Wake Up Christians — Silence Is Not an Option
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Excerpted from the book, One Nation "Above" God.
"The men of Issachar had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do" (1 Chronicles 12:32)
We don't have to compromise our principles to be involved in politics—what good is salt left in the shaker, or a light that is hidden? "Politics" is not a bad word. In simple terms, politics refers to governing or leading a group of people. Politics won't save America, but in order to implement change, honor God, and help others, we must take action. To suggest that God does not want us to elect godly leaders and promote godly legislation runs contrary to His nature (cf. Romans 13).Silence is not an option.
1. Government is God-ordained. "We the people" are to lead according to God's Word. Many say, "We don't need to get involved. God will take care of everything." Ironically, I've never seen that mindset when it comes to work and income. We work, or we don't eat. God blesses hard work and diligence in financial matters; why wouldn't He when it comes to leading a nation?
2. Apathy is not biblical. A believer should be involved in running for office, voting, and/or monitoring those in office to assure that they perform their duties. The welfare of society often falls into the hands of the Christian community. For those who believe we should remain passive and silent, I challenge you to read the writings of the Old Testament prophets. They lamented, shed tears, and pleaded with the people and the leaders to turn from their sins and to turn back to God—they spoke the truth in love. Even Jesus wept for Jerusalem when He saw its destruction was near. Martin Luther King, Jr., in a Letter from Birmingham Jail on April 16, 1963, wrote, "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people." I hold the same opinion today.
3. We engage the culture or we lose. There is always a fight; the tides of evil will always wash against the shores of hope and peace. Silence is not an option. We can no longer hide behind the excuse, "I don't want to get involved." As citizens, we are given the privilege, for now, to place people in positions of leadership. Whether we like it or not, we are involved. Millions are not registered to vote, and millions of registered voters stay at home. We'll stand in line to see a movie, but we won't stand in line to vote and elect leaders who will affect the direction of our country. This makes a statement about what we value—and isn't it sad. During this election cycle, register to vote and then vote your values. It really is that simple. Click here: https://registertovote.ca.gov
4. All laws impose morality onto others . The real question is "whose" morality prevails? You can't legislate morality, but you can restrain evil and deter wrongdoing. God doesn't need a supermajority, but He does need a humble minority. God's call is not to Washington or Hollywood—"if My people humble themselves" (2 Chronicles 7:14).
5. The pulpits are not called to be passive. Granted, not everyone is called to the political arena, but all of those called to preach God's Word must provide practical application on difficult matters. I often wonder if those who remain silent now would have also been silent in the 1800s in regard to slavery? Are these silent men truly filled with the Spirit of God? If so, where is boldness . . . where is righteous indignation that the Spirit provokes in us? When God gives people authority to passionately and lovingly proclaim His Word, souls are converted, lives are changed, and families are restored. Sadly, this is lacking in our day. As the church falls deeper into self-reliance and further from reliance on God, our need for bold leadership has never been greater. Change will only occur when there is a strong conviction of sin, genuine faith, humility, and sincere repentance—may God grant us the wisdom and strength to proclaim these truths. We must stop confusing God's patience with His approval and preach with conviction from the pulpits again.
6. God's Word is very clear on controversial issues. From "thou shalt not steal from citizens and future generations" to "thou shalt not murder innocent children." If God is clear, why are many Christians vague or indifferent?
7. "I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils." This statement is often used by those who want to remain silent, but it's a flawed argument. We are actually voting for principles, not people—all candidates are sinners. In what direction will they lead our country? Even more importantly, what country will we leave for our children? A third party is not a bad idea, but at this point, it has little influence. When they receive votes, they take away votes from others.
Some time ago, I sat speechless as I listened to a man recount his trip to a holocaust museum with his young daughter. As they walked by photos of the death camps, gas chambers, and countless bodies piled one upon another, his daughter silently contemplated the horrors that were unfolding before her eyes.
When the tour ended, they drove home without saying a word. The father wondered if she truly understood the significance of the event. Was she too young to view such depravity? Was she too fragile to cope with the truth of the holocaust? Would it make a negative impact on her life? Would it leave her fearful and wounded? Would she begin to doubt God?
His questions were answered nearly two hours later when his daughter finally spoke. She looked at her father and asked, "Daddy, why didn't someone do something?"
