Posted on Oct 27, 2014
Do you understand why mixing religion and politics may be the only thing that can save our country?
84.6K
813
602
22
15
7
Many people feel that the First Amendment calls for the separation of Church and State. No where in the Amendment do these words appear, but many people feel that is what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote our Constitution. One of our Founding Fathers stated "Christians should vote for Christian Leaders" (paraphrased) and you can look it up to prove its validity. When I speak of mixing religion and politics I am speaking of the ethics and integrity of people who know they must answer to a Higher Power (I call Him God). We need people who know that the greatest among us must be the servant of all. The First Amendment prevents government from setting up a mandatory national religion and prevents the government from messing with each citizen's individual right to worship as he or she sees fit. Look it up and read it before you argue with me. I just want to know how you all would feel about having elected officials that were honest, had integrity, and lead our country with those qualities. I am also enclosing a copy of an article I found in our newspaper (which surprised me as they tend to be pretty liberal!)! I am eager to hear your responses. Let's pick up this topic and run with it! it would not let me post the Newspaper article, but it basically says we need to stand up for people who truly stand up for God.
Politics
Religion
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 97
8
7
1
Science gets you the ability to fly planes. Religion gets you the desire to fly them into towers.
(8)
(1)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
SGT Michaël-Joseph Forand [sigh] You're not a Christian, and not only am I not a Christian (true), I never was one (false) , but that doesn't matter much because I am a kid in his twenties feloniously impersonating a real 67-year-old vet (defamatory, possibly actionable in a court of law, but not worth the trouble).
This is actually a lot better quality of fundy troll than I see on places like pandasthumb.org. But not by much.
This is actually a lot better quality of fundy troll than I see on places like pandasthumb.org. But not by much.
(0)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
OOH! OOH! I can answer that last one. Before that unfortunate event with the fruit and the talking snake, there were no carnivores. After that, things went into a bit of a decline.
(1)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
When the earnest kids with their white shirts, backpacks and name tags identifying them as "Elder ...." knock on the door, they encounter one of the few "Gentiles" who has actually read the Book of Mormon (and Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl Of Great Price).
When they marvel at this, and ask for my feelings about the B of M, I note that my latest Salt Lake edition has a number of textual alterations when compared to the copy that I purchased for $0.50 from earlier missionaries back in the mid-fifties. (It was, after all, a miraculous translation, so it's hard to come up with a rationale for modifying the text.)
Then I offer the Solomon Spaulding hypothesis for the origin of the manuscripts, and they tend to politely depart.
When they marvel at this, and ask for my feelings about the B of M, I note that my latest Salt Lake edition has a number of textual alterations when compared to the copy that I purchased for $0.50 from earlier missionaries back in the mid-fifties. (It was, after all, a miraculous translation, so it's hard to come up with a rationale for modifying the text.)
Then I offer the Solomon Spaulding hypothesis for the origin of the manuscripts, and they tend to politely depart.
(1)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
SGT Michaël-Joseph Forand: I LOVE that production. They are equal-opportunity skewerers on every hand. Some of the things that G. Carlin delivers are also priceless.
As to Francis, I worry about his personal safety. He has upset some Primal Powers.
As to Francis, I worry about his personal safety. He has upset some Primal Powers.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
PO1 Steven Kuhn,
I find your question to be an offensive and blatant troll. In a day and age where men and women of valor, guided by ethical and moral principals (regardless of origin), need to stand together for the greater good of humanity, you incite discord among the ranks.
Jesus was a Jew that brought a philosophy of compassion and caring to the gentiles. Your good book had him healing the sick regardless of the gods they worshiped. He also insisted on a separation of the secular and the church by casting the moneychangers from the halls of the Temple of Herod. In the day of Jesus, the gentiles worshiped all the gods of man and every idol. He did not walk into their temples smashing their idols, he set the standard by the life he led and his displays of compassion for men and women alike.
What you have now, is good men, thoughtful and compassionate men, fighting over religion and ideology rather than discussing ways to bring all men to equity, an equity on earth as all men are seen in the eyes of God. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28
You sow discord where there need be none.
I find your question to be an offensive and blatant troll. In a day and age where men and women of valor, guided by ethical and moral principals (regardless of origin), need to stand together for the greater good of humanity, you incite discord among the ranks.
Jesus was a Jew that brought a philosophy of compassion and caring to the gentiles. Your good book had him healing the sick regardless of the gods they worshiped. He also insisted on a separation of the secular and the church by casting the moneychangers from the halls of the Temple of Herod. In the day of Jesus, the gentiles worshiped all the gods of man and every idol. He did not walk into their temples smashing their idols, he set the standard by the life he led and his displays of compassion for men and women alike.
