|
Author
|
Topic: LANDMARK DECISIONS AGAINT US
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
http://honestreporting.com/the-camera-doesnt-lie-but-what-about-the-caption/
The Camera Doesn’t Lie, But What About the Caption?
FEBRUARY 10, 2010 11:55
BY BACKSPIN EDITOR
An Israeli and Palestinian scuffled during a riot — right in front of AP and Reuters photographers. But as Elder of Ziyon points out, the captions are vastly different. The Israeli in black has the Palestinian in a headlock.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
worth a re-read.
And Lesson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvD1L3d0yec&feature=youtu.be
Here are the seven identifiers of BIAS in news articles:
1. Misleading definitions and terminology.
2. Imbalanced reporting.
3. Opinions disguised as news.
4. Lack of context.
5. Selective omission.
6. Using true facts to draw false conclusions.
7. Distortion of facts.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
quote:
So if we remove "all vestiges of Gods Word from the Laws of the Land are we not now then new agers in Christ?
I thought that this was an excellent question.
Answer: NO, we are Christians and HIS Law and HIS word is written in our hearts... we are not new agers in Christ should this happen. Should this happen we are Christians with God's word written in our heart, sojourning in a hostile land that is not our home, shedding light in the darkness and pressing on toward the goal.
Our Christianity is not defined by what is written on the marble archways and halls of this nation's monuments or in the volumes of its law books or the archives of decisions set down by highest court in the land; our Christianity is defined by what is written in our hearts and the faith the we bestow in Christ who wrote it there.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
"So, WildB, am I still "THE ENEMY" as you claim, or simply a fellow Christian who happens to strongly disagree with your viewpoint?"
I post KJV Bible as it matters to sin and you call it, my viewpoint"? Next~
I know what a brother in arms is. Please define this , "fellow Christian".
Manny make claim to the born again status by evidence of the physical water ceremony .
WildB is not impressed, only saddened within his heart for this ich/white spot within his Lords Body.
~
Jude.1
1. [12] These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
~
Ichthyopthirius multifiliis is a species of ciliate protozoa which parasitizes freshwater fish. The disease it causes is usually called ich or white spot, and becomes especially serious in enclosed areas, where it spreads quickly from one fish to another. Ich is the disease responsible for the most fatalities in aquarium fish and can cause notable damage to aquaculture.
Ick infections are usually visible in the form of white spots on the side of the fish. The fish may also show behaviours such as flashing, or rubbing up against objects. The pustules contain mature Ichthyophthirius cells, called trophonts, which feed on the tissues of the host and may grow to 1 mm in diameter. After approximately one week of parasitism, mature trophonts leave their host, settle to a substrate and secrete a cyst. Called a tomont, this incysted form then undergoes rapid division over approximately twenty-four hours, producing six hundred to one thousand daughter cells, known as tomites. Once the tomites reach maturity, they exit the cyst and differentiate into their theront stage. Theronts then infect succeptable freshwater fish, beginning the cycle anew. The entire life-cycle takes about seven to ten days to complete.
If ich is detected before it becomes too serious, a number of different treatments can be applied, such as formalin and malechite green. These all target the free-living theronts and tomonts, which only survive about three days in absence of a host fish.
A similar disease in saltwater fish, sometimes called marine ick, is caused by the ciliate Cryptocaryon. Originally this was considered another species of Icthyophthirius, called I. marinus, but it belongs among a completely different group of ciliates. Ichthyophthirius is a hymenostome, now usually given its own family.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
whitesands777
Advanced Member
Member # 3424
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by chaoschristian:
To WildB:
Biography for ChaosChristian
Born, February 18, 1971, Baltimore, MD
Raised in South Central Pennsylvani on a farm in a family of six.
HS Diploma, 1989
BA, George Washington University, 1996
MA, George Washington University, 2000
Career notes: 10 years in higher education and 6 years in church administration, among other things
Born Again Christian? Yes! Saved at the age of 12, baptised at that time, not as an infant, been a faithful follower of Christ ever since.
Why don't I fill out the bio? Because for the exchange of ideas between intelligent , rational adults it is irrelevant. Because for trolls like WildB who prove themselves incapable of rendering a logical and reasonable response to confrontation over ideas and viewpoints it becomes a annoying Red Herring. It is the same thing as if one refused to respond to another's posts because one wouldn't reveal his race or ethnicity. It is irrelevant.
So, WildB, am I still "THE ENEMY" as you claim, or simply a fellow Christian who happens to strongly disagree with your viewpoint?
1 Peter 3
8"Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: 9Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. 10For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:"
Posts: 501 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by chaoschristian:
(edited by chaoschristian to make it clear who this is directed at)
TO WILDB:
Yes, yes, take out your Bible Hammer yet once again.
Fact is, you still have yet to make any sort of response, outside of trolling, to support your claims.
Argument conceded by WildB through TKO.
Heb.10
[7] Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
I find it very sad that one can profess as you do and have no idea who the Bible is.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
wparr:
Whoa, take it easy. My comments were directed at WildB, not you.
I am not and have never accused you of being a troll.
Let me go back and edit that last post to it is more clear.
My apologies!
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
(edited by chaoschristian to make it clear who this is directed at)
TO WILDB:
Yes, yes, take out your Bible Hammer yet once again.
Fact is, you still have yet to make any sort of response, outside of trolling, to support your claims.
Argument conceded by WildB through TKO.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
Acts.4
[13] Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
To WildB:
Biography for ChaosChristian
Born, February 18, 1971, Baltimore, MD
Raised in South Central Pennsylvani on a farm in a family of six.
