 3:10:38 PM
The bible also says Rom.12 [18] If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
Notice it says if it be Possible!
Ok so why was it so IMpossible for him to ignore (turn away from) my comment and simply not respond to it? It's not like anything that's said on here is going to have any significant consequences. Ignoring my comment and not responding to it would have been the most peaceful action he could have taken. Or no perhaps responding with a positive message of love and tolerance or something along those lines would have been even better. In any case he did neither. Why not? His pride, that's why. His ego. Prideful and egotistical actions are not actions of humility or meekness.-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 06/30/2009 10:33:19 PM
No, I did'nt reply because I had to go to work. The last reply you gave, would've gotten me into an argument with you so instead of arguing, (making matters worse) I had to back off and collect myself to be able to go to work in a good mood. But now I'm back with a straight head ready to continue. Jesus was a meek and peaceful and humble man. But did you see what he did when they tried to turn His Father's house into a den of thirves? He took cords and drove the moneylenders out. Was that in humility and meekness and peaceful? I fhink not. But read what was said right after... "but in this, He DID NOT sin". I read what was spoken since I got back on, and I read "you would have to understand where he's coming from and that would require you to be a christian with the mind od Christ to see things the way we see them". May The Good Lord bless the one who said that. I would have told you last night, "you do not understand the Christian faith". Jesus did not sin when He drove the moneylenders out but He did become angry when they dishonored His Father's TEMPLE. The place to worship and praise God. But we as Christians are God's temple now. And we don't like someone dishonoring our God who is in us. Jesus spoke WITH AUTHORITY. We are sent by Him to spread His message of salvation. But when people speak out against us, (we still have the human nature to deal with) It makes us angry because all we speak is what His Word says. Jesus says "If the world hates you, you it hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love it's own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore, the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, a servant is no greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they keep my word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for my names sake, because they DO NOT KNOW HIM WHO SENT ME. (John 15:18-21) What "faith"is being attacked here?
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/01/2009 3:08:36 AM
You seem to think that I hate you for being a Chirstian, that I think you have no right to be a Christian. I don't believe in Christianity, at least not in the sense that you do, but I believe in anyone's right to practice their religion regardless of what religion that is. My whole beef from the beginning was that you seemed to be suggesting that coerced and forced conversions were ok. And even when you later said that I was right, that I did have a choice, you then proceeded on a tirade that seemed to indicate that anyone complaining about such a thing was being petty, that forced conversions were just like any other insignificant everyday things that people get offended about. That's what I would have a problem with, whether it's being done by Christians or Muslims or Buddhists or whomever. If that was not what you meant, then so be it.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/01/2009 2:27:14 PM
Sir, I never made the statement that you hate me for being a Christian. I said the world hates us (Christians). Which they do. But as for being forceful or coercive, When the rich man came to Jesus and asked "what must I do to be saved?" Jesus replied but the rich man did'nt like what He said. So he went away. Did Jesus run after him and say "well, if you don't like that, try this"? NO. Jesus told him to sell everything and give it to the poor. AND THEN JESUS SAID "...AND FOLLOW ME". Following Jesus is the point here. I just spent about an hour typing scriptures to show where I'm coming from but upon posting it, The box said add up to 3000 characters. So I typed more. But then it would'nt submit. So I canceled it out. I wish it would have submitted but ... But as so many people have said already, the choice is your's. Christians know their is no way to God except through His Son Jesus Christ. If you choose not to believe it, We know one day, God will prove it. Then it'll be too late.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/01/2009 5:39:15 PM
I'm part of the world, so your assumption that the world hates you includes me. Besides, in a previous comment you did in fact use those exact words, something along the lines of "So you hate me for bieng a Christian?" Following Jesus is not the point here. The story that you had commented on was about being forced and coerced into "following" Jesus. Your example of the rich man is completey irrelevant to that topic. Those who are coerced to convert don't go to Jesus or any other Christian asking for guidance or to be saved, that's the whole point. They don't want your guidance. You consistently avoid giving a straight answer on whether you think that's right or not by commenting on something irrelevant. I can only assume this means you do approve of forced conversion and are simply avoiding giving a straight answer. As I said before posting your scripture to me is a waste of time. It only matters to someone that believes it or interprets it the same way you do. Obviously I don't. I didn't even read most of the last scripture you posted. Save yourself the work.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/02/2009 12:28:08 AM
Do with it as you please sir. The point of the rich man was.....Jesus did'nt give any other option.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/02/2009 1:40:25 AM
And again that has nothing to do with being forcefully converted. The rich man went to Jesus of his own free will and ASKED what he had to do. He wasn't approached by a Christian who threatened him with violence or abuse if he didn't convert.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/02/2009 3:12:13 AM
What side of town did you grow up on? Or are you just looking for something to argue about? I don't recall ever hearing anyone forcing anything or their religion down your throat. You have missed the point of everything I said. I have given you examples from The Bible (Christian Faith) of how WE AS CHRISTIANS are to proclaim Jesus Christ and how we are to react in the same manner as He did to all people. The Bible is how we know Him. You are sitting there whining about forcing and coercing and I'm not doing anything of the sort. As for you not agreeing with my message, THAT HAS BEEN UP TO YOU EVER SINCE THIS CONVERSATION STARTED. It's been told to you so many times already. So stop "beating yourself down" with it. YOU HAVE MADE UP YOUR MIND. It's beginning to get useless talking any further about it. Maybe, you should go into ballet or something. That makes about as much sense as how you come across. You do not hear because you obviously do not belong to Him. So carry on with the religion you have and let it go at that.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/02/2009 3:33:06 AM
What the hell are you talking about? When I was talking about forcing it had nothing to do with you or me. This all started from my response to your comment that was directed at someone else who had just posted a story that was about Christians doing just that, coercing and forcing someone to accept Christianity. To me your comment seemed to indicate that you had no problem with it, but apparently you never read it.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/02/2009 1:14:09 PM
I "did" read that one. And while I was reading it, something just did'nt "feel" right. First of all, she made it a note that she "was crying while typing it". playing a sob story,. Second, she gives no proof by keeping his name, military service, his status, corporal-major-leiutinent-admiral, what? third, If she's so scsred (as a professional woman) why would she be on a computer? If she's that scared of these people people, (christians? or military?) that would mean they are "working together". You tell me, why would you write a letter giving no way to back up this "scenario" If she is legit, I'll pray for her. But if not, let her take it to the proper authorities so "They" can resolve the problem. But anyone who is in their right mind would know that if someone''s life was in danger, to notify whoever they can for help. But, On a National Magazine opinion line? Does her story fit? With you? Matt.10:16 states, ................."be wise as serpents and harmless as doves". I'm sorry but it juse does'nt "feel" right to me. But if you want my "straight out" answer about forceful or coersive or how about "deceptive" use of a religious faith being pushed on someone, The answer is a "straight out" NO ! Is that clear enough? .
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/02/2009 1:52:02 PM
Yeah that's clear enough and that's the story I've been referring to the whole time. That story may not be true, I acknowledged that in an earlier comment but was under the impression from your response that whether true or untrue the behavior didn't seem to bother you much.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/02/2009 8:42:02 PM
Yes, It did bother me. It's hard trying to show who Jesus Christ is when one person does something and the people who he associates with are all looked at the same. Look at Dr. Tiller. One man kills him, and now, ALL pro lifers are killers. Some give others bad names. Jesus was as gentle as as lamb, but as bold as a lion. HE spoke with AUTHORITY. NOT in hostility, But it was all in Love.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/02/2009 11:15:06 PM
Fair enough :)
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/03/2009 12:07:06 AM
In the words of Elvis....... Thank you very much.
-
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/02/2009 11:08:12 PM
Fair enough :)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/01/2009 11:51:32 PM
And soomeone asked you earlier, Is it the one giving you the message? Or is it the message itself that you don't like? I believe it's the message. God's Word does not get spoken to return to Him void.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/02/2009 1:25:15 AM
Well I thought I had made it pretty damn clear that I don't agree with your message. I'm not sure why you're bothering to comment on the obvious. In any case whether I liked or did not like your message was never relevant to the topic being argued.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/30/2009 3:29:01 PM
I cannot say what he was trying to do since I don't know his intents of his heart. But i know that you could have turn it around by answering softly and demonstrated this humility as well.
-
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/30/2009 2:22:22 PM
I wasn't being antagonistic. I was asking him if he thought it was ok to forcefully convert someone, and then I was letting him know my opinion IF that was the case. Besides, if I had been antagonistic towrds him "turning away from me" would involve just that, not responding in kind. I don't think being meek neccessarily includes cowering, but I think it does involve humility. And so far it doesn't seem that he's exercised any humility that I can recognize. Still, maybe I have simply failed to recognize it. It's possible. *shrug*
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/30/2009 2:37:25 PM
And maybe "spewiing belligerent rants" was a bit of an overstatement, but still to me it seens confrontational and belligerent to some degree at least.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/30/2009 4:02:16 PM
You would have to understand where he is coming from and that would require you to be a Christian with the mind of Christ to see things the way we see them. Everyday our liberties are attacked and our beliefs are scoffed at by those who are indifferent to the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
Even President Obama who claims to be a Christian is making a mockery over basic fundamentals in which Christians stand own. These things are going to cause confrontation for those who aren't pseudo Christians. We stand firmly on our beliefs and we will state them strongly. We also have the responsibility to spread the word throughout the world.
This article is attacking and generalizing Christians and especially the ones who serve in the military. I served 24 years myself and never coerce anyone into accepting my beliefs. I have also talked to Muslims, Druids, Wiccans and Satanist in the same unit and what one does on their off time is there business as long as it doesn't bring discredit upon his or her unit. The people in this article did go over the line in making it a policy and recruiting others to spread the word. The U.S. military is not to be used in this manner period. Jesus never instructed an Institution to spread the Gospel but the follower of Christ are to do this. When at work then work while on duty do your duty this is what you were hired to do.
Saying that I would like say some on this blog think that they own the military and that we are to do their bidding even while off duty. This is further from the truth and they should be respected as free moral agents to act according to how their faith dictate they should while off duty and on duty as long as it is not in conflict with military service.-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/01/2009 11:38:41 AM
I fail to see how Christians liberties are being attacked. It seems to me that Christians who make this claim don't apprediate just how much liberty they do have. I understand there are specific issues like abortion, but things cojuld be a lot worse. You are allowed to practice your religion without interferece or persecution from the government. You are not arrested or harassed for practicing your religion. It's not even illegal to pray in school. My mother, just recently retired, was a grade school teacher for many years. A fellow teacher of hers prayed in the cafeteria everyday at lunch. She was never arrested. She was never told that she couldn't do it. What she did not do was ask or require any student to pray with her. And as far as I know, it's now common policy in public schools to provide a period of silence in which students can pray, meditate, contemplate or any other such activity. I know it was a policy at my mother's school. But this isn't enough for the Christians who complain about prayer in school. What they really want is a state sponsored religion. What they really want is a teacher leading an entire classrooom in Christian prayer. What the really want is their brand of relgion as an official school/state policy. And usually it's when Christians try to push their beliefs in this manner into the public realm, into the lives of individuals that do not share their views, that they invite mockery and ridicule. Push someone too much and they start pushing back. And mockery and ridicule, by the way, are not in themselves attacks on liberty.
-
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/30/2009 3:39:11 PM
May I ask you was it with him that you felt was being confrontational or was it the message itself?
-
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 06/30/2009 11:19:19 PM
I am a Christian who speaks God's Word the only way I know how."Straight out, Blunt and To The Point". God's Word is sharper than any two edged sword. It cuts straight to the heart. I speak His Word and His Holy Spirit convicts of sin. That is one of the Holy Spirit's jobs here on earth.TO CONVICT OF SIN. If people feel a Christian is "judging" them, (we do not sit in judgement of anyone's life) it is God's spirit CONVICTING them. The prophets God sent to Israel (His beloved people) were killed because they did'nt like what God had to say to them. It was all I, ME, MINE. God sent His prophets to guide His people into the right direction. But the people did'nt like what they were being told. So they killed the prophets. And God always sent His Judgement upon them for their disobedience. (Now read John 16:2,3) Yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. And these things they will do to you because they HAVE NOT KNOWN THE FATHER OR ME. In these comments I've read, I can see it is true. People hate Christianity because they hate the God we serve. And the God we serve is The Creator Himself. I'm sorry folks but, you will not be able to make it into Heaven of your own accord. Your "works" WILL NOT save you. He sent His Son to be the payment for ALL OUR sins. EVERYONE! God required a perfect blood sacrifice to free us from sin. It's the blood. Animal sacrifices could not take away our sins. He sent His Son. That is what we proclaim. I said this earlier, "if one could get into Heaven by his works, what's the difference between Heaven and earth? You would still have the hatred in your hearts. Those who follow Jesus, are being "transformed" into the likeness of Jesus. (through the reading of His Word). Yes. It's either God's way... or it's hell to pay. The choice is "your's" . That's what been said already. No forcing. Just conviction from His Holy Spirit.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/30/2009 3:38:01 PM
It is never ok to forcefully convert someone to Christianity. What he was trying to explain to you is that there are consequences of rejecting Jesus as Lord and Savior. God would never force anyone to serve him if it is against there will. But that is there will not His and when people choose not to serve Him then he is the one who determines the consequences of their decision. Not the individuals themselves as some would like to believe.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 06/29/2009 2:43:08 PM
Like I said, either accept Him, or reject Him. Where do you want to spend eternity?
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/30/2009 2:23:50 AM
Wow I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make with all this fanatical raving. Are you trying to say that simply not liking something is the same as complaining about someone trying to coerce and forcefully convert you? Are you actually saying there's no differece between the two? Sure sounds that way to me. Maybe I'm wrong but it's hard to tell with the way you're ranting. I dont' hate anyone for following Jesus, that's an erroneous assumption on your part. I think it's kinda of curious though how you keep saying you don't belong to this world and you're not living for this world yet here you are down in the trenches slinging mud just like all the rest of us. Seems kind of prideful and petty for someone that's supposedly so detached and above it all. I also think it's funny that you say blessed are the meek and the peacemakers yet your behavior doesn't seem meek to me in the slightest. Far as all the bible-thumpin hellfire stuff goes that doesn't mean anything to me.
-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/29/2009 6:06:59 PM
And like Funky said, that's his decision to make, not yours.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Trooper101st @ 07/13/2009 10:19:23 AM
Sad thing is, we all worship the SAME God, just in different ways. Now, the moslems think its thier duty, just like the Crusaders in 1095, to convert-or kill those who don't. They dream of an islamic "caliphate" stretching from Bali to Barcelona. They want to destroy Western civilization, and claim the world as thiers. You want to beat ur women, treat them like cattle, chop heads off, thats ur business. You wanna export that kind of belief to MY country, we have a problem. So the response to the 9/11 attacks was just, and we should be mopping up right now, but instead we were sidetracked by a neo-con right wing EVANGELICAL who believed it was this military's mission to spread democracy and the WORD. We DO NOT fight for Jesus, we pray to him to not get KILLED. Thanx Dubya & Co, for putting us into a country we did not need to be. They are already killing each other, all of them believing "Allah" is on thier side. Wat a bunch of baloney. Over 4,300 KIA, thousands more maimed and even more disturbed by wat they needed to do to survive, to get it done. Conservatives say "do as I say, NOT as I do"....a bunch of amoral men who reside on 10th st in DC. "The Family"...best thing that can happen is they all get arrested, since they are more like Nazi's than Repukes. Thier God is POWER, MONEY. Hope they choke on thier next meal. Thats wat Dir. HS meant when she said domestic terror from the right wing. Ensign, Perry, Coburn etc. kiss my azz. You people voted them in. Now they have been EXPOSED. Wake up PEOPLE!!!!
-
Posted By: racom @ 06/19/2009 7:31:47 PM
Our nation was founded on Godly principals, and the separation of church and state was to prevent the state from controlling religious beliefs. It is sad to see that reversed stating that the church cannot have a voice anywhere but in a church building. It is important to have the Chaplains out there doing their job, and they should not be restricted from sharing their faith. Our nation should not be destroying Bibles, they should reading them, then sharing with others.
-
Posted By: analyticalguy @ 06/20/2009 11:02:26 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble - but the country was founded by a collection of secular humanists. Desists almost to a man (women had yet to be allowed into the public discourse), their ideals were those of the Age of Reason, not those of religion. The myths to the contrary (George Washington praying in the snow at Valley Forge, for example) were all later inventions of the early eighteenth century by more religious Americans embrassed by the truth. Read your history.
-
Posted By: Braes @ 06/20/2009 11:12:06 PM
Absolutely correct. As a former History Teacher, you get the A+.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/22/2009 11:43:21 AM
Hmmmm and I bet that you are an Atheist too....lol... talking about being unbias in your opinion NOT!
-
Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/22/2009 2:30:09 PM
Is not argument.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/07/2009 11:38:04 AM
It is an argument if you read all the documents saying that this is a Christian Nation.
Ever hear of the Mayflower Compact?-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/07/2009 12:18:42 PM
The Mayflower Compact applied only to the Plymouth colony. The American nation didn't even exist yet.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/07/2009 6:33:00 PM
The Mayflower Compact applied only to the Plymouth colony. The American nation didn't even exist yet.
