Fw: Role of God in government

[RC Macaulay]

Interesting subject 
- Original Message - 
From: RC Macaulay 
To: Christian Fellowship 
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: Role of God in government

 
 
The reference article by Brooke Allen attached to Dr. 
Storms post quotes Ben Franklin.
 
  " as for Jesus of 
Nazareth.. is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it and 
think it needless to busy myself with now,"
 
Franklin had the insight to admit he could not express 
an opinion because he had NOT studied the words of Jesus Christ. 
 
That is a most revealing statement. At least Franklin 
had the wisdom to defer an opinion because he didn't know the subject. Today, 
our nation has an entire cadre of learned educators that have no qualms about 
expressing their opinions without knowing their subject.
 
 What do people find that is offensive in Jesus 
teaching?   No, not what people say that Jesus taught.. BUT.. what 
Jesus taught.. His words.
 
I am a believer, I am a servant / follower of Jesus 
Christ.
I believe in the separation of church and state. I 
believe in voluntary prayer in schools and in government.
I do not believe it should be mandated.
 
I cannot change anyones mind about their beliefs. I can 
tell you what wonderful things that God has done for me . You have the 
freedom in this great nation  to make up your own mind. After all, you 
are the one that is betting your life on your decision.
 
Dr. Storms quotes a poorly written article in  the 
" Nation" , an AP/CBS interest which hardly compares with Paul's writing in 
Romans 1st chapter. Compare them for yourself.  Paul's writing is an 
accurate portrayal of what happens to people that lie to 
themselves.
 
Perhaps the greatest hindrance to the advancement of 
science is the habit of lying to oneself, not to others.
 
Richard
 
 
 
 
 
 
<>

Re: Fw: Role of God in government

[Edmund Storms]

RC Macaulay wrote:
Interesting subject
- Original Message -
From: RC Macaulay 
To: Christian Fellowship 
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: Role of God in government
 
 
The reference article by Brooke Allen attached to Dr. Storms post quotes 
Ben Franklin.
 
  " as for Jesus of Nazareth.. is a question I do not dogmatize 
upon, having never studied it and think it needless to busy myself with 
now,"
 
Franklin had the insight to admit he could not express an opinion 
because he had NOT studied the words of Jesus Christ.
 
That is a most revealing statement. At least Franklin had the wisdom to 
defer an opinion because he didn't know the subject. Today, our nation 
has an entire cadre of learned educators that have no qualms about 
expressing their opinions without knowing their subject.

 What do people find that is offensive in Jesus teaching?   No, not what 
people say that Jesus taught.. BUT.. what Jesus taught.. His words.
I doubt that anyone rejects the words of Jesus.  In any case, that is 
not the issue.  The issue is the teachings of certain religious sects 
that have been created based on their understanding of the Bible.  These 
sects are based on conclusions that are not universally accepted and are 
damaging to the  general public when they are put into policy.
>
 
I am a believer, I am a servant / follower of Jesus Christ.
I believe in the separation of church and state. I believe in voluntary 
prayer in schools and in government.
I do not believe it should be mandated.
If everyone had this approach, the problems would not exist.
 
I cannot change anyones mind about their beliefs. I can tell you what 
wonderful things that God has done for me . You have the freedom in this 
great nation  to make up your own mind. After all, you are the one that 
is betting your life on your decision.
 
Dr. Storms quotes a poorly written article in  the " Nation" , an AP/CBS 
interest which hardly compares with Paul's writing in Romans 1st 
chapter. Compare them for yourself.  Paul's writing is an accurate 
portrayal of what happens to people that lie to themselves.
Poorly written or not, a reading of any good history book shows that the 
founding fathers did not believe that Christianity should be the basis 
for the US government. The point of the article is that the Bush 
administration is giving the impression that this is a Christian nation 
in which the other religions are tolerated. Therefore, he feels free to 
impose policies that is based on what certain Christians believe. For 
example, that homosexuality is a sin, that life begins at conception, 
and that the Rapture is a real event. All of these beliefs are unique to 
certain Christian sects and not to religion in general, yet the beliefs 
are being supported with enthusiasm by the administration.
 
Perhaps the greatest hindrance to the advancement of science is the 
habit of lying to oneself, not to others.
Perhaps, but eventually people who lie to themselves also lie to others. 
Also, two kinds of lying people exist.  Some people lie because they can 
not help it.  They base their view of reality on their unique 
understanding that is unmodified by experience. On the other hand, 
people lie for personal gain. These people know they are lying and are 
only intent on gaining power and advantage over other people. 
Politicians are noted for being this kind of liars.

