How the Democratic Party opposes Christian Principles

[KarateCowboy]

So -- are you suggesting that Christians need to get better at propaganda?

Not worth the effort. Christians are incapable of effectively using propaganda and actually suffer a -9 charisma penalty automatically on their persuation roll when use that skill. Why? Because it clashes with their character class --you can't have propaganda without "pro-pagan", da.

 

[mpok1519]

yes, Clirus is the very essence of perverted Christianity.

I saw a sign on a Church that said "An unchanging church in changing times" and it saddened me. People who won't change for the better are better off just being left alone in their own tiny world they created in their own heads.

Please, Clirus deserves as much a forum as we all do, but I will express my dearest wishes that everyone pray for him, for if our future is riddled with people who share his outlok, then the future is bleak, dark, and lacking hope.

He says women should ONLY be educated if it makes them a better mother, but for no other purposes such as discovery, growth of one's intellectual capacity, growth of understanding a mysterious world, or social-interactive growth, which is just a perversion of the EQUAL powers God gave both women and men to share as one.

Clirus does not follow the Christian God that loves and wishes the freedom of opportunity and growth that everyone deserves, he follows man's selfish inner need to feel powerful, and in control over people, women mostly. God is an equal opportunity kinda God, and not just for a seat in His kingdom, but also in the life He has granted each and everyone of us the privelege of.

Do not feel intimidated by women, Clirus. you'll find out that not all of them are the single-dimensional cookie-cutter-domestic-goddess-paper-doll cutout that the Bible "wishes" them to become. Women can be smarter, stronger, faster, and more capable than any man can be if you give them a chance. but its when people think women should always stand behind the man in every instance of life is when women feel they are pushed and shoved.


and no, I'm not flaming. I'm venting frustration on the forces I feel are destroying Christianity.

 

[clirus]

Museveni quote

Flawed argument though. By this standard anyone who believes in Free Speech should not try to silence Nazis,Neo-Nazis,Communists,Radical Fantatics, Terrorist Propaganda, Pro- Pedophila(as long as they ofcourse dont actully practice it), Pro-Gay Rights, Pro-Transsexual Rights, Pro-Diversity, Anti-Nationalism, Anti-Gay Rights and so on.

It's one of the standard arguments by people who cant live with free speech and the fact that some people despit that they profes to Free Speech wont accept peoples Hate Mongering superstiteous or unfounded beliefs.

"Personal Freedom is sacred as long as ones freedom does not infringe or remove someone elses freedom"

The Catch here is when trying to decided who's infringing on who's freedom. For an example with Gays they have shown that they are more then willing to accept Christiany, or atleast a non-fanatical branch(as proven by the large amount of christian gays) but Fanatic Chrisitians show no sign of willingness to accept gays freedom to be what they are. As such it's pretty safe to say that it is the Fanatics who's infringing on peoples rights as Gays do allow people to practice Christianity.

Another example would be this. Is it right of the Jews to try and infringe on Neo-Nazis right to gather and have political parties?

Response

Two points relative to this discussion.

1) A Christian concept is to love the sinner, but not the sin. However, at some point the sin and the sinner become inseparable. What you usually find is the Pro-Nazis, is a Nazis; the Pro-Neo-Nazis, is a Neo-Nazis; the Pro-Communists, is a Communist; the Pro-Radical Fanatics, is a Radical Fanatic; the Pro-Terrorist Propaganda, is a Terrorist; the Pro-Pedophile, is a Pedophile; the Pro-Gay Rights, is a homosexual; the Pro-Transsexual Rights, is a Transsexual; the Pro-Diversity, is a minority, the Pro-Anti-Nationalism, is an Anti-Nationalist, and the Anti-Gay Rights is a Christian.

2) The purpose of Satan is to take the good things of the Christian Lifestyle and pervert them into the Atheistic Lifestyle. The perversion of freedom of speech is when a person advocates something that would lead to disease, death and destruction. It is now illegal to advertize tobacco products because that leads to cancer, but television portrays homosexuals as kind humorous people even though homosexuality has AIDS associated with it. Television portrays sex as a recreational activity even though sex outside to he Christian Family concept leads to STDs.

