# No alcohol on Sundays....



## FishFanatic (Apr 4, 2007)

Feel free to state your opinion on this.  I'll go ahead and say that I can't stand this law and that has nothing to do with me wanting to by alcohol on Sundays.  I just feel its absolutely wrong for Christians to force their beliefs on their community.  I don't know why, but this subject gets my blood boiling.  Its just plain wrong.  I am interested in some other viewpoints on this though.  I admit I have not discussed this topic with too many other Christians.  And I'm always willing to be educated.


----------



## dixie (Apr 4, 2007)

With me, its the way its done, there are some place in GA you can buy alcohol by the bottle on Sunday's legally, but its made to sound like everythings shut down.


----------



## Randy (Apr 4, 2007)

It is not wrong to drink alcohol in the first place so why not allow it on Sunday.  That is not the sabath day anyway.  Saturday is.


----------



## Hunting Teacher (Apr 4, 2007)

It's a foolish law. 
If alcohol is considered against God's word, which it's not then it's wrong Monday through Saturday as well 24/7.
If God does not say it's wrong, then what difference does it make what day it is. 
Personally,
It doesn't affect me simply because I have made the choice to not drink alcohol. 
This kind of reminds me of Lewis Grizzard's old joke.
We Baptists are getting much more liberal now days, we'll even acknowledge each other in the liquor store now!! 
Teacher


----------



## toddboucher (Apr 4, 2007)

Since that stuff almost killed me I would say get rid of it. That being said if we are going to sell this stuff I never thought what 1 day of not buying booze would do, but make some sober on Monday. Also Im one of those born again Christian folks pushing my view on everyone.


----------



## Ta-ton-ka chips (Apr 4, 2007)

toddboucher said:


> Since that stuff almost killed me I would say get rid of it. That being said if we are going to sell this stuff I never thought what 1 day of not buying booze would do, but make some sober on Monday. Also Im one of those born again Christian folks pushing my view on everyone.



You were attacked and almost killed by a liquor bottle?

Reminds me of the boy killed in Atlanta when "the gun went off".


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Apr 4, 2007)

I like to take a snort, and probably have drunk more than was good for me.

Maybe its wrong for someone else to force their beliefs on you (although that's what about 90% of all laws are) but I don't understand what the big imposition is to go one day without being able to buy a bottle of booze or  a can of beer.  I can handle it.


----------



## Randy (Apr 4, 2007)

Twenty five ought six said:


> ..but I don't understand what the big imposition is to go one day without being able to buy a bottle of booze or  a can of beer.  I can handle it.



It is not that there is a big imposition to go one day without being able to buy it. It is certainly simple enough to stock up so you don't have to.  Heck there are a lot of days I don't have to go buy it.  The imposition is just that somebody else can tell me when I can't.  As someone asked earlier...............Is this still America?

What if the atheist in this country banned together to say us christians could not worship on a certain day.  Don't they have the same right to request that law?


----------



## THREEJAYS (Apr 4, 2007)

I'm a christain and as such the reason it could apper at times as pushy is because of the eternal  place that all will end up at.Any good christain hopes to see others saved and theres no other way than to express what we believe.That being said the reason I choose now not to drink is because I have never seen any good what so ever come from it.My .02 cents


----------



## Branchminnow (Apr 4, 2007)

Im glad it is still illegal, I got no use for alchohol, has not ever done anyone any good, (other than the every once in while cold remedy) and the  only time should be drank ,in communion. (along with unleavened bread and only then on feetwashing day).


----------



## Randy (Apr 4, 2007)

No good use?  You guys ain't drinking enough!!! 

I met all of my wives this way.


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Apr 4, 2007)

> The imposition is just that somebody else can tell me when I can't. As someone asked earlier...............Is this still America?



You can't smoke marijuana any day of the week.  A significant portion of our population thinks this is an imposition, but yes, this is still America, so we can tell you that you can't do this because most Americans think it is wrong. 



> What if the atheist in this country banned together to say us christians could not worship on a certain day. Don't they have the same right to request that law?



Nope, now you are stretching. Freedom of religion (and how it is practiced) is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.  The right to buy Thunderbird anytime you want is not one of our great constitutional rights.  In fact, the sale of alcohol is one of the few (if not the only) activity which the Constitution of the United States  _specifically _ delegates to the states.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 4, 2007)

It should not be up to the .gov as to when a business owner can sell their legal products.  Let the business owner make that determination, and it should be the same with smoking tobacco.

Legislating morality is a losing proposition.


----------



## Randy (Apr 4, 2007)

WTM45 said:


> Legislating morality is a losing proposition.



That is my whole point.  Morality should not be legislated unless we all agree on it, which will never happen.  Once you accept legislation of morality, what happens if the morals of 51% change to the other side?  That is what has happend with taking prayer out of schools.  That kind of legislation can backfire.


----------



## DCHunter (Apr 4, 2007)

The bad thing about it is that it causes people who drink alot to go to a restaurant and get a pitcher or 2 and then DRIVE back home instead of just staying at home and drinking it.


----------



## Randy (Apr 4, 2007)

DCHunter said:


> The bad thing about it is that it causes people who drink alot to go to a restaurant and get a pitcher or 2 and then DRIVE back home instead of just staying at home and drinking it.



I would not use that as an argument for alcohol on Sunday.  There is NEVER a reason to drink and drive.


----------



## DCHunter (Apr 4, 2007)

Randy said:


> I would not use that as an argument for alcohol on Sunday.  There is NEVER a reason to drink and drive.



I'm not saying that there ever is a reason to drink and drive. I'm just saying that's what the law tends to make people do.


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Apr 4, 2007)

> It should not be up to the .gov as to when a business owner can sell their legal products. Let the business owner make that determination, and it should be the same with smoking tobacco.



That's right. The bars should be open 24/7.  And who is the government to tell them who to sell to, also.  I've known many a good man that started to chew a little twist when he was 14, and if you can die for your country at 18, you ought to be able to get drunk for your country at the same age.  And if our youngsters could just get to the nudy mags behind the counters of the convenience stores, we wouldn't be having all these teen pregnancies.  Whose idea was it to put them in plastic covers anyway?




> I'm not saying that there ever is a reason to drink and drive. I'm just saying that's what the law tends to make people do.



What makes them tend to do it the other six days of the week.  General sorriness?


----------



## catahoula girl (Apr 4, 2007)

*To tell you the truth...*

It is really a ridiculous law anyway.  You can buy alcohol the day before and stock up so it isn't stopping anyone from drinking it.  Might as well allow business owners one more day to gain some income.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 4, 2007)

Twenty five ought six said:


> That's right. The bars should be open 24/7.  And who is the government to tell them who to sell to, also.  I've known many a good man that started to chew a little twist when he was 14, and if you can die for your country at 18, you ought to be able to get drunk for your country at the same age.  And if our youngsters could just get to the nudy mags behind the counters of the convenience stores, we wouldn't be having all these teen pregnancies.  Whose idea was it to put them in plastic covers anyway?



Let me say it again......
"It should not be up to the .gov as to when a business owner can sell their legal products. Let the business owner make that determination, and it should be the same with smoking tobacco."  

I said nothing about legal age.  

Why should a business owner not be able to choose their own hours of operation, based on the demographics of their market, and to service the population who work third shifts/midnights?


----------



## CAL (Apr 4, 2007)

Well,when I was a kid growing up we could buy nothing on Sunday!You couldn't even buy a coke unless it was out of a machine much less any alcohol.The whole town was closed up completely.I think we as a nation have become more and more liberal as to what is allowed and done on Sunday.Seems now Sunday is just another business day as usual.Not only alcohol but everything else as well.As far as selling it on Sunday,I don't drink,never have and could care less if it is ever sold any day of the week.I have seen it ruin enough lives and families to last me the rest of my life.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 4, 2007)

CAL said:


> I have seen it ruin enough lives and families to last me the rest of my life.



I agree.


----------



## jneil (Apr 4, 2007)

If you don't like the idea of alcohol sells on Sunday, then don't buy any on Sunday.


----------



## justthinking (Apr 4, 2007)

> I just feel its absolutely wrong for Christians to force their beliefs on their community.



Last time I checked anybody over the age of 18 that took the time to register to vote in their community had the right at voting time to vote their convictions in that community.