What you have now, is good men, thoughtful and compassionate men, fighting over religion and ideology rather than discussing ways to bring all men to equity, an equity on earth as all men are seen in the eyes of God. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28
You sow discord where there need be none.
(6)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
PO1 Steven Kuhn,
The problem you have was the syntax in which you phrased your question.
For example if I were to take your question and make a few changes:
"Do you understand why killing the Jews may be the only thing that can save our country?" or
"Do you understand why nuking DC may be the only thing that can save our country?"
The phrasing implies that there is only one solution, my solution, and why do you not get that... And of course the "religion" implication is generally one of "The politicians need Christ" which isn't a universally agreed on approach. Particularly since we've established claiming to have Christ isn't the same as actually having Christ, ref my post about the OK guy cutting off heads in the name of Christ.
A question more like "What can we do to get ethics/morality back into politics?" This opens up the conversations like "informed voting", "Impeachment/recall elections", prison for fraudulent representation, prison for corruption, removing lobbyists, etc.
The problem you have was the syntax in which you phrased your question.
For example if I were to take your question and make a few changes:
"Do you understand why killing the Jews may be the only thing that can save our country?" or
"Do you understand why nuking DC may be the only thing that can save our country?"
The phrasing implies that there is only one solution, my solution, and why do you not get that... And of course the "religion" implication is generally one of "The politicians need Christ" which isn't a universally agreed on approach. Particularly since we've established claiming to have Christ isn't the same as actually having Christ, ref my post about the OK guy cutting off heads in the name of Christ.
A question more like "What can we do to get ethics/morality back into politics?" This opens up the conversations like "informed voting", "Impeachment/recall elections", prison for fraudulent representation, prison for corruption, removing lobbyists, etc.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
PO1 Steven Kuhn, A few posts back you stated "I do pray for those who lack faith but I do so out of sense of agape love and obedience to God." there is nothing wrong with praying for people I was just pointing out that a better way to say that might be "I pray for those who do not share my faith."
(0)
(1)
SFC Ronald Burris
SSG Colwell,
PO1 Kuhn said it right and You misunderstand Him. There is a difference in lacking faith than what you say about praying for those who do share my faith. There are people that can lack faith in their religion meaning that they don't trust God in things. Your response is saying that if those that don't agree with PO1 Kuhn that they should be prayed for and these are two different interpretations. It seems like You are trying to find fault in what PO1 Kuhn writes instead of trying to understand what He is really saying when He writes. It is understood that You don't agree with PO1 Kuhn on what He writes and that's fine. But You don't have to keep trying to find loop holes in what He is saying so You can write negatively back to prove a point. That's not what all of this is about. We all have an opinion and it seems like for Christians when we try and point out something, someone comes along and tries to dissect it to try and make more out of it than what it is. Basically, in a nutshell You are telling PO1 Kuhn that He doesn't have a right to express His feelings in this forum and that is not correct. Now, You have said your peace, so You can go on to another topic and read what it states instead of trying to find flaws in what people say. It's only a forum.
PO1 Kuhn said it right and You misunderstand Him. There is a difference in lacking faith than what you say about praying for those who do share my faith. There are people that can lack faith in their religion meaning that they don't trust God in things. Your response is saying that if those that don't agree with PO1 Kuhn that they should be prayed for and these are two different interpretations. It seems like You are trying to find fault in what PO1 Kuhn writes instead of trying to understand what He is really saying when He writes. It is understood that You don't agree with PO1 Kuhn on what He writes and that's fine. But You don't have to keep trying to find loop holes in what He is saying so You can write negatively back to prove a point. That's not what all of this is about. We all have an opinion and it seems like for Christians when we try and point out something, someone comes along and tries to dissect it to try and make more out of it than what it is. Basically, in a nutshell You are telling PO1 Kuhn that He doesn't have a right to express His feelings in this forum and that is not correct. Now, You have said your peace, so You can go on to another topic and read what it states instead of trying to find flaws in what people say. It's only a forum.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SFC Bell, The whole statement made by Po1 Kuhn was "I agree with you, and reiterate that I do not try and force people to believe only the way I do. I do pray for those who lack faith but I do so out of sense of agape love and obedience to God." We were not talking about someone who was of the Christian faith and who wasn't strong in his faith. I was simply pointing out that people who are not Christian (such as myself) have faith, we simply don’t share his faith. I’m not trying to find fault in what he’s saying at all, instead I’m pointing out a difference of opinion. It may just be me, however saying you will pray for someone and then insulting their faith by saying they have none isn’t really conducive to mutual understanding.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
After reading the comments on this topic, I see the same rhetoric that we see everyday in society. The media and people's opinions seem to pit one religion against another or one religion, usually Christianity, against atheism. I am a Christian and hold my faith very near and dear to my heart, but I won't for one second think that someone that doesn't go by the same belief system is less of a human being than I. That's for God to decide. When it comes to matters of the State, we are governed by our laws. There are some out there that feel that God's laws supersede the laws of man. Once again, that its for each person to decide where they stand on that. The facts are that the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' This simply means that the citizens of this great country can practice any religion we wish and government cannot say otherwise. Of course if in practice a religion violates the rights and liberties of others, then government can step in. Just because someone interprets a religion in a manner that it causes them to do harm to others, it does not mean that all followers of that religion interpret it the same way. Church and State are indeed separated. If crazies somewhere in the world say they are killing others because their religion calls for it, the religion is not to blame. It is the individuals themselves. I for one could not care less what religion someone practices, or doesn't practice. What matters is that a person is humane and caring of others.
