Fuming Mad Christian

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

Let me put it this way. In your own list there are many denominations of "Chritian's " represented. If they said outright they were going to base this countries government on Christianity, there would have been conflict among them. Whose version of Christianity of we use? The Catholics? The Protestants? The Episcopalians?

they could not have that.. so as stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution they chose Natural Law

Wrong again.
Christians are all adherents of Christ. Thats what the word Christian means.
(this word also was a word to describe a slave. thats another story)

Now, the reason why they wrote it in the first place so that people could have the freedom to choose which denomination of Christianity or if none they wanted.(also other reasons)

Did you ever hear the term, Freedom of Religion?, Well thats what they were referring to.

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

Let me put it this way. In your own list there are many denominations of "Chritian's " represented. If they said outright they were going to base this countries government on Christianity, there would have been conflict among them. Whose version of Christianity of we use? The Catholics? The Protestants? The Episcopalians?

they could not have that.. so as stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution they chose Natural Law

Wrong again.
Christians are all adherents of Christ. Thats what the word Christian means.
(this word also was a word to describe a slave. thats another story)

Now, the reason why they wrote it in the first place so that people could have the freedom to choose which denomination of Christianity or if none they wanted.(also other reasons)

Did you ever hear the term, Freedom of Religion?, Well thats what they were referring to.

You seem to think you know it all. Let me ask you a question: What then, if I am so wrong, is this Natural Law mentioned in the Declaration and Constitution and where did it come from? Who taught it and why?

Why is Natural Law mentioned in these documents?

Also can you site me in those documents that they said this country is based on Christianity?

I think we could all contest to one absolute truth.

Selahobed s avatar is enough to make a blind man see.

WOW

Ok back to GOD..

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

You seem to think you know it all. Let me ask you a question: What then, if I am so wrong, is this Natural Law mentioned in the Declaration and Constitution and where did it come from? Who taught it and why?

Why is Natural Law mentioned in these documents?

Also can you site me in those documents that they said this country is based on Christianity?

Natural law is a huge subject. I can only tell you that in a reasonable persons mind natural law is a God given right. interpret how you wish.

reply to post by randyvs


What took me so long... there's a million dollar question!

Things were ok at first. I was young (too young really as I married him at barely 18) and for some reason, I thought it would be nice to be a preacher's wife because I had the mistaken idea that I wouldn't have to worry about him cheating on me, he would always be there when I needed him, and yada yada yada. Well, he didn't cheat on me. That's about as far as it went. Anyway, I thought that dressing the way I was told to dress was just part of it, so I went along with it. But the biggest reason was that I believed all the nonsense at the time. I honestly believed that I was supposed to do all this stuff in order to get into heaven and if I didn't act the part, dress the part, etc. I was going to hell. It's not too far from the truth to say I was pretty much brainwashed. I was young and impressionable and believed what the "good Christians" told me to believe.

Fast forward about 10 years. I finally started to realize that God gave me a brain for a reason and it was to THINK FOR MYSELF and not believe what everyone else had to say. I started questioning pretty much everything I had ever been told by these people. The first thing that really occurred to me was that if Jesus really did die for everyone's sins, and if he really went through crucifixion and torture and basically pure hell to save everyone, why in the world would he be sitting on some high and mighty throne, just waiting for somebody to mess up so he could cast them in to hell for the tiniest little trivial thing? That made no sense to me at all. I realized that I had been believing in people and not God. One thing that convinced me of this was the fact that the church banned an evangelist from ever coming back to the church because one night when he was preaching there, he referenced something out of an NIV Bible. That's New International Version, for those of you who aren't Bible readers. The churches I went to and the "Christians" I knew thought that anything other than the King James Version of the Bible was the devil, lol. That made zero sense to me because most of us know that it isn't completely accurate and there are mistakes in translation and the list goes on.

