-
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.
S
Actually that is a common misconception. The words under God were not added to the pledge until 1954 to combat communism. "In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." And here is the source The Pledge of Allegiance. The whole source is interesting and worth reading,but this part is what is relevant.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." And here is the source The Pledge of Allegiance. The whole source is interesting and worth reading,but this part is what is relevant.
T
Sorry, sometimes I even forget I'm using cyberspeak.
WRT = With Regards To
IOW = In Other Words
Others you may see:
IMHO = In My Humble Opinion
FWIW = For What It's Worth
(I don't use this one so often, but I've seen it): AMMV: Actual Mileage May Vary, implying that just because it works for me doesn't mean it will work for you. Kind of a, "At least that's what I think" comment.
WRT = With Regards To
IOW = In Other Words
Others you may see:
IMHO = In My Humble Opinion
FWIW = For What It's Worth
(I don't use this one so often, but I've seen it): AMMV: Actual Mileage May Vary, implying that just because it works for me doesn't mean it will work for you. Kind of a, "At least that's what I think" comment.
T
Yes.
Let me rephrase: if you want to have a discussion with those of other faiths, then yes.
And if you are asking to determine federal laws in this nation, then yes.
If you don't care to speak to anyone who isn't a Christian, then you can appeal to any ethical theories you wish.
And if you live in a nation that does not have a constitutional protection of religious freedom, and/or if you don't care how moral or immoral your government is, then Christian ethics are fine.
But if you live in the US (or any other country that protects religious freedom constitutionally), and you are speaking of that country's laws and morality, then you need to turn to secular ethics, yes.
Let me rephrase: if you want to have a discussion with those of other faiths, then yes.
And if you are asking to determine federal laws in this nation, then yes.
If you don't care to speak to anyone who isn't a Christian, then you can appeal to any ethical theories you wish.
And if you live in a nation that does not have a constitutional protection of religious freedom, and/or if you don't care how moral or immoral your government is, then Christian ethics are fine.
But if you live in the US (or any other country that protects religious freedom constitutionally), and you are speaking of that country's laws and morality, then you need to turn to secular ethics, yes.
T
Neither.
An example of "picking and choosing:" I read some Scripture and say, "Wow, a literal interpretation of this passage makes God out to be nasty, vindictive, and hateful. The God whom I worship and love is neither nasty, vindictive, nor hateful. A literal reading of this contradicts what the Gospels say about God. Therefore, either the Gospel is wrong, or this passage should not be taken literally. I choose b."
There are other examples; you seem intelligent enough to extrapolate from this.
Every person does the above whenever they read or hear Scripture. They must balance what they read about God, as it is written in a book, with what they know about God, as it is written on their hearts.
A fool says that God never writes different things on different people's hearts.
As far as how the phrase is usually used, in Missouri or in any other part of the planet which I have visited either in person or in cyberspace, most non-liberal Christian think it's the first definition you offered.
We "liberal Christians" are often accused of ignoring Scripture just because we don't like it. My point in the above is that this is incorrect on two points.
First of all, just because we reject one particular interpretation of Scripture doesn't mean we "ignore" it. On the contrary, before we come to any decision regarding a passage, we must study it, not just discard it.
Secondly, if we do reject an interpretation, it isn't because it conflicts with our own personal opinions, but it is because it conflicts with what we already know about God.
Are there Christians who say, "Oh, I don't like that passage, so I'm just going to ignore it"? Of course. This is neither liberal Christianity nor conservative Christianity. This is lazy Christianity. And there are just as many lazy Christians among the conservatives as the liberals.
An example of "picking and choosing:" I read some Scripture and say, "Wow, a literal interpretation of this passage makes God out to be nasty, vindictive, and hateful. The God whom I worship and love is neither nasty, vindictive, nor hateful. A literal reading of this contradicts what the Gospels say about God. Therefore, either the Gospel is wrong, or this passage should not be taken literally. I choose b."
There are other examples; you seem intelligent enough to extrapolate from this.
Every person does the above whenever they read or hear Scripture. They must balance what they read about God, as it is written in a book, with what they know about God, as it is written on their hearts.
A fool says that God never writes different things on different people's hearts.
As far as how the phrase is usually used, in Missouri or in any other part of the planet which I have visited either in person or in cyberspace, most non-liberal Christian think it's the first definition you offered.