The idea that homosexuals accept Christians is silly. Homosexuals say they accept Christians but then try to get hate crime legislation passed so that Christians will not be allowed to warn people of the disease, death and destruction of homosexuality. Homosexuals say they accept Christians, but reject God and the Bible that is the bases for being a Christian.

I am going to make a simple statement. If it is good you have a right to advocate/do it, if it is evil you have no right to advocate/do it. Evil is those things that lead to disease, death and destruction.

I feel that fits with the three levels of action as follows.

I believe the Bible teaches all things should be dealt with by the following three levels of action;
1) If it is good - accept it and nourish it.
2) If it is evil - reject it but tolerate it.
3) If it threatens your existence - destroy it before it destroys you. This is self defense, which both the individual and society have a right and responsibility to do.

The first two are from the New Testament of the Bible and represent the Law of Love. The third is from the Old Testament of the Bible and represents the Law of Purity/Self Defense. The New Testament deals more with personal responsibility and the Old Testament deals more with the preservation of society. The Old Testament and the New Testament together present a means of survival for a person, a nation and a world.

The process used in America to insure that the correct people are executed (the decision to go from tolerance to destruction) is the jury process and the authorization of war by congress. No process is ever perfect, but the choice is society/civilization or an imperfect jury/congressional process.

Even though evil can be tolerated, advocating evil should be rejected. Advocating evil can be anything from portraying an evil activity as fun with no consequences to the attitude that "I would not do it, but I would not be bothered if others did it". Pornography should be rejected because it advocates evil.

America was founded on these concepts where Civil Law was equivalent to the Law of Purity. A major problem in America is that Civil Law has now been so perverted that sin is now legalized and civil rights are more important than civil responsibility. Civil Law is no longer protecting/preserving society thus it is useless unless it is returned to its original intent. .

If all would live in accordance with the Law of love, there would never be a need to invoke the Law of Purity, but many do not live in accordance with any law. America is best served when religion prevents evil by defining evil and showing the disease, death and destruction of evil, and when Civil Law executes those who will not follow any law.

I believe that about 50% of the things of the world are good and about 49.9% of the things are evil and about 0.1% represent things that represent a threat. Some may think the evil should be eradicated, but I think evil eradicates itself because evil has disease, death and destruction associated with it. Evil requires outside assistance to survive. Good is self sufficient.

Anything should be considered evil if both the Bible says it is evil and physical reality shows that it leads to disease, death and destruction. Homosexuality is an example. The Bible says homosexuality is evil, and the AIDS is the physical reality of disease, death and destruction.

 

[clirus]

IzzyPop quote

And as a small government Libertarian, I'd rather have the Dems in power as opposed to someone who believes in even half of this tripe. You had 6 years of Republicans in control. What did they do to promote your agenda? When did they have the time between all the lies, bribes, and corruption? Or is fleecing your constituents a Christian virtue?

Response

When compared to perfection, Republicans did not look good, but when compared to democrats, Republicans look brilliant. Without the propaganda support of the Atheistic Liberal News Media the democrats would look ridicules.

Also, please read the thread How Republicans support Christian Principles.

 

[christalee4]

Response

Professing to being Christian and being a Christian by following God's commandments is two very separate issues. There have already been a lot of democrats that profess to be Christians, but the democratic party supports the Atheistic Lifestyle. One of the most hypocritical statement by a democrat is: I would not do that, but I would not object to others doing it. That is like saying: I would not pervert your children, but I would not mind someone else perverting your children. If it is wrong, it is wrong for all people.

Again, you get into the subject of who is a Christian. There are many different interpretations of the faith, as there we are all individuals, with different experiences, feelings, who use them to interpret beliefs and Scripture differently. We are not robots who follow a single mindset. Who gets to determine how Christian faith should be interpreted is the foundation of your argument. Is what Clirus believes the Way? Is Pat Robertson's, the current Pope, or a popular mega-church pastor's interpretation The Way? It's impossible to pin down true interpretation without argument or disagreement, which is why we can't have state-sponsored religion to dictate to everyone, believers or not, what the faith-based laws are.

