..that we are now embroiled in a second but cold, civil war? Yes, I think so and it's only going to ramp up; of course, this is not to mention the war against ISIS which this president is arguably responsible for. It's not division so much by geographical regions as the First, though there is some of that. It's not division so much by style of life as in the First though, again, there is some of that too. It's more fundamental than a states sovereignty versus federalist issue. It's also more multi-faceted but has one common tap root cause.

It is a Godless liberalism or secular progressivism that is informing our society "primarily through "education" and "entertainment" and has turned "up", "down." And "down," "up." There is increasing vitriol toward any opposing view, ironic since the adherents are the self named, inclusive, all-enlightened ones. On the other side are conservative, traditional, political, and social values that have had their basis in Biblical Christianity. Now, wait; you don't have to be a Christian, the driving view of the Founding Fathers, to have inculcated these values into your life and now generally live by them. But regardless, Christian or merely sympathetic to "old ways," we are being marginalized.

Certainly, not everybody in the early years of this nation were, or, are now Christians, but these principles once, at least generally, guided peoples lives and thus that of the nation. This process of jettisoning Christian values from all aspects of public life started in the '50's and 60's but had it's roots in the Enlightenment much earlier. I wonder how many Ivy League students now (especially those recently interviewed Harvard students) know their institutions of higher learning were once founded as Christian schools with Biblical knowledge considered a cornerstone of a classic education? Or that hospitals were originally founded by Christians? Or that the first purveyors of rights for women were Christians or that Christians were preeminent in iconic scientific discoveries? That Christians have contributed more in blood and treasure to ease suffering around the world than any other faith? And these, were mostly American Christians. America has exported much more than imperialism. And please, the leftist black commentator who on TV recently drew a moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam--go home, take your meds, lie down, and get in touch with reality. Read a real history book.

Even if you don't believe in the God who judges nations and who will not be mocked, look at what situational ethics or the moral relativism folks have brought us: fifty million plus--a generation or more--now aborted since Roe vs Wade; a divorce rate over fifty percent with the resultant break-down of the family and it's attendant poverty, dysfunction, dependency, and crime. Public education has deteriorated despite record high expenditures per capita so that our world rankings in various disciplines have sunk like a mill stone in a barrel of water. We have the kind of educators who so wisely dismissed and disciplined a young girl who let slip a, "bless you," after another student sneezed; who sent a young boy home for drawing a picture of a gun. I'd still be in Sing Sing. Who flirt with and carry on sexual liaisons with students.

Failing to acknowledge real evil or wrongness brings us among other rotten apples, cultural diversity, or the "all cultures are equal" progressive mantra which has now put progressives between a rock and a hard place in regard to radical Islamists. They cannot bring themselves to call crucifixion of children, genital mutilation and repression of women (where are the feminists when they actually have a chance to be intellectually honest?), and be headings evil and barbaric. A Islamist cries, "Allah Akbar," while murdering thirteen people in Texas or be heading an Oklahoma women and it's named work place violence.

After over forty years of liberal, social policies of progressive Democrats, we now have fifty-some percent of the electorate that is dependent on welfare and yet at least some of those are also without a guiding moral compass; and of course, they vote for their check. These, including those whites just enamored of a black man running for president, those perceiving white guilt is their burden for past generations' sins, and most blacks voting "straight race" have given us Barack Obama. A community organizer who did nothing in the Illinois senate, nothing in the U.S. Senate, nothing as editor of the Harvard Review (the editor is able to publish monthly reviews--he published none), whose acquaintances were anarchist Bill Ayers, and "[bleep] America" pastor Jeremiah Wright, has been our president for six and a half years now. Doesn't it seem strange that none of his academic records are retrievable? He has brought us a collage of indecisiveness, mismanagement, deceit, arrogance, untruth, ignored, crossed "red lines," and golf. He has exponentially increased national debt, regulations, taxes, and cost of living, and bureaucracy, while weakening our military, and diminishing our stature in the world. Business is the glowing ember he is the wet, wool blanket to. We have taken action to affirm an unqualified.

Again, the litany continues: he and his administration has brought us the Beer Summit (the police-white-have acted stupidly), Fast and Furious, the Benghazi cover-up scandal, the IRS scandal, Obama Care--none of you precious readers yet understand how badly it will affect you; it's effects are just starting to roll out. It will be one big snowball coming down the hill. And let's not forget the Obama Apology Tour either. Question: why is a marine still languishing in a Mexican jail for making a wrong turn at Tijuana? For over six months?

This president's record is his own indictment; he is making the impeached Nixon look like an a Eagle Scout. The hapless Buchanan, on everybody's worst president's list, is remembered "fondly" for kicking the can down the road to Lincoln. That was leading to the real Civil War. He doesn't sound so bad now.

