-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
J
Somewhere in Moscow I believe.
"Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values. Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation."
K
Somewhere in Moscow I believe.
It says nothing about religious groups not having their say in government.
V
In is in the bill of rights rather you like it or not...................
It says nothing about religious groups not having their say in government.
Actually it does which is why the laws in our country are said to have to support all who live here, and not to be toward the beliefs of just one religious group....
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Now, you tell me -- which of those phrases prevents people of faith from having a voice in government? You do know the definition of "establishment," right? You do know the definition of "prohibiting" particularly as it relates to the phrase "free exercise thereof"?
And given the right to freedom of speech in the next clause of the Amendment, it is clear that no one is meant to be silenced before the government. The government, however, is clearly excluded form having any role or say in faith.
Last edited:
J
As I said, no.
You're wrong, Ken. Here is the entire text, word for word, of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Now, you tell me -- which of those phrases prevents people of faith from having a voice in government?
You're wrong, Ken. Here is the entire text, word for word, of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Now, you tell me -- which of those phrases prevents people of faith from having a voice in government?
V
The entire dispute at the time of the creation of the Constitution involved government not mandating any religion, to avoid the abuses of Europe, was not about banning Jesus Christ from the public square, which is, actually, barring the free exercise of faith.
E
Not just unborn children in the USA, Solid.
In the Old Testament, God apparently commanded the Israelites to slaughter heaps of actual children and babies.
In the Old Testament, God apparently commanded the Israelites to slaughter heaps of actual children and babies.
sin, is infectious and no one can repent for another
you are simply pointing out the condition of the unregenerate
now , things really do deserve a better explanation and of course there is one
but I thought I would match my answer with your attempt at making God seem worse then the devil
K
As I said, no.
You're wrong, Ken. Here is the entire text, word for word, of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Now, you tell me -- which of those phrases prevents people of faith from having a voice in government? You do know the definition of "establishment," right? You do know the definition of "prohibiting" particularly as it relates to the phrase "free exercise thereof"?
And given the right to freedom of speech in the next clause of the Amendment, it is clear that no one is meant to be silenced before the government. The government, however, is clearly excluded form having any role or say in faith.
You're wrong, Ken. Here is the entire text, word for word, of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Now, you tell me -- which of those phrases prevents people of faith from having a voice in government? You do know the definition of "establishment," right? You do know the definition of "prohibiting" particularly as it relates to the phrase "free exercise thereof"?
And given the right to freedom of speech in the next clause of the Amendment, it is clear that no one is meant to be silenced before the government. The government, however, is clearly excluded form having any role or say in faith.
(The laws can not be based on respecting only the rights of one religious group, that is what the above is saying)
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
(And here it is saying that the government can not interfere with how they run their religious establishments/churches.)
Nowhere did I say it prohibits people from a faith to have a voice in government, that is your words not mine.
What I said is the Separation of Church and State bill prohibits the government from making all of its laws based on just one religious group. This bill makes are laws to support everybody that lives here !!!
So you are using a straw man argument because I know where said we can not speak up for our rights in government, just that it prevents government from basing laws just on our beliefs alone as there are other religious groups and beliefs in this country and the laws have to support them as well by this bill.....
K
The entire dispute at the time of the creation of the Constitution involved government not mandating any religion, to avoid the abuses of Europe, was not about banning Jesus Christ from the public square, which is, actually, barring the free exercise of faith.
You are completely right here as V.W. was stating things I never said !!!
The bill of separating church and state does not prohibit us to be able to speak for our religious rights, but what it does do is prevent the government from basing all its laws to support only one religious group and also to prevent government from interfering in those religious establishments/churches......
M
In the land of the Left, homosexuality trumps anything Black.
M
The laws in a republic are supposed to reflect the moral precepts of the society, as a society we have the right to decide what is moral and good for our society. With this latest ruling, that right has been taken from the people and put into the hands of wicked men and women who have no bases for what is moral, except what their sexual lust tells them.
E
Yes because the civil rights movement was based on the morality of Christ...anyone who knows Christ could make a sound biblical defense of the equality of the races under Christ...but this sexual perversion has attached itself to the civil rights movement and only brings shame upon all morality.
it goes way deeper than that.. way deeper.
people did not just wake up one day and decide to be gay, so I can make it a race issue It comes from things far deeper than that.