HS Diploma, 1989
BA, George Washington University, 1996
MA, George Washington University, 2000
Career notes: 10 years in higher education and 6 years in church administration, among other things
Born Again Christian? Yes! Saved at the age of 12, baptised at that time, not as an infant, been a faithful follower of Christ ever since.
Why don't I fill out the bio? Because for the exchange of ideas between intelligent , rational adults it is irrelevant. Because for trolls like WildB who prove themselves incapable of rendering a logical and reasonable response to confrontation over ideas and viewpoints it becomes a annoying Red Herring. It is the same thing as if one refused to respond to another's posts because one wouldn't reveal his race or ethnicity. It is irrelevant.
So, WildB, am I still "THE ENEMY" as you claim, or simply a fellow Christian who happens to strongly disagree with your viewpoint?
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
whitesands777:
Is you are referring to WildB, its been a few posts since he's engaged in a ad hominem attack, but you are correct he's has done exactly that.
But if you are referring to me, look at the rules. There is a difference between saying someone is a troll after they behaved trollishly, and calling them a name.
WildB abandoned the field of decency some time ago regarding this discussion, and I have no qualms about calling him out on it.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by whitesands777:
This might be a good time for the administrator to jump in and do some banning to the site since there is someone that can't refrain from name calling.
If you feel this way post it privately to a mod. I think it very important to learn the enemies tactics.
It was easy to shut down this sillness.
But there was some that were of reputation that did join in on the weed seeding.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
Here are the seven identifiers of BIAS in news articles:
1. Misleading definitions and terminology.
2. Imbalanced reporting.
3. Opinions disguised as news.
4. Lack of context.
5. Selective omission.
6. Using true facts to draw false conclusions.
7. Distortion of facts.
http://www.honestreporting.com/a/What_is_Bias.asp#misleading
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
whitesands777
Advanced Member
Member # 3424
|
posted
This might be a good time for the administrator to jump in and do some banning to the site since there is someone that can't refrain from name calling.
Posts: 501 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
To WildB the Cowardly Troll:
Previously you wrote:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by chaoschristian:
The following was bumped up from inside this thread in order to remind WildB that he has yet to step up to the plate and demonstrate that he is not a troll.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WildB:
I call your bluff.
Answer this in black and white, so that I and everybody else can see exactly what is on your mind:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear to all now why you did not fill in your Bio.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, since it so clear to you, state it. Spell it out. Let me see it in your hand in black and white. Tell me why I did not fill out my bio. I really want to know. I really want to see if you have enough courage to come and answer that question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Said the sparrow under the box that can't fill in his bio. LOL~
Please stop your sillyness son.
Tell me which part of the biography, which is oh so important and relevant to this discussion, needs to filled out and tell me why you know why I didn't fill it out.
Then and maybe then, I'll respond.
Until then, you are a cowardly troll, as demonstrated so clearly in your posts.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
Troll
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by chaoschristian:
The following was bumped up from inside this thread in order to remind WildB that he has yet to step up to the plate and demonstrate that he is not a troll.
quote:
WildB:
I call your bluff.
Answer this in black and white, so that I and everybody else can see exactly what is on your mind:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear to all now why you did not fill in your Bio.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, since it so clear to you, state it. Spell it out. Let me see it in your hand in black and white. Tell me why I did not fill out my bio. I really want to know. I really want to see if you have enough courage to come and answer that question.
Said the sparrow under the box that can't fill in his bio. LOL~
Please stop your sillyness son.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
The following was bumped up from inside this thread in order to remind WildB that he has yet to step up to the plate and demonstrate that he is not a troll.
quote:
WildB:
I call your bluff.
Answer this in black and white, so that I and everybody else can see exactly what is on your mind:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear to all now why you did not fill in your Bio.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, since it so clear to you, state it. Spell it out. Let me see it in your hand in black and white. Tell me why I did not fill out my bio. I really want to know. I really want to see if you have enough courage to come and answer that question.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
WildB wrote:
quote:
(Jeremiah 2:13)
"For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, The fountain of living waters, To hew for themselves cisterns, Broken cisterns That can hold no water."
Isa.64
[8] But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
2Kgs.2
[20] And he said, Bring me a new cruse, and put salt therein. And they brought it to him.
[21] And he went forth unto the spring of the waters, and cast the salt in there, and said, Thus saith the LORD, I have healed these waters; there shall not be from thence any more death or barren land.
[22] So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.
The pot is new and the water healed....
Can you please turn this into a fully articulated thought that would be capable of changing our positions on point in contention?
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
Whitesands777 wrote:
quote:
They didn't ban prayer because a muslims, wiccans, or satanists were in classrooms practicing evil...You know that, you're bringing things up just to turn it into a redundant argument.
You know very well they didn't want anyone praying in Jesus name which was the issue at the time.
It's hard to understand how christians could actually agree with taking prayer out of schools...
Actually, wparr raised some very valid points, don't brush them aside so lightly. If you are interested in stepping through the logic of this, then let me know.
But now, let's turn this back around on you:
Make a compelling case as to why prayer should be instituted in the public realm using public resources, and at the same time show us why your argument is reasonable and demonstrably better than the alternatives that have been set forth, namely that individuals and families can pray before school, after school and even during school without needing access to public resources. Show us why adding the sanction of the state and state resources makes prayer better than if it had remained in the hands of the private realm. Show us how this can be done without violating the concept of equal protection before the law. Finally, show us how the ministry of Jesus supports your position. Tell us why Jesus would have us compel the state into the institutionalization of prayer.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
whitesands777
Advanced Member
Member # 3424
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by wparr:
quote:
Originally posted by whitesands777:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
If you prohibit a school teacher from having the ten commandments up in a classroom or from praying in the classroom then you have prohibited the free excercise of religion...
