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?
My understanding of Russ' position is that he agrees with Dr. Stanley that the laws of the U.S. allow sinful things so our society is moving away from God. I guess I should have accommodated your inability to understand context when I replied.
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?
Nice quote mine taken out of a separate post from the one you are replying to. Marginally dishonest behavior from a moderator, tisk-tisk.
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?
Context....take an English course if you can't seem to master reading comprehension on your own. The point was that the founders of the country did not give Christianity a favored position. Acting stupid is not a good means to avoid debating in good faith.
As for politics, that exists in churches already. You're over 40 years old and you haven't seen this? I have served on church boards for 12 years and it is difficult to run a church without politics creeping in.
Really? Then, what is is position?
Flip-flopping again. Now Russ doesn't have a position? Will you ever make up your mind(s)?
Semantics over substance. Getting a straight-forward answer from you is just too much to expect. Maybe you have served on church boards. You must have been one of the rich ones that thought their welfare was more important than that of the rest of the congregation.
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.
One cannot solve a problem until that problem is defined. If you just want to cry about it instead of facing it down then maybe you should remove yourself from this Army.
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.
Is it your plan to insult your opposition all day or actually provide answers to direct question?
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.
No one has said what "x" is. That's the problem. No one in this thread has provided any definition of where the country is moving away from God or what should be done about it. It appears that they want to align the legal system up with God's instructions. All of them? Including the first commandment?
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.
Of course you didn't, you merely imply it so that way you can evade the issue when confronted. Maybe you could stand better if you actually put on that armor of God.
Biblical support for any plan of mine would be:
Leviticus 19:18
Matthew 7:12
'Would'? Not 'is'. Not 'will'.
If my plan were enacted then those verses would be the cornerstone of my policy.
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.
A reply like this looks like misdirection. Try to debate in good faith and point out the post where you showed me what I said that built a straw Russ.
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.
Sure, they can post that they think the country is moving away from and that we need to "follow God's instructions". I can also post that you are a sensational jerk but that has no real meaning without the evidence to support my opinion about your jerkhood.
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.
Good point. I will work on it.
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?
If you can't see the animals in question then you have no way to make that evaluation. I was asking by what means do they determine that things are worse now than in, say....1783.
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.
Why don't you read more of Paul's letters to understand the literary device I was using. It might also help you to stand instead of using evasion.
Did Dr. Stanley mean that we should repent of the First Amendment?
Why are you asking us?
Because Dr. Stanley doesn't answer my questions and you all seem to agree with his statement from the first post. Looks like you intend to follow Dr. Stanley's lead and avoid answering also.
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?
Please provide evidence that the government has told "one's own children" that "one is a lair[sic] or an idiot."
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.
One that needs to see evidence of government sponsored persecution before crying it from the rooftops. "The boy who cried wolf" ring a bell?
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.
A friend of mine stationed in Saudi Arabia has a Bible. However, I have seen information on line that states Bibles are confiscated and other information that Bibles are allowed. Could you point me to your source of info on this?