For those of you who think this thread has gone too far from an accepted 
subject for Vortex, let me propose that the attitude of government plays 
a significant role in the creation and solving of problems.  Science can 
not do everything, especially when the insights of science are ignored. 
 For example, as a previous thread has argued, ignoring global warming 
may require creative solutions that may not work.  Would it not be 
better to have a government that saw the danger and stepped in before 
such solutions are required. The question is, why does the US government 
and the Christians who support it fail to recognize obvious problems, 
the example above being only one of many? Why do they accept obvious 
lies and policies that are clearly harmful to the general population? 
What makes Christians so blind?  Science in the US would have fewer 
problems to solve if such blindness did not exist.  Also, to be 
practical, science would have more money to solve the unavoidable 
problems if the policies were not so wasteful. Why are conservatives and 
Christians not up in arms and on the street demanding that changes be 
made rather than ranting against people who suggest that the system is 
broken?

Perhaps answers to these questions can not be given.  In which case, I 
apologize for the bother.

Regards.
Ed Storms
 
Richard
 
 
 
 
 

 

Re: Fw: Role of God in government

[leaking pen]

richard, no one, i repeat , NO ONE, finds anything offensive in the
teachings of jesus.  (well, maybe the neocons, which is a laugh, but
hey)

what people find offensive are those who demand that others live by
their religion.  the false persecution that so many "christians"  (and
as a christian, one who lives by the teachings of christ, i think its
safe to say that many who call themselves that ARENT.)  claim is
pretty much a matter of , well, im not being allowed to persecute that
group for not believing the way i do, and thats persecution against
me.

its bull.  people are attacking trying to run the country by the rules
of a few sub sects of christianity, not the actual sects.  its like
trying to cry "antisemitism" when people attack the policys of isreal.
 its not, so stop crying it.




ed, youve gone exactly where i was about too.  the neo-cons currently
running our country dont believe in science.  its a simple fact.  but
it gets worse than that.  if youve read some of the old documents from
PNAC, you'd know that the neo-con agenda is a rather simple one.  they
are trying to actively bring about armageddon and the rapture.  for
the real movers and shakers of the neo cons, global warming is a GOOD
thing.

thats the kind of dangerous thinking that needs to be quashed.  people
destroying the planet under the belief that it will get them to heaven
sooner.
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:27:46 -0700, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> RC Macaulay wrote:
> 
> > Interesting subject
> > - Original Message -
> > From: RC Macaulay 
> > To: Christian Fellowship 
> > Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 10:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: Role of God in government
> >
> >
> >
> > The reference article by Brooke Allen attached to Dr. Storms post quotes
> > Ben Franklin.
> >
> >   " as for Jesus of Nazareth.. is a question I do not dogmatize
> > upon, having never studied it and think it needless to busy myself with
> > now,"
> >
> > Franklin had the insight to admit he could not express an opinion
> > because he had NOT studied the words of Jesus Christ.
> >
> > That is a most revealing statement. At least Franklin had the wisdom to
> > defer an opinion because he didn't know the subject. Today, our nation
> > has an entire cadre of learned educators that have no qualms about
> > expressing their opinions without knowing their subject.
> 
> >  What do people find that is offensive in Jesus teaching?   No, not what
> > people say that Jesus taught.. BUT.. what Jesus taught.. His words.
> 
> I doubt that anyone rejects the words of Jesus.  In any case, that is
> not the issue.  The issue is the teachings of certain religious sects
> that have been created based on their understanding of the Bible.  These
> sects are based on conclusions that are not universally accepted and are
> damaging to the  general public when they are put into policy.
> >
> >
> > I am a believer, I am a servant / follower of Jesus Christ.
> > I believe in the separation of church and state. I believe in voluntary
> > prayer in schools and in government.
> > I do not believe it should be mandated.
> 
> If everyone had this approach, the problems would not exist.
> >
> > I cannot change anyones mind about their beliefs. I can tell you what
> > wonderful things that God has done for me . You have the freedom in this
> > great nation  to make up your own mind. After all, you are the one that
> > is betting your life on your decision.
> >
> > Dr. Storms quotes a poorly written article in  the " Nation" , an AP/CBS
> > interest which hardly compares with Paul's writing in Romans 1st
> > chapter. Compare them for yourself.  Paul's writing is an accurate
> > portrayal of what happens to people that lie to themselves.
> 
> Poorly written or not, a reading of any good history book shows that the
> founding fathers did not believe that Christianity should be the basis
> for the US government. The point of the article is that the Bush
> administration is giving the impression that this is a Christian nation
> in which the other religions are tolerated. Therefore, he feels free to
> impose policies that is based on what certain Christians believe. For
> example, that homosexuality is a sin, that life begins at conception,
> and that the Rapture is a real event. All of these beliefs are unique to
> certain Christian sects and not to religion in general, yet the beliefs
> are being supported with enthusiasm by the administration.
> >
> > Perhaps the greatest hindrance to the advancement of science is the
> > habit of lying to oneself, not to others.
> 
> Perhaps, but eventually people who lie to themselves also lie to others.
> Also, two kinds of lying people exist.  Some people lie because they can
> not help it.  They base their view of reality on their unique
> understanding that is unmodified by experience. On the other hand,
> people lie for personal gain. These people know they are lying and are