You can explain it away...But prohibiting is prohibiting it..No if's ands or buts...
quote:
What it does say is that the government cannot take action to establish religious institutions.
There were no laws requiring the ten commandment to be up in a courtroom...There are no laws requiring teachers to have prayer in the classrooms...There are no laws to establish any religion.....But the gov. forbade the free exercise of religion in the classroom and the courtroom, which does violate the free exercise of it.
What if you and your child are fundamental Baptists and the teacher in pennecostal and wants to pray in tongues??
What if the teacher was muslim and wanted to pray to allah??
What if the teacher were wiccan and wanted to pray to their goddess, would you suppost that???
What if the teacher was a satanist and wanted to pray to demons, would you support that???
What if your in Miami or the deepwater Louisiana and the teacher practices voodo???
The freedom of religion in schools and such is much deeper than most people want to realize.
They didn't ban prayer because a muslims, wiccans, or satanists were in classrooms practicing evil...You know that, you're bringing things up just to turn it into a redundant argument.
You know very well they didn't want anyone praying in Jesus name which was the issue at the time.
It's hard to understand how christians could actually agree with taking prayer out of schools...
Posts: 501 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
(Jeremiah 2:13)
"For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, The fountain of living waters, To hew for themselves cisterns, Broken cisterns That can hold no water."
Isa.64
[8] But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
2Kgs.2
[20] And he said, Bring me a new cruse, and put salt therein. And they brought it to him.
[21] And he went forth unto the spring of the waters, and cast the salt in there, and said, Thus saith the LORD, I have healed these waters; there shall not be from thence any more death or barren land.
[22] So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.
The pot is new and the water healed....
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by wparr:
quote:
Originally posted by whitesands777:
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
If you prohibit a school teacher from having the ten commandments up in a classroom or from praying in the classroom then you have prohibited the free excercise of religion...
You can explain it away...But prohibiting is prohibiting it..No if's ands or buts...
quote:
What it does say is that the government cannot take action to establish religious institutions.
There were no laws requiring the ten commandment to be up in a courtroom...There are no laws requiring teachers to have prayer in the classrooms...There are no laws to establish any religion.....But the gov. forbade the free exercise of religion in the classroom and the courtroom, which does violate the free exercise of it.
What if you and your child are fundamental Baptists and the teacher in pennecostal and wants to pray in tongues??
What if the teacher was muslim and wanted to pray to allah??
What if the teacher were wiccan and wanted to pray to their goddess, would you suppost that???
What if the teacher was a satanist and wanted to pray to demons, would you support that???
What if your in Miami or the deepwater Louisiana and the teacher practices voodo???
The freedom of religion in schools and such is much deeper than most people want to realize.
What if you just read your Bible before you post again.
Stop your sillyness.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
Whitesands777 wrote:
quote:
If you prohibit a school teacher from having the ten commandments up in a classroom or from praying in the classroom then you have prohibited the free excercise of religion...
You can explain it away...But prohibiting is prohibiting it..No if's ands or buts...
I understand where you are coming from, but there is a flaw in your example. If said teacher was acting on his own behalf, on his own time and without state resources, then you would have an example of a private citizen acting in the private realm - which is protected from governmental interferrance.
However, you gave an example of a person acting in his official role as an agent of the state (I'm assuming that this is a public school scenerio, because it's irrelevant if your talking about this going on in a private school.) A teacher is an agent of the state, hired by the state and commissioned to perform a function of the state using state resources.
Additionally, all the students in the teacher's classroom are part of a captive audience, the state compels them to be there. Remember, in the US, you have to go to school. You don't have to go to public school, but you have to go. The majority of Americans seem not to be able to or want take advantage of private schools or home-schooling, so the majority of students in the US are in public school. Education is compulsory. The default is public education. Kids who are in public school are there because they have to be there or their families face sanctioning by the state.
This is a very important point to understand, because it goes right to the heart of what the Framers were attempting to avoid with the language of the 1st Amendment. One of the primary goals of the 1st Amendment is to avoid state sanctioned religion. The Framers wanted to keep religion as a personal choice, not a state ordered non-choice as seen in the example of the Anglican Church. Remember too that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drafted before the era of compulsory public education. The education landscape in the 18th century looked vastly different from what it does today, and the forces that effected those changes would not come into play until later in the 19th century.
Now, let's take all of that and get back to your example.
The state is not preventing the teacher from exercising his freedom to religious expression in your example as you claim. The state is properly policing itself from action that could further the establishment of religion.
So in this case prohibiting is not prohibiting as you claim. Your claim infers that the state is prohibiting the private citizen's free exercise of religious expression, when in fact this is not true. A teacher acting within the realm of his official duty is a not a private citizen, but an agent of the state, therefore the prohibition is not exercised by the state per se, but a priori by the language of the first clause of the 1st Amendment.
quote:
There were no laws requiring the ten commandment to be up in a courtroom...There are no laws requiring teachers to have prayer in the classrooms...There are no laws to establish any religion.....But the gov. forbade the free exercise of religion in the classroom and the courtroom, which does violate the free exercise of it.
