|
Post by blondie on Feb 15, 2007 12:28:00 GMT -5
I don't know what scholars you are talking about...but they must not read very well. For those interested..I think, not know, the generation of the fig tree is the establishment of the state of Israel...which makes it 1948. The generation of 1948 will be present when all this takes place, including his return. This is from wikipedia: "This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place" (Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:32)[1]. Indeed, C.S. Lewis called this "the most embarrassing verse in the Bible" [2], though many Christians interpret the word generation from this verse in some different manner. Another verse is more explicit: "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27).Also the thing about 1948 and that generation. This is an old argument of the Late Great Planet Earth crowd. That generation would have died in 1988. No Jesus yet. I looked this up in a copy of LGPE at book-a-million recently. Even in the versions published after 1988 he still speculates that the world should end by then. Jack Van Impe pushed it up to 2007. 40 years after the 6-day war. I'm sticking with the scholars.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 15, 2007 14:08:55 GMT -5
I don't much about this "Late Great Planet Earth" crowd you speak of, I didn't read the book, nor do I watch Van Impe. What makes up a generation was thought to be 40 and then 60 years...hence the date change to 2008 probably. A generational age has increased and must be factored in. What I do know is what scripture says and it says a generation is 70 to 80 years old:
Ps 90:10
10 The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. KJV So, the thing about the 1948 and that generation would give us a date of 2018 or 2028. When Israel left Eqypt and the fact that all of a particular generation had to die out BEFORE they were allowed to pass into the promised land should also be noted. So, the generation is about 70 -80 years but some people live longer. That opens up the door that all the things mentioned that will come to pass will be within the time period of the lives of that generation. In other words everything could have taken place in 1949 or it could all take place in the life span of somebody born in 1948 that lives to 120.
"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom"
The "some", this refers to is (Matt 17:1) Peter, James and John. What they saw six days after the Matt16:28 quote was when he transfigured before them, which was the"Son of Man coming in His kingdom": Matt 17:1-6 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. KJV
They received a glimpse of what would occur in the distant future. This is confirmed here:
2 Peter 1:16-18
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. KJV Stick with these scholars if you so choose. Though I respect C.S. Lewis, I don't know the context of what you quote nor think it impossible for him to be in error.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 15, 2007 15:56:01 GMT -5
phinehas, I don't know where the 40-year generation comes from, but it's universally accepted. Most scholars assume that when the first 3 gospels were written the authors were expecting Jesus to come back then. The stuff you said above is just Dispensationalism. So many Christians treat this stuff like gospel you'd think it was in the Bible. Check out the true history of the rapture: "The rise in belief in the "pre-Tribulation" rapture is sometimes attributed to a 15-year old Scottish-Irish girl named Margaret MacDonald (a follower of Edward Irving), who in 1830 had a vision that was later [10]published in 1861." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RaptureLate Great Planet Earth was just a pop summery of this belief system. I lump these ideas in with the New-Age Movement rather than traditional Christianity. Catholic, Orthodox or secular scholars don't take these ideas seriously. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scofield_Reference_Bibleen.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby#Later_InfluenceThe Left Behind series is all part of this too. I know there are battles among Evangelicals with their post-tribulation this pre-tribulation that. I don't buy any of it. The book of Revelation was only one example of Apocalyptic literature common at the time it was written. The best arguments that it has nothing to do with our time is that a: people can't see the future and b: if this didn't mean something to people at the time it was written then nobody would have cared enough to keep it around, least of all include it in the/a canon. www.piney.com/ApocalypticIndex.htmlwww.amazon.com/House-Divided-Break-Dispensational-Theology/dp/0930464273www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/DEVENTER2.HTM