Re: Fw: Role of God in government

[Jed Rothwell]

This is just a passing phase or fad. All nations, including
the US, periodically go to extremes with one belief or another. In the
1920s and again in the 1950s in the U.S. people became obsessed with
communism and subversion, but after a while they came to their senses. At
present a small number of people are on a religious binge. This happened
in the late 19th century ("The Great Awakening") and again in
the early 19th century. Today's obsessions include religion and obscenity
on broadcast television. Complaints about obscenity have risen from 111
in the year 2000 to over 1 million last year. Most of these complaints
are lodged by members of "family oriented" right-wing pressure
groups. They are of no consequence, in my opinion. Actually, I am pleased
to see extremist groups (on the left or right) waste their political
momentum on trivial issues such as obscenity on television.
The US also went to extremes with the prohibition and with today's
"war on drugs." These had much more serious consequences than
the obsession with television pornography. The Civil War was obviously
the worst case of extremism in US history.
As for the humanist origins of the Constitution and the federal
government, throughout most of US history the federal government has been
considerably more liberal than the population at large. There have been
glaring exceptions such as the incarceration of Japanese-American
citizens and the 1950s anti-Communist witch hunts.
- Jed

Re: Fw: Role of God in government

[thomas malloy]

Given the questions raised by Ed Storms and Leaking Pen in 
particular, I decided to answer them.

Dear Ed;
I'd like to make five challenges to you. These papers will give you 
some insight into our beliefs, BTW, Prager, Satinover and Singer are 
religious Jews. One, take the Dennis Prager Are you a Liberal? quiz, 
www.dennisprager.com , two, read Is Liberalism a Brain Disease? which 
you can link to from Dr. Jeffrey Satinover's website, 
www.satinover.com , while you're there, take a look at his 
credentials , three, listen to Roy Moore's speech, Is America a 
Christian Nation? four, as Isaac B Singer said, consider a watch. The 
watch implies a watchmaker. It's not only that the web of life is way 
more complicated than the watch, two half worn out organisms can get 
together and make a perfect little organism. It's called sexual 
fusion, and if you think that the rest of the process is complicated, 
AFLIK, it's the one of the few mechanisms I know of that reverses the 
Second Law, and we have even less understanding of it than we do 
about how the rest of  the system works. Five, there is the 1890 
Supreme Court decision that I mention near the end of the post.

Ed posted
It is obvious that several contributors to Vortex hold very strong 
opinions about the Christian religion. It is also obvious that such 
opinions are shaping national policy in ways that are not beneficial 
to the general population.  We went to war based on the lie that Iraq 
had WMD, the social security system is being changed based on several 
lies, we send our work overseas based on the lie that this is good 
for our economy, we now have the largest debt of any nation at any 
time in history based on a lie that this does not matter, and now the 
fundamental relationship between religion and government is being 
changed based on a lie.  I'm interested to know how people who 
support the present government justify this approach and how this 
tendency to lie squares with their understanding of the Christian 
religion. If a person supports obvious lies, how can anything they 
say be trusted?

My response;
I don't like much of what the Bush Administration is doing. With 
regards to the WDM, there were two ships which left Iraq just before 
the invasion. There was a convoy of trucks which went across the 
Syrian boarder a short time later. There were Syrian Army bulldozers 
waiting for them. They dug trenches and buried them. It doesn't take 
an MBA to realize that's not business as usual. I heard both stories 
on talk radio, other than that, I don't think that there in the 
media. I'm going to have dinner with Hugh Hewitt, www.hughhewitt.com 
on Thursday. I'm going to enjoy recounting this conversation with 
him. Hugh is looking for educated Liberals like you, he likes to have 
them call in to his radio program.

We had no alternative but to vote for Bush, Senator Flip Flop's only 
consistent position was for pro abortion. We regard the abortatoriums 
as America's holocaust. As for the economy, what choice did W have? 
He had to make the economy grow short term or he and the Republican 
Party were history.

Hugh and I think that Dean's election to the DNC Chair is just 
hilarious, the lunatics have solidified their control of the asylum.

