Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are blinded by your own lack of faith. Let me start with you last question, Define the Church: this is to easy, Where 2 or more are gathered in the name of Jesus is the definition of the Church.
The Pope is irrelevant.
You really need to examine the writings of Thomas Jefferson and not just the popular quotes of the non Christians.
Thank you for finally answering my question. Do you realize that the "Church" of England was a corrupt shadow of the true Church which the founders wished to promote. Read and study and someday you may know the truth.
Thanks for making a blind (and remarkably poor) assumption as to what I have and have not read. It makes you sound like an incredibly arrogant "town elder"-type figure.
And since I haven't made any reference to my faith at all, it's, again, extremely arrogant of you to assume a "lack of faith". Sensing a theme here?
Now, on to the actual debate....
Quote:
Where 2 or more are gathered in the name of Jesus is the definition of the Church.
Last time I checked, corrupt or not, the Church of England gathers in the name of Christ.
As for the words of the Pope....I'm pretty sure his church gathers in the name of Christ as well.
I realize the previous two facts are inconvenient to the argument you are trying to make. A follow-up question here might be: what is the criteria you are using in making a distinction between the "True Church" and everyone else? I only ask because you have already, as we can see, taken large sections of Christians and dismissed them as "irrelevant".
You must understand that promoting the "True Church" means suppressing all the heathens, pagans, etc. who disagree, yes? In your view, how does that square with the history of the Puritans and the reasons why they left Europe for the "New World"? Or are you taking the side that the Puritans thought religious persecution was ok as along as they were the ones doing the persecuting?
Finally, as for Jefferson, just because he believed in God doesn't mean he wanted his government to believe in God. This is the point so many here are trying to get you to see, yet you wish to ignore. You want to dismiss the "popular quotes of the non-Christians", yet you cannot deny that Jefferson wrote them. Quotes such as:
Quote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
For further reading, might I suggest the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which Jefferson wrote in full.
Now, you keep saying that the writings of the Founding Fathers don't support the idea of a full separation, yet you seem amazingly unwilling to provide actual examples, talking as though we should be trying to make your argument for you (e.g. we should "study more", etc.). A final question along these lines: Why shouldn't I believe Jefferson's own words on this issue?
Freedom of religion is gone. We now only have freedom from religion. The constitution gurarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Those people who are against religion have turned the words and made the freedom of religion something it was never meant to be. They are the hateful people, not Christians.
I think the issue here isn't freedom of religion, but freedom from religious extremism. I'm Christian and my church accepts gay people as they are, not considering something people don't choose to be a sin. But my church isn't out there pointing fingers and condemning the evangelicals/extremists and telling them they need to convert to Presbyterianism or go to hell. We're very live and let live. Evangelicals don't see it that way.
Did people hate Jesus when they asked to crucify until death? Yes? No? Explain.
All murder is hate. What needs to be explained?
Your question on Jesus is quite clear. They hated him. They could find no wrong in him. It is a repeated theme thruout the Bible. Of course you might think of his "blaspheme" as hate, but again if the power itself under Pilate could not condemn him then what else is left?
Pure Hate.
The hate crimes bill is nothing more than an attempt to silence those who do not support a progressive or more correctly liberal agenda. A person can be cast in jail or executed for murder across this country by state law. What does the federal government have to do with it? You see the people with the agenda are still failing at the state level to promote their agenda. Thus they attack it on a second front which is the federal level. They know they cant get it by the Constitution yet. So they sneak it in as a law we already have penalty for. Its called murder. The object is to make it socially acceptable in any form so that eventually it can be made Constitutionally acceptable. Make no mistake the hate crimes bill is an agenda driven bill not an issue of morality. Murder as defined by law already covers it for the poor soul who was murdered because of his sexual orientation.
There is no form of murder other than "Hate". Make no mistake the need for a hate crimes bill is more than just an attempt to protect morality. It is in effect the first step towards silencing anything which does not condone morality by any definition. The lack of ability to look beyond what it is will have dire reprocussions not for just Christians, but for the population in general.
Did you not know there are orginizations such as those who support sex with young boys or girls that are slowly trying to gain a foothold by this very idea?
Did you not know there are orginizations such as those who support sex with young boys or girls that are slowly trying to gain a foothold by this very idea?
You say that as though "supporting sex with young boys or girls" is a new fad that is just coming to light. It would seem, in fact, to be a very old idea, not just here but in many cultures and times.
You say that as though "supporting sex with young boys or girls" is a new fad that is just coming to light. It would seem, in fact, to be a very old idea, not just here but in many cultures and times.
What is the point of this statement? Is it now legal to do this? Or do you support it? Just because it is not a new idea does not make it right or moral. Take the time to give it thought and dive a little deeper. Or would you be happy if a man or woman took your 5 year old son and daughter and have sex with them? Again the core issue is morality.
Or do you feel children can make this decision on their own?
Let me give you a concept of morality.
"It is meet that the Hellenes should rule over the barbarian."
This statement has been around a long time too. It means the Greeks because of their philosophy felt it right to have everyone else has slaves. Many people point out the greatness of Greek democracy, but it in fact applied to a small minority of men only. So now because that thought has been around forever should we have slavery and remove women's rights?
Or the thoughts of Plato himself.
He felt that there should be a group of women who were merely used for the birthing of philosophers to be a ruling party in a general sense. That way no one would know who their father was. Now that this theory has been around forever we can just have a big house of wives every man can dip into. Would you support this because it is around?
Just because something has existed by man does not make it right or moral.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