As a Christian I cannot force you to do anything, but I can vote if there is something to be voted on (this goes for anything - not just the topic at hand - Sunday sales). 

If the community wants change, then vote change - in people or in law. If you find that you don't agree with the voting majority in your community, you can stay in the silent minority; go door-to-door in support of the minority cause in hopes of changing any future vote; or you can move to a community that supports your values and puts you back in the majority again.

I can say the exact same thing you said, only in reverse - "I just feel its absolutely wrong for non-Christians to force their beliefs on their community" - signed, in love, justthinking.


----------



## FishFanatic (Apr 4, 2007)

justthinking said:


> Last time I checked anybody over the age of 18 that took the time to register to vote in their community had the right at voting time to vote their convictions in that community.
> 
> As a Christian I cannot force you to do anything, but I can vote if there is something to be voted on (this goes for anything - not just the topic at hand - Sunday sales).
> 
> ...



The Jesus I read about in the gospels would not have forced this law on his community.  Its simply a result of Christians not wanting to think about whether or not what they are doing is right.  The Sunday law does nothing but hurt the witness of Christianity.  It makes no sense.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 4, 2007)

I feel it's a foolish law and I am hardly a drinker.


----------



## justthinking (Apr 5, 2007)

In the streets they cry out for wine _on Sunday*_; all joy turns to gloom, all gaiety is banished from the earth. -Isaiah 24:11

*justthinking humor
__________________________________________

Holland, Michigan is a very Dutch, Christian Reformed harbor town on Lake Michigan. Just last year, they voted to allow Sunday sales in that town. There was a great uproar on both sides of the fence, they took a vote and the "left side" of the fence won. 

Welcome to America - land of the free and home of the brave. That's all I'm saying. If you don't like something - go petition signatures, put it on the ballot and vote.

Regardless of whatever side of the fence you are on - on any given issue - you are in effect, forcing your beliefs on someone else.

Some folks just have stronger moral convictions than others. They each work hard, pay taxes and live in a certain community - and should get the right to vote their convictions on any given issue. That just seems to me to be the fair way to solve any issue - and thank God we live in a country where that is an option. 

Go try crying "Sunday sales" in Iran and see where that gets you. We should nuke that godforsaken backwoods place just so we can set up a new reformed government that allows ANY alcohol sales to those poor oppressed muslims.

Teenager Facing Execution for Drinking Alcohol in Iran

A 19 year-old man, Davood, has received a death sentence for drinking alcohol in Iran. According to the Iran daily newspaper, published by the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) on January 11, 2003, this sentence was handed down by a judge in southern Tehran. Under Iran's Islamic law, consuming alcohol is forbidden and is usually punished by lashes or fines. However, offenders caught for a third time can be sentenced to death. 

The Green Party of Iran condemns this barbaric sentence for drinking alcohol by the Mullah’s judiciary system and asks all Green Parties and human rights organizations around the world to pressure on the ruling regime in Iran to stop this execution.

Green Party of Iran
January 12, 2003
http://www.iran-e-sabz.org/statements/Execution1.html

That's a true story there - so get on your knees and thank the Good Lord above that you weren't born in Tehran. 

Ya'll need to quit complaining about those Bible-thumpin' party-poopers forcing you to buy extra beer on your Saturday night trip to the Jr. Food Store. Get off the couch and start goin' door to door for those petitions - time's a wastin'. Cuz' those Koran-thumpin' party-poopers are one of the fastest growing religions in America.

And as far as legislating morality goes - do you want to throw out the laws on rape, murder, theft, sodomy (which of course is ok, except when it is your friendly neighbor and your 8-year old little boy - which is what they are trying to legislate in some parts of Europe!). You realize that people do take vacations to places like Morocco and Thailand just to have sex with children (as young as 5, and probably younger) don't you? 

Where do you draw the line on moral issues? EVERYTHING is moral to one extent or another - not just booze. 

When people stop legislating their "higher" morality, then other people will continue to legislate their "lower" morality.

When the left.gov wants to tax you into oblivion - (ask anybody in Michigan where all the jobs ran off to, and why they're not coming back) should you sit on your hands and not vote against liberal governors who want higher taxes? Because if you don't vote, that's exactly what you'll get. Same goes for legalizing drugs, legalizing sex with minors, legalizing socialized medicine, and everyone's favorite -- outlawing "assault weapons" including my semi-auto Remington 1100.

Where do you draw your lines? Sure some of the things on the books are old and even arcane - but don't tell me I can't have a say in what transpires in the community I work, live and play in - just because I'm a Christian.


----------



## Randy (Apr 5, 2007)

CAL said:


> Seems now Sunday is just another business day as usual.



As it should be.  Who says Sunday is not just another day.


----------



## habersham hammer (Apr 5, 2007)

Who needs alcohol in the first place?

I will be 41 in August and have "never" tasted it in my life.

Other than what they put in medicines, I have no idea what alcohol tastes like.

I have seen it ruin too many homes and kill too many people to start now!!


----------



## Randy (Apr 5, 2007)

habersham hammer said:


> I have seen it ruin too many homes and kill too many people to start now!!



I have seen more women ruin lives than alcohol but I can't live without women.  Alcohol like women only ruin you if you let it.


----------



## CAL (Apr 5, 2007)

Randy said:


> As it should be.  Who says Sunday is not just another day.



I guess it is according to how a person is raised.I was raised it is the Sabbath,a day of rest,the Lords day and to keep it Holy.From the looks of how the world in general feels about Sunday,I must have been raised wrong!


----------



## Randy (Apr 5, 2007)

CAL said:


> I guess it is according to how a person is raised.I was raised it is the Sabbath,a day of rest,the Lords day and to keep it Holy.From the looks of how the world in general feels about Sunday,I must have been raised wrong!



Cal I was raised much as you.  To believe that Sunday is the sabbath.  But we have been led astray.  The Sabath is actually on the last day of the week which is Saturday.  And it was not meant as "The Lords Day."  It was given to the Jews as a day of rest to remember that He had saved them from slavery.  He meant for it to be used as a day of rest not worship.  Every day should be a day of worship.  In the 1600's the Puritians decided they would change this day from the last day to the first day of the week because they felt it more important to be on the first day since that was the day Jesus was raised from the dead.

As such, we are all in violation of this commandment.  Well not all some still hold that the Sabbath is on Saturday.  And don't take it that I am pointing at anybody or telling you what you are doing is wrong.  Just pointing out how things get turned around some times.

Another thing to think about is who is the one person that "works" the hardest on this "day of rest."  That's right, the pastor.  The one guy who should be leading by example works the hardest on the day we are all suppose to rest.  Ahhh, but not really since it is not Sunday that is the sabbath.  See how mixed up it all gets when we do not follow the commandments.  And how many got out to eat after church on this day of rest?  Do you realize you are aiding a person that works in these resturants to sin because they must be there to work on this sabbath so yu can eat.  Something to think about hmmmm?


----------



## SBG (Apr 5, 2007)

Randy said:


> Cal I was raised much as you.  To believe that Sunday is the sabbath.  But we have been led astray.  The Sabath is actually on the last day of the week which is Saturday.  And it was not meant as "The Lords Day."  It was given to the Jews as a day of rest to remember that He had saved them from slavery.  He meant for it to be used as a day of rest not worship.  Every day should be a day of worship.  In the 1600's the Puritians decided they would change this day from the last day to the first day of the week because they felt it more important to be on the first day since that was the day Jesus was raised from the dead.
> 
> As such, we are all in violation of this commandment.  Well not all some still hold that the Sabbath is on Saturday.  And don't take it that I am pointing at anybody or telling you what you are doing is wrong.  Just pointing out how things get turned around some times.
> 
> Another thing to think about is who is the one person that "works" the hardest on this "day of rest."  That's right, the pastor.  The one guy who should be leading by example works the hardest on the day we are all suppose to rest.  Ahhh, but not really since it is not Sunday that is the sabbath.  See how mixed up it all gets when we do not follow the commandments.  And how many got out to eat after church on this day of rest?  Do you realize you are aiding a person that works in these resturants to sin because they must be there to work on this sabbath so yu can eat.  Something to think about hmmmm?



We are not in violation of the sabbath. The Church has met on Sunday, The Lord's Day, The first day of the week since the Church was established. The practice of Sunday worship was well in advance of the puritans.

