The Faux Faith of Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney

a reply to: TheRedneck

What early training? How much of it came from that few moments of school prayer. What did the school give you in that respect that you weren't already given by your parents and church? You kind of admit, that at that age, ita more about learning the rituals. So, what is the point of encouraging, coercing, trying to force kids into a ritual if you cant provide a basis around it? Or promote your vacation bible school to them or much of anything else. Heck why even try to get women into your church if you are just gonna tell them they need their husbands approval to go? Maybe spend less time worrying about 5, 6, 7 year olds salvation and more on their daddies since it seems the religion would prefer that the men have the power over all in the family?

a reply to: dawnstar

What early training? How much of it came from that few moments of school prayer.

It's not about the school training; it is about the school accepting the training of the parents/church. It's about, since you brought up the term, respecting that there is a religious component in all people, and that that religious component may differ from yours. ALLOW prayer; no one is talking about enforcing prayer. A school cannot legally enforce prayer.

A student should also be able to wear clothing with religious symbols or verses on it. A student should eb able to say "bless you," or even "God bless you" to another student. Students should be able to form Christian groups (without any faculty encouragement). None of that is interfering with your or my ability to do likewise for any religion we choose. None of that harms anyone. It is simply respect for another human.

You kind of admit, that at that age, ita more about learning the rituals. So, what is the point of encouraging, coercing, trying to force kids into a ritual if you cant provide a basis around it?

It is not the school's place to provide the basis. A child simply needs the opportunity to pray without being worried that it will violate any rules. Again, no one has to pray a certain way; no one has to pray at all. Just leave it up to the child... why do you oppose that so much?

Or promote your vacation bible school to them or much of anything else.

Now, where did that one come from? No public school should be promoting any kind of outside Bible study... that is promoting a religion via advertising.

Heck why even try to get women into your church if you are just gonna tell them they need their husbands approval to go? Maybe spend less time worrying about 5, 6, 7 year olds salvation and more on their daddies since it seems the religion would prefer that the men have the power over all in the family?

You seem hung up on that. I already stated the reasoning behind those statements in the Bible and how they do not apply today in the USA. I also already stated I do not agree with them. Who hurt you? You almost sound like someone with PTSD!

NO ONE HERE IS SAYING A WOMAN CANNOT BE AS MUCH A PART OF A CHURCH AS A MAN!

NO ONE HERE IS SAYING A WOMAN CANNOT BE AS MUCH A PART OF A CHURCH AS A MAN!

NO ONE HERE IS SAYING A WOMAN CANNOT BE AS MUCH A PART OF A CHURCH AS A MAN!

ThRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The school cant prevent a child from prayer either. So therefore, they should not need permission to pray, or not pray. What I oppose is the idea of a moment of prayer.
That idea does not support either of our views. You are worried that children will be worried they will be punished if they pray it seems just as reasonable that kids will worry that they will be if they dont at least pretend to be praying during your moment of prayer. And, you seem to be forfeiting the right you are fighting for by accepting just that brief moment. I find it unbelievable that teachers would scan through their classroom throughout they day trying to catch people they can accuse of praying to reprimand. Ain't saying there isnt any, just that they are probably as rare as those teachers who begin a vendetta against children who end up being excused from your prayer time. They both should meet the same fate, weather that is a reprimand from the school or from a judge.
And, as far as all the other things you listed, I think they can??? Ain't saying some nitpicking jerk hasn't saw fit to complain, but I dont think they would have gotten that far with the courts as long as they weren't causing a disturbance and were following school policies, which the only one that might would be the clothing. And well, when it comes to dress codes the private school are the worse.

Actually, it might not have been vacation bible school but somewhere on that list from the freedom from religion websites or whatever it is called, there is one promoting something similar.