So when did the American nation start it's existence? The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 Well after the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and we just celebrated our 233rd Birthday. So are you saying the American nation cannot exist until it has a Constitution? Some 11 years after the Declaration and 4 years after the Revolutionary War?-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/08/2009 4:38:17 AM
Yes I am saying that America was not officially established as a sovereign nation until the Constitution. But even if you wanna go back to the Declaration that's still more than a hundred years after the Mayflower Compact. Are you trying to say that this document, written for the governing of a single colonial settlement, a document that was based on allegiance to the King of England, a document that was abandoned in 1691 when Plymouth colony bacame a part of Massachusetts, are you saying that this document served as a foundation for an independent American nation over 100 years later? I say that's absurd. If that document contributed anything to the establishment of our nation it was the idea of a contract or covenant between government and the governed. But this was an idea that also had other sources. And even if the founders were inspired by this document in that respect, it certainly doesn't mean that they endorsed or approved of any other aspect.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/08/2009 12:42:26 PM
When creating the Mayflower Compact, the signers believed that covenants were not only to be honored between God and man, but also between each other. They had always honored covenants as part of their righteous integrity and agreed to be bound by this same principle with the Compact. John Adams and many historians have referred to the Mayflower Compact as the foundation of the U.S. Constitution written more than 150 later.
America was indeed begun by men who honored God and set their founding principles by the words of the Bible. They lived their lives with honesty, reliability, and fairness toward establishing this country ???for the sake of its survival.??? A great many of America???s Founding Fathers have been quoted in regard to living by Biblical values.
Edmund Burke (1729-1794), outstanding orator, author, and leader in Great Britain, defended the colonies in Parliament. "There is but one law for all, namely, that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator."
Patrick Henry (1736-1799), five-time Governor of Virginia, whose "Give me liberty or give me death" speech has made him immortal, said: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly, nor too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. . . ."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), third U.S. President, chosen to write the Declaration of Independence, said: "I have little doubt that the whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator, and, I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also." He proclaimed that it was the God of the Bible who founded America in his 1805 inaugural address: "I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in this country."-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/10/2009 2:14:56 AM
Patrick Henry (1736-1799), five-time Governor of Virginia, whose "Give me liberty or give me death" speech has made him immortal, said: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly, nor too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. . . ."
See, this is what I'm talking about. This quote is completely bogus. Henry never said this. Since this quote has started circulating scholars have searched the speeches and writings of Henry and it is found NO WHERE.. Even the great liar Barton, who used this in his book, has since admitted that it is not true. He now suggests that it may have been said by Henry's uncle, which is absolutely ridiculous because there is zero evidence or cause to support it. This is simply another insidious trick of Barton's to keep the quote alive in the minds of his clueless followers. And this is not the only example of this kind of dishonesty in Barton's work and others like him. As I said before, when you have to resort to this kind of deception to support your argument you have in fact just proven that your argument is unsupportable and inadequate. Wake up and stop being duped by this nonsense. To borrow some advice from the Bible: Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/category/christian-nationitis/ -
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/08/2009 1:16:41 PM
I can copy and paste stuff too, and as this comment indcates the Compact was perhaps not as significant as you imply:
In a way, this was the first American Constitution, though the Compact in practical terms had little influence on subsequent American documents. John Quincy Adams, a descendant of Mayflower passenger John Alden, does call the Mayflower Compact the foundation of the U.S. Constitution in a speech given in 1802, but this was in principle more than in substance. In reality, the Mayflower Compact was superseded in authority by the 1621 Peirce Patent, which not only gave the Pilgrims the right to self-government at Plymouth, but had the significant advantage of being authorized by the King of England
This comment supports what I already said. That the Compact may have provided some inspiration to the founders but in principal only, not in substance. That is as an agreement between the government and the people, not so much with its contents. As I already acknowledged, Christianity did have some influence. It was part of the founders history and culture. This doesn't mean that they were all true believeing Christains. And it certainly doesn't mean that even among those who were Christians there were not any who supported seperation of Church and State. Even now there are Christians who support that ideal.-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/08/2009 2:02:40 PM
And as far as the founders quotes go I've played that game before. For every quote you provide to support your side of the argument I can provide one that contradicts it. That's because the situation was more similiar to what I've described rather than what Christian Revisionists would have you believe. Granted on the other side of the argument there are errors as well and also those who would deny any Christian influence at all. It was not completely one way or the other, but somewhere in between. I think these 2 links provide a better, more balanced veiw on the matter.
http://hnn.us/articles/42835.html
This one you have to read down a bit to get to the relevant material:
http://www.jameswatkins.com/foundingfathers.htm
-
-
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/08/2009 12:57:43 PM
Yes I am saying that America was not officially established as a sovereign nation until the Constitution.
So by your account America wasn???t established until 4 years after the Revolutionary War was over with and we had no governing authority. GET REAL!-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/09/2009 3:04:47 AM
So by your account America wasn???t established until 4 years after the Revolutionary War was over with and we had no governing authority. GET REAL!
Actually, so far as a stong central authority as we have now and a unified nation, no we did not have one until the Constitution. The Constitution was created precisely because the Articles of Confederation was ineffective and did not provide a strong enough government to protect and unify the independent colonies. Before the Constitution we were not a unified nation but a loose CONFEDERATION of independent states. George Washington described the Confederation government as "little more than the shadow without the substance."
The first part of this link is not relevant to the point. You have to read down a bit but it's there.
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/hanson.asp
And this isn't by my account. Note the sources listed at the end of the article. -
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/08/2009 2:15:00 PM
Note the word OFFICIALLY. That's a bit of a clue there. Whatever came before was superseded by the official document of the Constitution, which establishes a speration between Church and State and does not establish Christianity as our official state religion. And besides as I also indicated even if you wanna go back to the Declaration that was still long after the Mayflower Compact, and the Mayflower Compact pledged allegiance to the King of England, so how could it possibly provide authority to an independent America?
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/08/2009 2:55:32 PM
Note the word OFFICIALLY. That's a bit of a clue there.
No clue whatsoever just your play on words. Then we can say that the Declaration isn???t Official and we are still under British rule.
Whatever came before was superseded by the official document of the Constitution, which establishes a separation between Church and State and does not establish Christianity as our official state religion.
The Constitution does have the words (separation of Church and State) that phrase wasn???t even uttered until 1802 by Jefferson some 15 years after the Constitution became official. the first Ten Amendment didn't come into play until December 15, 1791, four years after the Constitution was Official.
And besides as I also indicated even if you wanna go back to the Declaration that was still long after the Mayflower Compact, and the Mayflower Compact pledged allegiance to the King of England, so how could it possibly provide authority to an independent America?
Read other comments.-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/08/2009 4:36:21 PM
No it isn't just a play on words, and we can not say that the Declaration was not official because it did indeed officially declare the colonies independent from England. What it did not do was officially establish the American nation as it now exists. That was the Constitution. And I never said that the Constitution says separation of church and state. I said that it establishes a separation of church and state, which it does. Your failure to discern the actual meaning of my comment does not render it incorrect.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/08/2009 12:25:38 PM
The Mayflower Compact was signed on 11 November 1620 on board the Mayflower, which was at anchor in Provincetown Harbor. The Mayflower Compact was drawn up after the two main groups of colonists -- some from London and some from Leyden -- began to argue. There were worries of a possible mutiny by some of the passengers.
What were they arguing about? The Pilgrims were supposed to have settled in "Northern Virginia," near present-day Long Island, New York. But the Pilgrims had been blown off course, and landed at Cape Cod, much farther north. If the Pilgrims settled at Plymouth, there would be no government in place there. The Mayflower Compact established that government, by creating a "civil body politic". In a way, this was the first American Constitution.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/08/2009 12:32:08 PM
The Mayflower Compact
1620
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&.
Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."
??? John Alden
??? Isaac Allerton
??? John Allerton
??? John Billington
??? William Bradford
??? William Brewster
??? Richard Britteridge
??? Peter Brown
??? John Carver
??? James Chilton
??? Richard Clarke
??? Francis Cooke
??? John Craxton
??? Edward Doten ??? Francis Eaton
??? Thomas English
??? Moses Fletcher
??? Edward Fuller
??? Samuel Fuller
??? Richard Gardiner
??? John Goodman
??? Stephen Hopkins
??? John Howland
??? Edward Leister
??? Edmund Margeson
??? Christopher Martin
??? William Mullins
??? Digery Priest ??? John Ridgdale
??? Thomas Rogers
??? George Soule
??? Miles Standish
??? Edward Tilly
??? John Tilly
??? Thomas Tinker
??? John Turner
??? Richard Warren
??? William White
??? Thomas Williams
??? Edward Winslow
??? Gilbert Winslow-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/08/2009 2:36:39 PM
I'm happy to see someone else has decided to join the conversation so thank you Mr. bojack27. I just want to say, funkyinthesouth likes questioning everything you tell him (if you read some of our comments, you can see that). He would even question your family tree even when it's right in front of you. I've tried to prove my case but he, and qozikalon question without accepting. So, I'm going to just kick back for awhile and hear others getting into the conversation. I'm going to remain silent and just see where the conversation goes. it's a wonder funkyinthesouth hase'nt told you "what does that have anything with the article"?
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/08/2009 4:22:05 PM
Unlike you he has actually stuck to the topic being argued. That's all I have to say on that matter.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: KCASL1125 @ 06/22/2009 1:58:54 PM
That was a very uneducated response bojack. Obviously they are correct that you haven't read your history. You can't just respond by calling someone an athiest when they point to history to correct you. It just makes you look stupid.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/07/2009 11:41:02 AM
No Revisionist are always hiding the truth and if they carefully search out the history of this country they would know that this is a Christian nation....not stupid as you think I am. You obviosly never heard of the Mayflower Compact!
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/07/2009 12:09:10 PM
It is Christians who keep trying to revise history. Christianity was certainly part of our history, but it's not responsible for the core American ideals of individual liberty and self-government. The ideas that formed our government come from multiple sources: ancient Greece and Rome, Enlightenment philosophy, Iroquois confederation, Lochean philosophy, and yes Christianity played a role as well but it wasn't the only source or the most influential.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/07/2009 6:35:35 PM
The ideas that formed our government come from multiple sources: ancient Greece and Rome, Enlightenment philosophy, Iroquois confederation, Lochean philosophy,
Ok then name or quote anyone of the founding fathers who use these sources to form the government. I bet you didn't even know that 29 of the founding fathers had Seminary Degrees....-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/08/2009 4:20:53 AM
As far as the Iroquois go you can read this article for a couple of quotes. http://www.america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2009/June/20090617110824wrybakcuh0.5986096.html As far as the rest goes their influence is well known. If you don't wanna believe it then don't. I really don't care. I'm not gonna do your research for you. All of the founders were born into Christianity and had Christian affiliations. This does not mean that all of them continued to believe in that religion. This does not mean that none of them ever questioned those teachings or even rejected those teachings. The Christian Revisionists try to paint the founders as a bunch of happy Christians all holding hands and reading their Bibles, unanimous in their beliefs about religion and the role it should play in our government. They try to paint them as modern day conservative Christians who intended that our government legislate Christian dogma. This was not the case. The founders disagreed on matters of religion and what role it should play in government. Some, like Patrick Henry for example, thought that state governments should sponsor state religions. Others. like Madison and Jefferson, were opposed. Some were undoubtedly Christian bleivers, while others were Deists who rejected all or most of the Biblical teachings and simply believed in a Creator. The Constitution represents their official agreement on how things should work, and the Constitution is clear on the role of religion in our government. It does effectively create a seperation between Church and State and this is what was intended. Many personal quotes form founders support this intention. I have yet to see any quote that directly contradicts that intention. It's a perfect system. It prohibts any Church or religious group from being able to abuse the liberties of others, while at the same time allowing anyone to freely practice their religion. You can't get any more fair than that. Christian Revisionists seek to undo that seperation. They seek to do what the first amendment was designed to prevent,: legislate laws forcing all others to live by their religious beliefs. They are, in effect, attempting to usurp control of the government. Any source I've ever checked provided by Christian Revisionists to support their claims, such as 2 books that have been posted on here, have all been the same: quotes out of context to imply a different meaning, distortions of truth, and flat out falsehoods. If you have to resort to that kind of deception to make your argument seem credible then you have actually just proven your argument inadequate. Yes Christianity was there and was part of the mix, It was part of our history and culture and had some influence on the founding of our country. But it was not the only influence, and it was never intended that it be the ruling law of our land. Continue to believe the Christian Revisionist myth if you choose. I certainly never will.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/08/2009 11:19:43 AM
Nobody ask you to do the research for me. I just pointed out to you that you couldn???t name the founding fathers who were Deist and didn???t even know who had Seminary Degrees. I went to the site and found it interesting that someone is trying to tie certain treaties in with the founding of this country. But the disclaimer at the bottom of the page says it all: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. government.
Check out this link below and tell me what you think of the video.
http://www.intouch.org/site/c.cnKBIPNuEoG/b.4945473/k.BE35/Home.htm-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/08/2009 12:52:54 PM
I didn't bother watching past the first few minutes of this video. Videos and websites such as this are self-justification. You should try checking outside sources and critiques to get a better perspective. Far as David Barton goes calling him a historian is in my opinion stretching it quite a bit. He has engaged in the tactics I have already described above, and as such is completely unreliable as a source of accurate historical information. The following critique, from Christians no less, will explain what I mean. http://candst.tripod.com/bjcpa1.htm Psuedo scholars such as Barton are a dangerous threat to our liberty. As is evidenced by the critique, Barton's obvious agenda is Christian rule, Christian control of the government with the power to legislate Christian dogma. Perhaps I should say his brand of Christianity. Fortunately his attempts are obvious and transparent distortions of the truth and falsehoods, and can be easily refuted and denied by those who know better. The danger is that there are those who are fooled by his nonsense. But also fortunately, as the critique indicates, there are even other Christians who recognize his claims as such, and who recognize the vital importance of keeping Church and State seperate and of protecting our liberty. As I said before, continue believing the Christain Revisionist myth if you like. I never will.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: cvmaxey @ 06/24/2009 1:11:13 PM
You May want to Read a book by Peter Marshall called "the Light and the Glory" I think you will find some of your facts may be off a smidge.... Can be found at Amazon. Great read! I challenge you!
-
Posted By: analyticalguy @ 06/24/2009 2:18:56 PM
I have read extensively on the founders - individual bographies (Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton) and generally on the early history of this country0, but have not read the book you cited. I will happily add this to my reading list.
-
Posted By: mudpup @ 06/24/2009 4:27:06 PM
analyticalguy, as "well read" as you claim to be, your spelling (and lack of correcting it) makes me question your claims.
As for svmaxey, how clever of you to finish your comment by "I challenge you". All books are written by man, including the Bible and other religious texts, which means that each is only as factual as the writer makes them to be. Since most of us were never alive when the vast majority of books were written, how can any of us truly determine what the writer's meaning were? We can't and anyone who claims to be able to do so is either a mind reader or has lived for a VERY long time.
We question most everything in our lives except for our religious beliefs. Why?-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 1:04:07 AM
Without "faith" it is impossible to please God.
-
Posted By: analyticalguy @ 06/24/2009 6:19:59 PM
I have freely admitted elsewhere that I'm the world's worst typist. I no more consider that to be evidence of intellectual shortcomings on my part than than I do that your grammatical errors are evidence of intellectual shortcomings on youir part (to wit, "what the writer's meaning were" would properly be "what the writer's meaning WAS."). If these writings by either of us were formal letters, reports, academic papers, etc, it might be another matter, but they're NOT. So how about we keep the discussion on the IDEAS rather than impuning others for errors in form?
As for svmaxey, how clever of you to finish your comment by "I challenge you". All books are written by man, including the Bible and other religious texts, which means that each is only as factual as the writer makes them to be. Since most of us were never alive when the vast majority of books were written, how can any of us truly determine what the writer's meaning were? We can't and anyone who claims to be able to do so is either a mind reader or has lived for a VERY long time.
We question most everything in our lives except for our religious beliefs. Why?
-
-
Posted By: Hisdudeness9500 @ 06/24/2009 4:16:27 PM
I think I'll write a book that says I am the Emperor of the World. And since it's in a book, well, it MUST be true.
-
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/24/2009 5:41:03 PM
You mean the biased and poorly reasearched book The LIght and The Glory? Is that the one you're talking about? http://www.positiveliberty.com/2008/06/peter-marshall-christian-nationalist.html
-
-
Posted By: eddiemd @ 06/20/2009 11:21:37 PM
History revisionists have rewritten the history of this country a number of times so that the real truth will never be known.
-
-
Posted By: PLSzymeczek @ 06/20/2009 12:54:52 AM
If this is true, tell me where in the Constitution it mentions "God", or states that this is a "Christian" nation. Note that I specify the Constitution, which is the law of the land.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/22/2009 3:20:29 PM
The Declaration of Independence mentions the Creator which precedes the Constitution.
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 06/23/2009 4:08:28 PM
The declaration of Independence does not mention that the Creator is a Christian God. Muslims believe in creation, so do Jews, so do Hindus.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/24/2009 11:16:22 AM
Jews and Christians have the same God hence Judea-Christian values. Muslims have a different god altogether. Hinduism has many variations of beliefs in one, two, three and many gods. But none of this is relevant to the question at hand. That question is what God is represented in the Declaration of Independence. Since we can say that most of the founding fathers were from England one can say that the prevalent religious belief among them were Christianity not Islam, Hinduism, nor Judaism.
One could also come to the conclusion that the history of this great nation has been acknowledging the God of Christianity that the Creator is a Christian God. One could also look at history up until this IDIOT of a president that this country was commonly referred to as the ???Leading Christian Nation???. So tell me when in the history of this country that it has been referred to as a Muslim or Hindu Nation. One only needs to use COMMON SENSE when acknowledging what religion the Creator is referring too.-
Posted By: GracieM @ 06/24/2009 12:58:05 PM
Although this is not a discussion on religion, per se. I couldn't help but want to correct a HUGE misconception. bojact 27 wrote:
"Jews and Christians have the same God hence Judea-Christian values. Muslims have a different god altogether. Hinduism has many variations of beliefs in one, two, three and many gods . . ."
Please study some religion. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have the same God. All three religions spring from the same 'founder' that is Abraham. Islam is the youngest of the three and in the Qu'ran you will find many mentions of Jesus, Moses, Noah and more. Even more interesting and astounding is that after each of these names are the letters pbuh, this acronym stands for 'Peace be unpon him' a way of showing respect. They believe that Jesus was a prophet, only Christians believe he is the son of God.
