# The growing anti-religious movement



## seaweaver

I'm not a Christian, But I'm not scared of them either...but I see a growing trend of those who are. Many old friends (and still are) are propagating this fear on social media. I do not understand it, however I do see it as a detriment to society and the Nation as their general bent is towards socialism, social justice ect....and that to them... morality should be man derived.
To this movement as a secondary function of my screaming conservatism as I have fled the plantation....I have become a better foil against these people than many of my Christian friends. To them and to all of you I STRONGLY suggest David Bartons' Original Intent.
This book is a wealth of information and historical fact. Nearly one third is appendices.
In utilizing the first 3 chapters alone I have been able to dowse the raging fire of many. Some you never will reach on matters of religion and government...but it's the masses reading along quietly in these forums that need the lesson of Original Intent . Whether I or them ever get religion is secondary to making sure that distortions these people propagate does not turn into a conflagration that usurps all of our Rights as Citizens (socialism and worse).

This Book is a STEAL at $9. Get it.
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&ke...ooks&hvadid=7141828365&ref=pd_sl_3vml4xync2_b

cw


----------



## j_seph

Why would anyone be scared of a Christian?


----------



## seaweaver

I think the left sees a theocracy coming while the Islamists are sneaking in the back door. That would be one element..that is were I see the fear being sparked. The secondary part leans to their socialist tendencies of which religion is not compatible except when it is distorted to hide the direction as it was in central America w/ the rise of Marxist fervor, or in Black liberation theology.
cw


----------



## centerpin fan

seaweaver said:


> I think the left sees a theocracy coming while the Islamists are sneaking in the back door.



Yes, the left always accuses Christians of wanting to do what the radical Muslims are actually doing.  David Horowitz wrote an excellent book on the "partnership" between the American left and radical Islam:

http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Allian...=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317130416&sr=1-8

How did they get together?  The left and radical Islam both hate America, and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".




seaweaver said:


> I think the left sees a theocracy coming while the Islamists are sneaking in the back door. That would be one element..that is were I see the fear being sparked. The secondary part leans to their socialist tendencies of which religion is not compatible except when it is distorted to hide the direction as it was in central America w/ the rise of Marxist fervor, or in Black liberation theology.
> cw



I think the basic problem is that Christians and the left worship two different gods.  Christians worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the left worships government.


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> Christians worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the left worships government.



Now I am not defending the left, or Islam's positions, but, who do Christian leftists worship?  Doesn't Islam worship the God of Abraham (I know very little about that religion)?


----------



## JB0704

j_seph said:


> Why would anyone be scared of a Christian?



Depends on the type of Christians. The ones I grew up around were scary.


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> ... who do Christian leftists worship?



I often wonder that myself.




JB0704 said:


> Now Doesn't Islam worship the God of Abraham



Yes.


----------



## formula1

*Re:*

Thanks, seaweaver for your thoughts. And even though you are not a Christian, I thank you for being very much aware of the founding principles of our great nation and at the same time, not being fearful of them but embracing them.  

There is certainly no need to fear us Christians.  Most of us know that our true intent is not toward theocracy, but for a change of heart from the inner man out, that the hope of God's redemption can reside in each individual through Christ. Why anyone would fear that, I do not know. I suspect its as you say, somehow our desire to speak to rule of law and common sense seems like a effort to establish theocratic control. But perhaps, the power of control of the individual within socialist agendas stands directly opposed to freedom of the mind in Christ, and that is the true battlefield. Whatever the motive is, I thank you for bringing it up for a reasoned discussion.


----------



## Madman

centerpin fan said:


> I think the basic problem is that Christians and the left worship two different gods.  Christians worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the left worships government.



CF makes a good point.  I don't think most people have a problem with "god" or "a god" they just want him to be more like themselves.


----------



## WaltL1

This is what scares them. From the Politicul Forum. They probaly dont have a problem with God or Christians or your right to worship. This is what they have a problem with -

The laws that you are against is because you feel it is against your religion. What anybody else believes or their rights or their freedoms or anything else except what you believe is right doesnt matter to you. Just say that and be done with it for cryin out loud. 

I did say that when I posted the 10 commandments. I believe what is right and wrong is in the Bible. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> This is what scares them. From the Politicul Forum. They probaly dont have a problem with God or Christians or your right to worship. This is what they have a problem with ...



I disagree.  They don't have a problem with Christians.  They only have a problem with Christians who aren't leftists like they are.

When Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee ran for president, the left went nuts over the "coming theocracy".  When it was Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson running for president, though -- hey, no problem!  That's because Sharpton and Jackson are committed leftists who toe the liberal line.


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> I disagree.  They don't have a problem with Christians.  They only have a problem with Christians who aren't leftists like they are.
> 
> When Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee ran for president, the left went nuts over the "coming theocracy".  When it was Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson running for president, though -- hey, no problem!  That's because Sharpton and Jackson are committed leftists who toe the liberal line.


Not sure why you are so focused on leftists and totally dismiss the part where the "christian" said everybody elses rights, freedoms and beliefs dont matter. Disagree all you want and watch the opposition grow.


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure why you are so focused on leftists ...



Because that's what the OP was about.




WaltL1 said:


> ... the "christian" said everybody elses rights, freedoms and beliefs dont matter.



As a Christian, I don't believe that, and I don't know any Christian who does.  If I remember correctly, you were quoting "Randy", and I really don't think he believes that "everybody elses rights, freedoms and beliefs dont matter."  He can answer you directly if he wants, though. 




WaltL1 said:


> Disagree all you want and watch the opposition grow.



Should Christians just sit at home and not vote?


----------



## mtnwoman

The leftys are the ones that want to have a socialist nation. Everyone should get equal healthcare...but they are too good to go to the health dept social services that we have set up now. I'm a Christian and disabled, I have to go there and I've worked most of my life..35 years at bellsouth. One lefty told me she didn't have health care...she's an artist, never worked....but she wasn't going to go the health dept with all the poor people.

She's built 2 houses in the past few years but claims she can't even go to the doctor...and that free healthcare should be a right for everyone. She also has no problem with illegal immigration, abortion is perfectly fine, no death penalty though. And I'm sure she'd feed any Christian to the lions, because it's all our fault.

This same stuff was said during the Obama election, and as we see he has certainly done a phenominal job.

Why does it always have to be one side or the other? Now it's the Christians.

I'm not afraid of nonChristians, either. At least for now we still have the right to bear arms, if it was left up to the liberals and the left, that would be taken away, too.


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> Because that's what the OP was about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a Christian, I don't believe that, and I don't know any Christian who does.  If I remember correctly, you were quoting "Randy", and I really don't think he believes that "everybody elses rights, freedoms and beliefs dont matter."  He can answer you directly if he wants, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should Christians just sit at home and not vote?


The OP was about the growing anti-christian movement. I provided an example that fuels it.
His response is cut and pasted on the last line in my original post so you do know 1.
Of course you should vote. Why wouldnt you?


----------



## mtnwoman

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure why you are so focused on leftists and totally dismiss the part where the "christian" said everybody elses rights, freedoms and beliefs dont matter. Disagree all you want and watch the opposition grow.