This president, as a black man has contributed by his remarks to increased racial polarization in nationally publicized incidents where young black men have been killed by whites, both determined to have been assaulted by the now dead. However, the Knock-out Game, a black on white urban violent pastime has garnered nary a peep from him; the white teen in NH or Vermont killed by a young black Islamist sympathizer of course did not meet the threshold of public comment either. Then there was the, "police acted stupidly," when a white officer questioned a black professor trying to open a stuck or locked door. Racial tension presently is worse IMO than in the racial demonstrations and marches of the sixties.

There is the habit of he or his staff repeatedly speaking untruths; we used to call this lying. A Fox poll recently found 84% believe Obama lies to the American people on major issues at least some of the time and he has now less than a forty percent approval rating.

Apparently some of the fifty plus percent are waking up which brings us to another point: Barack Obama is but an unfortunate symptom of a much worse underlying problem--an ignorant, amoral, voting public, products largely of poverty, broken homes, and the relativism of public education which Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin warned us of. They both knew of the nature of man. "Once they know they can get free stuff they find it inconvenient to change their ways." However, there are the elite SP behind this too and they are driving the mental climate against the Tea Party types with the help of a complicit and compliant media, traditionally held to be the watch dog of truth and liberty. They have long since prostituted their estate.

Frankly, I think Christians like myself and those of our parents generation are partly to blame. We have silently let SP-like thinking hijack us and our culture. However, I don't think we would have prevented what we now see as a crude, degraded culture and leadership and I include Republicans in this. Historically, there has been a commonly seen life cycle of a nation from beginning to zenith to degradation. I think it is due to man's capacity to abuse what's good even when starting from the best of principles.

Regardless, there is now a deep and widening schism between the leftist, SP and those who hold traditional values; it may be a rift as large as the one between north and south in 1860.

I think 'Christians' have done as much damage to the cause of Christianity as the opponents to Christianity have. If those who profess to be Christians would simply follow the two greatest commandments of Jesus...the cause of Christianity would be much more than what it is today. The blame for the demise of Christian values can be placed on its opponents all day long...and it certainly has opponents...but at least as much blame for the demise of Christian values can be placed squarely on the shoulders of Christians themselves; not all of em', but a great many of them. Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength... and love your neighbor as yourself. Those two things sum up the whole of the ministry of Jesus on earth. But that is not what many Christians do. Leave it to men to mess up the best thing we've ever been offered...God's gift of salvation, and the opportunity to walk through life with Him. Leave it to men to muck it up, and make it much more complicated than it really is. And leave it to men to make it dependent upon something other than it really is.
And regarding marriage...over 50% of 'first marriages' end in divorce. That percentage is even higher for second marriages, and it's even higher still for third marriages. The institution of marriage has become a joke, and it's not due to the opponents of marriage, and it's not due to the opponents of 'traditional marriage'...it's due to the people themselves that are getting married and then getting divorced. They are the ones to blame for the dismal failure of marriages in our country. It's a shame too, because it causes so much damage to the lives of so many people in our society.

' You must be the change you wish to see in the world. '

Yeah, Christians have really screwed things up, antlers. We don't let unmarried folks make babies to grow up on welfare, we make everyone declare allegiance to Jesus or kill them, we don't allow anyone to have an abortion, women aren't allowed birth control, we don't allow poor folks to go on vacation to Hawaii or Las Vegas and buy food with EBT cards, ....

This is a reply to a dumb [bleep] who doesn't know what an ER surgeon is.

"We"...?

laffin'

You prove my point about self-professed 'Christians', such as yourself, with nearly every one of your posts.

Antlers- that 50% rate gets thrown around a lot. Just because we all have heard it doesn't necessarily make it so. Here is exactly what I am talking about:
http://www.divorcesource.com/ds/main/u-s-divorce-rates-and-statistics-1037.shtml

AS far as the rest of your take I agree Christians including myself fail as examples but on earth the perfect message has no perfect messengers. Least not at this present time. If we did we would not have needed the original messenger in the first place.

Arguably, our country was MORE Christian the further back you go in it's history. That in itself seems to refute the argument

Divorce Source, the 'reference' you listed...states they have "a passion for a better divorce". They help people get divorced, even online...they sale books and forms advising people how to get divorced. In other words...they derive their income off of people getting divorced. Just like a used car salesman would marginalize the faults of a junker sitting on his lot that he's trying to sale...companies that derive their income off of people getting divorced would marginalize the negative aspects of divorce and the damage that divorce causes.

arguing with atheists is about as unproductive as trying to argue with liberals.
Maybe it's because all atheists ARE liberals.

