But you don't state your position. Neither do you argue against Russ' stated position.
What is his stated position? He doesn't give specifics, just some generalized our-country-is-moving-away-from-God whining.
If Russ has no stated position, what have you been arguing against?
I consider it an inconsistency in his position.
Oops! It seems he has a position after all...
How can that be? Whence cometh such double-talk?
However, the fact that the founders of this nation specifically deny Christianity an exclusive position,
I have not seen where Christianity was singled out and denied anything at all. I see where the government was denied authority to pollute the church(es) with politics and corruption. Do you resent this decision?
What about you? Do you agree with the statements that Russ made in post #40834? Do you feel that I am misunderstanding his position concerning U.S. law?
In spite of all your efforts, I really doubt you or anyone else misunderstands Russ.
Really? Then, what is is position?
Flip-flopping again. Now Russ doesn't have a position? Will you ever make up your mind(s)?
What specific problems is he concerned about? Which laws does he feel indicate this recent move away from God?
So one cannot have a position until no questions about the position can be asked? I guess nobody will ever have any position on anything in that case.
Besides, I'm more interested in hearing how wonderful a utopia we can fall into under your dream plan, which evidently is not to follow God's instruction. I am confident you won't be able to produce biblical support for any such position.
I never claimed that a utopia would result from any plan that I had.
Ah, a modest one. At least when modesty serves as a means to evasion.
I didn't say we should not follow God's instruction.
You argue against those who maintain we should. And your argument, as slippery as you try to be, betrays quite a bit.
For example, a fellow Christian might argue along the lines of "Yes, we should follow God's instruction, but it would entail x instead of y." Your argument is nothing like that at all. It is in no way consistent with one who thinks we should follow God's instruction; and in all ways consistent with one who would have us do the opposite.
Russ, and you, claim that we should enact laws that follow God's instruction. What instructions, specifically, should the U.S. codify into law?
I don't recall making such a claim.
Biblical support for any plan of mine would be:
Leviticus 19:18
Matthew 7:12
'Would'? Not 'is'. Not 'will'.
Except you have merely claimed that I created a straw Russ. You have not supported that claim. Which words of mine created a straw Russ?
Um, duh, me too stoopido. Me cannot scroll up. Me forget where to even find earlier posts in thread.
In summary, since you're not here advancing a position of your own, or addressing an actual position taken by anyone else, your activities seem analogous to a vandal with a can of spray paint in an art gallery. You're not here to contribute; you're not here to appreciate what others contribute.
Actually, I am here to have people define their claim.
Has anyone not said what they intended to say? All indications are that they have. Your "assistance" does not appear to be needed or desired. Evidently people know how to log in and post just fine on their own.
Charles Stanley's quote claims that we allow less moral television than in the 1950's. Does that mean we are less or more moral now than then. Were husbands more or less abusive to their wives and children? Was prostitution more or less rampant then? Were there more or less unwed mothers per capita then than there is now?
Why don't you provide answers? Anyone can keep asking questions indefinitely.
What is the yardstick being used by Charles Stanley, and those that agree with him, to determine that the U.S. is in worse shape biblically now than in the 1950's, 1850's or 1780's?
Who needs a yardstick? Can one not observe that a raccoon is bigger than a squirrel until one measures their lengths, widths, heights, and weights?
Saying it is worse is not the same as showing it to be so.
From message #40723:
God is holy, so surely He doesn't approve of all the actions sanctioned by our laws. Yet He has been patient--and we've been blessed beyond measure. But the Father's patience won't last forever (Neh. 9:30). America must repent of its choice to disregard His precepts.
Did Charles Stanley believe that God sanctioned the First Amendment or that He has been patient for 226 years?
Why don't you start a thread in a political discussion area and explain how wonderful life would be if only the government were running the church(es). You seem to be the only one captivated with the notion.
Did Dr. Stanley mean that we should repent of the First Amendment?
Why are you asking us?
Can the attempt to remove Jesus from the public square have anything to do with our crumbling values? Perhaps. A country that takes prayer out of schools and government meetings can easily drift from godly ways. We have even debated removing "In God We Trust" from our currency and "one nation under God" from the Pledge. What's more, our nation is sometimes so accepting of "all religions" that Christians are persecuted for believing Jesus is the only way (John 14:6)
Jesus is removed from the public square? Where? Except it government buildings, where? Which Christians have had to go into hiding? How many churches in your town have been closed by the government? How many government sponsored anti-Jesus protests have been conducted in front of your church? For that matter, how many anti-Jesus protests have been conducted in front of your church at all?
Does Dr. Stanley have to broadcast from a secret studio and over a hidden transmitter like Voice of America in communist countries?
What form has this Christian persecution taken? What indications do you have that it is a government sponsored persecution?
One blatantly obvious example is when one's own children are told one is a lair or an idiot. What right has the government to slander honest people?
Of course you probably wouldn't notice - too busy agreeing with the slanderers to question their right.
Even here, you're not concerned that Christians are persecuted. Your purpose is to deny that it happens. It's not hard to guess what manner of "christian" would display such attitudes.
Here's another one you can try to defend: U.S. military personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia and other places were forbidden to take their Bibles. "By law" they must go. This is cut & dried prohibiting Christians from practicing what they believe they should do.