Is that why abortion is legal? Is that why we can't put a nativity on public property, like the court house? Is that why we can't pray in public? But we can put a mosque on ground zero....alrighty then.

I think we'd better watch the illegal mexican population grow....they are taking over the country without a shot fired. And some of our men in this country will do nothing...well except complain about all the stuff Christians should and shouldn't be doing?


----------



## WaltL1

mtnwoman said:


> Is that why abortion is legal? Is that why we can't put a nativity on public property, like the court house? Is that why we can't pray in public? But we can put a mosque on ground zero....alrighty then.
> 
> I think we'd better watch the illegal mexican population grow....they are taking over the country without a shot fired. And some of our men in this country will do nothing...well except complain about all the stuff Christians should and shouldn't be doing?



Believe it or not you are getting fired up at the wrong person. Again - the Op was about the growing anti religious movement. Again - I provided an example of what makes people feel that way. You can dismiss it or believe it. Your choice and I respect that. As for your examples - abortion i have mixed feelings about. Putting a navitivity scene in front of a court house is fine with me. Do you mind if other religions put their things next to it? You praying in public isnt illegal is it? Illegals of any nationality should all be kicked out. Mosque anywhere near ground zero disgusts me.


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> His response is cut and pasted on the last line in my original post so you do know 1.



As I said, I read that thread, too, and I don't think he meant what you think he did.  I certainly didn't get that impression.


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> As I said, I read that thread, too, and I don't think he meant what you think he did.  I certainly didn't get that impression.[/QUOTE
> 
> Really? You dont get that impression? Read those words in red again. What possible other impression is there? I dont have a problem at all with you sticking up for a fellow christian but come on now.


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> The OP was about the growing anti-christian movement.



And where is it growing?  On the left.

Bill Keller of the NY Times recently opined that a series of religions questions should be directed at the Republican candidates for president.  Should the same questions have been posed to candidate Barack Obama and Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress?  Yes, if the Times had any interest in being unbiased in their reporting.


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> And where is it growing?  On the left.
> 
> Bill Keller of the NY Times recently opined that a series of religions questions should be directed at the Republican candidates for president.  Should the same questions have been posed to candidate Barack Obama and Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress?  Yes, if the Times had any interest in being unbiased in their reporting.


You absolutely will not accept the fact that sometimes things that christains say formulate the opinion of other people. Maybe even push them toward the left way of thinking. SOmetimes we can be our own enemy. True?


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> Really?



Yep.




WaltL1 said:


> You dont get that impression?



Nope.




WaltL1 said:


> Read those words in red again.



I did, and I still don't see a raging theocrat.  He said he believes the 10 commandments are the standard for right and wrong.  As far as I can tell, so does most of Western civilization.


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did, and I still don't see a raging theocrat.  He said he believes the 10 commandments are the standard for right and wrong.  As far as I can tell, so does most of Western civilization.


You left out the first 4 words " I did say that".


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> You absolutely will not accept the fact that sometimes things that christains say formulate the opinion of other people.



Not true at all.




WaltL1 said:


> SOmetimes we can be our own enemy. True?



Absolutely.  And sometimes, people read too much into what they hear.




WaltL1 said:


> ... things that christains say formulate the opinion of other people. Maybe even push them toward the left way of thinking.



Yes, and some people are hyper-sensitive in the area of religion and have a predisposition to be "pushed".


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> You left out the first 4 words " I did say that".



I did not miss them.  I read them in the original thread, too.


----------



## WaltL1

Ok we've reached that spot where your beliefs are giving you tunell vision. If a muslim told you your beliefs, rights and freedoms meant nothing and you responded saying that wasnt right its because you are predisposed to be pushed and read too much into what he said.


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> Ok we've reached that spot where your beliefs are giving you tunell vision.



We've reached the spot where you're comparing Christianity to a religion whose radical element's stated goal is world domination and who uses terrorism as a means to that end.


----------



## WaltL1

Please show me where I compared Christianity to Muslims.


----------



## WaltL1

Actually dont bother. This conversation is now void of any intelligent discussion. Have a great night.


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> Please show me where I compared Christianity to Muslims.



You said:



WaltL1 said:


> If a muslim told you your beliefs, rights and freedoms meant nothing ...



... which is exactly what you quoted Randy as saying.  Read the red words in your post above.


----------



## WaltL1

Sorry I know you dont believe it but you are seriously off track. I responded to what you said not anything anybody else said. Seriously Im dropping this now. Get your last word in or whatever pleases you but this conversation has degraded into stupidity. Again, have a great night.


----------



## mtnwoman

WaltL1 said:


> Believe it or not you are getting fired up at the wrong person. Again - the Op was about the growing anti religious movement. Again - I provided an example of what makes people feel that way. You can dismiss it or believe it. Your choice and I respect that. As for your examples - abortion i have mixed feelings about. Putting a navitivity scene in front of a court house is fine with me. Do you mind if other religions put their things next to it? You praying in public isnt illegal is it? Illegals of any nationality should all be kicked out. Mosque anywhere near ground zero disgusts me.



I'm just saying, I don't like some of what the leftys do either and say, and that makes me run away, too....it's not just what the christians say and do that make people run in another direction, that was my point. Why would I run towards the left? they're just as bad as the right can be....that's why I said it ain't only the Christians, that's just someone they can name as group. You wouldn't dare hear them doggin' a muslim or spanish group....it's just always the Christians.

And if you (not you personally) want to see what muslims have to say about how they feel about your/our rights, take a trip to their country and see how far Christianity flys....people expect us to accept them in our country, but they wouldn't treat us the same. Could I build a baptist church downtown Iraq/Iran/?

I don't care who puts what on the courthouse lawn really, as long as they pay taxes.

You wouldn't believe how many abortions are government funded...$450 up...and in NC you can only qualify for 3 a year....say what? I'm paying for them to party....ok. It's not only because of my belief I don't like abortion. I don't like working and paying for someone else's problem. Use the free birth control you can get at the health dept. Just get off the porch and stroll down there....sheesh.

Nah, don't worry about that stuff, just focus on the Christians, that's what makes people run to the left....


----------



## DrRx2005

After reading this I read the thread titled Pat Robertson - my thoughts kind of lead me to the following regarding people like this and some of the "lefty's" and liberals (as well as some of the Righty's professing to be Christians - 

* Mat 7:15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.  
 Mat 7:16   Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?  
 Mat 7:17   Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.  
 Mat 7:18   A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.  
 Mat 7:19   Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.  
 Mat 7:20   Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.  
Mat 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  
 Mat 7:22   Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  
 Mat 7:23   And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. *

For that matter, many of our "Evangelicals" that have mass followings and then they end up in scandals and so on - no wonder Christianity - TRUE Christainity has to wear a black eye to so many - its the "faces" that the world see representing us.


----------



## TTom

Centerpinfan,

So placing the 10 commandments as the gold standard for morality isn't contrary to the US Constitution?

How in the world do you balance these things against the first amendment then?

