Gee willikers, MM:

"It isnt what he said, eluded to nor meant. And you should know that. He said very clearly that it isnt he, nor Mortarman, nor any other Christian that made the rules. He also didnt say that it is any of our jobs to take away your choice not to believe in this. What he said was that no matter your or my belief, that what is true will come out."

In perhaps somewhat roundabout fashion, you restated what FH said and that WAT complained about (and I complain about from time 2 time as well).

Also, I'm pretty sure that WAT meant "OUR" when he said OUR. Not HIS.

The conundrum remains.

-ol' 2long

MM - I'll see in line at the polling station in the Commonwealth.

But in the context of this discussion, we will not be voting for or against unconstitutional ideas - unless given the opportunity afforded the voters in Dover PA to vote for the constitution by proxy in throwing out the "my way or the highway" school board.

We will predominately be voting for or against ideas within the framework of the constitutions of the Commonwealth and of the U.S. And get this > majority rule doesn't carry the day when constitutional rights are involved. Otherwise slavery may still be around.

In case you missed my points way above - this is not about teaching Creationism. It's about teaching Creationism as science - along with teaching the earth is only a few thousand years old, humans are "special", and the Bible is the source of all "truth". Teach those things all you want at home, in your place of worship, and even in schools - so long as other "ideas" are also presented such that no one faith is annointed as the "one." What is so hard about this to understand? The framers of our Constitution understood it very well - and this is EXACTLY why the Dover case came out the way it did, and why all the others to come will come out similarly. The fact that the Dover school board got kicked out in the meantime by the voters is icing on the cake.

I'm disappointed in the level of understanding of the Constitution vis a vis majority rule that your prior post conveys. It follows from this logic that if the voters in the Commonwealth decided that one particular faith was the "State Faith" then you'd think that was OK? Suppose it wasn't your particular choice?

I think I'll end my participation in this discussion acknowleging ark's wise assessment way back on the first page or so. Too much silliness. Why did I even try?

WAT

No, there is a difference. WAT complained that FH was forcing his belief (and Christians force their beliefs) down people's throats. While some may...I have not read one word that FH stated that was FH imposing his beliefs on anyone. All he has stated is what he knows to be true. And also the truth, no matter what it is, will still come out. It will still be the truth. That is quite different than imposing beliefs on someone else.


So, if I said that WAT should leave his hands off of our schools, would that mean the same thing?

In His arms.

All true! As I am not a scientist and have said so when we have spoken of evolution and the like...I AM a political scientist and have studied Consitutional law extensively. I know about the Constitution.


I can understand that in the framework of the political debate. But here's the rub...if the people of Michigan want to say that Creationism IS science...it is their right.


Many today (including several recent Supreme Court decisions) have been very telling in the fact that they do not care or do not know what the Framers meant. Like the right to privacy (doesnt exist in the Constitution as outliend by the Framers). Like the misguided interpretation on what the 1st Amendment says. The Framers were VERY clear in their writings what it meant. And it aint what we are saying today.


As I said...the government of the United States is bound by the Constitution in its limitations in the fact that it cannot be involved in creating a state sponsored religion...NOR interfere in ANY WAY in the exercise of religion. It says nothing about the State of Maryland doing it. The State of Maryland has its own Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution was put there to limit the U.S. government. To create its few, and listed powers. All other powers were kept in the states and with the people.

I understand what a Consitutional Repblic is. Most today do not. Majority rule only matters as long as they do not overstep a person's Consitutional rights. Exactly. But teaching that Willie Wonka is God in science class, that does not go against anyone's rights...just as teaching evolution in science class does nto go against mine.

If I could have an hour here, I could type away at the things government does that it has no business doing. Things it does that are unConsitutional...as the Framers wrote it and meant it to be.

As I said, if the people of Virginia vote that they want Creationism taught as a cience, then it is their right. And it breaks no one's Constitutional rights. Thus, i nthat case...majority does rule.


Dont know WAT. I cannot answer that for you.

Elspeth, thank you for the link. It was fascinating reading, and as scholarly as the best rabbinical work always is. I have also always appreciated the Jewish view toward Gentiles and their ability to be righteous and be rewarded in the world to come. One summary of the Noahite commandments is here:

http://www.jhom.com/topics/seven/noahite.html

MM, I read FH's statement to indicate that even if we perfectly keep God's commandments, we are still going to He11 without intervention from Jesus. I suspect WAT may have read it the same way.

I know. But that isnt what FH said. He said that if we kept His commandments, that means all of them...that means to have never sinned...then we dont need Jesus. Problem is, none of us have ever been able to accomplish that feat. Except of course, Jesus.

In His arms.

JustJ - then you read it wrong. What I said was that if anyone COULD keep the Commandments perfectly they WOULD have eternal life with God. The point is that NONE of us could or can. The only person who could was God himself, the Son, the Word. That is why God himself worked salvation for us, to imput Christ's perfection to us.

For further example it was NOT Abrams righteousness that merited God's favor. It was his willingness to be obedient to God that God accepted and chose him to be the "Father of many nations." Saul did not surrender to Christ until Christ chose him. Saul responded with surrender and began his new submitted life as Paul.

Hope the clears things up for you.

Okay, thank you for the clarification. The only alternative is a standard that is impossible for any human to meet. Got it.

One human met it.

In His arms.

WAT, MM pretty much summed up the Constitutional question pretty concisely and pretty well.

The Constitution reserves certain rights to the STATES that are not specifically assigned to the Federal Government. As in, "Congress shall make NO law regarding the establishement of (a FEDERAL State Religion, regardless of how many other beliefs might be "tolerated", as in England allowing Muslims to practice Islam) .....or prohibiting free exercise of religion."

