Christian Reconstructionism...
-
Jim Crafton wrote: "Give unto Ceasar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" (or something to that affect). :confused: There is no mention of Ceasar in the bible.<Oh, I see there is mention of Caesar in the footnotes however> Perhaps you where thinking of this... "1 1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. 2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, 4 for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. 6 This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. ...." 1 [1-7] Paul must come to grips with the problem raised by a message that declares people free from the law. How are they to relate to Roman authority? The problem was exacerbated by the fact that imperial protocol was interwoven with devotion to various deities. Paul builds on the traditional instruction exhibited in Wisdom 6:1-3, according to which kings and magistrates rule by consent of God. From this perspective, then, believers who render obedience to the governing authorities are obeying the one who is highest in command. At the same time, it is recognized that Caesar has the responsibility to make just ordinances and to commend uprightness; cf Wisdom 6:4-21. That Caesar is not entitled to obedience when such obedience would nullify God's prior claim to the believers' moral decision becomes clear in the light of the following verses. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans13.htm[^] "Paul does not say here that all leaders are good or right. He says the KIND of authority is established by Go
JoeSox wrote: There is no mention of Ceasar in the bible. To the contrary, there are quite a few references: Mathew: Mt 22:17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Mt 22:18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Mt 22:19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, Mt 22:20 and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” Mt 22:21 “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Mark: Mk 12:14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Mk 12:15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” Mk 12:16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Mk 12:17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Luke: Lk 20:22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Lk 20:23 He saw through their duplicity and said to them, Lk 20:24 “Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?” Lk 20:25 “Caesar’s,” they replied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” There are another 10 or so references to Caesar in other contexts. John Carson "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote ... and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - John F. Kennedy
-
Let my try to explain some of this. Please note though, I am not a Christian, not a Jew. Ian Darling wrote: Wearing bells to church That was only for the High Priest when entering the Holy-of-Holies. Not for the common person. Ian Darling wrote: How to deal with your sister-in-law if your brother dies If you think about it, it's really not all that bad of an idea. It allow the persons lineage to be carried on. Ian Darling wrote: Punishing children for the parents lack of religious observation Your summary of this is incorrect. The idea was if a child were to curse his parents (not swear, but to curse them with witchcraft), they would be put to death. Think about this. If they were to curse their parents using witchcraft, they wouldn't be following God would they? Ian Darling wrote: How to deal with the owner of an animal that kills someone The bull must be killed. And if the owner has been told to put up his bull, but doesn't, he is put to death as well. Sounds fair to me. Ian Darling wrote: Damn, no more Black Pudding, or Big Macs Leviticus 3:17 This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood. Is eating blood such a good thing? As for fat, well, we commonly think of <<fat>> as gristle in cooked meat, but in that passage it means the uncooked, raw cartilage and other junk. Ian Darling wrote: No more cotton-polysester blends The meaning of that passage was simply tring to save people some work. What if people had to learn the hard way not to weave flax and wool? Ian Darling wrote: All those evangelists, preachers and pastors who's behaviour or attitude turned people away from God should be killed They would be teaching false stuff (i.e., lying). If you were a god, would you want people trying to turn your followers away? Ian Darling wrote: Man can't wear aprons, or cross dress - even for fun I didn't see anything about aprons in that passage. However, the idea for this passage is good. What would the world be like if all the guys dressed and looked like girls, and all the girls dressed and looked likes guys? Nasty thoughts run through my head. Ian Darling wrote: Would you want your daughter married to someone who rapes her?
Aaron Eldreth wrote: But, it would make a rapeist think twice before raping a girl. Wouldn't it? are you suggesting the victim has to marry and live with his torturer? :omg::omg::omg:
Il n'y a que deux puissances au monde, le sabre et l'esprit : à la longue, le sabre est toujours vaincu par l'esprit.
-
Roger Wright wrote: they don't want anyone as old and out of date as I am So that was why Rob Manderson had to leave. ;)
"if you vote me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" - Michael P. Butler.
-
JoeSox wrote: The overriding goal of Reconstructionism is the absolute control of the reigns of government so that the world may be properly prepared for Jesus's return, and that achieving this goal will demonstrate the fulfillment of God's will...." I'm curious... in what way is this philosophy different from the extremist Islamic philosophy that is the driving force behind current terrorist activity? They're waiting for the return of the twelfth imam, IIRC, but that's not really a fundamental difference. At the core, both movements want to replace rationality with irrationality. I have trouble visualizing either as a Good ThingTM. BTW, it's "reins" as in horses, not "reigns" as in kings...;P Also BTW, I looked into emigrating to Australia - they don't want anyone as old and out of date as I am. I don't qualify...:( Some people think of it as a six-pack; I consider it more of a support group.
