The Word of God

46

kingbee

on Dec 05, 2004

dammit i wish there was a way we could delete our own duplicate posts.

47

MarcieMoo

on Dec 05, 2004

Accepting your beliefs is not synonymous with making national desicions in accordance with your beliefs.

This country makes decisions by majority rule. And in the states where the voters CHOSE to not allow gay marriage...the majority ruled. Gotta love democracy, right?

protecting everyone's right to believe what they choose and express their beliefs requires constant vigilance to ensure our government is as free as possible of religious doctrine or model

I think not having any standards or rules is a wonderful thing (BLECH!)! If we did not have any "doctrine" or "model" as you say, killing each other would be okay. Stealing your neighbor's Mercedes would be cool with everyone. We have "doctrine" and "model" as you say so that people know how to live, and know how to treat each other. If those rules weren't in place...well...I don't think our nation would be so great. We have standards of living that 90% of the people live by...probably even more. We don't have car bombings, we're generally not afraid to go for a walk in our neighborhoods. We don't usually fear for our lives. That's because we have those standards...most of them are aligned with biblical princpals. How horrible for our forefathers, and even those who serve our country today, to have high expectations for the way we treat each other. Man...what kinda of country do we live in?

48

MarcieMoo

on Dec 05, 2004

I was under the impression that your original question called for differing opinions...what seems odd is that now, having realized that you can't make all of us agree with you, you have resorted to calling people antichrists...tsk tsk...WWJD?

This is how the Bible gets "misinterpreted" as well. You can make anything say whatever you want to say. BTW...I think the Constitution is a secret code from the Devil. Read it backwards. PFFFFFT.

49

philomedy

on Dec 05, 2004

This country makes decisions by majority rule. And in the states where the voters CHOSE to not allow gay marriage...the majority ruled. Gotta love democracy, right?

k...we're a republic...republics don't do majority rule...and the people who chose to not allow gay marriage let religion and politics mix...thats a theocracy...gotta love the truth, right?

That's because we have those standards...most of them are aligned with biblical princpals.

Yeah but you don't know which came first, the Bible or the principles. I personally find it unbelievable that human beings would not have been able to figure out that killing and stealing was wrong if the Bible hadn't been written. A lot of "Biblical values" coincide with common sense. You don't hurt another human being...this is a far better reason for not doing something than "because God said so."

This is how the Bible gets "misinterpreted" as well. You can make anything say whatever you want to say. BTW...I think the Constitution is a secret code from the Devil. Read it backwards. PFFFFFT.

50

philomedy

on Dec 05, 2004

This is how the Bible gets "misinterpreted" as well. You can make anything say whatever you want to say. BTW...I think the Constitution is a secret code from the Devil. Read it backwards. PFFFFFT.

Well, thank you for making my entire point for me. You can make the Bible say whatever you want, which is why it is an inadequate source of morality.

51

kingbee

on Dec 05, 2004

I think not having any standards or rules is a wonderful thing (BLECH!)! If we did not have any "doctrine" or "model" as you say, killing each other would be okay. Stealing your neighbor's Mercedes would be cool with everyone

if you truly believe there was no such thing as order, laws and morals prior to judeo-christian history, you were ripped off for at least part of whatever youve paid to be educated. if you arent aware of societies that have been horribly cruel and inhumane theocracies, that goes double.

make fun of the consitution all you want. its the only thing standing between you and someone whose god insists his followers sacrifice virgins.

52

T_Bone4Justice

on Dec 05, 2004

preacherman: "Don't you think the values of a people dictate the direction of the nation... we kind'a saw it in the election this past November. The Democrates thought that the war, jobs, economics, etc.... would be the focal point of getting the upper hand and discounted that a vast majority of the people still have a high expectation for the moral issues that seem to be undermining our society, of which the marriage of homosexuals, sodimites.. or what ever a society calls them."

