Printable View
"No--once again--you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I feel that they're in the business of spreading faith and saving people--not running the government. Vote your conscience and your faith, but don't actively try to control legislature to fit a religious agenda."
-Thats nothing close to what you said in your previous statement on the issue.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
isn't the point of christianity recruiting people to the flock and teaching them good graces such that they WILLINGLY accept God, rather than force feeding them an opinion...
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly @RW0105
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
-Last sentence could very well be used to describe many secularists(insert "non" before religious)
[/ QUOTE ]
More accurate with religious though. BTW--remember, not every Dem is a secularist and not every Repub is a Christian, regardless of presentation to the media or party. Think about it.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
It would be outrageous for anyone to claim as fact that they do know about any kind of divine intervention or dispute (as fact)any such claim like Robertson made as being invalid.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Because he's a "man of God"? That's the exact crutch that he's helping people who won't question him to lean on--the fact that he's accepted as a "man of God" and that questioning him would be questioning God...so it shouldn't be done. In otherwords, that's abuse of his position of the church and if excommunication was still done in Protestant churches--Robertson should go first thing.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
In my opinion people of faith have just as much right to vote their conscience NO MATTER WHAT THE ISSUE as do secularists.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with that statement...that's exactly what I'm saying--VOTE your conscience and conviction...not what your church says to do--do it through your knowledge and understanding along with God's guidance through your personal relationship with him instead of what Falwell, Robertson, or Dobson happen to say on the news on a given night about a candidate. THAT is where I have a problem, when people blindly follow and vote unknowingly. If you know what you're voting for, then do so with conviction. If not--then don't follow a mantra that is going to affect your vote that some man tells you is the right thing to do. Also, if you're going to vote your conviction, don't try to influence others as to YOUR religious conviction, especially by less than Christian (read secular) means. It's a choice...not something to be forced upon you. That's why there's a lot of Christians that will be going to hell right now, because the faith they tout as having was forced on them and they do not have an actual relationship with God.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
One follow up question to what you just stated...do you agree that Pope John Paul II had a right to his actions when he attempted to influence then VA Governor Doug Wilder to grant clemency to Grundy native Roger Keith Coleman in '92?
[/ QUOTE ]
Your question is does he have a right to his actions--yes he has a right to his actions--we all do, that's what free will is all about. And there's a huge difference here BGJ--are you saying he "attempted to influence" or that he "plead on Coleman's behalf"? Attempting to influence means he started a political onslaught and went on TV & radio, staunchly in opposition of the sentence. If he did that and tried to rally public opinion--I don't like it. Now if he merely met with Wilder, stated his request and his thoughts, I have no problem with it. You'll have to forgive me a lot of the details of what transpired, I'll be honest--I was 11 at the time and do not recall.
"isn't the point of christianity recruiting people to the flock and teaching them good graces such that they WILLINGLY accept God, rather than force feeding them an opinion..."
-I haven't seen anyone holding guns to sinners heads forcing them to accept Christ in this country...then again maybe I'm missing something.:)
"More accurate with religious though. BTW--remember, not every Dem is a secularist and not every Repub is a Christian, regardless of presentation to the media or party. Think about it."
-And I never said they were...but since you brought it up would you at least agree that MOST secularists vote Dem and most Christians vote Republican? Its a simple concept really...vote the party who most represents your views. There ofcourse are never absolutes in this sort of thing because I actually have a good friend in Clintwood who is a secularist but almost always votes Republican. Needless to say his reasons are not social.
"Why? Because he's a "man of God"? That's the exact crutch that he's helping people who won't question him to lean on--the fact that he's accepted as a "man of God" and that questioning him would be questioning God...so it shouldn't be done. In otherwords, that's abuse of his position of the church and if excommunication was still done in Protestant churches--Robertson should go first thing."
-So now you are going to categorically state that he is NOT a man of God? Thats my point...its a dangerous game to get into but I guess I should not go there. It makes more sense to me to say that I do not necessarily agree with his interpretation of Biblical scripture than to dispute what he says and consider it bologna when I actually don't know God's true plans. I also refuse to start picking out evangelists who make comments that I don't necessarily see eye to eye with and that result in me discrediting that persons relationship with God. I or no one else is really in a position to do that.
"I agree with that statement...that's exactly what I'm saying--VOTE your conscience and conviction...not what your church says to do--do it through your knowledge and understanding along with God's guidance through your personal relationship with him instead of what Falwell, Robertson, or Dobson happen to say on the news on a given night about a candidate. THAT is where I have a problem, when people blindly follow and vote unknowingly. If you know what you're voting for, then do so with conviction. If not--then don't follow a mantra that is going to affect your vote that some man tells you is the right thing to do. Also, if you're going to vote your conviction, don't try to influence others as to YOUR religious conviction, especially by less than Christian (read secular) means. It's a choice...not something to be forced upon you. That's why there's a lot of Christians that will be going to hell right now, because the faith they tout as having was forced on them and they do not have an actual relationship with God."
-You seem to be over generalizing and almost pigeon holing the Christian religion into a bunch of robots who blindly follow in masses these very few televangelists. I think its very offensive and very much underestimating the intelligence of millions of people of faith in this country. If you really think even more than a very small percentage of Christians base their ENTIRE political ideaology on every word that this small group of folks say then it is my opinion that you are being severely mis-guided.