-
"Christian Reconstructionism - The Foundation of Modern Conservativism By revscat Sat May 22nd, 2004 at 03:47:58 PM EST "He presses the crown rights of the Lord Jesus Christ in every sphere, expecting eventual triumph." Christian Reconstructionism is a little heard of religious philosophy that preaches that every aspect of society must come under biblical law. In their view, secular governments are in opposition to the word of God, and therefore they seek to eliminate all legal barriers between church and state. Founded in 1973 by R.J. Rushdoony, it has had wide influence in the modern Republican party. The overriding goal of Reconstructionism is the absolute control of the reigns of government so that the world may be properly prepared for Jesus's return, and that achieving this goal will demonstrate the fulfillment of God's will...." http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/21/13392/6893[^] Keep voting for those Reps and Dems. Oh YEAH!!! :sigh: What's the deal with Christian extremists??? I don't get it.:confused: So I am thinking Canada or Australia for my next home.:) Later, JoeSox ""Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
"Christian Reconstructionism - The Foundation of Modern Conservativism By revscat Sat May 22nd, 2004 at 03:47:58 PM EST "He presses the crown rights of the Lord Jesus Christ in every sphere, expecting eventual triumph." Christian Reconstructionism is a little heard of religious philosophy that preaches that every aspect of society must come under biblical law. In their view, secular governments are in opposition to the word of God, and therefore they seek to eliminate all legal barriers between church and state. Founded in 1973 by R.J. Rushdoony, it has had wide influence in the modern Republican party. The overriding goal of Reconstructionism is the absolute control of the reigns of government so that the world may be properly prepared for Jesus's return, and that achieving this goal will demonstrate the fulfillment of God's will...." http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/21/13392/6893[^] Keep voting for those Reps and Dems. Oh YEAH!!! :sigh: What's the deal with Christian extremists??? I don't get it.:confused: So I am thinking Canada or Australia for my next home.:) Later, JoeSox ""Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
The growing trend of (mostly religous) extremism in the US over recent years disturbs me. I remember one definition of a fanatic "You turn into what you fight against" :~ Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
There isn't any difference, except here its three guys with a web site. And they are having problems finding recruits...
Anonymous wrote: And they are having problems finding recruits [sarcasm]Surely not :omg:[/sarcasm] The tigress is here :-D
-
Let my try to explain some of this. Please note though, I am not a Christian, not a Jew. Ian Darling wrote: Wearing bells to church That was only for the High Priest when entering the Holy-of-Holies. Not for the common person. Ian Darling wrote: How to deal with your sister-in-law if your brother dies If you think about it, it's really not all that bad of an idea. It allow the persons lineage to be carried on. Ian Darling wrote: Punishing children for the parents lack of religious observation Your summary of this is incorrect. The idea was if a child were to curse his parents (not swear, but to curse them with witchcraft), they would be put to death. Think about this. If they were to curse their parents using witchcraft, they wouldn't be following God would they? Ian Darling wrote: How to deal with the owner of an animal that kills someone The bull must be killed. And if the owner has been told to put up his bull, but doesn't, he is put to death as well. Sounds fair to me. Ian Darling wrote: Damn, no more Black Pudding, or Big Macs Leviticus 3:17 This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood. Is eating blood such a good thing? As for fat, well, we commonly think of <<fat>> as gristle in cooked meat, but in that passage it means the uncooked, raw cartilage and other junk. Ian Darling wrote: No more cotton-polysester blends The meaning of that passage was simply tring to save people some work. What if people had to learn the hard way not to weave flax and wool? Ian Darling wrote: All those evangelists, preachers and pastors who's behaviour or attitude turned people away from God should be killed They would be teaching false stuff (i.e., lying). If you were a god, would you want people trying to turn your followers away? Ian Darling wrote: Man can't wear aprons, or cross dress - even for fun I didn't see anything about aprons in that passage. However, the idea for this passage is good. What would the world be like if all the guys dressed and looked like girls, and all the girls dressed and looked likes guys? Nasty thoughts run through my head. Ian Darling wrote: Would you want your daughter married to someone who rapes her?