By this point in the marriage, I was pretty much staying for the kids. And, because, even though I didn't want to be married to him and shouldn't have cared, I stayed because I knew it would ruin my husbands reputation since divorced preachers were basically forced out of the church. Eventually though, I got to the point that I didn't care and realized that I would actually be helping my kids by getting out, and I filed for divorce. Best move I ever made and best money I ever spent!!!

There were many other factors that kept me in the marriage for so long, but these are the main ones. I have to say though, it's one of those things that I'm glad I went through, even though it wasn't very enjoyable. I don't think I would have ever learned to think for myself the way I have if I hadn't had to see all the craziness. I would probably still be believing everything I was told and not questioning much. So, I look at it as a learning experience.

I think his church, religious friends and family, etc are still praying that I'll go back to him. Not going to happen! I literally feel like I have escaped imprisonment and I'm not going back to it.

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by Clearskies

 

I failed to mention i was also paranoid, and bi-polar with psychotic tendencies, but whatever, i was seriously confused and cynical.

Are you saying you are no longer paranoid, bipolar with psychotic tendentious ?

That's EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT! Yay!

Do you no longer take medication? Was this on the advise of your doctor ?

My doctor wanted me to keep filling up on meds that didnt do anything good. So, i quit.
In fact Haldol almost KILLED me.

When I asked Jeshua to forgive me, I IMMEDIATELY CHANGED and felt Him put His glorious arms around me!!

!
Is your doctor aware of this ?

I just didnt go back. This was in 1993.

The next morning, i didnt need any speed or cigarettes to "get me going" and that was the biggest clue that I had really been transformed.

Are you claiming that when millions of people every day, choose not to have a cigarette, glass of vodka,cup of coffee, or a hit of amphetamine, this is due to jesus ?

No, but it was for me.
I had tried to quit SO MANY TIMES.

What happens if you fall off the wagon ? Is that Jesus changing his mind or satan making you do it?

Its called backsliding and i dont want to know.

Have you considered writing to the lancet to inform them that jesus cues mental illnesses ?

"The Lancet"? What is that?
I did write to a senator who had helped me get SSI and told him what happened and that i was getting a job and didnt need them anymore for that.

Im not a 'dude' also. lol
Peace

reply to post by gemineye


I have to say, you are one amazing lady, and i am glad you found the courage to get out. I Dont like divorce but sister what you went through is way above exception in my book.

A lot of pastors wives i have noticed are their to look pretty, push out babies and their needs and wants are nearly always sidelined by the hubbies...

Sometimes enough is enough! You go girl

reply to post by Koka


Here is a biblical answer

(1) God is “everlasting” in nature (Isa. 40:28), which is to say, he is “eternal” as to his very essence (Rom. 16:26; 1 Tim. 1:17). His existence is “from everlasting to everlasting.” Before the material creation was spoken into existence, he always was (Psa. 90:2).

(2) The Lord revealed himself to Moses as the “I AM THAT I AM” (Ex. 3:14). The “I AM” expression is related to the Hebrew name for God, Yahweh. This was the most sacred name for God. The term Yahweh occurs more than 6,800 times in the Old Testament. The word is believed to be a form of the verb hayah, which signifies “to be,” ultimately meaning “the eternal One” or “self-existing One.” God’s existence is underived; no one made him. He simply always was.

I also have a logical answer if this one is no good.

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by realshanti

 

sometimes - it is a struggle to live a Christ like life

Why ?

Because "the spirit is willing and the flesh is weak"....read the new testament if you haven't lately or at all -it is as I stated a radical document - even if you stick to simply what Christ said I think you will find it challenging - Christ says to take up your cross and follow Him - last time I looked our culture was all about take up your comfort and sit down with your happy meal
Love your enemies and do good to them that hate you... I can't speak for you of course, but I don't find it easy...it requires me to sacrifice my anger and hurt, to submit to a higher calling those knee jerk reactions and deeply felt wounds - to live as Christ lived I must "forgive seventy times seven" meaning every time...

when I am ill I am encouraged not only pray for healing but to contemplate in prayer the suffering of our Lord and offer my personal suffering to the Lord for the conversion of others...I can tell you when one is struggling with a life threatening illness, this takes on a depth that is intense.