Hinduism is another misunderstood religion. They also believe in one God, but have many different gods to help them find the path to the one true God. Much in the same way that Catholics have Saints.
What is sad is that there are more similarities than differences and yet we fight for who is 'right'. In the end none are right and none are wrong. They are all just different paths to the same goal.-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/09/2009 12:18:38 AM
You might find Jesus, Moses and Noah in the qoran, But you won't find allah or muhamed in The Holy Bible. They never existed.
-
Posted By: mudpup @ 06/24/2009 4:12:31 PM
I also thank you for having an intelligent comment. When I was younger, I had others who tried to influence me as to why I should follow their religious beliefs. But each time, whenever the subject of other religions came up, they would abruptly state that their beliefs where the only beliefs that "mattered".
If this country were founded upon the Christian religion (like many others here state), then why isn't Christianity the "official religion" of our country?
If this country was founded upon Christian beliefs, then why do members of other religions come here to live? Most don't change their faith once they move here.
But if God were truly all powerful, why did he select such a small planet in such a large universe in which to "create man in his own image"? If God truly wanted to "create" man and see that he "multiplies", it would make much better sense for him to create a larger planet, don't you think?
I'm not looking for responses. These are only a few of the many questions I've posed over the years. The funny thing is that anytime anyone attempts to answer these questions, their response is always based upon their religious beliefs and not logic.-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/09/2009 12:08:59 AM
how would you feel if someone told you allah and muhamed were homosexual lovers?
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 12:29:07 AM
What does logic have to do with faith? "Now faith is the substsnce of things "HOPED FOR". "THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN". (Hebrews 11:1). Why must you "see" to believe? One of the most spoken statements throughout time "If God is so powerful, why............ One day, His patience will run out and you will "SEE" just how powerful He really is.
-
-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/24/2009 6:29:38 PM
Bravo. Islam is indeed a branch of the tree of Abraham. Not only that, but Jesus is even a Muslim saint...
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 12:14:59 AM
Jesus is THE SON OF GOD
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 12:14:10 AM
BLASPHEME !!!!!
-
-
Posted By: rainescud @ 06/24/2009 1:50:33 PM
GracieM, thank you. Your post was the most intelligent and insightful one of the whole lot. It just amazes me that after all these years, we still haven't learned from our mistakes. We keep repeating them over and over and will continue to do so. We are all citizens on this small speck of rock we call home, and it's about time we learned to get along with each other. Every religion embraces the concept of peace, harmony and acceptance. Yet there seems to be a lack of practice of these ideals. No religion is the "chosen" one. There is no true religion. They are all equal in their own way. If and when God decides to end the world, He will choose the ones who practiced His teachings of love and compassion for their fellow man to be with Him. Not the ones who extolled hate and violence in His name saying only their's is the true religion.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 12:13:09 AM
There will be no peace. "But concerning the times and the seadons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. For you yourselves know perfectly that The Day Of The Lord so comes as a thief in the night. For when they say "peace and safety"! then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape. (1st Thessalonians 5:3) Scripture has spoken.
-
Posted By: invisibleone @ 06/24/2009 4:25:38 PM
Wow, your liberal religion class worked perfectly!!!!!!
-
Posted By: thearch @ 06/25/2009 1:22:24 PM
Gracie, well said
Hinduism is not misinterpreted but deliberately distorted by later religions. Hinduism , 10 thousand yrs old, predicted ariival of other religions on the planet and emphasized in reaching god thru one of many paths. There comes the concept of one god many faiths.
-
-
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/03/2009 11:57:57 PM
Satan knows the scriptures better than any of you. He was once The Angel of Light, remember? So he knows how to distort The Word of God very well. But seeing you don't know anything about the Word Of God, (ie. The Holy Bible) how can you know The Truth? It's not about allah, It's all............about Jesus Christ. The whole Bible points to HIM.
-
Posted By: S_Cookes @ 06/24/2009 5:46:20 PM
GracieM, thanks for your post. I was going to mention the same thing about Hinduism, which is often considered polytheistic but is in fact monotheistic at it's core. Well said.
-
-
Posted By: Momwoman @ 06/24/2009 1:06:23 PM
Actually, Muslims have the same God as the Christians and the Jews. Like the Jews they trace their linage to Abraham. The use of the name "Allah" does not mark them as being part of a different religious family. They just speak a different language.
-
Posted By: saffron @ 06/24/2009 2:51:48 PM
Y all the argment. I t is pointless- Remember it 's written in the proverbs saying, ' pr.9:7; who ever corrects a mocker invites insult..... a fool delights in his folly and the righteous, in wisdom... so guys according to pr. 17.14, starting a quarrell is like breaching a dam; so drop the matter before a dispute breask out' for the fool has made up his mind that there is no God, and trys to snare the righteous with himself.. So, let the fool believe as he sees fit...beacue pr. 12:2n says that 'A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions...so let him be and his mouth will condemn him and not yours [ours].. anways, no need to give further attention to this article.. our God reigns, that is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Isreal.. He is mighty to save and will save all who call upon him, fool or sane, we are all alike- we all seek His mercy, goodness and righteousness...
-
Posted By: newmexicoflygirl@yahoo.com @ 06/24/2009 4:29:48 PM
You need to do some research on Allah. Formerly Muslims had hundreds of gods. One day Muhammed decided to choose one god, "the god" and he choose one from the 700 hundred or so they had a time. He choose the moon god (i.e., moon and star crest on the flag) and named that moon god "Allah" (The God). So Allah is a product of man based on Islamic history. Whether you believe that the Christian God is the true and living God or not, when you look at that history you find one God (don't confuse the Trinity into thinking this means three Gods, it doesn't), the Creator, with not beginning and no end. This is not an attempt to persuade you to believe in the same God I believe in, the God of the Bible, but your statement that Muslims believe in the same God as Christians and Jews is absolutely incorrect based on Musliim teachings and the Qur'an. Just because Muhammed latched onto the Bible doesn't mean his god is the same as the Christian God. Muhammed came on the scene 600 years AFTER Christ died, after the Bible was completed. He was not an eye witness to any of the New Testament happenings. Muslims did descend from Abraham - through the illegitimate son of Abraham (which is not to imply that they are an illigetimate nation). God made it clear at that time that the two nations would forever be at war with each other - as we see clearly today, and throughout history.
-
Posted By: S_Cookes @ 06/24/2009 5:20:40 PM
You might need to do some research as well. First off, there were no "Muslims" before Mohammed came on to the scene... Arabs yes... pagans yes... polythesists yes... but Muslims no. As for Muhammed coming 600 years after Jesus and not being an eye-witness to the writings of the New Testamnet is an argument that rings hollow considering that many books in both the Old and New Testaments were written much after the fact... and by individuals who had not been eye-witnesses the the events either.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/24/2009 5:35:24 PM
Well tell that to the Muslims who try to pre-date their religion going back to Abraham. I think you have miss the point of his posting.
-
Posted By: S_Cookes @ 06/24/2009 5:43:43 PM
Not really. All religions that stem out of an older one are based on similar premise. Individuals following Religion A had gotten lost along their path to Salvation and someone else came along to straighten them up. Those that followed this new teacher ended up belonging to Religion B and the rest stayed as followers of Religion A. It's in this vein that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are linked. Jesus came along and said that the Jews were not doing things the way they should be doing... some believed him others didn't.. hence Christianity came around. Muhammed came and said that Christians had gone off-track and those following him were called Muslims. As to which religion you prescribe to (from these three) depends on whether you believe that Jesus was Jew trying to lead his people back or not... and Muhammed was yet another man.. FROM THE SAME GOD... who was trying to lead everyone back to him. Whether you agree or not with this depends a lot on which religion notion you yourself prescribe to. That being said, I don't think I missed the point since the statements made by the previous poster had what I believe to be erronous statements and I was adding my two cents.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/06/2009 12:12:36 PM
"""Do not think that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly I say to you, "til Heaven and earth pass away, ONE JOT OR ONE TITTLE WILL BY NO MEANS PASS FROM THE LAW TILL ALL IS FULFILLED". Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in The Kingdom Of Heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called Great in The Kingdom Of Heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, you will by no means enter The Kingdom Of Heaven."""". (John 5:17-20) You might even want to read the rest of chapter 5 (to see how Jesus says we are to obey the commandments)
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/25/2009 4:01:50 PM
Your analogy of Jesus coming along and starting a different religion is false. Jesus didn???t start any new religion and didn???t eliminate the old one; He fulfilled the requirements in Judaism and offers himself as the final sacrifice. Those who still reject Jesus are still looking forward to the Christ ???anointed one??? to come and restore Israel and silence their enemies. This is part of the prophecy which they were looking for but didn???t read the whole prophecy. Their path to salvation as you call it has not been changed it is through the Word of God and his Anointed.
Matt.5
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
[19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Muhammed came and said that Christians had gone off-track and those following him were called Muslims.
Now I???m glad that you pointed out that Mohammed said that not only Christians but Jews had gone off track. Because nowhere do you see Jesus doing away with any scriptures that were apart of Judaism. Jesus expounded upon them and quoted them regularly.
Mohammed rejected the scriptures and uses this replacement theology by saying that the Angel gave the wrong message.
As to which religion you prescribe to (from these three) depends on whether you believe that Jesus was Jew trying to lead his people back or not... and Muhammed was yet another man.. FROM THE SAME GOD... who was trying to lead everyone back to him. Whether you agree or not with this depends a lot on which religion notion you yourself prescribe to.
Jesus was definitely a Jew and taught in the synagogues regularly. Mohammed refers to Jews as swine and speaks all manner of evil towards them saying that Allah tells him to kill the unbelievers. This is not serving the same God as you say but it is being an enemy of God since God said he would bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse them. Christians and Jews are from the same tree and Christians are the ones who are grafted into the vine not the Jews.
2John.1
[9] Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
[10] If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
[11] For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/24/2009 6:30:45 PM
Jesus is revered as a saint in Islam, actually...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/06/2009 10:36:03 AM
Blaspheme! Jesus is The Son Of God. God On Earth. "if you have seen me, you have see The Father' (John 14:8-11)
-
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/24/2009 5:30:25 PM
Thanks for your response I couldn't have said it better myself. Maybe I should post some Islamic scriptures on here to prove my point but what for. Since this person obviously doesn't study scripture everything looks the same to him. As it says in
Matt.7
[13] Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: -
Posted By: S_Cookes @ 06/24/2009 5:26:03 PM
You need to do some research as well. First off, there were no "Muslims" before Muhammed came on to the scene. There were Arabs and they were pagans,.. polytheists.. and all, but not Muslims, which refers to Individuals following the teachings of Muhammed. Just like there were no Christians before Jesus, they were all Jews. As for the argument that Muhammed came around 600 years after Jesus and was not an eye-witness to anything in the New Testament, and therefore can not say anything about what happened then - well, keep in mind that many books in the both the Old and the New Testaments were written by authors who lived years after the events had transpired.. they were not eye-witnesses either and by your argument they such shouldn't be used as reporters of those events.
-
-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/26/2009 1:06:21 PM
If you are against debate as a form of entertainment (and that's all this is, nobody here is going to change the world), then why are you blogging here?
-
Posted By: leahT @ 06/25/2009 11:54:52 AM
well said, and all you said comes from the word of God. thank you
-
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/25/2009 6:18:22 PM
Actually, Muslims have the same God as the Christians and the Jews.
Wrong their god is not the same God of the bible even though they try to claim Abraham in their lineage. They claiming of Abraham are only to validate their stealing of the story of Abraham???s sacrifice of Isaac in which they substitute Ishmael in his place.
Now Islam tries to claim Prophet Mohammad came to re-institute, the religion of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. This in itself is a grasp at straws in order to build a Strawman. Since Adam had a direct link with God in the beginning there wouldn???t be any need of a religion. Until the law was given to Moses and the Hebrews left out of Egypt then was Judaism started. This marked the first recording of a religion in the scriptures. How can you re-institute something you had never laid the foundation to in the first place? How can you take away from something and declare it is valid as the original? Islam is a wash down and rearranged version of events that occurred in the Jewish / Christian history in order to validate their pseudo religion. In order to validate their religion they attack the two religions that they take scriptures from.
It is funny when you read these post here saying that their god is the same. Even the Jews laughed at them and were slaughtered for doing so. This is why they pray towards the east now instead of Jerusalem. It is also funny how this religion keeps trying to change its claims of Jerusalem as the place of Mohammed ascension into heaven when he died and his bones are kept in Medina. Now the funny part is there is said to be another tomb next to Mohammed waiting for Jesus. LOL! -
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/24/2009 5:33:46 PM
Their lineage being trace back to Abraham has nothing to do with their religion. It is just a ploy to try to validate something started nearly 600 years after Christ and thousands of years after Judaism. Carefully read their doctrine and their beliefs before you claim that we all serve the same God. We do not!
-
-
Posted By: thearch @ 06/25/2009 1:13:52 PM
Hinduissm believes in one supreme power Brahma. Others are prophets, angels, saints or whatever
Western writings distort hinduism
-
-
Posted By: VioletMoon1286 @ 06/24/2009 4:47:54 PM
Yes, but our founding fathers were not Muslim, Jews or Hindus. I don???t think they would reference a religion they were not a part of. Any suggestions which one they are meaning if not Christianity? The problem with inferring such old references and documents is that we do not think like the people of that time. What was common sense and understood to them at the time is no longer the case in today???s society. We must not forget their mindset by trying to apply our own modern values to terminology and language.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 12:30:14 AM
Try to apply The Bible.
-
-
-
Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/22/2009 4:20:35 PM
Declaration of Independence is historical document, not actual legal US legal document. Please to point out in US constitution. Thanks.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/23/2009 11:59:29 AM
Hi Uday,
The Declaration may not be a legal document but its use has given others means to right laws and overturn laws that where unjust in our history. Read below
The Supreme Court has generally held that the Declaration does not have the force of law, and no words in the Declaration can give rise to legal rights independently. One major justification for this view is that the Declaration???s purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not to prescribe legal rights for the people living in the colonies.
However, the Declaration has been used in aiding the Court to interpret other laws. For example, in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration???s language about the rights of the ???people,??? as compared with the rights of the states. Another example, in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain, was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased.
Beyond these examples, and a handful of others, courts are generally hesitant to apply the Declaration as substantive law. This is true of both those justices considered conservative and liberal, such as current Justices Scalia and Breyer.
However, the general principles have been utilized by several political movements to support their positions.
In 1848, Elizabeth Cady Stanton penned the ???Declaration of Sentiments,??? declaring all men and women equal, and listed grievances against man in the same way the Declaration of Independence listed grievances against George III.
Abraham Lincoln cited the Declaration to support his argument that slavery was not legal, in part on the language that ???all men??? were granted certain inalienable rights. Proponents of the Confederacy cited the Declaration to legitimize their secession from the Union, urging that they were simply following the example of the Revolutionaries, and parting ways with a government that had grown despotic and uncivilized.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/23/2009 12:01:44 PM
However, after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was enacted, which expressly provides for equal protection under the law. Scholars and jurists no longer needed to cite to a pre-Constitution document for notions of equality because the Constitution itself then provided support.
Even so, the Declaration???s principles continued to resonate. The leaders of the American Civil Rights movement also cited to the Declaration for its broad notions of freedom and equality. Modern movements against abortion claim that even an unborn fetus has an inalienable right to life, as expressed in the Declaration. Some point to the Declaration???s recognition of God as support for the position that America is a Christian nation.
Overall, the Declaration, while not a binding legal document, still serves as a cornerstone of our Republic???s dedication to the high ideal of true freedom. And today, grill something, have a cold one, light some firecrackers, and enjoy today as the birthday of this truly great nation.
http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/declaration-of-independence.aspx-
Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/23/2009 3:12:06 PM
So, is not in US constitution.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/24/2009 11:13:54 AM
Uday,
In all your getting get a understanding! if you don't acknowledge that the Constitution's foundation came from the Declaration of Independence then I cannot help you one bit! As i have pointed out in the above post that until the 14th amendment the Declaration of Independence was commonly referred to as a guidance in establishing laws. Even the Supreme Court use this document to validate their point. If you are saying that it has no validity then your argument is not with me it is with the Supreme Court who use it to justify their opinion.
The Declaration of Independence laid the foundation for establishing the Constitution of the United States. Now one can argue that it isn't law if they want to but if England was to claim this land as their own which document would the United States use to refute them? After all it was under a British mandate that they explore new worlds so what gives use the right to break away from the British empire? And if Congress passed this Declaration then why isn't it consider a Law? Then if it is not law then why send it out to the colonies to abide by the Declaration of Independence?
Why was it read to the Army to follow if it is not a legal document? Then one could say that everyone acknowledge and carried out something that has no legal reference and we are still under British rule!
The Constitution has yet to be written when everyone was following the mandate of the Declaration of Independence. So tell me what was the law of the land during our fight for freedom against British rule? Was it the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/24/2009 2:21:04 PM
The declaration of independence was never the law of the land.
-
Posted By: Hisdudeness9500 @ 06/24/2009 3:55:51 PM
I would like to make note of the fact that the Declaration of Independence mentions the "Creator" not the "Church" Thus implying that God and God alone is correct and infallible in his teachings. Therefore, who is the church to say what is correct? Our founding fathers put their faith in God to lead this country, not Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other religion. I think once people understand that they cannot possibly dictate the will of God, this world will be a much better place. To whoever reads this, whatever religion you follow, if you truly believe what you say you do, and treat others with respect and kindness, then your belief is the correct one. This is just my opinion, nothing more.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/24/2009 4:43:27 PM
Your argument is ridiculous! You can either acknowledge that the founding fathers were of the Christian faith or not. Anything else is nonsensical rhetoric.
