It is said the Lord establishes the nations. If so, there should be no complaint over how he established this one. Having said that, it must be difficult to see any other than what one is familiar with as his doing, I suppose.
Jim Lincoln wrote: White evangelicals no doubt hold youth different than Christ on their participation in government excerpt from, "Americans Have Positive Views About Religion‚Äôs Role in Society, but Want It Out of Politics" https://tinyurl.com/yfe5d3y2 ---
Religions don't vote, Jim. Christians do, though. If that is too much involvement in politics for you, because they tend not to vote for your left wing nut friends, oh well.
Adriel wrote: I guess America cannot answer my basic question. "Why do you need to carry a gun in church ? Can't you trust in God?
A building mistakenly called a church is neither sacred nor special, so carrying a gun there shouldn't raise eyebrows any higher than anyplace else. Since you ask "Can't you trust in God?" do you also ask it of those in trouble when they call your police?
John UK wrote: --- I wonder what my American brethren think of this. Suppose the FBI arrive at your house to arrest you on trumped up charges (based on false witnesses). Would you seek to defend yourself against arrest? With a gun? Think of the scriptural parallel.
Unless the nature of the accusation is of a national sense, I would not expect the FBI to be involved. We already have State and local law enforcement.
Since the system requires that a warrant be issued, I would expect the FBI to show it to me.
I would expect to have a good lawyer.
I would expect a fair trial by my peers.
I would expect that proof of my guilt would be shown in court, since by law I am innocent until proved guilty.
I would expect, regardless of outcome, to be found not guilty, since there is no crime. Burden of guilt is always on the accuser, unlike what we are seeing today, accusations passing as evidence that there "must be a crime".
No I would not defend myself against arrest. Resisting arrest is considered a crime.
Scriptural parallel? If you are being arrested for being Christian, admit guilt. Saves a lot of time. Otherwise there is no reason to make it easy for criminals who happen to have titles or badges.
This professor must feel if a student quotes a verse from the Bible, it is making a law with regard to establishing a government-favored religion. It isn't, but ignorant professors have the right to be wrong, just like everyone else.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: --- My apologies to sister B and all others for any contentiousness, scornfulness, fraudulent rational, warped logic and darkened understanding. Bowing out of thread
A shame you feel you need apologize for your posts, US. They would be seen as quite benign, if minds weren't already made up, and apparent lack of historical understanding of this country's origins and laws didn't under-gird the assumptions.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Thanks QC, I am still pondering her post. I note that despite not saying anything negative about BMcCausland or anyone else to whom I responded, I am described as contentious and scornful. Evaluating her thinking to see if there is any legitimacy to it.
Not necessarily intentional, but perhaps some confusion over contentious (argumentative, quarrelsome, causing disagreement) and contending ( debating, standing for what is believed, striving against difficulties)
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Thanks for your response Adriel. Appreciate your emphasis to trust in God. So, is the church having locks on the doors a lack of trust in God? Does the fact they put their money in the bank, a lack of trust in God? Does the fact they are protected by the Police and Fire department show a lack of trust in God? If they call an ambulance due to a medical emergency is that a lack of trust in God? Do the cars with locked doors in the parking lot show a lack of trust in God? Are fire alarms and extinguishers a show of a lack of trust in God? This more than likely will be my last post in this thread but I believe these are good questions to ponder in light of your thinking on the issue. Appreciate you, have a blessed day.
Valid questions, US. Unfortunately they won't be answered, and at best deflected. You know, the church building being a sacred place and all, it's a whole nother thing.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Many of the cases that the Supreme Court that it will be handling, are going to be interesting. considering how judges are supposed to handle their positions according to either Mr. Trump or John Roberts‚Ěó excerpt from, "Impeachment Trial Looming, Chief Justice Reflects on Judicial Independence" https://tinyurl.com/s7eu32q
If only the judiciary were independent as Chief Justice John Roberts said. But if that were true, then the "independent judiciary" wouldn't be making laws, and inventing such contradictory nonsensicals as legal abortion and "gay marriage." Can't find them anywhere in the Constitution, to which the judges are subject. I guess they have reading challenges.
Jim Lincoln wrote: excerpt from, https://tinyurl.com/ypagd4 ("Christian" Activism?) It almost sounds like Quiet Christian you don't believe in White Islam https://tinyurl.com/y576t49t¬†(Should Christians try to force the kingdom on others?)
It's a bit amusing Jim, how you say you don't want Christians involved in politics, while repeatedly promoting a particular political viewpoint. Are you trying to force politics on others?
John UK wrote: --- I find it amazing that because a gunman is taken out in a church setting, the former policeman is commended; yet in 2019 42 million unborn babies were murdered, and everyone's quite content about it, let them get on with it. Phew! And the moral guidance is all down to corrupt politicians.
Hello John, he was not commended because he stopped the killer in this particular setting. The setting is not relevant. He was commended for saving lives. Are you sure this particular congregation is content with abortion? If not, what is the analogy?
B. McCausland wrote: --- Poor are the societies whose weak governments leave to their citizens the role especifically entrusted to them, say the carrying of the sword.
Governments, or more correctly in the lawful construction of our particular form, employees of government can't be everywhere at all times. It isn't their function, and it would be foolish for us to assume they can fulfill all theoretical duties in real time in the real world.
I might venture the thought it is the strong, controlling, dictatorial governments which are least protective and least interested in being protective of their citizens. Unless the citizens want to leave that dark bosom, in which case their government will likely protect them from doing so.