Not to mention you campaign against things based on emotion and subjectivity. And pretty much torpedo any chance of a republican getting elected because the christian community as a whole is collection of dumb fuggs that don't know any more about politics, than they do fornicating.




Travis

The old 'Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven' defense. That marginalizes the damage that many 'Christians' do to the cause of Christianity. Nobody here is advocating that 'Christians' be perfect...but to give lip service to being a 'Christian' and then behaving like anything BUT a follower of Jesus...that is very different from the statement that there are "no perfect messengers". Simply put, the whole of Jesus' ministry on earth can be summed up in His two greatest commandments that were posted earlier. An abject refusal to strive toward those ends is very different from the 'no perfect Christians' defense.

That's a very broad based statement and not true of me including most I know. We vote against abortionists and same sex marriage issues, for two examples, based on emotion? How about based on the sanctity of life and God's plainly expressed view on homosexuality? Both of the issues are written about in a prominent book from which we derive our beliefs that guides our votes. Perfectly? No.

The last part or your comment is equally "off the paper" ( shooting metaphor ) Travis. I expect they know about both of those endeavors to be sufficiently competent

Maybe you can get out more; you know read a bit more too.

Best to you on a Saturday morning.

Well, you are generally very correct! But people do change. It's my hope that in reflecting Christ, though in my own poor, feeble way, some one here or there might...see the light.

Actually, the point about Christians not being sufficient "salt and light" for this culture was not my main point though it is a very significant one.

Mainly, I was pointing out what I think most here sense and that is the huge and growing chasm between diverging world views in this country. The expunging of Christian values from all aspects of public life and the very old view that man is the pinnacle of life (nothing transcendent to him) has brought us all this dysfunction, crime, rot, degradation, and simple minded political correctness. Their fix is always "just tune up the environment" and then little Omar and the dope dealing, inner city, black kid will no longer want to cut our head off or shoot us. They will then hold hands and sing kum ba ya with us. That never worked and never will.

Secular Progressives are doing nothing new here. There is nothing new. They have brought moral ruin to every nation and society they moved in. It's just that our generation's group, personalized by Barack Obama and his ilk just know they are so much smarter than those in history's dust bin. And many of the masses will follow along blithely ignorant of the path.

This will put "us" increasingly on the perimeter looking in as the additional hordes crossing our southern border seeking a better life see they can obtain the social services we cannot afford for ourselves and vote the party perpetuating that.

Not disagreeing with you george, but wow, another depressing campfire thread. I'm going hunting.

I understood your point about the "chasm between diverging world views in this country."
My position is that if 'Christians' would actually behave like fully devoted followers of Jesus...instead of just giving lip service to being a 'Christian'...then the "expunging of Christian values from all aspects of public life" likely wouldn't have taken place like it has...to the degree that it has. As it stands, many people in this country don't want to have anything to do with 'Christians' or Christianity. Instead of just acting like they've been 'victims' of those who oppose them in this country...Christians should also shoulder much of the responsibility for the opposition that exists to them and their beliefs.

I'm a Baptist, so I can say and think what I personally have learned from observation and experience:

Real "Christianity" has NO place in politics. It is a personal relationship with the Risen Christ. In the political arena, we should talk of moral values that ALL people relate to, not out of political expediency, but out of LOVE.

ALL civilized people are against lying, cheating, and stealing. When those things occur in politics, they should be condemned, regardless of the source.

The bible states that if we train up a child in the way he should go, that he will not depart from it when he is old. But I can tell you that the years between childhood and being old may find him a hell of a long way from your teachings. So... the idea that some "magic generation" is gonna right our ship of state is a fantasy.

Things are gonna get a lot worse before they will get better. A man will serve himself and his family much better if he seeks out folks who are against lyin', cheatin',and stealin', and favor love over hate.

The Constitution of the U.S. and the Bible are piss-poor substitutes for a personal moral compass.

Both are worthless without that moral compass.

Excellent post, Gene!

Ed

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

Christianity was never meant to be a religion...but a one-on-one relationship with a loving God who sent His son to reveal just how good He is.

And with the predictable participants and arguments. This country will never get back on track. Maybe if the conservatives would drop god and abortion we could slow it down, but I don't see that happening either.

I've got a batchelor party to go to. No strippers, just trap, skeet, cards, and booze. In that order.

What do you think is the ultimate source for a personal moral compass?

Without a doubt it is instilled by a Creator God.

I'll say no more lest my words cause division.

What made this country great was freedom, the freedom to succeed or fail. The great thing about Christianity, Christ's version, is the freedom to succeed or fail. Both are parallel philosophically.

The philosophy of restricting success while eliminating the concept of failure, is far more reaching than just an antichristianity agenda.

There's no doubt that a free society meshes smoother with a christian society, much better than a socialist one.