And, I have basically come to the same conclusion when it comes to.the women bit.. but, I have been to three different churches of three different denominations since I quit going to that little church in texas, all of them preached a watered down version of that concept... boiled down, it amounts to the same thing. And when you are talking about young kids, it's not like they are gonna wander into your churches alone. So, I fail to see a reason for any outreach directed towards them in a setting or anywhere else outside of the church congregation and family setting. And, I dont buy the idea that this fight for religious rights thing isnt more about the right to use the public schools, places of employment, ect. for outreach than it is about kids being able to practice their religion.

a reply to: dawnstar

The school cant prevent a child from prayer either.

Er, yes they can and yes, they do... just not legally. I posted that link... are you having trouble remembering?

If a school can suspend a student for saying "bless you" when someone sneezes, they certainly can prohibit prayer, and some of them certainly do. You are simply, demonstrably wrong.

That idea does not support either of our views. You are worried that children will be worried they will be punished if they pray it seems just as reasonable that kids will worry that they will be if they dont at least pretend to be praying during your moment of prayer.

Then call it a moment of "prayer or meditation"... "meditation or prayer"... pick one! The point is, the schools need to do something to assure parents that their children will not be indoctrinated against their religious teachings. That indoctrination has been going on for far, far too long to just say "oh, just pretend it never happened and try again."

Ain't saying some nitpicking jerk hasn't saw fit to complain, but I dont think they would have gotten that far with the courts as long as they weren't causing a disturbance and were following school policies, which the only one that might would be the clothing.

They can get a long way with the courts, when some high-priced lawyer with a political agenda is pushing the case and the people can't afford to hire one. That's the real problem, but lawyers have the right to drum up business if they want to. When people don't care, or when people believe these high-priced lawyers, the problem increases.

Gotta cut it short... things to see and people to do.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

There is just as much money going into those groups that exist solely to represent Christians when they feel their rights have been infringed that the aclu, which have been known to take these cases also.

I did already... the time for preparation... heck, I dont think there would be a legal problem even if they sent home a list of acceptable activities for the time of preparation that listed silent individual prayer as an option among many.
Actually, I guess it's been too long since my kids were in school to know just what all this indoctrination is. Like I said, I read through their textbooks, looked at every paper they brought home, and met with everyone of their teachers quite a few times a year.

a reply to: dawnstar

One of the reasons why I had the pivotal spiritual epiphanies in my life was a direct result of the daily prayer that was still being held in school when I was in 1st grade.

I decided, quite on my own, that I liked that daily ritual after that year was done, and decided to carry on with it every night before I slept. I still do it to this day, that time of prayer.

But without that time of prayer, I never would have noticed its power. And that taught me the truth. God is there, and after that moment, I never had any doubts of that. I won't deny over the years that at times I haven't kept Him as close as I always ought, but I've never doubted.

Grow up with a nasty spiritual presence in your house, and you'd see the power of prayer too. Jesus loves the little children indeed.

a reply to: dawnstar

There is just as much money going into those groups that exist solely to represent Christians when they feel their rights have been infringed that the aclu, which have been known to take these cases also.

I'm not so sure of that.

heck, I dont think there would be a legal problem even if they sent home a list of acceptable activities for the time of preparation that listed silent individual prayer as an option among many.

As long as that list is also explained to the kids, I am good with that. There has to be something explicit that allows prayer, though, else it's just another feel-good, do-nothing, half-assed attempt at looking like one is doing something. The kids are the ones who need to know it is OK, not just the parents.

I guess it's been too long since my kids were in school to know just what all this indoctrination is. Like I said, I read through their textbooks, looked at every paper they brought home, and met with everyone of their teachers quite a few times a year.

As did I... and it wasn't always pleasant. Like the time the school destroyed my son's property and tried to make us replace it. Or the time my son was punished for defending himself. Or the time my daughter needed a cell phone after school for a sanctioned activity, and my cell phone was confiscated (that one was a lot of fun). Or the time my daughter was warned for wearing a shirt that had a religious phrase on it.