Will we hear those same haunting words from our children and grandchildren? Yes! If we fail to contend for what is right, we may see a time in our history when our children will ask, "Why didn't someone do something?" Sadly, we will know the answer.
[deleted]
How many names is one allowed to use?
Your question has no context as it is built upon a removed comment that is off topic to the seeded article.
Blatant proselytizing published under News and Politics.
It is all about politics. It is as I said elsewhere a reference for those who are Christians to be active in government and politics. Thus why it’s here. It is not in any way an invitation to non Christians to become Christians. An article on that would have been seeded in the religion section. See my post #2.
I think everyone already knows that Christian extremists want the state to enforce their nutty and bigoted sharia laws. No surprise there at all.
Good thing we have an Establishment clause to prevent what you want.
... and it's backed by the 2nd amendment.
The 2nd amendment applies to all Americans. Christians who choose to participate in politics and abide by what they believe in their voting and lawmaking will be protected by that very amendment from those who would cause harm to those living by what they believe in.
Fortunately the constitution allows all people to participate in politics, voting, and elected office, even committed Christians. There is no religious test and one can’t be excluded from running for or being appointed to public office over their religious beliefs.
While unfortunately we can't exclude Christian extremists from public office we most definitely can exclude their sharia laws. That's why your side keeps losing on all major civil rights and social issues because the courts keep ruling that your sharia laws are blatantly unconstitutional.
That said, the smart move would be to vote against any candidate who is a Christian extremist.
I should add that anyone who wants to use the state to impose their sect's sharia laws on the nation is unfit for public office and should be exposed as theocrats. That includes both you and Kavanaugh as well as bible-babblers like Mike Pence. Such theocratic impulses belong in Saudi Arabia or Russia not in the US.
once a candidate starts thumping out, I vote against them. no member of the teavangelical taliban will ever tell me or mine what to do. I'm glad our military has plenty of experience dealing with religious extremists.
Once an atheist candidate identifies themselves, I speak out on their unfitness to serve in office
Not surprising given that you oppose secular government and support Christian sharia law.
What makes an atheist unfit for office?
some unspoken and unconstitutional religious law probably. no religious test obviously means if you're not religious, you failed the test. thumpers are in a hurry to institute xtian sharia law before all the pews are empty.
Because they aren't in the pews to be brainwashed by the Sunday pulpit pounders.
Oh the burden of being rational minded.
Wow, it's so obvious now, lol
It has nothing to do with opposing secular government
I simply agree with our founders that Only Christians have the right moral character to be in public office
[ deleted ]
John Jay, Constitutional Framer and First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court , letter to John Murray, a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, October 12, 1816
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
[deleted]
That's quite the profound sweeping and ignorant generalization. Not to mention bigoted too! And what is the "evidence" for a god? This should be good!
People who are not convinced that a God exists, ipso facto do not possess the moral character to hold office?? You reason that unless someone believes the mores and values of ancient men (e.g. slavery, rape, stonings, burning people alive, ...) are divine providence, they are unfit for office?
Further you posit that atheists lack common sense because they do not believe in your particular God as the creator - because they are not persuaded by the evidence [the lack thereof] that the writings of ancient men are divine?
Do you teach this crap to the young people in your community, pastor?
Very well said TiG.
John Jay seems to be a bit of a religious nut.
I like how John Jay said this about Catholics:
.
I also love this part where he argues that allowing European Catholics immigrants to come to Canada will spell the end of the Protestant colonies in America. In other words from the standpoint of conservative freaks the Muslim immigrants of today are just the new Catholics and just as vile a threat.
You can cherry pick the bible if you want. You cannot cherry pick the Constitution.
Lose what? Forcing your beliefs on others through legislation and injecting your faith into public schools or our justice system is unconstitutional. You can push your religious backed morals all you want by only voting for those who don't murder, steal, those who haven't been accused of nearly two dozen sexual assaults, you can even choose not to vote for gays or Muslims, that's your right. But to try and pass any litmus test legislation that says atheists or Muslims can't be elected is illegal. But voting only for those who you believe will push Christianity into the public sphere, those who will tread on the constitution if their bible demands it, those who claim we are a "Christian nation" and ought to remain such just because Christianity forced itself on this nation from European settlers who had no qualms with forced conversion, then you ought to reassess what you're loyal to. Are you loyal to this country and our constitution that says "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".