But christianity survives with or without america... and america only survives with freedom.

Kent

Yea, the 'WE' stuff is very telling. You are the problem, it's funny to see.

In fact, substitute 'I' for 'We' in Eyesockets post and I'd swear I was reading a Safariman post.

That's just not true. I'm an atheist, but I'm not a liberal.

A personal moral compass is, by definition, PERSONAL.

But even if you are a self professed Christian who thinks your morals derive from the bible, you are still picking and choosing from a small portion of the Bible. Do any of the Christians present really believe it's acceptable to slaughter an entire town just so you can take all the virgin women for yourselves, or keep slaves, and beat those slaves so long as you don't beat them to death? Of course not, which means your own moral compasses transcends that of the Bible.

A true moral compass is routed in the understanding of how one's actions effect the states of well being, and suffering of others. This is why the vast majority of Christians are Cafeteria Christians who pick the good parts of the bible and ignore the bad.

excellent point

curdog4570,



You don't seem to understand. Without the Bible everyone's moral compass is correct. That's why Muzzies can cut off someone's head with a clear conscience. That's why inner city kids can steal with a clear conscience.

There has to be an Absolute Standard against which we correct our moral compass!

antelope_sniper,



You are showing what happens when someone uses their own ideas for their moral compass. You either blindly follow liars or intelligently and purposefully distort the position of Christians by bringing up the Old Testament. The Old Testament is a history of the beginning of the world and Jewish history.

If you don't mind try to prove your point by using the Words of the Christ and His apostles, the founders of Christianity, to show Christians are picking and choosing.

Ephesians 2:20-22
"built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy [q]temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit."

So..... according to you, there were no moral men prior to Jesus? Wasn't Noah a "preacher of righteousness" according to the bible you thump so loudly?

And... there are some Atheists who put many Christians to shame in the morality department. I'm betting Antelope Sniper is one.

His only fault is responding to my posts from a biblical angle when I never mentioned the bible at all.

Oh, OK, that solves everything, except that your Absolute Standard may be different than someone or everyone else's.

There's nothing that bothers me more than someone who knows the "truth" or has an "absolute standard" that they want to force on everyone else, whether they are peddling universal healthcare or choice waterfront lots in the afterlife.

Read the whole story. Noah used God's morality.

I could say mine is best but then Antelope_Sniper could say his is best, and you guys could say yours is best. No matter how much we each like our own philosophical position it is flawed by sin; whether we want to admit it or not is irrelevant.

If you push the idea of individual morality to its limits you will discover contradictions. With The Absolute Standard there is no contradiction.

Perfection is perfection, I guess. But, it still is in the eye of the beholder. It must be great to know everything.

Here is a perfect example of a contradiction!

In your world view.

Ringman has no world view. He is not OF this world, don't you know?

Just him and God and their bible. Jesus ain't allowed to communicate with folks apart from Ringman's bible.

"World" was a bad choice of words. I knew it, but I did not know what word to use in its place, and it was not worth the time to try to come up with a better one.

Read the law and it will become clear.Rules for controlling sickness and diseases.Rules for nutrition.Rules on how to live including morals.Think about the people these rules were given to.One example would be not to kill a woman because she is raped.You getting the kind of people the law was given to.They needed it.

Romans 5:18-19

"So then as through one man's (Adam) transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, The Law came in so that the transgression would increase;

What the hell is that?... that's definitely not in my mama's king james.

Kent

You misunderstand the Bible sir.

I gotta wonder what you are reading from.

Sorry, boys. I made a mistake. The first verse is Romans 5:12.

Still not translating...

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

I can agree with some of that. So how many people do you know succeed in this endeavor? Striving and succeeded are two different things- we agree. I just happen to think most people who want to truly be Christians are works in progress is all.

What I read from that report was the rate was lower, not higher.

Did the South not use the Bible to justify Slavery?

Except for the over 300,000 variation among the manuscripts, and that only counting those in the New Testament.

George, I understand it all too well.

The drug dealing Christian murder who repents as the needle goes into his arm goes to Heaven. The Shinto doctor burns in Hell for ever.

Yes, read the whole story.

How many people did God murder in that story??

Yet somehow, it's my morality that flawed because I disagree with the precept that it's wrong to for a cosmic dictator to murder EVERYONE on earth except one family??

What's the Fifth Commandment?

Do you not see the contradiction between Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder., and God's actions in the story of Noah??

If you don't mind would you post about twenty and not use the ones from the tomb of Jesus, please? The ones from the tomb are generally not accepted as contradictions by average history students.

Zero. For the Creator to break one or all of his pots is not murder. You can't seem to get over the idea you are a pot in the Potter's hand. There is a greater gap between you and a grain of sand and you and the Creator. The commandments were for the creation.