This stuff happens, whether you want to believe it or not. I have stood in more than one principal's face and warned them of what I could do to them before the cops got there. Not everyone can do that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

My son was kicked off the bus for a week for giving the kid a black eye. This was after the kid admitting he was slamming my sons head continuously against the window of the bus. Funny part was by the end of the week the two were happily walking to school together. Never run into the cellphone problem, if I had my kid would have been plum out of luck, there was no cellphone period. None of my kids had a cellphone till they were adults with jobs and could pay for it themselves. And, they all had one years before I did. And, I had sons, not daughters and they were the clothes they had, period.
I never had to go into the school to fight against the idea of sending my kid to school in subfreezing weather wearing a dainty little dress like my mom did. And, she never gave in. I went to school wearing two pairs of Sox, thermal long John's, and jeans along with several layers of shirts, winter coat and boots. As did most of the girls. Their new, insane dress code was dropped rather quickly since the first hour or so, the halls were filled with girls standing in line waiting for their turn in the bathroom to change into their dress, then around dismissal time, we would stand in line again, waiting for our turn to bundle up for the long walk home. I imagine that the your kids school didnt just ban chistian slogans on clothing. They probably had a nice long list of stuff they didnt want worn in school. But, I bet there dress code wasn't so insane as expecting girls to walk a half mile to school in subfreezing weather which as parents protested and refused, they broke down to, well okay, they can carry their clothes in and change here, a process that could eat up an hour or two of classroom time which, the teachers really didnt feel obligated to hold off on the lessons for. But, the only incidents of christian/antichristian indoctrination seems to be the danged dress codes.. at least your daughter's school didnt seem to neglect the health and wellbeing of their female students!

a reply to: dawnstar

I imagine that the your kids school didnt just ban chistian slogans on clothing. They probably had a nice long list of stuff they didnt want worn in school.

You would imagine wrong. I was there. I know what they told me.

I also know that 'policy' (unwritten, even!) was immediately redacted when I told the principal to go ahead and call 911 to report the beating he was about to receive in front of God and everybody after I drug his butt into the hallway.

Not very Christian of me, I know. But here's the facts:

• My wife and I are natural-born citizens of the United States of America and so are both of our children.
  
• All citizens of the United States are protected by the First Amendment.
  
• The First Amendment prohibits any denial of religious practice to any citizen.
  
• My children's citizenship is not suspended when they enter a school; neither is mine.
  
• Therefore, my children have the same rights to freedom of religious expression as any other citizen, and anyone attempting to violate that freedom will face me. Some things are worth fighting for.

And that's just how it is. I'm sorry you don't feel that way.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Ummm... ya, my mom was scary as all heck if you tcked her off enough. The sole bartender working nights with no bouncers to take care of the riff raft drunks when they decided to get out of hand.. I imagine she wouldn't have had any problem taking care of a tough redneck like you..
If you think she went in that principles office just to ask him nicely to drop the dress code, I assure you she didnt. She probably went in there mad as hell still, telling him just how crazy she thought it was, and making it clear in no uncertain terms she wasn't gonna let me out of the front door without some protection on my legs from frostbite!
And she didnt! For about a week there were girls in the office, sent there just sitting around in slacks, waiting for our turn to be yelled at, for our parents to be called, and then sent back to class with a warning not to ignore their rule the next time.... while the parents and school bickered... and the finally decided that we could wear pants under our dresses, or carry the clothes in and the long lines began..
And here you are griping about the school not liking a shirt your daughter was wearing? Which, according to you was dropped the first day? Like your daughter didnt have any clothes in her closet the school would have approved? Got news for ya, we didnt have any extra toes, feet, or legs laying around for after we lost our original ones from frostbite.

www.aclu.org...