As for your other questions, I cover them in the rest of the post.
Later Leaking Pen Posted;
ed, you've gone exactly where i was about too.  the neo-cons currently
running our country don't believe in science.  its a simple fact.  but
it gets worse than that.  if you've read some of the old documents from
PNAC, you'd know that the neo-con agenda is a rather simple one.  they
are trying to actively bring about armageddon and the rapture.
My response;
Typical Leaking Pen nonsense. You've decided that because they 
question some of your conclusions they don't believe in science, this 
is a classic Leaking Pen nonsequitar. As for bringing on Armagedon, 
what part of divinely ordained don't you understand?

Ed Storms posted;
and RC Macaulay responded:
  The reference article by Brooke Allen attached to Dr. Storms post 
quotes Ben Franklin.
   " as for Jesus of Nazareth.. is a question I do not 
dogmatize upon, having never studied it
 That is a most revealing statement. At least Franklin had the 
wisdom to defer an opinion because he didn't know the subject.
Of the men who presided over the writing of The Declaration of 
Independence, and the Constitution, there were a few, less than five, 
deists. The rest of them were what would today be called 
Evangelicals. I find it very disingenuous for people take the beliefs 
of that small group and draw the inference that America was not a 
Christian country.


 What do people find that is offensive in Jesus teaching?   No, not 
what people say that Jesus taught.. BUT.. what Jesus taught.. His 
words.
I doubt that anyone rejects the words of Jesus.  In any case, that 
is not the issue.  The issue is the teachings of certain religious 
sects that have been creat

Re: Fw: Role of God in government

[leaking pen]

wow.  screw drinking the kool aid, youve been bathing in it.  have
already seen all the above links.  fail to see how they matter.

as for your other points, kerrys positions were rock solid, but when
you take things out of context, like removing the word NOT before a
stament (done on 4 seperate occasions)  you can make anyone sound like
flip flopping.

as for the economy, even with the bursting dot com bubble, the economy
WAS still growing at a decent rate until those tax cuts kicked in.  as
for dean, hes actually very centrist, the only really liberal opinion
he held was being very anti war, and the only thing that hurt him was
the screaming bit, which, if youve seen teh video, instead of just
listening to the tape of his single noise cancelling microphone, youd
know that he was in a packed auditorium of over a thousand screaming
cheering people, and had to scream like that into the mike to get
himself heard.  once again, the "liberal" media.


if you think thats a nonsequitor, id suggest taking a look at the pnac
website.  they have issued statements on several occasions condeming
scientists and science in general, claiming that to attempt to
understand how the universe works is inherently blasphemous.  THEY
have stated, on more than one occasion, that they dont believe in
science.

evangelical?  the majority were of the belief that forcing religion
was wrong, hence the no state relgion part of the bill of rights.  and
sorry, no.  the majority of the signers were non christian, however
outspoken they may have been on religion.  those that could compare
with falwell were in the minority, same as today.  they are simply a
LOUD minority.  i take great offense that someone would draw from that
small group of people the inference that America WAS a christian
nation.  (works both ways.)

most evangelicals state that the bible is the inerrant word of god,
but only those parts they like.
 
at the end, ive attached a little letter to the president.  its quite
funny.  you'll like it.  then well see how innerrant you think the
bible is.




so, you get to define evil and sin?  see, this is why we have the
first ammendment.  RELIGION WILL NOT EVER DEFINE RIGHT AND WRONG IN
AMERICA.  the moment it takes over that fully, the country that i love
will be dead.  it is unfortunetly in the er right now with a serious
head trauma, about to slip into a coma.


no, the media bias is in favor of two things.  money and
sensationalism.  the money is on the right, which is why the media
repeated the lies about al gore lieing about the internet, love canal,
and love story, while ignoring dubyas drug and alchohol problems, and
conviction for drunk driving.



yes, the supreme court of the time did.  they were a group of
extremists at that time, and that doesnt make it true.  in fact, there
have been 4, Countem FOUR rulings against that ruling since then.

heres that little letter.  everyone, pass it around, please.


Dear Mr. President, 

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law as
described in the Bible. I have learned a great deal from you, and try
to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. For example,
when someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I
simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an
abomination...end of debate. I do need some advice from you, however,
regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.


1. In Leviticus 25:44 it is stated that I may possess slaves, both
male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? Though I know
you understand why owning Mexicans is acceptable.


2. Also, I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned
in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her? Would Ebay be a viable option to get the highest bid
for her?


3. Sadly, I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she
is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15: 19-24). The
problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offense.


4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is, my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them or
leave that to the U.S. army?


5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?


6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees'
of abomination?


7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have
a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses.
Does my v