Time for a second bag. :popcorn:

Time for a second bag. :popcorn:

 

I'm not trying to stir up anything. I'm just giving my opinion on the situation. I think it's crock that he had the Lords name covered up, and I think it's crock that people really don't care. What's next? Are we going to regulate church to every other Sunday?

I suppose then that the Declaration of Independence... the wellspring of the most powerful words in American history… the standard for which individuals of all races, religions and personal beliefs derive their rights and liberties in the greatest nation the world has known… the document Lincoln believed established the lens through which the Constitution should be interpreted… is entirely baseless and ambiguous in your opinion?

 

Without a fundamental belief in God and God’s Laws—even from a merely deistic point-of-view—the Declaration of Independence has no teeth or foundation whatsoever… Jefferson himself says so in the opening lines:

 

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

 

To word it simply... I disagree with your statement.

 

This is far removed from declaring the United States a Methodist, Baptist, Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, Shinto or otherwise "theistic" society.

Where in the bible does it say that we need physical images of Jesus or his name to acknowledge him? Shouldn't our daily interactions with people be our acknowledgement that Jesus is our savior?

How are we supposed to interpret covering up an image of Jesus as anything other than disrespectful, especially when it's done by a Christian?

Again...

 

Matthew 10:33

 

"but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

 

You see it as no big deal to hide Jesus's name during a presidential speech? Then you do not have your priorities straight. Ridiculous? What's ridiculous is that the White House has Jesus's name hid and "It's not a big deal". Spare me.

 

I would appreciate it if you didn't attempt to make the decisions on my priorities. I am entitled to my opinion just as you are yours and I don't believe I am going to hell based on my opinion regarding this topic.

Where in the bible does it say that we need physical images of Jesus or his name to acknowledge him? Shouldn't our daily interactions with people be our acknowledgement that Jesus is our savior?

 

You probably will reject this but:

Proverbs 3:5-6

5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

You probably will reject this but:

Proverbs 3:5-6

5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

 

I'm not going to reject it, but I will point out how ambiguous that it is. If I don't wear a shirt that says "I love Jesus" every day, am I not missing an opportunity to acknowledge Him?

I suppose then that the Declaration of Independence... the wellspring of the most powerful words in American history… the standard for which individuals of all races, religions and personal beliefs derive their rights and liberties in the greatest nation the world has known… the document Lincoln believed established the lens through which the Constitution should be interpreted… is entirely baseless and ambiguous in your opinion?

 

Without a fundamental belief in God and God’s Laws—even from a merely deistic point-of-view—the Declaration of Independence has no teeth or foundation whatsoever… Jefferson himself says so in the opening lines:

 

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

 

To word it simply... I disagree with your statement.

 

This is far removed from declaring the United States a Methodist, Baptist, Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, Shinto or otherwise "theistic" society.

 

I am not sure to whom this is directed, but I was take it as directed at my post the "laws of nature" are a very enlightenment driven phrase. Many elightenment thinkers simply believed that God set the world in motion and then let it alone. Thomas Jefferson even cut up his Bible to take out the parts with which he disagreed. the Declaration is decidedly and unequivacoly not Christian

 

FWIW Aristotle is considered the Father of Natural Law, not Moses. There is a moral code to it but Natural Law is certainly not a derivitive of Christianity.

I'm not going to reject it, but I will point out how ambiguous that it is. If I don't wear a shirt that says "I love Jesus" every day, am I not missing an opportunity to acknowledge Him?

 

No, but if you have a shirt that says “I love Jesus”, and you refuse to wear it because of what someone else may say or think you have in fact rejected him.

I am not sure to whom this is directed, but I was take it as directed at my post the "laws of nature" are a very enlightenment driven phrase. Many elightenment thinkers simply believed that God set the world in motion and then let it alone. Thomas Jefferson even cut up his Bible to take out the parts with which he disagreed. the Declaration is decidedly and unequivacoly not Christian

 

FWIW Aristotle is considered the Father of Natural Law, not Moses. There is a moral code to it but Natural Law is certainly not a derivitive of Christianity.

 

He cut out the miracles thinking that Jesus did not perform miracles.

No, but if you have a shirt that says “I love Jesus”, and you refuse to wear it because of what someone else may say or think you have in fact rejected him.

 

So if I choose to wear it when I feel that it is appropriate, am I denying Jesus?

No, but if you have a shirt that says “I love Jesus”, and you refuse to wear it because of what someone else may say or think you have in fact rejected him.

 

I'm not Bible scholar but I was taught that rejecting Christ was not accepting him as your Lord and Saviour, not repenting of your sins and asking for forgiveness. Rejecting Christ has nothing to do with wearing a T-shirt. Do you think Peter is in heaven? He did deny Christ 3 times. People are imperfect and politics even more so. It is obvious that Obama is trying to balance his faith with his staunch belief in the seperation of church and state. The ironic thing to me in all of this is that most of the people up in arms over this supported McCain, who is more than hesitant to discuss his faith and to my knowledge as never claimed to be a born again Christian, unlike Obama who openly acknowledges being a born again Christian. Support one who doesn't acknowledge but pass horrible judgement on the one who acknowledges.....I don't understand.:confused:

Revelation 20:11-15 The Book of Life will be opened, if your name is not in the book....This book has your deeds and actions you have done. You will be judged. Repent before its too late.

So if I choose to wear it when I feel that it is appropriate, am I denying Jesus?

 

It is always appropriate to acknowledge Christ.