I am expected to live a chaste life - I am not married - I've mastered this with God's help but at first it was very difficult...our culture does not promote chastity...quite the opposite...

Love God with a your heart mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself - putting God first in all things - making prayer a way of life - making the study and contemplation of the word of God your daily nourishment...
caring for and encouraging fellow Christians and for those who are in need regardless of persuasion....all of this requires willingness, discipline, sacrifice of time and sometimes comfort -
That's just for starters - almost everyone that goes deep into Christian spiritual practice comes to their dark night of the soul which is a great test of faith - Read St John of the Cross for insight into this - he describes it much better than I could....

anyway there's a lot to this "being a Christian" thing - it isn't always a bed of roses but is filled with great joy...so I invite you to explore - if you have an interest and if you do have an interest you are being called, pursued by the Spirit of Love, the Creator Spirit Himself, Jesus Christ . By all means say yes - You won't regret it

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by skull_bones

 

you said:

Throughout history religion has been successful at one thing; dividing humanity into fragments. This division creates hatred and conflicts, which ultimately leads to killing in the name of said religion.

Jesus said: "I did not come to bring Peace, but a Sword" and also "the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."

The division caused in the name of Christ is fulfillment of prophecy.

The problem with this statement is that it's the Christians taking up swords and putting people to death. I believe that the "sword"was more symbolic of the division within families due to the new Christ based belief system and not literally meaning to take up swords against non-believers. Especially when you consider this was the man who talked about turning the other cheek,but most Christians I've met don't remember that part of it. They remember "An eye for an eye" But they conveniently forget the whole verse,
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
I think Jesus made it more than clear what his purpose was and the way he thought we should live, and it had nothing to do with violence. It was about peace, love, and happiness.
Yes, Jesus was a hippie.
And a bunch of Christians going across the ocean and killing hundreds of thousands Muslims does not constitute fulfillment of a prophecy. Once again we see the "I'm a superhero here to save the world" mentality in action.

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by Koka

 

Here is a biblical answer..............

*snipped*

I also have a logical answer if this one is no good.

Well I'm not going to hold my breath on this one but yeah go ahead with your 'logical' answer as biblical references are not proof of anything to a non-believer, as I'm sure you are aware but are playing ignorant to.

Am I also to assume that the bible, by your own admission, is illogical, as you say you also have a logical answer??

Originally posted by oliveoil
FACT: America is a Christian country and was founded on Christian Values.

Negative.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."


Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.

reply to post by Koka


If there ever was a time when nothing at all existed, then there would be absolutely nothing today. It is an axiomatic truth that if nothing exists, then “nothing” will be the case -always, for nothing simply remains nothing - forever! Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. If there is absolutely nothing but nothing, there cannot ever be something. “Nothing” and “something” -applied to the same object, at the same time - are mutually exclusive terms.
Since it is the case that something does now exist, one must logically conclude that something has existed always. Let us state the matter again: If nothing cannot produce something, and yet something exists, then it follows necessarily that something has existed always. The question then becomes this. What is the “something” that has been in existence always?
In logic, the “law of the excluded middle” states that a thing either is, or it is not. A line either is straight, or it is not straight.
Let us apply this principle to the matter at hand. Something has existed forever. That “something” must be either material in nature, or non-material. If it can be demonstrated that the eternal “something” is not material in nature, then it must follow that the eternal “something” is non-material in nature.
Another term for the “non-material” would be “spirit.” The question now becomes — what does the available evidence reveal? Is it the case that “matter” has existed forever, or does the evidence argue that the eternal “something” is non-matter, i.e., spirit?

