You said you were done debating me two days ago. And, unlike you, I never claimed to be speaking for God as to who was and wasn’t a “true Christian”. You, however, have. You have shown that you believe a “true Christian” is someone who believes just like you. I, however, only claim that it is my opinion, and my experience. I believe that anyone who remains true to the actuality of their faith without fanaticism or dogma, is true to their faith. You, however, believe that you are the arbiter of what is true and what is not. And, before you sit there and type out yet another claim that you are not, your very presence on this blog proselytizing has been based that your interpretation of the Bible is the only “correct” one.

Two days ago, you said you were done debating me, and yet you continue to try to debate this despite obliterating the basis of your argument several times so far.

I never said I was done debating with you. I was recently responding to Paula’s post linking everyone who believes the Bible (not picking and choosing and based on the intent of the writers and the confirmation given by the words of Jesus) to Pat Robertson. You have your own interpretation of “judge” and “hate”. So “true” christians to you are what you have decided they are. You have your own interpretation of “love”. It is by your own authority and what makes you feel good. You are guilty of what you charge others with. The GLBT is who is doing the shoving and you have decided your own “holy” law should prevail.

You have gone back on your word. You said you were done debating with me. Apparently winning this argument despite having now twice admitted that everything you write here is based upon your beliefs, your opinions, and your interpretation of a text that has been so rewritten and so twisted over the centuries it would be incomprehensible to the people who originally wrote it down is more important to you than realizing that, in admitting that this is nothing more than your opinion of what God supposedly wrote, that you lost this debate a long time ago. Grieved, I have used your words against you, and you have tried to “clarify” your position, as in, you have tried to get the heck out of what you wrote so it didn’t sound like you were losing.

Incidentally, when I talk about “true Christians”, I mean people who live their lives by the heart of the Bible. They do not judge, they do not hate, they do not preach. They live their life in accordance to the heart and soul of what Jesus Christ said. They even admit that the Bible is not the word of God because humans have messed with it too much. There is an aura of calm around them that comes with true belief, and true practice. Many who claim to be “true” Christians are far from it. Instead, they have an aura of corruption around them. These are the ones, like you, who are so wrapped up in the belief that a book is the word of God and that it is your sacred duty to shove it down every single person’s throat whether they like it or not even if it means getting the legislature to enact Holy Law as Secular Law.

We shall believe God rather than man.

Take care.

Paula,

I’m sure everyone in your camp you completely agree with, but this Robertson guy. I don’t know about that guy. Whenever I have heard his name brought up, I observe “christians” distancing themselves from him.
And, it is rather you who pervert the Bible. I’m sorry you got jipped in your doctorate. It would be better if you did not try to use the Bible to justify yourself. I cannot do it honestly and neither can you. The Bible justifies no one, except God. You are no better than me.
I hope the best for you and your daughters. I’m sorry you are so full of hate. You may blame others but you really have mostly yourself to blame. Just like the rest of us.

There was a time when the religion of this nation stated that those who were Catholic could not be considered full citizens and had to marry in an Anglican Church or not be married at all. There was a time in this nation when the majority of people claimed that those of color were to be denied all their rights, including marriage and education.

Imposing my religion requires that I require you to marry someone who is the same sex as you. Imposing your religion upon me means denying me my right to marry someone of the same sex as me. You do not grasp that. I am not asking that you marry someone you do not like, love or feel attracted to, but you are demanding that I do so in order to be considered equal to you.

You said that you were done debating me. You have now gone back on your word. You are trying to back out of your arguments regarding how the laws in this nation should be written. You wish to continue to debate me, but what you want from me is that I submit to your point of view. I, on the other hand, do not care what you believe, only that you keep your word about not coming back.

I’m looked for my use of the word “inform”. Can you please locate it for me and then I’ll clarify my intent.
“But it should be free to instruct in the truth and warn of the dangers otherwise.” I said this.