Think of it like your religion is a beloved hobby such as collecting stamps. No one will deny you your right to collect stamps, but as soon as you try and require everyone to collect stamps, you've crossed the line. You can talk about how much you love collecting stamps, you can scream it from the rooftops if you wish, but if you try and force all public schools to adopt a stamp collecting class, and want to make laws that say stamp collectors are tax exempt or that stamp collectors can open stamp stores anywhere they wish but other hobbies such as coin collecting are denied coin stores, well then you've crossed the line. And if you are voting for an elected official who says they will force stamp collecting on everyone, then you may be using your free will, but you would be doing so in violation of the constitution "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of any one hobby, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".
So go, collect stamps all you want, tell everyone how wonderful collecting stamps is, that is your right, but keep your fucking stamps out of our public schools, our justice system and our legislation.
How can our government be ordained by your god when you can't prove that he exists to anyone who doesn't have blind faith in a bronze-age myth? Why wouldn't it be ordained by FSM, Vishnu, Thor or Zeus instead? Why should others have to live by the beliefs of your sect when we all have guaranteed equal religious rights to live and believe or not to believe as we wish? You sound a lot like a Christian equivalent of ISIL or the Saudi cultural enforcers.
What morals are imposed by the constitutional separation of church and state or the 14th, 19th, or even the 25th Amendments?
Your emotional thinking is very sloppy and needs work, if evangelizing to the willfully ignorant can be considered thinking.
There most certainly is a place for those of us who are believers to be active in politics and play a role in our political process as described by the article author. We will not be silenced or hide in the shadows. Note also that the article is about Christians getting involved in politics and provide moral input and leadership. It is not addressed to non Christians asking them to become believers so it is in no objective, logical, or rational way any form of proselytism what so ever.
Sure, as long as your beliefs do not become part of the government or law, per the separation of church and state! Otherwise, go nuts!
Individual persons or legislators may enact law based on their personal beliefs or values as long as they don’t do it in the name of their church or specific religion.
As long as the law isn't based on a religion and/or has a secular purpose or basis, then there's no problem.
I’m sure individuals can dress up a law with a stated secular purpose and the requisite psychobabble and still achieve a desired outcome.
It all depends on the basis for a law. As long as a constitutional, secular purpose can be demonstrated, then there should be no problem.
Fortunately the American people can see through your "requisite psychobable".
Even though ignorance and insanity should be hidden?
That’s why atheism, progressivism, and evolution should be hidden.
Project much?
Did you ask that of post 2.2 which projected the same about other groups of people?
I asked it of you!
I stand by what I said in response to the person I responded to.
As do I.
Don't believe that arrow was aimed, but if the shoe fits.................
It was in direct reply to comment #2. So it was quite aimed.
Yes there is, but that can't mean to the exclusion of other believers. If you just imagine your Christian legislator was Muslim, then ask yourself, how much of their religion do you want injected into secular America? If the answer is "Zero" then that should be the same for Christian beliefs. With religious freedom in America you have to be careful what you wish for. You want Christian morals policed in the US? Well get fucking ready for Sharia law as well then because anything your religion is allowed to do, theirs is as well. Want the 10 commandments in front of a courthouse? Okay, but be ready for a statue with scriptures from the Koran to sit right next to it and a statue to Baphomet on the other side.
That's what the establishment clause means, that taking sides in the religious debates is verboten. What's good for the Christian goose is good for the Muslim gander. To attempt to change that and to put Christianity on a special pedestal is unconstitutional and against the very ideals that made our nation so great and the envy of the world. The world has had, and still has, many theocracies. Our government was different, it was founded on secular ideas of shared prosperity mixed with hearty individualism. So you can be a staunch Christian, worship as you wish, share your faith with everyone around you and not be discriminated against, but so can a staunch Muslim, or Hindu, or Sikh or any other religious denomination. And to work towards denying the rights of other religions while promoting your own is not only unconstitutional, it's un-American and un-patriotic.
I feel at this point and here the injection of "Christianity" is being used as a defense tactic rather than a moral guideline.