Thou Shalt have no other god but me.
You shall make no graven images.
Thou shalt not swear oaths in god's name in vain.
Thou Shalt keep the Sabbath holy.

The first 4 commandments are diametrically opposed to the freedom of religion promised by the first amendment. and thus a political statement placing the 10 commandments at the center of morality is offensive to non christians. It's not the last 6 commandments but the first 4, nearly half the document, that is plainly and completely in opposition to the first amendment.


----------



## mtnwoman

TTom said:


> Centerpinfan,
> 
> So placing the 10 commandments as the gold standard for morality isn't contrary to the US Constitution?
> 
> How in the world do you balance these things against the first amendment then?
> 
> Thou Shalt have no other god but me.
> You shall make no graven images.
> Thou shalt not swear oaths in god's name in vain.
> Thou Shalt keep the Sabbath holy.
> 
> The first 4 commandments are diametrically opposed to the freedom of religion promised by the first amendment. and thus a political statement placing the 10 commandments at the center of morality is offensive to non christians. It's not the last 6 commandments but the first 4, nearly half the document, that is plainly and completely in opposition to the first amendment.



I don't think everyone in the USA have to/should abide by the first 4 commandments. 

Even as a Christian I don't expect that of anyone and don't believe it's forced on anyone that I know of...and really don't care what most people do.

I'm pretty sure, at least I know I do, when folks are referring to the 10 commandments being pretty close to what the laws of this country are, are talking about the 
Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc etc.

I've never expected anyone to follow the ones you've mentioned, especially nonchristians. Most Christians can't follow them either, that's why we have Christ.

No other God before me....ie gambling, drinking, smoking, porn, that's unreasonable I suppose. Not even saying I abide by that, but how's that a bad thing?

Lord's name in vain....I really don't appreciate people cursing in walmart, especially 10 yr olds, much less GD....I mean is all that necessary? Your kids can do it, but it shouldn't be forced on my children to hear it...or me for that matter and keep your rap music to yourself. It's ok to force things on me though...who am I to moan and groan?

Sabbath.....heck work 7 days a week, don't need no rest, just needs me some money. I worked many a 7 days at bellsouth...for years and years, because people just couldn't stop for a minute and rest and stay off the phone, off the computer, off the tv and spend time with their families.

I'm too busy worrying about what I should be doing, but I especially don't think that cursing in public is ok....but then again if free speech is whatcha want, well it's out there, along with no respect.


----------



## centerpin fan

TTom said:


> So placing the 10 commandments as the gold standard for morality isn't contrary to the US Constitution?



As I said before, the 10 commandments have been the gold standard of morality for most of Western civilization, and the men who produced the US Constitution were well aware of that.

The bottom line for me is that this:



WaltL1 said:


> This is what scares them. From the Politicul Forum. They probaly dont have a problem with God or Christians or your right to worship. This is what they have a problem with -
> 
> The laws that you are against is because you feel it is against your religion. What anybody else believes or their rights or their freedoms or anything else except what you believe is right doesnt matter to you. Just say that and be done with it for cryin out loud.
> 
> I did say that when I posted the 10 commandments. I believe what is right and wrong is in the Bible. Nothing more, nothing less.



... is the biggest "much ado about nothing" that I've seen in a long time.  There's not gonna be a Christian theocracy in this country, regardless of what might get posted on an internet bulletin board.


----------



## mtnwoman

centerpin fan said:


> As I said before, the 10 commandments have been the gold standard of morality for most of Western civilization, and the men who produced the US Constitution were well aware of that.
> 
> The bottom line for me is that this:
> 
> 
> 
> ... is the biggest "much ado about nothing" that I've seen in a long time.  There's not gonna be a Christian theocracy in this country, regardless of what might get posted on an internet bulletin board.



We all know where this world is going....downhill (per scripture)....we'll be gone soon and I can hardly wait. Most just need someone to blame it on, and the Christians are the only ones that won't chop chop, nor sue for insults or discrimination....so there ya go.


----------



## Ronnie T

The very nature of Christianity make us easy prey.
God'll take care of that.


----------



## Randy

WaltL1 said:


> This is what scares them. From the Politicul Forum. They probaly dont have a problem with God or Christians or your right to worship. This is what they have a problem with -
> 
> The laws that you are against is because you feel it is against your religion. What anybody else believes or their rights or their freedoms or anything else except what you believe is right doesnt matter to you. Just say that and be done with it for cryin out loud.
> 
> I did say that when I posted the 10 commandments. I believe what is right and wrong is in the Bible. Nothing more, nothing less.



If you are going to quote me, quote me.  This
part was NOT what I said.

The laws that you are against is because you feel it is against your religion. What anybody else believes or their rights or their freedoms or anything else except what you believe is right doesnt matter to you. Just say that and be done with it for cryin out loud.


----------



## WaltL1

Randy said:


> If you are going to quote me, quote me.  This
> part was NOT what I said.
> 
> The laws that you are against is because you feel it is against your religion. What anybody else believes or their rights or their freedoms or anything else except what you believe is right doesnt matter to you. Just say that and be done with it for cryin out loud.



His response is cut and pasted on the last line in my original post so you do know 1.
I didnt say you said that. I said the last line. Thats not the last line. Last meaning at the bottom. At the end. The final one. No more after that. Not the one before it because that cant be the last one because there is one after it. This one is the last line -
I did say that when I posted the 10 commandments. I believe what is right and wrong is in the Bible. Nothing more, nothing less.

Soooo if you are going to quote me, quote me.


----------



## formula1

Ronnie T said:


> The very nature of Christianity make us easy prey.
> God'll take care of that.



Yes, He will! No worries, our God is a consuming fire, high above all things. When our battles are fought on our knees, God's deliverance comes from on High. He will deliver us!


----------



## Randy

WaltL1 said:


> His response is cut and pasted on the last line in my original post so you do know 1.
> I didnt say you said that. I said the last line. Thats not the last line. Last meaning at the bottom. At the end. The final one. No more after that. Not the one before it because that cant be the last one because there is one after it. This one is the last line -
> I did say that when I posted the 10 commandments. I believe what is right and wrong is in the Bible. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Soooo if you are going to quote me, quote me.



So you agree I did not say:

 "What anybody else believes or their rights or their freedoms or anything else except what you believe is right doesnt matter to you."

Because that is what you said, not me.


----------



## WaltL1

Formula1 - for what it is worth I actually very much respect the way you present your self and represent the christian faith. I mearly presented one example of why there is a growing anti religous movement which was the original subject. No ill will, no bashing, just presenting an example. Then I got led down this path of ridiculesness. It was partly my fault for playing along.
Take this for what it worth which may be nothing.


----------



## WaltL1

Randy said:


> So you agree I did not say:
> 
> "What anybody else believes or their rights or their freedoms or anything else except what you believe is right doesnt matter to you."
> 
> Because that is what you said, not me.


That is exactly what I said from the begining. Im sorry you are confused. Im not playing anymore as it is futile.


----------



## Randy

Lest you not understand, that is what I wish the laws were based on.  That is not what they will ever be based on because there are not enough christians in this country to get them passed that way.  It is however what I live by, to the best of my ability (yes I fail miserably some time, most of the time) but I try.