-
Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 06/24/2009 5:10:15 PM
know what i think is ridiculous??
that people like you have no problem thinking that a white man in long robes snapped his fingers and boom... earth, life, humans, civilization., universe.
yet you have a big problem with the big bang theory.
figure that out...-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 12:42:12 AM
God is spirit. Not a color. And He "SPOKE" it into existance. He did'nt "snap his fingers".
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/24/2009 5:37:47 PM
I'm trying to figure out your diversionary tactic in getting of the subject of this either being a Christian Nation or not. If you would like to comment on that then fine, but if not then this will be the last time I respond to your postings.
-
Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/25/2009 10:12:40 AM
ohh jeez... that hurts my feelings bojack, i dont know what i would do if you never responded to me again...
oh yeah, continue voicing my thoughts regardless.
thanks.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/25/2009 12:35:55 PM
hlgns,
I was talking to you on this post. If you would look it is directed at nimodahooligan-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/25/2009 4:04:25 PM
I meant to type I wasn't talking to you....
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/25/2009 12:13:23 PM
our founding fathers had it figured out, unlike you.
they comprised they're group of many faiths, secular, aethiest, agnostic, christian.... many of the most memorable and note worthy of them being agnostics/athiest or simply having the belief in a god/creator without the dogma. and i dont need to post links for evidence that i know you have already seen, yet disagree with.
so your black and white contrast does not apply correctly to your argument and is inherantly incorrect.
i acknowledge some of our founding fathers were beleivers, note i said SOME.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/25/2009 12:43:36 PM
Ok then we are in agreement that some were Christians. I did some research and the word Creator was never in the original Declaration but no one can agree to who but the word "Creator" in there. One can assume it was one of the five....
Now as far as your above statement that "the founding fathers put their faith in God to lead this country...." Then we would have to eliminate Atheist, Agnostics and others who don't hold this belief. My general statement is that the majority held beliefs in the God of the bible (hence Christianity) especially coming from England.
-
-
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 12:39:39 AM
"For I bear them record that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. (Romans 10:2,3)
-
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/24/2009 4:40:35 PM
Great argument, you almost had me convinced except for the people carrying out this Declaration and resisting British Rule.
-
-
Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/24/2009 1:03:46 PM
"So tell me what was the law of the land during our fight for freedom against British rule? Was it the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?"
Is neither. Was British common law, then articles of confederation.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/24/2009 6:24:07 PM
Articles of confederation wasn't proposed until November 1777 and then ratified in 1781 so it couldn't have been the law of the land. The Declaration proceeded the Articles of Confederation and by admitting they were under British common law shows me that two different nations cannot rule at the same time.
-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/25/2009 12:08:44 PM
Using British common law does not imply allegiance to Britain. After all, the Brits lifted it from the Danes.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/25/2009 12:47:19 PM
No but don't forget that they were representatives of Britian in these colonies and was still under British rule. The war had been raging for more than a year when the Declaration of Independence was written and america had not yet won its Independence. It is one thing to declare something but another to do what has been declared.
-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/25/2009 4:02:29 PM
"The war had been raging for more than a year when the Declaration of Independence was written "
No, it had not.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/25/2009 4:19:28 PM
1775
Apr. 18 The Rides of Paul Revere and William Dawes
Apr. 19 Minutemen and redcoats clash at Lexington and Concord "The shot heard 'round the world."
May 10 Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys seize Fort Ticonderoga
May 10 The Second Continental Congress meets in Philadelphia
June 15 George Washington named Commander in Chief
June 17 Battle of Bunker Hill: The British drive the Americans from Breed's Hill
July 3 Washington assumes command of the Continental Army
Nov. 10-21 Ninety Six, SC, Patriots sieged
Nov. 13 The patriots under Montgomery occupy Montreal in Canada
Dec. 11 Virginia and NC patriots rout Loyalist troops and burn Norfolk
Dec. 22 Col. Thomson with 1,500 rangers and militia capture Loyalists at Great Canebrake, SC
Dec. 23-30 Snow Campaign, in SC, so-called because patriots are impeded by 15" of snow
Dec. 30-31 American forces under Benedict Arnold fail to seize Quebec
1776
Jan. 1 Daniel Morgan taken prisoner in attempt to take Quebec City
Jan. 15 Paine's "Common Sense" published
Feb. 27 The patriots drive the Loyalists from Moore's Creek Bridge, North Carolina
March 3 The Continental fleet captures New Providence Island in the Bahamas
March 17 The British evacuate Boston; British Navy moves to Halifax, Canada
June 8 Patriots fail to take Three Rivers, Quebec
June 12 The Virginia Declaration of Rights
June 28 Sullivan's Island, SC, failed British naval attack
June 29 The First Virginia Constitution
June 28 Patriots decisively defeat the British Navy at Fort Moultrie, South Carolina
July 1 At the instigation of British agents, the Cherokee attack along the entire southern frontier
July 1-4 Congress debates and revises the Declaration of Independence. See Chronology of the Declaration
July 4 Congress adopts the Declaration of Independence; it's sent to the printer
July 8 The Declaration of Independence is read publicly-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/26/2009 9:35:18 AM
My apologies, I stand corrected. I had confused myself over the year of Concord and Lexington.
However, that does beg the question: Between Lexington and the declaration, what instrument of law was used in the colonies?-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/26/2009 10:37:30 AM
No Problem, one thing about blogging here is the knowledge that is shared by others can be helpful and informative. Confusion often happens even on my end....
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: akjudoka @ 06/24/2009 5:10:01 PM
The only legal significance of the Declaration of Independence was to provide England notice of the secession of the colonies. Although it went on to wax poetic for quite some time, all of this was dicta and carried no force of law. At best, it provided a moral compass for the founders. As for it being the foundation for the Constitution, that is a misrepresentation of its importance. The foundation for the Constitution lay in ideas, not in documents. Many of those ideas were also present in the Declaration, but it would be incorrect to say the Declaration was the foundation for those ideas. A better way of stating it would be to say they are both the offspring of the ideas.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/25/2009 12:53:36 PM
No argument here.... I would have to be in total agreement. My whole point in debating is that you cannot disregard something and not claim that it has no significance or influence over the other document. Both document incorporate the ideas in which this country was founded upon and both should hold equal significance. Although one being idealogy and the other practical guidance in our day to day lives.
Every country on this planet is rule by some type of idealogy whether one agrees that they believe in it or not. The principals are written in their laws and people are subject to being ruled by someones concept of life.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/25/2009 12:06:56 PM
sure, it says "creator", not "christian god".
big difference. "creator" can be anything, any religion, any thought or belief. which rings throughout most of our historical documents. nowhere, anywhere, in any document ANYWHERE, does it say anything about the bible, jesus, or "god".
you will have a hard time proving that wrong. just because you interpret "creator" as "god" being that in your religion the "creator" is a christian "god" you interpret it as a biblical definition. not correct. our founding fathers took great care to ensure religious freedom. and as such, they took even greater care in defining the laws of the land to suit the need for religious freedom.
IF this country is founded on christianity why are we not burning homosexuals at the stake, and why is abortion legal? why, if we are a "christian nation", am i allowed to openly disagree and denounce christianity? and any other belief in any given god/religion?
this country has never been a theocracy. never will be.
i will give it to you that the PRINCIPLES of the country can be seen within religious texts, but those same principles can be found in nearly every religion. so you have no ground to stand on. -
Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 06/24/2009 5:08:00 PM
"creator" is very different from "god". "god is a notion that involves a person ie: "created in his image" (take that as some might, and god might be your next door neighbor).
a "creator" could be a unicorn for all we know. -
Posted By: grilledcheeze @ 06/24/2009 2:24:47 PM
Aside from your attempt to divert attention away from question asked, exactly how do we know that this is the Christian interpretation of your "god" that was referred to?
-
Posted By: Hisdudeness9500 @ 06/24/2009 4:57:06 PM
Lol cheeze, it isn't, I'm not Christian. I believe in God, not the institutions of religion.
-
-
-
Posted By: lottoj @ 06/21/2009 12:59:16 AM
Perhaps you can enlighten us on where the phrase 'separation of church and state' appears in the Constitution. Oh yeah, it's not there.
-
Posted By: wstephenjackson @ 06/21/2009 10:50:49 AM
The phrase 'Separation of Church and State' is not ... literally ... i the Constitution. The concept describes part of the First Amendment, the first ten being generally referred to as the Bill of Rights. It states:
Article I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The intent of the amendment, having been to prevent the United States Government fro making one religion more accessible than others, and preventing it from discriminating against others. This concept is generally referred to as the Separation of Church and State. The phrase 'wall of separation between the church and the state' was first used by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. This language is there to protect all religions, not just one. If one religion has the advantage over another, any other, regardless of its nature, then the contract is broken. This is the essence of the article and the ensuing discussion. Respectfully, Stephen Jackson.-
Posted By: lottoj @ 06/21/2009 8:01:17 PM
Stephen,
Your statement of the facts is dead on however, your interpretation is off. The intent was not to ensure parity between religions so that one did not become more dominant than others as you assert. It was to ensure that a state sponsored religion was not established. By your theory, should one religion become dominant, it would require the government to step in and prevent it from further growth and that is in direct opposition to the 'free exercise' portion of the clause. That may well be what some want but it's not what the amendment says or was intended for.
Respectfully,
Mark-
Posted By: Momwoman @ 06/24/2009 1:15:05 PM
OK, we'll follow your logic. Since no religion is named, we will assume that whatever religion is held by the largest number of people in the US is the 'officail" religion. So, imagine for one moment that whatever religion is "official" is not yours. Now you can't get a headstone in Arlington with your religious symbol on it, have to listen to rants by Army chaplins that you are gong to hell, are badgered by US employees that you should convert. Doesn't sound very fair, or very American does it?
-
Posted By: lottoj @ 06/24/2009 1:55:24 PM
Your assumption, as well as your logic, is faulty. Whatever religion is held by the greatest number of people, whether mine or not, is NOT the official religion of the US for the very reason that the first amendment disallows the government from establishing any religion as being the official religion. An individual in the employ of the government whatever the capacity is not establishing an official religion just because they share their faith.
Atheists seem to want to really focus on the establishment portion of the clause while totally ignoring the free exercise clause. You can't have it both ways. I'm not in favor of the US Government declaring Christianity (or any religion) as being the official religion but neither am I in favor of the government limiting individuals expression of their faiths.-
Posted By: Anya4000 @ 06/24/2009 2:45:39 PM
In this case then Evolution is the largest religion in America.
-
Posted By: Vespertilio @ 06/24/2009 2:50:01 PM
-
Posted By: Hisdudeness9500 @ 06/24/2009 4:01:26 PM
Actually, I'd say freedom of expression is the largest religion in America. In fact it's systemic. Every single person old enough to comprehend the idea of faith fervently believes in the right to express the faith of their choice. Therefore, the largest belief system is the belief that you can freely express your ideals.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 06/30/2009 12:58:36 AM
So, the religion that says it's OK to marry 20 wives is OK? And what about the catholic priests who are having "private times" with the little boys? Who would want to worship a religion who's leader (ie. the pope) voices his belief but then apologizes for insulting another religion (ie. islam) and says he was sorry he spoke his belief? Can you be man or woman enough to stand up to "your" belief or will you back down and blaspheme your "god"? (if you have a god)
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/30/2009 2:30:32 AM
Freedom of expression doesn't include freedom to molest little boys anymore than it includes freedom to murder, rape, or steal. This is common sense. And yeah for the religion and culture that finds it acceptable having more than one wife is ok. Our government happened to decide it was illegal so in this country it is.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 6:07:14 PM
Can you handle all the needs of twenty wives on a one on one relationship? (All at once?)
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/04/2009 6:53:23 PM
Personally at the moment I'm just fine having no wife at all and I'm pretty sure I'll never want more than one, but for the cultures and religions that find it acceptable that evidently isn't an issue. I know in some cultures that allow it there are still restrictions. IF you're going to have more than one wife, for example, you have to be able to provide for them. Though it's less common, there are also cultures that allow women to have more than one husband. And in some cultures where multiple wives or husbands are allowed they have a different notion of what husband/wife relationships and roles are than we do. The whole "romantic" concept we have of husband/wife relationships is actually a fairly recent concept in human history and is not one that's neccessarily shared by every other culture. Far as America goes the government has made it illegal and most people agree with that so that's just the way it is, which also makes it a moot point as far as your argument goes. It's understood that freedom of self expression is limited by laws. I could get really angry at someone and walk up to them on the street and shoot them in the head and then say that I was just expressing myself, but obviously I've broken the law and committed murder and that argument wouldn't get me very far. For other cultures or religions that find it acceptable then it is acceptable. As long as no one's rights are being abused it's not right or wrong it's just a different way of doing things.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/04/2009 11:15:16 PM
Just for the record though I don't agree that freedom of expression is a religion, as he first called it in the above comment. I guess like he said it's possible that it could be the largest 'belief system' in America, but I wouldn't call it a religion.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 10:08:59 PM
I suppose. I've never married either. And I enjoy the single life myself.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/30/2009 12:25:20 PM
"So, the religion that says it's OK to marry 20 wives is OK?"
As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, who cares?-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 1:42:22 AM
God does.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: dhardage @ 06/24/2009 3:52:34 PM
Sir,
I have no problem with you belieiving whatever you wan to, but when you are in the employ of the citizens of the United States, you become responsible to them as well as to your own conscience. Chaplains are paid by tax dollars. That puts them under the rules and laws of the Armed Services they belong to. It also makes them de facto represntatives of the United States in all of their actions. Attempting to convert a Muslim people violates those rules. It gives them the idea that America neither respects to understands them or their beliefs. If you can't follow the rules. get out. If you don't want to represent the entire nation's belefs, become, as someone said, a missionary.-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/24/2009 6:36:09 PM
Bravo.
-
Posted By: girl2987 @ 06/24/2009 4:07:10 PM
Amen!
-
-
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/24/2009 6:21:12 PM
"An individual in the employ of the government whatever the capacity is not establishing an official religion just because they share their faith."
If that individual is doing it in their official capacity as an employee of the government then they are acting with the full authority and legal force of the government behind them and are indeed in effect establishing a religion. It is a violation of the first amendment and illegal. What they do outside of their official capacity is their business. -
Posted By: invisibleone @ 06/24/2009 4:14:45 PM
Wow, sounds like Jesus hasn't given up on you if all that is happening in your life. He loves you no matter what. Even if Him dying for your sins wasn't fair!!
-
-
-
-
Posted By: revwagnon @ 06/24/2009 1:23:52 PM
I have seen the argument made that people are quoting/using non-legal documents when trying to argue that this country was founded on Christian ideas, but your quote of Thomas Jefferson is also from a non-legal document. Also I agree with the other poster that your interpretation is way off. Jefferson meant this to protect the Church from the State, not to allow the State to rule the Church...which by definition would be many state run churches. This claim that the founders were all deists is revisionist to the core. Almost all of the Founders were attenders of church if not "Christians." I reccomend the book "The Myth of Separation" It lays everything about this issue out and relies heavily on State Constitutions and Supreme Court quotations to make its argument.
-
Posted By: grilledcheeze @ 06/24/2009 2:30:04 PM
Oh, you know because you sat down and had this discussion with Mr. Jefferson, yes? Wrong, your argument sounds like a plagiarized line from a Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity transcript. Hit the reset button and try again.
-
Posted By: Hisdudeness9500 @ 06/24/2009 4:04:46 PM
Also, please take knowledge from ANY book (Bible, Torah, and Koran included) with a grain of salt. All books are written by humans that have their own point of view. Anyone who proclaims to know the will of God is arrogant at best, and has an agenda at worst.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/24/2009 4:36:28 PM
So if no one knows the will of God then you will proclaim ignorance during the day of judgment! We will see how far that gets you...LOL!
-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/24/2009 6:28:03 PM
By all means bring on Saint Peter to criticize my life...
I will wait for bated breath for my chance to get tossed into the grand fiery furnace. :P
I don't fear your Judgement Day in the least, and you can laugh as long and hard as you want. Neither do a lot of others. You can laugh until the cows come home, and it won't change the fact in the slightest that you ought to damn well leave God's judgement up to God.-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/03/2009 10:14:05 PM
That's an oximoron. ......you don't fear judgement day..................leave God's judgement to God. .........
-
-
Posted By: Hisdudeness9500 @ 06/24/2009 4:52:47 PM
I've read many posts on here, is Judgement Day really your only reason for following a religion bojack? If so, you may find yourself on the wrong side of that fence if that day comes. Be a good person, and treat your fellow human with respect and kindness and the loving, caring God that I believe in will take you in no matter what building you pray in.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/24/2009 6:32:15 PM
You should try reading your own post once in awhile. Now are you claiming to know the will of God. So according to what you posted below I can count you among the arrogant. I will not rely on your god but my personal Savior Jesus Christ whom I follow and it does matter to him whom you pray to John 14:6
Anyone who proclaims to know the will of God is arrogant at best, and has an agenda at worst.
-
-
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/03/2009 1:08:36 PM
YOU WANT TO KNOW THE WILL OF GOD??? OPEN THE "HOLY BIBLE" AND "READ" IT. HIS WILL IS PLAINLY WRITTEN
-
Posted By: tamarack1965 @ 06/24/2009 4:26:57 PM
Hey, cheezehead. Just because astute observation and inductive interpretation of early American founding father's writings sounds like Beck or Hannity, doesn't mean it's wrong. In fact, it leaves YOU with a bit of a problem. Face it. You don't WHAT the Constitution or any other contributing documents say. All you have left in all that cheeze tells you "Go Left, young man, Go Left." And you obey.
-
Posted By: grilledcheeze @ 06/24/2009 4:51:23 PM
The point is that without direct contact with the origin, everything else following is nothing more than speculation.
I know what our constitution says. I know what our Declaration Of Independence says. I've actually taken the time to read them on my own accord, have you?
