Skip to main content

Hi to my Forum Friends,

 

On the Religion Forum, a Liberal Christian Friend, who leans heavily toward legalism, posted an article written by a secular writer, on a very Liberal leaning web site:  

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2...eedom/#ixzz2cBAAxO6Q

 

The article begins:

 

Outside of the NRA’s sweeping surveillance program, the biggest encroachment of freedom would have to be in the arena of religion.  Not to make Michele Bachmann’s eyes go into overdrive, but our nation was founded not by Christians but Deists.  These were great men and products of The Enlightenment, thus men who did not believe the bible was true and relied on reason over faith.

 

And, my legalistic liberal Forum Friend posted the article verbatim starting with:  "Here are the top ten quotes from Thomas Jefferson on religious freedom: . . ."

 

I responded with:

 

So, my Friend, are you suggesting that we outlaw the Christian faith and all religions?   Or, are you suggesting that we only be allowed to practice our Christian faith in the privacy of our homes, or in dark caves, or hidden away so that no one can see us?   Is that the kind of Christian faith you practice and want all folks to practice?

 

How do you balance that with Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:8, and Mark 16:15 where Jesus Christ told all believers in the Great Commission, "Go, Make disciples, Baptize them, TEACH them. . . Be My witnesses in ALL the world"?   Should that be outlawed in the perfect America of your vision?

 

And, another Forum Friend tells me, "Bill, I'm not smart enough to see your point of view.  I thought Jefferson meant for government to stay away from and out of religion."

 

No, that is only the fallacy which has grown up, inspired by secularist, atheists, and liberals -- in an attempt to keep Christian influence out of American politics.

 

It all comes from a letter Jefferson wrote in response to letter from a group of Baptist pastors in Danbury, Connecticut.  They were concerned that their state was going to impose a state sponsored church, much like England did with their Anglican church -- and wrote to the president sharing their concern.

 

He responded that this cannot happen in America -- and he used a quote borrowed from another friend about "the separation of church and state" and linking that to the First Amendment wording.  In his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he wrote:

 

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

 

We read in the article "Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists" posted on the Heritage Foundation web site:    http://www.heritage.org/initia...the-danbury-baptists

 

In his brief response, President Jefferson sympathized with the Connecticut Baptists in their opposition to the state’s established religion, while expressing his reverence for the First Amendment’s “wall of separation between Church & State” at the federal level.  Jefferson was not advancing the modern view that religion must be excluded from the public square.  After all, he concludes his letter, written in his official capacity as President, with a brief prayer.

 

The now well-known expression lay dormant for nearly a century and a half untilSupreme Court Justice Hugo Black, in the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education, put forth the novel interpretation that the First Amendment’s establishment clauseapplied to the states and that any government support or preference for religion amounts to an unconstitutional establishment of religion.  In support of his argument for a radical separation of religion and politics, he cited Jefferson’s metaphor: “[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

 

Jefferson’s actual aim was quite to the contrary.  While he, along with James Madison, stoutly opposed established churches as existed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and other states (while recognizing that, as President, he had to respect them), he was deeply committed to religious liberty.

 

So, my Friend, neither Jefferson nor any of the founding fathers, with the possible exception of Thomas Paine who was enamored with the French idea of enlightenment bolstered by their revolution -- wanted to keep Christian influence out of America's political or public life.

 

As a matter of fact, in the early Washington DC, most of the federal buildings were used during the week for government work -- and on Sundays as houses of worship.  That is hardly the act of leadership which wants to ban Christian thinking from the halls of congress and leadership.

 

The so called "separation of church and state" appears in none of our founding documents, i.e., the Mayflower Compact *(1620), the Declaration of Independence (1776), Articles of Confederation (1778), U.S. Constitution (1787), The Bill of Rights (1791), Amendments to The Constitution, nor The Federalist Papers (All 85 of Them).

 

It was only found in a personal letter of support written from a sitting president to his constituents.

 

I pray this helps you better understand the fallacy of "separation of church and state."   And, I pray that you have the insight to realize that a government run by one idea only -- is a dangerous government.

 

The reason that our founding fathers established a three sided government:  Executive, Legislative, and Judicial -- was to give balance in the leadership of our nation.   A government run by only one of these would be a total disaster.