Under the dispensation of grace, we are not bound by adherance to the law as a form of rightousness.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 5, 2007)

Randy said:


> Another thing to think about is who is the one person that "works" the hardest on this "day of rest."  That's right, the pastor.  The one guy who should be leading by example works the hardest on the day we are all suppose to rest.  Ahhh, but not really since it is not Sunday that is the sabbath.  See how mixed up it all gets when we do not follow the commandments.  And how many got out to eat after church on this day of rest?  Do you realize you are aiding a person that works in these resturants to sin because they must be there to work on this sabbath so yu can eat.  Something to think about hmmmm?



So I guess we should fast on the sabbath then? Because if we get up and fix anything to eat, thats work. Well even if we get out of bed on the sabbath then did we not do work to get out of bed?

How many people cut their grass on Saturday and Sunday....hmm that is doing work on whichever day you consider the sabbath.

Jesus taught and worked on the Sabbath:
Matthew 12:10-13
10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.

Luke 13:10-17
10 And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath.
11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.
12 And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.
13 And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.
14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.
15 The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his a55 from the stall, and lead him away to watering?
16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?
17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

Mark 6:1-6
1 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. 
4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Just something to think about....

DB BB


----------



## Randy (Apr 5, 2007)

SBG said:


> We are not in violation of the sabbath. The Church has met on Sunday, The Lord's Day, The first day of the week since the Church was established. The practice of Sunday worship was well in advance of the puritans.



So you all rest on Saturday?


----------



## Randy (Apr 5, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> So I guess we should fast on the sabbath then? Because if we get up and fix anything to eat, thats work. Well even if we get out of bed on the sabbath then did we not do work to get out of bed?
> 
> DB BB



I guess you could carry it to extremes.  There was a time when lifting anyting heavier than a "fig" was considered work on Saturday.

My point was, as Cal had been rasied so was I, that the Sabbath was on Sunday.  It is not!  Somewhere along the way it was changed and now we are all taught it is Sunday when it is not!  It is Saturday.  I have no problem with Sunday being a day of worhip although I am not sure why it is singled out since we should worship every day.

Getting back to the original thread Sunday is not the Sabbath and therefore sales of alcohol on Sunday are not or should not be based on the fact that is a Sabbath day.  If we just want to pick a day to not sale alcohol then that is fine.  But it should not be based on some Christian belief/observance.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 5, 2007)

Why not?  This country was founded by Christian men!

I know this is off topic but why can't everyone just accept that no matter what there will always be a Christian influence in the Govt?

Before sessions of congress, they pray. Ooohhh no, we can't have that now can we.....

Oh my goodness, in the pledge of alliegence it say one nation under God...hmmm, just which God do you think that is?

You eliminate God and Christian values out of our Govt and you will see the more rapid decline of America, it is a wonder that God has not already turned his back on America, but I wouldn't doubt for it to happen any minute....

The seperation of Church and State wasn't supposed to be protect the state from the church it was supposed to protect the church from the state.

I am all for outlawing consumption of alcohol, how many people die each year because someone was stupid enough to get behind the wheel of a car after drinking? Notice I didn't say drunk, because it only takes one beer, one glass of wine to slow your reaction time... you have to be an IDIOT to do this!

How many people die from smoking ciggarettes, or being exposed to someone that does for a long time. You say it is a choice, well where is my choice, I don't smoke, I don't like being around smoke. I have never understood why someone would want to inhale toxic chemicals into their lungs... you have to be an IDIOT to do it!

DB BB


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 5, 2007)

Let's just move right on to namecalling.......


----------



## Ta-ton-ka chips (Apr 5, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I am all for outlawing consumption of alcohol, how many people die each year because someone was stupid enough to get behind the wheel of a car after drinking? Notice I didn't say drunk, because it only takes one beer, one glass of wine to slow your reaction time... you have to be an IDIOT to do this!
> 
> DB BB



When are you going to promote outlawing guns, or are you just a hypocrite?

Signed,
An Idiot


----------



## SBG (Apr 5, 2007)

Randy said:


> So you all rest on Saturday?




Again, we are now under the dispensation of grace. We are not bound by the law.


----------



## Randy (Apr 5, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I know this is off topic but why can't everyone just accept that no matter what there will always be a Christian influence in the Govt?
> 
> DB BB



That is what scares me.  It may not "always" be that way.  What if Obahma is elected to President and we fall under Islamic control?  Or any other control that is not Christian?  I believe in God as much or more than anybody else but baseing our laws on religious morals is asking for trouble.  We may not always be a christian nation.  In fact, we are not far from it now.  The forefathers that you refer to were careful in setting up our Bill of Rights so that they were not based on Christianity.


----------



## Randy (Apr 5, 2007)

SBG said:


> Again, we are now under the dispensation of grace. We are not bound by the law.



So we no longer have to obey the Ten Commandments?  That is not what I have been raised on.


----------



## Jim Thompson (Apr 5, 2007)

its an idiot law that has no rhyme or reason.


----------



## SBG (Apr 5, 2007)

Randy said:


> So we no longer have to obey the Ten Commandments?  That is not what I have been raised on.



Okay Randy...I'll bite. What does it take to be perfect? The Bible says that if you can't keep ALL of the law, you are guilty of ALL of the law. That is the reason Christ came to this world...because we are incapable of keeping the law.


Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 

The Apostle Paul here was teaching this very thing. There were some of the newly converted christians that were trying to force other christians to remain under the bondage of the law. Paul cleared it up quite well.


----------



## Randy (Apr 5, 2007)

SBG said:


> Colossians 2:16
> Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:



So we come full circle.  We should not be judged in "drink" or "in respect of a holyday" or "of the sabbath,"  yet there is a law that does just that.  I can assume from this that you agree this law should not be?

I have learned something today though.  I had no idea we had been released from some of the commandments.


----------



## SBG (Apr 5, 2007)

Randy said:


> So we come full circle.  We should not be judged in "drink" or "in respect of a holyday" or "of the sabbath,"  yet there is a law that does just that.  I can assume from this that you agree this law should not be?
> 
> I have learned something today though.  I had no idea we had been released from some of the commandments.



Don't look at it as being released from the commandments. We are still responsible for striving to keep them. Now, the difference is that we are not held liable for not being able to keep them. 

For the record...I think that the law is unnecessary.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 5, 2007)

Ta-ton-ka chips said:


> When are you going to promote outlawing guns, or are you just a hypocrite?
> 
> Signed,
> An Idiot



So you are saying it is alright for someone to drink and drive???

I only called someone an IDIOT for doing it. If you don't do it then it doesn't refer to you.

DB BB


----------



## Randy (Apr 5, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> So you are saying it is alright for someone to drink and drive???
> 
> I only called someone an IDIOT for doing it. If you don't do it then it doesn't refer to you.
> 
> DB BB



I think his point was guns can be missused just as alcohol can.  Just because someone chooses to drink and drive is no reason to outlaw alcohol.  Just because someone chooses to use a gun in the commission of a crime is no reason to outlaw guns. 

It is not the drink's fault nor the gun's fault.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 5, 2007)

Randy said:


> I think his point was guns can be missused just as alcohol can.  Just because someone chooses to drink and drive is no reason to outlaw alcohol.  Just because someone chooses to use a gun in the commission of a crime is no reason to outlaw guns.
> 
> It is not the drink's fault nor the gun's fault.



My opinion is some gun control is not a bad thing, anyone can go up to a store and by alcohol as long as they have an ID, and that is it. With a firearm it is alittle be more difficult to buy one legally(at a store), if you have a record. But you can be a full blown acoholic and still buy alcohol leagally....

DB BB


----------



## HuntinTom (Apr 5, 2007)

Randy said:


> That is my whole point.  Morality should not be legislated unless we all agree on it, which will never happen.  Once you accept legislation of morality, what happens if the morals of 51% change to the other side?



That's whay we have it sold on Sundays now...


----------



## addictedtodeer (Apr 5, 2007)

hey to up the ante, should anything be sold on Sunday?


----------



## Buzz (Apr 5, 2007)

That's probably the worst idea I've ever heard.