All too often and especially here we get seeds that tout about Christianity from people that hide behind their self inflicted label and have no objection to the lies pointed out, in fact abandoning these seeds when the truth becomes overwhelming.
A lie is a lie, no matter what language is used.
If Christians really stood up to the values they profess this lying, adulterer and deceiver wouldn't be anywhere near the Whitehouse....
Apparently silence WAS an option then.
Trump made certain promises to various Christian groups about religious liberty and on social issues. He also made promises regarding the courts. The big bottom line though is and was that he’s not her.
Which just adds to the hypocrisy of this article.
And proves that the injection of "Christian" is a cover and defense tactic...and essentially a lie.
You made it very clear...you don't want a man of christ in there, you'll take anyone that will push the non-christian agenda and lie about it. It's also easily proven...one of the most Christ-like and walking/talking versions of a Christian man was Jimmy Carter...your side treated him like shit, didn't support his ethics and in the end supported one of the most corrupt administrations aside of the one you support now.
Silence was an option then? No, agenda under the cover of "we're Christians" is yet another lie witnessed by God.
You will be judged for your actions, word, and deed. I truly hope you are greeted with mercy that day.
Islam, Buddhism, LDS, etc... Freedom of Religion doesn't mean freedom of YOUR religion only. All religions get treated the exact same way in this country. PERIOD.
Unless you want to build a Mosque.
Then the right throw God under the bus and let the bigotry flag fly.
Trump directly appealed to us for support and he listens to us. He is a changing man since he decided to run for the Presidency and has surrounded himself with believers and asks us to pray over him, with him, and for him. God has converted many worldly men over time who have then done good things for Him and in His name. You can blame God and Christians for your political losses in 2016 to your hearts content. We accept that God does what he does for a reason and even though Obama won 2x, we accept that God had a purpose according to his will for our world for that to happen, just as He does now.
Religious liberty and the free excercise there of applies to all religious groups. That was never the issue here. The seeded article is about a specific religious group and not excluding its membership from full political participation in our government.
Not according to the Christian extremists at hate groups like the FRC and the AFA. In fact Bryan Fischer says that only Christians have 1st Amendment rights and that Muslims don't.
We saw the same thing regarding the Park Center mosque in NYC where Christian extremists and right-wingers generally were vehemently opposed to it. Apparently they don't really believe in religious liberty at all.
When exactly did the GOP's support of limited government and pro-freedom become a eupehenism for a conservative Christian theocracy as politcal spoils?
Yep....rubes. And haven't learned a damn thing since the Tea Party and Sarah Palin took them for chumps and cash cows.
Shouldn't theocrats and other religious extremists always be excluded from a secular government?
I wonder how difficult would be to begin breeding lions?
Neither Trump nor conservatives call for a Christian theocracy.
that is a straw man put out by the Christ haters
Actually you've admitted that you voted for Prop h8 in order to deny gays the civil rights you enjoy, so it's clear that you do support Christian sharia law and want it enforced by our secular government. As you said at the time:
naturally it wouldn't seem like a xtian theocracy to thumpers, the people that ignore most of their saviors teachings. they're free to cross the establishment cause at their own peril in this country. evangelicalism is the longest running ponzi scheme and scam in the history of the planet.
But you actively advocate against non christians in the government.
Why are you ignoring the beleifs of VP Pence? Legislating Christian beliefs as secular law is a Christian theocracy such as what Kim Davis tried to do. There are more than a few Christian conservatives who don't believe that other religions enjoy the same religious and secular rights that protestant Christians enjoy. They also oppose equal secular rights for women, LGBT and non-white races.
Jesus wasn't a bigot.
[Removed]
Jesus wasn’t a bigot and neither are evangelical Christian conservatives.
LOL. Aren't evangelicals the ones who overwhelmingly oppose LGBT rights and oppose marriage equality? Heck, they're even the ones who overwhelmingly opposed mixed-race marriage and supported Jim Crow laws, and the biggest evangelical sect was founded to promote slavery and white supremacy......and to this day still opposes a woman having any authority over a man and thus prohibits female pastors.
Smart and ethical they ain't. They're really just theocrats whining for a bygone era when women and minorities knew their place.
No he wasn't. Yes they are. Tell us again how born again scum will be going to heaven exclusively, and the other religions are shit out of luck, like before.