I believe you greatly underestimate the number of people that are Atheists. Not many people openly call themselves Atheists, but there are a lot of people who are Atheists because the have not accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and who do advocate the Atheistic Lifestyle.

Why not look at some actual facts and polls, rather than relying on the special powers that Clirus has in discerning truth?
http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm#The Big Picture
http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html

According to polls, over 75% of Americans say they are Christian, and .4% say they are Atheists.

Again, your quibble is "who is a Christian". That is not for you or anyone else to decide, but ultimately between God and us as individuals.

I believe the News and Entertainment Industry is controlled by Atheists that support the democratic party.

Do you have any possible facts to back up your beliefs? Any, even a tiny one would be welcomed.

There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists.

In the rest of your post, you seem to assert that anyone who holds a view in the "middle ground", or who doesn't hold your interpretation must be an Atheist. Tell me if I am wrong on this.

If there is a "culture war", it's not between Atheists and Christians, but more between Christians who disagree on how much power government-sponsored religion should have over our lives. Most Christians don't want state-sponsored religious law, or Biblically-based government. Are they then all Atheists, or not proper Christians? That would indeed be most of the American population.

 

[mpok1519]

Museveni quote

Flawed argument though. By this standard anyone who believes in Free Speech should not try to silence Nazis,Neo-Nazis,Communists,Radical Fantatics, Terrorist Propaganda, Pro- Pedophila(as long as they ofcourse dont actully practice it), Pro-Gay Rights, Pro-Transsexual Rights, Pro-Diversity, Anti-Nationalism, Anti-Gay Rights and so on.

It's one of the standard arguments by people who cant live with free speech and the fact that some people despit that they profes to Free Speech wont accept peoples Hate Mongering superstiteous or unfounded beliefs.

"Personal Freedom is sacred as long as ones freedom does not infringe or remove someone elses freedom"

The Catch here is when trying to decided who's infringing on who's freedom. For an example with Gays they have shown that they are more then willing to accept Christiany, or atleast a non-fanatical branch(as proven by the large amount of christian gays) but Fanatic Chrisitians show no sign of willingness to accept gays freedom to be what they are. As such it's pretty safe to say that it is the Fanatics who's infringing on peoples rights as Gays do allow people to practice Christianity.

Another example would be this. Is it right of the Jews to try and infringe on Neo-Nazis right to gather and have political parties?

Response

Two points relative to this discussion.

1) A Christian concept is to love the sinner, but not the sin. However, at some point the sin and the sinner become inseparable. What you usually find is the Pro-Nazis, is a Nazis; the Pro-Neo-Nazis, is a Neo-Nazis; the Pro-Communists, is a Communist; the Pro-Radical Fanatics, is a Radical Fanatic; the Pro-Terrorist Propaganda, is a Terrorist; the Pro-Pedophile, is a Pedophile; the Pro-Gay Rights, is a homosexual; the Pro-Transsexual Rights, is a Transsexual; the Pro-Diversity, is a minority, the Pro-Anti-Nationalism, is an Anti-Nationalist, and the Anti-Gay Rights is a Christian.

2) The purpose of Satan is to take the good things of the Christian Lifestyle and pervert them into the Atheistic Lifestyle. The perversion of freedom of speech is when a person advocates something that would lead to disease, death and destruction. It is now illegal to advertize tobacco products because that leads to cancer, but television portrays homosexuals as kind humorous people even though homosexuality has AIDS associated with it. Television portrays sex as a recreational activity even though sex outside to he Christian Family concept leads to STDs.

The idea that homosexuals accept Christians is silly. Homosexuals say they accept Christians but then try to get hate crime legislation passed so that Christians will not be allowed to warn people of the disease, death and destruction of homosexuality. Homosexuals say they accept Christians, but reject God and the Bible that is the bases for being a Christian.