Also lest you understand or believe, your freedoms and rights come from God, not man.


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> I mearly presented one example of why there is a growing anti religous movement which was the original subject. No ill will, no bashing, just presenting an example.



... and I merely disagreed.  No ill will, no bashing, just presenting a different view.


----------



## formula1

*Re:*



WaltL1 said:


> Formula1 - for what it is worth I actually very much respect the way you present your self and represent the christian faith. I mearly presented one example of why there is a growing anti religous movement which was the original subject. No ill will, no bashing, just presenting an example. Then I got led down this path of ridiculesness. It was partly my fault for playing along.
> Take this for what it worth which may be nothing.



Thank you for your words! I appreciate them. Christ loves you just like He loves me.  No partiality!

For me it's a Christian's right and responsibilty to influence the rule of law peacefully in two ways:  A vote and lots of prayer for our governmental authorities! You can bet that my vote and my prayers for this nation line up with the moral principles of scripture as much as is possible.  Our influence may not win foothold in secular society, but we must do what we must do for the sake of living in peace!

Outside of that, our Kingdom is not of this world anyway!


----------



## WaltL1

formula1 said:


> Thank you for your words! I appreciate them. Christ loves you just like He loves me.  No partiality!
> 
> For me it's a Christian's right and responsibilty to influence the rule of law peacefully in two ways:  A vote and lots of prayer for our governmental authorities! You can bet that my vote and my prayers for this nation line up with the moral principles of scripture as much as is possible.  Our influence may not win foothold in secular society, but we must do what we must do for the sake of living in peace!
> 
> Outside of that, our Kingdom is not of this world anyway!


And that it was I respect. You hold true to your beliefs and present them in a way that is actually thought provoking instead of in your face offensive. You can say the same things but get very different results that way. If more folks did that you might find the anti religious movement grow smaller instead of larger. Which I think was my point to begin with. Sometimes to win the war you have to out smart your enemies


----------



## formula1

WaltL1 said:


> Sometimes to win the war you have to out smart your enemies



Yes, and the words of Christ come to mind here:
Matthew 10:16
Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

God Bless!


----------



## JB0704

formula1 said:


> but we must do what we must do for the sake of living in peace!



That is an interesting way of looking at it.  My canned response to anybody who votes from scripture is "Jesus never used the government to influence anybody."  I still believe that way, but understand why you would vote your morality a little better.  I also think that forcing our faith on folks is not what we would want done to us.....the golden rule.  Where muslims have a majority I do not want them to influence their morality through government.  Its a good topic for discussion anyway.


----------



## formula1

*Re:*



JB0704 said:


> That is an interesting way of looking at it.  My canned response to anybody who votes from scripture is "Jesus never used the government to influence anybody."  I still believe that way, but understand why you would vote your morality a little better.  I also think that forcing our faith on folks is not what we would want done to us.....the golden rule.  Where muslims have a majority I do not want them to influence their morality through government.  Its a good topic for discussion anyway.



Let me make it clear, I am not telling anyone else how to implement morality through man's government nor am I tryin to do it myself. But I will vote for the best governmental officials who are nearest what I believe is the truth of scripture. That is all!

Further, Jesus was all about the government, He is a King and came into the world as a King. Yet it is not like your government today(Thank God) nor a Kingdom established by men.  He wants to rule and reign in your heart, for the inside out. In that sense, He is the ultimate ruler. And the prophetic word speaks of His authority as King.

Isaiah 9
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore.


----------



## Randy

formula1 said:


> Let me make it clear, I am not telling anyone else how to implement morality through man's government nor am I tryin to do it myself. But I will vote for the best governmental officials who are nearest what I believe is the truth of scripture. That is all!



Exactly what I was trying to say.  Here and in the "other" discussion.  It is not that any Christian wants to force our beliefs on people.  In fact God does not even work that way.  But I will, and I assume other Christians will, vote for legislators and try to get laws passed that reflect our beliefs or at least work against laws that go against our beliefs.  I also assume any person who is not a christain would vote for legislators that beat reflects their beliefs.  For a non-Christian to say "you don't care abouts other's freedoms or beliefs" is not true.  We care, we just do not agree.


----------



## mtnwoman

formula1 said:


> Thank you for your words! I appreciate them. Christ loves you just like He loves me.  No partiality!
> 
> For me it's a Christian's right and responsibilty to influence the rule of law peacefully in two ways:  A vote and lots of prayer for our governmental authorities! You can bet that my vote and my prayers for this nation line up with the moral principles of scripture as much as is possible.  Our influence may not win foothold in secular society, but we must do what we must do for the sake of living in peace!
> 
> Outside of that, our Kingdom is not of this world anyway!



Amen!!!


----------



## mtnwoman

Randy said:


> Exactly what I was trying to say.  Here and in the "other" discussion.  It is not that any Christian wants to force our beliefs on people.  In fact God does not even work that way.  But I will, and I assume other Christians will, vote for legislators and try to get laws passed that reflect our beliefs or at least work against laws that go against our beliefs.  I also assume any person who is not a christain would vote for legislators that beat reflects their beliefs.  For a non-Christian to say "you don't care abouts other's freedoms or beliefs" is not true.  We care, we just do not agree.



Amen again!


----------



## mtnwoman

formula1 said:


> Let me make it clear, I am not telling anyone else how to implement morality through man's government nor am I tryin to do it myself. But I will vote for the best governmental officials who are nearest what I believe is the truth of scripture. That is all!
> 
> Further, Jesus was all about the government, He is a King and came into the world as a King. Yet it is not like your government today(Thank God) nor a Kingdom established by men.  He wants to rule and reign in your heart, for the inside out. In that sense, He is the ultimate ruler. And the prophetic word speaks of His authority as King.
> 
> Isaiah 9
> 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
> 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore.




Hallellujah!!

The HS is workin' up in here today!

If and or when we do not know how to answer, the HS......


----------



## centerpin fan

Well said Randy and formula1.


----------



## JB0704

formula1 said:


> Let me make it clear, I am not telling anyone else how to implement morality through man's government nor am I tryin to do it myself. But I will vote for the best governmental officials who are nearest what I believe is the truth of scripture. That is all!



I am confused.  Do you want the officials close to your beliefs to implement Christian morality through legislation?  Or are you saying you vote for pro-life (I frame it as a human rights issue and am also pro-life) type candidates because that is the scriptural position?

There are a lot of topics which can be debated relevant to this.  Gay marriage, death penalty, school prayer, abortion, taxes, etc.  

My point was that even though Jesus was a King, you have to choose him to be part of the kingdom.  Nobody is forced, unless you believe in predestination, and that is another topic all together.

If we vote for legislators who pass our beliefs, then aren't we using the force of government to advance our agenda?  As Boortz would say "at the point of a gun?"


----------



## mtnwoman

JB0704 said:


> If we vote for legislators who pass our beliefs, then aren't we using the force of government to advance our agenda?  As Boortz would say "at the point of a gun?"



Everyone does that, Christian or nonChristian.