Jack Phillips and Kim Davis, among many others, are religious bigots because they seek to weaponize their beliefs as a way to deny equal rights to others who are not of their mythology.
No more of a straw man than articles like this one claiming that religious liberty is being taken away, which is complete and utter BS.
1) Which god? There are many. Who gets to choose? I mean, according to our constitution.
2) Doesn't matter anyway since this statement is FALSE. The US Constitution was penned by mostly, Deists. They fled the theocracy in England to come here, where they said you are free to practice any religion you want, but no laws can be made based on religion.
The One God that gave us our rights that man can not take away and who created us all equally according to our nations founding document.
Prove there's a god ! "God" isn't mentioned in eother the DoI or especially the Constitution (which enumerates our rights )
Isn't it your sky fairy which said that black folks can be enslaved and that woman, gays and Muslims are inferior to straight white Christian men?
Oh wait......the first two are also found in our nations founding document, while the latter two are Christian sharia laws which were improperly enforced by the state.
Allah? Zeus? Thor? Which one?
Don't forget Brahman (et. al.).
The only real gods are those with fangs and talons like Quetzalcoatl.
wait.. so your God read the the nations founding document first before creating everyone ?
Did you ever read Domain by Steve Alten?
Or noodly appendages like the FSM.
Theistic religion exists as an idea to control people who lack the capacity to think logically, so the claim that your god gave us rights and freedom is for the willfully obtuse and laughably ignorant.
I haven't but thanks for the tip. It looks fun.
Well duh. God came over on the Mayflower.
my bad..
i forgot about that part of history .. along with humans riding dinosaurs to work.. 
Our founding is based upon the fact that rights and freedoms come from God, not man
i guess in your ignorant view, JFK was an idiot
John F Kennedy put it exactly right in his inaugural address
"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."
Or How about Democratic President Harry Truman
President Harry Truman Speech on Our Laws
Address Before the Attorney General's Conference on Law Enforcement Problems.
February 15, 1950
“The fundamental basis of this Nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days.
If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”
John Adams criticizing atheists and Deists
“Letter from John Adams to Benjamin Rush
John Adams
January 21, 1810
(Adams criticizes Paine's attack on Christianity and defends the truth of Christian faith and his own discipleship)
Thomas Paine's] political writings, I am singular enough to believe, have done more harm than his irreligious ones. He understood neither government nor religion. From a malignant heart he wrote virulent declamations, which the enthusiastic fury of the times intimidated all men, even Mr. Burke, from answering as he ought. His deism, as it appears to me, has promoted rather than retarded the cause of revolution in America, and indeed in Europe. His billingsgate, stolen from Blount's Oracles of Reason, from Bolingbroke., Voltaire, Berenger, &c., will never discredit Christianity, which will hold its ground in some degree as long as human nature shall have any thing moral or intellectual left in it. The Christian religion, as I understand it, is the brightness of the glory and the express portrait of the character of the eternal, self-existent, independent, benevolent, all powerful and all merciful creator, preserver, and father of the universe, the first good, first perfect, and first fair. It will last as long as the world. Neither savage nor civilized man, without a revelation, could ever have discovered or invented it. Ask me not, then, whether I am a Catholic or Protestant, Calvinist or Arminian. As far as they are Christians, I wish to be a fellow-disciple with them all.”
I do like how JFK put it in his 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association:
.
Unlike JFK, you actually oppose the separation of church and state and you oppose both the Establishment Clause and the Equal protection Clause.
Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding regarding the Founding of this country or the constitution.
JFK said that to appease the hordes of ignorant thumpers that hated him for being a catholic. I'm surprised that someone that regards post 1929 democrats as godless marxists would quote him.
In fact it was evangelical extremists like Larry which caused the Dallas newspapers to advise JFK not to come to Dallas in Nov 1963. I think Larry has even said that Catholics aren't Christians, so his citation of JFK was self-serving at best.
That is a hilarious claim because John Adams wasn't a Christian. He and his son, John Quincy Adams, were Unitarians.
Jefferson was a Deist and a closet atheist.
God" refers to the Creator, "the Author of nature," the Almighty. This term was used by Jefferson, and apparently understood by all the Founders, to be a general reference to the Supreme Being, and not meant to refer to the God of a specific religion or church. Jefferson makes a big point of this difference when the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom was debated.