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 15, 2007 16:14:09 GMT -5
blondie,
There really is no point in continuing this conversation. You don't "know" certain things that you are trying to debate me with and rely on refuting what I document by making reference to "most scholars". It's a one sided debate and therefore a waste of my time. I will however continue to debunk your posts which consist of soundbites of propaganda gleened from atheist web sites that attempt to discredit Christianity and the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 15, 2007 16:37:37 GMT -5
blondie, There really is no point in continuing this conversation. You don't "know" certain things that you are trying to debate me with and rely on refuting what I document by making reference to "most scholars". It's a one sided debate and therefore a waste of my time. I will however continue to debunk your posts which consist of soundbites of propaganda gleened from atheist web sites that attempt to discredit Christianity and the Bible. I'm just trying to teach you a few things about the Bible, Christianity and History. Seems like I'm almost an expert on your point of view and that of most Evangelicals. You're not even interested in learning what evidence reveals. Be honest, you didn't know where the idea of the rapture came from. And I bet when faced with the naked truth, which anyone can research, you just stick your head back in the sand.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 15, 2007 17:02:19 GMT -5
Gee, what does the koran say about this verse? www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html There it is in full textual context. Context is what the commenter in your link did suggest would explain such violent language, was it not? There are even some hadith available on the linked resource. Mo' dissolved the treaties that he did make and then called for the violent subjugation of unbelievers. The commenter did use some revealing language when saying, "As soon as the attackers pledge to keep away from sedition, the believers are ordered to stop fighting." Sedition? Why did mo' assume authority that was not his? This is in fact my point. Islam calls for the violent conversion, subjugation or death of all unbelievers. The so called "seditious" unbelievers were the existing authority that mo' had violently overthrown. They did attempt to defend their pluralistic society from the actual sedition of mo'. education.yahoo.com/reference/thesaurus/entry/seditionAlso Jesus told his followers to castrate themselves: "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Even if you could substantiate this claim, it would only serve to further prove my contention that Christianity is more focused on individual responsibility, than the political death cult of islam. How exactly is the world imperiled by the possible mass castrations of Christians? That would seem a self correcting problem. I see Crazy Christians and Muslims and reasonable Christians and Muslims. But faith itself is unreasonable, I thought I'd once seen you say.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 15, 2007 17:10:24 GMT -5
MaccusGermanis,
Don't get me wrong. I Believe the Koran is a crazy book of random nonsense. But so is the Bible.
Modern religious people will believe whatever they want. If they were rational they would be Atheists.
I'm just saying Muslims can rationalize a peaceful interpretation of their holy book if they want. Most do.
|
|
|
Post by pilgrim on Feb 15, 2007 17:12:58 GMT -5
Just where the hell is the promised islamic renaissance promised in this thread? Fourteen hundred years and still stoning adulterers. 1400 years and still removing hands and feet from petty criminals. 1400 years and still celebrating a pedophile as the paragon of human virtue.
1400 years and still determined that you will live the same way that they do. Is it any wonder Buddhists, Hindus, and modern pagans recognize the threat of islam. Funny that an enlightened, open minded, atheist finds islam acceptable.
Blondie; pitch us a softball. Where is the renaissance? Some Reza, (isn't he in The WuTang Clan?) says, "We (islam) are no worse than any other religion," said coyly smilling. "Besides, they started it."