I am going to make a simple statement. If it is good you have a right to advocate/do it, if it is evil you have no right to advocate/do it. Evil is those things that lead to disease, death and destruction.

I feel that fits with the three levels of action as follows.

I believe the Bible teaches all things should be dealt with by the following three levels of action;
1) If it is good - accept it and nourish it.
2) If it is evil - reject it but tolerate it.
3) If it threatens your existence - destroy it before it destroys you. This is self defense, which both the individual and society have a right and responsibility to do.

The first two are from the New Testament of the Bible and represent the Law of Love. The third is from the Old Testament of the Bible and represents the Law of Purity/Self Defense. The New Testament deals more with personal responsibility and the Old Testament deals more with the preservation of society. The Old Testament and the New Testament together present a means of survival for a person, a nation and a world.

The process used in America to insure that the correct people are executed (the decision to go from tolerance to destruction) is the jury process and the authorization of war by congress. No process is ever perfect, but the choice is society/civilization or an imperfect jury/congressional process.

Even though evil can be tolerated, advocating evil should be rejected. Advocating evil can be anything from portraying an evil activity as fun with no consequences to the attitude that "I would not do it, but I would not be bothered if others did it". Pornography should be rejected because it advocates evil.

America was founded on these concepts where Civil Law was equivalent to the Law of Purity. A major problem in America is that Civil Law has now been so perverted that sin is now legalized and civil rights are more important than civil responsibility. Civil Law is no longer protecting/preserving society thus it is useless unless it is returned to its original intent. .

If all would live in accordance with the Law of love, there would never be a need to invoke the Law of Purity, but many do not live in accordance with any law. America is best served when religion prevents evil by defining evil and showing the disease, death and destruction of evil, and when Civil Law executes those who will not follow any law.

I believe that about 50% of the things of the world are good and about 49.9% of the things are evil and about 0.1% represent things that represent a threat. Some may think the evil should be eradicated, but I think evil eradicates itself because evil has disease, death and destruction associated with it. Evil requires outside assistance to survive. Good is self sufficient.

Anything should be considered evil if both the Bible says it is evil and physical reality shows that it leads to disease, death and destruction. Homosexuality is an example. The Bible says homosexuality is evil, and the AIDS is the physical reality of disease, death and destruction.

I got your future USA republican plan right here.

1. destroy all terrorists, and their families, so they dont decide to become terrorists too.
2.Conquer and establish major corporate ties with foreign nations rich and abundant in natural resources but not stable governmental/militaristic force to resist westernizing a new world economic stratas.
3. Criminalize all forms of gambling, escort services, alcohol sales, tobacco, drug-related paraphernalia, tobacco-paraphernalia, coughmedicine with pseudoephedrine, and increase the penalties for existing controlled substances, criminalizing any and every form of recreative psycho-active substance in the known world, old, new and uninnovated, etc
4.criminalize homosexuality.
5.allowing discrimination in the workforce for homosexuals.
6.criminalize all forms of art considered deviant and unacceptable to the human eye.
7.elect fred phelps to the senate.
8.allow penal execution for three-time theft, drug, deviate offendors.
9.All medications must be prescribed by a physician liscensed by the federal government, and all medications will be govt sponsered,
10. the president never has to testify in the court of law ever
11. protocol for electing judiciaries, committee chairs, attorney generals, etc does not have to be legitimate


lemmie know if you wanna add anymore.


love, people, love. He says you should destroy something if you THINK it endangers your existence. but if you are a pro-radical such as he, who knows what he sees as a threat. so be aware. There are people out there who want to hurt you.

 

[Nathan Poe]

love, people, love. He says you should destroy something if you THINK it endangers your existence. but if you are a pro-radical such as he, who knows what he sees as a threat. so be aware. There are people out there who want to hurt you.

Sad but true -- eliminate the infidels, the Atheists, the liberals, the homosexuals, the radicals, the renegades, the rebels, the rogues, and anyone else you think may be a threat to you, and in time, you'll be left with a population of one.

And before the day is out, he'll attack the mirror.