(6)
(0)
1SG David Niles
MAJ Carl Ballinger yes, a progressive point of view is an indication of the influence of evil. Progressives, atheists, and the Pope. An excellent team.
Not sure what you were meaning by this statement, are you implying that the Progressives, atheists and the Pope are all part of the influence of Evil?
Not sure what you were meaning by this statement, are you implying that the Progressives, atheists and the Pope are all part of the influence of Evil?
(0)
(0)
1SG David Niles
You are correct @spc David W. sorry about that, my computer was being slow to load. But in response, I don't think the Pope has ever denied the Resurrection of Christ.
(0)
(0)
1SG David Niles
I believe the Pope was saying that he can change and over ride church doctrine not the scripture. Anyway, all is well.
(0)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
The official position of the Roman Church, from the first Vatican Council in 1870, is in effect that the Pope is preserved by God from error when he speaks "ex cathedra" on matters of faith and morals. The idea was widely held long before it was made official, however.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
PO1 Steven Kuhn, I would challenge your original post. However, I would rather this conversation not turn into a proverbial pissing contest. At any point either one of us feels offended or anything of the nature, I implore that person to gracefully and tactfully bow out.
While I agree that religious texts are a great source of some morals and principles that would make for a great political figure, there are also those religious extremist that take their respected texts to a degree that is way to far. Let's take some recent examples like the Westboro Baptists Church. I would not want someone of that sort as my Commander and Chief.
As somebody who was raised Roman Catholic, I was indeed instilled with the moral code of the Catholic God. However, during high school I fell away from those specific teachings. It was at this time that I began researching other religions; Muslim, Hinduism, Buddhism, Toaism, etc. My findings: they were pretty much all the same basic principle. What was that principle, you ask? Don't be an asshole (mind my language.)
However, I would argue that you shouldn't need an old as time text to tell you that if you see a mother with 4 kids, ages ranging 18 months to 7 years, trying to load up groceries and them into the car, you should offer her a hand. You shouldn't need to refer to the Tao Te Ching to know that killing somebody out of Envy is wrong.
So, in summary, my argument is this: regardless if the person is a Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Wiccan or a Jew, should not be the defining point of whether they are a good person, or even the right person for the job.
While I agree that religious texts are a great source of some morals and principles that would make for a great political figure, there are also those religious extremist that take their respected texts to a degree that is way to far. Let's take some recent examples like the Westboro Baptists Church. I would not want someone of that sort as my Commander and Chief.
As somebody who was raised Roman Catholic, I was indeed instilled with the moral code of the Catholic God. However, during high school I fell away from those specific teachings. It was at this time that I began researching other religions; Muslim, Hinduism, Buddhism, Toaism, etc. My findings: they were pretty much all the same basic principle. What was that principle, you ask? Don't be an asshole (mind my language.)
However, I would argue that you shouldn't need an old as time text to tell you that if you see a mother with 4 kids, ages ranging 18 months to 7 years, trying to load up groceries and them into the car, you should offer her a hand. You shouldn't need to refer to the Tao Te Ching to know that killing somebody out of Envy is wrong.
So, in summary, my argument is this: regardless if the person is a Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Wiccan or a Jew, should not be the defining point of whether they are a good person, or even the right person for the job.