Dogs tore the corpse of mohamhead. Mo contributed no good to this world before or since that day.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 15, 2007 17:13:21 GMT -5
I don't remember any Christians "taking to the streets" over Eric Robert Rudolph. Oddly, enough I also don't recall Christians taking to the streets to celebrate the acts of Rudolph. I do recall that Psuedo-stinians in Israel celebrated on September 11, 2001. Of course, muslims condemn violence. In the most vague and circumspect way possible. I actually have taken the opportunity of the link you provided to refresh my recollections of these non-apologies. Have you? These non-apologies do nothing to directly refute koranic proofs of the jihadists. Neither do they often admit that the attackers were muslim. Perhaps they still hold out that they can prove it to be a Jewish conspiracy? They often claim to "denounce violence unequivocally" and then proceed to equivocate. These "talking points" that you cite are just empty propaganda "aimed at" googlists that are "too lazy" to read anything that they find on google during two minutes research.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 15, 2007 17:17:10 GMT -5
MaccusGermanis, Don't get me wrong. I Believe the Koran is a crazy book of random nonsense. But so is the Bible. Modern religious people will believe whatever they want. If they were rational they would be Atheists. I'm just saying Muslims can rationalize a peaceful interpretation of their holy book if they want. Most do. Worse than random non-sense. Violent non-sense that is not at all random in its aim to conquer the world. So you think the Bible is non-sense? So? Many books are non-sense, I think it matters much more to distinguish which books call for the violent subjugation, conversion, or death of all unbelievers.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 15, 2007 17:18:05 GMT -5
blondie, I'm just trying to teach you a few things about the Bible, Christianity and History. Seems like I'm almost an expert on your point of view and that of most Evangelicals. You're not even interested in learning what evidence reveals. Be honest, you didn't know where the idea of the rapture came from. And I bet when faced with the naked truth, which anyone can research, you just stick your head back in the sand. You are trying to teach me about the Bible, Christianity and History by just making statements of "most scholars" and "serious scholars" think this or that...that tells me nothing. You think you know my point of view but you don't and therefore are not an expert on it. You say I am not interested in what evidence reveals, but I am the one doing all the documenting of why you are wrong. All you do is say scholars think this or that. I know what the rapture theory is, what pre-and post trib is and what dispensationalism is. I didn't comment on rapture becasue it's not germaine to the current subject. Like all atheists I have debated on forums, you continue to bring up new "gotchas" everytime a previous "gotcha" is shown to be wrong or at the least not a strong case. I will continue to correct where I think you are wrong, I just won't expect much in return.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 15, 2007 17:20:27 GMT -5
To take a stab at building upon what MG is saying... The difference between the radical elements of Islam versus those in Christianity is that modern Islam has been defined, for ill, by their most extreme elements, whilst Christians denounce those like Eric Robert Rudolph who claim to be doing the Lord's work. It is the reluctance of 'moderate' Muslims to take to the streets in the same numbers as those radical Muslims who did so to protest the Danish cartoon, denouncing those who pervert Islam to their own ends that makes the theory that the majority of Muslims are for peace and tolerance all that much harder to argue. Thanks for trying, but no. I contend that islam is to its very core just as violent as its true believers do daily prove.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 15, 2007 19:26:56 GMT -5
To take a stab at building upon what MG is saying... The difference between the radical elements of Islam versus those in Christianity is that modern Islam has been defined, for ill, by their most extreme elements, whilst Christians denounce those like Eric Robert Rudolph who claim to be doing the Lord's work. It is the reluctance of 'moderate' Muslims to take to the streets in the same numbers as those radical Muslims who did so to protest the Danish cartoon, denouncing those who pervert Islam to their own ends that makes the theory that the majority of Muslims are for peace and tolerance all that much harder to argue. Thanks for trying, but no. I contend that islam is to its very core just as violent as its true believers do daily prove. Ah well...I spoke out of turn then. Thanks for correcting me. I still hope- dare I say, pray?- that the Muslims you see in the streets protesting whatever the outrage de jour happens to be do not represent the mainstream of Islam any more than Al Franken or Michael Moore represent mainstream Democrats. That said...upon a bit of further reflection...I don't notice 'moderate' Democrats being any more forthcoming in their denunciation of the hysterical rantings of a Franken or a Moore than 'moderate' Muslims are the rantings of OBL or Zawahiri. Coincidence? Or an example of similar thought processes?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 16, 2007 7:02:24 GMT -5