 

[christalee4]

I got your future USA republican plan right here.

1. destroy all terrorists, and their families, so they dont decide to become terrorists too.
2.Conquer and establish major corporate ties with foreign nations rich and abundant in natural resources but not stable governmental/militaristic force to resist westernizing a new world economic stratas.
3. Criminalize all forms of gambling, escort services, alcohol sales, tobacco, drug-related paraphernalia, tobacco-paraphernalia, coughmedicine with pseudoephedrine, and increase the penalties for existing controlled substances, criminalizing any and every form of recreative psycho-active substance in the known world, old, new and uninnovated, etc
4.criminalize homosexuality.
5.allowing discrimination in the workforce for homosexuals.
6.criminalize all forms of art considered deviant and unacceptable to the human eye.
7.elect fred phelps to the senate.
8.allow penal execution for three-time theft, drug, deviate offendors.
9.All medications must be prescribed by a physician liscensed by the federal government, and all medications will be govt sponsered,
10. the president never has to testify in the court of law ever
11. protocol for electing judiciaries, committee chairs, attorney generals, etc does not have to be legitimate


lemmie know if you wanna add anymore.


love, people, love. He says you should destroy something if you THINK it endangers your existence. but if you are a pro-radical such as he, who knows what he sees as a threat. so be aware. There are people out there who want to hurt you.

I'll add some:

- Insure that women and minorities don't have equal rights.
- Bring back slavery, as the Bible says that God allows it.
- Force women out of their jobs, keep them within the home, and under the feet of men.
- Institute capital punishment not only for homsexuals, woman who have abortions, and the doctors who provide them, but also for heretics, blasphemers, witches, and children who wilfully disobey their parents.
- Use capital punishment methods, as mandated by the Bible, such as stoning to death, burning alive, the sword, and hanging; using those methods will create more fear of the Lord, and therefore better Christians.

Praise be!

 

[PassionFruit]

I'll add some:

- Insure that women and minorities don't have equal rights.
- Bring back slavery, as the Bible says that God allows it.
- Force women out of their jobs, keep them within the home, and under the feet of men.
- Institute capital punishment not only for homsexuals, woman who have abortions, and the doctors who provide them, but also for heretics, blasphemers, witches, and children who wilfully disobey their parents.
- Use capital punishment methods, as mandated by the Bible, such as stoning to death, burning alive, the sword, and hanging; using those methods will create more fear of the Lord, and therefore better Christians.

Praise be!

Well, lemme add:

-Try to control the behavior of women by making abortion illegal. If a woman engages in sexuality activity, she should face the consequences of that by getting pregnant. Put restrictions on access to family planning services, because doing that only gives her a license to have sex! Can't have that! And don't even think about condom distribution to teens.
- Make Christianity the official religion, forget what the constitution said about people having the freedom of religion. Can't have those heathen Pagans, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. If possible, create "re-education" camps for people who refuse to convert to Christianity.
-Destroy feminism, it makes women become lesbians, kill their children, destroy capitalism, and promotes witchcraft and all that noise.

 

[Voegelin]

How the Democratic Party opposes Christian Principles

The charge isn’t new.

While Jefferson and his supporters first claimed to be republicans (and even Federalists) because “democrat” was a term associated with “Jacobin” and the horrors of the French Revolution, eventually his party did become the “Republican-Democrat” and then simply the “Democratic” Party. During the election of 1800, the founder of Union Theological Seminary and trustee of Columbia Univeristy, John Michell Mason, had this to say about the ideology of Jefferson and his democrats:

I dread the election of Mr. Jefferson, because I believe him to be a confirmed infidel . . .

But do I represent as infidels all who befriend Mr. Jefferson’s election? God forbid that I should so “lie against the truth.” If I thought so, I should mourn in silence: my pen should slumber forever. That a majority of them profess, and that multitudes of them really love, the religion of Jesus, while it is my terror, is also my hope. Terror, because I believe them to be under a fatal mistake; hope, because they, if any, are within the reach of conviction. I address myself to them . . .

