It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
.
in regards to christianity, there are two realms of "judgements." one is a judgement regarding salvation and the other is a judgement regarding sanctification/feelings of security. a judgement of salvation is not allowed, but calling a duck a duck is not a problem. if i was to take drugs all my life, there is no wrong in calling me a drug addict and declaring that my life is void of God. there would also be no wrong in stating the repercussions of such a lifestyle. there would, however, be a problem with judging salvation with any kind of surety or boldness.
Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
If one of the principal apsects of the bible suggests not to judge a man by his journey, but by his destination. Frankly it says DO NOT JUDGE! Ye without sin cast the first stone! Getting my drift I hope. So, why does this countrys political agenda deal with Gay marriage and abortion? Don't the christians think that this is judgemental and casting stone to circumstances they don't fully understand? My point is, Bush is in power because he knew this much and made it an issue. But my question is why is it an issue? Isn't it a bit hypocritical?
Originally posted by Dasher
marriage is a spiritual issue and should not have any connection to any political entity.
Originally posted by Dasher
i would like to add that if it was not required of me, i would not have a "wedding." my promise to my love is enough. but since i do believe in God, i am required to make my promise "in His presence."
daved
As regards the original topic, I find it extremely convenient, hypocritical and comical that the Christian religion has interpreted the bible to mean that it's really ok to judge someone as sinful, immoral, heathen, wrong and abominable, but just not say they're going to hell. So it's ok for Christians to point out the things people are doing as WRONG. God says it's ok. It's their duty, really. They have to save the world. Then they claim to be the victims of hatred when people don't like it! Hilarious!
Originally posted by Amethyst
This was once a Christian nation, believe it or not...
Originally posted by Amethyst
Hey RANT, I did a Google search on it and read it.
Then I did a bit more delving and came up with this--apparently that Article XI, which flat-out denies a Bible-based government, was not in the Arabic translation!
A new Treaty of Tripoli was drawn up and signed a few years later.
Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "*ancien scripture*," in reference to common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law came from the Bible.