----------



## THREEJAYS (Apr 5, 2007)




----------



## contender* (Apr 5, 2007)

IT'S A DUMB LAW BUT WOOOPPPEEEDOOO! SORTA LIKE THE STUPID RULE AT WALMART THAT YOU CAN'T BUY AMMO AFTER 11 P.M. ! IF I WANT A BEER ON SUNDAY I'LL BE SURE AND BUY IT ON SAT. IF I FORGET IT'S JUST MY TOUGH LUCK, I CAN LIVE WITHOUT IT.


----------



## Flash (Apr 5, 2007)

Recently I read an article comparing the alcohol issue to the smoking in resturants/bars. Supposedly the sponsor of the no smoking bill stated it's a health issue and we need less not more smoke.         

 The article went on to say if you used the same reasoning, you can't justify more alcohol since more would mean more DUI's, wrecks, etc.  Another health issue.


----------



## jneil (Apr 5, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Why not?  This country was founded by Christian men!



They viewed religion as a private matter between the individual and their Creator, not something that should be legistated.


----------



## SE.GAcoondawg (Apr 6, 2007)

This is unbelieveable, I wish all of you wouldn't claim to be christians.  Ya'll are no different than the rest of the world.


----------



## FishFanatic (Apr 6, 2007)

SE.GAcoondawg said:


> This is unbelieveable, I wish all of you wouldn't claim to be christians.  Ya'll are no different than the rest of the world.



Sad thing is, you make a good point.  I am no different than the rest of the world.  Jesus is the difference.  Not me.


----------



## Worley (Apr 6, 2007)

*Jesus*

Just read a few comments about Him (Jesus)in post above and thought i would reply once.  I believe He kind of "forced" HIS point of view on others.. Read Luke 13:3 and see if HE did..


----------



## PWalls (Apr 9, 2007)

No alcohol sales on Sunday. Of course, I also believe no restaurants or quickies or WalMart or anything else on Sundays either.


----------



## Randy (Apr 9, 2007)

PWalls said:


> No quickies on Sundays either.


----------



## PWalls (Apr 9, 2007)

Randy said:


>



I'm sorry Randy. I should have spelled out Quickie Stores (convienient stores).


----------



## Buzz (Apr 9, 2007)

SE.GAcoondawg said:


> This is unbelieveable, I wish all of you wouldn't claim to be christians.  Ya'll are no different than the rest of the world.



That's a very un-Christian like thing to say.


----------



## BKA (Apr 9, 2007)

Reading this thread makes me want a cold beer!


----------



## catahoula girl (Apr 9, 2007)

BKA said:


> Reading this thread makes me want a cold beer!



Agreed!!    ha ha ha

It's amazing how things get off track.  For being a bunch of Christians you sure are nasty to each other.  It makes me think of the following:
“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone..."


----------



## Crimson (Apr 9, 2007)

this law is stupid.  i had a new neighbor move in yesterday, and me and my neighbors ran out of beer.  that stinks, why as a 40 year old american man, not go to the store and buy some beer?  i don't care what day it is.  don't make any sense to me.


----------



## DLS (Apr 9, 2007)

seems like a waste of corn to me . stead of makin likker spread it out so as to attract deer & turkeys


----------



## BKA (Apr 9, 2007)

Crimson said:


> this law is stupid.  i had a new neighbor move in yesterday, and me and my neighbors ran out of beer.  that stinks, why as a 40 year old american man, not go to the store and buy some beer?  i don't care what day it is.  don't make any sense to me.



That just seems like a rookie mistake to me! 

I have way more than enough on Sundays!!!!  Actually, the beer fridge has way more than enough 7 days a week.

I don't play with something like that!!


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Apr 10, 2007)

> Actually, the beer fridge has way more than enough 7 days a week.
> 
> I don't play with something like that!!



There you go.  There's just some things you don't play around with.


----------



## CollinsCraft77 (Apr 10, 2007)

Randy said:


> I have seen more women ruin lives than alcohol but I can't live without women. Alcohol like women only ruin you if you let it.


Although in previous posts, we have disagreed, i must go with you on this one. I believe in God and Jesus and the Bible, etc. I also believe there is nothing better tasting than an ice cold beer. I never drink more than two or three in an entire day. Well, i did when i was younger but not in a long time. I am responsible. I do not drive after even a sip. I drink at home. I do not let it effect my life or my family. I can afford to do it. So why should i not be able to go and buy it? Yes, i can buy what i need on Saturday, but the reasons behind the current law are just plain dumb. That said, i could care less when we have to buy it. Just all these people with the horror stories of alcohol ruining people's lives, guys, it's not the alcohol. It's not the guns. And in reality, it's not the women. It is the individual who chooses to exercise caution, restraint, good responsibility, or the one who doesn't. Period. Quit blaming everything else for someone's problems. You can't legislate stupidity away. It will always be here. Sunday - Saturday. You can either handle it or you can't. When I mess up, I tell God I'm sorry and to please forgive me and i move on. I blame nobody or anything for my mistakes.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Apr 10, 2007)

Getting in on this a little late.  I saw opinions concerning "legislating morality".  Are not most, if not all of our laws, based on some level of morality.  Is it not immoral to steal, lie, kill, etc (all of which are addressed in God's law)?  So, at what point do we stop legislating morality?  Some may say at the point where it harms others.  Anyone here ever lived with an alcoholic in the family?  Don't tell me their drinking doesn't affect those around them.  Know anyone that's been killed by a drunk driver?  I understand the opinions that people should be able to do whatever they want to do to themselves, this is the same platform that those wishing to legalize drugs stand on.


----------



## Randy (Apr 10, 2007)

"IF" there is no difference between drinking alcohol and stealing lieing or killing, then alcohol should be completely outlawed, not just on Sunday.

First off I do not even think drinking is immoral.  At least I can not find it in the Bible?  Now in excess may be but so is eating too much. 

Lying is also not in the same catagory and while maybe considered immoral is not against the law unless in the court room, and even there it is done every day.

Obviously stealing and killing affect others immediately and directly.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Apr 10, 2007)

Randy, my point concerns the legistation of morality part of the discussion.  Some have said the the Sunday blue laws legislate morality and some have offered opinions that the government should not legislate morality.  However, as I pointed out, most of our laws are based on some level of morality.  So, if our government should not legislate morality, then we shouldn't have laws prohibiting murder, theft, etc,.  I know that's a bit extreme and far fetched, but at what point is it ok and/or not ok for the government to "legislate morality"

In many cases, lying is illegal.  People cannot misrepresent themselves in entering into legal agreements for instance.  Lying on a job application is grounds for immediate dismissal (people who do so are not protected by law).  Lying to obtain money and/or property can constitute fraud.


----------



## jneil (Apr 10, 2007)

Laws pertaining to stealing and killing involve a victim. If a person wants to kill their liver in the privacy of their home I won't stop them. If they want to drive drunk put them under the jail.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 10, 2007)

While I was attending Georgia Southern University, I was involved in a vehicle accident that involved another person that had been drinking(he pulled out in front of me, and I side swiped him). As a result from the crash I had to undergo, shoulder surgery, even now(this happened 10 years ago) I can not lay on my right side for more then a few minutes, I can not hold things above my shoulders for more then a couple of minutes, because of that IDIOT that choose to drink and drive. It could have turned out a lot worse, but by the Grace of God it didn't.

This may explain to alot of you why I took the position I have on drinking, and drinking and driving.

Alcohol alters your mind, it is a chemical that has an effect on not only the brain but the body as well.

DB BB


----------



## DCHunter (Apr 10, 2007)

David Mills said:


> Randy, my point concerns the legistation of morality part of the discussion.  Some have said the the Sunday blue laws legislate morality and some have offered opinions that the government should not legislate morality.  However, as I pointed out, most of our laws are based on some level of morality.  So, if our government should not legislate morality, then we shouldn't have laws prohibiting murder, theft, etc,.  I know that's a bit extreme and far fetched, but at what point is it ok and/or not ok for the government to "legislate morality"
> 
> In many cases, lying is illegal.  People cannot misrepresent themselves in entering into legal agreements for instance.  Lying on a job application is grounds for immediate dismissal (people who do so are not protected by law).  Lying to obtain money and/or property can constitute fraud.


The line should be drawn at whether or not an action violates the rights of another.


----------



## Branchminnow (Apr 10, 2007)

jneil said:


> Laws pertaining to stealing and killing involve a victim. If a person wants to kill their liver in the privacy of their home I won't stop them. If they want to drive drunk put them under the jail.