Normally I don't bother getting involved with Biblical debates - especially Old Testament ones, but as Ian has already raised issues I'm very familiar with... Aaron Eldreth wrote: What would the world be like if all the guys dressed and looked like girls, and all the girls dressed and looked likes guys? Nasty thoughts run through my head. I don't see the problem. Gender expression changes fairly radically over time, and society adjusts to that. Compare fashions now with those prevalent in (say) 1550 and you'll see exactly what I mean. You might want to read DEUTERONOMY 22 verse 5 - A discussion[^], an extract of which follows: "The verse clearly prohibits cross-dressing, with women as the primary case, and men as the corollary. In itself this poses a major problem for our society since cross-dressing in masculine styled or male clothes is quite common in women, while the converse is rarer in men. It would be a brave person who stood up to condemn women in this way, so to attack men for the same thing seems unjust. There is no direct context to the verse, or to the two other verses on clothing in this chapter (on adding tassels to cloaks, and on not mixing wool and flax in the one garment). It seems likely that verse 5 might relate to the practice of ritual crossdressing and temple prostitution in Canaanite fertility religion (by implication that is - Lucian of Samosata and Eusebius write of masquerade in the worship of Astarte in context of this verse). There is some evidence that fertility worship across the known world followed similar patterns of cross-dressing. In the Mishne Torah of Rabbi Moses Maimonides Deuteronomy 22 v 5 is debated under the section dealing with idolatry. The reference to wool and flax in verse 11 may imply some idea of creation order, or it may be a health rule. Verse 12 may have something to do with separating the Israelites from the Canaanites by adopting dissimilar clothing styles. These interpretations are tentative. We simply do not know! Deuteronomy represents an early stage in God's progressive revelation. Later silence (except Matthew 6 v 28) may thus limit its force for today. The parallel in the case of eunuchs (the nearest equivalent to transsexuals?) is interesting. In Deuteronomy 23 v 1 they are excluded from the assembly. In Isaiah 56 vs 4, 5 they are promised a bles
-
That would be a scary prospect if we were not already living in a world in which the Secularists had successfully accomplished precisely the same goal.
Opps! not logged in. Hope everyone recognized my input! "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Roger Wright wrote: they don't want anyone as old and out of date as I am So that was why Rob Manderson had to leave. ;)
"if you vote me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" - Michael P. Butler.
:laugh::laugh::laugh: I'll tell him you said that, just in case he misses it...:-D Some people think of it as a six-pack; I consider it more of a support group.
-
The growing trend of (mostly religous) extremism in the US over recent years disturbs me. I remember one definition of a fanatic "You turn into what you fight against" :~ Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
'I remember one definition of a fanatic "You turn into what you fight against"' Maybe the secularist among us should take that warning to heart. I continue to be surprised that anyone would not expect this reaction from any community that has taken the sort of public beating that Christianity has over the last several decades. Of course they are going to become defensive. Of course they are going to react to actions takne against them. It is only natural. In the US at least Christianity does not have a history of this sort of behavior. It is only as they are driven out of every public sector that they now begin to turn and fight. Who the hell can blame them? "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
"Christian Reconstructionism - The Foundation of Modern Conservativism By revscat Sat May 22nd, 2004 at 03:47:58 PM EST "He presses the crown rights of the Lord Jesus Christ in every sphere, expecting eventual triumph." Christian Reconstructionism is a little heard of religious philosophy that preaches that every aspect of society must come under biblical law. In their view, secular governments are in opposition to the word of God, and therefore they seek to eliminate all legal barriers between church and state. Founded in 1973 by R.J. Rushdoony, it has had wide influence in the modern Republican party. The overriding goal of Reconstructionism is the absolute control of the reigns of government so that the world may be properly prepared for Jesus's return, and that achieving this goal will demonstrate the fulfillment of God's will...." http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/21/13392/6893[^] Keep voting for those Reps and Dems. Oh YEAH!!! :sigh: What's the deal with Christian extremists??? I don't get it.:confused: So I am thinking Canada or Australia for my next home.:) Later, JoeSox ""Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: it has had wide influence in the modern Republican party. Is there any proof of this?
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
JoeSox wrote: There is no mention of Ceasar in the bible. To the contrary, there are quite a few references: Mathew: Mt 22:17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Mt 22:18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Mt 22:19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, Mt 22:20 and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” Mt 22:21 “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Mark: Mk 12:14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Mk 12:15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” Mk 12:16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Mk 12:17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Luke: Lk 20:22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Lk 20:23 He saw through their duplicity and said to them, Lk 20:24 “Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?” Lk 20:25 “Caesar’s,” they replied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” There are another 10 or so references to Caesar in other contexts. John Carson "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote ... and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - John F. Kennedy
What Bible version is that? Mine was The New American version. Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
JoeSox wrote: There is no mention of Ceasar in the bible. To the contrary, there are quite a few references: Mathew: Mt 22:17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Mt 22:18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Mt 22:19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, Mt 22:20 and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” Mt 22:21 “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Mark: Mk 12:14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Mk 12:15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” Mk 12:16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Mk 12:17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Luke: Lk 20:22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Lk 20:23 He saw through their duplicity and said to them, Lk 20:24 “Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?” Lk 20:25 “Caesar’s,” they replied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” There are another 10 or so references to Caesar in other contexts. John Carson "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote ... and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - John F. Kennedy
My bad. Looks like this search engine let me down when I searched from "Caesar" http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/home.html[^] My NAB has the same passages. Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
Ian Darling wrote: and we have a good ratio of loonies to mostly sane people So which way does JoeSox tip the balance?? :-D Dave
DRHuff wrote: So which way does JoeSox tip the balance?? :rolleyes: :eek: Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
JoeSox wrote: it has had wide influence in the modern Republican party. Is there any proof of this?