I don't notice 'moderate' Democrats being any more forthcoming in their denunciation of the hysterical rantings of a Franken or a Moore than 'moderate' Muslims are the rantings of OBL or Zawahiri. I bet you never read an Al Franken or Micheal Moore book. Because "hysterical rantings" isn't even close to what they are.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 16, 2007 7:12:40 GMT -5
You are trying to teach me about the Bible, Christianity and History by just making statements of "most scholars" and "serious scholars" think this or that...that tells me nothing. You think you know my point of view but you don't and therefore are not an expert on it. You say I am not interested in what evidence reveals, but I am the one doing all the documenting of why you are wrong. All you do is say scholars think this or that. You're either a Left Behind fundamentalist or you've made up your own version of new-age Christianity or some combination of the two. You are trying to teach me about Chemistry by just making statements of "most scholars" and "serious scholars" think this or that...that tells me nothing. You think you know my point of view but you don't and therefore are not an expert on it. You say I am not interested in what evidence reveals, but I am the one doing all the documenting of why you are wrong. All you do is say scholars think this or that. I know what the rapture theory is, what pre-and post trib is and what dispensationalism is. I didn't comment on rapture because it's not germaine to the current subject. I bet when it comes to subjects other than religion you listen to people who actually study them and are recognized as authorities by their peers. I've known people who believe in the rapture and people who know the true history of this idea. I've never meet someone who did both.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 16, 2007 10:09:53 GMT -5
Even if you could substantiate this claim, it would only serve to further prove my contention that Christianity is more focused on individual responsibility, than the political death cult of Islam. Luke 14:26: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." I know there are Christian answers for this just like I know there are Muslims answers for all of your Craig Winn inspired misinformation about the Koran. whywontgodhealamputees.com/jesus.htm
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 16, 2007 11:47:38 GMT -5
You are trying to teach me about the Bible, Christianity and History by just making statements of "most scholars" and "serious scholars" think this or that...that tells me nothing. You think you know my point of view but you don't and therefore are not an expert on it. You say I am not interested in what evidence reveals, but I am the one doing all the documenting of why you are wrong. All you do is say scholars think this or that. You're either a Left Behind fundamentalist or you've made up your own version of new-age Christianity or some combination of the two. You are trying to teach me about Chemistry by just making statements of "most scholars" and "serious scholars" think this or that...that tells me nothing. You think you know my point of view but you don't and therefore are not an expert on it. You say I am not interested in what evidence reveals, but I am the one doing all the documenting of why you are wrong. All you do is say scholars think this or that. I know what the rapture theory is, what pre-and post trib is and what dispensationalism is. I didn't comment on rapture because it's not germaine to the current subject. I bet when it comes to subjects other than religion you listen to people who actually study them and are recognized as authorities by their peers. I've known people who believe in the rapture and people who know the true history of this idea. I've never meet someone who did both. No, I am not a Left-Behind person...I don't believe that the rapture is biblical. I haven't brought up chemistry so your point doesn't make any sense to me. I listen to people that actually study the Bible. I can't determine the correctness of "most scholars" or "serious scholars"...I need names.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 16, 2007 12:10:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 16, 2007 12:47:20 GMT -5
"So you've made up your own version of new-age Christianity?" Don't know why you think that. "All of the above are people whose opinions I respect." www.askelm.com/doctrine/d760201.htmFor your edification...the rapture theory didn't appear until 1830. It is not a position that can be shown to be biblically correct. So much for your New Age comment...if anything Rapture would be considered New Age. Thanks for all your book links...maybe if it's in my budget I will look on Amazon.com and bye them to actually find out what their claims are. Did you read these books?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 16, 2007 13:03:18 GMT -5
For your edification...the rapture theory didn't appear until 1830. It is not a position that can be shown to be biblically correct. So much for your New Age comment...if anything Rapture would be considered New Age. OK, we agree on that. But did you come up with your own brand of Christianity or are you using someone else's? And don't say Jesus or Saint Paul.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 16, 2007 13:04:46 GMT -5
