What ever happened to the "separation" of church and state?

[koshergrl]

This nation was established with two primary concepts of governance: first that there could be no legitimate governance without representation, and second that there must be a separation of church and state in government. We have apparently lost both.

Religious beliefs or tenets are not laws or legislation to be dictated to fellow citizens. Religions beliefs are personal ideological tenets to be practiced privately and not mandated to nonbelievers. As a nonbeliever, I do not want to hear about abortion, god, prayer, death penalty, etal. However, if you were against abortion, you should negotiate to adopt an unwanted child, not demand the child be born (into an uncertain environment). But don't deny someone the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not.

I am not religious, and I have never been religious. I do not feel quilty about it, nor will I allow any one to make me feel quilty about it. I am just fine with my destiny, and I am confident that I will live on in the future and with a purpose as will all of us. It is because you are so uncertain of your future and your purpose that you need to believe that there is a reason or purpose to life and beyond. It is because you lack faith that you cling to such archaic and even pretentious concepts. You see, I don't simply believe or have faith in life everlasting. In my soul and in my heart I know in life everlasting.

Uh, no, really it was the baptists who had to convnce Jefferson it was.best.not.to.establish a national.religion. Your premise.is.false, so your thread fails.

 

[pinqy]

God didn't make the rules? He is powerless to change them? Who or what are you claiming is more powerful than God to render him without a choice?

Many people believe God can do anything. God can't oppose Himself or go against His own Nature. How could He?

So God could not change the rules as to what is required for salvation if He wanted? That's not opposing Himself or going against His nature...it's changing His own rules. Why couldn't he?

God cannot allow sin into Heaven. He is a merciful God, but also a just God, as well as holy. He cannot go against His own nature. It would be like you saying that you no longer need to breathe.

No, it's nothing like that. But let me make things simpler for you: Can God change the rules as to what is a sin, and/or change the rules for who gets into Heaven?

I see. So by your logic He could also renege on covenant's He made, right? Or He could decide to not let someone into heaven who followed all of His ways, right?

Nope. That's not my logic. I asked about changing the rules...you're talking about breaking the rules. Not the same thing.

 

[pinqy]

This nation was established with two primary concepts of governance: first that there could be no legitimate governance without representation, and second that there must be a separation of church and state in government. We have apparently lost both.

Religious beliefs or tenets are not laws or legislation to be dictated to fellow citizens. Religions beliefs are personal ideological tenets to be practiced privately and not mandated to nonbelievers. As a nonbeliever, I do not want to hear about abortion, god, prayer, death penalty, etal. However, if you were against abortion, you should negotiate to adopt an unwanted child, not demand the child be born (into an uncertain environment). But don't deny someone the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not.

I am not religious, and I have never been religious. I do not feel quilty about it, nor will I allow any one to make me feel quilty about it. I am just fine with my destiny, and I am confident that I will live on in the future and with a purpose as will all of us. It is because you are so uncertain of your future and your purpose that you need to believe that there is a reason or purpose to life and beyond. It is because you lack faith that you cling to such archaic and even pretentious concepts. You see, I don't simply believe or have faith in life everlasting. In my soul and in my heart I know in life everlasting.

Uh, no, really it was the baptists who had to convnce Jefferson it was.best.not.to.establish a national.religion. Your premise.is.false, so your thread fails.

Where on Earth did you get that idea? The Danbury Baptists asked Jefferson for his reassurances. There is no evidence that Jefferson ever considered establishing a national religion. It would have been completely against his character.

 

[ding]

Many people believe God can do anything. God can't oppose Himself or go against His own Nature. How could He?

So God could not change the rules as to what is required for salvation if He wanted? That's not opposing Himself or going against His nature...it's changing His own rules. Why couldn't he?

God cannot allow sin into Heaven. He is a merciful God, but also a just God, as well as holy. He cannot go against His own nature. It would be like you saying that you no longer need to breathe.