Without God's Absolute Standard for man there is no right or wrong.

You should pick up a book on textual criticism. The first major contribution to the subject was John Mills New Testament in Greek with a compendium noting the differences in the 100 texts available to him at the time. Between them he noted 30,000 significant variations between the texts. Keep in mind we was not noting differences between Mark and John, but differences in one version of Mark vs. another version of Mark, such as the early text missing that last 12 verses of Mark, and the story in John of Jesus and the woman caught in adult y.. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" which doesn't appear until the middle ages.

We are not pots, we are intelligent sentient beings.

This makes no sense. He notes 30,000 significant variations between the texts in Mark alone. I see two problems for you here. Based on this the book of Mark has more documentation than almost any other literature from antiquity. Or, there are more variations than there are verses in the whole book of Mark. You claim the verses are missing. Many years ago I heard something like that for the first time. The guy told me,
"Some of the oldest manuscripts don't contain those verses."
"Wow. Would you say that again. I want to make sure I understand what you said," I asked. He repeated it. I then said,
"So then it is found in some of the oldest manuscripts!"


As for the story from John, your liberal source does not agree with the some other critics. This reminds me of evolutionists. Every time a scientist, evolutionist or creationist, brings up something another evolutionist disagrees with he says, "That has been discredited."

I didn't think you would come up with the twenty I asked for.

They'll meet each other "up there" if the Shinto doctor also repents as he is gasping his last.

Again you misunderstand. The 30K is throughout the whole new testament, and none of the oldest manuscripts of Mark have the last 12 verses. It's well established they were added later.

Here's you problem. How can you claim to have the absolute moral truth when you don't even know what was in the original text. We do not have a single original New Testament text that was penned by the original author. All we have is copies, of copies, of copies, with the earliest fragment dating 100 years after the supposed death of Jesus, and the earliest single New Testament book 200 years after the fact.

You claim to have the "absolute standard", but you don't even know what it originally said.

Well said on all points. Thanks for posting, George.



and...

IRREGARDLESS 2 Chronicles 7:14

Then if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land.

He Steel didn't say I have to be perfect, now did He?

Yet you somehow think this is a moral?

I find it funny that most of the people who complain about congress passing so many laws, want to pass laws that prohibit people in their most private setting, their bedroom....


I could really give to [bleep] less if it is Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve, or April and Eve.......I don't have to live their life. Doesn't mean I agree with it, but its not my job to condemn or condone them.

Learned that in Sunday school, maybe some need a refresher course.....

Nah...they'll just come along and counter your very well stated point by using the Bible itself to justify their 'judging' of others. Jesus Himself said not to judge others. But these guys actually twist other Bible verses to suit their needs...one even said here recently that Jesus meant not to judge others only if you were unsure as to whether or not they were guilty of the infraction, but if you were certain that they were guilty of the infraction...then it was not only OK to go ahead and judge them, but it was also your 'Christian' duty go ahead and judge them. Never mind the woman that was caught in the very act of adultery...she was no doubt guilty of the infraction...and they were going to kill her for it. Jesus comes along and says "let he who is without sin be the first to throw a rock at her". The hypocrites there all dropped their rocks and shamefully walked off. The Bible Taliban delights in pointing out the sins of others while ignoring their own sin. The sins of others are somehow worse than their own sins. Hypocrisy to the Nth degree. Jesus' harshest words were reserved for hypocrites.

The words in the Bible were written by SOMEONE, or I couldn't be reading them. So...... if they line up with what I KNOW about God or Jesus from personal experience, I suspect that they are "inspired" by a Higher Power.

If they don't, I leave them for other folks to fret over.

What excludes a lot of worthwhile [perhaps] conversation around this 'fire is THIS :

I made the claim that a moral compass is instilled in us at birth by our Creator. There is a large leap from "Creator" to "the bible", but we have zero discussion on the way to bridging that gap. The non-Christian posters immediately attack the bible and Ringman immediately defends it.

What's the difference between "moral compass" and "conscience"?

Anybody?

"I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts."

Some folks here love to play the game.

Judge not lest ye be judged comes out a lot, and you do your best to condemn anyone that suits your need at the time.

If someone reads the Bible, and through that reading and any other divine interpretation, they feel that homosexuality is a sin, apparently, feeling that something is a sin is enough to get some folks all horned up; throwing around the hypocrisy label, and putting the word Christian in double quotes.

Where the hell do you draw the line?

Please let me know, because I'd like to sit that fence where I can say that I think homosexuality is a sin, but not be accused of judging homosexuals, and having all my Christian efforts thrown into double quote land.

If you can really gray it out, find the sweet spot for murder as well.