What do you call yourself in joint efforts with others to pass legislation that’s against the will of many people? You are trying to impose your “religion” on others. But you should get a pass?

I thought you were done with arguing with me? I have not twisted your words, nor your statements. You have made those arguments, and then tried to say that you did not mean them the way you said them. I did not ignore your definition of theocracy, but held your argument to that very definition. You stated that you wanted our laws to be “informed” by religion. What you failed to grasp is that is part of the definition of theocracy. You tried to weasel out of your own arguments. You stated that only God knows who “true Christians” are, but have presented your own arguments as if they were the Word of God, and not your interpretations of the Bible. I did not err in my summation of your arguments, Grieved, you just do not want to come off as a theocrat.

You will, of course, try to come back and say that I am twisting your words again. I am not. I am taking your arguments to their logical conclusions. Something that you are not.

Grieved, you lost this argument, and it is useless to try and continue it. If you have not figured this out, I am sorry. The moment that you opened your own argument up to being dismissed as being nothing more than your own opinion, you lost the argument. Even your argument about how this society is turning away from God is erroneous because it is based solely upon your belief of what God should be, and what worship of God should look like. That makes you a theocrat as well, incidentally. That is, if you understood theocracy beyond a dictionary definition.

I have not been unfair to you. I have been direct, honest, and absolute. You are the one trying to get out of the argument that he has presented as if there was no argument against it.

You have clearly misunderstood what I have presented. I am going to assume you are not trying to intentionally error in your summations of my points.

God only truly knows who loves Him, according to how He has defined love, not according to public opinion. However, he has given us a conscience and many witnesses (His created order , historical events, among others) to help point us to the Truth. My argument was a rebuttal to your statement that you know who the “real christians” are. Again, semantics (how words are interpreted by those hearing them and how it differs from those presenting it) come into play.

You have repeatedly reworded what I have said and consider yourself the authority for the conclusions you have come up with. You have the right to your opinion as to interpretation of the evidence, but that in no way makes you an authority. You should give people a little more benefit of the doubt.

You claim to be interested only in “facts”, yet you have demonstrated that you, as everyone, has a bias and your views are colored by it. Admitting is the first step towards being honest. (in my opinion.)

I gave a definition of theocracy that you appear to have ignored. I do not agree with establishing a theocracy.
I have intended to communicate rather the responsibility of the people to say and argue for what is true and reasonable.

You have used emotion-based arguments to “defend it from people trying to impose their religious beliefs via this site.” rather than sound reasoning.

I understand the case in point, reasonably well I think. I understand what has led up to the position of certain courts. There are fundamental problems and it’s a result of many different factors, all relating to rebellion against and God and love of self rather than love of others. All which is relevant to this case. I think, as do others.

You’ll likely write another long post stating your version of what I’ve stated. Hopefully, there are people out there that will not just take your side of things and see that you indeed have restated certain things unfairly at best.

We have not stopped anyone from posting on this forum, other than one person who made some very rude comments, and they were simply deleted. Most mainstream sites have shut down comments or blocked most of the small hit squad from posting any more because they are simply spreading slander and libel. We have countered every single point made by that little hit squad across more than a week and several posts.

You have destroyed your own arguments. You have stated that your version of Christianity is the only true one. You have talked over and over again about the Truth, and yet, you admit that you do not know what the Truth is since only God knows what the Truth is, and who true Christians are. Thus, your own arguments are based solely upon your beliefs, and not upon the beliefs of God. After all, you said “God only can say who is a real Christian.” This also means that God is the only one who can determine the Truth, and that you do not know if the version of the Bible you have is even the one that God would view as being accurate. In point of fact, your version of Christianity could be completely wrong, and the versions which support the LGBT Community could be absolutely right.