See above. Teachers and judges are not private citizens when acting within their official roles, they are agents of the state who use state resources to perform their duties, duties that are compelled by law and to which the citizenry is compelled to submit to through law.
The a priori prohibition against state religious action does not need a legislated law on the books to be in effect. The mere fact that teachers and judges, schoolrooms and courtrooms are agents and property of the state is sufficient.
The free expression that you refer to is reserved for private citizens acting in the private realm.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
whitesands777
Advanced Member
Member # 3424
|
posted
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
If you prohibit a school teacher from having the ten commandments up in a classroom or from praying in the classroom then you have prohibited the free excercise of religion...
You can explain it away...But prohibiting is prohibiting it..No if's ands or buts...
quote:
What it does say is that the government cannot take action to establish religious institutions.
There were no laws requiring the ten commandment to be up in a courtroom...There are no laws requiring teachers to have prayer in the classrooms...There are no laws to establish any religion.....But the gov. forbade the free exercise of religion in the classroom and the courtroom, which does violate the free exercise of it.
Posts: 501 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
WildB:
I call your bluff.
Answer this in black and white, so that I and everybody else can see exactly what is on your mind:
quote:
It is clear to all now why you did not fill in your Bio.
Ok, since it so clear to you, state it. Spell it out. Let me see it in your hand in black and white. Tell me why I did not fill out my bio. I really want to know. I really want to see if you have enough courage to come and answer that question.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by chaoschristian:
WildB wrote:
quote:
No you have failed to read english.
Laws don't come from the legislature. They come from God for the welfare of ALL the people.
It is you who would set a box trap for the sparrows.
By the way there is no NSRV version.
Now stop your sillyness.
My the way what do you think of the virgin birth?
The only person being silly in this exchange is you. You continue to ignore the main point of this argument and instead either launch into personal attacks or engage in mis-direction or now non-sequitor.
How this, here is a list of all the points that you have yet to address or respond to. Please respond to these in a coherent fashion. Then and maybe then we can move forward. If not, then I hope you realize that you've failed in any meaningful way to back up your claim or defend your original post, which is in effect offering up a concession. If you want to concede, go ahead, but if you want to continue in this then I ask that you do so in a reasonable manner.
List of points as of yet unresponded to by WildB:
1. Explaining Dispensationalism and the Dispensation of Government in a way that would help others understand WildB's POV or one that would further his case.
2. Whether or not WildB wants to stand by this cliam "Laws don't come from the legislature. They come from God for the welfare of the people." Whether or not the word 'all' is used to modify 'the people' is irrelevant since it fails to modify the claim in any meaningful way. Implicit in the phrase is its application to all people, and not just some.
3. Has yet to define the term "new age mover for Christ' so that I can respond to it
4. Why my opinion of the KJV Bible is relevant to this discussion.
4. Why any part of my user profile for this BBS is relevant to this discussion.
5. Whether or not WildB was claiming that I am evil.
6. And last but not least: the original core concept at the heart of this debate: how the results of the court cases listed in the OP harm Christianity as opposed to harming the agenda of those who seek to legislate Christianity.
Finally let me address your most recent post:
1. Can you at least demonstrate explicitly where I have failed to read English as you claim? If this in reference to the word 'all' specifically, then see above.
2. Are those sparrows unladen, African, European, relevent to the discussion?
3. Very well: NRSV ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
4. Virgin Birth: are you going to continue to pull these non-sequitors out of your hat? What on earth are you attempting to establish with this question? How is it relevant at all to the discussion? Tell me how it is relevant, or at least what you hope to establish with it, and then and only then will I consider responding to it.
It is clear to all now why you did not fill in your Bio.
I will give you a clue. As a boy I set up a box. Tilted at one end by a stick with a string attached. To which I held hiding out of view.
I used bread crumbs, starting from the outside and skillfully putting the bulk of the bait under the box.
The sparrow started off on the outside of the box and by the time it had its last crumb. The string was pulled and the stick holding the box removed.
Concider yourself boxed, hehe.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
WildB wrote:
quote:
No you have failed to read english.
Laws don't come from the legislature. They come from God for the welfare of ALL the people.
It is you who would set a box trap for the sparrows.
By the way there is no NSRV version.
Now stop your sillyness.
My the way what do you think of the virgin birth?
The only person being silly in this exchange is you. You continue to ignore the main point of this argument and instead either launch into personal attacks or engage in mis-direction or now non-sequitor.
How this, here is a list of all the points that you have yet to address or respond to. Please respond to these in a coherent fashion. Then and maybe then we can move forward. If not, then I hope you realize that you've failed in any meaningful way to back up your claim or defend your original post, which is in effect offering up a concession. If you want to concede, go ahead, but if you want to continue in this then I ask that you do so in a reasonable manner.
List of points as of yet unresponded to by WildB:
1. Explaining Dispensationalism and the Dispensation of Government in a way that would help others understand WildB's POV or one that would further his case.
2. Whether or not WildB wants to stand by this cliam "Laws don't come from the legislature. They come from God for the welfare of the people." Whether or not the word 'all' is used to modify 'the people' is irrelevant since it fails to modify the claim in any meaningful way. Implicit in the phrase is its application to all people, and not just some.
3. Has yet to define the term "new age mover for Christ' so that I can respond to it
4. Why my opinion of the KJV Bible is relevant to this discussion.
4. Why any part of my user profile for this BBS is relevant to this discussion.
5. Whether or not WildB was claiming that I am evil.
6. And last but not least: the original core concept at the heart of this debate: how the results of the court cases listed in the OP harm Christianity as opposed to harming the agenda of those who seek to legislate Christianity.