Opponents to Christianity (and/or Atheists who are against any sort of religion) are very quick to parse out the "establishment" provision but are remarkably silent on the NOT "prohibiting the free exercise of" provision.

Beyond that, I, for one, am more than willing to allow ONLY evolution, as unproven as it is, to be taught as the only possible CAUSE for all that is, ON ONE CONDITION. That condition is that the MONEY for education stays with the INDIVIDUAL child and NOT forced and confiscated by a government bent on denying my right to the "Free exercise of my religion" by seeking the educational choice that I prefer and not be FORCED to "pay double." "Vouchers" are not only sensible and fair, they should be the law of the land to prevent the unconstitutional politicalization of the law to educate our youth, and not to force them to choose "against their religious beliefs."

If you want the public schools to be without God or without the alternative theory to origins, then give them the right to use their educational money for the school of their choice. Seems like the only fair way to go, don't you think?

Look, if we dont like it...if we dont like being sinners, we can try to clean ourseles up. I mean, humans are so good at heart. We can do anything we put our minds to. We are smarter than God, so rather than listen to Him...we do it our own way. Kinda like Adam did. God told Him what was right and wrong, but Adam "knew" better.

But wait a minute. Even though man knows better than God...God still tries to help out by giving man an ACTUAL way to get clean. And what does man do? Reject, minimize and even have hatred toward the solution that God provided.

You know, the angels have to be sitting there wondering "Why do You love THOSE so much?" We are ungrateful, rebellious, stubborn, sinful, prideful, etc. And I am one of those ones in that group.

I find myself all the time counseling God. "Gee, God...I think it would be better if You did it this way...or that way." What an idiot I am!! Who am I to counsel God? What kind og God needs me to tell Him what to do, or how things should be? What kind of God needs me to instruct Him on right and wrong, morality, etc? Any god that needs that...isnt a god at all!

The God I know just rolls His eyes at me when I try to counsel Him, pats me on the head and says "I know, I know Mortarman. I know that you believe that I should do that. but, if you are listening to Me...then you know that My will be done. That I know better. And even if you think differently, you must still trust Me."

I have many, many times (one BIG one last night, even) have had to follow God when I felt differently, wanted to do differently. Thought there was a better way, a faster way to get what I wanted done. But I have to decide if I want to do it my way, which may fail. Or do it His, which has NEVER failed. When I am thinking, then I can see that it is in my best interest to do it His way...to trust Him...even though I want or think differently!

In His arms.

Perfect, FH!! Reminds me of several quotes from the Founders:


and...


and...


and...


And one more...


And a host of others. THIS is what the Constitution means. What it was meant to be when it was written. Not what the new age "Living Document" crowd has made up.

In His arms.

Oh, right. Edit noted. The summary should be:

The only alternative is a standard that one human, of all humans who have lived, has meet. Though not purely impossible, it is theorized that it is impossible, in practical terms, for anyone else to meet it.

Yes?

And...

MM, my dear man, you're ranting.

I wasn't particularly upset by your belief system, nor did I intend any offense by my summary of it.

So.... err, why are you ranting?

Didnt know I was ranting. Sorry if I was! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

In His arms.

Apology accepted. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

JustJ - seems like you are back to the fundamental question; "Is Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, is He who He said He is?"

Yes, I believe the preponderance of the evidence proves he is beyond a reasonable doubt. But then again, there will always be the crowd who believe, for whatever reason the neither OJ nor Scott Peterson "did it."

I don't have questions, FH. I was summarizing the position that you and MM have stated that you believe. I'm sometimes confused by what you say; in situations like that, it's often a good practice to summarize things, and then let folks confirm or modify (like MM did with my original summary) to ensure that I understand your meaning.

MM,

Since you asked me some direct questions, I will answer and not just thank you for your explanation (which I do appreciate, as I did FH's a few pages back).


I know Him, too. Which of us is right? Both of us? Even though we don't believe the same about other aspects (like the Bible), are we both right? Only you? Only me?

And to the person who says they don't believe in the Holocaust... there is proof *from our lifetime* and there wasn't any magical thinking needed (as there is with the miracles of Christ). It's fact.


The Son of God, who died on the Cross.

You'll ask where I got this idea... the Bible... I believe in the truth of the Cross. I think that actually happened. As I said, I believe that among the poetry and stories, there is literal truth.


I used that line myself (in my old Baptist door-to-door come-to-Jesus days), MM, so it doesn't surprise me. I never said, nor do I think that Jesus was (is) a liar.

However, I don't know that Jesus actually said that, because your source is the Bible, which I don't believe is a literal word-by-word translation of conversations or events.

Do I think it's inspired or 'breathed into by God'? Originally, yes. The original translations of events were, as you probably know, oral. The stories were passed from generation to generation orally. Then they were written. God's handprint upon the words? Maybe, but doubtful, as man has attempted to translate and understand through the glass of imperfection since... many translations... many personalities...

Cripes, FH:

"But then again, there will always be the crowd who believe, for whatever reason the neither OJ nor Scott Peterson "did it.""

Why make THAT connection???

Why not say something a whole lot less insulting, like "But then again, there will always be the crowd who believe, for whatever reason, that Jesus was not the messiah, and that the Holocaust DID happen."

-ol' 2long

I wondered that myself. There have been other places where FH has made connections that can redirect the conversation to emotionally charged issues.

FH, care to comment on how you find this approach to be beneficial?