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: Is there any proof of this? Did you read the conclusion of the article? Perhaps more research could be found asking/searching about the Representatives and Senators listed below. "Reconstructionists would be of less concern if it were not so widely influential in American political circles. Rep. Tom DeLay, Rep. Joseph R. Pitts, Rep. Ron Young, Sen. Sam Brownback, and others are all supporters of the Reconstructionist agenda. Pres. Bush's policies are more often than not in total synchrony with Reconstructionist desires, and he has been energetically embraced by them. Most of the current administration's policies can be tied together under a common thread when looked at as an execution of Reconstructionist thought, and this is truly frightening for Americans of all religious traditions." Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
What Bible version is that? Mine was The New American version. Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: What Bible version is that? New International Version (NIV). For finding such things I use the on-disk Zondervan Bible Study Library (it has lots of other versions besides the NIV --- how many depends on which edition of the library you get). http://www.zondervan.com/features/Software/biblestudylibrary/default.htm[^] John Carson "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote ... and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - John F. Kennedy
-
Aaron Eldreth wrote: Your summary of this is incorrect. The idea was if a child were to curse his parents (not swear, but to curse them with witchcraft), they would be put to death. Think about this. If they were to curse their parents using witchcraft, they wouldn't be following God would they? I think you got this confused with another point. So I'll reiterate. Under biblical law, if a male was not circumcised (and this is his parents responsibility), then he had to be punished through exile. As for my other points, there is a degree of tongue-in-cheekness going on (like my apron comment) - which also does try to interpret the law in the context of applying it to Western civilisation. You might also consider the needs to the transgendered (where's Anna when you want her?). Many people undergoing gender reassignment do exactly what that law opposes - present themselves to the world as their preferred/opposite sex, even if they haven't completed all their surgery. Nasty thoughts run through your head? Well, next time you see someone walking down the street - consider that it might be someone suffering from gender dysphoria - and are presenting themselves as the gender they wish to be, not the gender many would assume they are. Aaron Eldreth wrote: Would I personally like it? No. But, it would make a rapeist think twice before raping a girl. Wouldn't it? That is moronic on so many levels. Sorry - but it is. Given the tendency today for rapists frequently to be serial rapists, rapists in various regions of Africa to rape virgins because they think it will cure their AIDS, plus the existence of paedophilia, and other nonsense, that law is so undesirable, immoral (and results in some rapists getting multiple wives, and some even child brides), it doesn't bear thinking about. And no, it wouldn't make them think twice. So please go and reconsider your statement in light of the real world. It is evil and stupid.
Ian Darling wrote: Nasty thoughts run through your head? Well, next time you see someone walking down the street - consider that it might be someone suffering from gender dysphoria - and are presenting themselves as the gender they wish to be, not the gender many would assume they are. Thank you Ian. :rose: Anna :rose: Homepage | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
-
JoeSox wrote: What Bible version is that? New International Version (NIV). For finding such things I use the on-disk Zondervan Bible Study Library (it has lots of other versions besides the NIV --- how many depends on which edition of the library you get). http://www.zondervan.com/features/Software/biblestudylibrary/default.htm[^] John Carson "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote ... and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - John F. Kennedy
John Carson wrote: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote ... and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - John F. Kennedy :omg::omg::omg: </sarcasm>What a communist! Good thing he is still not alive or Bush would behead him!</sarcasm> :rolleyes: Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Is there any proof of this? Did you read the conclusion of the article? Perhaps more research could be found asking/searching about the Representatives and Senators listed below. "Reconstructionists would be of less concern if it were not so widely influential in American political circles. Rep. Tom DeLay, Rep. Joseph R. Pitts, Rep. Ron Young, Sen. Sam Brownback, and others are all supporters of the Reconstructionist agenda. Pres. Bush's policies are more often than not in total synchrony with Reconstructionist desires, and he has been energetically embraced by them. Most of the current administration's policies can be tied together under a common thread when looked at as an execution of Reconstructionist thought, and this is truly frightening for Americans of all religious traditions." Later, JoeSox "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
Granted, some politicians may favor Reconstructionism or whatever, but to say or imply that a majority of republicans subscribe to it does not sit well with me. Also, most Christians do think differently than non-christians so its not beyond the realm of possibility that Christians may govern in a way that reflects their values and beliefs. It may even seem like they are trying to change the world to suit their beliefs. But isn't that what everybody does that holds a position of power/influence? To tell you the truth, I would be much more frightened by someone without moral grounding trying to govern. But thats just my biased, right-wing, closed-minded, ignorant, homophobic, fanatical Christian opinion. :sigh:
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog