I have no idea what this thread is about but it sounds interesting.

It had potential, but went down a stupid path

Another edifying and informative day on Texags R&P I see.

My question to Christians is would you support an amendment naming Christianity as America's state religion?

Just a yes or no. I'm curious.

Not seeking scripture references or lectures from retired. I want to know what people think. I'll put blackgold, retired, dr Watson, and Vonnegut down as no. Anyone else?

Retired... Lol...

Doc Daneeka said:

---

My question to Christians is would you support an amendment naming Christianity as America's state religion?

Just a yes or no. I'm curious.

Not seeking scripture references or lectures from retired. I want to know what people think. I'll put blackgold, retired, dr Watson, and Vonnegut down as no. Anyone else?

---

Doc Daneeka said:

---

Retired... Lol...

---

Yes?

**edit since I had posted this last night half asleep. Just so you're aware, despite what you seem to be implying, no, 'Potent' is not me. If anyone here knows me, they know creating socks is not my MO. I have no problem saying what I believe under my current username, and have only ever had one other (GigEm01) which was rightfully permabanned.

RetiredAg said:

---

Doc Daneeka said:

---

Let me ask you this Retired... Do laws have the effect of influencing belief?

---

No, I don't believe so. I can't imagine any law that's going to draw one closer to Christ. Christians using man's coercive institutions, however, is often cited as a major negative influence.

---

"See, just as Adonai my God commanded me, I have taught you statutes and ordinances to do in the land that you are about to enter to possess. 6 You must keep and do them, for it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the peoples, who will hear all these statutes and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.' 7 For what great nation is there that has gods so near to them, as Adonai our God is whenever we call on Him? 8 What great nation is there that has statutes and ordinances that are righteouslike all of this Torah that I am setting before you today? Deuteronomy 4:5-8


Anyone believing the Torah can imagine.

Does it matter? Unless there is no other religion allowed, it really doesn't matter. Many people call themselves Christians, but don't live up to the values that Christians generally uphold.

agie95 said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Doc Daneeka said:

---

Let me ask you this Retired... Do laws have the effect of influencing belief?

---

No, I don't believe so. I can't imagine any law that's going to draw one closer to Christ. Christians using man's coercive institutions, however, is often cited as a major negative influence.

---

"See, just as Adonai my God commanded me, I have taught you statutes and ordinances to do in the land that you are about to enter to possess. 6 You must keep and do them, for it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the peoples, who will hear all these statutes and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.' 7 For what great nation is there that has gods so near to them, as Adonai our God is whenever we call on Him? 8 What great nation is there that has statutes and ordinances that are righteouslike all of this Torah that I am setting before you today? Deuteronomy 4:5-8


Anyone believing the Torah can imagine.

---

Again, it's a heart issue and none of man's laws are going to change a heart. Mind, sure, but heart? No.

I see anyone putting their religion over a document like the Constitution which grants freedoms including freedom of religion as a radical.

Quote:

---

My question to Christians is would you support an amendment naming Christianity as America's state religion?

Just a yes or no. I'm curious.

---

Which version of Christianity?
Can I drink alcohol? Wear a condom? Can I divorce? Get a tattoo? Dance? Can I eat meat on a Friday? Does my infant baptism not count anymore? Can I think communion bread is a symbol and not flesh? Can I believe in an Earth over 6000 years or Evolution? How many books are in the Bible? What is my means of salvation: faith or acts? Could my daughter be a priest? Do I have to pray to Saints and Mary?
I left out some mean questions I wanted to ask.

Why am I feeding a troll who has shown to not answer simple questions?

Quote:

---

I see anyone putting their religion over a document like the Constitution which grants freedoms including freedom of religion as a radical.

---

Because man's rules are more important than God's rules? There's nothing transcendental about the Constitution. To me putting the Constitution over my religion is idolatry and worship of the state. God is always supposed to come first. I wouldn't even say the Pledge of Allegiance if it didn't have "under God" in it. My highest allegiance is to God, and I can only offer lower allegiance to anyone or anything else.