Finally let me address your most recent post:
1. Can you at least demonstrate explicitly where I have failed to read English as you claim? If this in reference to the word 'all' specifically, then see above.
2. Are those sparrows unladen, African, European, relevent to the discussion?
3. Very well: NRSV
4. Virgin Birth: are you going to continue to pull these non-sequitors out of your hat? What on earth are you attempting to establish with this question? How is it relevant at all to the discussion? Tell me how it is relevant, or at least what you hope to establish with it, and then and only then will I consider responding to it.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by chaoschristian:
Wild B wrote:
quote:
So chaoschristian, where does that KJV Bible stand in your life? For only it can separate the marrow from the bone.
It is not the non-professing that Paul wept over? It was those weed-seeders, worms, wolves, and diablo scripture misquoters that positioned themselves in the Church and led silly women captive?
I can smell evil over the internet.
~
Profile for chaoschristian
Member Status: Advanced Member
Member Number: 5273
Registered: November 21, 2005
Posts: 81
Location: Snack Food Capital of the World
Are you a male or female?: Male
~
Fill in your bio brother?
1. I use the KJV only when I need to reference the exact use of language in that particular translation. I do not use it as my general reference Bible. If you must know, I use the New Interpreters Bible: NSRV, and I've posted on this topic elsewhere in this forum if you want to see my opinions on Bible translations. Why? Why is it important?
2. Huh?
3. You have amazing olfactory capabilities and one amazing ISP. Seriously, is this a non-sequitor, or are you inferring that I am evil in some shape, form or function?
4. How is my profile relevant? If you look, the profile fields are mostly optional. This BBS does require you to fill in whether you are male or female, I suppose in order to keep the male-only and female-only boards in order. Everything else is optional. Again, why is this important, and what are you trying to say by pointing this out and asking questions about it?
Finally, once again you fail to respond to the central point and also fail to respond to any of the reasonable questions that I have put forth in response to your own claims. In others words, you have completely ignored the argument and have once again resorted to personal attacks on me. Can you please simply address the issue at hand, which is, if I recall correctly, about whether or not those court rulings harmed Christianity or whether they harmed the agendas of those who would seek to legislate Christianity?
No you have failed to read english.
Laws don't come from the legislature. They come from God for the welfare of ALL the people.
It is you who would set a box trap for the sparrows.
There is no NSRV version.
Now stop your sillyness.
By the way what do you think of the virgin birth?
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
Whitesands 777 wrote:
quote:
These things are unfortunate...Forbidding prayer and the ten commandments is trying to push Christianity out of the public forum..It's been so much a part of our society for a long time and now they're pushing it out...
There is mass confusion about the seperation of Church and state...
The constitution says congress shall make no law reguarding religion and the free excercise therof.
Which means there can be no laws reguarding religion....period.
This means that acording to our constitution there cannot be a law forbiding prayer in schools or any other law forbiding the ten commandments or whatever...However, you do have a whole arena of folks that out of ignorance repeat the mantra "seperation of church and state"..."seperation of church and state"..."seperation of church and state"....ect ect...No such thing...They repeat that but most people don't know what it really means or what the constitution actually says...They just repeat what they heard on TV what some greasy politician says about it.
All they've done is put a lying twist on what the meaning of "congress shall make no law reguarding religion and the free excercise therof" really is...
Welcome to this debate, its good to have a new voice join in.
I have to disagree with your interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
Let's have a look at the text, shall we?
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1st Amendment Text
It clearly does not state that the government cannot make laws regarding religion. If that were true, then tax codes that provide non-profit status for churches and other religious non-profits would be disallowed. Under your interpretation religions that practice virgin-child blood sacrifice could not be stopped by the government. Clearly, that is not was intended and in fact it is not what is said.
What it does say is that the government cannot take action to establish religious institutions. What was specifically being guarded against was the establishment of an official national religion. It also says that the government cannot take action against the establishment of religious institutions. Take this together with the rest of the text now, and you can see that was is clearly meant is that the government cannot interfere in the establishment, expression or gathering of religious institutions when those actions are being taken by private citizens.
What is not explicitly spelled out in the text, but does exist through the extension of logic is that the 1st Amendment prevents the public use of governmental power and influence in the support of religious practices; but is also prevents the public use of governmental power and influence to prevent the expression of religion among private citizens.
You see there is in fact a clear seperation between the public realm and the private realm that can be clearly seen in the text and logic of the 1st Amendment. The public realm is kept clear of religious practices exercised by the state, while the private realm is protected from government intrusion.
The entire 'seperation of church and state' argument can be set aside as a Red Herring. The real issue is the seperation of the public and private realms. And what the Constitution says is that the expression of religion is clearly reserved for the private realm only.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
Wild B wrote:
quote:
So chaoschristian, where does that KJV Bible stand in your life? For only it can separate the marrow from the bone.
It is not the non-professing that Paul wept over? It was those weed-seeders, worms, wolves, and diablo scripture misquoters that positioned themselves in the Church and led silly women captive?
I can smell evil over the internet.
~
Profile for chaoschristian
Member Status: Advanced Member
Member Number: 5273
Registered: November 21, 2005
Posts: 81
Location: Snack Food Capital of the World
Are you a male or female?: Male
~
Fill in your bio brother?