James Madison was not a typical Christian.
The One the founding fathers attributed to creating us equally in His sight and gave us our God given natural rights that you aren’t going to take away from us no matter how hard you try. The one who through His divine providence we were allowed to become an independent nation vs. the greatest empire then known.
Ah.....so our secular republic beat the theocratic king whose authority derived from your sky fairy?
I think you just undermined the point you thought you were making.
Have you ever in your entire life met anyone who claimed to have a sky fairy?
What exactly IS a sky fairy?
The constitution was written by HUMANS, not "GOD". It was written by Deists, I am one and trust me, they were in favor of religion about as much as I am. No one is even attempting to take away your right to practice whatever religion you choose. You are trying to create a problem where none exists. You have freedom of religion, that's ALL YOU ARE GETTING and you cannot change the 1st amendment so you can force your religion down everyone's throats no matter how YOU try. PERIOD.
Ownership of equality belongs to those that can enforce it best. A 2000 year old book of revised fables supported by various sects that disagree on it's meaning (fail) versus a 1 page document 200+ years old that the religiously challenged have fought tooth and nail against since the inception of the USA. The creation of this country occurred largely because of the last failed English gov't attempt to combine religion and government. The establishment clause of the 1st amendment backed by the 2nd amendment in our Constitution guarantees that blood will run in the streets if it's tried again.
We are not a Christian nation no matter how much you want to believe it. Sorry.
That's another aspect which is frequently neglected, the fact that religious extremists have been fighting against the Establishment Clause since day one. In fact that's why the confederate constitution does mention a sky fairy but the US version doesn't.
I've written articles to that effect before. It's amazing how much some theists deny or oppose the fact that this is not a Christian nation or the separation of church and state. It's like they need the government to validate their religion for them.
Indeed. We are a nation of many religions. Christianity just happens to be the most popular and as you well know, popularity means nothing to the 1st amendment. All religions are treated equally. Sadly, may Christians fail to accept that one simple fact.
According to some christians I've encountered, christianity is the only "true" religion and all others are fake. Therefore, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to them. Yes, I've actually had some christians tell me that.
Antonin Scalia believed that in his interpretation of the religious freedoms.
Indeed. The SCOTUS is better off without him.
Looks like the court will be spared a Kavanaugh too. I wonder if Trump has any candidates who aren't sexual predators?
Merrick Garland was a better candidate for the SCOTUS.
Scalia's dissent in Obergfell was rambling religious nonsense that didn't have a rational argument. I read it and thought to myself that it wasn't even wrong because to be wrong you must address the points being made, but he didn't address anything in his religious apologetics.
Scalia was a lousy Catholic because he died at a hunting resort during Lent when Catholics are supposed to be fasting, not eating meat and living a simple life of contemplation. When asked if he ate fish on Friday night the Chef couldn't remember, which is a polite way of saying that he didn't. That trip was paid by someone other than Scalia, which suggests that he very well had a conflct of interest in a case before the court.
It was written for a younger audience but one of the books I read to my daughter when lyme had her energy levels depleted.
I think it was interesting.
If Scalia was a Justice during the 60's, he probably would have dissented in the Loving case too.
You cannot even prove the existence of god, but want to enact laws based on something this being, that you cannot prove exists? Really? Lets get some absolute proof that YOUR god exists, then we can work on enacting laws because She said so.
Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe. Sadly for those who refuse belief without seeing signs and wonders, their proof will be witnessing the 2nd coming. Oh, and a question for atheists, in the final days when everyone has to choose and no one can sit on the sidelines, with one side asking for your belief and the other demanding your worship, which side will you take then?
Blessed or irrational. Same thing. Your question is a leading question. It starts with an assumption that lacks any validity. Atheists do not believe in the 2nd coming nonsense.
Rapture is the name of the transport ship headed to an intergalactic meat processing plant.
Most atheists also have a shorter refractory period than 2000 years. I can usually come again in 10 minutes or less.
Yeah, but what if in those 10 minutes you've been nailed to a post and had your sides stabbed with spears? Not even a little blue pill would help in that scenario...