"Your question is does he have a right to his actions--yes he has a right to his actions--we all do, that's what free will is all about. And there's a huge difference here BGJ--are you saying he "attempted to influence" or that he "plead on Coleman's behalf"? Attempting to influence means he started a political onslaught and went on TV & radio, staunchly in opposition of the sentence. If he did that and tried to rally public opinion--I don't like it. Now if he merely met with Wilder, stated his request and his thoughts, I have no problem with it. You'll have to forgive me a lot of the details of what transpired, I'll be honest--I was 11 at the time and do not recall. "
-I'm sorry but pleading on someones behalf IS attempting to influence and there is NOT a huge difference especially if you are THE POPE. Any such action by the Pope is going to draw huge attention from the media and John Paul was not naive to the point that he didn't know that ahead of time. Yeah I assumed you were a little younger [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
I am 100% for the seperation of church and state.
I havent read this thread at all, but in things such as education, what place does God have in a math book?
Why not let the kids decide on how they chose to believe.
Im gonna steal a quote from someone-
"Religion is an opiate for the masses."
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
-You seem to be over generalizing and almost pigeon holing the Christian religion into a bunch of robots who blindly follow in masses these very few televangelists. I think its very offensive and very much underestimating the intelligence of millions of people of faith in this country. If you really think even more than a very small percentage of Christians base their ENTIRE political ideaology on every word that this small group of folks say then it is my opinion that you are being severely mis-guided.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dude--I'm a Christian. I have a personal relationship with God. I pray. I read my bible. I attend church, I'm not perfect, but I strive to do what God wants me to do and repent for my shortcomings.
However, I will not allow a religious ideology to cloud my judgement when it comes to affairs of this world. I'm mostly concerned that people want to use the federal government as a religious mission to bring people aboard to the faith. It's not needed because "every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess" one of these days anyways. Everyone will hear the word of salvation and the gospel, so there will be no excuses come judgement day. The federal government is not the vehicle by which to evangelize to non-believers...I strongly believe that. All I ask is that others take it directly to God--unfettered from what the world or even so-called religious leaders may believe.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
-So now you are going to categorically state that he is NOT a man of God? Thats my point...its a dangerous game to get into but I guess I should not go there. It makes more sense to me to say that I do not necessarily agree with his interpretation of Biblical scripture than to dispute what he says and consider it bologna when I actually don't know God's true plans. I also refuse to start picking out evangelists who make comments that I don't necessarily see eye to eye with and that result in me discrediting that persons relationship with God. I or no one else is really in a position to do that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not questioning that at all--I'm questioning if he's acting like one or not. I'm not judging the man's soul--that's between him and God. I'm judging the man by his actions on this earth and how it seems to me that he's using his relationship with God to justify saying what he wants. He's abusing that relationship. God doesn't want that I'm pretty sure. To come out publicly and say things that are not Christ-like in the name of God as a man of the cloth...THAT is blasphemy and it's highly dangerous for him and those who heed his words.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
-I'm sorry but pleading on someones behalf IS attempting to influence and there is NOT a huge difference especially if you are THE POPE. Any such action by the Pope is going to draw huge attention from the media and John Paul was not naive to the point that he didn't know that ahead of time.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's your opinion. If I go to a lawmaker, or simply write a letter requesting that a law or decision be discussed or taken into consideration--that's my right as a citizen and as a human being...even though John Paul II isn't a citizen, he has a right to come into this country and make a request...I see nothing wrong with that. It's these guerrila tactics that a lot of these main-stream evangelists use that irks the crap out of me and makes me doubt their standing as a religious leader. The God I serve is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. I don't need any of those evangelists to dabble in the secular world to have God get his will granted and done in the long-run of things. He's God--I have faith that whatever his will is, regardless of what we do, will be what happens.
Do you believe they should teach evolution?
Good point monkeyhead. While there may not be alot of significant reasons to incorporate religious teachings into mathematics there is probably no other single issue that has played a more prevailing role in history, politics, gov't and social studies as a whole in the history of the world.
I will concur that I'm also in favor of separation of church and state. That is necessary because you can't have a state that is controlled by the church and vise versa. They need to have a degree autonomy from each other in order to be effective but one must be realistic that while you separate them as entities it is impossible to exclude them completely from one another especially in a democracy because you have many who participate in both living in society. I also will say that while you can separate church and state I feel it is impossible to separate "God" and state. Hopefully people understand where I'm going there because without God the state would not exist and failure to recognize this is a failure to recognize God as the creator. If you do that then you are taking somewhat of a stance that man is responsible for all of his own blessings and prosperity and it could be argued that you are making the state(USA) into a god itself(worshipping the american flag).
"He's God--I have faith that whatever his will is, regardless of what we do, will be what happens."
Are you suggesting that the actions of man have no bearing or affect on what actions God may take?
I agree mostly with what you're saying about separation of church and state, with exception to only one thing you brought up. How do we know that Pat Robertson (or others) is not speaking what God has told him to speak? No one heeded Jeremiah. John preached that the "kingdom of God is at hand" to a mostly unbelieving Israel. Jesus lost even his most devoted followers at the time of his arrest, and these men had seen him perform miracles only God could do!
I'm not trying to put Robertson on that level, just saying that its dangerous to judge whether or not a man is speaking for God. Only he and God know for sure. Personally, I think his statements are so outlandish that he is either crazy or telling the truth!
Now that the gun debate is over, we can start on religion. Peace, man. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
Pat Roberson is too out spoken at times and many don't even understand why he says some of the things he does. Whether they be his opinon or what he feels God is leading him to say. When it comes to Israel God says that this is his chosen land of his chosen people. Also God says that those who bless his people he will bless in return, but those who curse his people he will curse in return. No matter who they are, whether it be a president or just citizen or group. God should be feared when it comes to anything to do with Israel. He will bring judgement against anyone that does wrong by Israel. Now I did not see or hear the comment made by Pat Roberson nor do I know what Sharon plans on doing with Israel's future or land. But rest assure that God knows all hearts and plans that are being made about Israel from any country or president of Israel.