I don't notice 'moderate' Democrats being any more forthcoming in their denunciation of the hysterical rantings of a Franken or a Moore than 'moderate' Muslims are the rantings of OBL or Zawahiri. I bet you never read an Al Franken or Micheal Moore book. Because "hysterical rantings" isn't even close to what they are. You have a valid point. If anything, "hysterical rantings" is a gross UNDERstatement. I've read the speeches of Josef Goebbles, so I know the drill. One need not read ALL agitprop to recognize something as being agitprop.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 16, 2007 13:05:47 GMT -5
Even if you could substantiate this claim, it would only serve to further prove my contention that Christianity is more focused on individual responsibility, than the political death cult of Islam. Luke 14:26: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." I know there are Christian answers for this just like I know there are Muslims answers for all of your Craig Winn inspired misinformation about the Koran. whywontgodhealamputees.com/jesus.htmIf you know that "there are Christian answers for this" then why do you bring it up? Why would a devout atheist that repeatedly attacks Christianity not also attack islam with equal vigor? Putting aside the possible meanings and usages of the Greek word "miseo," -since you seem already knowledgeable about this- why are you more threated that Christians might be caused to hate their parents more than the very present dangers posed by islamic traditions? Again, if Christians do hate their parents then such danger is quite limited in its scope. A parent need only fear their own children. Muslim jihadist are not known for killing their parents. They are known for killing infidels.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 16, 2007 13:13:48 GMT -5
MG-
Christianity is attacked more on the internet because there is a vast amount of evilbible.com sites for the newly initiated atheists to pull their "gotchas" from versus Islam, since not too many atheists bother to read the Koran.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 16, 2007 13:18:49 GMT -5
MG- Christianity is attacked more on the internet because there is a vast amount of evilbible.com sites for the newly initiated atheists to pull their "gotchas" from versus Islam, since not too many atheists bother to read the Koran. Actually, resources for doubters of islam also exist. Which makes the refusal of lazy atheist to critique it with equal vigor more confounding. In fact, I am well aware of truely doubtful persons that do attack both with equal vigor. Persons such as "blondie" do prove themselves not to be truely doubtful but rather truely hateful of Christian tradition.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 16, 2007 13:44:04 GMT -5
For your edification...the rapture theory didn't appear until 1830. It is not a position that can be shown to be biblically correct. So much for your New Age comment...if anything Rapture would be considered New Age. OK, we agree on that. But did you come up with your own brand of Christianity or are you using someone else's? And don't say Jesus or Saint Paul. My brand of Christianity is baptist. However, I do differ on some things from the mainstream that don't relate to salvation, ie. what's really important. My religion is Christianity and I follow the doctrines as interpreted as a baptist. The secondary beliefs I have are not a part of my religion. They don't affect doctrine nor would crash my world if being wrong. They make sense to me based on scripture and my personal reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 16, 2007 13:49:08 GMT -5
MG- Christianity is attacked more on the internet because there is a vast amount of evilbible.com sites for the newly initiated atheists to pull their "gotchas" from versus Islam, since not too many atheists bother to read the Koran. Actually, resources for doubters of islam also exist. Which makes the refusal of lazy atheist to critique it with equal vigor more confounding. In fact, I am well aware of truely doubtful persons that do attack both with equal vigor. Persons such as "blondie" do prove themselves not to be truely doubtful but rather truely hateful of Christian tradition. I did not know that to be the case. It may be true but my perception is that if there are resources to "attack" Islam, the atheists don't use it. My opinion is that they attack Christianity because in their estimate it's the religion that affects their ideas the most and at the same time is the hardest to discredit. Hence the focus.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 16, 2007 17:03:10 GMT -5
I think there's more to the atheist/secular attacks on Christianity than a 'simply' disdain for religions. If anything, their disdain is rather narrowly focused and selective, being directed wholly against Christians and, to a slightly leser extent, Jews.
No other religions seems to be held up for scrutiny. One might ask, Why?
Since Leftist politics are synonymous with atheism- there seem to be no conservative atheists for some reason- then one can view their selective outrage throw the prisim of the politics involved.