I don't think you are correctly interpreting the results of this election. First, only 22% of those who voted chose "moral values" as their top priority. Secondly, the polling questions were poorly worded. When voters were given more choices with regards to "moral values," the moral values that people were most concerned about were: 1. poverty and 2. greed/materialism. Abortion, gay marriage, and that ridiculous Const. amendment was at the bottom of the barrel. When terrorism/Iraq war was put together into one category...that was the top priority. When taxes, jobs, economy, were put into one category that was the second priority. People voted for Bush for two main reasons: Fear of terrorism and Fear that Kerry wasn't up to the job of protecting them. The third main reason people voted for Bush was because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Kerry for whatever reason. It was not so much a "moral mandate" as it was fear and an "anti" Kerry vote. Many conservatives (particularly fiscal conservatives) wanted Bush out but given the choice of him or Kerry...they voted for Bush. There really was no moral mandate.

"homosexuals, sodimites.. or what ever a society calls them." I think we should just stick to calling gays people, human beings, persons. Calling someone a sodimite is pretty degrading don't you think? I would also point out that gays are not the only people in society engaging in sodomy especially when the definition of sodomy includes oral sex (which it often does).

53

T_Bone4Justice

on Dec 05, 2004

Marcie Helen: I did not say that you were a fool and I specifically said that you have a right to believe whatever it is you want to believe just like others have a right to believe in something different or in nothing at all. My point is that one person's religious beliefs or a group of people's religious beliefs cannot be imposed on society as a whole via governmental action. I respect your choices and your beliefs. What I find disturbing is that the ideological right wants to impose their beliefs on all of us through government. That shows blatant disrespect for those who disagree with their religious beliefs.

54

preacherman

on Dec 05, 2004

I was under the impression that your original question called for differing opinions...what seems odd is that now, having realized that you can't make all of us agree with you, you have resorted to calling people antichrists...tsk tsk...WWJD?

If you study out the scriptures you'll find that the spirit of anti-christ is a spirit that dwells in people who don not believe Christ was God in the flesh, which would mean the individual rejects the Word of God.

What would Jesus do? The same thing he the rejecters of His word in the Gospel of John- "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me". He would tell you to believe on the Word of God and be saved.

What do you say philomedy- do you want to trust Him today? He does not force Himself upon us, but is looking for those who are sick and tired of living insin. He is merciful and longsuffering but a day is coming in which He will pour out His wrath, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the shall wail because of Him.

Well, thank you for making my entire point for me. You can make the Bible say whatever you want, which is why it is an inadequate source of morality.

What do you believe should be a nations source of morality? Or should there not be one and every man do that which is right in his on eyes? What should children be taught about honesty, integrity, etc.... should they be taught that muder is wrong? Marcie brings up an excellent point, if there are no reasons to teach morals would the terrorist actions be construed as immoral, or do you even believe they are? Should the children of a ntaion be taught to do what they want and let the chips fall where they may?

I personally find it unbelievable that human beings would not have been able to figure out that killing and stealing was wrong if the Bible hadn't been written.

Before the Bible was written Cain killed Abel his brother, and check out the reason he did- Genesis chpt4.

philomedy you have a lot of opinions but the problem is they have no power or authority except in your heart and we know from the teaching of the scriptures "the heart is desperately wicked and decietful above all things; who can know it?" We can't even know our own heart it will fool us! The revelation of the human heart can only be revealed by the Spirit of God and the Word of God. Just ask God, He will show you.

preacherman

55

Molly0597

on Dec 05, 2004

This is how the Bible gets "misinterpreted" as well. You can make anything say whatever you want to say. BTW...I think the Constitution is a secret code from the Devil. Read it backwards. PFFFFFT.

Marcie.... did you just agree that the Bible can be interpreted to say anything you want? I thought you disagreed with that?

This country makes decisions by majority rule. And in the states where the voters CHOSE to not allow gay marriage...the majority ruled. Gotta love democracy, right?

We may be able to vote on this, but the problem isn't the voting. It's that people are applying religion to their political choices in the first place. The way I see it, when it comes to politics, people should view every decision they make from not only their situation, but from the government's viewpoint as well. The problem with the issue of gay marriage is that the only problem anyone has with it is religious. Even if that does matter from the eyes of an individual (which I don't think it should because I don't know how one person's so-called "sins" affect anyone else), it should never matter in the eyes of the government. I'm going to assume that you agree that the role of the government is to protect the rights of everyone, no matter what their race or gender or religion is, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. If you see homosexuality as inborn, you can compare it to race or gender. If you see it as a choice (which is ridiculous), you can compare it to religion. Either way, it doesn't affect anyone else, so it's the role of the government to protect their rights.