You have argued for theocracy, since you feel that our laws should be “informed” by churches. Find even one hundred people who can agree on what the law should be, and then tell me how you are not arguing that, by having our laws “informed” by religion, you are not arguing that the churches should have a stronger voice than the people. You cannot even find a hundred different religions that can agree on what the law should be. And now you talk about Judeo-Christian ethic…really? What a made up term. Incidentally, the laws that protect me and you today are not based upon Judeo-Christian ethics or laws. They are based upon Anglo-Saxon common law, which was passed down via the English. Many of our laws, including many regarding trial by jury, date back to pre-Christian Europe. Laws regarding murder, theft, rape, and most physical crimes have existed in our culture longer than the worship of Christ. Only the moralistic laws come from the Bible.

You quoted from the Bible, of course always leaving out which version of the Bible you were discussing. You also tried to say that version of Christianity understood by my minister aunt is wrong.

And, this is my site, Grieved, or did you ever notice that. It is not up to me to stop, but it is up to you. I am defending my site from a person trying to impose their religious beliefs upon other religions through my site. Indeed, I have an obligation to defend them from attacks made via my site. I do not like deleting or banning people; however, if you want me to, just tell me to ban you, and you can go ahead and make yet another profile since it seems you had do to that for some reason no related to any actions of this site.

Grieved, you are trying to get the last word here. This is my- and others’- site. I will continue to defend it from people trying to impose their religious beliefs via this site.

I did not mean solely, but that there is a responsibility to remind government of it’s responsibility to protect the people.

The laws that protect you today (for the most part) are given by a Judeo-Christian ethic.

And I have wanted to end the conversation, but you keep trying to get one over on me and I guess we both think we need the final say.

Guess you’ll have to do whatcha gotta do.

I think you argue like a bad lawyer.

Only God knows are “real” christians. He knows their heart.
We can know His Truth, though. He has given it to all. Whether we embrace it fully or not.
This is where we get caught in semantics.
Based on your conclusions and leaning on your own opinions and interpretations, it’s strange that you should say you can tell who real christians are.

All the laws and the prophets hang on them.

Loving God is loving His Word. Loving what he loves. Loving who He is. Truly.
Not who we make him out to be. This is idolatry.

Be careful. Loving your neighbor means warning
her and pointing to the Truth.

That is what you argued. You argued that our laws should be “informed” by the Church. Well, the Church is regarded as divinely guided, is it not? And, I am not a lawyer.

And, I thought you were done for the day. You thanked me for the discussion. Of course, if you do want me to end this discussion, I could always ban you or shove you over to spam. I’d rather not though.

You have stated and implied that your version of Christianity is the only version of Christianity and thus that you and yours are the only true Christians. You just admitted that you are wrong, and that only God can say who a real Christian is. Thus, all the religious underpinnings of your arguments are proven false as any other Christian denomination could be the one that God feels is true. It could also be that God sees only Judaism or Islam as being the only true faith. Your arguments are now proven to only be your own and not based upon anything more than your interpretation of the Bible, and not upon what God actually said.

Thank you for coming back to allow me to wrap this up. You don’t have an argument, and you have now just admitted it.

“that the government should be governed by officials who are regarded as divinely guided”

I did not say this nor argue for it. You are not a good lawyer.

I did not say money lending is a sin.

Regarding the bible translation, is that the one the “real Christians” put out? Or maybe Paula’s translation?

A considered to be liberal text reads in Genesis
“Ge 9:15 and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Mt 22:36 `Teacher, which is the great command in the Law?’
Mt 22:37 And Jesus said to him, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding–
Mt 22:38 this is a first and great command;
Mt 22:39 and the second is like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;
Mt 22:40 on these–the two commands–all the law and the prophets do hang.’

I can be done for today. Thanks for the discourse.

And, given your anti-Capitalist streak, wouldn’t you rather move to China?

Statistically, few abortions are done for the cases you mentioned than the many, many more done for convenience and birth control. Your complex issue is the one the money-making abortion industry wants to inflate.

BTW, thank you for making my point!

So you are the determiner of “real Christians”?

Wow.

Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state’s supreme civil ruler,[1] or in a higher sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.[2] In Common Greek, “theocracy” means a rule [kra′tos] by God [the.os′]. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government.[3] Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws.