One thing you might think about, if the police catch them DD then they have already driven to where they caught them. 
In other words look at the potential victims, that they met on the road BEFORE the police caught them.


----------



## CollinsCraft77 (Apr 10, 2007)

You can drink and drive seven days a week, not just on Sunday. Problem is, there are good people who are affected by decisions of a few. It's the few, and it could be dealing with anything, that seem to get the attention. I do drink in moderation. I do not drive after or during drinking. So i should not be classified with them and therefore not subject to any action taken because of them. I am not careless with my guns, so i shouldn't be subject to any opinions dealing with people who are. It seems that a lot of you are bringing up the worst case scenarios. I hate it for anyone who has had a problem with or because of alcohol. I do. That said, no press is given to the millions who don't have a problem and who don't abuse it and who should be allowed to buy it whenever. 

If we brought to light the bad apples in everything, we would not get to do anything.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Apr 10, 2007)

Even one drink alters one's mind, even if it's to a minor extent.  Since this is in the Spiritual forum and not the political forum, I will offer a spiritual viewpoint.

One should not look any further than Jesus Christ for comfort.  It can be viewed that if someone says "I have a drink or 2 just to relax", then that person is replacing Christ with a drink or 2.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Apr 10, 2007)

> The line should be drawn at whether or not an action violates the rights of another.



Who draws the line?  At what point is it determined that ones actions are detrimental to another?  A very grey area with abstract boundries.


----------



## Randy (Apr 10, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> While I was attending Georgia Southern University, I was involved in a vehicle accident that involved another person that had been drinking(he pulled out in front of me, and I side swiped him)......
> DB BB



While I was attending Souther Tech I was involved with a big fat woman.  It has affected me for the rest of my life too.  Not trying to make light of your situation because I agree with you that drinking and driving don't mix.  But that is off the subject here.

We are talking about being able to buy alcohol on Sunday.  Most drinking and driving accidents happen on friday and Saturday night.  Maybe it should be outlawed then instead of Sunday?  The fact is, this is strictly and only a law on the books under the old "blue laws" about doing something on Sunday that might not be considered "christian."  It was and is for that purpose alone.  It serves no other purpose and does not even stop drinking on Sunday.

The dangerous part is having a law based on "christian/religious" beliefs.  Suppose another religion takes over and puts in their law(s)?  It is a dangerous precident.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 10, 2007)

Randy said:


> While I was attending Souther Tech I was involved with a big fat woman.  It has affected me for the rest of my life too.



Is that why you are the way you are??? I thought that was what it was but I wasn't sure.   

I know what the topic of disscussion is about. I just thought I might give some insite as to one of the reasons I believe so adimitly against drinking, and drinking and driving. I could elaborate on what I think about smoking even more than I did but I guess I will refrain from that for the moment.

I am for outlawing it on all days of the week!!!! (I am sure I am going to get slammed for that one) Just my opinion, as someone that has been directly affected by someone that has drank, and then also decided to drive....

DB BB


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Apr 10, 2007)

> The fact is, this is strictly and only a law on the books under the old "blue laws" about doing something on Sunday that might not be considered "christian." It was and is for that purpose alone. It serves no other purpose and does not even stop drinking on Sunday.



Randy, I agree that that is most likely the case, I have not studied the origin of the "blue laws" but I would tend to agree.

However, I also look at the many different facets of American life and see how, through law and political correctness, God is being removed from every day life.  Bit by bit, it is being chipped away (shall we review?).  This is just another bit that many want to chip away, then they or some other group will look to remove another facet of God from our lives.  For example, some have even tried to convince politicians that churches should not be allowed to witness outside the church.


----------



## SBG (Apr 10, 2007)

David Mills said:


> Even one drink alters one's mind, even if it's to a minor extent.  Since this is in the Spiritual forum and not the political forum, I will offer a spiritual viewpoint.
> 
> One should not look any further than Jesus Christ for comfort.  It can be viewed that if someone says "I have a drink or 2 just to relax", then that person is replacing Christ with a drink or 2.




Amen!!!


----------



## Randy (Apr 10, 2007)

David Mills said:


> However, I also look at the many different facets of American life and see how, through law and political correctness, God is being removed from every day life.  Bit by bit, it is being chipped away (shall we review?).  This is just another bit that many want to chip away, then they or some other group will look to remove another facet of God from our lives.  For example, some have even tried to convince politicians that churches should not be allowed to witness outside the church.



David,
That is exactly why I am for not haveing the law.  Not just because God is being removed from everyday life but all rights are slowly being removed.  Some are being removed by Christians and some by atheists.  And I don't want to sound like a liberal, and I know some will say I do, but I do not want any law that affects my rights that does not have a direct affect on others.

It is kind of like the black comedian last night on Hannity.  He was not taking up for Imus but he made the point that he, the comedian, regularly uses those terms that Imus used.  Of course people laugh at him when he says that but want Imus fired.  His point was if it is wrong for Imus it woudl be wrng for him and he should be fired too.

It is about rights and the loss of those rights that are becoming a problem in America.


----------



## Branchminnow (Apr 10, 2007)

I'm with ya David.


----------



## Hooty Hoot (Apr 10, 2007)

I am OK with legalizing alcohol sales on Sunday. I am OK with outlawing all alcohol on Sunday. Either way, lets make it the same for everyone.....the sports bar, city of Atlanta, and Joe sixpak. I wonder how long it would take for the city of Atlanta to go to squawking if their Turner Field $5.00 beer swindle was legislated away. HMmmmmmmmmmmm!


----------



## CollinsCraft77 (Apr 10, 2007)

hate to say it but drinking one Coke alters mind and body. Caffeine. Coffee in the morning alters mind and body. Eating a high sugar candy bar will alter your body. Anybody who is against alcohol hopefully doesn't dip, chew, or smoke because, yep, you guessed it, alters mind and body. Extents are different but i can tell you when my body has gone without a dip for awhile, i notice it much more than when i drink a beer. 

I agree with Randy. Completely. However, because the store up the street sells beer on Sunday, is God really being taken out of my life? I don't think so. 

I do agree that many want to push God out of the public view, but a study of history shows this has happened many times before and yet, he is still here. Will always be, regardless of circumstances. Christians feel threatened by this onslaught and I wonder if God does? Wouldn't think so. He knows who are his. Isn't that why he said "render to Caesar what is Caesars'". Doesn't matter when stuff is sold or by who. It's God's relationship with his people and his assurance that he is always in control. I don't think he minds someone drinking to an extent.


----------



## greene_dawg (Apr 10, 2007)

I think it is a bad law. Just because something is a law isn't going to save anyone or bring them closer to Christ. I'm also not one to think that God is going to turn his back on America because of our decision of Sunday beer laws.


----------



## SBG (Apr 10, 2007)

adpruitt2 said:


> hate to say it but drinking one Coke alters mind and body. Caffeine. Coffee in the morning alters mind and body. Eating a high sugar candy bar will alter your body. Anybody who is against alcohol hopefully doesn't dip, chew, or smoke because, yep, you guessed it, alters mind and body. Extents are different but i can tell you when my body has gone without a dip for awhile, i notice it much more than when i drink a beer.
> 
> I agree with Randy. Completely. However, because the store up the street sells beer on Sunday, is God really being taken out of my life? I don't think so.
> 
> I do agree that many want to push God out of the public view, but a study of history shows this has happened many times before and yet, he is still here. Will always be, regardless of circumstances. Christians feel threatened by this onslaught and I wonder if God does? Wouldn't think so. He knows who are his. Isn't that why he said "render to Caesar what is Caesars'". Doesn't matter when stuff is sold or by who. It's God's relationship with his people and his assurance that he is always in control. I don't think he minds someone drinking to an extent.



I ain't ever heard of anyone that lost their home and family because they drank to much coffee or ate to many snickers bars.


----------



## Flash (Apr 10, 2007)

Randy said:


> The dangerous part is having a law based on "christian/religious" beliefs.  Suppose another religion takes over and puts in their law(s)?  It is a dangerous precident.



 I thought a lot of our laws (founding fathers time frame) were based on Judeo/Christian values, 10 commandments etc.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Apr 11, 2007)

> I thought a lot of our laws (founding fathers time frame) were based on Judeo/Christian values, 10 commandments etc.