It has been made clear by the courts since the early 70s that dress codes that force girls to wear dresses is discriminatory. And, in my moms case, I would say it was just as much a violation of her religious rights as anything you have mentioned, since she was sincere in her heart that sending her daughter to walk that far dressed like they wanted would endanger her daughter. But, the case I just posted is from last year... and required the assistance of the aclu.

But ya, because someone supports the aclu they are demonic anti Christians,... and if they claim to be christian, they are liars and hypocrits...
It cant be because no child should have to be wading through snow drifts up to their butts with bare legs, or they are concerned with diplomats and emissaries from other countries trafficking virtual slaves into our country. Or the myriad of other issues the aclu addresses..

a reply to: dawnstar

Apples and oranges, and you know it.

Why do you think I wouldn't support allowing girls to wear appropriate clothing in the cold? That's just a way to divert from the issue I raised. Was the ACLU even involved in that case? Or was it just a way to divert from the issue I raised in this thread? Even if the ACLU was involved, just because the ACLU supports one correct position does not mean they don't support incorrect positions as well.

I listed some very simple, straightforward facts in that post of mine to support my position. I wonder which ones you think are incorrect? That I'm a citizen? That my children are citizens? That citizens are not allowed to express themselves religiously? Or maybe you think rights end where the school campus begins?

Tell me where my logic is wrong.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, the aclu was involved In the case. Your logic started out faulty. Ya know..
Nancy supports the aclu..
The aclu if antichristion.
The schools are full of anti Christian indoctrination..
Nancy cant be a Christian because she supports the aclu and refused to support an abortion ban so its hypocritical of her to make any type of statement that might reveal that she values anything christian, like she prays for the president.


Well, kids cant pray in school is a false statement.
And the aclu will tell you exactly that on their website. They'll even help you out if you think your right to pray was wrongly taken from you.
Kids cant wear clothing that has a christian message...
Mostly false.. they can ban all clothing that doesnt carry a school message, they can ban clothing that they feel is indecent, or too controversial I think but for the most part, the courts are more inclined to side against the school in the cases where religious liberty is involved..
Kids are never forced to participate in those moments of prayers... mostly false... only because you cant really force someone to pray. But, I have ran across more stories of this happening than I have of people being forbidden to wear a cross or a shirt with a mild christian message. And, like I said most kids have plenty of clothes to pick and choose from... most kids only come with one set of legs, feet, and toes. So, when it comes to schools regulating clothing wrongly, there is way more offense towards girls in general and there is more risk of long lasting damage.

And while you did provide some instances where religious rights were being infringe on in schools, I came up with my own showing that it is going both ways.
And you still haven't provided any examples of that anti-Christian indoctrination you were talking about.
Overall, I think your ranting op didnt really have that much backing it up.
It's wrong to identify the aclu as just a anti Christian group. They strive to protect the rights of everyone in far more areas than just religious issues.
And, it's wrong to say that the legistatures legislate laws and support them has to directly and exactly reflect all those beliefs you think they should have because of the religion they identify with. Christians have abortions, they use birth control, they get divorce. If they cant find a way to live under the rules of their own belief system then they really have no right to force everyone else to live under them.
And it really seems that you are judging nancy and mitt for exercising the same right you are claiming you are fighting for.
You compared me to the Roman's feeding Christian's to the lions. Can I point something out to you? Those Roman's had to plant spies into the Christian movement just to find out where they were meeting to worship. They weren't knocking on ceasers door demanding their rights!! American Christian's today would have been cat food by now if they were in Roman times with the attitudes they have today.

a reply to: dawnstar

Yes, the aclu was involved In the case.

That still doesn't change the fact that one case against discrimination does not equal no cases for discrimination. I know of people who weren't murdered by Charles Manson... does that make him innocent?

Well, kids cant pray in school is a false statement.

OK, I looked up the actual law for you. Turns out you are technically correct... congratulations! But it also turns out you are practically incorrect.

In Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court rightly held that a government sponsored school cannot implement a prayer it has written in the daily routine. Good decision. But that has been advanced beyond the wording of the decision. Abington School District v. Schempp also rightly held that a statute concerning Biblical reading in schools was unconstitutional. It, too has been advanced far beyond it's intent, to hold that mere possession of a Bible in a public school is prohibited. The ACLJ defended one student, as an example, who had their Bible confiscated, was told they were not allowed to read the Bible during school hours (it was being read during recess), and was prohibited from discussing the Bible with other Christian students who wanted to do so during recess. (LINK) That child was not defended by the ACLU, but by the ACLJ. Where was the ACLU then?

Then there's Lemon v. Kurtzman, a decision that held that a law was unconstitutional if it entangled government schools and private religious schools. OK, no problem there. It stated that a law must meet three criteria:

• The statute must have a secular legislative purpose.
  
• The principal or primary effect of the statute must neither advance nor inhibit religion.
  
• The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Sounds reasonable, right? It does to me, except that it has been used as a part of the "Lemon Test" to determine if an activity by a student is legal. In other words, a student's activity

• Must have a secular legislative purpose.
  
• Must neither advance nor inhibit religion.
  
• Must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

That is not what was decided... a student's activity is not a statute, yet this has been used time and time again to try and prohibit prayer, because prayer does not have a secular purpose.

In short, every single Supreme Court decision has been twisted around to try and ban any religious activity in public schools. And where was the ACLU during all of this?

Usually defending the schools. Oh, and opposing the Gingrich Amendment:

"Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer. Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools."

We live in a society where people are free to believe as they will, so it is perfectly legal for you to believe that the ACLU is out there protecting people's religious rights... and it seems in the case of Muslim or Sikh or Buddhist rights, they do! But when it comes to Christian or Jewish rights, not so much. When it comes to those religions, the ACLU is nowhere to be found, unless it is sitting beside the prosecution.

You might want to try looking beyond the propaganda. To those of us who care about school prayer, who care about the right to religious expression, who care about the First Amendment, the ACLU is never the place one wants to turn to for help. Doing so is like asking a thief to hold your valuables for a minute while you're in the bathroom.

My position on Pelosi and Romney stands.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
...
I get it; we all know the people who wear their religion on their sleeve and think it is their sole purpose in life to convert anyone and everyone they meet. I don't like people like that. The words in my Bible tell me ... My Bible tells me ... No, I profess my faith through my silent but steadfast belief in God and the works I do that God wishes to be seen. ...

And what works are those according to 'your' Bible? 'Mine' says at Matthew 28:19,20 (as it does in most translations, given some variations in rendering, hence it's not really 'my' Bible saying it, it's the Bible saying it):

19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”

I don't think silence is a particularly effective tactic to observe that commandment (to do that work that God wishes to be seen, as you put it, i.e. to do God's will). People generally associate what's described there with the concept of conversion.

... purpose in life to convert anyone and everyone they meet. I don't like people like that.

Luke 23:34: But Jesus was saying: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

Try not to get too annoyed with some people or what some other people are doing, this can become dangerous to what's going on in your heart without you realizing what's going on there, the heart can be treacherous like that. Jeremiah 17:9:

The heart is more treacherous* [Or “deceitful.”] than anything else and is desperate.* [Or possibly, “incurable.”]

Who can know it?

Regarding the contrast you put between your own way of doing things and those you described as those whose "sole purpose in life [is] to convert anyone and everyone they meet." (according to your view of these people, the impression you get from their behaviour) And what seems to be an implication that your way of doing things or you are morally and spiritually superior in comparison:

“[Do] nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with lowliness of mind [consider] that the others are superior to you.” (Philippians 2:3)

It does take effort to do that, hard work against one's own inclinations. But God's commandments as expressed in the Bible are not burdensome.

a reply to: whereislogic

19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”

I don't think silence is a particularly effective tactic to observe that commandment

And yet, how many people have we seen, like some in this very thread, who observe the teachings but not the silent works and are offended? How often does hypocrisy invade the church, and teach not the blessings of a life in Christ but rather the loathsome burden of following teachings in word but not deed?