 

By the same token, a government run only by either secularist, or only by Christians -- would be a disaster.   We need the balance of secular thinking balanced by Christian influence in our government -- to give our nation the stability it needs to continue to me a mighty nation.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

1 - USA_Flag-Map_Cross-Hands_1f

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1 - USA_Flag-Map_Cross-Hands_1f
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Bill, one of the latest conflicts over church/state separation that I've seen was in Cullman. If you haven't read about it, a group calling itself the "Cullman County School Prayer Caravan" made the rounds of schools on August 10th. The FFRF had written letters in an attempt to stop it, but didn't show up to protest.

 

Now, how about next Saturday, a group of Satanists show up on county school property? Or a Santerian group killing chickens at each stop. How would you feel about that? You say it wouldn't happen? The Satanists have already arrived in Florida to pray in public at schools.

 

You just can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Kate Colombo:

 

Now, how about next Saturday, a group of Satanists show up on county school property? Or a Santerian group killing chickens at each stop. How would you feel about that? You say it wouldn't happen? The Satanists have already arrived in Florida to pray in public at schools.

 

You just can't have it both ways.

--------------

B-I-N-G-O

 

@BeeG:

The NRA's sweeping surveillance program? Really?

quote:  Originally Posted by Kate Colombo:

Bill, one of the latest conflicts over church/state separation that I've seen was in Cullman.  If you haven't read about it, a group calling itself the "Cullman County School Prayer Caravan" made the rounds of schools on August 10th.  The FFRF had written letters in an attempt to stop it, but didn't show up to protest.

 

Now, how about next Saturday, a group of Satanists show up on county school property?  Or a Santerian group killing chickens at each stop. How would you feel about that?  You say it wouldn't happen?  The Satanists have already arrived in Florida to pray in public at schools.

 

You just can't have it both ways.

Hi Kate,

 

Under the First Amendment, those groups have as much right to practice their religion as I have to practice my Christian faith.  Of course, the group killing animals might run into a problem with PETA.

 

First Amendment:  "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."

 

That is why the federal judge ruled that atheism is a religion and that prisoners being held in a prison have a right to practice their religion of atheism.

 

And, as for the Satanists praying in a public school -- not a problem, AS LONG as the teachers have the same right to explain God's view of Satanism to the students.

 

The problem is, Satanists, Muslims, secularist, atheists, or any other group, including gay rights activists, have the freedom to speak in schools and other public venues -- but, Christians are not allowed to speak about God in that same school.  Is that really fair?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

Muslims Praying At Pentagon

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Muslims Praying At Pentagon
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
 

 

That is why the federal judge ruled that atheism is a religion and that prisoners being held in a prison have a right to practice their religion of atheism.

 

And, as for the Satanists praying in a public school -- not a problem, AS LONG as the teachers have the same right to explain God's view of Satanism to the students.

 

The problem is, Satanists, Muslims, secularist, atheists, or any other group, including gay rights activists, have the freedom to speak in schools and other public venues -- but, Christians are not allowed to speak about God in that same school.  Is that really fair?

 

 

Muslims Praying At Pentagon

billie, do you think Christians only have the right to pray.

You lie about everything you post.

 

Read this about the Pentagon and stop ranting and raving. Grow up.

 

Amid flaring political debate about a proposed New York City mosque near Ground Zero, there has been little commotion about the Pentagon's chapel where Muslims can gather in daily prayer near where a hijacked jetliner struck the building Sept. 11, 2001.

Sometimes misidentified as the "Pentagon Mosque," the non-denominational Pentagon Memorial Chapel maintained by the Pentagon Chaplain's Office is where department employees who practice Islam can meet to pray.

Located at the site where the hijacked American Airlines flight 77 struck the Defense Department headquarters, the chapel honors the memory of the 184 victims of the 9/11 attack.

The 100-seat chapel is available to Pentagon employees of all faiths to come in prayer as they wish throughout the day. The Pentagon Chaplain's Office schedules weekly religious services in the chapel for Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Protestants and Episcopalians, as well as a daily Catholic Mass. Muslim worshippers can gather daily to offer prayers and can attend a Friday Prayer Service led by an Imam.

Army spokesman George Wright said he is unaware of any complaints about the Muslim services from either 9/11 families or anyone in the building. The Army serves as the executive agent for the Pentagon Chaplain's Office.

