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:

 

You are right that Peter rejected Christ, not only once, but three times. One of the most humiliating things for me to admit is that I too have denied Christ. When the opportunity arose, I did not share my faith. I was afraid that people would see me as a zellot or a freak.

I have vowed now to share my faith with everyone.

Matthew 5:5

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

 

As for your assumption that I supported McCain. I was actually a supporter of Mike Huckabee. I'm pretty sure he is a "Born again Christian".

 

You probably need to get your facts strait before you question someone's faith. From the Saddleback forum:

Rick Warren: First, you've made no doubt about the fact that you are a Christian. You publicly say you're a follower of Christ. What does that mean to you?

John McCain: It means I'm saved and forgiven.

You are right that Peter rejected Christ, not only once, but three times. One of the most humiliating things for me to admit is that I too have denied Christ. When the opportunity arose, I did not share my faith. I was afraid that people would see me as a zellot or a freak.

I have vowed now to share my faith with everyone.

Matthew 5:5

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

 

As for your assumption that I supported McCain. I was actually a supporter of Mike Huckabee. I'm pretty sure he is a "Born again Christian".

 

You probably need to get your facts strait before you question someone's faith. From the Saddleback forum:

Rick Warren: First, you've made no doubt about the fact that you are a Christian. You publicly say you're a follower of Christ. What does that mean to you?

John McCain: It means I'm saved and forgiven.

 

First in the post I didn't suggest that you personally supported McCain, but given that Huckabee wasn't an option for the presidential election that point is rather unimportant.

Second, obviously I was incorrect with what I wrote but I wouldn't call that questioning his faith, at least not the exent that many on this forum preach Obama straight to the lake of fire.

Third, and by your own admission you haven't always been the most willing to share your faith with others; there are many people in the Bible that had moments of weakness or doubts in their faith so why be so harsh on those who may or may not be at the same point on thier spiritual journey as you?

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?

Oh, I wasn't making a comment about your post. I was just enjoying the debate. I can't wait to see what happens when people find out about the new book I saw them mention on the news last night. :sssh:

 

But that is for another thread.

You are right that Peter rejected Christ, not only once, but three times. One of the most humiliating things for me to admit is that I too have denied Christ. When the opportunity arose, I did not share my faith. I was afraid that people would see me as a zellot or a freak.

I have vowed now to share my faith with everyone.

Matthew 5:5

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

 

As for your assumption that I supported McCain. I was actually a supporter of Mike Huckabee. I'm pretty sure he is a "Born again Christian".

 

You probably need to get your facts strait before you question someone's faith. From the Saddleback forum:

Rick Warren: First, you've made no doubt about the fact that you are a Christian. You publicly say you're a follower of Christ. What does that mean to you?

John McCain: It means I'm saved and forgiven.

 

And what did Obama say about his faith when questioned by Warren?

Well if you're really afraid of what this government might do, then you should hold on to that "separation of church and state" mantra just as tightly. The religion clauses of the Constitution have a two fold purpose: 1) to prevent one religion from become the "state religion" and thus having preferred status at the expense of any others and 2) to keep the government out of churches and church theologies.

 

With that out of the way, I have a question: is there a standard White House policy about speaking at engagments with an organization's name or logo emblazoned behind the president? I say this not in light of the name of Jesus being a symbol for Christianity, but because that particular symbol, the IHS as depicted in that way, is the official seal for the Society of Jesus (Jesuits).

 

I really don't think the White House did this because the President is "ashamed" of Christ. It's probably because he'd take a lot of flack from other groups for speaking in front of an overtly Christian symbol. It was a political move. Nobody that is fuming about this liked him anyway. So what did he have to lose by playing PC? That's the way I feel about it anyway.

 

I'll agree with #1 100%, #2 with a caveat (sp). In today's world there is a movement by liberals to bash and do away with reiligion to bring about a population that bows to government, it was not to mean people of religion cannot take part in government with their beliefs guiding them. If he covers up God for the purpose of politics, I believe he is supporting my beliefs and he is ashamed of God. Otherwise there is no fear of having a religious display behind him. Why would he be afraid of a religious portrait behind him. If he says there is room for all beliefs, why is he hiding the Christian faith from everyone? Once more, if he believes there is room for all beliefs, why is he hiding the Christian faith? The answer is he is playing to a part of his supporters who are big government, god-hating inidividuals.

 

2 Hump have you found that seperation thing in the Constitution, the actual statement, not the made-up thing?

Our forefathers also said that there should be a clear separation of church and state. If Obama were a minister, priest, preacher, etc, it would be okay to give a speech in front of thousands of cameras with Jesus behind him. However, he is not a minister, priest or a preacher. He is the President of the United States.

Just out of curiosity- and I hope you don't respond as poorly as you do to most inquiries- are you saying that it is inappropriate for the President to address the public with any religious imagery present? And, since President Obama is not a minister, priest, or preacher, were you equally infuriated when the President's swearing-in began with a prayer?

I don't know anyone on this board I would trust as the "sole repository of facts". I think it is pretty much implied that every post on this board (except cch5432's is essentially an "opinion".

Excellent :thumb:

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.

 

Just FYI, and this is hardly a comment on the thread topic, but you do know that Aristotle, despite living in a polytheistic society, came to the conclusion that there is one God.

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.

Apart from the fact that Moses predated Aristotle a couple of millennia and was the Father of Spiritual Law, I would submit that without the very real existence and acknowledgement of God, there is no such thing as a meaningful "moral code"... certainly not one that has any foundation or lasting merit. Where would it derive its significance? As a collection of good ideas that seem to work over time... or merely a bunch of arbitrary opinions? And we all know how valuable and permanent opinions are... :lol:

 

Nowhere in this thread have I advocated an "national religion" or American theocracy. While I personally believe that faith in Jesus Christ and in His Word is the only true path to follow, I have in fact, made my feelings quite clear as regards our government:

I am in no way recommending a mandated practice of religion, but a simple acknowledgement of God and His principles as a basis for building and maintaining our free republic. Getting away from this truth will be disastrous... as I'm certain we will all witness and acknowledge sooner or later.