I've been forced at gunpoint to accept that abortion is legal, for example. Ok whatever, everyone doesn't believe as I do, I do resent paying for subsidized abortion with my taxes when I need money for food.

Vote how you are convicted to vote, that's the right thing for a Christian to do. It's not up to us to accomodate each and every person....do you think they do that for Christians?

Everyone is voting to advance their agenda, why do you think Christians shouldn't be able to do the same?
That's the problem today,  some Christians have become afraid of insulting others while others don't extend the same. People condemn us for being prejudice of others while they sit around and dog the heck out of us, and think it's ok. 

Oh y'all should go on another forum I'm on, and you'll see more than you ever wanted to know about the predjudice towards Christians. I'm an artist and when I go to that forum to ask a simple question about something pertaining to what I do for a living, I get jumped from all sides, saying I must have an alterior motive for even being there....like oh god guess who's here, and the bashing begins....80% pagans...what do I expect...i suppose.


----------



## gordon 2

Quote: "Hallellujah!!

The HS is workin' up in here today!

If and or when we do not know how to answer, the HS...... "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really now?

Is being a christian about "Us" and "They"? Some christians say they are artist or craftspersons, and yet some do not see the art or craft in politics? Isn't politics the craft of welding "Us", "They" and "Them" into "We the people"?

Lets take the death penalty as an example, and just as an example here. Is it not in the interest of all, Us, They and Them not to have it as a deterant to crime? A good polititian with  moral conviction  and good skills to weld the concerns of all the constituancy...don't you think it is possible to change this law. "Depending on who's in government, what is a crime can change...."

For example it is in the interest of Us that the extreme wing of They, if ever they have a majority in government,  have recourse to capital punishment simply by changing what a crime is!? Or is it in the interest of Them that the extreme wing of "Us" if given majority to influence government would have recourse to capital punishment? We are famous and creative in making into law what is or is not criminal! to serve our agendas!!!!!!!!! ( For example, and it is an example only, torture  a long accepted war crime for everyone overnight is not a crime for some christians who deem it nessecary, or beneficial to practice it.)

Sometimes we might think the HS is talking when our man made doctrines are the source of our frank language in voicing our concerns.

The  idea of the Kingdom and its workings here "in" or "out" of the "world" are just words for In and Out and are types of Us and They. 

As a RC I hold that the Kingdom is of this world and the world to come and I can show you that this is a core RC belief. The idea that the Kingdom as described by Jesus is not only in the heart of believers and active in individuals but active also in life in general with influence to mould our social institutions, our governments' initiatives and our laws. The goal is peace and justice according to a mature relationship with God--which is according to christianity what we were grafted to by Jesus.

On the other hand there are different versions of what the Kingdom is--in christianity. The doctrines of many is that the Kingdom is in our hearts yes, but not of this world. It will be for us in "Heaven" after we are raised from the dead. This world is doomed for it is a world of sin, ever feeding on itself, until like a road kill carcase the maggots will carry everything away. This world cannot be improved, and any notion that the Kingdom can improve it is quickly dispelled by the scripture experts. ( I can find you examples of this belief by famous evangelists.... and I have done so before on this forum.)

So there here are two versions of the Kingdom...and they are real in our lives. I see them at "work"in society everyday.



Christian should always judge themselves first before they assess "Them" or "They".

In the original post, there was the idea  that some christians are just subversive to liberty and idiologicaly socialists. If everyone just got of their doctrine bycicles and used and served politics and religion according their fundamental purposes--there would be no need for the mazes created for all by the doctrines of politics and religions AND the HS would not be their prisoner.

I laugh that some can say that social justice is socialist. For many because of doctrine faith and salvation is a individual thing and for other christians it makes up a people, a society, just like the Hebrews became a people. I can only pray that individuals, who pride themselves for being personally set free by God, can come to peace that they are a part of the fabric of the people of God.


----------



## formula1

*Re:*



JB0704 said:


> I am confused.  Do you want the officials close to your beliefs to implement Christian morality through legislation?  Or are you saying you vote for pro-life (I frame it as a human rights issue and am also pro-life) type candidates because that is the scriptural position?
> 
> There are a lot of topics which can be debated relevant to this.  Gay marriage, death penalty, school prayer, abortion, taxes, etc.
> 
> My point was that even though Jesus was a King, you have to choose him to be part of the kingdom.  Nobody is forced, unless you believe in predestination, and that is another topic all together.
> 
> If we vote for legislators who pass our beliefs, then aren't we using the force of government to advance our agenda?  As Boortz would say "at the point of a gun?"




Don't be confused! I was pretty clear.

In this country at least, all men and women have the right to vote our conscience in selecting our governmental leaders. We do this all the time. 

Would it serve my interest to 'live life as a Christian in peace' by voting for a leader who espouses Sharia law and Islam?  You know the answer, so what do you think I'm going to do? You can easily figure this out based on my comments.

Am I 'pointing a gun' to force my agenda on others by doing so? I think not, but rather I think I am insuring the best chance for me to live out my Christian walk with as few encumberances by government as possible.

I am not interested in debate, but only that Jesus Christ is lifted up and we would hear Him! God Bless!


----------



## formula1

*Re:*



gordon 2 said:


> As a RC I hold that the Kingdom is of this world and the world to come and I can show you that this is a core RC belief.



Then prove with the Holy Scriptures that it is a doctrine that all Christians should espouse to and I will listen(Gordon you know I will)! Show me the evidence!  If you choose to do so, you probably should do this in a new post as it is somewhat off topic.


----------



## JB0704

formula1 said:


> In this country at least, all men and women have the right to vote our conscience in selecting our governmental leaders. We do this all the time.



Absolutely agree.




formula1 said:


> Would it serve my interest to 'live life as a Christian in peace' by voting for a leader who espouses Sharia law and Islam?!



No, it would not.



formula1 said:


> Am I 'pointing a gun' to force my agenda on others by doing so? I think not, but rather I think I am insuring the best chance for me to live out my Christian walk with as few encumberances by government as possible.



Here is the confusion.  I know you say you are clear, but there is two directions your comments could take.  Do we remove encumbrances to our freedom by placing incumbrances on others who do not believe the same?  If no, then you and I see eye to eye on this.  

I hate getting into this, but school prayer is a very good example.  Many Christians believe a teacher should be able to lead a classroom in prayer.  But what if it is a muslim teacher breaking out the prayer rugs?  If one is good for us, then it must be good for the majority to follow.


----------



## JB0704

gordon 2 said:


> ( For example, and it is an example only, torture  a long accepted war crime for everyone overnight is not a crime for some christians who deem it nessecary, or beneficial to practice it.)



Excellent example, G2.  I have often wondered why our principles changed on this topic when it became convenient.  I don't see the biblical case for it either.  

And that is definitely a new thread type topic, 'cause folks get all kinds of worked up discussing it......


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Do we remove encumbrances to our freedom by placing incumbrances on others who do not believe the same?


And this folks is the million dollar question and the root of the large majority of believer vs. nonbeliever disagreements when it comes to who can or can not do what.