The Pentagon Chaplain's Office schedules the religious services because "the armed forces are dedicated to looking after all the needs of our servicemen and women, including their spiritual needs," Wright said.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...sh/story?id=11417673

 

Bill, 
Now that you have the TRUTH about what Muslims and those of other faiths can do at the Pentagon, you can cease referring to the Pentagon chapel as though it was provided exclusively as an arrangement for Muslims to practice their faith. Here is a link to the article INVICTUS cited:

 

 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...sh/story?id=11417673

 

OH! Wait!  That article is from ABC news, an organ of the mainstream media and thus is not eligible to be assigned credibility by those on the extreme right who reject the "lamestream media."  Or perhaps I should not imply that you are of that species.  Perhaps you do accept it as correct and wish to retract your earlier misconception.  Don't be bashful.  Let us know where you come down on this.

Hi Contendah,

 

Do you deny that the Obama administration has hamstrung Christian chaplains in the military -- telling them they cannot pray in the name of Jesus?   Do you deny that the VA forbid military funeral services to mention God and Jesus?

 

You can be GAY in the military -- but you cannot PRAY in the military!   Yeah Obama!

 

Would Obama place such restrictions upon his Muslim buddies and kinfolk?  Of course not.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Contendah,

 

Do you deny that the Obama administration has hamstrung Christian chaplains in the military -- telling them they cannot pray in the name of Jesus?   Do you deny that the VA forbid military funeral services to mention God and Jesus?

 

You can be GAY in the military -- but you cannot PRAY in the military!   Yeah Obama!

 

Would Obama place such restrictions upon his Muslim buddies and kinfolk?  Of course not.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

--------------------------------------

Where in the world are you getting this stuff... Please cite your source! No one in his/her right mind would believe such inane drivel. You are either captive of some extreme right wing wing nuts, totally insane, or throwing mud against the wall hoping it will stick. You cannot claim the be a Christian while demonstrating such racial bigotry and hatred for all things Democrat and for the Catholic Church. You are making a fool of yourself. Of course all of this belongs in politics, not religion and I can't even bring myself to believe I am even bothering to respond here. Nor can't I believe I am attempting to dialog with someone of your ilk... God, pease forgive me...

 

 

Bill, Obama hasn't done any such thing. You are so eat up with hate for him that you seem to forget that this has been a topic in the news for a long time. Even in the Bush administration. (shocker)

 

From 2005

http://www.washingtontimes.com...1224-6972r/?page=all

 

From 2007

http://www.wnd.com/2007/01/39655/

 

And now the truth

 

http://www.politifact.com/geor...mail-has-no-defense/

 

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/pol...plain-Prayer-Limits/

 

Hi Jan,

 

Do I hate Obama?  No, I can honestly say that there is no one that I hate.  However, I do hate what Obama has done and is doing to America and to Americans.  Only Obama could make Jimmy Carter look like a good president.

 

And, I am convinced that America will never recover until Obama and all the Ultra Liberals like him are out of office. 

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

1 - USA_Flag-Map_Cross-Hands_1f

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1 - USA_Flag-Map_Cross-Hands_1f
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Jan,

 

Do I hate Obama?  No, I can honestly say that there is no one that I hate.  However, I do hate what Obama has done and is doing to America and to Americans.  Only Obama could make Jimmy Carter look like a good president.

 

And, I am convinced that America will never recover until Obama and all the Ultra Liberals like him are out of office. 

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

1 - USA_Flag-Map_Cross-Hands_1f

*****************************************************************************

And now that you have made it clear that you do not hate the President, you can proceed to also make it clear that you rescind those  earlier asinine assertions you made that have been shown by Jankinonya to be false.  You really should make the effort to dissociate yourself from those claims, now that they have been classified in the "PANTS ON FIRE" CATEGORY! 

Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office.  Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice.  They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

 

That the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who mistakenly supposed it was there and, upon learning of their error, reckon they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

 

To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation--in those very words--of the founders' intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it.  Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision.  Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is simply wrong.

 

Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820).  Indeed, he understood the original Constitution--without the First Amendment--to separate religion and government.  He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts"), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

 

While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed") and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts.  In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

 

The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

 

Originally Posted by Dove of Peace:
You cannot claim the be a Christian while demonstrating such racial bigotry and hatred for all things Democrat and for the Catholic Church. You are making a fool of yourself.

_________

Yes, he can claim to be a Christian, he does it daily. And most of you believe him. That, within itself, blows my mind. Bill demonstrates bigotry and hatred for anyone that disagrees with him. As long as all of you give him an audience to preach his hate, he will. He is evil, thru & thru.

I thought you & V had Billy on block?

Originally Posted by Doug Indeap:

Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office.  Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice.  They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

 

That the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who mistakenly supposed it was there and, upon learning of their error, reckon they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

 

To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation--in those very words--of the founders' intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it.  Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision.  Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is simply wrong.