Those waiting for the Messiah to "arrive" will be sorely disappointed...
looks like you are talking about the same side - the religious ask for your belief and demand your worship.
Dude, you're almost as kinky as CobaltBlue!
What's the safe word?
"Praise Jebus"
I will take that as a compliment...
Wait......I thought this was the forum for New Stalkers.
It is, right? I mean, why how could I stalk HA or Livefree if it weren't, right?
Or was this supposed to be a website for people who put goods back on emptied shelves? New Stockers....
Kindly don't expect me to take part in religious mythology. I worship nothing and belief without supporting evidence has no place in my life because I have a functional frontal cortex.
Why not pray? Heard that cures everything.
Anyway.. You do understand that voting for CHRISTIAN leaders will not give you MORE freedom of religion, right? 1st Amendment. Sorry.
We pray and we vote. As to the first amendment, it is where the free excercise there of of our religious beliefs in our daily lives is guaranteed . Our religious liberty is assured there. And it’s not just limited to the four walls of a religious building every Saturday or Sunday morning.
Maybe you should revisit the Kim Davis case.
Why bother voting when you can just pray to the sky fairy or the Russians to rig the election?
Why does it seem to bother anyone if Christians vote?
Normal Christians are free to vote but the theocratic right-wing ones should move to a non-secular country like Uganda, Russia or Saudi Arabia. In the US we have a constitution which prohibits the enforcement of loony Christian sharia laws.
If you don't like how some people vote, then get more people to vote the other way. That is how it is done.
If you don't like laws passed by our elected reps, then elect new ones.
Pretty simple really.
Christians have the very same voting rights as everyone else. The problem is when the conservatives try to elect religious politicans that seek to trample the religious or secular rights of everyone but members of their sect. This is why we have the strict separation of church and state so as to protect the constitutional rights of everyone else from being trampled by the many religious beliefs or lack thereof of all Americans.
Why do you have a problem understanding the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution? Or don't you think that it applies to your religion?
With respect to this article, the 1st amendment takes care of that problem.
Pretty simple really.
Actually the courts usually need to intervene to discard the nutty sharia laws which Christian extremists passed like the bans on mixed-race marriage and same-sex marriage. That's been true of most civil rights issues - heck, even you should know that since your state is responsible for having numerous Christian sharia laws overturned as SCOTUS did in Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas. Just think how much time and money would be saved if the courts more fully evaluated the constitutionality of laws and referenda before they were allowed to be enacted. Some countries actually do that but not ours....yet.
Yawn. Same old tired bull.
The Constitution is supposed to apply equally to all. And if Christians or members of any other religions want to vote, there isn't anything stopping them and nothing you can do to stop them.
Just because people vote based on their religious beliefs doesn't violate anything.
Did I claim otherwise?
WTF are you going on about?
Exactly! Some think that Christians are uniquely disenfranchised and that they are the only group of people not to be allowed any influence in government.
More faux victim bullshit.
More than 70% of the country are Christians and the government is populated predominantly by white Christian males, but somehow they are always victims of religious persecution by a group that is less than 15% of the population and have almost no members in government. Religious conservatives also believe that they are permitted to force others to live by their illogical bronze-age religious beliefs, despite the fact that they also claim that we all have guaranteed religious rights. Apparently, our religious rights are limited to believing as they do, being their willing and ignorant sycophants or their occasional rape targets.
I have come to the conclusion that both logic and reality are foreign concepts for religious conservatives. Maybe the many authors of their Bible should have mentioned those concepts.
An uninteresting set of sweeping generalizations of no value.
The bottom line......
Only because she is correct....so, go ahead and flag it...except you know what the proper response would be.
Too late. You sacrificed the moral argument the second you cast a vote for trump, who is completely amoral. If you had voted based on principals, you would NEVER have voted for trump.
First of all, Trump bashed Dr. Carson, his denomination, and its adherents during the campaign and yet Dr. Carson forgave him for that and then actually worked on his behalf instead of Sen. Cruz as I would have done. So if he can forgive that, then we as Christians can forgive him too. It’s not like we are to hold grudges or something. [deleted] I was both never Hillary and never Trump. I voted for Evan Mc Mullin 2016.
Did Trump mention that Carson belongs to a racially segregated sect whose white supremacist founder said that people like Carson were the product of sex between humans and other animals? Black folks like Carson are called an "amalgamation" in his loony superstitious sect.