No, it's nothing like that. But let me make things simpler for you: Can God change the rules as to what is a sin, and/or change the rules for who gets into Heaven?

I see. So by your logic He could also renege on covenant's He made, right? Or He could decide to not let someone into heaven who followed all of His ways, right?

Nope. That's not my logic. I asked about changing the rules...you're talking about breaking the rules. Not the same thing.

No. I am talking about changing the rules. You are splitting hairs.

Is it your argument that we do not have to choose to be with God? Because that is what you are arguing.

 

[pinqy]

So God could not change the rules as to what is required for salvation if He wanted? That's not opposing Himself or going against His nature...it's changing His own rules. Why couldn't he?

God cannot allow sin into Heaven. He is a merciful God, but also a just God, as well as holy. He cannot go against His own nature. It would be like you saying that you no longer need to breathe.

No, it's nothing like that. But let me make things simpler for you: Can God change the rules as to what is a sin, and/or change the rules for who gets into Heaven?

I see. So by your logic He could also renege on covenant's He made, right? Or He could decide to not let someone into heaven who followed all of His ways, right?

Nope. That's not my logic. I asked about changing the rules...you're talking about breaking the rules. Not the same thing.

No. I am talking about changing the rules. You are splitting hairs.

So in your opinion, God could not create a new covenant with different rules about salvation? You believe that everything God ever allowed is still allowed and everything God ever forbade is still forbidden? None of the rules have ever changed?

Is it your argument that we do not have to choose to be with God? Because that is what you are arguing.

Isn't that the essence of free will?

 

[ding]

God cannot allow sin into Heaven. He is a merciful God, but also a just God, as well as holy. He cannot go against His own nature. It would be like you saying that you no longer need to breathe.

No, it's nothing like that. But let me make things simpler for you: Can God change the rules as to what is a sin, and/or change the rules for who gets into Heaven?

I see. So by your logic He could also renege on covenant's He made, right? Or He could decide to not let someone into heaven who followed all of His ways, right?

Nope. That's not my logic. I asked about changing the rules...you're talking about breaking the rules. Not the same thing.

No. I am talking about changing the rules. You are splitting hairs.

So in your opinion, God could not create a new covenant with different rules about salvation? You believe that everything God ever allowed is still allowed and everything God ever forbade is still forbidden? None of the rules have ever changed?

Is it your argument that we do not have to choose to be with God? Because that is what you are arguing.

Isn't that the essence of free will?

It would be against His nature to void His covenant with us. Just like it would be against His nature to void our free will. If you do not wish to be with God, He isn't going to make you be with Him.

 

[Muhammed]

This nation was established with two primary concepts of governance: first that there could be no legitimate governance without representation, and second that there must be a separation of church and state in government. We have apparently lost both.

There is absolutely no mention of the phrase "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. The relevant clause actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

Therefore it is not the purview of the Federal government to decide what is or is not religious in nature. The Federal government cannot declare any law, book, symbol or anything else to be religious or non-religious. It is simply not in their purview to make such decisions.

Separation of church and state laws do exist in some countries and have existed throughout the world, however many been deposed recently, notably in some Greater Middle East countries. For instance, in Egypt, religious political parties were banned. That was an obvious separation of church and state law. Until the Obama-backed violence against the democratically elected secular government caused it to be overthrown and replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama also demanded that the democratically elected secular government of Syria be replaced by demanding that Assad's secular Baath party step down.

And then there's Libya. Same ******* thing.

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the phrase "separation of church and state".

 

[pinqy]

No, it's nothing like that. But let me make things simpler for you: Can God change the rules as to what is a sin, and/or change the rules for who gets into Heaven?

I see. So by your logic He could also renege on covenant's He made, right? Or He could decide to not let someone into heaven who followed all of His ways, right?

Nope. That's not my logic. I asked about changing the rules...you're talking about breaking the rules. Not the same thing.

No. I am talking about changing the rules. You are splitting hairs.