 

Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820).  Indeed, he understood the original Constitution--without the First Amendment--to separate religion and government.  He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts"), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

 

While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed") and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts.  In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

 

The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

 

______________________

 

 

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
Originally Posted by Dove of Peace:
You cannot claim the be a Christian while demonstrating such racial bigotry and hatred for all things Democrat and for the Catholic Church. You are making a fool of yourself.

_________

Yes, he can claim to be a Christian, he does it daily. And most of you believe him. That, within itself, blows my mind. Bill demonstrates bigotry and hatred for anyone that disagrees with him. As long as all of you give him an audience to preach his hate, he will. He is evil, thru & thru.

I thought you & V had Billy on block?

------------------------

I do but I pick up on some of his trash when it is quoted by others. Also, of course, any thread originated by him shows his initial post in full, even though one has him on block...

 

 

Hi Crusty,

 

My Friend, I feel for you.  It must be hard to always be on the outside, with little or no knowledge of the subject being discussed, and wanting so badly to be heard.   So, what do you do?  You pop in with silly numbers or with inane comments. 

 

Do you really crave attention that badly -- that you will jump into a pool which is way over your head?

 

A word of advise:  Find a good local Christ-centered, Bible-teaching Christian fellowship, get involved in their Bible study -- and after a while you will be able to discuss Christian issues with the big boys.  Then you can put away your silly comments and numbers -- and truly enjoy a civil dialogue.   I look forward to that day.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bible - Read Me

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Bible - Read Me
Originally Posted by Aeneas:
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

A word of advise:  Find a good local Christ-centered, Bible-teaching Christian fellowship, get involved in their Bible study -- and after a while you will be able to discuss Christian issues with the big boys.  Then you can put away your silly comments and numbers -- and truly enjoy a civil dialogue.   I look forward to that day.

Amusing, coming from a guy who preaches that a person can't go back from being saved, no matter how often they lie or steal (and still accuses others of belonging to a "feel-good church!")--but somehow the act of sodomy has consequences that extend backwards in time so the person was never saved to begin with.
Bible - Read Me

Now I see--that's pretty thin compared to the bibles I'm familiar with.  It's been edited down to what, one or two books?

 

quote: Originally Posted by Aeneas:
Now I see--that's pretty thin compared to the bibles I'm familiar with.  It's been edited down to what, one or two books?

Hi Aeneas,

 

Just curious, which Bible do you read?   But, to answer your question, the Bible I study has a full 66 books -- all of which are part of God's Written Word, His full revelation to man.

 

For my own personal Bible studies, I use the NASB.  But, often in my writing I will use the KJV or the NKJV if either better explains the point I am trying to share.  And, at times I will even use the NIV; although for serious Bible study it is deficient since it is a thought-for-though translation, instead of a word-for-word translation like the others I mention. 

 

But, I am curious, are you a Christian believer and which Bible do you prefer to study?

 

Also, I am curious -- how do you pronounce your posting name, and why did you choose that one?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

2 Timothy 3_16-17 - Bible Inspired By God

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 2 Timothy 3_16-17 - Bible Inspired By God
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Crusty,

 

My Friend, I feel for you.  It must be hard to always be on the outside, with little or no knowledge of the subject being discussed, and wanting so badly to be heard.   So, what do you do?  You pop in with silly numbers or with inane comments. 

 

Do you really crave attention that badly -- that you will jump into a pool which is way over your head?

 

A word of advise:  Find a good local Christ-centered, Bible-teaching Christian fellowship, get involved in their Bible study -- and after a while you will be able to discuss Christian issues with the big boys.  Then you can put away your silly comments and numbers -- and truly enjoy a civil dialogue.   I look forward to that day.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

___________________

Okay, back to the original topic.  Your take on Separation of Church and State: Balderdash. 

 

As I have pointed out, the number system was designed for your 12 topics which you repeat, over and over and over.  Use the system, save us all time.  Who is sillier: me trying to save us all time and trouble, or you posting the same drivel over and over and over and over ....(well you get the idea) until it becomes quite obvious that everything you post is just the same 12 things?

 

And here is a word of advice for you, Bill.  Get your own house in order before you worry about mine.  Paul says you've never been saved.  Might won't to start there first.  Then you might actually look for the message in the Bible - (hint: it ain't Jesus Loves Me, But Hates Your Guts).

 

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×