V
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
(The laws can not be based on respecting only the rights of one religious group, that is what the above is saying)
(The laws can not be based on respecting only the rights of one religious group, that is what the above is saying)
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
(And here it is saying that the government can not interfere with how they run their religious establishments/churches.)
(And here it is saying that the government can not interfere with how they run their religious establishments/churches.)
Nowhere did I say it prohibits people from a faith to have a voice in government, that is your words not mine.
It says nothing about religious groups not having their say in government.
Actually it does which is why the laws in our country are said to have to support all who live here, and not to be toward the beliefs of just one religious group....
M
it goes way deeper than that.. way deeper.
people did not just wake up one day and decide to be gay, so I can make it a race issue It comes from things far deeper than that.
E
We all have sexual desires and must decide and restrain ourselves as we mature into adults...Im not without compassion for those who have these types of ungodly desires...we all should understand the weaknesses of our sinful flesh? But we do not approve it anymore than we approve lying, cheating, murder, rape, incest, adultery etc... and we do not improve our society by allowing sexual perverts to impose their perversions on the rest of us in the name of civil rights.
But jesus did not go around judging, he went to save them and show them love,
the bible thumpers think they have a right to judge. I judge a person who is living in homosexual sin no more than a judge a heterosexual couple living out of wedlock, both are sexual sins.
Then again, I am not without sin, so I can not cast stones.
Our supreme court made a law against the constitutuion (they had no power to do so) and this law is wrong. but it is not going to cause God to judge our nation. Again, we are doing enough of that ourselves.
M
I agree, and your right,
But jesus did not go around judging, he went to save them and show them love,
the bible thumpers think they have a right to judge. I judge a person who is living in homosexual sin no more than a judge a heterosexual couple living out of wedlock, both are sexual sins.
Then again, I am not without sin, so I can not cast stones.
Our supreme court made a law against the constitutuion (they had no power to do so) and this law is wrong. but it is not going to cause God to judge our nation. Again, we are doing enough of that ourselves.
But jesus did not go around judging, he went to save them and show them love,
the bible thumpers think they have a right to judge. I judge a person who is living in homosexual sin no more than a judge a heterosexual couple living out of wedlock, both are sexual sins.
Then again, I am not without sin, so I can not cast stones.
Our supreme court made a law against the constitutuion (they had no power to do so) and this law is wrong. but it is not going to cause God to judge our nation. Again, we are doing enough of that ourselves.
K
That's absolutely laughable. You're rewriting the Amendment. The definition of the word is "with reference or regards to" and in this case, that relates to the establishment of religion. No Court has ever assumed the ridiculous length you have gone to in order to justify your erroneous statement earlier. Clearly the intent is to prevent Congress from interfering in religious matters, and in no way puts up a similar barrier to people of faith having a voice in government.
Well, at least you got that part right. But it is not a separate thought from the first. It is a continuation of the Establishment Clause barring Congressional interference.
Nope. They're you're words:
Go ahead. Make something up to explain away the obvious statement you made claiming the First denies religious groups a voice in government. I'm sure you can come up with something in less than ten minutes.[/COLOR]
Well, at least you got that part right. But it is not a separate thought from the first. It is a continuation of the Establishment Clause barring Congressional interference.
Nope. They're you're words:
Go ahead. Make something up to explain away the obvious statement you made claiming the First denies religious groups a voice in government. I'm sure you can come up with something in less than ten minutes.[/COLOR]
Shakes head at the continuous attempt to pass faulty accusations against me............Bearing false witness on a member of the brethren, wow it never stops with you............................Good bye false accuser !!!
E
Its not wrong to call sin...sin
Its wrong to judge and condemn others as if we have no sin that but for the grace of Christ would have condemned us. As believers in Christ we are called to abhor what is evil and cling to what is good...we are called at times to reprove the darkness and to make evident what is light. But I understand what your saying about folks who seem to love to hate and condemn.
yeah, I meant we do not go to a person and judge them, that is different than saying you believe somethign is a sin to the general population. if the ones who do that sin are offended, that is on them, not you, your just stating you opinion with no personal judgment.
now if you are like some people i know and say a person doing a particular sin can never be saved UNTIL they stop. then your a bible thumper and I am against you, because someone needs to be spiritually healed first, before they can even have the capacity to be healed from sin issues.
S
This Nation has grown strong because it has upheld the morality and truth of Christ. We have now become like Sodom and the righteous are vexed in their souls, just as Lot was.