The most reputable scientists in the world concede that “matter” is not eternal. In his book, Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), Dr. Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and himself a professed agnostic, describes his perception of the initial creation of the universe. He speaks of that moment when “the first particles of matter appear” (21), thus, prior to that moment, matter did not exist.
Subsequently, he declares emphatically that “modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe?” (30). There is not a particle of evidence that the universe has existed forever. The very fact that scientists attempt to assign an “age” to the universe is revealing within itself.
In view of the foregoing, namely that something has always existed, and yet that “something” is not of a material nature, the student of logic is irresistibly forced to the conclusion that the “something” that is eternal is non-material — which means it must be “spirit” in its essence. The Scriptures identify that spirit Being as God. “God is spirit?” (Jn. 4:24) — an uncreated, eternal Spirit Being.
Both Scripture and logic, then, in marvelous concert, testify to the fact that God is eternal. He had no origin. He is the everlasting I AM. No one “made” him. He simply IS.

Was that clear?
By WAYNE JACKSON

[edit on 28-11-2009 by oliveoil]

reply to post by DSeal

Please read my statement very clearly.

I said America is a Christian country and was founded on Christian Values.

Now read what you just wrote

Negative.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

Now tell me how they compare.

reply to post by oliveoil


My initial statement is sufficient enough to disprove your claims.

ats is just an excuse for more atheist to use their agenda

reply to post by DSeal


ok let me ask you this, Why did the Pilgrims choose to leave England and come to America back in 1620.

Originally posted by oliveoil


Ok here it is again. Who do you think landed on Plymouth Rock? The rolling Stones?

For goodness sake,stop being a one trick pony.
The pilgrims at Plymouth rock were NOT the founding fathers and did NOT set up the United States of America. They set up a colony. Even I know this and I'm not an American citizen.

Which revisionist school did you go to to keep thinking that?

Also, it seems you may have missed my post about this:

Originally posted by aorAki

In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation "under God" is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation "under God" is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase "one nation under God" in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism. The text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation "under God" is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation "under Jesus," a nation "under Vishnu," a nation"under Zeus," or a nation "under no god," because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, [the people, in the 1st Amendment,] declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In the end, many supporters of the Constitution, including one of the most prominent, James Madison, agreed to support a bill of rights in the Constitution, if it could be ratified. Several of the states included suggested amendments, including rights of the people, in their ratification documents. The push was on for a bill of rights in the Constitution. Madison was true to his word — on June 8, 1789, Representative James Madison rose and gave a speech in the House where he introduced a series of articles of amendment. One concerned religious freedom:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

Madison's proposal follows the proposals of some of the states. New Hampshire's read:

Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.

Virginia was much more verbose:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

New Yorkers had the same to say, but more succinctly:

That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

Source

Some of the Framers of the Constitution were Christain, some were Deists. They all appear to agreed (in debate, and later in legislation) about the importance of the separation of the Church and State, thus, NO, the United States is NOT a Christian country. It is a country with Christians as well as other faiths.

www.religioustolerance.org...

en.wikipedia.org... hurch_and_state_in_the_United_States#Protestant_colonies

The 'Plymouth Rockians' set up a Colony. They didn't found the United States of America.

Take the Lemon Test


You really aren't a History buff, more of a History Buffer, putting a shine on it to make it look pretty to you. This took me all of half and hour, Bro

Also, your plagiarism has been noted. Isn't this against the T&C?
www.christiancourier.com...

[edit on 28-11-2009 by aorAki]

[edit on 28-11-2009 by aorAki]

reply to post by Clearskies


Ah I just notice the MRS LOl, in any even, I'm mulling over in my mind what to make of you.

I've quite recently been at a church (shock horror lol) in the UK where several young blokes had come off drugs and alcohol and claimed this was jesus.

I have yet not formed an opinion of this and hope you don't mind me asking further questions, in relation to this matter and if that's ok make every effort not to take offense ?

Originally posted by Jordan River
ats is just an excuse for more atheist to use their agenda

Pleas feel free to explain what you believe this agenda to be