So in your opinion, God could not create a new covenant with different rules about salvation? You believe that everything God ever allowed is still allowed and everything God ever forbade is still forbidden? None of the rules have ever changed?

Is it your argument that we do not have to choose to be with God? Because that is what you are arguing.

Isn't that the essence of free will?

It would be against His nature to void His covenant with us. .

So no new covenant was established after Jesus' death? His apostles, Jews, were still bound to obey the Law?

 

[ding]

I see. So by your logic He could also renege on covenant's He made, right? Or He could decide to not let someone into heaven who followed all of His ways, right?

Nope. That's not my logic. I asked about changing the rules...you're talking about breaking the rules. Not the same thing.

No. I am talking about changing the rules. You are splitting hairs.

So in your opinion, God could not create a new covenant with different rules about salvation? You believe that everything God ever allowed is still allowed and everything God ever forbade is still forbidden? None of the rules have ever changed?

Is it your argument that we do not have to choose to be with God? Because that is what you are arguing.

Isn't that the essence of free will?

It would be against His nature to void His covenant with us. .

So no new covenant was established after Jesus' death? His apostles, Jews, were still bound to obey the Law?

What is your point?

 

[pinqy]

Nope. That's not my logic. I asked about changing the rules...you're talking about breaking the rules. Not the same thing.

No. I am talking about changing the rules. You are splitting hairs.

So in your opinion, God could not create a new covenant with different rules about salvation? You believe that everything God ever allowed is still allowed and everything God ever forbade is still forbidden? None of the rules have ever changed?

Is it your argument that we do not have to choose to be with God? Because that is what you are arguing.

Isn't that the essence of free will?

It would be against His nature to void His covenant with us. .

So no new covenant was established after Jesus' death? His apostles, Jews, were still bound to obey the Law?

What is your point?

I thought it was clear....according to both the Old and New Testaments, God has changed the rules about humans' obligations multiple times. So, since it is clear that God has changed the rules, the rules are dependent on God and not the other way around. So when you say everything is our choice, it's not quite true....it was God's choice that set the framework in the first place.

 

[ding]

No. I am talking about changing the rules. You are splitting hairs.

So in your opinion, God could not create a new covenant with different rules about salvation? You believe that everything God ever allowed is still allowed and everything God ever forbade is still forbidden? None of the rules have ever changed?

Is it your argument that we do not have to choose to be with God? Because that is what you are arguing.

Isn't that the essence of free will?

It would be against His nature to void His covenant with us. .

So no new covenant was established after Jesus' death? His apostles, Jews, were still bound to obey the Law?

What is your point?

I thought it was clear....according to both the Old and New Testaments, God has changed the rules about humans' obligations multiple times. So, since it is clear that God has changed the rules, the rules are dependent on God and not the other way around. So when you say everything is our choice, it's not quite true....it was God's choice that set the framework in the first place.

Now you are changing the meaning of what I wrote. Post #43 - which you replied to - was directed to an atheist who was arguing that God would send him to hell. I said that it was his choice whether he rejected God or not and if he rejected God, God would withdraw His spirit from him. So God wasn't sending him to hell. It was his choice. The same as it is yours.

 

[there4eyeM]

If faith is truly from personal experience, all one can say to another is "try it". Insisting that others conform to one's own, intimate revelation is, obviously, a form of madness. Otherwise, if 'faith' is merely based upon perceptions, on auditory or visual information coming into the mind, then it is just a choice and not defensibly superior to anyone else's.

 

[Mudda]

So He's perfectly happy to sit back and watch me go to Hell? Hmmm.... Sounds kinda douchebaggy.

Hell is nothing more than being eternally separated from God. It isn't His choice. It is your choice.

I've been separated my whole life from god and life is good. Why should I care?

You just think you have, but for the sake of argument let's say you have. You wouldn't be having this conversation if you didn't care.

