holston said:
Still it seems odd that a bunch of people who by your own admission would profess to some sort of Christian affiliation would be any more averse to having a nation based on those principles than the Jews would want one based on the enforced assumption of Jewish Supremacy.
Why? Because the colonies saw religious strife throughout it's history prior to the 13 colonies becoming a nation. The founding fathers wanted to mitigate such religious strife and said so on many occasions. That is the reason they included freedom of religion as the FIRST amendment. And you cannot have freedom of religion when one religion is ruling over another.
Everyone should want to mitigate religious strife. Not everyone does.
Yes. The Freedom of Religion was intended to prevent government interference in peoples religion, not to prevent people with religious beliefs from occupying positions within government or acting upon
their own religious convictions. Otherwise Rabbi Joseph Lieberman would never have been admitted to Congress nor Ruth Ginsberg to the Supreme court. Ginsberg has stated openly that her Judaism influences her decisions. No doubt Lieberman's orthodox Judaism does as well.
I mentioned this before but you must have forgotten.
The JUDEO-xtians who serve Zion before Christ should be made aware that all Jews of religious convictions are Supremacists and are no more compromising about that than the Muslims are about Muhammed.
Because of these convictions, both the Jews and the Muslims will seek to eradicate Christianity if at all possible. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. People remain as free today to reject the teachings of Christ as they ever were. There is no man made law possible that could ever FORCE any person to accept Christ, not even an government authorization to torture those who don't
On the other hand, Talmudic Judaism as well as Islam would FORCE non Jews or non Muslims to serve Jews or Muslims respectively. Christian teachings permit as many people who desire to serve the devil as will.
However
laws built on Christian principles would forbid ANYONE the "freedom" to just do whatever in hell they please despite whatever they think about Jesus Christ.
If you believe that the religiously devout are the only ones who understand and practice morality, then you don't know much about people outside of your own narrow world view. If you believe that religions have not been a party to barbarity and immoral behavior, then you don't know much about the history of religions.
I don't believe that and I never indicated that I did.
However I do believe that there is merit in preaching the teachings of Christ and that a society which practices those principles will benefit from them.
The Founders prohibition of government enacting laws to either censor or enforce the traditions of one particular religion over another was not intended to bar the belief in or respect of God. I stated this earlier with reference to Bloody Mary and King Henry.
It absolutely was not intended to prohibit Christianity or as a back door means of endorsing Judaism, Islam, Secular Humanism, or Godless Communism. That's exactly what some people are trying to sneak in under the guise of "separation of church and state".
If you are trying to suggest that the Founders were Darwinian atheists you have a lot of explaining to do.
What kind of fools do you take us for?
Romans 2:
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
The explanation as to why moral intuition exists even outside the declaration of Christ is given in the Bible itself.
What does this mean?
Does it mean that God has nothing to do with the moral instincts of man?
NOT in the least!
What that indicates is that the moral nature of man is a natural part of man.
Why?
Because God doesn't exist?
Absolutely not!
It's because God DOES exist and because God CREATED man, not the other way around.
You should consider the nature of "God" himself. The Bible states that God is "love".
What does this mean?
That God is Amoral?
No! Just the opposite.
It means that God is the fountain of morality because in essence "God" IS morality.
Since God created man, it is only natural that he should instinctively be aware of moral constructs which ought to govern the behavior of men.
You would have us believe that man CREATES morality. Or that moral standards have no commonality between one race or culture when they obviously do.
The differences exist because of the differences in traditions and differences between the doctrines which are taught.
Talmudic Judaism naturally bears some semblances to Christianity in it's rules and regulations. The chief difference lies in the Talmudic doctrine that places Jews above others and reserves certain aspects of charitable behavior to be practiced exclusively among Jews while condoning certain practices against outsiders which Christianity does not condone in any case.
Islam makes similar reservations.
There is no doubt that a man can be taught to behave one way or another and that these teachings can effect the way in which he treats others because there is no doubt that the moral instincts which we both admit can be found universally can be overridden by depraved and morally destitute individuals REGARDLESS of what they have been taught.
What you people keep missing is the difference between the TEACHINGS of CHRIST and the ACTIONS of MEN, whether they do them in this name or that one.
An act which is condemned by Christ remains condemned whether a "Christian" commits them or anyone else.
When this happens, those actions in no way nullify what Christ has spoken about them.
You are also kidding yourself if you think that the censorship or eradication of Christianity would eliminate the IMMORAL behaviors of men.