You just confirmed my claim from an earlier post. My thinking goes like this:

I've observed that little kids have a basic idea of what's "fair" and "unfair" despite the lack of any moral instruction from parents or any other source.

Then......... when I read the part of the bible you just quoted, I believe that someone a long time ago noticed the same thing, and ascribed it to the god of the bible.

My conclusion is that it is true, no matter the author.

See how it works?

Nope, not at all. Sin is sin, period. But many of the Bible Taliban here get all horned up over homosexuality (devoting entire threads to it over and over) while they remain sinners themselves. They somehow think the sin of others' homosexuality is worth getting all horned up over, but their own sins aren't worth getting all horned up over. And they hate it when that hypocrisy is pointed out.

antelope_sniper,

You choose to ignore the facts. The earliest manuscripts go back to within thirty-five years of Jesus. Many of the eye witnesses were still alive. There are more manuscripts for the New Testament than any other ancient literature. The copies of copies give us a chance to discover any errors.

You just prefer to reject God and His Word.

At this point I think its safe to say that to some extent, all folks know they are sinners.

Whether they put a weighted system on sins in order have a light versus heavy sin is certainly up for debate.

But is the issue that homosexuality is singled out, compared to other sins the reason you go off like a broken record whenever it is brought up?

Frankly, I can't tell if you have a Christian belief or not, because I find little to no difference in the hating of homosexuals, compared to your incessant scathing of other people trying to wade through attempts at stating their opinion in a PC world, via throwing their faith under a bus.

antlers,

If I had several minutes I would post more, but I have to go to work. Stop picking and choosing what you want God's Word to say.

Jesus says to "Judge with righteous judgment."
Jesus says, "If your brother sins, go to him in private."
Jesus says to the hypocrite, "Judge not lest you be judged."
Jesus says, "Why don't you judge what is right?"

So you have a problem with my "broken record" responses...but you don't have a problem with the broken record "hating of homosexuals" by those here who profess to be Christians...?

[bleep], I hate everyone, unless they are making me a sammich.

antlers,

You seem to be saying that, in your judgment, it is morally wrong for someone to judge another person. Did I get that right?

Yep.
Like when some 'judge' others for their sin of homosexuality, while ignoring their own sins.

You apparently have no interest in a bona fide debate on the existence of a Creator.

Apparently you consider the Christian view the only one that merits consideration.

Bro, I don't use the word often, but that was either totally misdirecting or stupid.

I said, "because I find little to no difference in the hating of homosexuals, compared to your incessant scathing of other people trying to wade through attempts at stating their opinion in a PC world, via throwing their faith under a bus."

Which means, I don't like your broken record, nor do I care for the hating of homosexuals.

You are agenda driven, no less than the folks you criticize.

Hypocrite.

No they do not. That's when we estimate they were written, but none of those original manuscripts survive. Our earliest existing new testament fragment ages to 125 AD, and the earliest existing near complete books around 175 AD.

Y'all must all have me on "ignore".

You've made me a sammich before, so you're ok.

Even if you were a total douchenozzle, I wouldn't ignore you.




Now make me a sammich....


And hold the mayo.


Just sayin...

I musta liked you........ usual fare is vyeenees and crackers.

You get sardines......... in mustard sauce.

I'm ok with that; and an ice cold RWB in a can.

You get the Colt 45 in a can.

If Gene offers you canned menudo, pass.

You're gonna go to Hell for that one. See the Poohbah for available turds and instruction in smoking them.

Thanks for the advice. I don't know what a menudo is, but I am pretty certain I'd not like it.

It's a Mexican soup

i'm ok with that, too.

noticing a trend?

Christianity is thriving. You can't go anywhere without running into groups of awesome believers. Recent issues though sure is separating Christianity into distinct groups.

"we don't allow poor folks to go on vacation to Hawaii or Las Vegas and buy food with EBT cards, "

WWJD

Tripe soup, smells like skippy dog food.

Kent

Some menudo fits that description. Just sprinkle a liberal dose of oregano on it and it becomes edible.

Got to throw in the kidney's and tongue as well. Maybe some of the intestine as well...

Translation = We want to be able to judge and condemn homosexuals for their sin of homosexuality, even though we remain sinners ourselves. We want to be able to condemn and judge homosexuals for their 'continuation' in sin, even though we 'continue' to be sinners ourselves. And when someone points out the hypocrisy of 'that'...we will accuse them of 'judging' us.

Apparently we respect different authors. You believe what you choose to believe.

Here's what know. The day I prayed to asked Jesus to forgive my sins and fill me with the Holy Spirit I was instantly changed. First I felt a peace beyond description. The guy praying with me told me I was literally shining. I didn't realize how much my life changed, but my coworkers did. One even laughed in my face.