----------



## centerpin fan

Back to the OP:



seaweaver said:


> I'm not a Christian, But I'm not scared of them either...but I see a growing trend of those who are. Many old friends (and still are) are propagating this fear on social media.



I expect to see this sort of thing on lefty websites, but exactly what is going on with Facebook?  I'm not a member, so I'm obviously missing out on some good fearmongering.


----------



## formula1

*Re:*



JB0704 said:


> Here is the confusion.  I know you say you are clear, but there is two directions your comments could take.  Do we remove encumbrances to our freedom by placing incumbrances on others who do not believe the same?  If no, then you and I see eye to eye on this.
> 
> I hate getting into this, but school prayer is a very good example.  Many Christians believe a teacher should be able to lead a classroom in prayer.  But what if it is a muslim teacher breaking out the prayer rugs?  If one is good for us, then it must be good for the majority to follow.



I have no desire to place encumberances on others who do not believe as I do. Whether something is an encumberance, however, may be up for discussion and study based on the founding documents and moral values which we espouse and accept as inalienable. 

My kid goes to private christian school because I choose to do what is best for him.  It has paid great dividends so far.  That's my answer to a public law that is failing the majority of its citizens. I would rather it be different, but the current environment doesn't allow me or the majority to change it, so as a result I have made a different choice. It requires sacrifice, but the value is worth it. At least, to me it is!

God Bless!


----------



## gordon 2

formula1 said:


> Then prove with the Holy Scriptures that it is a doctrine that all Christians should espouse to and I will listen(Gordon you know I will)! Show me the evidence!  If you choose to do so, you probably should do this in a new post as it is somewhat off topic.



Ok...but know that I will have none of myself invested in it, in the sense that I have a greater faith than anyone else. I don't. I just have faith. Anyway I will assemble my table for your heart, and hope you like it. Even if you don't, we will have spend time together...and that is good. 

I will start a new tread, but I don't what to go in a doctrine, doctine debate. I just what to explore with you... I as well will listen. 

I will probably get my map and compass out later today, as I am working on mounting a Roe deer right now, my first one, and come up to this forum for air off and on... LOL

Later...
gordo


----------



## JB0704

formula1 said:


> My kid goes to private christian school because I choose to do what is best for him.  It has paid great dividends so far.  That's my answer to a public law that is failing the majority of its citizens.



I put my kid in a private Christian school as well, for many reasons.  Primarily because I wanted him to get an education without all the junk normally associated with public school.  As a matter of fact, his middle school football team just played another Christian school (People's Baptist) down in your neck of the woods.  I was down there watching him play on Tuesday.

And you are right, the dividends are great for the investment.


----------



## centerpin fan

Several families in my church home school their kids.  That may not sound like a lot, but my church is pretty small.


----------



## seaweaver

holy cow(?!)...I'm crossed eyed!

cw


----------



## feathersnantlers

*Muslim's Children of Abraham?*

If Isaiah was conceived by adultery does that make him a child of Abraham? I mean I know Abraham accepted him as his own. But I thought Sarah became pregnant with Isaiah before God gave his blessing to Abraham and then after Isaiah, Abraham had his legitimate children. 

Wrong or Correct?


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> Several families in my church home school their kids.  That may not sound like a lot, but my church is pretty small.



Homeschooling is definitely another way to go.  I know a few families who do this, and their kids are getting a fantastic education.  I guess it depends on how the homeschooling is done.  

For me, because I believe the public school should be an equal opportunity educator and fair to all faiths and cultures, it was best for me to put my kid in a private setting where he could be pushed harder to excel in a safe environment close to my belief system.  I do not agree with all of their theology, but he is going there for an education, and I am not afraid of him hearing all sides of an argument.  Also, the athletics department at his school is fantastic.  The county I live in did away with middle school athletics to deal with budget problems.  I am rambling now, but this is a topic I am very interested in....private education.  For me, it is worth every penny.


----------



## centerpin fan

feathersnantlers said:


> If Isaiah was conceived by adultery does that make him a child of Abraham? I mean I know Abraham accepted him as his own. But I thought Sarah became pregnant with Isaiah before God gave his blessing to Abraham and then after Isaiah, Abraham had his legitimate children.
> 
> Wrong or Correct?





I don't see how your question relates to the OP.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

Regardless of the religion or lack there of, whether it be propagated by individuals or special interest, Newton's third law of motion applies to all.


----------



## formula1

*Re:*



seaweaver said:


> holy cow(?!)...I'm crossed eyed!
> 
> cw



CW,

Read between the lines as there is some good stuff mixed in here!


----------



## gtparts

Randy said:


> Exactly what I was trying to say.  Here and in the "other" discussion.  It is not that any Christian wants to force our beliefs on people.  In fact God does not even work that way.  But I will, and I assume other Christians will, vote for legislators and try to get laws passed that reflect our beliefs or at least work against laws that go against our beliefs.  I also assume any person who is not a Christian would vote for legislators that beat reflects their beliefs.  For a non-Christian to say "you don't care about others freedoms or beliefs" is not true.  We care, we just do not agree.





JB0704 said:


> I am confused.  Do you want the officials close to your beliefs to implement Christian morality through legislation?  Or are you saying you vote for pro-life (I frame it as a human rights issue and am also pro-life) type candidates because that is the scriptural position?
> 
> There are a lot of topics which can be debated relevant to this.  Gay marriage, death penalty, school prayer, abortion, taxes, etc.
> 
> My point was that even though Jesus was a King, you have to choose him to be part of the kingdom.  Nobody is forced, unless you believe in predestination, and that is another topic all together.
> 
> If we vote for legislators who pass our beliefs, then aren't we using the force of government to advance our agenda?  As Boortz would say "at the point of a gun?"





formula1 said:


> Don't be confused! I was pretty clear.
> 
> In this country at least, all men and women have the right to vote our conscience in selecting our governmental leaders. We do this all the time.
> 
> Would it serve my interest to 'live life as a Christian in peace' by voting for a leader who espouses Sharia law and Islam?  You know the answer, so what do you think I'm going to do? You can easily figure this out based on my comments.
> 
> Am I 'pointing a gun' to force my agenda on others by doing so? I think not, but rather I think I am insuring the best chance for me to live out my Christian walk with as few encumbrances by government as possible.
> 
> I am not interested in debate, but only that Jesus Christ is lifted up and we would hear Him! God Bless!



It is puzzling how many do not understand the position of most Christians on this subject, but Christians can not leave their commitment to God and the things of God outside the voting booth. 

Those who can, truly, have no understanding of what it means to be a follower of Christ. 

I simply seek to accomplish, by exercising my constitutionally guaranteed franchise, the very best for myself, family, my neighbors, our posterity, and the nation. It really matters not one whit that some choose to advance license as liberty. If I am successful at glorifying God in the voting booth, I have done my best for all, even those who would have it otherwise. 

Liberty in this life is never absolute. We all answer to some authority, therefore, liberty must always be tempered with the exercise of wisdom and compassion. Some will always try to extend license in the erroneous belief that doing so leaves society unencumbered. There is always a price to pay and it falls on everyone, including the weakest and poorest. That is not the kind of protection or freedom envisioned by our forefathers ...... and may it never be said of us that we championed permissiveness, but reaped anarchy and chaos. 