(6)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
So, just so that I have the clarification, your definition of good is outlined in religious text, and the authority to uphold this is the divine figurehead of said religion? In your example, you listed the traditional Catholic/Christian/etc. God. So are you saying that a Buddhist cannot be good if he follows his teachings, since Buddha is not a deity?
If so, sir, that is a somewhat narrow-minded view. And a lot of Buddhist I know are the kindest, most selfless people out there.
If so, sir, that is a somewhat narrow-minded view. And a lot of Buddhist I know are the kindest, most selfless people out there.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
MAJ Carl Ballinger , I regret to say that, at this time, I must respectfully and tactfully bow out of this conversation. I apologize if this upsets you.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
And while I appreciate that, MAJ Carl Ballinger, I feel I may upset you with some of things I could say. Rather than do so, I will leave with an "agree to disagree."
(1)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
What you all have to offer is a lifetime of experience and a heart that has served. I have been attacked and voted down for my position. I believe that we all may have some morals and some ethics and some integrity, but where did it come from? At some point we must acknowledge that there is a source of good and a source of evil. My posts have been threatening or offensive to none, as I have just asked people to research our own American History and the beliefs of our founding fathers. If I am mistaken, then prove it to me by your own research as I have done mine but may have made mistakes. I am human and we are good at that. I am a man, and have the ability to admit when I am wrong. I do not feel that I am wrong on this issue. All of the antagonistic attacks have been comparing Christianity to other religions or bringing up the horrors that men have committed, not God. Again, my statement was that our country was founded on religious tenets, and that a majority of our founding fathers had a strong Christian Faith. IF any of you take the time to research what I have presented and can prove me wrong I am man enough to admit it. Are any of you willing to investigate and study whether or not I am stating facts? I have not heard from one person who has taken the time to research what I have posted. Is it because you do not want to hear the truth? Help me understand why my posts have enraged so many.......when we all still share the right to have our own beliefs and respect one another regardless of those differences of opinion? I have voted none of you down with differing opinions unless you have attacked instead of communicated. I hold none of you ill will based on your opinions. I just ask that you research what I said before you react. If you take the time to check out the facts you might be surprised, some of you pleasantly.....
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
The Founders were concerned about what they had witnessed in Europe; keeping government out of religion.
Having a strong moral foundation is integral to maintaining a civilized society. By deconstructing the very fabric of our nation through the process of taking religion out of the public discourse, we undermine our ability to determine what is right versus what is wrong.
General consensus across religious lines is simply, "Treat others the way you would want to be treated." Once that standard is removed from the body politic, anything goes. People will allow themselves liberty to declare, "I would not be offended if you did xyz." Deep in their soul, their conscience would say otherwise but for the fact that the moral compass has been removed from their soul.
Having a strong moral foundation is integral to maintaining a civilized society. By deconstructing the very fabric of our nation through the process of taking religion out of the public discourse, we undermine our ability to determine what is right versus what is wrong.
General consensus across religious lines is simply, "Treat others the way you would want to be treated." Once that standard is removed from the body politic, anything goes. People will allow themselves liberty to declare, "I would not be offended if you did xyz." Deep in their soul, their conscience would say otherwise but for the fact that the moral compass has been removed from their soul.
(6)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
General consensus among any civilized lines is "treating others the way you would want to be treated."
I take exception to your declaration that being non-religious undermines "our ability to determine right versus what is wrong."
A person doesn't need to observe a particular religion in order to be "blessed" with empathy and compassion.
Even as a very young child, we know what it feels like to be hurt, (most of us, anyway). We learn that it feels bad to be hurt, and so we don't want to hurt others. We feel bad when they get hurt.
What you are implying is that there are two categories: sociopaths and Christians. I cannot say sociopaths and the religious, because most "religion" is an all-encompassing term. And we can't intermingle our cultural and collective pulpit proselytizing with the extremism of say, the Islamic proscription of adultery. (And we all know their stance on that issue.)
We should view each other as human beings with a capacity for compassion, rather than a simply measuring each other on a scale of religious ideology. Frankly, by these views, most of humanity would fall short...and that's an awfully cynical view to take.
I take exception to your declaration that being non-religious undermines "our ability to determine right versus what is wrong."
A person doesn't need to observe a particular religion in order to be "blessed" with empathy and compassion.
Even as a very young child, we know what it feels like to be hurt, (most of us, anyway). We learn that it feels bad to be hurt, and so we don't want to hurt others. We feel bad when they get hurt.
What you are implying is that there are two categories: sociopaths and Christians. I cannot say sociopaths and the religious, because most "religion" is an all-encompassing term. And we can't intermingle our cultural and collective pulpit proselytizing with the extremism of say, the Islamic proscription of adultery. (And we all know their stance on that issue.)