Yep


----------



## CollinsCraft77 (Apr 11, 2007)

Actually, you need to study about the founding Fathers. They were more agnostic than what we consider Christians today. Ben Franklin, etc, They liked their women and their booze.

Hey SBG, glad to see ya! Thanks for the prayers! Things are going good!


----------



## Hogtown (Apr 11, 2007)

If I was made the King of the USA, I would outlaw alcohol; however, as a citizen of the USA I think people should be able to buy alcohol any time the store is open.


----------



## Randy (Apr 11, 2007)

Flash said:


> I thought a lot of our laws (founding fathers time frame) were based on Judeo/Christian values, 10 commandments etc.



A lot certainly are but the founding fathers were careful to have only laws that affected the rights of society.  They were careful not to state rights or pass laws based on religious morals.

Again my point here is if you want to pass a law that limits a person's rights that is based on your christian beliefs be prepared to have laws passed by others that limit your religious rights.  And yes it is happening every day!


----------



## Randy (Apr 11, 2007)

adpruitt2 said:


> Actually, you need to study about the founding Fathers. They were more agnostic than what we consider Christians today. Ben Franklin, etc, They liked their women and their booze.



I agree but most christians do not believe that because we were taught different as a child that it was based on Christianity.  It wasn't, it was based on freedom.  A lot of the "christian" things we see in our gooberment now were added at later dates.


----------



## SBG (Apr 11, 2007)

Randy said:


> I agree but most christians do not believe that because we were taught different as a child that it was based on Christianity.  It wasn't, it was based on freedom.  A lot of the "christian" things we see in our gooberment now were added at later dates.




Guys...have you ever taken the time to actually read some of the founder's writings?

Randy, your comment is just nuts.


----------



## Randy (Apr 11, 2007)

SBG said:


> Guys...have you ever taken the time to actually read some of the founder's writings?


  Yes I have and if you were to read them I think you would consider the founding father nust as well as not very good Christians.  Most of them drank heviley and cheated on their wives.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Apr 11, 2007)

> They were more agnostic than what we consider Christians today



One can use Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson as an example, but one or 2 examples are not representative of the whole.  People seem to only recognize the more famous founding fathers, but there were leterally hundreds of men/people that played pivotal rolls in our history.  I can provide quote after quote after quote by many of the lesser known as well as well known founding fathers that conclusively proves that Christianity had a huge influence on the establishment of our original government.  Why were the first universities set up as Christian based schools, why was Bible study a required course?  If anything, society as a whole is more agnostic today than yester-year.


----------



## SBG (Apr 11, 2007)

Randy said:


> Yes I have and if you were to read them I think you would consider the founding father nust as well as not very good Christians.  Most of them drank heviley and cheated on their wives.



Well I have read them extensively and they were far from nuts.


----------



## GR81 (Apr 11, 2007)

It is a useless law. Buy enough on Saturday to provide for Sunday if you plan to be drinking. 

But I personally do not drink at all so I don't care one way or the other. In a nation full of alcoholics I do see why so many don't like it. Drug users don't want to be told they can't have their drugs.


----------



## groundhawg (Apr 11, 2007)

Randy said:


> Yes I have and if you were to read them I think you would consider the founding father nust as well as not very good Christians.  Most of them drank heviley and cheated on their wives.



Well here they are -- about 38 I think so most would be 20 or more.  Go ahead and share with me which ones you know to be christians or not and who drank and cheated on their wife.

The Signers of the U. S. Constitution
New Hampshire 
John Langdon 
Nicholas Gilman 

Massachusetts 
Rufus King 
Nathaniel Gorham 

Connecticut 
Roger Sherman 
William Samuel Johnson 

New York 
Alexander Hamilton 

New Jersey 
William Livingston 
David Brearley 
William Paterson 
Jonathan Dayton  Pennsylvania 
Benjamin Franklin 
Thomas Mifflin 
Robert Morris 
George Clymer 
Thomas FitzSimons 
Jared Ingersoll 
Gouverneur Morris 
James Wilson 

Delaware 
George Read 
Gunning Bedford, Jr. 
John Dickinson 
Richard Bassett 
Jacob Broom 

Maryland 
James McHenry 
Daniel Carroll 
Dan of St. Thomas Jenifer  Virginia 
John Blair 
James Madison, Jr. 

North Carolina 
William Blount 
Richard Dobbs Spaight 
Hugh Williamson 

South Carolina 
John Rutledge 
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney 
Charles Pinckney 
Pierce Butler 

Georgia 
William Few 
Abraham Baldwin


----------



## groundhawg (Apr 11, 2007)

adpruitt2 said:


> Actually, you need to study about the founding Fathers. They were more agnostic than what we consider Christians today. Ben Franklin, etc, They liked their women and their booze.
> 
> 
> http://www.esu3.org/districts/millard/centmidd/vertlib/pathsigners.html
> ...


----------



## Flash (Apr 11, 2007)

Randy said:


> A lot certainly are but the founding fathers were careful to have only laws that affected the rights of society.  They were careful not to state rights or pass laws based on religious morals.



  What about that line    We have certain rights given to us by the Creator???   

  Somebody help me since I had a brain lock and couldn't quote it.


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Apr 11, 2007)

From the Declaratio of Independence:



> When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.





> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.





> We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions





> And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.



Sounds to me like someone was relying on religious morality.


----------



## CollinsCraft77 (Apr 11, 2007)

Nobody said they didn't believe in God, or a Supreme Being. However, show me where they pressed their morality on the nation? Even terrorists for the most part believe in God. Doesn't make what they are doing right? Would you say a country run by Islamic radicals would be a society pleasing to God? It's set up by religious principles. Now, I am a christian so I'm not really comparing us to them. However, just because a government is set up on religious beliefs doesn't make it correct.

I am researching every one of the bio's of the signers of the Declaration. I will post a percentage of what I find. However, I stand by my earlier post as I have read all this before. I do not put out blanket statements.


----------



## CollinsCraft77 (Apr 11, 2007)

groundhawg said:


> adpruitt2 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, you need to study about the founding Fathers. They were more agnostic than what we consider Christians today. Ben Franklin, etc, They liked their women and their booze.
> ...


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Apr 12, 2007)

> Would you say a country run by Islamic radicals would be a society pleasing to God?



Do you think our society which is run by Christians of one stripe or another is pleasing to God?

I'm not sure that the goal is to have a society that is pleasing to  God, but to have individuals who live according to the will of God.  When enough people do that, the society will take care of itself.


----------



## CollinsCraft77 (Apr 12, 2007)

Exactly my point!!!!!! It is up to the individual to live right, and yes, society will take care of itself. The individual must make the decisions dictating his life. This has been Randy and mines argument all along!

To answer your first question, no. Not of one stripe or another. David Koresh called himself christian. Too broad!


----------



## Randy (Apr 12, 2007)

Flash said:


> What about that line    We have certain rights given to us by the Creator???
> 
> Somebody help me since I had a brain lock and couldn't quote it.



A very good example of their wording to specifically keep "God"/specific religion out.  They specifically used "creator" because every body believes they were created by something!


----------



## Randy (Apr 12, 2007)

Twenty five ought six said:


> Sounds to me like someone was relying on religious morality.



Yes a very open religious morality.  The we careful to use words like "creator", "Supreme judge", "Devine Providnece" to allow anybody's "god" to be a part of this country.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe these men believed in the same God I do, but they were picky with their words to include others.  It would have been much shorter and easier to use the term "GOD" in all these statements.  They carefully chose not to.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 12, 2007)

Randy said:


> They specifically used "creator" because every body believes they were created by something!



Not everyone believes in a "Creator" just ask our resident athiest, I am sure we have quote a few on this board....

DB BB


----------



## Randy (Apr 12, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Not everyone believes in a "Creator" just ask our resident athiest, I am sure we have quote a few on this board....
> 
> DB BB



Don't know any athiests personally, at least not any that admit to it but don't even athiests belive they wer created by their mother and father?

Ya'll know we are way off topic here right?


----------



## ugabowhunter (Apr 12, 2007)

y'all just need a few ice cold beers to settle this one 

they way i see it, the less govt power; the better. i am all for removing govt restrictions, regardless of the subject matter.