Leftists and atheists both want the United States to 'evolve'- some would say 'de-evolve'- from the supposed theocracy they see (despite no evidence to prove such a viewpoint) here to a 'more enlightened' secular-progressive liberal socialistic state that is prevalent in Western Europe.
One of the first steps the S-Ps must take in order to bring this change about is to have the influence of religion, specifically Judeo-Christian religion, eliminated so much as possible because, to the S-Ps, there is no higher authority than the State and the belief in a religious Higher Power makes people less likely to embrace 'government as god'.
If you can remove God as a day-to-day influence in people's lives, you make moral relativism a much more attractive lifestyle choice because it removes the moral inhibitions that a more religious society might place on deviant behaviors. This, of course, plays very well with the S-Ps and their ideological first cousins, the atheists (although the atheists would be dissatisfied with the S-P's continued belief in God or a god of some sort but, once you remove the 'fear of God' from the S-Ps, the next step- that being a renouncement of religion- is easy to make).
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 16, 2007 17:24:26 GMT -5
I think there's more to the atheist/secular attacks on Christianity than a 'simply' disdain for religions. If anything, their disdain is rather narrowly focused and selective, being directed wholly against Christians and, to a slightly leser extent, Jews. No other religions seems to be held up for scrutiny. One might ask, Why? I've certainly never heard anyone around here say anything bad about Islam. Since Leftist politics are synonymous with atheism- there seem to be no conservative atheists for some reason- then one can view their selective outrage throw the prisim of the politics involved. Leftists and atheists both want the United States to 'evolve'- some would say 'de-evolve'- from the supposed theocracy they see (despite no evidence to prove such a viewpoint) here to a 'more enlightened' secular-progressive liberal socialistic state that is prevalent in Western Europe. One of the first steps the S-Ps must take in order to bring this change about is to have the influence of religion, specifically Judeo-Christian religion, eliminated so much as possible because, to the S-Ps, there is no higher authority than the State and the belief in a religious Higher Power makes people less likely to embrace 'government as god'. If you can remove God as a day-to-day influence in people's lives, you make moral relativism a much more attractive lifestyle choice because it removes the moral inhibitions that a more religious society might place on deviant behaviors. This, of course, plays very well with the S-Ps and their ideological first cousins, the atheists (although the atheists would be dissatisfied with the S-P's continued belief in God or a god of some sort but, once you remove the 'fear of God' from the S-Ps, the next step- that being a renouncement of religion- is easy to make). So many straw men. Nobody light a cigarette or the whole place will go up: Here's some examples of that theocratic threat that nobody can prove: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moorewww.legislature.state.al.us/senate/senators/senatebios/sd014.htmlwww.theocracywatch.org/How many times have you heard on 101.1 the source that there's no such thing as the seperation of church and state?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 16, 2007 19:00:00 GMT -5
Isa 9:6-7
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. KJV
The government is currently perceived as being on the shoulder of man. That perception will change at some point.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 16, 2007 23:05:49 GMT -5
The only way that you could possibly avoid reading negative posting regarding Islam is if you aren't bothering to read the threads.
I don't think anyone here has what you'd call a wholly- or even mostly- positive view of Islam, though some hold the entireity of the religion to blame while others hold only a portion of Muslims to blame.
As for your examples of what you'd consider Establishment, they've been argued and discredited before.
You say that Roy Moore attempted to establish an official religion by his placing a carving of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama capitol building. Please enlighten me as to which specific religion he was trying to establish...and don't say "Christianity" because that is NOT a specific religion. If one is to be accused of attempting to violate the First Amendment's Establishment clause, his accuser must specify which specific single religion he is trying to establish.
And I know that you are aware that "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the US Constitution, so that is perhaps the single greatest example of a straw man yet introduced here.
You are also doubtless aware that, when Jefferson used the term in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, his intention was to protect RELIGION from the corrupting influence of government and not the other way 'round. It would seem that Jefferson would not be the best choice for one to choose when one is attempting to compile a list of famous personages hostile to religion.
|
|