We should view each other as human beings with a capacity for compassion, rather than a simply measuring each other on a scale of religious ideology. Frankly, by these views, most of humanity would fall short...and that's an awfully cynical view to take.
(4)
(0)
6
6
0
SP5 Michael Rathbun
SSgt John Steigerwald, I am perfectly willing to accept the **POOF!** explanation for physically impossible things like the entire Ark story and the Exodus. It is just that, for some reason, their proponents don't like **POOF!**.
Because I regularly work with digital simulations, I regularly perform miracles. In a ballistic simulator running a model of our Solar System, for example, I can halt the simulator run, re-purpose Neptune as a new planet with a smaller mass but having an orbit inside that of Mercury, and behold: **POOF!** when I resume the execution it is as I have decreed.
If the simulation were several tens of orders of magnitude more complex, such that within there could be intelligent observers possessing telescopes, the effect would be shocking: Neptune is gone, and there's a new planet way close in to the Sun.
I've never quite figured out why an outright appeal to miracles is such a difficult thing.
Because I regularly work with digital simulations, I regularly perform miracles. In a ballistic simulator running a model of our Solar System, for example, I can halt the simulator run, re-purpose Neptune as a new planet with a smaller mass but having an orbit inside that of Mercury, and behold: **POOF!** when I resume the execution it is as I have decreed.
If the simulation were several tens of orders of magnitude more complex, such that within there could be intelligent observers possessing telescopes, the effect would be shocking: Neptune is gone, and there's a new planet way close in to the Sun.
I've never quite figured out why an outright appeal to miracles is such a difficult thing.
(0)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
//You did make the claim that "god doesn't exist" so you ARE under burden to support that claim.//
Odd. I don't recall ever saying that. I will state that I lack belief in some particular deity, but that is entirely different from an assertion that no such deity exists. I think you have me confused with another participant.
Certain kinds of negatives (specific ones) are easily proven:
- There is not at this time a rhinoceros in my kitchen.
- There is no unicorn in my back garden.
Although in principle one cannot prove that no gods of any sort exist, it is in fact rather simple to prove that some specific deities do not exist: in the case of Ninhursag, although there were temples built for her cult, a number of the details of her mythos are simply not true when the larger view of geography rules out the mountain where she supposedly lived.
It has turned out that Teshub, the Hittite/Hurrian Storm god is not really necessary to explain the apparently arbitrary behavior of lightening (although churches in Europe resisted installing Franklin's lightening rods until it became obvious that the only large structures regularly struck by lightening were churches).
Odd. I don't recall ever saying that. I will state that I lack belief in some particular deity, but that is entirely different from an assertion that no such deity exists. I think you have me confused with another participant.
Certain kinds of negatives (specific ones) are easily proven:
- There is not at this time a rhinoceros in my kitchen.
- There is no unicorn in my back garden.
Although in principle one cannot prove that no gods of any sort exist, it is in fact rather simple to prove that some specific deities do not exist: in the case of Ninhursag, although there were temples built for her cult, a number of the details of her mythos are simply not true when the larger view of geography rules out the mountain where she supposedly lived.
It has turned out that Teshub, the Hittite/Hurrian Storm god is not really necessary to explain the apparently arbitrary behavior of lightening (although churches in Europe resisted installing Franklin's lightening rods until it became obvious that the only large structures regularly struck by lightening were churches).
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I, for one, a complete atheist, don't believe that "all faith" is bad. I find the simple belief in a higher power a beautiful thing.
It's religious extremism that I hate...abhor, actually.
Simply put: If you are in a position to influence or make policies regarding everyone in your sphere, large or small, based on your idea of religious "ideals", you are wrong.
On a micro-level, a Christian teacher in a public elementary school has no business preaching to children. Zero. And I do not tolerate it when it comes to my own children.
On a macro-level, a political leader has no business interjecting his or her chosen faith in the matters concerning public policy. There is a vast difference between imposing a world-view and declaring one, dependent on how much attention one receives.
It's religious extremism that I hate...abhor, actually.
Simply put: If you are in a position to influence or make policies regarding everyone in your sphere, large or small, based on your idea of religious "ideals", you are wrong.
On a micro-level, a Christian teacher in a public elementary school has no business preaching to children. Zero. And I do not tolerate it when it comes to my own children.
On a macro-level, a political leader has no business interjecting his or her chosen faith in the matters concerning public policy. There is a vast difference between imposing a world-view and declaring one, dependent on how much attention one receives.