Mr. Jefferson doubts if ever God had a chosen people. In the second place, if he had, he insists they are no other than those who labor in the earth. At any rate, he denies this privilege to the seed of Abraham; and equally denies your being his people, unless you follow the scythe and the plow. Now, whether this be not the lie direct to the whole testimony of the bible from the beginning to the end, judge ye . . .

After these affronts to the oracles of God, you have no right to be surprized if Mr. Jefferson should preach the innocence of error, or even of atheism. What do I say! He does preach it.

“The legitimate powers of government,” they are his own words, “extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbors to say there are twenty Gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Ponder well this paragraph. Ten thousand impieties and mischiefs lurk in its womb. Mr. Jefferson maintains not only the inviolability of opinion, but of opinion propagated. And that no class or character of abomination might be excluded from the sanctuary of such laws as he wishes to see established, he pleads for the impunity of published error in its most dangerous and execrable form.

Polytheism or atheism, “twenty gods or no god,” is perfectly indifferent in Mr. Jefferson’s good citizen. A wretch may trumpet atheism from New Hampshire to Georgia; may laugh at all the realities of futurity; may scoff and teach others to scoff at their accountability; it is no matter, says Mr. Jefferson, “it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.”

This is nothing less than representing civil society as founded in atheism . . .

Pardon me, Christian: this is the morality of devils . . .

Source: Liberty Fund

The Voice of Warning to Christians John Mitchell Mason (1800, New York)

 

[Grizzly]

We all owe a great debt to Thomas Jefferson.

"twenty gods or no god,” is perfectly indifferent in Mr. Jefferson’s good citizen.

We need more like him.

 

[clirus]

To mpok1519, christalee4, and PassionFruit

The verbs used by mpok1519, christalee4, and PassionFruit are control, restrict, destroy, force, etc. When I write, I use the word advocate. I do not advocate controlling, restricting, destroying, forcing, etc.

Christians should advocate (be salt and light), Civil Law should control, restrict, destroy, force, etc. Christians should advocate that which is good and healthy for society as described in the Bible. Civil Law should control, restrict, destroy, force, etc. that which is harmful (disease, death and destruction) to society. Congress (as the representatives of the people) defines Civil Law. If the laws that Congress defines are consistent with the Christian Lifestyle (God's Law), the people who practice evil will suffer. If the laws that Congress defines are consistent with the Atheistic Lifestyle, everyone will suffer. Civil Law consistent with the Atheistic Lifestyle cause suffering for everyone because the Christens suffer under the law, and the Atheists suffer because of the sin they practice. Romans 6:23 states, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Separation of Church and State means the Church should not execute, control, restrict, destroy, force, etc. and the State should not legalize sin by legalizing those things that the Bible clearly calls evil.

God does not control, restrict, destroy, force, etc. When God produced the Ten Commandments. God presented a warning and people have the right to disobey, but they also need to be aware there are consequences.

This all comes back to the three central questions.

Does the Bible define a plan (Christian Lifestyle) for Christian living?

Can man define a better plan (Atheistic Lifestyle) than God?

Is the Christian Lifestyle better than the Atheistic Lifestyle for the individual, the nation and the world?

 

[Voegelin]

We all owe a great debt to Thomas Jefferson.

"twenty gods or no god,” is perfectly indifferent in Mr. Jefferson’s good citizen.

We need more like him.

He didn't believe any of it. He pitched to the lower classes (both economic and moral) in order to keep his aristocratic lifestyle. I mean look, the guy owned slaves. Sorta. He mortaged them to feed his opulent lifestyle. He didn't have to do that. Most of his political adversaries weren't slave owners. Jefferson used "democracy", as so many have since, in order to consolidate power among a wealthy elite--his elite. He stroked Baptists and funded an apocalyptic preacher by the name of David Allen while, to other audiences, deriding those who believed in the Nicene Creed.

Fisher Ames, representative from Massachusetts' first congressional district, summed it up best in "The Dangers of American Democracy" (1805):

"Virginia has fomented a licentious spirit among all of her neighbors. Her citizens imagine that they are democrats, and that their abstract theories as in fact democratic; but their state policy is that of a genuine aristocracy or oligarchy".