Why did you abandon McMullin after the election and buy Donald Trump knee pads if you truly supported and voted for Evan? I voted for Hillary in 2016 but I never supported her because she is far too conservative for my tastes. I will forever be a progressive.
We voted our principles by not voting for Hillary. We’re not with her.
Voting based on one's principles doesn't always mean voting with your head. It's a vote based more on emotion rather than logic.
Your Christian principles told you vote for a liar, a pervert, and a con-man? In which Gospel did Jesus tell his followers to do that?
So you didn't vote for the one that didn't cheat on their spouse, opting instead for the one that cheated on ALL of his wives.... Sound Christian logic. SMFH
[deleted]
Why do you expect others to surrender our secular rights to your religious beliefs?
You know what's funny? I saw that comment in the comments section and thought it was about Trump. I don't think you realize how much the right lost that illusion of values after attaching themselves to him. There is just no way to justify throwing out every supposed value in the pursuit of appointing judges and giving the rich a big tax cut. Trump is a narcissist how lies, cheats, steals (not paying for what he owes) and breaks (or is proud to think he can) every commandment. I don't think the religious right realizes how much they've lost with their embrace of Trump. People who live real values can't ignore that.
Spare us the derogatory proselytizing nonsense!
I don't think the GOP itself yet realizes that they've destroyed their party by electing Trump. The GOP has devolved into its roots in the xenophobic and willfully ignorant "Know Nothing Party."
He’s right on. Live with it. It really is a waste of time for Christians to talk to hard core committed atheists. Though it is needed to talk around and through you all to reach open minded people who haven’t made a decision in their lives on religious matters yet. Again though this seed is by a Christian to other Christians regarding our involvement in voting and other political matters affecting our daily lives.
Render unto sleazer.
[deleted]
Born again religious zealots are free to think and say whatever they want, they just can't legislate it into secular America. Expressing the belief that other citizens of the USA are less equal because of religious dogma is hate speech.
E.A While the inverse towards Christians is?
No. He's not. Deal with it. I don't care if this seed is for other christians. It's an open discussion forum. If you want a Christian echo chambers, start your own private chat. In the mean time, the rest of us will continue to point out the errors and BS you and others spew. As you say, "live with it!"
Born again scumbags aren't Christians, they're fake xtians.
And do you consider them scumbags because they are reborn, Christians, or both?
Any other reason to be so denigrating?
Yeah, but "we" don't hold grudges....
Actually no. They screwed their credibility with that "Christian" bullshit when they voted for Reagan against Jimmy Carter, probably one of the most "true Christians" of our time. The so called Christians treated him like shit.
Even this Christian" seeder voted for Reagan.
Bingo. Carter was a crappy president, I will give that much, but he is 100% Christian who walks the walk and talks the talk.
I don't think that's really true at all. He faced a bad post-war economy, an uncooperative Congress and other issues that made it a bad time to be prez. But he accomplished a number of key issues like the SALT treaty, the Camp David accords, unwinding US involvement in our various puppet dictatorships around the world, etc. Congress hated him because he was an outsider, and southern Congressmen hated him because he wasn't a racist asshole.
In fact Trump is trying to unwind Carter's legacy as much as he is Obama's.
.
Very true. A bit ironic given that he's an evangelical but he came from the breed of Southern Baptists before the gradually liberalizing SBC got taken over by reactionary conservatives.
Carter was the final straw in turning me from the dems to the GOP. I was a Scoop Jackson supporter in the primary and thought carter ok then. When Reagan lost to Ford I stayed with the democrats a bit longer until Carter in a bid to appease the McGovernite wing of the party promised to kill off the MX Peacekeeper missile and the B1 bomber. That was the final straw and I threw my support to Ford.
Not only did I vote for him, I put in countless hours on his campaign locally and was a part of the local college Republicans doing additional work there.
Killing in the name of....
Defending America in the name of liberty, freedom, and peace. Peace through strength.
Who Would Jesus Bomb?
Does Jesus do "body counts"?
The US military doesn't, but thankfully, other countries do.
Wow! That comment Couldn't have been more obvious unless it was said in Chinese in the first day out of the camp.
This thread deleted for being off topic