(3)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
SGT (Join to see) I did not advocate anyone forcing their views down anyone else's throat. Darwinism is taught as truth and it is unproven. Atheism, Satanism, wiccan, universalism, are all protected as religions. At Halloween, the devil and witches are posted on the walls of the school but no one complains. It is only when we say Merry Christmas that everyone is up in arms. I do not believe that the people in charge have the right to force their views on you. I do believe that the integrity and morality that are supposed to come from a true walk with your version of your higher power should be part of every facet of our American experience and are desperately needed in government. I am not saying that our President needs to use the military to force everyone to be Christian or Muslim, I just believe that people in positions of power need to be more the example of morality and integrity than the example of being the exception to any and all rules.
r/
Steve
r/
Steve
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I think we should stand up for people who stand up for other people, regardless of their beliefs. Adding any religion to our government makes any war/conflict a religious crusade, so I will have to say that ensuring a clear separation between our political leaders and our religious leaders is paramount.
(5)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
Why then, is God mentioned in our Declaration of Independence and the preamble to our Constitution? Was the fight for Independence a religious crusade?
(0)
(0)
LT (Join to see)
Why do I mention God when accidentally injuring myself with a hand tool or kicking the corner of a table? Do I expect him to come swooping down and actually take my hand tool or table to hell, effectively damning it? No. It was mode of speech in that era and showmanship really, trying to get people to unite under a banner. I understand that you view your opinion as "truth". That is perfectly allowable, but your truth is not the same as mine or necessarily anyone else's. In addition, performing moral or ethical acts for the benefit of people is MORE ethical than performing for fear of divine retribution.
(6)
(0)
4
4
0
This topic is a tender one. To sum up my take on the matter, I'll quote a bumper sticker I have on my Jeep, "American by birth, Christian by choice."
That is the key point there; Christian by choice. As God's creations, we are all imbued with free will, be it to acknowledge Him or deny Him. How can we then, as subjects of the King of Kings, impose upon others? It is my desire to serve my King as an instrument of His love and show it to others through my life, which I would hope would spread His Gospel and provide opportunity for others to realize their desire and need for His love and grace. If all the world could come to know Christ and establish His kingdom on earth, I would be elated! This however, will only come to pass in the end of times when God casts Satan into Hell. This is also my preference as a man of free will.
Just as I want to see the world become a Christian one, Muslims wouldn't mind it if the world was entirely Islamic. Atheists would prefer a world in which science is "god." This is violently exemplified in both the Crusades and the current effort by ISIS to re-establish the Caliphate. The United States of America was indeed founded by God-fearing men living in a rather exclusively Judeo-Christian society. The Founding Fathers did not establish this country as a theocracy in order to avoid one denomination reigning supreme via government (as the Anglican Church ruled Britain). This was both what made America great and is now leading to its fall. America is what We the People decide it to be. In the early days of the Republic, it was a Judeo-Christian nation. The onset of globalization has enabled the diversity of the world to weave itself into the fabric of our country, thus changing the very nature of We the People. Today, there are many more ideas and religions contending to define America.
As much as I want to see a resurgence of Christ in America, another Great Awakening, we cannot impose upon the free will of His creation. If mankind chooses to stray, then it will stray. If We the People decide we are no longer a nation of religion whatsoever, then as much as it breaks my heart, it will be so. Remember this: what transcends the rise and fall of nations? God. Israel was brought up under His providence and when the Israelites turned from God, He allowed Israel to fall. The tides will flood and ebb, as will the nations that serve God. As much as I love my country and call myself a patriot, I am first and foremost a subject of the Kingdom of God. That supersedes everything else that makes me who I am. Guess where Christianity is growing fastest in the world right now? China! If China becomes a God-fearing nation, then He will lay the foundations for them to defeat communism and He will surely lift China to prominence...as America turns from God and falls. If America falls and one day I am faced by a Washington that rounds up Christians, I will be heartbroken. I will also cling to God and seek refuge both in Him and somewhere else in the world where I can find freedom to pursue Christ. That was what brought the United States into existence in the first place. When God-fearing people found themselves in danger and persecuted, they colonized North America and founded this country.
Finally, given what I have written above, my only genuine concern is to attend to my own relationship with Christ. I cannot "convert" people to Christianity. I don't want to. I want others to be in relationship with God, but that is between them and God. It is not my charge to make the world Christian, but to spread His Message. Once I have communicated that to you through my actions and words, the decision is yours. It isn't my worry.