And I would not at all support "Christianity" as a state religion. For one thing, Christianity is varied. Which denomination exactly would be the state religion? Or if just "Christianity in general", who gets to decide which branches are Christian? Some Catholics don't think Protestants are Christian and vice versa. Seventh Day Aventists, Jevovah's Witnesses, and Mormons all consider themselves Christians, but others do not consider them so. Who gets to decide and push the message and set the agenda?

That's not even to mention the entanglement of Church and State contaminating both throughout history. Look at the history of Italy and the Catholic Church or Britain and the Anglican Church. These things get messy, and it turns out bad for everyone involved.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I see anyone putting their religion over a document like the Constitution which grants freedoms including freedom of religion as a radical.

---

Because man's rules are more important than God's rules? There's nothing transcendental about the Constitution. To me putting the Constitution over my religion is idolatry and worship of the state. God is always supposed to come first. I wouldn't even say the Pledge of Allegiance if it didn't have "under God" in it. My highest allegiance is to God, and I can only offer lower allegiance to anyone or anything else.

And I would not at all support "Christianity" as a state religion. For one thing, Christianity is varied. Which denomination exactly would be the state religion? Or if just "Christianity in general", who gets to decide which branches are Christian? Some Catholics don't think Protestants are Christian and vice versa. Seventh Day Aventists, Jevovah's Witnesses, and Mormons all consider themselves Christians, but others do not consider them so. Who gets to decide and push the message and set the agenda?

That's not even to mention the entanglement of Church and State contaminating both throughout history. Look at the history of Italy and the Catholic Church or Britain and the Anglican Church. These things get messy, and it turns out bad for everyone involved.

---

I wouldn't say the Constitution is transcendental. I'd say it's inclusive. Again, it grants freedom of religion. How can you have a problem with that unless you want to impose your religion on others. And that's where you begin to look like a radical to me.

Let me give an example. The Constitution originally stated that a slave was worth 3/5 of a person for the purpose of the voting census. The idea that one person is inherently worth less than another is entirely at odds with my Christian beliefs. I would not hold the Constitution above my Christian beliefs in this regard.

Here's another. According to the Supreme Court, the Constitution gives the fundamental right to an abortion to any woman under any circumstances. Say what you want about the SC, but they are the only people whose Constitutional interpretation matters. If they say it's in the Constitution, then it pretty much is. This contradicts my Christian beliefs, and I do not value the "freedom" granted by the Constitution over my religious beliefs in this regard either.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Let me give an example. The Constitution originally stated that a slave was worth 3/5 of a person for the purpose of the voting census. The idea that one person is inherently worth less than another is entirely at odds with my Christian beliefs. I would not hold the Constitution above my Christian beliefs in this regard.

Here's another. According to the Supreme Court, the Constitution gives the fundamental right to an abortion to any woman under any circumstances. Say what you want about the SC, but they are the only people whose Constitutional interpretation matters. If they say it's in the Constitution, then it pretty much is. This contradicts my Christian beliefs, and I do not value the "freedom" granted by the Constitution over my religious beliefs in this regard either.

---

Your first paragraph is no longer the case. I'm talking about the Constitution as it stands now.

If the SC says you can have an abortion that doesn't mean you must have an abortion. I don't understand the problem.

Quote:

---

Your first paragraph is no longer the case. I'm talking about the Constitution as it stands now.

---

So if the Constitution changes, am I still a radical for not putting it above my religious beliefs? Does this only apply to the current version of the Constitution? How far back can I go before I'm allowed to put my religious beliefs first without being a radical? 50 years, 100 years?

TexAgs91 said:

---

If the SC says you can have an abortion that doesn't mean you must have an abortion. I don't understand the problem.

---

The problem is not that the belief says that having an abortion is wrong. The problem is that the belief says that an unborn child is a human life every bit as much as you or I are, therefore allowing abortion is the equivalent of sanctioning murder. That's why it's not as simple as "don't want one, don't get one".