I thought I was still the same. My brother-in-law once told me, "You used to be a really cool guy. Now you're and ......" I told him, "I used to be like you and now I am like this. Having seen both conditions of life I prefer the peace I live in."

My wife thought it was a phase I was going though, but after about three months she figured I really did change......and for the better. Within a couple years she also was converted and I baptized her in the river which ran through our property. Her life changed also. It's normal when that which was dead in sin comes alive in Jesus.

The sinful things that were normal no longer interested me. I didn't have to work at it. The interest was gone. As I read God's Word I discovered lots of what I was hearing was foolishness. Obeying God's Word is not popular, but is certainly pleasant to my heart.

You may find it pleasant to your heart, but that doesn't address the questions of evidence, truth, and what may or may not have existed in the original manuscripts.

You talk about "questions of evidence, truth, and what may or may not have existed in the original manuscripts."

I mentioned Simon Greenleaf. I defer to his scholarship over the folks who decide in advance the Bible is not God's Word. There are so many manuscripts available the original what was written on the original manuscripts can pretty much be determined.

Another evidence you deny is the number of people whose lives have been not just been changed but instantly dramatically changed by Jesus. If you will read my book, I will send you a copy.

Greenleaf doesn't know the difference between evidence and hearsay. Modern Scholars such as Bart Ehrman have more to offer on the subject.

Translation: I want to be able to judge and condemn people who express an opinion different than mine by blaming their faith, even though I am judging them in a fashion I condemn them for doing. I want to be able to condemn and judge people for their 'continuation' in their unchanging view, even though I 'continue' to be a stubborn ass as well. And when someone points out the hypocrisy of 'that'...I will accuse them of 'judging' me.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here but it' not what I or you think is right or wrong or some kind of standard unless it's predicated on the Word of God; it's His universe; His rules. To cut to the elements, I refer to John 3:16, which allows the Shinto doctor, the Muslim, and the atheist to be saved in the end if they come to Christ in intellectual assent AND trust for payment of sins.

But this thread took an off-ramp somewhere a couple of miles back. In my OP, I was simply trying to make the point that those of us in this country with traditional, conservative values, whether practicing Christians or not, are losing it. And it may be inevitable as I've come to generally see politics, politicians and government as primarily concerned with self-preservation and unable or unwilling to divert that interest to solving real problems.

Additionally, we now have an elite, political ideology-media complex that is increasingly hostile to conservatism and our way of life. And that is the cold, new civil war I was referring to.

Why did we leave sammiches?

If you were here with me this morning it would have been a fried egg sandwich with a couple of sausage links and black coffee.

Would that work?

I reckon' we could also accuse our pastors for 'judging' us when they point out certain things in their sermons that 'sting' us individually. Seems to be real important to many Bible Taliban to be able to condemn...not "express an opinion", but condemn...homosexuals for their sin. Not drunks, liars, cheaters, or any other sin that exists (especially their own)...just homosexuals. And the Bible Taliban will go to great lengths, obviously, to justify their hatred of homosexuals...while at the same time loudly professing their 'Christianity'.

Damn near anything stuck between 2 pieces of bread works. Kind of like anything on a stick.

It is narrow minded to see this as a one issue focus.

My current pastor spends no more time on homosexuality than any other sin. Pretty well hammers them all. Adultery, excess, materialism, coveting, stealing, you name it. Spends a lot of time on pride and denial though.

My previous one never mentioned homosexuality at all. Ever.

Turns out his son was gay.

Maybe many folks wouldn't be so inclined to keep posting about it all the time, if it wasn't being overtly publicized in day to day everything.

I don't see groups promoting murder, or thievery, or many other actions primarily considered sin in Christian culture, but you can't go a day without somebody suing for or promoting a protected class based on what some folks consider a sin.

How is that not going to get people mad enough to vent via posting?

What's worse is why, unless you have a vested interest, does it bother you so much.

If you really are just a crusader against hypocrisy, than you have plenty of other material to choose from. By making the issue single topic, you are presenting as a biased source.

If you are a biased source, maybe its your bias, or the extent that other people's bias affects you that needs addressing.

edit: For the record, I think its a sin, but I have more important things to worry about.

And if I bow up publically against it, its not because of the sin, its because someone has decided that I must feel different about it, under penalty of law.

That's [bleep] bullshit.

Seems people can answer for themselves when/if the day comes. Not my concern in the least, most especially if there are sammiches and pie available.

Peter best have a piece of pie ready when I hit them pearly gates.

I'm about ready for a sammich.

Or some squirrel and cornbread tamales, on a stick, if need be

and an ice cold beer.