We "liberal Christians" are often accused of ignoring Scripture just because we don't like it. My point in the above is that this is incorrect on two points.
First of all, just because we reject one particular interpretation of Scripture doesn't mean we "ignore" it. On the contrary, before we come to any decision regarding a passage, we must study it, not just discard it.
Secondly, if we do reject an interpretation, it isn't because it conflicts with our own personal opinions, but it is because it conflicts with what we already know about God.
Are there Christians who say, "Oh, I don't like that passage, so I'm just going to ignore it"? Of course. This is neither liberal Christianity nor conservative Christianity. This is lazy Christianity. And there are just as many lazy Christians among the conservatives as the liberals.
T
It is not clear at all. We have been through this before. You have your interpretation of Scripture, including the part you posted, which leads you to believe that Homosexuality is a sin.
Many devout Christians -- with far more biblical study than you or I have -- interpret Scripture differently. Some of these interpretations of the same exact passage indicate that homosexuality, as we understand it today, is not a sin. Some of them indicate that it is a sin, but no worse than, say, the sin of gluttony. So no, what you posit above is NOT clear.
What IS clear from Scripture is that we are not to be worried about other people's sins, but our own.
If you believe homosexuality is a sin, then fine, don't be homosexual.
Jimmydiggs has been good about not simply saying, "I'm right, you're wrong" in this. And I appreciate that.
I wish the rest on that side of the debate could do the same.
Many devout Christians -- with far more biblical study than you or I have -- interpret Scripture differently. Some of these interpretations of the same exact passage indicate that homosexuality, as we understand it today, is not a sin. Some of them indicate that it is a sin, but no worse than, say, the sin of gluttony. So no, what you posit above is NOT clear.
What IS clear from Scripture is that we are not to be worried about other people's sins, but our own.
If you believe homosexuality is a sin, then fine, don't be homosexual.
Jimmydiggs has been good about not simply saying, "I'm right, you're wrong" in this. And I appreciate that.
I wish the rest on that side of the debate could do the same.
T
In the US and any other country that has separation of Church and State, absolutely! Anything else is unconstitutional.
In the US and any other country that has separation of Church and State, absolutely! Anything else is unconstitutional.
There may be, but both are banned by the US constitution.
Every issue, as you said, is moral. So yes, every political view I have (whether it is abortion, taxes, or murder), I come at it from my personal religious belief.
But I am against any law that is based ONLY on a religious view. Every moral law in this nation must be secular. I may embrace it or deny it based on my religious view, but the law itself must be secular.
Example: Murder is wrong. This is a Christian value. It is also a secular value. I seek to end murder, because of my faith in Jesus. However, I support the US law against murder because it is a secular value.
In the US and any other country that has separation of Church and State, absolutely! Anything else is unconstitutional.
There may be, but both are banned by the US constitution.
Every issue, as you said, is moral. So yes, every political view I have (whether it is abortion, taxes, or murder), I come at it from my personal religious belief.
But I am against any law that is based ONLY on a religious view. Every moral law in this nation must be secular. I may embrace it or deny it based on my religious view, but the law itself must be secular.
Example: Murder is wrong. This is a Christian value. It is also a secular value. I seek to end murder, because of my faith in Jesus. However, I support the US law against murder because it is a secular value.
T
The statement is that gays should have AT LEAST the rights of a murderer. (And I don't remember who said that ... you have quoted both IQ and myself, but the above quote was not in either of our posts, so I'm not sure where you got it.)
First of all, not all murderers are in prison. There are probably thousands if not millions of murderers who have never been tried, or who were tried and found not guilty, or who were found guilty but have already served their sentences. And even those who are in prison have the right to marry.
Secondly, "at least" means the minimum. In other words, murderers have the right to marry. Gays do not. Gays should have at the MINIMUM the same rights as convicted murderers, in other words, the right to marry. I would hope gays would have even more rights, since they are not a threat to society the way a murderer is.
Finally, when you say "he (the murderer) doesn't have any rights" you are dead wrong. Even convicted felons have tons of rights: the right to fair and humane treatment, the right to appeal convictions within reason, and yes, in every state (as far as I know) the right to marry another consenting adult.