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

If the SC says you can have an abortion that doesn't mean you must have an abortion. I don't understand the problem.

---

The problem is not that the belief says that having an abortion is wrong. The problem is that the belief says that an unborn child is a human life every bit as much as you or I are, therefore allowing abortion is the equivalent of sanctioning murder. That's why it's not as simple as "don't want one, don't get one".

---

I think there are more clear cut examples of TexAg91's point though - like same sex marriage. Placing a value on a definition of marriage in such a way that it denies legal rights to someone else is radical, in my book. Same goes for prayer in schools and public religious monuments, and the blue laws.

For some people, its not enough to have their own rights. For them to think the system is fair, they must be given the right to take other's rights away.

Quote:

---

I think there are more clear cut examples of TexAg91's point though - like same sex marriage. Placing a value on a definition of marriage in such a way that it denies legal rights to someone else is radical, in my book.

---

It's not quite apples to apples. The Constitution says gay marriage is equal to male-female marriage (see disclaimer above). My religion says that only male-female marriage is acceptable, and gay marriage isn't actually marriage. If I placed the Constitution above my religious beliefs, then I would have to say gay marriage is equal to "traditional" marriage. I don't believe that, because of my religious beliefs.

One of the fundamental principles of many countries is state enforced atheism. The has happened in both the USSR and China, among other countries. If I followed the core laws of those countires over my religion, then I wouldn't have a religion. Just because I live in a country doesn't mean I have to think their laws are more important than my faith.

I agree with my countries laws to the extent they agree with my religious beliefs. I also follow the laws I don't agree with because of my religious beliefs, unless my religious beliefs forbid me from following them. Abortion is a great example here. It should be illegal based on my religious beliefs, but it is legal based on our laws. So I don't actively try to obstruct the practice of abortion even thought I think it is wrong. However, if I was ever legally compelled to provide abortions as a physician then I would refuse despite being in violation of the law.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Your first paragraph is no longer the case. I'm talking about the Constitution as it stands now.

---

So if the Constitution changes, am I still a radical for not putting it above my religious beliefs? Does this only apply to the current version of the Constitution? How far back can I go before I'm allowed to put my religious beliefs first without being a radical? 50 years, 100 years?

---

Don't over analyze it. There are some oppressive governments that I would not goal tend for their constitutions. But I do for ours in its current form.

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

If the SC says you can have an abortion that doesn't mean you must have an abortion. I don't understand the problem.

---

The problem is not that the belief says that having an abortion is wrong. The problem is that the belief says that an unborn child is a human life every bit as much as you or I are, therefore allowing abortion is the equivalent of sanctioning murder. That's why it's not as simple as "don't want one, don't get one".

---

So if you believe that abortion is murder and don't want to or your s/o to have an abortion I wouldn't call you a radical, because you have the option to do it or not to do it and you have freedom of religion.

Quote:

---

Don't over analyze it. There are some oppressive governments that I would not goal tend for their constitutions. But I do for ours in its current form.

---

The Constitution has been in it's current form since 1992 (not even counting the major Supreme Court decisions that effectually change it every few years). I've been a Christian longer than that, but I'm supposed to put this ever-shifting document on a higher footing than the most integral part of my life and being? Like I said, sounds like straight-up idolatry to me.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

If the SC says you can have an abortion that doesn't mean you must have an abortion. I don't understand the problem.

---

The problem is not that the belief says that having an abortion is wrong. The problem is that the belief says that an unborn child is a human life every bit as much as you or I are, therefore allowing abortion is the equivalent of sanctioning murder. That's why it's not as simple as "don't want one, don't get one".

---

I think there are more clear cut examples of TexAg91's point though - like same sex marriage. Placing a value on a definition of marriage in such a way that it denies legal rights to someone else is radical, in my book. Same goes for prayer in schools and public religious monuments, and the blue laws.

For some people, its not enough to have their own rights. For them to think the system is fair, they must be given the right to take other's rights away.