----------



## BKA (Apr 12, 2007)

ugabowhunter said:


> y'all just need a few ice cold beers to settle this one
> 
> they way i see it, the less govt power; the better. i am all for removing govt restrictions, regardless of the subject matter.




True dat........


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Apr 12, 2007)

> The we careful to use words like "creator", "Supreme judge", "Devine Providnece" to allow anybody's "god" to be a part of this country.



Randy, that I don't buy.  The reason being is that, at the time, Christianity was the only faith being practiced (in the original colonies).  They didn't have Muslims, Buddhists, and only a few Jews in America at the time the Constitution was written.  If there were any, the community was so small that they were not noticed and had no influence at the time.

If one goes through the Bible, you will find many different titles/names for God, I don't believe the writers were talking about different gods.


----------



## Randy (Apr 12, 2007)

David,
If you study these guys and their writings, they understood the oppression on their religion from Britian (and other countries) and yes while they were christians they were careful to not push their religion.  They were more concerned about freedom of religion not freedom of christianty.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Apr 12, 2007)

I don't know Randy, not being sarcastic, but I wasn't there at the time so I don't know what their thought pattern was.  I can only rely on writings and records from that time period by those people to have any possible understanding of what they may have been thinking.  I agree that they were careful not to be oppresive, but I don't believe that they envisioned that the good ole USA would become the melting pot it is now.  They came from an oppresive culture where the church was actually ran by the government and they had no freedom to worship Christ they way they wanted.  Them, having come from a Christian culture and having Christian backgrounds and (myself) after reading many writings from that era, I can only conclude that they were not referring to multiple gods.  Being Christian myself and knowing that many of the founders were as well, by acknowledging multiple gods would be denying that Christ is the one true God.


----------



## Randy (Apr 12, 2007)

Very interesting.................from a founding father web site!

Religion
Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics, C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestants Constitutional Convention delegates, 28 were Episcopalian, 8 were Presbyterians, 7 were Congregationalists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Dutch Reformed, and 2 were Methodists. Many of the more prominent Founding Fathers were vocal about their opposition to organized religion or anti-clerical, such as Jefferson. Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson's Bible"), Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine. However, a few of the more notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of traditional Deists, including Jefferson, Paine and Ethan Allen.

Notwithstanding the spectrum of beliefs held by the Founding Fathers, most viewed religion in a favorable light. This is noted through their statements in speeches and correspondences in which they describe its role in molding "national morality" and securing the rule of law (George Washington), its check on human "wickedness" (Benjamin Franklin), and its preservation of a free government such as America (John Adams). Regardless, the division of church and state was always emphasized by the founding fathers. "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," states the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. This document was ratified by Congress without much debate or contention and stands today as a reminder of the founding fathers' intentions.[10]

Although not a religion, a significant number were Freemasons including John Blair, Benjamin Franklin, James Mchenry, George Washington, Abraham Baldwin, Gunning Bedford, William Blount, David Brearly, Daniel Carroll, Jonathan Dayton, Rufus King, John Langdon, George Read, Roger Sherman, James Madison, Robert Morris, William Paterson, and Charles Pinckney.


----------



## CollinsCraft77 (Apr 12, 2007)

you are stealing my thunder!!!


----------



## CollinsCraft77 (Apr 12, 2007)

Hey UGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Apr 12, 2007)

From what you posted Randy, it looks as if many, or a majority of the founders listed were of some Christian faith.  However, some of it contradicts some other thigs I have read.  Such as:



> Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington,



I was reading yesterday on a website called Wallbuilders (www.wallbuilders.com), correspondence written by Washington's adopted daughter.  In the 20 years she lived in Washington's house, she stated that he attended church regularly and was very strong in his faith.

As I previously stated, I like to read the writings, letters, and records from that time period in order to know just exactly what was really said and thought.


----------



## Randy (Apr 12, 2007)

You should never take my word for it.  Always do your own reading.  However, I have and just as I think you will be, I was surprised too.  I was raised being told this country was based on Christian principles and for the most part it is except for the fact that the Founding Fathers were very careful not to include their christian "morals" in the laws of our land.  Contrary to your statement about them not ever invisioning what this country woud become, they appear to have thought it through pretty good.


----------



## Festus (Apr 12, 2007)

David Mills said:


> Even one drink alters one's mind, even if it's to a minor extent.  Since this is in the Spiritual forum and not the political forum, I will offer a spiritual viewpoint.
> 
> One should not look any further than Jesus Christ for comfort.  It can be viewed that if someone says "I have a drink or 2 just to relax", then that person is replacing Christ with a drink or 2.



I guess you could say the same about fishing, hunting, camping, watching TV, playing with my kids etc.  People do many things to relax.  That doesn't mean you're replacing Christ with any of those things.


----------



## elfiii (Apr 12, 2007)

Festus said:


> I guess you could say the same about fishing, hunting, camping, watching TV, playing with my kids etc.  People do many things to relax.  That doesn't mean you're replacing Christ with any of those things.



Excellent point.


----------



## ugabowhunter (Apr 12, 2007)

Festus said:


> I guess you could say the same about fishing, hunting, camping, watching TV, playing with my kids etc.  People do many things to relax.  That doesn't mean you're replacing Christ with any of those things.




i am anxious to see the response to this one. good point festus.


----------



## CollinsCraft77 (Apr 12, 2007)

I agree as well. Besides, if we are really looking into history, many dates and days that we use to celebrate Christ are pagan in origin. This is not my opinion but fact. Christmas is one example. I'm all for what it means and why we celebrate it. But many scholars will tell you he was born in the spring. Just as Sunday is when most worship, many will tell you Saturday is the Sabbath day using original calendars and such.

I'm not saying I agree with everything that has been said. Both sides make good arguments. However, the laws of this land we live in pertain to all faiths and religions. Right or wrong. That's why we are so lucky. I feel no less a sinner for fishing on Sundays as I do if I drink a beer during a ballgame. If one were to truly rest as is said, we'd stay at home and rest. If we want to go hardcore, then nobody should be allowed to work or anything on Sundays. You can't select just the options that suit you. That's all. Regardless of the law, God judges your actions and where your heart is.


----------



## ugabowhunter (Apr 12, 2007)

pruitt, good stuff there ( i didn't know you could think like that )    this argument should not be about religion, but focused more on the limits of the government to govern. if someone wants to get drunk on a sunday, let them make the decision to do so. as long as no laws are broken, i don't care if they drink themselves to death while cursing and looking at naked satan-worshiping women (or men) on the internet. it is their choice and they will pay the consequences. as long as the law does not affect innocent people, let them drink all they want, when they want.


----------



## jneil (Apr 12, 2007)

A little bit about Thomas Jefferson on religion.

In 1777 Jefferson authored and in 1786 saw his "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" become law in the state of Virginia. In his notes on it he made it clear that under its broad mantel, Hinduism along with all other faiths would be given full protection. Jefferson stated, "An amendment [which proposed to insert] the words, 'Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion,' [was rejected] by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the infidel [any non-Christian] of every denomination." This shows the accommodating and universal position that America is dedicated to defend. Not only the Judeo/Christian tradition but all religious traditions were granted full freedom and civil protection by the Virginia Statute authored by Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Apr 13, 2007)

What I find that is historically significant is that the other colonies refused to adopt Jefferson’s manifesto.  In fact, Jefferson came under fire being labeled “anti-religion” by the people of that time.  Before the document became Virginia law, the General Assembly removed parts of the document.  After reading the final version, I basically agree with it.  It’s a 3 section document that basically says that no man should be forced to worship in any way, shape, form, or fashion.  The only reference to a diety are “Almighty God”, “Holy author of our religion”, “Lord both of body and mind”, “Almighty power”, all of which point to the Judeo/Christian God.  The document even mentions “false religions”.  Historically speaking, Jefferson saw the same thing going on in the colonies that was going on in England, state run churches/religion which is the very thing the early settlers were fleeing from.  But, let me once again point out that one cannot take the viewpoints of one or a few and say it applied to the whole.  As I previous stated (through research) that many at the time labeled Jefferson as a heretic because of this document.


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Apr 13, 2007)

Just wanted to help to get this thread on to 150 posts.

Let's not slack up now.


----------



## greene_dawg (Apr 13, 2007)

I've got a question for those that are against beer sales on Sundays. What is the goal of keeping it from being sold? Do you think you will have a higher standing with God by opposing sales? Do you think that it will save souls? Just curious to know.