1. I use the KJV only when I need to reference the exact use of language in that particular translation. I do not use it as my general reference Bible. If you must know, I use the New Interpreters Bible: NSRV, and I've posted on this topic elsewhere in this forum if you want to see my opinions on Bible translations. Why? Why is it important?
2. Huh?
3. You have amazing olfactory capabilities and one amazing ISP. Seriously, is this a non-sequitor, or are you inferring that I am evil in some shape, form or function?
4. How is my profile relevant? If you look, the profile fields are mostly optional. This BBS does require you to fill in whether you are male or female, I suppose in order to keep the male-only and female-only boards in order. Everything else is optional. Again, why is this important, and what are you trying to say by pointing this out and asking questions about it?
Finally, once again you fail to respond to the central point and also fail to respond to any of the reasonable questions that I have put forth in response to your own claims. In others words, you have completely ignored the argument and have once again resorted to personal attacks on me. Can you please simply address the issue at hand, which is, if I recall correctly, about whether or not those court rulings harmed Christianity or whether they harmed the agendas of those who would seek to legislate Christianity?
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
whitesands777
Advanced Member
Member # 3424
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
Engel v. Vitale
June 17, 1962
The Supreme Court restricts prayer in schools.
Roe v. Wade
January 22, 1973
The Supreme Court finds that the right to personal privacy includes abortion.
Stone v. Graham
November 17th, 1980
The Supreme Court strikes down a Kentucky statute requiring display of the Ten Commandments in public schools.
Madsen v. Women's Health Center
June 30, 1994
The Supreme Court upholds the creation of so-called "buffer zones" around abortion clinics, severly restricting pro-life free speech.
Newdow v. U.S.
June 26, 2002
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
Lawrence v. Texas
June 26, 2003
The Supreme Court strikes down a Texas law prohibiting sodomy.
Glassroth v. Moore
July 1, 2003
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal rules that a monument to the Ten Commandments placed in Alabama's judiciary building must be removed.
Nov 6, 2003
Federal judges in New York and California issue temporary restraining orders blocking enforcement of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health
Nov 18, 2003
The Massachusetts Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples can marry under the laws of that state.
Feb 4, 2004
The Massachusetts Supreme Court declares that the state legislature may not offer "civil union" as an alternative to same-sex marriage, amplifying the court's November 18, 2003 decision. The ruling paves the way for the first state-recognized, homosexual marriages in U.S. history.
..................................
Lev.18
[25] And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
--------------------
These things are unfortunate...Forbidding prayer and the ten commandments is trying to push Christianity out of the public forum..It's been so much a part of our society for a long time and now they're pushing it out...
There is mass confusion about the seperation of Church and state...
The constitution says congress shall make no law reguarding religion and the free excercise therof.
Which means there can be no laws reguarding religion....period.
This means that acording to our constitution there cannot be a law forbiding prayer in schools or any other law forbiding the ten commandments or whatever...However, you do have a whole arena of folks that out of ignorance repeat the mantra "seperation of church and state"..."seperation of church and state"..."seperation of church and state"....ect ect...No such thing...They repeat that but most people don't know what it really means or what the constitution actually says...They just repeat what they heard on TV what some greasy politician says about it.
All they've done is put a lying twist on what the meaning of "congress shall make no law reguarding religion and the free excercise therof" really is...
Posts: 501 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
~
quote:And next time you swallow some of that city water, remember it is combined with 1000s of gallons of the shed blood of our unborn Americans. Only parts hit the pan. The blood goes down the drain to the Waste Water Treatment Plants for reprocessing.
You reveal so much about yourself with this statement, that I'll just let it sit there and speak for itself.
~
Thanx~
Gen.4
1. [10] And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
Does the mingling of innocent blood that watereth the land amplify that which is heard by God? For surely its stench has proceded its sound.
Lev.18
[21] And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
[22] Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
[23] Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.(Animal love is starting to show its ugly head)
[24] Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
[25] And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
Remember what Pete said about Fire being in reserve.
Water properly broken with a great energy/force is very flammable.
2Pet.3
1. [7] But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
So chaoschristian, where does that KJV Bible stand in your life? For only it can separate the marrow from the bone.
It is not the non-professing that Paul wept over? It was those weed-seeders, worms, wolves, and diablo scripture misquoters that positioned themselves in the Church and led silly women captive?
I can smell evil over the internet.
~
Profile for chaoschristian
Member Status: Advanced Member
Member Number: 5273
Registered: November 21, 2005
Posts: 81
Location: Snack Food Capital of the World
Are you a male or female?: Male
~
Fill in your bio brother?
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
wparr wrote:
quote:
But Christians focus SHOULDN'T be making lost people keep the values we Christians fail at.
Indeed! Isn't there sufficient evidence that there is no significant difference between Christians in general and the general population in terms of behavior? And that if this were true, then any attempt to legislate Christianity would be viewed as hypocrital to the general population, thus undermining Christian efforts to engage with the general population, which the last time I checked was a rather important element to the Christian mission.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
Tennessee Elijah posted this at 7.12.05 14:55
quote:
I leave you in the hands of God.
Which I am left to interpret as a general dismissal.
Tennessee Elijah posted this at 7.12.05 19:06
quote:
Chaoschristian: Would you please be kind enough to explain what these "words" shown below mean to you?
"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matthew 12:34-37
Which I can either interpret as a request to re-engage, or an attempt to slap me with the Bible Hammer.
Well, it could be both.