---

i agree, i just wanted to point out that his example wasn't as clear cut as those you listed. And for what it's worth i agree with you . Using the same sex marriage example, i believe based on my reading of scripture that homosexuality is a sin, but i also don't give two hoots about it being legal, that is fine with me because from my perspective it's not laws dictating morality that creates righteousness but a changed heart from the holy spirit after accepting Jesus. so really, if you're not a christian, i don't care what you do so long as it doesn't harm others.

TexAgs91 said:

---

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

If the SC says you can have an abortion that doesn't mean you must have an abortion. I don't understand the problem.

---

The problem is not that the belief says that having an abortion is wrong. The problem is that the belief says that an unborn child is a human life every bit as much as you or I are, therefore allowing abortion is the equivalent of sanctioning murder. That's why it's not as simple as "don't want one, don't get one".

---

So if you believe that abortion is murder and don't want to or your s/o to have an abortion I wouldn't call you a radical, because you have the option to do it or not to do it and you have freedom of religion.

---

still not a great example though, because i believe most abortions to be murder, i don't believe anyone else has the rights to them either.

TexAgs91 said:

---

I see anyone putting their religion over a document like the Constitution which grants freedoms including freedom of religion as a radical.

---

First, the Constitution doesn't "grant" freedoms. It may attempt to protect freedoms against government intrusion, but it is not the source of those freedoms.

That said, what is wrong with being a radical? As a follower of Christ, I tend to believe we should look like radicals to the world.

The conversations in this thread today was exactly what I was trying to induce.

At what point do I make a choice as a Christian, to "protect" other people's freedom. Like gay marriage. Always thought it wrong but never would fight against its legalization because I believe people should have a "choice" or freedom. I no longer think this way.

And I do think this is radical. But the more I read my bible the less I care about being a good freedom loving American. The more I care about being radical for Christ.

Quote:

---

And I do think this is radical. But the more I read my bible the less I care about being a good freedom loving American. The more I care about being radical for Christ.

---

How do you define "good freedom loving American"? Being radical for Christ and loving freedom aren't mutually exclusive. It's my love for Christ and desire to serve Him that leads me to be opposed to coercive government in and of itself. Without coercion, which is the way modeled to us by Christ, there's freedom.

I just finished reading The Handmaid's Tale the other night, and it had a good quote.

Quote:

---

There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don't underrate it.

---

I'll turn the context of the quote on its head: So you want freedom to impose your beliefs on everyone else? I for one am glad I have the freedom from zealots like you.

Doc Daneeka said:

---

At what point do I make a choice as a Christian, to "protect" other people's freedom. Like gay marriage. Always thought it wrong but never would fight against its legalization because I believe people should have a "choice" or freedom. I no longer think this way.

---

I'm sorry you feel this way. I think it is a wicked and self righteous position. Nevertheless, I will always support your personal freedom of religion.

Quote:

---

At what point do I make a choice as a Christian, to "protect" other people's freedom. Like gay marriage. Always thought it wrong but never would fight against its legalization because I believe people should have a "choice" or freedom. I no longer think this way.

---

Where do you draw the line to when you'll use government force to take away someone's choice? Is it only your understanding of the Scripture? As someone pointed out above, there's a wide-range theological differences across denominations. What other things are you going to use force to deny choice on? Tattoos? Piercings? Eating shrimp?

I wonder if gays sit and think... Hmmm I support a certain position but I want Christians to have freedom to make certain choices...

They don't. So why do I?

Quote:

---

I wonder if gays sit and think... Hmmm I support a certain position but I want Christians to have freedom to make certain choices...

---

You do realize there are gay libertarians. Gay conservatives. Gay anarchists. Gay liberals. Of course there are gay people who hold a position but would also want Christians to have freedom to make certain choices. Heck, there are gay Christians.

Quote:

---

They don't. So why do I?

---

Something about treating others as you wish to be treated, not as you are treated. Can't really recall who said that though.