To infer that Hannity or Beck are drawing astute conclusions is sad at best. Polarizing and Directed conclusions - yes, that is what they are paid to do. The problem is when people like you misinterpret those directed, for-profit conclusions as what our forefathers meant. You, I, Olbermann, and O'Riley have absolutely NO DEFINITE understanding of what they expressly meant. Who knows, maybe the right to bear arms was mis-transcribed and they really meant that government shouldn't force you to wear long-sleeves? It is hot in Philly in the summer you know.
Continue to drink the reich-wing Kool-Aide my friend, My lefties and I are out to clean-up and fix your mess.
-
-
-
Posted By: VioletMoon1286 @ 06/24/2009 4:39:54 PM
And you are sure Mr. Jefferson's quote is accurate? Sorry, but I have to agree with the above poster. You cannot prove his quote is accurate any more than the poster can. I recommend the book Don't Know Much About History and you can find a whole host of things in there we are repeatedly taught and take as gospel (forgive the reference) and you may be amazed as how much happened/was said that didn't really happen and didn't really get stated.
-
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/02/2009 2:30:26 PM
The book The Myth of Seperation is a biased, deceptive, and dishonest work. Such piles of manure are an insult to serious scholarly research. Any source I've ever checked provided by a Christian to support such claims has been the same: distortions of the truth, using quotes out of context, and just plain dishonesty. When you have to resort to such deception to make your argument seem credible then you have just in fact proven your argument inadequate. Check out the first 3 readers reviews on this link to see what I mean, one of them from a Christian.
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Separation-Correct-Relationship-Between/dp/0925279188 -
Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/24/2009 6:25:24 PM
I personally believe - and most First Amendment legal tradition states - that separation of church and state is far more than "a myth". In fact, I would give my life in order to prevent it from becoming "a myth".
-
Posted By: analyticalguy @ 06/24/2009 6:08:30 PM
Without a doubt, the founders all came from a "Christian heritage." Most were probably baptized as Christians and members of VARIOUS Christian churches (because, then as today, those were general customs that most people followed). Some of these were devout Christians of various stripes. Others went through the motions. Many (probably most, but there is no way to survey them accurately) in their personal beliefs, were Deists, believing that their was a creator god (who endowed people with certain inalienable rights, etc, etc) but that this creator god was NOT active in current affairs in the world, as most Christians today believe. But whatever the - varying- religious beliefs of individual Founders were, the principles they agreed upon in establishing our government (specifically as written in the Constitution) were those of the humanistic Enlightenment, NOT those of a a Christian church. MANY writings outside the Constitution have been used by the Supreme Court and others to help them in interpreting the Constitution (not surprising as it it such a sparse document), including the Declaration, the Federalist papers, writings of the Founders. But that doesn't make any of those documents the law of the land. I'm sure Mr. Jefferson would be most surprised if his reference to a Creator in the Declaration that HE wrote would be used as justification for the notion that the US was a Christian nation. Of all the Founders, he was one who was most certainly NOT a Christian, at least not in teh snese that our current "conservative" or "Evangelical" Christians understand the term, and want the rest of us to accept as the basis for our governement.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/24/2009 4:08:57 PM
Not all of them were Deists, but many were. The claim that they were all Christians and were unanimous in their religious beliefs is also not true. Many of them were influenced by Enlightenment philsosphy which, among other things, promotes self-government, individual liberties and rights. Meant to protect the Church from the State? That's one side of it. It also works the other way: it protects the State and individuals from the Church. It prohibits the Church from making any laws or excercising any legal authority over individuals. That means individuals can worship how they choose or not worship at all. In the end the result is obviously a seperation between Church and State.
-
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/03/2009 10:05:38 PM
Seperation of Church and State? Keep you laws out of my faith. And I'll keep my faith whether your laws like it or not.
-
Posted By: TheRev @ 06/25/2009 10:23:18 PM
The original intent was not fairness as you suggest. The founding fathers didn't have a care in the world if entire states were of one faith or another! It was perfectly legal for say Pennsylvania to be Quaker or Puritan. It was illegal for the FEDERAL government to make an official faith for all states. If fairness and seperation were the aim, as progressives like to reimagine, then they wouldv'e disallowed all states from having official religions.
As is always the case with progressives, you have to burn all the history books in order to fit their anti-absolute truth fetish into real history.-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/26/2009 1:12:18 PM
"It was perfectly legal for say Pennsylvania to be Quaker or Puritan. It was illegal for the FEDERAL government to make an official faith for all states."
Incorrect. Article VI states that state constitutions are subordinate to the US constitution, and may not contradict it.-
Posted By: TheRev @ 06/26/2009 11:38:44 PM
Sorry, you are wrong. Each state had to produce a constitution that specifically dealt with whether or not they would CONTINUE to support FINANCIALLY a church group! Yes, the states supported churches in those early years (and I am rather grateful to be free of that) showing that a "wall of seperation" in the mind of Thomas Jefferson, who was rather ascerbic to organized religions, is far different from that of the country and the other framers of the US Constitution. There were state religions my friend! Legal and Constitutional! http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/27/2009 11:06:20 AM
Sorry but you are wrong. It's not nearly as black and white as you pretend it to be. According to this article that you provided the link for Jefferson and Madison and others joined the Baptists and Presbyterians to defeat those campaigning for state financial involvement in Virginia. They were opposed to government supported religion and eventually defeated those who were seeking it and passed Jefferson's Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. If they "didn't have a care in the world" as you claim, why the hell would they go through all that? And since one of their main concerns, as the article states, was that government involvement in religion would violate civil and natural rights, and since they were also concerned about ending the persecution being committed against Baptists and Presbyterians, fairness was indeed one of their primary intentions. And since, as the article states, Jeffersons Act "brought the debate in Virginia to a close by severing, once and for all, the links between government and religion." then seperation between church and state was obviously one of their aims. If that was not their aim why would they have introduced and proposed the Act, knowing what the consequence would be? Finally, Jefferson was not nearly as isolated as you pretend. As the article makes clear this was a very contentious issue and there was much debate. Jefferson did not stand alone in his opposition. It was not him against the other framers and the rest of the country as you tried to imply. There were others who agreed with him. Not everyone did but obviously a significant number. Otherwise his Act for Religious Freedom would not have stood a snowball's chance in hell of being passed. You talk about Progressives and absolute truth. You're just like every Creationist web site I've ever looked at. You only reveal enough of the truth to support your argument while hiding everything that contradicts it. You wouldn't know absolute truth if it bit you on the ass.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: VioletMoon1286 @ 06/24/2009 4:36:15 PM
Just as you indicate for the separate of church and state is not literally in there, neither is any statement that our country is based on Christian beliefs. It???s not in there, but it is understood. I don???t think our founding fathers ever thought they would see the day where it had to be spelled out. However, the referral to establishment of religion in the Bill of Rights refers to the government not mandating one religion across the land. However, it does not retract from the core of what this country was founded on???Christianity. Without a core of beliefs allowing others to have their own beliefs, things turn into what they are now...chaos.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/25/2009 3:30:10 PM
This country was not founded on Christianity. The defining and essential ideals of our goverment are not found in a Bible but come from multiple sources: ancient Greece and Rome(pagan), Enlightemnent philosophy, Iroquois confederation(pagan), Lochean philosophy. Christianity was part of the mix but it's not responsible for the core ideals that define America. We are not living in chaos. We have a stable government and a stable society. There are no armed rebellions. There are no rampaging mobs or armed warfare in the streets. We are not suffering from extreme poverty or deprivation, We are not being persecuted by a tyrannical government or dictator. We are able to practice whatever religion we choose without interference from our government. Things are ordered. Things are operating as they should. Be thankful for all of that. Be thankful you are not living in true chaos like some of the more unfortunate peoples of the world.
-
Posted By: thearch @ 06/25/2009 6:38:18 PM
funkyinthesouth
agree about the nation
Outside US there is a civil disturbance initiated by american funded organizations. In the end americans are getting the bad name. Forcible and illegal conversions are happening on large scale in asia from vietnam to India.
Both america and christianity are viewed with susoicion even in nonisllamic countries as a result
-
-
-
Posted By: Momwoman @ 06/24/2009 1:10:20 PM
Thank you.
-
-
Posted By: saffron @ 06/24/2009 2:20:09 PM
No one has to read the constitution for anyone, It is in the public domain and free to be accessed by anyone. I can say that gravity don't exist because, I can see it, but, I know exactly what will happen if I were to jump off a building my dear friend... it does not matter what you should to believe, the reality [the truth] still stands unchanged... even despite anyones greatest attempts at nullifying that reality [truth]..
-
Posted By: wstephenjackson @ 06/21/2009 10:18:00 AM
-
Posted By: wstephenjackson @ 06/21/2009 10:17:37 AM
-
-
Posted By: eddiemd @ 06/20/2009 11:15:23 PM
It says on our money "In God We Trust". Which God would that be?
-
Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/22/2009 2:31:33 PM
Mammon, Uday think. America is not Christian nation. America is worship little green paper rectangles, is with faces of dead peoples on them.
-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/24/2009 2:20:21 PM
This is the correct answer.
-
-
Posted By: mdalerwill @ 06/24/2009 1:30:53 PM
I have read this money comment many times. Of course, we all know our money says "In God We Trust." One day, however, having just read the comment again, I happened to glance down at a quarter sitting on my desk. I wish I had noted the year of the quarter; it wasn't new and I have since noted that newer quarters are a little different. Anyway, long story aside, I noticed that one word on the coin was larger than any of the others. It said: LIBERTY.
-
Posted By: FreeMind9021 @ 06/20/2009 11:56:34 PM
"In god we trust" wasnt added to money until the Mccarthy era 1950's.
It was meant to be a direct attack against communism.
Your grasp on history is terrible.-
Posted By: eddiemd @ 06/21/2009 10:00:45 PM
Why don't you Freemind file a lawsuit to have it removed?
-
Posted By: azizjon @ 06/21/2009 8:54:41 PM
Freemind you are wrong
In God We Trust is the official motto of the United States and the U.S. state of Florida. The motto first appeared on a United States coin in 1864 during strong Christian sentiment emerging during the Civil War, but In God We Trust did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.[1] It is codified as federal law in the United States Code at 36 U.S.C. § 302, which provides: "In God we trust" is the national motto".
-
-
-
Posted By: Slingersss @ 06/24/2009 1:13:13 PM
exactly, where does it state Christianity is the religion of the State of our Union. What about Jews, Muslim, or Buddhism. The key note is that the Evangelicals only believe in one god and one religion and that is Christianity. In the case, of the Evangelicals, I watched a documentary of some Jewish students who were threatened and coerced into joining the Evangelical mission to "convert". This is wrong. It is in the military and should not be there. It is a way to separate not bring everyone together, because eveyone has their own faith, and if it isn't the "one true belief" then everyone else's faith is considered wrong.
-
-
Posted By: rpearlston @ 06/20/2009 12:22:43 AM
What you really mean is that America should be forcing one version of a holy book on anyone who believes any other version of a holy book.
That's teh height of arrogance. And you wonder why so many people around the world hate America. You are a part of that problem-
Posted By: dumb=dem @ 06/20/2009 11:43:56 PM
Rpearlston, in the end it is entirely up to you what you believe. No one is FORCING you to believe anything. If i am not mistaken that is a chaplains job to spread the word of God to anyone who wants to hear it . That is what their there for. But im pretty sure if it was up to our wonderful muslim happy president he wouldnt have a problem spreading muslim beliefs around.You know this country is getting bad when there getting soft on homosexuals serving openly in the military and trying to wipeout the TRUE foundation of this country. No wonder they say America is a melting pot.
-
Posted By: rinbosha @ 07/05/2009 11:30:59 AM
You are wrong. As a chaplain candidate in the National Guard, and as a Buddhist, I can tell you that we are NOT here to spread the word of god. Indeed, we are forbidden outright from evangelizing. That is in the regs (AR 165-1). Our function is to defend the right of our soldiers to follow any belief system they want. We do this in two ways: providing spiritual care (meaning getting soldiers who are not of our faith background to chaplains from their own background) and perform services (for those of our faith background).
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/05/2009 12:46:30 PM
P.S. You just contradicted your self. "buddhist's cannot preach of God, but, your function is to find a Christian to converse with a Christian, ACatholic with a Catholic, A Muslim with a Muslim, but you cannot speak fo God. Tou "are" spreading the gospel. By being their (not out of disrespect) gopher.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/05/2009 2:44:34 PM
It's not the same thing at all. "Spreading the faith" in evangelical terms means preaching about your particular beliefs only and attempting to convert others to that belief, which is what the chaplains are prohibited form doing. Finding specific chaplains( Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc) for soldiers who alreadly share those beliefs is not even close to the same thing. Neither is sharing your faith with those who already believe as you do. That is not the issue. The issue is attempting to spread you faith among those who do not share it. That is what they are prohibited from doing. It's not the same thing that he described and it's not a contradiction.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/06/2009 10:06:38 AM
If you have'nt noticed yet, I have been spreading my faith throughout this whole conversation by typing it down for you to see where Christians stand. Quoting scripture. But I'm not forcing it upon you. You read it, you do with it as you will. But i'm not sitting here saying "you must accept my faith or else"! I'm not doing that. I'm letting you know where "WE AS CHRISTIANS" stand. But I will not stop quoting scripture just to please you. I'm sure there are other fellow Christians who are reading this and "THEY" need to be strengthened, lifted up, guidanced "help in time of need". That's what our job as Christian is. "TO BUILD UP AND EDIFY THE CHURCH". And don't go beligerant on me and start talking, "then keep it in your church". "OUR Church is not a building made of stone and wood. Christ's Church is HIS believers. And where "WE" are, is where HE (Jesus) wants us to be. So I don't really believe any chaplains in the service are doing any different. He speaks it, they do as they will with it. And they move on. So stop holding on to something as trivial as your little arguments. Preachers know "if they don't accept you in a town, wipe their dust off your feet as a testimony against them". (Mark 6:10,11)
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/06/2009 3:33:50 PM
None of this has anything at all to do with your earler comment about contradiction or my response to it. It has nothing at all to do with his point or the topic of the article. The issue isn't about the freedom to speak of your religion. It's about these chaplains crossing the line by evangelizing and attempting to convert while in an official capacity of the US military. It's about them violating constitutional law and military regulations. If you can't offer an argument that addresses the actual topic don't bother replying.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/06/2009 6:08:49 PM
Whether it is right to listen to you over God, judge for "your" "self". For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. (Acts 4:19,20)
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/06/2009 6:55:55 PM
And once again your comment completely avoids the actual topic of the argument. How is this related to your erroneous claim that his comment was a contradiction? Oh I know, it wasn't. I won't bother responding to any other such avoidance. .
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/07/2009 7:27:58 AM
...my reply? leave the military to the military. More power to 'em. Let 'em preach. I'll preach it here. Whether you like it or not.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/07/2009 10:59:23 AM
And again, no one is saying they can't preach to those of their faith and in the appropriate context.
-
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/07/2009 7:35:36 AM
...Thank you very much... Don't.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/05/2009 12:16:58 PM
If a chaplain cannot be allowed to share his faith, what's the point in having a chaplain? Would'nt that make him just a soldier? "Soldier With Title Of "Chaplain"? He's just there to speak what he knows of the "religious" faith of "his" "religion". He does'nt have his holy writings because bibles (or any other book of religion) are not allowed in service. Therefore, count yourself dead to the god you serve. For you cannot speak on your god's behalf. ..."did the Word Of God come originally from you? Or was it you that it only reached?.If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commands of The Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. (1st Cor. 14:36-38) "For Our God is not the author of confusion, but of Peace. As in ALL The Churches Of The Saints. (1st. Cor 14:33) AMEN
-
-
Posted By: NMthinker @ 06/24/2009 2:47:41 PM
Hilarious! Atheism is NOT a religion! Clearly you do not understand the meaning of the term.
-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/24/2009 3:21:34 PM
Of course it's a religion. Atheism requires that you believe there is no God, with no evidence either way...as opposed to agnosticism, which states that there is no way to determine whether or not there is a God.
-
Posted By: MammaBear04 @ 06/24/2009 4:53:50 PM
I would have to agree and disagree with you both. I personally don't down any religion or belief. However Atheism is not a religion. Not in the way that religion is defined. And in fact atheism is the belief against organized religions. But I also feel that in order to be an atheist you have to acknowledge a deity to denounce it which makes it a bit of an oxymoron. But again this is my own opinion. I'm only going on the very little I know of this belief structure. But I do happen to have a friend or aqauaintance of every faith currently known. So I might be more correct than I think.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/26/2009 3:14:10 PM
I disagree with this notion. I don't claim to be an atheist. I'm more of an agnostic really, though perhaps I have been leaning a little more towards atheism lately. No one is born believing in any particular god. They are taught to believe according to what culture or religion they are born into. So atheism doesn't require choosing any particular god to denounce. It simply requires refusing to believe anyone's claim that a god or gods exist, regardless of what religion they come from.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/06/2009 3:24:46 PM
We're all born in sin, but Jesus raises up those who follow Him to bring others to Him. As far as atheism goes, A black hole, void, empty, lifeless.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: dumb=dem @ 06/25/2009 8:44:05 AM
NMthinker you are exactly right. It is not a religion. But is this an argument to something i said?? But anyway give yourself a nice big cookie for thinking that cuz you are exactly right. Maybe one day ill be only half as smart as you are. And by the way i do apoligise for mispronouncing the word there ok. I only hope i didnt start armageddon when i did it.
-
-
Posted By: Momwoman @ 06/24/2009 1:21:59 PM
I'll ignore your ignorance on the subject ot the President's faith.