Tennessee Elijah:
I take those words to mean that whoever posted those and at the same time posted an article about demons infesting people who don't agree with his take on the world ought to look up the word 'irony' in the dictionary and take it under serious study.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
quote:
Stop your sillyness, it was not meant literally. Do you not know the difference between metaphorically and literally speaking?
Many moons ago, eight year-olds shot, killed, and dressed game for the family when the old man was not around.
Are you a new age mover for Christ?
WildB, I think I can surmise that this was intended for me and not for wparr.
As you failed to grasp my use of metaphor earlier, and that you have also been quite literal in your postings, I have no basis upon which to assume that you were speaking metaphorically. Indeed, if you were, it is a metaphor only by a stretch. Your statement really only makes sense if one interprets it literally.
Whether or not 8 year olds help their pas hunt is irrelevent. I could easily have replaced the child labor example with a slavery example. The capabilities of 8 year olds is not at issue, the exploitation of children through the law or the lack of law is at issue. The logic of my argument still stands.
Lastly, I cannot answer your final question because I don't know how you define new age mover for Christ? Care to elaborate? Maybe I am, maybe I am not, but neither of us will know until you define the term.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Tennessee Elijah
Advanced Member
Member # 5277
|
posted
Chaoschristian: Would you please be kind enough to explain what these "words" shown below mean to you?
"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matthew 12:34-37
--------------------
DO A WEB SEARCH TO FIND JIGROP
Posts: 55 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by wparr:
quote:
Originally posted by chaoschristian:
Do any of these rulings actually outlaw Christianity?
No, they do not.
Do any of these rulings restrict the PERSONAL spiritual life of any practicing Christian?
No, they do not.
Do any of these rulings prevent or restrict the private or public gathering of Christians?
No they do not.
Get the point?
These rulings are not against Christianity.
They are against the values of certain Christians who desire and would have Christianity legislated.
As far as I am concerned, Christianity that is legislated is Christianity defiled.
The power and holiness of Christ is derived from God, not from the state house. Jesus taught us to avoid earthly power, not to embrace it.
AMEN brother AMEN
Our function is NOT to force others to keep "The Law" (that we ourselves DON'T keep)
Jesus NEVER gave a great commision to force others how to act thru government and laws
What the purpose of The Law?
To show us how we COULDN'T keep it, and how we NEEDED a saviour.
Christianity ISN'T about being "good moral people", but being salt and light as the result of Christ living His life THRU us.
Laws are about forcing people to act an behave in a certain way (the outside)
Jesus is about changing THE HEART, and as a result of that heart change, our behavior changes.
Those rulings posted at the begining aren't the PROBLEM, they are but a SYMPTON.
You want to change this nation, let Christ use you to bring people to Him so HE can change their hearts.
With your low # for BBS, I thought you would have a greater wisdom.
Rom.3
1. [20] Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
So if the "NEW JESUS" movement removes the laws , I ask you my brother then where will the knowledge of sin come from.
Oh and you will say the conscience will maintain and witness.
~
1Tim.4
[1] Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
[2] Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
[3] Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
[4] For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
[5] For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
~
So I bring you again to the WORD.
Rom.10
1. [17] So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
So if we remove "all vestiges of Gods Word from the Laws of the Land are we not now then new agers in Christ?
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
wparr
Advanced Member
Member # 891
|
posted
I'm not a new-ager for Christ.
I'm a former new-ager & wiccan and I stand on God's Word ALONE, not on man's tradition and denomonationalisum
Posts: 1203 | From: Eagle Nest, NM | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
Stop your sillyness, it was not meant literally. Do you not know the difference between metaphorically and literally speaking?
Many moons ago, eight year-olds shot, killed, and dressed game for the family when the old man was not around.
Are you a new age mover for Christ?
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
WildB wrote:
quote:
Laws don't come from the legislature. They come from God for the welfare of the people.
I perceive by your lack of understanding of this that you are not a Spirit Filled, Bible believing Follower of Christ.
Your first statement puts you in a most untenable position. Are you sure you want to stand by it? Because if you do, then you are saying that legislation that allows women to have abortions is from God and for the welfare of the people. You are also saying that legislation that does not exist is also from God, since if He didn't want it, then it wouldn't come to pass. Right? Well, in that case when there is a lack of legislation that says, for example, that it not ok to use 8 year old children to run machinery in a textile factory, then God must want 8 year old children to work in textile factories because He sees this promoting the welfare of the people. You are also claiming that such innane things, like legislation that states that all automobiles must be proceeded with men waving red banners and honking horns, are also from God and for the welfare of the people. Do you really want to claim this?
As for your second statement, well it reveils alot now doesn't it? Since you're not able to counter what I say in a reasonable manner, you resort to pulling out your Bible Hammer from your toybox in an attempt to take a swing at me.
It's a swing and a miss, WildB, a swing and a miss.
Look, if you really believe that the United States of America is a Christian nation wherein Christian values can and will be legislated by divine will of God to the exclusion of all else, then just step up and say so. If you do, it would be perfectly consistent with your original post.
That said, just because you believe it, don't assume that all other Christians believe it. And if you post it, then be adequately prepared to back up your claim, without resorting to childish antics.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
Kindly refrain from accusing me of your own mighty defects.
Laws don't come from the legislature. They come from God for the welfare of the people.
I perceive by your lack of understanding of this that you are not a Spirit Filled, Bible believing Follower of Christ.
Luke.13
[25] When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:
[26] Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.
[27] But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.
[28] There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
quote:
1st off we don't have a Caesar. Its called a REPUBLIC.