----------



## BKA (Apr 13, 2007)




----------



## whitworth (Apr 13, 2007)

*Prohibiting alcohol sales*

I might approve it, if I ever got that changing water into wine miracle down pat.  

You get a good idea of your own imperfection, when you know you can't do that to water.


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Apr 13, 2007)

> I've got a question for those that are against beer sales on Sundays.



Let's clarify the issues.  Beer  ( wine and liquor) sales in restaurants and public events are allowed on Sunday.

The issue is package sales of beer and wine on Sunday.  One of the big lobbies against it are the liquor stores, who because of laws against selling liquor on Sunday, couldn't open, and so would lose sales to the convenience stores and grocery stores.  Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.

Only 8 more to go.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 13, 2007)

greene_dawg said:


> I've got a question for those that are against beer sales on Sundays. What is the goal of keeping it from being sold? Do you think you will have a higher standing with God by opposing sales? Do you think that it will save souls? Just curious to know.



No, I don't think it will put me in a higher standing with God. I am already at the highest, I AM SAVED.

I just think all of it should be outlawed, on any day. Just my opinion..

DB BB


----------



## Festus (Apr 13, 2007)

Twenty five ought six said:


> Let's clarify the issues.  Beer  ( wine and liquor) sales in restaurants and public events are allowed on Sunday.
> 
> The issue is package sales of beer and wine on Sunday.  .



I think voters in each county should be allowed to determine this on their own.  What's works for Cobb County for instance might not work for other counties.  
Let the people decide...


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 13, 2007)

Just curious, how much drinking and driving accidents and tickets for driving under the influence have gone up in any county that has ok'ed the sales on sunday...

might be interesting to research....

DB BB


----------



## greene_dawg (Apr 13, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> No, I don't think it will put me in a higher standing with God. I am already at the highest, I AM SAVED.
> 
> I just think all of it should be outlawed, on any day. Just my opinion..
> 
> DB BB




We tried that already and it spawned gangs, robbery, murder, and politcal corruption. Not trying to be sarcastic but if I don't want to drink beer on Sunday I won't. Same for the other days of the week. If Joe six-pack down the road wants to, why should I care?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Apr 13, 2007)

greene_dawg said:


> We tried that already and it spawned gangs, robbery, murder, and politcal corruption. Not trying to be sarcastic but if I don't want to drink beer on Sunday I won't. Same for the other days of the week. If Joe six-pack down the road wants to, why should I care?



We should all care more than we do, this world might be a better place...

DB BB


----------



## greene_dawg (Apr 13, 2007)

DB - There is truth in that statement for sure. There are downsides to having the freedoms that we have but I'll take the downsides as long as I have those freedoms anyday.


----------



## Festus (Apr 13, 2007)

greene_dawg said:


> We tried that already and it spawned gangs, robbery, murder, and politcal corruption. Not trying to be sarcastic but if I don't want to drink beer on Sunday I won't. Same for the other days of the week. If Joe six-pack down the road wants to, why should I care?




Good point.  The same can be said for drugs today.  If we could take the crime out of drugs we could use the money were now spending on prisons, etc. and use it instead to help rehabilitate those that have serious addiction issues.
Imagine...if a guy/girl didn't have to steal, sell their bodies, kill etc. to get their next fix...we'd all be better off.


----------



## PWalls (Apr 13, 2007)

Festus said:


> Good point.  The same can be said for drugs today.  If we could take the crime out of drugs we could use the money were now spending on prisons, etc. and use it instead to help rehabilitate those that have serious addiction issues.
> Imagine...if a guy didn't have to steal or kill to get his next fix...we'd all be better off.




That is laughable. Please tell me you're not serious. Let's make it legal and use the money we save on enforcement to help rehabilitate the people we just made addicts by legalizing it.

Why don't we instead focus on making serious laws and enforce punishments more strictly to help eliminate the problem and need for drugs in the first place.


----------



## Festus (Apr 13, 2007)

PWalls said:


> That is laughable. Please tell me you're not serious. Let's make it legal and use the money we save on enforcement to help rehabilitate the people we just made addicts by legalizing it.
> 
> Why don't we instead focus on making serious laws and enforce punishments more strictly to help eliminate the problem and need for drugs in the first place.



What do you think we've been doing the last 40+ years?    Our prisons are full of drug offenders and dealers.   Explain to me how well that's working out.
Right now...a 14 year old kid can buy drugs easier than he can buy a 6 pack of beer.    Putting him in prison isn't going to help him or anyone else.  To me that's insane.   
Considering this is a spiritual forum....what would Jesus do?  Would he put them all in prison?  I don't think so...


----------



## leroy (Apr 13, 2007)

Festus said:


> What do you think we've been doing the last 40+ years?    Our prisons are full of drug offenders and dealers.   Explain to me how well that's working out.
> Right now...a 14 year old kid can buy drugs easier than he can buy a 6 pack of beer.    Putting him in prison isn't going to help him or anyone else.  To me that's insane.
> Considering this is a spiritual forum....what would Jesus do?  Would he put them all in prison?  I don't think so...



And making it even easier to to get is going to help. People will still steal and kill to get their drugs even if it is legal probably more so because there will be more addicts. WWJD think he would make it easier for them to get I dont think so.


----------



## Festus (Apr 13, 2007)

leroy said:


> And making it even easier to to get is going to help. People will still steal and kill to get their drugs even if it is legal probably more so because there will be more addicts. WWJD think he would make it easier for them to get I dont think so.



If you don't think drugs are easy to get now...you're sadly mistaken.   It's easy to take a negative approach to my comments.  I'm not even saying I'm 100% right.  However...instead of being negative...I'd like to see someone offer a viable solution/alternative to how we deal with drug users today.  IMO we have failed miserably with our current approach.

We need to approach addiction as an illness, not a crime.  (We're just now starting to take this approach toward alcoholics...drugs are no different)

You know what I think Jesus would do?  I think he would welcome the drug users into his home and he would help them overcome their addictions.  He wouldn't throw them in a cell and ostracize them from society the way we do today.   We (individuals and churches) should do more to help address this problem.  Building more prisons is not the answer...that's an easy and unchristian like approach.

I apologize for highjacking this thread....It started because I just don't see a lot of differences in alcohol or drugs.   One just happens to be legal.  (And yes I do enjoy a few brews every now and again)


----------



## CollinsCraft77 (Apr 13, 2007)

leroy said:


> And making it even easier to to get is going to help. People will still steal and kill to get their drugs even if it is legal probably more so because there will be more addicts. WWJD think he would make it easier for them to get I dont think so.


Please examine crime rates and other such facts of European countries where they are legal and you will find that it is lower than here. Addiction levels of most drugs are lower as well. Come on people, research it before you speak!!


----------



## greene_dawg (Apr 13, 2007)

Maybe drug legalization belongs in a different thread? Perhaps also in the political forum?


----------



## CollinsCraft77 (Apr 13, 2007)

I'm not saying they should be legal. Don't do them, don't care. However, many people throw around comments without researching them. That was my only point.

To get back on topic, Sunday sales are just that. Sunday sales. Keeping it on the shelves one day a week does nothing to curb anything. People who drink on Sunday will drink on Sunday regardless if they can buy it Sunday. There has been a Sunday afternoon or two that I wanted one and couldn't buy it. I just thought it was a stupid law.


----------



## jneil (Apr 13, 2007)

adpruitt2 said:


> People who drink on Sunday will drink on Sunday regardless if they can buy it Sunday.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Flash (Apr 13, 2007)

Festus said:


> What do you think we've been doing the last 40+ years?    Our prisons are full of drug offenders and dealers.   Explain to me how well that's working out.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering this is a spiritual forum....what would Jesus do?  Would he put them all in prison?  I don't think so...



 Maybe we need to do more at preventing problems (ounce of prevention worth a .....)


----------



## FishFanatic (Apr 15, 2007)

ccbiggz said:


> I haven't read the posts previous to this one, but I have solved the alcohol sales on Sunday problem..................
> By beer on Saturday.
> 
> Next week I will solve other problems such as how to prevent collards from going sour and what to do about corn bread that won't rise.
> ...



Haha.....I can't wait for the answer to the corn bread problem.


----------