What does that say about our society that those we lock up because they are dangerous have more rights than those whom less than half the population deem sinful?
(a) If no gay person is saved, then we are all damned. If one sin can ban you from heaven, then any sin can ban you from heaven, and there is not a person dead or alive (outside of Jesus) who is without sin. Such a Kingdom would be empty.
(b) The US should be different because it is a secular nation with secular laws. Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?
First of all, not all murderers are in prison. There are probably thousands if not millions of murderers who have never been tried, or who were tried and found not guilty, or who were found guilty but have already served their sentences. And even those who are in prison have the right to marry.
Secondly, "at least" means the minimum. In other words, murderers have the right to marry. Gays do not. Gays should have at the MINIMUM the same rights as convicted murderers, in other words, the right to marry. I would hope gays would have even more rights, since they are not a threat to society the way a murderer is.
Finally, when you say "he (the murderer) doesn't have any rights" you are dead wrong. Even convicted felons have tons of rights: the right to fair and humane treatment, the right to appeal convictions within reason, and yes, in every state (as far as I know) the right to marry another consenting adult.
What does that say about our society that those we lock up because they are dangerous have more rights than those whom less than half the population deem sinful?
(a) If no gay person is saved, then we are all damned. If one sin can ban you from heaven, then any sin can ban you from heaven, and there is not a person dead or alive (outside of Jesus) who is without sin. Such a Kingdom would be empty.
(b) The US should be different because it is a secular nation with secular laws. Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?
T
You should study your history a little more.
The phrase "under God" was added to our pledge not out of any fear of divine retribution, but out of the red scare. During the 40s and 50s, this nation went through witch hunts to find and persecute communists. Many people were incarcerated, and even a few executed, not because of any particular crime, but because of their political beliefs.
God had nothing to do with such abuses. The God whom I worship would never condone the execution of anyone, even an atheist, just because they disagreed with you.
No, God had nothing to do with adding his name into the pledge. And it is a sad state of affairs that we have not returned to the original pledge.
The phrase "under God" was added to our pledge not out of any fear of divine retribution, but out of the red scare. During the 40s and 50s, this nation went through witch hunts to find and persecute communists. Many people were incarcerated, and even a few executed, not because of any particular crime, but because of their political beliefs.
God had nothing to do with such abuses. The God whom I worship would never condone the execution of anyone, even an atheist, just because they disagreed with you.
No, God had nothing to do with adding his name into the pledge. And it is a sad state of affairs that we have not returned to the original pledge.
Wow there is a lot of reading to do on this thread lol I Just wanted to respond to you TheGrungeDiva when you originally asked are you the only liberal christian out there, I'm not American and here in Australia Liberal has an opposite meaning as it does in American politics. But If I was American and I was to define myself politically I would probably come under the name of 'Liberal Christian', i agree with pretty much everything you've said, so just a quick post to let you know that no you're not alone lol
J
I don't even know what else to say. If someone thinks that we should govern a nation with laws that are sinful then that's just very ignorant of scripture and if they don't believe otherwise there's nothing I can say but that they should listen to God and not man. Secular is another way of saying The World without God. I definitely don't want to be apart of the world without God.
T
You would rather have laws that reflect a Christian perspective? Which Christian perspective, specifically? How about we say that if you don't go to Mass at least once a week, including confession to a priest, you are fined and/or jailed? Is that a good Christian law we should enact in the US?
While this example may seem ludicrous to you, that is EXACTLY how non-Christians feel when laws are based on Christian ethics alone. An atheist really doesn't care if an action is sinful or not. If it harms others, it should be illegal, to protect others. If it does not harm anyone, then why are we legislating it?
Millions of Americans are NOT Christian. To base our laws on your idea of what "sin" is is just plain unconstitutional.
If you'd like to go to a country where they base their laws on strict religious teachings, I recommend moving to Afghanistan.
While this example may seem ludicrous to you, that is EXACTLY how non-Christians feel when laws are based on Christian ethics alone. An atheist really doesn't care if an action is sinful or not. If it harms others, it should be illegal, to protect others. If it does not harm anyone, then why are we legislating it?
Millions of Americans are NOT Christian. To base our laws on your idea of what "sin" is is just plain unconstitutional.
If you'd like to go to a country where they base their laws on strict religious teachings, I recommend moving to Afghanistan.