While I would never seek to legislate the Christian faith, I know the principles of God's Word are the best foundational source for human governance.


----------



## JB0704

gtparts said:


> Those who can, truly, have no understanding of what it means to be a follower of Christ.



Generalizing?  There are other perceptions in this world.  Interesting that you would make such a bold claim. 



gtparts said:


> I simply seek to accomplish, by exercising my constitutionally guaranteed franchise, the very best for myself, family, my neighbors, our posterity, and the nation......If I am successful at glorifying God in the voting booth, I have done my best for all, even those who would have it otherwise.



And what then, when most of your neighbors are muslim, and believe sharia law is the very best.  Are you willing to accept that?  Does the golden rule apply there also? 



gtparts said:


> While I would never seek to legislate the Christian faith, I know the principles of God's Word are the best foundational source for human governance.



Morality has less to do with actions than the heart.  Prohibiting immorality does not make an immoral person moral.


----------



## centerpin fan

seaweaver said:


> holy cow(?!)...I'm crossed eyed!
> 
> cw



Be proud.  You started a thread that actually got some responses.  Normally, this forum is where threads go to die.


----------



## gtparts

Originally Posted by *gtparts*
..... Christians can not leave their commitment to God and the things of God outside the voting booth. 				Those who can, truly, have no understanding of what it means to be a follower of Christ.




JB0704 said:


> Generalizing?  There are other perceptions in this world.  Interesting that you would make such a bold claim.



Not at all. Being a Christian is not carrying a membership card or having ones name on a church role somewhere. It is a state of being, a declaration stating to whom we belong. It is who we are! It is not like a light switch, with two mutually exclusive positions, nor is it a characteristic that can be compartmentalized so that it applies to only a select segment of our lives. Either Christ is Lord of all or He isn't Lord at all.

Truth is a reality. It is not dependent on perception or opinion.



JB0704 said:


> And what then, when most of your neighbors are muslim, and believe sharia law is the very best.  Are you willing to accept that?  Does the golden rule apply there also?



Leaving is one option. Staying is another. If that time comes, I'll do what God leads me to do.



JB0704 said:


> Morality has less to do with actions than the heart.  Prohibiting immorality does not make an immoral person moral.



Indeed! All considered actions result from the heart. The purpose of law is to condemn and punish certain actions, not to make immoral people moral. Good laws have the effect of restraining some immoral actions of some people and protecting the general populous from further harm or loss. It doesn't always work, but from a secular point of view, it is the best we have till Christ returns.


----------



## JB0704

gtparts said:


> Not at all......It is a state of being, a declaration stating to whom we belong. It is who we are! It is not like a light switch, with two mutually exclusive positions, nor is it a characteristic that can be compartmentalized so that it applies to only a select segment of our lives. Either Christ is Lord of all or He isn't Lord at all.



Sure.  I may have misunderstood you, but I read your comments as if you were saying failure to vote your faith equaled an unchristian act.  I believe in prayer, but would never vote to force it.  I do not think a Christian refusing to vote his faith on other people, as in voting against forced school prayer for example (I know it is not an issue these days, just using an example), is a failure to make Jesus Lord of your life.  It could be a different application of the golden rule.  



gtparts said:


> Truth is a reality. It is not dependent on perception or opinion.



Anybody who spent any time reading the baptism thread will know that folks tend to claim opposing truths.  They are mutually exclusive, I give you that, but declaring you got it is an awfully big statement.



gtparts said:


> Leaving is one option. Staying is another. If that time comes, I'll do what God leads me to do.



So, are you okay with them voting their faith against yours?  If so, then we have no argument.  I just would prefer neither side force their faith through the ballot box.  Let people see why we have hope, and freely choose it.



gtparts said:


> The purpose of law is to condemn and punish certain actions, not to make immoral people moral. Good laws have the effect of restraining some immoral actions of some people and protecting the general populous from further harm or loss. It doesn't always work, but from a secular point of view, it is the best we have till Christ returns.



We may be close to the same page here. I believe good law should restrain the creation of a victim, and the condemnation aspect is an effort to prevent such action.  My perspective is that one man's morality is of no consequence to the law unless his immorality infringes on the freedoms and rights of another individual.  To me, anything beyond that is forcing the issue of morality, which is counter-productive in the effort to advance moral behavior, or Godly living.  People tend to resist when forced.


----------



## WaltL1

gtparts said:


> It is puzzling how many do not understand the position of most Christians on this subject, but Christians can not leave their commitment to God and the things of God outside the voting booth.
> 
> Those who can, truly, have no understanding of what it means to be a follower of Christ.


Interesting flip side to this - I know some folks who refuse to vote because there are no truly christian candidates. They find it puzzling that a christian will support somebody that doesnt run on a 100% christian platform ( prayer back in school etc etc) "All in or all out" they say. And they say exactly what you said - those who do doesnt understand what it means to be a follower of Christ.
Different perception or opinion I guess.


----------



## mtnwoman

gordon 2 said:


> Quote: "Hallellujah!!
> 
> The HS is workin' up in here today!
> 
> If and or when we do not know how to answer, the HS...... "
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Really now?
> 
> Is being a christian about "Us" and "They"? Some christians say they are artist or craftspersons, and yet some do not see the art or craft in politics? Isn't politics the craft of welding "Us", "They" and "Them" into "We the people"?
> 
> Lets take the death penalty as an example, and just as an example here. Is it not in the interest of all, Us, They and Them not to have it as a deterant to crime? A good polititian with  moral conviction  and good skills to weld the concerns of all the constituancy...don't you think it is possible to change this law. "Depending on who's in government, what is a crime can change...."
> 
> For example it is in the interest of Us that the extreme wing of They, if ever they have a majority in government,  have recourse to capital punishment simply by changing what a crime is!? Or is it in the interest of Them that the extreme wing of "Us" if given majority to influence government would have recourse to capital punishment? We are famous and creative in making into law what is or is not criminal! to serve our agendas!!!!!!!!! ( For example, and it is an example only, torture  a long accepted war crime for everyone overnight is not a crime for some christians who deem it nessecary, or beneficial to practice it.)
> 
> Sometimes we might think the HS is talking when our man made doctrines are the source of our frank language in voicing our concerns.
> 
> The  idea of the Kingdom and its workings here "in" or "out" of the "world" are just words for In and Out and are types of Us and They.
> 
> As a RC I hold that the Kingdom is of this world and the world to come and I can show you that this is a core RC belief. The idea that the Kingdom as described by Jesus is not only in the heart of believers and active in individuals but active also in life in general with influence to mould our social institutions, our governments' initiatives and our laws. The goal is peace and justice according to a mature relationship with God--which is according to christianity what we were grafted to by Jesus.
> 
> On the other hand there are different versions of what the Kingdom is--in christianity. The doctrines of many is that the Kingdom is in our hearts yes, but not of this world. It will be for us in "Heaven" after we are raised from the dead. This world is doomed for it is a world of sin, ever feeding on itself, until like a road kill carcase the maggots will carry everything away. This world cannot be improved, and any notion that the Kingdom can improve it is quickly dispelled by the scripture experts. ( I can find you examples of this belief by famous evangelists.... and I have done so before on this forum.)
> 
> So there here are two versions of the Kingdom...and they are real in our lives. I see them at "work"in society everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> Christian should always judge themselves first before they assess "Them" or "They".
> 
> In the original post, there was the idea  that some christians are just subversive to liberty and idiologicaly socialists. If everyone just got of their doctrine bycicles and used and served politics and religion according their fundamental purposes--there would be no need for the mazes created for all by the doctrines of politics and religions AND the HS would not be their prisoner.
> 
> I laugh that some can say that social justice is socialist. For many because of doctrine faith and salvation is a individual thing and for other christians it makes up a people, a society, just like the Hebrews became a people. I can only pray that individuals, who pride themselves for being personally set free by God, can come to peace that they are a part of the fabric of the people of God.