I speak not of silence, but of sincere observance. We are saved by faith, but where there is faith there will be works. It is these works and our actions taken in faith that teach and convert others, not our words. The preacher who stands in the pulpit on Sunday and preaches about the evils of strong liquor, then is seen staggering home from the local bar on Thursday night is teaching not faith, but hypocrisy. The minister who preaches love and understanding to his congregation, then in the next breath condemns an entire group for being different is sowing seeds of hypocrisy.

My works are not silent; those who know me know this very well. If asked, I am more than happy to explain the blessings that have led me to this point in life, and how others can so easily obtain those blessings as well. That door is never closed. But there is a point beyond which preaching, especially preaching hypocrisy, is counterproductive. The point is not to preach the Word; it is to get others to realize the truth behind the Word that they may choose to follow it of their own free will.

Conversion must be of that free will, else it is subservience. We seek to be worthy of being called Children of God, not mere captive servants of God.

Try not to get too annoyed with some people or what some other people are doing, this can become dangerous to what's going on in your heart without you realizing what's going on there, the heart can be treacherous like that.

Yes, the heart can be treacherous. That's why prayer is so important. Without that link to a greater Power, without that communion, one can so easily stray into sin without even realizing it. We all do this at some time, despite our best efforts not to.

But the verse you use is not applicable here. Jesus prayed for those who condemned Him because He realized they were not enlightened to who He really was. It was necessary for some to be so; otherwise, who would have condemned the Lamb of God to pay for the sins of the world? Jesus chose to be sacrificed, and those who sacrificed Him were doing God's will. His sacrifice was the greatest example of love, true brotherly love, to ever be exhibited in our world, not an example of hate. He stated clearly that this was His choice in Matthew 26:53-54:

Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Jesus chose not to preach to those who had come against Him, but to use His works. After His sacrifice, He converted many as is recorded in Matthew 27:54:

Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

Jesus did not pray for those who persecuted Him to save himself, but to save them. They walked in darkness. Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney have made their choice in life of who they will serve, and they serve mana, not God. When they try to then put on an air of godliness through their faux expressions of a faith they otherwise deny, they do great harm to the body of Christ. I will call them out as surely as I will call out the preacher staggering home Thursday night from the bar, for they disgrace the name of that which is Holy.

I also pray that they will see the light of truth someday before it is too late, just as I would pray for the drunken preacher.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: whereislogic
...
And yet, how many people have we seen, like some in this very thread, who observe the teachings but not the silent works and are offended?

I think you mean those whose teachings do not match their actions and lifestyle, of those, there are indeed quite a few. "Observe" in the context it was used in the text I quoted from the book of Matthew, means "obey" and entails action. Just like teaching things to others as commanded there takes action. So not all works that please God are literally silent, some require speech.

How often does hypocrisy invade the church, and teach not the blessings of a life in Christ but rather the loathsome burden of following teachings in word but not deed?

The various churches are filled with preachers who do not practice as they preach, I agree. Most of those often do not even understand what "a life in Christ" (as you put it) entails.

I speak not of silence, but of sincere observance.

I already noticed that, that's why I made my remark about silence a general remark, not a direct response to what you said about silence. Just a reminder that to observe the commandment to "make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, [and] teaching them to observe all the things [Jesus has] commanded" Christians to do, 'could use' at least some speech* rather than silence. *: among other things, and "could use" in terms of increased effectiveness as I put it in my previous comment.

a reply to: whereislogic

When I speak about why my life is together and I seem so happy, I don't leave out God. It comes from Him. It all comes from Him. But I don't go around telling other people how to do it. If they ask, I tell them how I did it -- through Him. If they want more, we go from there.

a reply to: whereislogic

I think you misunderstand my original meaning.