Philomedy is right, this isn't a democracy, which would allow anything to happen if the majority said so. That would allow for all sorts of bad things, because there wouldn't be any checks. The US is a constitutional republic. Sure, we use majority rule to decide a lot of things, but there are still other checks. You know there's a problem when the government stops doing its job and starts discriminating because the majority of people claim God says so.

I'd also have to agree that morals would still exist without the Bible. Morals aren't based on what God says. Morals are based on respecting the worth of other people. We can't kill people because they have worth. It doesn't take a supreme being to figure that out. If your argument were true, so sense of justice or morality or equality ever could have existed in non-Christian civilizations. You can look back to Hammurabi's Code or to the Greeks or the pre-Chirstian Romans. Sure, they still weren't perfect, but their morals were evolving to respect everyone. Then remember the Inquisition. Even the Christians did bad things. The "Word of God" isn't necessary for people to do good things. I think I could have figured out that killing people is worng by myself.

56

Texas Wahine

on Dec 05, 2004

We may be able to vote on this, but the problem isn't the voting. It's that people are applying religion to their political choices in the first place.

I just gotta interject here to say that we should never presume to tell people what factors are allowed to influence their political leanings or their vote.

57

philomedy

on Dec 05, 2004

philomedy you have a lot of opinions but the problem is they have no power or authority except in your heart and we know from the teaching of the scriptures "the heart is desperately wicked and decietful above all things; who can know it?" We can't even know our own heart it will fool us! The revelation of the human heart can only be revealed by the Spirit of God and the Word of God. Just ask God, He will show you.

You have a lot of opinions too, and the problem with those is that they are all based on a being that may be as fake as a unicorn. Trust me, the reason I don't kill, or steal, or cheat on my girlfriend, is not because God says I shouldn't, and its not because a leprechaun says I shouldn't, and its not because Santa Claus doesn't want me to. My morality is based on something that I can show you. Yours is based on hearsay.

Before the Bible was written Cain killed Abel his brother, and check out the reason he did- Genesis chpt4.

Yeah, and after the Bible was written, no one killed anyone, and everyone had lollipops whenever they wanted...

What do you believe should be a nations source of morality?

Whether something is immoral or not should be judged based on whether or not it hurts or devalues another human being in any way. Murder does this, stealing does this, being unfaithful does this. Homosexuality does not do this. Consensual premarital sex does not do this. Denying homosexuals the rights that everyone else has does this. There are, of course, gray areas, and in those cases I think utilitarianism does a fine job of deciding things, or at least its worked for me in the past.

If you study out the scriptures you'll find that the spirit of anti-christ is a spirit that dwells in people who don not believe Christ was God in the flesh, which would mean the individual rejects the Word of God.

And thats according to whoever wrote the Bible, right? And did you prove to me that God wrote the Bible yet? No, I remember that I asked, but that question of mine was conveniently dismissed. Look, lets agree to disagree. You can call me the antichrist if I can call you the inquisitor. Or Cardinal Fang. Can I call you Cardinal Fang?

What do you say philomedy- do you want to trust Him today?

Let's set this straight: I trust Him. I don't trust you telling me what He does or doesn't want me to do.

I think I could have figured out that killing people is worng by myself.

Right on. There's nothing wrong with giving God credit, but we can't discredit ourselves either.

I just gotta interject here to say that we should never presume to tell people what factors are allowed to influence their political leanings or their vote.

Good point.

58

Molly0597

on Dec 05, 2004

just gotta interject here to say that we should never presume to tell people what factors are allowed to influence their political leanings or their vote.

Right, I'm not saying we should control it. I just disagree with it. What I said is that I think it's fine for people to look at something from an individual point of view, but people should also see political decisions from the government's point of view. But it is only my opinion. I recognize that people will never make political decisions without thinking of themselves. I just don't see how gay marriages influences anyone else.

59

preacherman

on Dec 05, 2004

So appears from most of the discussion that they are a vast majortiy who feel a nation does not need to recognize God.
That a nation would be fine if there was no involvement from God?

preacherman

60

philomedy

on Dec 05, 2004

So appears from most of the discussion that they are a vast majortiy who feel a nation does not need to recognize God.
That a nation would be fine if there was no involvement from God?

I can agree with that.