I hope this response helps all who are viewing this topic. If anyone has a comment or question, I am standing by!
That is the key point there; Christian by choice. As God's creations, we are all imbued with free will, be it to acknowledge Him or deny Him. How can we then, as subjects of the King of Kings, impose upon others? It is my desire to serve my King as an instrument of His love and show it to others through my life, which I would hope would spread His Gospel and provide opportunity for others to realize their desire and need for His love and grace. If all the world could come to know Christ and establish His kingdom on earth, I would be elated! This however, will only come to pass in the end of times when God casts Satan into Hell. This is also my preference as a man of free will.
Just as I want to see the world become a Christian one, Muslims wouldn't mind it if the world was entirely Islamic. Atheists would prefer a world in which science is "god." This is violently exemplified in both the Crusades and the current effort by ISIS to re-establish the Caliphate. The United States of America was indeed founded by God-fearing men living in a rather exclusively Judeo-Christian society. The Founding Fathers did not establish this country as a theocracy in order to avoid one denomination reigning supreme via government (as the Anglican Church ruled Britain). This was both what made America great and is now leading to its fall. America is what We the People decide it to be. In the early days of the Republic, it was a Judeo-Christian nation. The onset of globalization has enabled the diversity of the world to weave itself into the fabric of our country, thus changing the very nature of We the People. Today, there are many more ideas and religions contending to define America.
As much as I want to see a resurgence of Christ in America, another Great Awakening, we cannot impose upon the free will of His creation. If mankind chooses to stray, then it will stray. If We the People decide we are no longer a nation of religion whatsoever, then as much as it breaks my heart, it will be so. Remember this: what transcends the rise and fall of nations? God. Israel was brought up under His providence and when the Israelites turned from God, He allowed Israel to fall. The tides will flood and ebb, as will the nations that serve God. As much as I love my country and call myself a patriot, I am first and foremost a subject of the Kingdom of God. That supersedes everything else that makes me who I am. Guess where Christianity is growing fastest in the world right now? China! If China becomes a God-fearing nation, then He will lay the foundations for them to defeat communism and He will surely lift China to prominence...as America turns from God and falls. If America falls and one day I am faced by a Washington that rounds up Christians, I will be heartbroken. I will also cling to God and seek refuge both in Him and somewhere else in the world where I can find freedom to pursue Christ. That was what brought the United States into existence in the first place. When God-fearing people found themselves in danger and persecuted, they colonized North America and founded this country.
Finally, given what I have written above, my only genuine concern is to attend to my own relationship with Christ. I cannot "convert" people to Christianity. I don't want to. I want others to be in relationship with God, but that is between them and God. It is not my charge to make the world Christian, but to spread His Message. Once I have communicated that to you through my actions and words, the decision is yours. It isn't my worry.
I hope this response helps all who are viewing this topic. If anyone has a comment or question, I am standing by!
(4)
(0)
SSG Selwyn Bodley
SGT Jon Henri Matteau
//You are an officer, You should exhibit some honor by sharing the truth.//
//As an officer should you exhibit a higher grade of common sense//
MAJ Carl Ballinger , as an officer, is sharing the truth and does exhibit a higher grade of common sense. How much more honorable can one get than to desire that everyone that he comes into contact with have a relationship with Jesus Christ and spend eternity with Jesus in heaven. It is God's will that none should perish, that no one go to Hell and Jesus' last words to his Disciples were to go out and bring the Gospel message to everyone, so that everyone, with their free will, would have an opportunity to choose him. Now, you may not believe what he believes and God has given you that choice, Jesus isn't going to kick your door in, flash bang you and flex cuff you. With that said, I don't think anyone could be more honorable than trying to save someones life and that is exactly what I see Maj Ballinger doing.
If you saw a blind man getting ready to cross the road and a tractor trailer barreling down the road towards him... What would you do?
I think its safe to say, you would say something
If the blind man doesn't hear you or tells you he doesn't believe you... you would probably yell louder..
If he still didn't hear you or doesn't believe you and was about to step into the road and get killed...
you would probably tackle him to save his life.
Which action would be considered more honorable, tackling the man or letting him get killed?
Maj Ballinger might be tackling some people, but if you listen to what he's saying, he's actually trying to save your life.