Hmm....sound familiar doesn't it? Look at the individual campaign donations in the last election. Five people spent over $75 million trying to elect Kerry. And now they are spending millions more building up the Center for American Progress, Media Matters and the Democratic Alliance. The super-rich--hedge fund operators, entertainment/media moguls--posing as the party of the working
people.

Ames went on to say:

"While they were climbing to power (the press) aided their ascent;and now they have reached it, does it not conceal or justify their abominations? . . .With a venal press at command, concealing their number and infamy, is it to be doubted that the ignorant will soon or late unite with the vicious?"



"

 

[Nathan Poe]

Christians should advocate that which is good and healthy for society as described in the Bible.

Are you saying that they do not?

If the laws that Congress defines are consistent with the Christian Lifestyle (God's Law), the people who practice evil will suffer. If the laws that Congress defines are consistent with the Atheistic Lifestyle, everyone will suffer.

Except that Congress is, by your definition, endorsing the Atheistic lifestyle, and the ones who are suffering the most are the ones trying to ban it.

Civil Law consistent with the Atheistic Lifestyle cause suffering for everyone because the Christens suffer under the law, and the Atheists suffer because of the sin they practice.

Rubbish. How are you suffering?
life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Separation of Church and State means the Church should not execute, control, restrict, destroy, force, etc. and the State should not legalize sin by legalizing those things that the Bible clearly calls evil.

Not what it means. It means that the Bible should not be usesd to define "evil" for the purposes of lawmaking.

God does not control, restrict, destroy, force, etc. When God produced the Ten Commandments. God presented a warning and people have the right to disobey, but they also need to be aware there are consequences.

And you want the government to enforce those consequences. Don't you trust God to do it?

Does the Bible define a plan (Christian Lifestyle) for Christian living?

Suppose it does. What's stopping the Christians from living it? Doesn't begging the government to enforce this Christian lifestyle on the rest of us amount to a type of spiritual socialism?

Can man define a better plan (Atheistic Lifestyle) than God?

Man defined the Christian lifestyle and attributed it to God. I'm sure he can improve his own work -- perhaps he already has, and you refuse to accept that.

Is the Christian Lifestyle better than the Atheistic Lifestyle for the individual, the nation and the world?

Not by a long shot. I like free will.

 

[Museveni]

And lets never forgot that Fisher Amens is most famous for his staunt support for the Bill of Rights aswell as being the author of what many concider the Seperation of Church and State.

Ames original.
"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."


Current Version
"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."


And to an extent Ames distrust for Pure Democracy has it's points. For an example it does decend to mob rule and has a tendency to prey on Minorities.. Imagen a US where Reptile Brain mob rule decided things like immigration and treatment of minorities...

 

[Nathan Poe]

The Voice of Warning to Christians John Mitchell Mason (1800, New York)

And yet, Jefferson was elected, and much to the surprise of nobody, civilization did not come to a screeching halt. We indeed need more like Jefferson. Where are they now?

 

[mpok1519]

Clirus>> in essence, you are advocating destruction, disease and decay.

anyone who wishes to live in your fantasy world will find that the world you are envisioning is FULL of disease, decay and destruction.

Christianity has no room for the proradicalism you advocate.

 

[christalee4]

If the laws that Congress defines are consistent with the Christian Lifestyle (God's Law), the people who practice evil will suffer.

So since the Bible mandates such laws, are you for laws that punish people who are homosexual, who are adulterers, who are heretics and blasphemers, and children who wilfully disobey their parents, with Biblical judgements such as stoning, burning to death, the sword or hanging?

Please be honest, and hopefully then we can put this controversial issue to rest.

Praise be.

 

[mpok1519]

He does advocate execution for such things.

In his world, everyone gets hanged by the state for the dumbest things.

Well, if he truely believes what the Bible advocates about such measures then he does.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to compromise his faith.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Religion has no place in government.