In my life, I have known atheists and "holy-rollers," and every point in between. I was speaking specifically of those "holy-rollers," the people who always find a reason to turn every conversation into a Sunday sermon.

"I hope it doesn't rain." "You know, God provides the rain for us, If it wasn't for Him, the planet would dry up and we would all die. We should spend all day every day on our knees thanking Him for the rain."

"I hear they opened a new restaurant in town." "Food doesn't come from a restaurant. Food comes form God. He rained mana from heaven on the Israelites, you know, when they got hungry. God provides everything we need, if we will only bow to His will. He will feed us like he feeds the sparrows, because He said that we are more precious...."

Yada yada yada.

Don't get me wrong; I love a good sermon, and I like talking about God... but too much does the opposite of what we are commanded to do. There are, right now, a good many people reading this thread who are so sick and tired of hearing about God that they will automatically tune out anything anyone says to them on the subject. The point I was making is that preaching alone will not cause these people to take notice; acting as godly as I can, doing what good I can, and actually walking the walk (as best I can) is going to do a lot more to get their attention that talking the talk.

There is a difference between being silent and knowing when to open the pie-hole.

The next time you drive by a church holding service, stop and look around. Inside that building are souls who are on the path to finding God. All around them are the multitudes who have no idea what the religion is even about. Those walls separate the ones who need God from those who have God. How is that conducive to convincing anyone of anything? That church can have the greatest minister ever known; it does those on the outside no good.

The trick is to get them inside, and as you say, that is a decision they have to make. As long as they see obnoxious people or hypocrites, they won't bother. When they see the works of someone like myself, someone who can live just as well among the sinners as among the saved, they'll start to wonder what it is I have... and maybe then they'll wander into those walls.

I once had a preacher try to condemn me for not attending church regularly. I asked him what he was doing for people outside the church. He replied that they were lost. OK, I told him, so why is it you don't want people like me trying to find them? He shut up and went back inside.

Hang around me for a short while and you'll hear references to Jesus... I don't hide what and who I am. But you won't hear it every other word. Instead you'll see it when I help others, when I forgive those who have wronged me, and when I brightly look upward after something good happens and say "Thank you, Jesus!" That means more than preaching on Sunday.

TheRedneck

Ya, but yous start off with the idea that christianity has all the answers for everyone. That it's the one and only truth. That for some reason, god choose just a small group of desert people to reveal himself to to begin with and the message he gave those desert people was the only message he was giving. Or, that the message wouldn't have taken a different tone in a different land with people who were facing different challenges. Much of christianity grew out of that desert. A land of many gods warring for dominance, conquering and being conquered, enslaved to serve a different god. And, christianity carried that spirit within it, conquering, enslaving, and for the most part forcing its beliefs onto just about the whole world. Sure, fragments of the old religions survived, some were even incorporated into the christian traditions. But, for the most part, the wisdom that god felt pertinent to reveal to the woodland people, the mountain people, the island people, ect.. didnt survive intact.. it was replaced by the followers of a religion that was shaped to suit the people of a small area in the middle east... an area that has known nothing but war practically since the beginning of time.
What is the promise that is given once your religion is preached in all the world? If I am remembering right, its armageddon, christ's return, and the end of the story...
The destruction of this heaven and earth followed by a new creation.
Ever think that maybe your promise is really a warning?
No symphony can consist of just the violins. It takes a number of instruments creating a myriad of sounds to create the sound of the great composers. The sun doesnt just carry one wavelength of light. The musical scale does not consist of just one note.
Maybe creation needs more than one strong god to keep itself in balance. It needs more than one vibration, one instrument, one note. One earth, as it is in heaven..?
The heavens sound like s symphony, the earth only sounds like the beating of war drums!

a reply to: dawnstar

It is your right to believe that.

I disagree that there is more than one "truth," however. Truth is that which is always true. If there is more than one truth, then nothing is true.

TheRedneck