I am not alone in this belief, and in fact find my opinion preceded by the vast majority of our founding fathers. A fact I am quite willing to substantiate herein. I will begin with one of the more popular myths of revisionist history...

Thomas Jefferson even cut up his Bible to take out the parts with which he disagreed. the Declaration is decidedly and unequivocally not Christian.

I never said the Declaration was specifically "Christian" but is undergirded and constructed upon a foundation of Christian principles. I will defend this with facts and the actual words of the men who created and signed it.

 

As far as Mr. Jefferson being merely a deist... I submit the following quotes in Mr. Jefferson's own words:

 

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

 

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383, to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse on June 26, 1822.

 

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.

 

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alberty Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809.

 

I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.

 

Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506, to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.

 

I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.

 

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.

 

Whether Mr. Jefferson was a Holy Spirit filled on fire believer or merely a man who acknowledged the existence of a Creator... it cannot be reasonably argued that he was an atheist or agnostic. I would say that his words as recorded here lean very strongly toward his commitment to Christianity.

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?

 

Actually in the history of my last church, Services were held only once a month in the 19th century and twice a month during two periods of time in the 20th.

 

In rural Virginia there was little ability to hire a full time pastor and/or have the community travel to church and meet to worship every week. So they met once a month for about 3 hours. I used to tell my parishoners that, like medicine; we could do it all at once on a certain Sunday or spread it out an hour at a time every week.

 

BTW, the reasons in the 20th century were that they belonged to a "3 Church Field" whereby the full-time pastor held services at a different church each week. My church got him twice a month because they paid more in the collective "kitty" to hire the minister.

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.

 

1. A phrase like "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" is not as much a Christian declaration as very much a distinct phrase that is often refelcted in both a Deistic view and a wording of God found in the period of the Enlightenment. It's ambigiuous for a reason to many of that day.

 

2. The phrase you bold on : 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.

 

I can not tell if that's a reference in the document to the Creator or to the previous fragment that is discussing:

 

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Apart from the fact that Moses predated Aristotle a couple of millennia and was the Father of Spiritual Law, I would submit that without the very real existence and acknowledgement of God, there is no such thing as a meaningful "moral code"... certainly not one that has any foundation or lasting merit. Where would it derive its significance? As a collection of good ideas that seem to work over time... or merely a bunch of arbitrary opinions? And we all know how valuable and permanent opinions are... :lol:

 

Nowhere in this thread have I advocated an "national religion" or American theocracy. While I personally believe that faith in Jesus Christ and in His Word is the only true path to follow, I have in fact, made my feelings quite clear as regards our government: I am not alone in this belief, and in fact find my opinion preceded by the vast majority of our founding fathers. A fact I am quite willing to substantiate herein. I will begin with one of the more popular myths of revisionist history...

I never said the Declaration was specifically "Christian" but is undergirded and constructed upon a foundation of Christian principles. I will defend this with facts and the actual words of the men who created and signed it.

 

As far as Mr. Jefferson being merely a deist... I submit the following quotes in Mr. Jefferson's own words:

 

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

 

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383, to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse on June 26, 1822.

 

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.

 

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alberty Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809.

 

I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.

 

Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506, to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.

 

I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.

 

Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.

 

Whether Mr. Jefferson was a Holy Spirit filled on fire believer or merely a man who acknowledged the existence of a Creator... it cannot be reasonably argued that he was an atheist or agnostic. I would say that his words as recorded here lean very strongly toward his commitment to Christianity.

 

And some more:

 

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

 

 

"In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, and even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient [ancient] philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, . . . . I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, and doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice and philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, and even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark . . . that his system of morality was the most benevolent and sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers." (Ltr. to Joseph Priestly, Apr. 9, 1803.)

 

 

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

 

 

 

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

 

 

 

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

 

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

 

 

 

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)

 

 

 

Found this piece of discussion interesting:

 

Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus.

 

Distortions of history occur in the minds of many Christians whenever they see the word "God" embossed in statue or memorial concrete. For example, those who visit the Jefferson Memorial in Washington will read Jefferson's words engraved: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man." When they see the word "God" many Christians see this as "proof" of his Christianity without thinking that "God" can have many definitions ranging from nature to supernatural. Yet how many of them realize that this passage aimed at attacking the tyranny of the Christian clergy of Philadelphia, or that Jefferson's God was not the personal god of Christianity? Those memorial words came from a letter written to Benjamin Rush in 1800 in response to Rush's warning about the Philadelphia clergy attacking Jefferson (Jefferson was seen as an infidel by his enemies during his election for President). The complete statement reads as follows:

 

"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . ."

 

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

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.

 

I'm not making any decisions, and whether or not you go to Hell is not up to me. I don't know your relationship with God, but I just don't think having Jesus's name covered would set well with him. You are exactly correct though, you are entitled to your opinion much like I am mine. And my opinion is that no one should just brush off our saviors name being covered during a presidential speech. I just don't see the reason behind it. :idunno:

Would Obama have asked the same at a Muslim temple? I think not.

 

I hope those of you who don't think it's a big deal enjoy your time now, because it's not going to be pretty on judgement day. This is ridiculous...

 

Isnt it wrong to judge others? Or did I imagine that?

Then he shouldn't be gving speeches at faith based institutions.

 

Agreed

Isnt it wrong to judge others? Or did I imagine that?

 

I don't remember judging GO CATS. I'm stating what I've learned.