I just want to be clear - It is okay for you to spread your religion, but not OK for others to do the same?-
Posted By: dumb=dem @ 06/25/2009 11:55:48 AM
Momwoman, You can believe as you choose but it is obvious that the president is muslim friendly. I stand by my statement. Only a fool would say otherwise. But now your putting words into my mouth. When did i ever say that no one else can spread there beliefs but christians? No i dont think that at all. Its entirely up to the person what they believe or dont believe. But my question to you is if every religion is allowed to spread what they believe as you like to think then why cant christians do the same? Your contradicting yourself.
-
Posted By: misskaren @ 07/05/2009 7:13:17 PM
Why is it that stupid people tend to brag about it. We do live in the real world and the real world contains Muslims, Jews, Hindus and other things. The first amendment gives them the right to be what they are. You cannot shove the New Testament up someone's butt and expect him or her to value what you value. Religion is private, personal and intimate and being approached by an evangelical in heat is one of the most threatening experiences possible. Barack Obama gives all Americans the freedom to be one, a nice change from the previous POTUS, who bent over for the religious right because they put him in office.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/06/2009 2:59:34 PM
""""Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, The love of The Father is not in him. For all that is in the world -- the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life -- is not of The Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever. (1st John 2:15-17) """"Little children, it is the last hour,and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that this is the last hour. They went out from us but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from The Holy One, and you know all thinngs. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of The Truth. Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is The Christ? It is antichrist who denies The Father and The Son. Whoever denies The Son does not have The Father either; he who acknowledges The Son has The Father also. (1st John 218-23)
-
-
Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/25/2009 12:03:32 PM
Just as a note of translation, as far as I can tell here, what "muslim friendly" really means is that Obama does not bitterly hate Muslims and want them all killed. :P
-
Posted By: dumb=dem @ 06/25/2009 12:56:18 PM
What i am saying is the president is trying to reach out to these extreme muslims who obviously arent trying to reach back since there still making threats on america and want him dead himself. No matter what he does or says will change their minds about anything. Hes waisting his time. These people just hate america. Its like hes calling them out and saying hey remember us . America wants peace now, do you? He knows what there answers gonna be. Hes asking for it. Thats what im saying.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: RevInMe @ 06/24/2009 1:40:50 PM
Excuse me...the country is bad because we are soft on homosexuals? You are an arrogant, ignoramus. First of all, this discussion is about religion seemingly being forced on other countries in the "holier than thou" way that America advocates Christianity. Not about homosexuals in the military. Second of all, since when do homosexuals make this country look bad? Newsflash, homosexuals are located all over the world; they are not constricted to the bigot confines of Christian America.
You "voices of God" need to step off your soapbox and into the real world.-
Posted By: dumb=dem @ 06/25/2009 12:06:05 PM
Revinme, I like that last line, i really do. Enjoy the REAL WORLD while it last cuz it dont last forever. I like it on the soapbox. I can look down and see how ignorant some people are
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/06/2009 12:52:37 PM
Does that mean I have to look up to you? NO. It means get off your (soapbox, pedestal) and look me in the eye. If we can't see eye to eye, Let's move on. But as for your soapbox, (pedestal) you can;t moe it when you're standing on it.
-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/26/2009 1:14:06 PM
Pride goeth before the fall.
-
-
-
Posted By: NMthinker @ 06/24/2009 2:55:51 PM
The ignorance and arrogance of dumb=dem is only amplified by his/her incredibly poor grammar and spelling. Please review the various forms of the word "there", "they're", and "their" prior to posting any more bigoted remarks. Maybe you should be more concerned about the state of American education rather than homosexuals.
-
Posted By: Hisdudeness9500 @ 06/24/2009 3:33:33 PM
Actually, dumb=dem, the military chaplain's job is to counsel and guide. You can have chaplains from ANY religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, etc.) They are specifically forbidden from actively trying to convert people to their religion. Also, the true foundation of this country is freedom. Freedom of expression, religion, speech, and yes...sexuality.
-
-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/24/2009 2:19:01 PM
"You know this country is getting bad when there getting soft on homosexuals serving openly in the military "
Why, yes, how dare they love their country and sign up to defend it?-
Posted By: grilledcheeze @ 06/24/2009 2:31:03 PM
Amen to that.
-
-
-
Posted By: eddiemd @ 06/20/2009 12:25:37 AM
No worries Mr. Pearlston.
Someday you will have the opportunity to explain your non belief.-
Posted By: rpearlston @ 06/20/2009 1:37:51 AM
My non-belief? That's your claim, but it's not mine and it's not true.
Not believing as someone else does isn't the same thing as not believing. You have the rest of your life to learn that and to practice that. You have the rest of your live to not be ignorant of the realities of this world. Starting now would be an excellent idea.-
Posted By: jackpotjones @ 06/24/2009 1:26:13 PM
I love this, you get to fall back on this fear monger point of "some day you will be judged??? It makes you feel better in your attempt to bring someone else down. People who take this approach are like children, they don't have the capacity for deeper thought or guts to take the real step of questioning what is before them. So in an effort to relieve your self of the personal responsibility of thought you just say "na na, you're going to hell and I'm not.??? It???s as if you are running to your god out of fear vs. love.
-
Posted By: arianacooks @ 06/24/2009 2:39:43 PM
Well said jackpotjones!
I find it amusing that the majority of America subscribes to the belief in fairy tales and myth, then attacks anyone who differs in opinion. Even more amusing is the fear mongering statement of: "one day youwill be judged". Really?
I am Buddhist (non-theistic) and subscribe to the notion that you get out of life, whatever it is that you put in. I am solely responsible for the path of my life, and blaming god's will seems a cowardly way to relieve oneself of responsibility. If there is a god, which I don't claim to be arrogant enough to know one way or the other, I can take comfort in the fact that I lived the life of a good person, gave to others and was conscious of my effect on the world.
In regards to the Christian military question - It simply shouldn't happen. Anyone who believes that we are in a holy war is just as extreme as Osama Bin Laden and the like, and carries all of the blood shed on their hands as well. To attempt to convert people who are in a desperate situation is self-serving, arrogant and disgraceful to what this country stands for - freedom.-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 12:51:56 AM
Christians live a holy war everyday. It's called "persecutoin".
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/05/2009 2:34:53 PM
You do live in America right? How exactly are you being persecuted? Does the government prohibit you from practicing your relgion? Does the government prohibit you from establishing churches and attending those churches for the purpose of worship? Does the governmmet imprison you for years or for life for practicing your religion? Does the government prohibit Christians from holding political office or working as government employes? Are Christians considered lower class citizens and prohibited from enjoying the same liberties as everyone eise? Does the government execute anyone for bieng a Christian? No, none of these things are true. In fact Christians and all other relgions are protected from such things by law. Is there any group in America that can treat Christians this way without suffering the legal consequences? No there is not. Things could be a whole lot worse for you. When such things become a common practice against Christians then I will agree you are being persecuted. Until then any American Christian claiming they are being persecuted is, in my opinion, simply ridiculous.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/06/2009 10:48:09 AM
Read the headline of this article. "CHRISTIAN" Soldiers. ACLU have been strongly against Christianity. They have taken alot of our liberties away (or so they think) OUR LIBERTIES are in Jesus Christ. NO MATTER WHAT THE UCLA SAYS. I will continue to live out my "CHRISTIAN" liberties This world is a losing one.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/06/2009 1:30:22 PM
Actually the ACLU seeks to protect the religious freedom of ALL faiths, including Christianity.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/37958prs20081203.html-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/06/2009 2:28:15 PM
What do you call it when the aclu gave the homosexuals the right to speak in a CHURCH? That sin is an abomination to God and aclu is letting them preach? ! What do you call it when the national organization of women has taken away my God given right to protect my children every way possible (includiing) during pregnancy. I have no right to say because it's her body. What do you call it when a woman (knowing she can get pregnant) goes out, has a "fling", gets pregnant, and now it's child support highway for him. Just because of "one" time. Have you noticed how (on TV, in movies) they '''BLEEP""" out the name "God" but you hear """Damn"""? DON'T go telling me Christians have'nt lost our liberties! WE HAVE! And, you can see it "in the world". Without GOD in America, Tribulation occurs. "We voice it, you close you ears. We shout it, you run away. We sing it, You hide. We live in faith, Where Jesus isn't denied.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/06/2009 3:11:33 PM
nope, none of those things are persecution. You don't have to attend a church where a homosexual is preaching. That's entirely up to you. No one has forced you to do it. There is no law prohibiting you from voicing your disagreement about homosexuality or abortion or any other issue. In fact, the law guarantees you the right to do so. You just voiced those opinions on here and you're free to do it anywhere else. That's not persecution. Someone who chooses not to listen to you or believe you is not persecution. That is their choice and they have the liberty to decide for themselves. Just because there are those who disagree with you about your beliefs, opinions, and religion and exercise their right to voice those disagreements does not mean you are being persecuted. I have never seen the word God bleeped out anyhere but if it was that was the decision of producer,director, network, author, etc and they have the right and liberty to make that decision. None of the things you mentioned amount to persecution and you stil fail to prove that your claim of persecution is anything but nonsense.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/06/2009 3:48:47 PM
But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of The Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know The Truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. (2nd John 2:23-26)
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/06/2009 4:28:05 PM
So in other words you have no effective counter argument. I'd also like to add that being prohibited from forcing everyone else to live by your religious beliefs and dogma/rules is also not persecution.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/06/2009 4:47:42 PM
I don't have to prove anything. I can see it clearly.
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/06/2009 5:12:35 PM
lol no you can't see it clearly if you are still claiming to be suffering persecution. That's hilarious. And here you are going against your own scripture by not avoiding a "foolish and ignorant debate." Now that I think about it seems like you've done quite a bit of that on here actually.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/06/2009 6:01:08 PM
I can see you have a one track mind. You continue on one aspect of a conversation and don't even see the whole picture. I have tried my best to point out to you....... but, you keep going back to one specific thing. I can see you have no clue about living by faith. so, live by whatever standards you are "set" in. And I will continue "In Faith".
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/07/2009 12:25:30 AM
What do you call it when a woman (knowing she can get pregnant) goes out, has a "fling", gets pregnant, and now it's child support highway for him.
I just reread this and I'm trying to figure out why this is supposed to be evidence of persecution against Christians. It has nothing at all to do with persecution. What do I call it? I call it having sex. It sure ain't persecution that's for damn sure. And are you actually suggesting that he is a victim because he has to pay child support? He's having a fling just as much as she is and is just as responsible for the consequences as she is. In any case it's completely irrelevant to the topic being argued, so I guess I shouldn't be surprisd that you said it. -
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/06/2009 7:10:07 PM
One aspect of the conversation? LOL! That's called staying on topic. That's called not trying to change the subject and go off in left field somewhere because you have no effective counter argument. Too funny.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/06/2009 1:05:18 PM
What does the tiltle of this article have to do with the ACLU? They didn't write it. As far as I remember they were not even mentioned in this article. Regardless they are not taking Christian liberties away. They are only making sure Christians are limited to the same constitutional law that every other citizen has to live by. Christians are not above that. They don't get to violate constitutional law and military regulations. You'll have to provide much better evidence than this silly accusation to prove that you're being persecuted Until then, as I said before, claiming that you are being persecuted is a joke, it's absolutiely ridiculous.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: themessenger7 @ 06/24/2009 5:30:52 PM
First of all, we will ALL be judged...And who am I to tell someone they are going to hell? It is up to that person to choose where they go or not...The days are coming where you will either have to choose God or evil...There will be no "in the middle" anymore.. SO many things are happening around the world that has been prophesied in the Bible...I believe very soon Jesus will come for His children and the other will be left behind...Even then He gives people another chance....I will pray for you whoever you are...
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/06/2009 2:30:23 PM
Very well said.
-
-
-
Posted By: saffron @ 06/24/2009 2:18:09 PM
My dear, it is called non-belief you know... And I agree someday very soon, you will stand Before God and it would be too late to recant
-
Posted By: mladyd @ 06/24/2009 2:44:06 PM
::said in the smarmiest voice possilble::.....right?
-
Posted By: grilledcheeze @ 06/24/2009 2:32:28 PM
Nope, not gonna happen. Ever. Don't need to live my life in unfounded fear - neither do you. Upon realizing this, living is soooooooo much less stressful.
-
-
Posted By: eddiemd @ 06/20/2009 11:27:14 PM
Calm down. Take your Prozac. It will make you feel better.
-
-
-
Posted By: dumb=dem @ 06/21/2009 6:50:17 PM
rpearlston, You obviously didny pay attention to anything i wrote so lets try this again shall we. I said that a chaplains job is to spread the word of god to anyone who CHOOSES to hear it. There is no one holding a gun to anyones head here forcing them to convert over to christianity . Besides in the end it is only known to that person and god whether or not they accepted him. Stop acting like the government has developed a top secret conspiracy to convert all soldiers to christianity. That is rediculious!!
-
Posted By: Momwoman @ 06/24/2009 1:19:45 PM
I don't think that anyoje would object to a person going to a chaplin, looking for guidence, and being told "This is what I believe", or "This has brought me personally great comfort." What we are objecting to here is someone going to a chaplin, looking for guidence, and being told "Well, it's obvious that you are messed up because your family are all Satinists, and you are going to hell."
-
Posted By: analyticalguy @ 06/24/2009 2:12:47 PM
You are wrong. What we are objecting to is NOT people going to a chaplain, but rather a chaplain going to people (those already in the service, and ESPCECAILLY those not in the service) and attempting to convert them. We are objecting to spending federal tax dollars to evangelize. We are objecting to uniformed officers of the US military being the face of misisonary work in foreighn countries (and also in this country). Some are objecting to having any chaplains in the armed forces at all, but others of us are not. Even among our service personnel, I do not want a chalain to be advocating one religion or branch of religion over another, or demeaning any of our fine service personnel for their religious belief (or non-belief). I myself would not want to see the chaplaincy eliminated, but if those clergy who either are or want to be chaplains cannot abide by the rules, then I don't want them in our military and would reluctantly live with having too few chaplains or none.
Let the clergy who must evangelize stay the heck out of the military and become misisonaries.
And let me say once more, that I am writingall this as a practicing CHRISTIAN. I believe fervently that intermingling religion and government is bad for BOTH.-
Posted By: Baroo @ 06/24/2009 3:40:02 PM
I couldn't agree more! So well said. This sums up my views on this story perfectly. And, I am not a practicing Christian.
See, we 'can' agree.-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/03/2009 12:43:45 PM
..."And the world loves it's own"...
-
-
Posted By: dumb=dem @ 06/25/2009 7:58:17 AM
analyticalguy, If you are a practicing christian it is important to know that AS A CHRISTIAN God wants you to spread his word. It is sad that you feel the way you do about your chaplain christian brothers. Are you ashamed of God?But your the one thats gonna have to give God that lame excuse as to why you didnt witness to others . Im glad im not a fairwheather christian like you are.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/03/2009 12:42:02 PM
The last remark you just made, made you sound like a pharisee, hypocrite. "I'm glad "I" am not a Sinner like "he"is". "WE HAVE "ALL" FALLEN SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD". We are "ALL" sinners.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/24/2009 2:22:33 PM
"I said that a chaplains job is to spread the word of god to anyone who CHOOSES to hear it. "
And you were wrong. The job of a Chaplain is to minister to any soldiers who choose to seek such ministry. The job of a Chaplain is NOT to turn Afghanistan into a religious crusade to convert the heathen.-
Posted By: dumb=dem @ 06/25/2009 8:07:16 AM
george dorn, Your a genius. You just repeated what i said. MORON.
-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/25/2009 12:06:35 PM
Actually, I didn't repeat what you said. please attempt to read for content. Thanks.
-
-
-
Posted By: Onycho @ 06/24/2009 1:41:04 PM
Sorry but you are very wrong. The job of chaplains in the military are to minister to the religious and spiritual needs of US military personel and dependents ONLY. They are barred by standing order from preaching to and attempting to convert those not associated with the US military. They gave up the right to full freedom of speech when they swore their oath to the US Government.
-
Posted By: ehooch @ 06/24/2009 2:16:31 PM
It's HILARIOUS that you say when someone joins the military of the country that REPRESENTS liberty thereby FORFEITS liberty.
-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/24/2009 2:23:53 PM
You do not forfeit your rights when you join the military. Your rights are altered according to the UCMJ, but that is true for any military in the world. You cannot run a military by civil law. Is that what you are suggesting we do?
-
Posted By: analyticalguy @ 06/24/2009 6:28:01 PM
Agreed. It's not just military chaplains who give up some freedom in choosing the join the military (or even those who were drafted, for those of us who remember that). The degree of freedom in the military is far less in many areas than it is in civilian life. It's the necessary nature of the military. But it's not just in the military where this happens. Most of us cede some of our liberties in accepting jobs, even if only for the time actually on the job. If we choose on the job to say some of the things we are perfectly free to say off the job, or wear or do some of the things that we do off the job, we know we're going to be fired. So yes, chaplains (who all serve voluntarily) DO give up the freedom to do certain things they could freely do in civilian life.
-
-
-
Posted By: akjudoka @ 06/24/2009 5:17:56 PM
I think the point of the article was that they were exceeding the bounds of these orders and those who were supposed to be overseeing them were not holding them in check.
-
-
Posted By: saffron @ 06/24/2009 2:16:37 PM
I think you are the aggressor her dear. And sad to say, the arrogant one.. If you hate America, that is alright.. Just be happy where you are...
-
-
Posted By: tallulah13 @ 06/24/2009 3:29:52 PM
Read a history book. A real one, not one written by your church. Many of the Founding Fathers were not christians. They were Deists, believing in personal morality instead of the contradictory words of a book with several authors.. Many of the biblical ideas are common to all civilizations. Most laws are common sense, i.e. don't kill, don't steal. The separation of chuch and state was put in place to prevent ever having a state religion that would take the rights of non-believers. History has proven that you can't trust a religion with secular powers. If you want to be a christian, that's fine by me (and fine by the laws of this country), but you don't have permission to force your belief on anyone else. That's the strength of this nation.