I wasn't speaking of myself, Gordon, when I said the HS is working in here, I was speaking of the awesome posts from F1.

I was speaking on my own experience, not from conviction of the HS...sorry bout that.
Well I'm outta here.


----------



## formula1

mtnwoman said:


> I was speaking of the awesome posts from F1.



Thanks Annie, though if you read something good, it did not come from me. God Bless!


----------



## mtnwoman

formula1 said:


> Thanks Annie, though if you read something good, it did not come from me. God Bless!



I know darlin', that's why I said the HS was working up in here when you were posting!!


----------



## feathersnantlers

Answering a question by JB0704.



> Originally Posted by centerpin fan
> Christians worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the left worships government.
> 
> Now I am not defending the left, or Islam's positions, but, who do Christian leftists worship? Doesn't Islam worship the God of Abraham (I know very little about that religion)?


----------



## Ronnie T

formula1 said:


> Thanks Annie, though if you read something good, it did not come from me. God Bless!



She never called me darling!!!!!!!


----------



## centerpin fan

feathersnantlers said:


> Answering a question by JB0704.



My bad.  Missed that one.


----------



## JB0704

feathersnantlers said:


> If Isaiah was conceived by adultery does that make him a child of Abraham? I mean I know Abraham accepted him as his own. But I thought Sarah became pregnant with Isaiah before God gave his blessing to Abraham and then after Isaiah, Abraham had his legitimate children.
> 
> Wrong or Correct?



If you are answering a question from me, I believe I asked if Muslims worship the God of Abraham.  CP stated Christians worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

And, I believe a child through adultery as much a man's child as a child through marriage.

But, I do not know the begats very well, so I have no clue who begat who when or how.


----------



## JB0704

Ronnie T said:


> She never called me darling!!!!!!!



Would it be the same if I did?

kidding, of course.....


----------



## mtnwoman

Ronnie T said:


> She never called me darling!!!!!!!



Oh darlin' you know you're one of my bestest buds on here!


----------



## mtnwoman

JB0704 said:


> If you are answering a question from me, I believe I asked if Muslims worship the God of Abraham.  CP stated Christians worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
> 
> And, I believe a child through adultery as much a man's child as a child through marriage.
> 
> But, I do not know the begats very well, so I have no clue who begat who when or how.



I think most of the begats may have been the lineage of Christ.  But I certainly couldn't begin to name them and I usually skip that part...lol...my bad.  I hope we don't have a quiz at some point....hahahahahahaha.


----------



## formula1

*Re:*



mtnwoman said:


> Oh darlin' you know you're one of my bestest buds on here!



Ronnie, you should feel much better now!


----------



## formula1

*Re:*



feathersnantlers said:


> If Isaiah was conceived by adultery does that make him a child of Abraham? I mean I know Abraham accepted him as his own. But I thought Sarah became pregnant with Isaiah before God gave his blessing to Abraham and then after Isaiah, Abraham had his legitimate children.
> 
> Wrong or Correct?



You can look at Genesis 16-21 and find you're answers. In short:

Ishmael was the child of the bondwoman Hagar, conceived by Abraham with his wife's consent.  A real good example of man trying to 'help' God and failing miserably.

Isaac was the child of Promise from Sarah, Abraham's wife.

Both were Abraham's children, but only one was the child promised by God.  It seems that both were accepted as well, as God promised to bless both!


----------



## Ronnie T

JB0704 said:


> Would it be the same if I did?
> 
> kidding, of course.....



No, but only because of the masculine inference.
Honestly, I have a good friend who's in his 80's who calls all his children 'darling'.  This includes his two sons who are in their late 50's/early 60's.
Always seemed a little odd to me.


----------



## Ronnie T

mtnwoman said:


> Oh darlin' you know you're one of my bestest buds on here!



You just trying to make up now.


----------



## Ronnie T

formula1 said:


> You can look at Genesis 16-21 and find you're answers. In short:
> 
> Ishmael was the child of the bondwoman Hagar, conceived by Abraham with his wife's consent.  A real good example of man trying to 'help' God and failing miserably.
> 
> Isaac was the child of Promise from Sarah, Abraham's wife.
> 
> Both were Abraham's children, but only one was the child promised by God.  It seems that both were accepted as well, as God promised to bless both!



A promise that Sara initially laughed at.   
Wonder why?


----------



## Ronnie T

formula1 said:


> Ronnie, you should feel much better now!



I'm just trying my hand at.....


----------



## hummerpoo

Ronnie T said:


> A promise that Sara initially laughed at.
> Wonder why?



I've never been clear on that one, would like to hear some thoughts.

A laugh of joy?
A laugh of disbelief?
A laugh of derision?


----------



## JB0704

Ronnie T said:


> No, but only because of the masculine inference.
> Honestly, I have a good friend who's in his 80's who calls all his children 'darling'.  This includes his two sons who are in their late 50's/early 60's.
> Always seemed a little odd to me.



I have known some who call everybody, men, women, whoever darling.  I always thought is was a feminine reference, but that could just be my cultural perspective.

And, I don't even call my daughter darling.  She's my princess!


----------



## Ronnie T

hummerpoo said:


> I've never been clear on that one, would like to hear some thoughts.
> 
> A laugh of joy?
> A laugh of disbelief?
> A laugh of derision?



I think a laugh of 'how rediculous' 'I could never get preg'.


----------



## mtnwoman

My mama and grandmamas always called us darlin or little darlin. I call all my kin folk and friends darlin when I feel inclined to do so. No one has ever acted like they didn't like it. When my granddaughters see me they run full speed and say miiiiiimiiiiii (mimi) and I say 'oh it's my little darlins'.

I think it's a sweet 'name'.

I never called my husbands or boyfriends darlin I called them other things.....hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Nah just kiddin' but darlin wasn't one of them.

Y'all are sweet around here though!


----------



## formula1

Ronnie T said:


> A promise that Sara initially laughed at.
> Wonder why?



To hear it must have been a shock, being very old and past the age of child bearing.  It's kind what happens when we do not do this:
Proverbs 3
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.
6 In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.


----------