Excellent post.

antlers,

Your posts suggest that you might have embraced the postmodern philosophy of the Emerging Church. IMO, while the Emerging Church movement does have important insights from which traditional Christianity can learn much (hypocrisy, like you point out, for example) the core philosophy of postmodernism is completely incompatible with the Gospel. Here is a very good book written by R. Scott Smith that examines this issue in considerable detail:

Truth and the New Kind of Christian: Effects of Postmodernism in the Church

IMO it would be worth your time to read it.

George, and the rare creature know as a libertarian minded Conservative atheist, I agree with your last two paragraphs. I do not agree with what I perceived as your contention in the OP that it's necessary to be Christian to stand for small government, self reliance, earning your own way, and as a nation, living withing our means. Unfortunately, history indicates a real crisis must present itself before we will be able to correct our course.

I think my signature line sums up my perspective on the OP...

The Bible I read shows all of the followers of Jesus, and the Old Testament followers of God as a bunch of screw ups.

Jesus said that he chose the base things of the world.

I don't know why anyone would expect the modern day followers to be any different than the originals...

I see my fellow Christians just as they are. Sick, twisted, messed up, jerks. I'm no exception. It's why I need a Savior.

I'm glad Jesus was up for the job although I think He deserves a lot better...

You may not be perfect, but you are better then that.

Antelope, no "that" was not my contention. I did specifically mention and do know that non-Christians can generally share the same socio-economic-political values as Christians; I.e., the ones you mention. Absolutely. Now, honestly, ask yourself about the origin of those values.

Not from the Bible if that's what you think.

Earliest OT text are dated to the 10th century CE, while the code of Hammurabi which quotes "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" dates to 1754 BCE.

The "golden rule" was know 2000 BCE in Egypt, and an equivalent is attributed to Buddhism, Confucianism, the Greeks, Romans, and the Hindu's back when they were still writing in Sanskrit.

Do you really think that before Moses brought down the 10 Commandments no one ever thought, "Hey maybe we shouldn't murder each other and take each others stuff"??

Really??

Of course not; Cain murdered Abel. And then there were many, many more murders before Moses (who murdered an Egyptian by the way) and the Ten Commandments.

It's easy to fail to see the big picture--why God revealed these Commandments to Moses and to the generations beyond. I'll help. They were not only rules to help the Israelites live an ordered life by but they were a moral basis that would act as a "mirror" revealing sin when one referred to them. In other words, when honestly contemplated ("if you've broken one, you've broken the whole law") it becomes apparent that no one can keep any one of them let alone all of them. How then can we be saved?!

Another example, if there is no speed limit sign and you are going 75 mph, are you speeding? No. If there is a sign that says "65 mph" and you are going 75, you are speeding, or in this case "sinning." The TCs revealed sin that was there before but not exposed.

They then help point the helpless-us-to another remedy for our predicament with God--Christ who pays the penalty for all our sin since we are doomed with no other way to please a just and holy God.

George, now you are conflating the legal with the ethical. Speeding is a matter of law. Driving in a manner that endangers another is unethical regardless of you being over or under the speed limit. The TC's revealed nothing. There is nothing in the TC, except the four "marketing commandments" that had not been codified by earlier peoples.

As for no one being able to keep any of the commandments, that's BS. How many people have you murdered?

I'll stop here because you obviously speak unknowingly. And that's not a criticism of you but we have no basis for conversing meaningfully.

In the NT, Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (the Gospels) made it very clear that if you hate your "brother," you've broken the commandment, "you shall not murder."

"If you lust after another "in your heart", you've committed adultery."

Still innocent?

Antelope, I'm willing to discuss if you are seriously interested in learning and coming to Christ but not if you are bent on refuting that which you don't understand.

Your version doesn't exactly match the King James:
Matthew:

5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Of course, that just goes to my earlier conversation with Ringman regarding how we don't REALLY know what was in the original Biblical Manuscripts.

As for your quote on adultery, it's a THOUGHT CRIME. George Orwell would be proud.

George, as I've said before, it's about the evidence, and the evidence does not support your contention regarding the Bible being the word of the one true God and the ultimate moral guide.

Somedays...

It depends on who you ask!

Those were paraphrases my good man that any orthodox Christian theologian would accept as reflecting the content of the expressed thought.

And, as to evidence, I could go on here with so much evidence that it would take me weeks to write it and you the same to read it..which is why I don't do that here. You, sir antelope, are very wrong and it seems to me due to circular reasoning--you have decided you won't believe it; therefore, it cannot be true.

But, none of this was the point of the OP.

George my friend, I'm not the on asserting the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true.

Despite the fact that we disagree on this one proposition, I believe we agree on many other.

Just remember, when November comes, do not vote for any Democrat for they have demonstrated they are not responsible enough to lead this country.

On the first point, I can give a book's worth of evidence....without going to the Bible.

On the second point, I agree, though I'm losing any confidence in government I may have once had.