I am not a theocrat.

Natural Law does not show mothers sacrificing children.

And, Grieved, at this point, we’re battling over who will have the last word in this. Since I have all day, I can just continue to counter your points until the cows come home.

Perhaps you’d prefer the Peoples Republic of China?

But they do need comfort.
You make christians out to be really bad people. it’s not fair, really.

The issue of abortion is incredibly complex, and involves a lot of women having to deal with malformed feotuses which usually have no chance to survive passed birth.

Of course, for a person like you, those deformed feotuses should be born so that their parents can see and feel every last ounce of pain that they can. After all, suffering is good for the soul.

And, of course, why should I not throw out derogatory terms. After all, terms like gay, lesbian, and transsexual are derogatory in the mouths and fingers of people like you.

Oh, and you did not say that specifically, you implied it with your word “butchered”. You made a blanket statement regarding a very complex issue.

I did not say what you are saying I said. You brought up the doctors, but you won’t put innocent babies on the level as the doctors.

You use arguments like you say the “christians do. You put words in peoples mouths and hear only what you want.

You try to make people look the worst and throw out derogatory terms.

Well, I should not expect less.

That is what you said.

Money lending is a sin, it should be banned, thus the bank was wrong when they lent her the money for the truck. This means that she should keep her truck because the bank was wrong in lending her the money. Since money lending is wrong, she should not have to repay that money. That’s the logic you’re applying to the Miller/Jenkins case, not me.

Of course, since you said “I don’t know what to say”, might I suggest that you say nothing? It would free up my afternoon from sitting here correcting you and joking with Paula.

How can you say something I did not say. Because I said what’s wrong with banning the lending of money?
If this is how you ladies do your history education, I don’t know what to say.

Even one murdered doctor no matter what is wrong. Taking a life is wrong, is that not what the Bible says? But a theocrat like yourself doesn’t really mind if a person is murdered in the name of God, now do they. So what if even the innocent are murdered? I know one case of a doctor who was murdered for providing abortions even though he provided no such services. Fanatics like you do not care who dies in the name of your Crusade.

Sei said it wasn’t a theocracy but you say it was?

I don’t know how many doctors have been murdered. I don’t think all that many though. Do you have a number?

Have many babies have been butchered for MONEY? MILLIONS!

How many mothers that killed their babies suffered as a result? We’ll never know.

Whose more interested in life? Whose more interested in money?

Based upon those statements, I would like to point out that the early Church actually debated whether or not to allow marriage rights to exist, and that, had they not allowed marriage, children, etc, Christianity would never have continued to exist. What you are also arguing is that you should not be near a computer, and that you should be living as a hermit denying yourself all worldly goods, or be a monk in a monastery. I presume that you are not, and that means that you are not living according to God’s Will.

How many gays and lesbians were there trying to get in?

I’m not really familiar with Liberty University. What I understand is that no one knows where Miller is.

Jesus said you must deny yourself. That’s to all, not just the homosexual. We are all born in sin. He doesn’t say “stay as you are”. He desires to save us, from ourselves and the lies we believe. There is an enemy of souls. Because we are self-worshipers and not God worshipers, we may not see the blessings of one man one woman. It is in many ways more self-fulfilling to be gay. It is not unselfish to be gay. It’s more about having ones needs met, than about serving God. The “brainwashers” you call them don’t want people to be apart from God, as he warns all who stay as they are (not just the homosexual)
Remember, the enemy wants you to stay comfortable where you are, and will make it very difficult if you try to leave his kingdom. And there are continual assaults. That’s the world we live in.

There is no difference. The only difference is the one that people like you claim. After all, how many doctors have been murdered because of your Christian Theocratic Crusade to impose a ban on abortions?