//You are an officer, You should exhibit some honor by sharing the truth.//
//As an officer should you exhibit a higher grade of common sense//
MAJ Carl Ballinger , as an officer, is sharing the truth and does exhibit a higher grade of common sense. How much more honorable can one get than to desire that everyone that he comes into contact with have a relationship with Jesus Christ and spend eternity with Jesus in heaven. It is God's will that none should perish, that no one go to Hell and Jesus' last words to his Disciples were to go out and bring the Gospel message to everyone, so that everyone, with their free will, would have an opportunity to choose him. Now, you may not believe what he believes and God has given you that choice, Jesus isn't going to kick your door in, flash bang you and flex cuff you. With that said, I don't think anyone could be more honorable than trying to save someones life and that is exactly what I see Maj Ballinger doing.
If you saw a blind man getting ready to cross the road and a tractor trailer barreling down the road towards him... What would you do?
I think its safe to say, you would say something
If the blind man doesn't hear you or tells you he doesn't believe you... you would probably yell louder..
If he still didn't hear you or doesn't believe you and was about to step into the road and get killed...
you would probably tackle him to save his life.
Which action would be considered more honorable, tackling the man or letting him get killed?
Maj Ballinger might be tackling some people, but if you listen to what he's saying, he's actually trying to save your life.
(0)
(0)
CPO William Hughes
There is no honor in deception! Whether you acknowledge it or not, you are perpetuating the greatest deception that man has ever conducted on man. If it's god's will that none should perish, why doesn't he just do away with hell? All this superstitious malarky has been dreamed up and refined over the centuries to keep people subjugated, afraid and most of all, ignorant. Why is it that most of the great minds have all been non-believers? Because knowledge is enlightening and allows one to throw off the cloud of superstition and myth. But I also know that some folks are never able to undo the rigid indoctrination that most of us receive as children and continue on down the road of blind obediance. Sorry for you.
(0)
(0)
CPO William Hughes
Well MAJ, I guess you have to keep it pretty simple because that's the only way to keep the flock under control. You see most of the great minds as believers and relegate the rest to "some exceptions". Not true. Minds like Galileo, Darwin, Einstien, Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Lincoln, Nietzsche, Shakespeare, Voltaire, and the list goes on. You are evidently one of the new generation of Christian Apologists and no argument, however sound, will ever sway you from your position of unreason by way of faith. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.
(1)
(0)
CPO William Hughes
I never said or implied that faith is for the stupid. I said faith is a dodge, the way to avoid reason and logic. It is the realm of the ignorant. There are many who are educated but some of those do not exhibit the strength of reason. The things you espouse would never stand up in a court of law. There is no corroborating evidence to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, nor of his resurrection, nor any of the events attributed to him in the new Testament. Yet, even with all your education, you insist on letting your life events be predicated on what you see this "nonperson" to have done or said. That is not reasonable or logical.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
MAJ (Join to see) I am going to bypass all the previous comments and post one item, which addresses PO1 Steven Kuhn's original post.
"Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
2nd President of the United States
1st Vice President of the United States
Delegate to the 1st and 2nd Continental Congresses
Co-author of the Declaration of Independence
Here's one we forget:
Successfully defended the British Soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre.
Oh. I lied... One more thing:
Whenever you realize you're in an argument with someone who disputes your initial assumption (i.e., the existence or identification of a single Truth), just STOP. One of my professors taught me this Absolute Truth: First thing you do when you find yourself in a hole is to STOP DIGGING!
Here ends the lesson...
"Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
2nd President of the United States
1st Vice President of the United States
Delegate to the 1st and 2nd Continental Congresses
Co-author of the Declaration of Independence
Here's one we forget:
Successfully defended the British Soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre.
Oh. I lied... One more thing:
Whenever you realize you're in an argument with someone who disputes your initial assumption (i.e., the existence or identification of a single Truth), just STOP. One of my professors taught me this Absolute Truth: First thing you do when you find yourself in a hole is to STOP DIGGING!
Here ends the lesson...
(4)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
Thanks for the technical assistance PO2 Steven Erickson . I have been being beaten left and right for asking people to look up the facts I have presented that are part of our American History.....
(1)
(0)
5
4
1
I would love to have elected officials that were honest, had integrity, and led the country with those qualities. I'm just not sure that religion will provide them with those qualities.
(5)
(1)
SSG Tim Everett
I reject anyone's insinuation that only religious people have honesty, integrity, and can lead with those qualities. I like to believe in my mind that I'm chock full of those qualities and religion didn't teach me that. And the day I meet someone who tells me to my face that as a possibly-atheist person I can't somehow embody those qualities without religion, I've got a whole line of modern-day religious figures who DON'T embody those qualities.
So basically, now that I've waxed bloviatic, I agree with you.
So basically, now that I've waxed bloviatic, I agree with you.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google