I'm here out of interest talking to people who believe in an invisible being and why, and also what made them believe, because it's a pretty big step to base your life on an invisible being that you can't prove to anyone. What I don't care about is what your unproven god may or may not do, because you can't prove that he is going to even do anything to me either, lol.

Bullshit. You are here because you hate God and Christians.

Why do I hate god? That makes no sense, and I've said that god knows in my heart that I'm open to Him showing me some proof of Himself, then I'll be totally on board. Doesn't some like a hater to me.
But ok, I do hate certain Christians, like the pope, he's a massive *** who keeps women down as second class citizens in his gang. In other words, a total douchebag.

 

[RWNJ]

Hell is nothing more than being eternally separated from God. It isn't His choice. It is your choice.

God didn't make the rules? He is powerless to change them? Who or what are you claiming is more powerful than God to render him without a choice?

Many people believe God can do anything. God can't oppose Himself or go against His own Nature. How could He?

So God could not change the rules as to what is required for salvation if He wanted? That's not opposing Himself or going against His nature...it's changing His own rules. Why couldn't he?

God cannot allow sin into Heaven. He is a merciful God, but also a just God, as well as holy. He cannot go against His own nature. It would be like you saying that you no longer need to breathe.

No, it's nothing like that. But let me make things simpler for you: Can God change the rules as to what is a sin, and/or change the rules for who gets into Heaven?

God has no reason to change. Why should He? He is perfect. Right and wrong are absolute. Sin is sin because it is against Gods nature. God is also unchanging. Thank GOD for that, because he has made many promises to those who accept Christ as Savior. He will keep those promises. He will also keep His promises to those who reject Him. Count on it.

 

[RWNJ]

No. I am talking about changing the rules. You are splitting hairs.

So in your opinion, God could not create a new covenant with different rules about salvation? You believe that everything God ever allowed is still allowed and everything God ever forbade is still forbidden? None of the rules have ever changed?

Is it your argument that we do not have to choose to be with God? Because that is what you are arguing.

Isn't that the essence of free will?

It would be against His nature to void His covenant with us. .

So no new covenant was established after Jesus' death? His apostles, Jews, were still bound to obey the Law?

What is your point?

I thought it was clear....according to both the Old and New Testaments, God has changed the rules about humans' obligations multiple times. So, since it is clear that God has changed the rules, the rules are dependent on God and not the other way around. So when you say everything is our choice, it's not quite true....it was God's choice that set the framework in the first place.

How did God change the rules? If you are referring to Old Testament Laws, they existed because Jesus had not yet died for our sins. That's why they had to sacrifice animals. It was a temporary sacrifice that was in effect until Jesus died and rose again, to set all men free from sin. Jesus fulfilled the LAW. He also set us free from it, because His sacrifice was the final victory. Once saved, you are saved forever. That doesn't mean you can keep sinning, and still get to Heaven. However, someone who professes to be saved, yet continues to sin, is not really a Christian. I'm not saying Christians don't sin. They do. I'm talking about willful sin. Why don't you Google that. Might learn something.

 

[there4eyeM]

"They had to sacrifice animals..." Had to!...what was accomplished by animal sacrifice, except that it replaced human? What concept of the Creator of All does one have to have to think that Creator somehow was aggrandized by such a practice?
It is things like this that make such discussions a dead end. The fact is, the nature of what 'God' would be is so beyond human capacity to describe or comprehend that anyone who had an inkling would be embarrassed by diminishing 'God' to any terms necessary to describe 'God'. Either one experiences 'God' to the maximum of his/her capacities in the most intimate, personal way possible, or one is merely spouting insulting, belittling adjectives and nouns.
The nice, warm feeling of religion is understandable, even if it is more suited to the childish type of assurances like the Santa Claus story. It is not suited to the mature human animals we should be after so many thousands of years of written history. Every religion says 'God' is beyond our scale of comparisons, then the religion sets about imposing images of 'God', even if only mental ones. If 'God' is all, then 'God' is not only great, but also small. Every thing and everyone exits in 'God' and everything that can be is part of 'God' and creation. That means all the formulas imposed on 'God' aimed at persuading 'God' are only expressions of not accepting that whatever happens is 'God', right in front of one, in fact inside one as well. It cannot be anything else. Nothing could be outside the true 'God'.
This is not saying what 'God' would be; it is identifying what 'God' could not be.