Even the Founders admitted that the world would change, and that our understanding of the world would change. That is why the Constitution was written as a flexible document. Remember, at the time they also believed that Blacks were ignorant, smelly savages who were good for nothing more than slaves, and that the Native Americans should be eradicated. Yeah, homosexuality was illegal then, but so was teaching Blacks how to read. Women could not work outside the house, and women had no rights either. Only rich white men were allowed to vote. Instead of enshrining all of those social beliefs into the Constitution, they made a document that would grow with the social attitudes of this nation. What you and this moron Barton are arguing is that the Constitution is a flawed document intended to enshrine a belief set that this nation has long ago moved away from.

Grieved, you are advocating that the church should instruct the government about how to write its laws. That the priests should tell the politicians how to write the laws. That is Iranian theocracy for you.

Oh, and Grieved, neither the United States nor the Colonial governments ever sent out a military detachment in order to turn back a wave of gays and lesbians the way that they did to the theocratical Puritans at the border of Maryland. Who do you think they were more afraid of?

If you really understood the differences between radical (orthodox) Islam, and Biblical Christianity you would not say such things.

Sei, Barton would say a lot of what you say. And yet you come to different conclusions.

Homosexuality was against the law then. And the people then, the supermajority, would agree that you are more dangerous to our country than someone defending what the Bible says. It’s also a historical document. And people like you twist it and then claim others do the same.
The church should not run the state. But it should be free to instruct in the truth and warn of the dangers otherwise. I think you should consider studying from a different preconceived idea than what you have.

Is that not the danger that Janet Jenkins faces by allowing her daughter to be raised by that closed group of people at Liberty University in Lynchburg? Did you not actually think that your own argument would be thrown right back at you? This is about a group of people who do not like this ruling and are determined to break the law. You talk about destructive behaviors, and yet, for a well adjusted gay or lesbian, there is no destructive behavior. The destructive behaviors only occur when we try to deny how God made us and hide who we are. Which is what Lisa Miller did repeatedly. She tried to commit suicide. Heaven knows what kind of mental state she is in now thanks to the brainwashing of people like you who believe that we should deny the way God made us.

“You are debauched by your worst in the darkness while we make love to our best in the light.”

I do not think “evangelical should be allowed to break laws they don’t like”.

I never said that. It’s not about “like”.

If a court ruled you to turn over your daughters to, well, someone else who had a claim on them. (Say the courts said they did.) And you thought they’d be in danger because of brainwashing, influenced by destructive behaviors..you would do it? You will have to say you would do it.
Well, I think for you to not even blink when you answer, will be a bit alarming. But then you’d say, well..I wouldn’t have kept them from court ordered visits. Even if you thought they were in danger? Wow. Okay. Well, moms think differently from others, I guess.

Grieved, Barton is not restoring anything that was removed. He is attempting to replace his opinion for the facts of the past. Thank you, but I’ve spent my life studying history. No, not just history textbooks like you and Mr. Barton, but original documents, the surrounding documents, and just about everything I can. What was agreed upon at the time was that people like you are dangerous to this nation. After all, even the Puritans found it hard to impose religious conformity in this nation. I’ve read many of those textbooks you claim he is trying to restore the understanding of. Many of them were quite clear about the separation of church and state, and that it was intended to make sure that this nation had a secular government. Only in the South, where religious institutions bought the votes of many a politician was it taught that Christian morality had to back up the laws which were being passed by our government. Even our Founders did not want that, and there was a lot of information published about it. They looked to the Enlightenment philosophers for their information and to inform them. They did not look to the Bible.

I would say you are at least as distorted and self interested as the next person and you’ve made yourself to be an authority. Sorry you don’t like Barton. There’s much history that has been removed from textbooks in the last, well, 60 years? He’s just trying to bring it to light. His agenda is getting out the “facts” (you guys say you are interested in those) that are not commonly seen or presented because of the current bias in the government/culture.

“historical context aligned with the truth”.

It’s not who’s.

Truth is objective, not subjective.

Historical context is what was agreed at the time in history.

You’re right. If it came to preference, we would not all agree..completely.