-
Posted By: dumb=dem @ 06/21/2009 6:37:27 PM
-
Posted By: dumb=dem @ 06/20/2009 11:32:19 PM
-
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/25/2009 1:16:26 PM
Oh forgot to add: If the chaplains are trying to "share" their faith by preaching or attempting to convert while in their official role as a member of the US military then yes indeed they should be stopped. In that context they are acting with the full legal authority of the government behind them and are in effect establishing a religion. It is unconstitutional and illegal. I suspect though that it may not be as prevalent as the article implies. But if it is it poses a serious problem.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 1:01:43 AM
Do you remember the TV show, MASH? Remember their catholic priest, "father"? Did you ever see him over-riding the authority of his superiors? NO. Chaplains in the military have a role in the armed services. To provide for spiritual aide when it is needed. Would you like to be dying in a war by yourself, with no family members or your friends? Do you want to die alone? In your last minute, God can be with you, or, as most of these people are suggesting, what does it matter?
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/04/2009 1:47:01 AM
Chaplains fulfilling their appropriate role is not the issue. The issue is those that violate the rules set forth by the constitution and by the military. And what does a fictional character from a tv show have to do with real life? Are you actually suggesting that all chaplains behave exactly like he did? You never saw him behaving anything like what these chaplains have been accussed of.
-
-
-
Posted By: kmnla @ 06/24/2009 12:50:35 PM
The separation of church and state is a pillar of our democracy and I daresay our democracy might have failed at several points in our history without it. Everyone is free to worship here, as far a I can tell - Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus. They jjust aren't free to run the government or the military.
On a separate point, I challenge you to identify exactly when and where President Obama said this was a Hindu or Muslim nation.-
Posted By: mrslind @ 06/24/2009 12:55:01 PM
-
Posted By: TheRev @ 06/27/2009 12:11:21 AM
Um, repeatedly since 2007? Read the news. Here is a link that references several occasions AND reveals the lies Obama tells in order to reference us as a non-Christian nation: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/05/obama%E2%80%99s-christian-muslim-double-standard-our-first-dhimmi-president/
-
-
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/25/2009 12:54:41 PM
No, we were not founded by Godly principles. The core and essential ideas shaping our government were not found in a Bible. They came from multiple sources. Ancient Greece and Rome, who were pagan by the way, from Enlightenment philosophy, even the Iroquois confederation played a significant role, and they were also pagan. http://www.america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2009/June/20090617110824wrybakcuh0.5986096.html
Of course Christianity was there in the mix as well, but you don't find the most defining of American ideals like self government and individulal rights and liberties in the Bible. If anything the Bible tends to encourage unquestioning obedience to authority. If the founding fathers had followed that thinking America as we know it most likely wouldn't exist. The "moral" laws such as against murder, theft, etc were around before Christianity and are really nothing more than common sense laws required to successfully maintain order in society. The seperation of Church and State provided by our constitution does protect the Church from the State, but it also protects the State and individuals from the Church. The State can not prevent anyone from practicing their religion. The Church has no legal authority and can not make laws regarding how anyone should worship or that require anyone to worship. This is what was intended. It's a brilliant system and is the best way to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals. -
Posted By: hlgns763 @ 06/25/2009 11:57:08 AM
wrong, the seperation of church and state was to prevent religion from controlling the government. why do you think our founding fathers left europe?
because of religious prosecution. the roman catholic church was in charge in a very big way. -
Posted By: stafford.liz @ 06/25/2009 9:15:51 AM
Yes -- principles like liberty, peace, fairness, kindness, compassion and not using words like "moron" to describe a fellow child of God.
-
Posted By: BWS320 @ 06/24/2009 3:26:30 PM
Racom, It is not the Job of the Military Chaplain to spread the word of god. The job of the Military chaplain is to take care of the Service Members spiritual needs. They should be restricted from ???sharing??? their faith to people outside of those who seek their counsel. It would not serve any purpose to print bibles in Arabic to be distributed. muslims are just as devout and fanatical as christians are. If the world would give up religion, it would be a more tolerant and peaceful place to live???
-
Posted By: BWS320 @ 06/24/2009 3:24:36 PM
Racom, It is not the Job of the Military Chaplain to spread the word of god. The job of the Military chaplain is to take care of the Service Members spiritual needs. They should be restricted from ???sharing??? their faith to people outside of those who seek their counsel. It would not serve any purpose to print bibles in Arabic to be distributed. muslims are just as devout and fanatical as christians are. If the world would give up religion, it would be a more tolerant and peaceful place to live???
-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/24/2009 2:26:23 PM
"Our nation was founded on Godly principals"
No, our nation was founded on common law. Common law descended from Danelaw, which was invented by the Danes, who at the time were pagan. You will not find jury trials or the right to confront your accusers, for a couple of examples, anywhere in the bible. -
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 06/23/2009 4:05:17 PM
Chaplains should be restricted from sharing their faith. If they are proselytizing they are not doing their job. They are in the Army not to spread their faith, but to serve religious needs of soldiers. Thus they are there to comfort the soldiers in their daily life and in their final hour. Trying to convert others is not comforting. It is annoying and can be insulting. Each person finds his own source of spiritual comfort, be it Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, or listening to Marilyn Manson. It is a personal choice. So, if I chose Catholicism to comfort me there is a Catholic chaplain for that, if I prefer Marilyn Manson there is a CD player. Servicemen go through enough stress already, and don't have to be dealing with fanatical zealots trying to push their faith down the throats of others. And last thing we need is to piss off the local population because the evangelical freaks decided to tell them that whatever they hold dear is wrong, and that they need to be saved. Guys, the mission of our Army is much broader than just killing enemies. If this war is to be won, we have to win the hearts of the people. And telling them that faith of their forefathers is wrong and need to be changed is not helping at all. You wanna spread your faith? Do it outside military service. There many people in civil world who may need you. Preach to criminals, drug addicts, problem teens. Preach to those whose lives can be changed for better if they decide to follow your faith. Preach to those who need it. And leave the Army alone.
-
Posted By: Onycho @ 06/24/2009 1:43:42 PM
Exactly. Well said. Anyone that believes that the Army should be a christian conversion machine on a crusade against the evil muslims should be barred from being anywhere near the military.
-
-
Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/22/2009 2:29:48 PM
" It is sad to see that reversed stating that the church cannot have a voice anywhere but in a church building."
Why? Uday confused. Is okay for Mormon Church to tell you how is to pray? Or is only your church for giving orders?
-
-
Posted By: Suziq1591 @ 06/19/2009 7:36:18 PM
One reason that christians want to tell people about God and the bible is because they want everyone to have the peace that they have. Obviously atheism has nothing whatsoever to offer people. Does your believe that there is no God deliver you from drugs give you the peace that passes all understanding, help you in time of need. etc. and yes there still is bad things that happen to good people, but I believe that if you give your heart to God he will help you thru those bad times.,
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 06/19/2009 7:39:50 PM
I'm sure that every Muslim, Jew, or Buddhist can tell you that he has peace thanks to his religion. So as a Muslim I don't get how the feeling of peace because one is Christian is different from the feeling of peace because one is Muslim or Jew.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/07/2009 8:23:33 AM
If they have peace, why do they blow themself up? Marital troubles?
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 07/07/2009 11:24:26 AM
Not all of them blow themselves up, it's only the extremists. If Christians have so much peace why do they bomb abortion clinics and commit murder? If you as a Christian have so much peace why are you causing strife by not avoiding "foolish and ignorant disputes?"
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/08/2009 2:20:48 PM
""""if Christians have so much peace, why do they blow up clinics and commit murder?""""" That's like saying, If everyone lives in the south, Why,,,,,, are they all racists?
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/08/2009 3:50:03 AM
It's "the extremists" that like blowing things up remember?! I'm done arguing withyou infidels. Time to find a discussion page with someone who has an IQ high enough to "tip the scale". Good -bye.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/08/2009 3:37:28 AM
Beside, "not all of us blow up clinics or commit murder". It's "only the extremists". I'm done arguing with you ignoramaces. Good-bye. Time to find a page with someone who does'nt have the IQ of an infadel.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/08/2009 3:28:20 AM
Because foolish and ignorant people like you keep asking.
-
-
-
Posted By: Suziq1591 @ 06/19/2009 7:50:20 PM
Then why dont you try all of those religions and find out which one you like the best. And btw the bible says that nothing can seperate us from the love of God, I do not serve God because of anything good or bad that people do to me. I just thought I would throw that in because a lot of people use the excuse of too many hypocrites in church, but who are you serving , them or God.? And just for the record I do feel that Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life, but like I said choose which one you want, have a nice evening.
-
Posted By: PLSzymeczek @ 06/20/2009 1:23:48 AM
I serve reality.
-
Posted By: whizzkid43 @ 06/20/2009 1:56:20 PM
And reality is?
-
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 06/19/2009 8:34:58 PM
I already picked what's best for me. And with all due respect, it is not Christianity.
-
-
-
Posted By: ATL_NewsWeak @ 06/20/2009 7:37:45 AM
there are other ways to find peace than through religion. i find peace through massage, meditation, thinking good thoughts, being thankful for the good things about my life, spending quality time with friends and family. i am not a religious person. i have mixed feelings about it. i find it hard to believe some of the stories in the bible and often wonder if there is a god, why is there so much evil in the world if he/she is as powerful as most so-called christians purport. i have a facebook page and it is incredible how much my "christian" friends and associates try and shove it down everyone's throat. it gets a bit much. i have to hit "ignore" on some of them so i don't have to read their daily devotionals. if i want to hear that kind of thing, i can go to a church. being from the south, there is a church on every corner. in atlanta, there is a church and a strip club on every corner. please do not go around telling people that religion is the only thing that brings peace. it is not. if reading the bible brings some joy to some of the soldiers or gives them something to hold on to in such a terrible place to be, i don't have a problem with them being available. i would also like to think there are plenty of other things available to help as well but i really don't know since i'm not in their shoes. have a blessed day (just kidding)! have a peaceful day, no matter how you find it! :)
-
Posted By: PLSzymeczek @ 06/20/2009 1:40:43 AM
Are you crazed?
-
Posted By: coraltown @ 06/19/2009 8:33:12 PM
it doesn't seem to be helping you much
-
Posted By: cozmiccowgirl @ 06/19/2009 8:20:49 PM
Yeah, but god doesn't dawdle in the comfort zone for "god-fearing christians". Y'all have no business trying to foist your beliefs on other folks who have their own beliefs. I can't imagine why you would think that your religion is any better than someone else's. And yes, I was raised a very conservative baptist. When I grew up, I finally saw the light, and it had nothing to do with a bible or church. What works for you has nothing to do with what might work for someone else, so keep your beliefs to yourself and enjoy them privately.
-
-
Posted By: phxboy76 @ 06/24/2009 12:59:40 PM
GO throw your bible garbage elsewhere. Why do you religious freaks feel the need to shove your stupid bible down everyone's throats? Freaking sick how you think it is right and just. If they WANT God, they will find him themselves on their own. No need for additional help by all you religious freaks shoving your bible it into their hands and your stupid ideas in their heads. Especially no need to add a freaking bible wing to our Army, what a joke our country has become. Get a life and mind your own business.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/07/2009 7:54:48 AM
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach if they are not sent? As it is written..."How beautiful are the feet of those who preach The Gospel Of Peace, who bring glad tidings of good things. (Romans 10:14,15)
-
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 07/06/2009 1:09:36 PM
Christian Heritage.... Interesting
http://www.intouch.org/site/c.cnKBIPNuEoG/b.4945473/k.BE35/Home.htm
-
Posted By: misskaren @ 07/05/2009 7:05:02 PM
There is something very frightening about this, especially the battles between Christians (Catholic vs. evangelical, for instance) and the anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim undertone (sometimes overtone). The military brass has got to handle this before they get soldiers killed for proselytizing It's not good for soldiers, either, pitting one against the other in the search for religious "purity.".
-
Posted By: danielgray1983 @ 06/24/2009 2:14:37 PM
NasTN8...
Thank you for an incredibly shallow and immature post. The girl you speak of, as well as yourself and everyone around you sin every day. The difference is, she and fellow Christians turn to God to help make them a better person.
I grew up atheist and found it to be a much easier life to lead. When you turn to God, life becomes much more demanding, yet much more fulfilling. I pray that you will find evidence of Him in your life one day.-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 5:05:10 PM
Very Good reply.
-
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/03/2009 6:39:01 PM
Dear newmexicogirl. What you wrote is entirely incorrect. First of all, you said that "formerly Muslims had hundreds of gods". This is wrong, because the main idea of Muhammad's (PBUH) teaching was monotheism. So, the right way to say this would be "formerly Arabs had hundreds of gods". Thus, those who accepted belief in one God as preached by Muhammad (PBUH), and rejected polytheism and idolatry were called Muslims. So, Muslims were the people who abandoned the pagan religion of Arabs and began worshiping one God. Secondly, you stated that ???He choose the moon god (i.e., moon and star crest on the flag) and named that moon god "Allah" (The God)???. This is also entirely incorrect. The only reason a false prophet would pick an existing pagan deity as a god of his religion is to make his faith more acceptable to pagans around him. But if Muhammad (PBUH) did pick a moon-god why would he change his attributes, his function, and his name? Moon-god is a moon-god and thus is limited, for as all pagan gods he supervises only a particular star, planet or an aspect of life. Allah in Islam is an all powerful being and is not limited by a particular space or function. So, since Allah???s attributes and functions are entirely different from a moon-god, and since His name if different from that of a moon-god, it makes Him an entirely different God. Changing the functions and the name of a pagan god and a ban on worshipping an idol of that deity successfully turns him into a different god and defeats the whole purpose of picking him in order to make a particular religion more acceptable. So, that proves that the ???moon-god??? story is a lie. Muhammad (PBUH) did not pick a pagan deity. Instead he called Arabs to return to the religion of their forefather Abraham, and worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This is mentioned in the Qur???an on numerous occasions. In fact, Allah is a name that followers of all three Abrahamic religions in the Middle East (except Israel) use. Jews in Yemen, Morocco and Tunisia called Him Allah. Arabic Christians use Allah al-???ab (God the Father), Allah al-ibn (God the Son), Allah al-ruh al-quds (God the Holy Spirit) and they used it before Muhammad (PBUH) was even born. You also mentioned that moon and star crest on the flag proves that Allah is a moon-god. Actually moon and star crest on the flag was first used by Turks in 12th century, 500 years after Muhammad???s death.
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/03/2009 6:42:03 PM
After that you mentioned that ???God made it clear at that time that the two nations would forever be at war with each other - as we see clearly today, and throughout history.??? referring to a conflict between Israel and Arabs. This is also incorrect, for the present conflict is a little over 50 years old, and began with the creation of the state of Israel in the occupied territories in the late 1940???s. Before that there was a clash between Muhammad (PBUH) and the Jews of Medina back in 600th. But, there were not major conflicts in between. In fact, there was no such nation as Israel existing during the entire history of Islam until the 20th century. So, your statement about two nations fighting each other throughout history is also false. In fact Jews fled to Muslim lands from Christian Europe, because in Islamic world they could freely practice their religion, and so could Christians, meanwhile in Europe they would be constantly persecuted and forced to convert. Thus, when in Christian Europe Jews were being killed and burned at stake, in Muslim Spain and Ottoman Empire many Jews became ministers, royal advisors, and even warlords.
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/03/2009 7:15:33 PM
Dear bojack27, you are also wrong. You mentioned ???Now I???m glad that you pointed out that Mohammed said that not only Christians but Jews had gone off track. Because nowhere do you see Jesus doing away with any scriptures that were apart of Judaism. Jesus expounded upon them and quoted them regularly. Mohammed rejected the scriptures and uses this replacement theology by saying that the Angel gave the wrong message.??? The reason Muhammad said that Jews had gone off track is because when God sent them their promised Messiah they rejected him and tried to kill him, and reject him to this day. And most importantly, they created a Talmudic Judaism, which is farther from the faith of Abraham than Christianity and Islam. Technically Talmudic Judaism is a reformed version of what the Jews were following after Moses. And reformed means different. For example, according to Talmudic Judaism in the afterlife the sinners will be burned only for a set period of time. Thus, there is no hell, only purgatory. That is contrary to Christianity and Islam. I am not going to discuss all details in which our faiths differ, but they do differ, and most importantly Judaism of today is different from the faith of Abraham and is different from the faith of Moses and those after him. The reason Muhamad said that Christians had gone off track is because even though they accepted the Messiah, they turned him into God. They invented the concept of Trinity, and many other aspects that defeat the main idea of monotheism. And we have to remember that the concept of Trinity was not a universally accepted concept until emperor Constantine (who by the way was a pagan and died a pagan) and his buddies made it the only official form of Christianity. They also edited the Bible. So, how can I accept the book as a word of God if it has been edited by a pagan ruler, consists of two parts that contradict each other, and the second part of which contradicts itself? You also mentioned that Muhammad (PBUH) said that the Angel delivered the wrong message. This is not true. Muhammad (PBUH) taught that humans changed the message, not that it was delivered wrong.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/03/2009 8:57:16 PM
ANY RELIGION THAT DENOUNCES JESUS CHRIST AS THE ONLY WAY TO GOD IS BLASPHEMY. JESUS SAYS "I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE. NO ONE CAN GO TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME". (JOHN 14:6)
I hear all you people running your mouth but none of you are quoting anything out of your little religious "books" as "your" god wants it to be said. The "only" ones who have quoted any scriptures are Christians. If your "little god" is so powerful, don't you believe he wants you quoting his word? But all I hear is jibberish. Jesus said, "If you had known me, you would have known My Father also". (John 14:7.) AND "If you love me, keep my commandments".