 

[RWNJ]

"They had to sacrifice animals..." Had to!...what was accomplished by animal sacrifice, except that it replaced human? What concept of the Creator of All does one have to have to think that Creator somehow was aggrandized by such a practice?
It is things like this that make such discussions a dead end. The fact is, the nature of what 'God' would be is so beyond human capacity to describe or comprehend that anyone who had an inkling would be embarrassed by diminishing 'God' to any terms necessary to describe 'God'. Either one experiences 'God' to the maximum of his/her capacities in the most intimate, personal way possible, or one is merely spouting insulting, belittling adjectives and nouns.
The nice, warm feeling of religion is understandable, even if it is more suited to the childish type of assurances like the Santa Claus story. It is not suited to the mature human animals we should be after so many thousands of years of written history. Every religion says 'God' is beyond our scale of comparisons, then the religion sets about imposing images of 'God', even if only mental ones. If 'God' is all, then 'God' is not only great, but also small. Every thing and everyone exits in 'God' and everything that can be is part of 'God' and creation. That means all the formulas imposed on 'God' aimed at persuading 'God' are only expressions of not accepting that whatever happens is 'God', right in front of one, in fact inside one as well. It cannot be anything else. Nothing could be outside the true 'God'.
This is not saying what 'God' would be; it is identifying what 'God' could not be.

God told us what and who He is. He is eternal, without beginning or end. He is all powerful, all knowing and all loving. He is the beginning and the end. He has no limits. He also created us and loves every one of us. He tells us that we have a choice to make. That choice will determine where we spend eternity. That's all you need to know, other than how one gets to Heaven. I won't repeat it here. You've all heard it already. Ball's in your court.

 

[pinqy]

How did God change the rules? If you are referring to Old Testament Laws, they existed because Jesus had not yet died for our sins. That's why they had to sacrifice animals.

Well, most of Genesis takes place before the Old Testament Laws. There were no set laws before the Flood, and then there were the Noahide laws which some believe were meant to apply to everyone. Then the covenant with Abraham only applied to his people, and then the laws of Moses only applied to the Jews, and then the sacrifice of Jesus.

You don't consider any of that a change in the rules? (and yes, I am paralleling Dispensationalist theology here...it's a good framework for the argument)

 

[longknife]

This nation was established with two primary concepts of governance: first that there could be no legitimate governance without representation, and second that there must be a separation of church and state in government. We have apparently lost both.

Religious beliefs or tenets are not laws or legislation to be dictated to fellow citizens. Religions beliefs are personal ideological tenets to be practiced privately and not mandated to nonbelievers. As a nonbeliever, I do not want to hear about abortion, god, prayer, death penalty, etal. However, if you were against abortion, you should negotiate to adopt an unwanted child, not demand the child be born (into an uncertain environment). But don't deny someone the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not.

I am not religious, and I have never been religious. I do not feel quilty about it, nor will I allow any one to make me feel quilty about it. I am just fine with my destiny, and I am confident that I will live on in the future and with a purpose as will all of us. It is because you are so uncertain of your future and your purpose that you need to believe that there is a reason or purpose to life and beyond. It is because you lack faith that you cling to such archaic and even pretentious concepts. You see, I don't simply believe or have faith in life everlasting. In my soul and in my heart I know in life everlasting.

NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT CALL FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

This is just another Libtard canard.

 

[there4eyeM]

There is nothing more right-wing, authoritarian than incorporating the power of religion/'church' into the state. There could hardly be a more un-American thing to do. Radicals who would seek such a thing would surely meet resolute, insurmountable resistance. Certainly, any faith that cannot convince must not be allowed to dominate.