Thanks WildB, honestly, I had not noticed
Of course, that the entire concept of metaphor might be beyond you, well . . .
quote:
2nd The defence of a Nation sometimes means war.
And sometimes the just and equal application of the law means Christians are not going to get everything just the way they want it every single time. One more reason, though not the primary one, why Christians should not hang their hopes on politics.
quote:
3rd. Do you not understand the Dispensation of Human Government?
Honestly, no. I do not understand the Dispensation of Human Government if you are refering to Dispensationalism, since I do not understand Dispensationalism at all
quote:
And next time you swallow some of that city water, remember it is combined with 1000s of gallons of the shed blood of our unborn Americans. Only parts hit the pan. The blood goes down the drain to the Waste Water Treatment Plants for reprocessing.
You reveal so much about yourself with this statement, that I'll just let it sit there and speak for itself.
quote:
Please study your Bible before posting again.
Regarding my silly points, actually I only have one and it is this: the only reason you would write what you initially posted is if you believe that the government of the United States serves ONLY to progress and protect Christian values and morality, despite the fact that we live in a democratic, pluralistic society, and despite the fact that Jesus makes it quite clear in the Bible that the last thing we ought to be doing as followers of Christ is seeking to progress and protect Christian values through the application of power, especially governmental power. And now that you've been called out for what you stand for, you don't really like the exposure, or the notion that someone might just be willing to challenge your assertion.
Silly enough for you?
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by chaoschristian:
Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
Of course I pay my taxes. I don't normally break the law unless I can clearly demonstrate it is an unjust law and am willing to accept the conaequences of breaking said law.
My taxes are also going to pay for war (not Christian), the death penalty (not Christian), tax relief for energy companies so that they can pollute the earth and reduce long term options for future generations (not Christian), etc, etc, etc.
On the other hand my taxes also provide for the roads I drive on, police who protect me, fire men and rescue workers who help me, for water, sewage, and lights, as well as parks and sidewalks. And even though we don't use them, we gladly pay our taxes so that others might have access to education.
The only way I can see you being really upset at those rulings in your post is if, 1) you think it is a good thing that Christianity be legislated, and/or 2) you believe you are living in a Christian nation wherein Christians and Christian values have some sort of a priori over all other view points and interests.
1st off we don't have a Caesar. Its called a REPUBLIC.
2nd The defence of a Nation sometimes means war.
Mark.3
[27] No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house
3rd. Do you not understand the Dispensation of Human Government?
Gen.9
[6] Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
I only addressed 3 of your silly statements and will not waste my time on the rest.
And next time you swallow some of that city water, remember it is combined with 1000s of gallons of the shed blood of our unborn Americans. Only parts hit the pan. The blood goes down the drain to the Waste Water Treatment Plants for reprocessing.
Please study your Bible before posting again.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
Of course I pay my taxes. I don't normally break the law unless I can clearly demonstrate it is an unjust law and am willing to accept the conaequences of breaking said law.
My taxes are also going to pay for war (not Christian), the death penalty (not Christian), tax relief for energy companies so that they can pollute the earth and reduce long term options for future generations (not Christian), etc, etc, etc.
On the other hand my taxes also provide for the roads I drive on, police who protect me, fire men and rescue workers who help me, for water, sewage, and lights, as well as parks and sidewalks. And even though we don't use them, we gladly pay our taxes so that others might have access to education.
The only way I can see you being really upset at those rulings in your post is if, 1) you think it is a good thing that Christianity be legislated, and/or 2) you believe you are living in a Christian nation wherein Christians and Christian values have some sort of a priori over all other view points and interests.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
Do you pay your taxes?
Then a certain % is used in the killing of unborn Americans.
Hos.4
[6] My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
Do any of these rulings actually outlaw Christianity?
No, they do not.
Do any of these rulings restrict the PERSONAL spiritual life of any practicing Christian?
No, they do not.
Do any of these rulings prevent or restrict the private or public gathering of Christians?
No they do not.
Get the point?
These rulings are not against Christianity.
They are against the values of certain Christians who desire and would have Christianity legislated.
As far as I am concerned, Christianity that is legislated is Christianity defiled.
The power and holiness of Christ is derived from God, not from the state house. Jesus taught us to avoid earthly power, not to embrace it.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
Engel v. Vitale
June 17, 1962
The Supreme Court restricts prayer in schools.
Roe v. Wade
January 22, 1973
The Supreme Court finds that the right to personal privacy includes abortion.
Stone v. Graham
November 17th, 1980
The Supreme Court strikes down a Kentucky statute requiring display of the Ten Commandments in public schools.
Madsen v. Women's Health Center
June 30, 1994
The Supreme Court upholds the creation of so-called "buffer zones" around abortion clinics, severly restricting pro-life free speech.
Newdow v. U.S.
June 26, 2002
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
Lawrence v. Texas
June 26, 2003
The Supreme Court strikes down a Texas law prohibiting sodomy.
Glassroth v. Moore
July 1, 2003
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal rules that a monument to the Ten Commandments placed in Alabama's judiciary building must be removed.
Nov 6, 2003
Federal judges in New York and California issue temporary restraining orders blocking enforcement of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health
Nov 18, 2003
The Massachusetts Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples can marry under the laws of that state.
Feb 4, 2004
The Massachusetts Supreme Court declares that the state legislature may not offer "civil union" as an alternative to same-sex marriage, amplifying the court's November 18, 2003 decision. The ruling paves the way for the first state-recognized, homosexual marriages in U.S. history.
..................................
Lev.18
[25] And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
--------------------
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