(John 14:15) AND "If the world hates you, you know that it hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love it's own. Yet, becaues you are not of the world, BUT I CHOSE YOU OUT OF THE WORLD, therefore, the world hates you. (John 15:18,19) Those are all quoted out of The Holy Bible. The Words of Jesus Himself. Don't like it? Touchee for da puddytat. READ (REVELATION 19:11-16) Do you people really think Christians are going to bow down and renounce our task of preaching HIS WORD when HE (Jesus Christ) is going to judge us? You have no room to ride. (the word blaspheme means "to speak evil of" by the way) So either quote scriptures from your little books and let your god's power be spoken. (which idols have no power) or stop jibber jabbin.
"AND BEHOLD, I AM COMING QUICKLY, AND MY REWARD IS WITH ME, TO GIVE TO EVERYONE ACCORDING TO HIS WORK. I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA, THE BEGINNING AND THE END, THE FIRST AND THE LAST". (REVELATION 22:12,13) SURELY, I AM COMING QUICKLY, (LOVE JESUS) REVELATION 22:20-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/03/2009 11:46:44 PM
Your problem is that you think that you are being hated. I don't hate you. I did not express hatred towards you or Christianity. In fact, in my post that you replied to I was responding to incorrect information about my religion posted earlier by two evangelicals. In response, not only you did not prove me wrong but insulted me, my religion, and whatever I hold dear. And since you insulted my God, know that you insulted your God, for my God is God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as Qur'an teaches me. And I have all rights to quote the Bible, because the Old Testament and the New Testament are considered sacred texts in Islam, even though they were altered. So, even knowing that Bible was changed by humans, I don't call it a "little book". So, out of us two you are the hater. You were the first to insult me. You called me a name in one of your previous posts, simply because you were pissed about the fact that not everyone considers your religion logical. And, whether you like it or not, position of a chaplain in the army is equal to the one of a cook or a plumber. He is there to provide services. Period. He is not there to spread his faith. No matter what his faith is. So, if he thinks that ban on spreading his faith is violation his rights as a Christian he should be kicked out of the army because he is a service provider. Just like a janitor. Or a baker.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 4:58:05 PM
But as far as your remark of being equal to a baker and plumber, The Chaplain will be held at a higher level of accountability "TO GOD" than either of those. In God's eyes, The Chaplain who speaks The Truth of Jesus Christ, He is the most needed on the field. To keep others protected. Once God has a man after His heart, and he obeys Him with ALL his heart, That man's prayers are answered. And God watches over him. I'm not starting a war with you, I'm only speaking God's Word.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/04/2009 4:10:22 PM
Mr. QoziKalon, sorry but all I spoke was The Truth out of The Holy Bible and I will continue to do so! You say your quran has been altered? "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone add to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book, and if anyone take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book Of Life, from the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this book. (REV. 22:18,19) I am a believer of The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as it is written in The Holy Bible. And ALL those SCRIPTURES point to Jesus Christ. As a Christian, I "STAND FIRM IN THE FAITH knowing it is "ONLY" through Jesus Christ's LIFE, DEATH AND RESURRECTION, can we obtain a life with relationship to God. Christian "FAITH' is not a "logical religion". It is a lifestyle. It is how we choose to obey God's Word and let Jesus Christ live HIS LIFE "through us". Jesus has commands He wants us to be obedient to and one of them is......"I charge you therefore before God and The Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His Appearing and His Kingdom; Preach The Word! Be ready "in" season and "out" of season. Convince, REBUKE, and Exhort with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers, and they will turn their ears from The Truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in ALL things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, FULFILL YOUR MINISTRY. (2nd Tim. 4:1-5) I wil tell you what God wants me to say no matter who you are. As far as your tiddly tattin around whith excuses, "I" did'nt prove you wrong. God's Word proved you wrong. I just carried out HIS Message. The Sword Has Been Drawn.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: IndianDP @ 07/04/2009 2:03:16 PM
The collective intelligence of human race, from its inception till its demise, cannot figure out the truth about creation.
Ones irrefutable claim of discovery of a single path to nirvana/salvation adds yet another parameter to human ignorance.
Vedas and Gita make it amply clear that there are multiple paths to reach brahma, the supreme power. Hence force and coercion has no role in religion.
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/02/2009 1:58:56 PM
You can quote the Bible all you want, it still won't make a reasonable person believe in it. The book contradicts itself. Old Testament tells us one thing, and the New Testament turns around and tells us another. Jesus tells a guy who asks him how to achieve salvation to follow the Commandments, and Paul turns around says that the laws are a curse and we are saved by belief in Jesus alone. Here's an example. Please compare this: Romans 4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
And this: James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Matthew 9:16-17 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
As you can see, the New Testament itself gives us two instructions on how to be saved, and both instructions contradict each other. On one hand Paul tells us that no one will be saved based on his works, and on the other hand James, Mathew and Jesus himself tell us to follow the commandments in order to be saved. No Christian preacher I asked this question could give me a reasonable answer that I would understand. How am I supposed to accept this book as a word of God? As far as you guys saying that chaplains have a right to be saving people from Hell. Many other faiths have a concept of hell, and most people are perfectly happy with the concept and idea of salvation they are used to. Islam has a concept of hell, so a Muslim who follows his faith believes that he is following a strategy that will save him from hell. So, it is really hard to convince me that the strategy I'm following is wrong by offering me a different strategy that is based on a book that contradicts itself. I might as well stick to what I've been following.
-
Posted By: Aden Zydo @ 06/19/2009 6:16:44 PM
This article lost all credibility with me as soon as the author referred to the Bush Administration???s ???legacy of militant Christian rhetoric.??? This perception is one of the biggest conspiratorial lies emanating from the far left during the Bush years (I'm a centrist Independent, by the way). The fact that Ms. Joyce has been allowed by her editors to vomit conspiratorial far-left propaganda into the content of their publication as if it were fact indicates either editorial laziness or blatent revisionist bias. The one-time use of the word "crusade" in the context of The War on Terror by Bush was poor judgment. It, unfortunately, gave some people on the far left some tinder for THEM to create a bonfire of false perception. Over the duration of the Bush Administration's ongoing discourse of this conflict, there was no underlying theme of "militant Christianity" whatsoever. To try to pass that off as if it is some kind of widely understood "truth" is irresponsible journalism to say the least.
-
Posted By: rpearlston @ 06/19/2009 11:44:04 PM
Where were you for the last 8 years?
-
Posted By: Zydo @ 06/20/2009 12:49:47 AM
Where was I for the last 8 years? I was paying attention and thinking for myself rather than buying into the enormous myopia of leftist conjecture and hearsay. Look, my opinion stated above isn't about my religion. I consider myself agnostic. George Bush is a man of Christian faith, and his faith certainly played a role in his conduct as president. At times he spoke about his faith. Guess what? You can say the same thing about Obama or just about any other US president in history. This does not equate to "militant Christian rhetoric," and the author's suggestion of that as if it were a generally accepted fact is horribly misleading, and is a perpetuation of leftist grass-roots propaganda.
-
Posted By: leahT @ 06/30/2009 7:21:51 PM
im sorry but you cant call BUSH a christian, because if he was a real christian then he wouldnt have send all those soldiers to die.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/01/2009 1:40:27 AM
I heard President Bush one night during the National Day of Prayer and, I noticed that what he was saying sounded biblically correct, (to a point) except one thing. He never mentioned the name of Jesus or the Christian faith. Demons do not like hearing the name of Jesus and people do not like hearing the name of Jesus. It's OK to speak of God, but when Jesus is heard, people cringe. A Christian is one who follows and obeys Jesus out of love for Him. A Christian is not ashamed to say who their "commanding officer" is. As an American, I can say with honor who our Nation's President is. As a Christian, I can say with honor who my God is. Jesus. But when I see our leaders say they are Christian, but what they do goes against what the Christian faith says, it tells me they secretly are not. Bush should never have tortured anyone. He helped the rich get richer, and now this country is in a downfall. President Obama is a professing Christian but he won't lend a hand to help the Iranians gain their democracy, but he's appalled that the Hondurans "took" theirs from dictatorship. Neither Bush, or Obama are Christian. "You can tell a tree by it's fruit. Good trees cannot bear bad fruit. Bad trees cannot bear good fruit". When someone claims to be Christian, accept them, but observe what they say and watch how they live their lives. "There are wolves in sheeps clothing". If they don't match up to what The Bible says about Christian faith, take note of it and be careful. Pray On.
-
Posted By: QoziKalon @ 07/02/2009 1:52:37 PM
That's because the President was speaking to all Americans, and not just Christians. It has nothing to do with demons. It's just common sense. It shows respect to all citizens, regardless of their faith. It's actually really simple, if you look at it in a rational way.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: eddiemd @ 06/19/2009 11:58:10 PM
the real question where were you? Have you served in the military? Any family members serving?
Let's get rid of all the beleivers in the military. Throw them out for their beliefs. That is the American way, right.
How about a draft so everyone can pitch in and defend the country? Do you have a problem with that?
-
-
Posted By: eddiemd @ 06/19/2009 11:46:48 PM
Agree in full.
Newsweek should be ashamed that it published such an article. But this is what is expected from major media outlets such as Newsweek.
It is propaganda pure and simple.
-
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/02/2009 12:57:25 AM
How would you folks like it if these headlines were asking... THE POPE, SHOULD AMERICA ALLOW HIM IN?
-
Posted By: Boka @ 06/21/2009 11:14:47 AM
Religion is gay. The Army is gay. The USA is gay. Think for yourself. Don't use a flag,book or institution to tell you how to live.
-
Posted By: dumb=dem @ 07/01/2009 8:08:12 AM
Boka , You just need to move out of the country.
-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 07/01/2009 1:59:23 AM
In other words, don't let a flag, book or institution protect you when your life is being threatened. Or endangered. I can see you don't have "ANY" respect or appreciation for your freedom. You're the type who would tell a newborn baby to go to the icebox and get your own milk. You don't want to feed him. You don't want to guide him. If a pack of dogs attacked him, you would'nt protect him. If you're gay, I THANK GOD you're not leading this country.
-
Posted By: leahT @ 06/30/2009 7:35:27 PM
Ya run around like a chicken with its head cut off! ya....................not.
-
Posted By: Logicitout @ 06/21/2009 12:24:02 PM
When you think for yourself, do you ever use information taught by others such as teachers ?
Of course you do ! Jesus is my Teacher.
-
-
Posted By: edsuth @ 06/19/2009 9:34:11 PM
If any of you who "despise religion" took time to develop a "relationship"with the true and living Godthrough accepting salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ, you would have a better outlook on life and your purpose here on Earth. You prefer, however, to indulge your arguably limited human intellect...which only will bring you to ultimate ruin.There is no such thing as a dead atheist...every knee will bow and every tongue will confess He is God. So, choose wisely! Read John3:16 or Acts 4:12...Whatever you decide,it is ultimately your choice, to live, or to perish. God gives us all free will, to choose. Let me choose Him in the same as I allow you not to choose Him. Unfortunately, many of you still in rebellion to God will remain that way until the very end. Very sad!
-
Posted By: rpearlston @ 06/20/2009 12:41:43 AM
Please, take your garbage somewhere else. It doesn't belong her and it doesn't belong in any discussion of anything. I don't want to continue to be insultged by you and others of your ilk for simply believing differently than do you.
-
Posted By: leahT @ 06/30/2009 7:23:59 PM
there not insulting, there just saying there belifs like you are too.
-
-
-
Posted By: IndianDP @ 06/30/2009 5:51:50 PM
BOJACK27
If I have understood your question right and if only no pun was intended then let me quickly explain.
The top lines is a weblink, copy and paste it on the web address space and go to download a real story a woman poured out that very much moved me. The last sentence-Again, open google and type in-FAULTLINE,RELIGION, in order to see a plethora of articles on religion influencing US army in the contemporary setting. THE 2 PARAGRAPHS IN BETWEEN ARE CUT AND PASTED FROM HER STORY.
Yes, you have to explore the above weblinks in order to fathom the dangerous trends engulfing a secular wing of the government.
-
Posted By: thearch @ 06/28/2009 10:02:05 PM
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/43942
??????????????????????????????..Anyways, this commander of his called me often, telling me that "if you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, then things will go better for (husband's name withheld)." He went to the brig-- yes, the judge sent a (rank withheld) to the brig for 45 days--and then asked to pray over my husband, telling him if he just confessed his "sins" to "Jesus Christ" then he would find things getting better for him. Of course (husband's name withheld) gave his commander permission to pray over him as he was terrified to say no: because we believe all of this stemmed from my husband's stance on the illegality of evangelical proselytising in the (service branch name withheld).
I shudder to think of what they could do when they find out I wrote to you. I am a professional woman, an educated woman, and I know they could try to ruin me for speaking to you.
>>
>> I am crying writing this. I am scared of these people, and I know that they will try to do something else. I was told by my husband's commander that I should attend his church. I wonder if because we did not they are "punishing" my husband now by slow leaking his retirement. What does it mean "things will get better for your husband"?.......................
READ *FAULTLINES* google it- to see shocking changes overpowering the otherwise great american life-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 06/29/2009 12:29:31 PM
What kind of nonsense are you posting?
-
Posted By: IndianDP @ 06/30/2009 5:50:22 PM
BOJACK27
If I have understood your question right and if only no pun was intended then let me quickly explain.
The top lines is a weblink, copy and paste it on the web address space and go to download a real story a woman poured out that very much moved me. The last sentence-Again, open google and type in-FAULTLINE,RELIGION, in order to see a plethora of articles on religion influencing US army in the contemporary setting. THE 2 PARAGRAPHS IN BETWEEN ARE CUT AND PASTED FROM HER STORY.
Yes, you have to explore the above weblinks in order to fathom the dangerous trends engulfing a secular wing of the government.
-
-
-
Posted By: punskies @ 06/24/2009 3:02:47 PM
I THINK IT IS AN EXCELLENT IDEA FOR THE CHAPLAINS TO USE THE ARMED FORCES TO SPREAD THE WORD THEY ARE TRYING TO HELP SOULS FROM SPENDING ETERNITY IN A PLACE WHICH REALLY EXSISTS AND THAT IS HELL. IF YOU ARE NOT SAVED THEN THAT IS WHERE YOU WILL BE SPENDING ETERNITY. IN HELL A PLACE OF WHALING AND NASHING OF TEETH AND HURTLING SCREAMS FROM PEOPLE THAT REFUSED TO BELIEVE IN GOD.
-
Posted By: leahT @ 06/25/2009 2:39:43 PM
God is peace and love even for those who do not believe in him. Those people will just not live iternal life.
-
Posted By: TheRev @ 06/28/2009 9:29:52 AM
So I can murder children and not burn in hell? Thanks! I love feminized limp wristed Love-Gods! Thanks.
-
Posted By: leahT @ 06/30/2009 4:13:00 PM
God will have his day. thats the day that people like you who dont take things serious will just not have iternal life. Jesus his son will be his fighting soldier in other words. And that day, You should be scared.
-
-
-
Posted By: shinystar0525 @ 06/29/2009 6:12:44 PM
You all do realize that not all Chaplains are Christians I hope. Now the Chaplains from other faiths need to start converting the troops and those of the lands we occupy. Yes....Perfect....Then maybe the evangelicals will see a benefit to not using taxpayer money to advance a religious agenda. (Oh and before y'all attack, I have used the services of Chaplains for many reasons and found them helpful).
-
Posted By: thearch @ 06/25/2009 3:14:27 PM
you mean "my way or hellway"
Did god speak in latin or arabic or sanskrit -
Posted By: Jabberwock @ 06/24/2009 3:04:25 PM
WoW! God is pretty evil!
-
Posted By: Hisdudeness9500 @ 06/24/2009 3:06:42 PM
So God says "my way or hell", eh? It seems that the Ayatollah really has the right idea...
-
Posted By: eld0518 @ 06/24/2009 3:25:41 PM
Really, how ignorant huh? That God is all or nothing and that what some person's idea of hell is has become "the truth". I would love to be a fly on the wall when he/she dies.
-
Posted By: Jabberwock @ 06/24/2009 3:57:13 PM
Did you take a course in cryptic writing? Because I have no clue what you are saying or to whom it was directed.
-
Posted By: thearch @ 06/25/2009 3:12:36 PM
"my way or hellway" rhymes better.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/25/2009 3:04:44 PM
SAVE THE WHALES FROM HELL!!! THEY DON"T DESERVE TO BE THERE!!!
-
Posted By: funkyinthesouth @ 06/25/2009 2:53:58 PM
Wow they have whales in Hell? And it's not illegal to hunt them? Amazing. I didn't know that.
-
Posted By: Momwoman @ 06/24/2009 3:51:06 PM
And the fact that it's against the law means nothing?
-
Posted By: tallulah13 @ 06/24/2009 3:21:49 PM
Whaling? Are they hunting whales in hell? Go figure.
-
Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/24/2009 3:24:38 PM
Granite, but for all intensive porpoises, you knew what he meant. ;)
-
-
-
Posted By: lovedeedee @ 06/19/2009 3:38:52 PM
Religion has no place in the military. Period !
I just wish people would wake up and reject religion, all of them. That would be one less issue to deal with !
I am sick of religion zealots and their religion !-
Posted By: DonThBean @ 06/30/2009 3:17:23 AM
No place in the military? In The Bible, God was right there in the battle. If he would'nt have been, God's israeli people would not be here today. And neither would anybody else. Maybe you're the reason we're not out of iraq yet.
-
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
-
- Slate V: Reviews of: The Road, Ninja Assassin, and Old Dogs
- The Slatest: Thanksgiving Edition
- The case against Thanksgiving leftover recipes.
- Slate's Culture Gabfest on Bob Dylan's Christmas album, sprinter Caster Semenya, and the new documentary Le Danse.
- How the gun lobby groped its way into the health reform debate.
- The task is to restore our conservative bona fides James Bopp Jr. on a 10-pt GOP checklist NYT
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
- I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have to say. Holder on terror trialsREUT
Discuss