[JerryLove]

this has been addressed by Travis COUNTLESS times, and every single time you've ignored his refutation of this ridiculous objection.

No, he's ignored my refutation of his refutation... but we are leaving the opic pretty handidly in discussing Travis and I.

considering you're an atheist and Travis is a Christian, I think I'll trust Travis's teachings about Christianity over yours.

But he's not a "True Christian (TM)" because he holds some of the old covenant.

The power of the Supreme Court is not spelled out by law.

Of course it is. You name the power, I'll cite the law.

If it were, why do you think Justice Marshall (may be the wrong name, can't remember it right now) was able to so expand their duties? It's because what they can and can not do is not spelt out to the extent they should/could have been.

Do you have a specific reference?

How does congress go about over turning Supreme Court decisions, I am truly curious. Through a Constitutional amendment?

Depends on what they would like overturned.. but yes, a constitutional ammendment would accomplish the task.

No, did I say that? No. What did I say? "(I believe) it is wrong when unelected officials (the justices) make policy-setting decisions for the entire country."

Right. Then you said:

Let the governed make their own decisions, to whatever end.

Since you have said that the governed, rather than the courts, should do what the justices are currently doing (establishing case law by interpreting the law)... you seem to be saying that decisions of law (which is currently the job of the judes in the judicial system) should be decided by popular vote. Since this is case-by-case, you are arguing that court cases should be determined bypublic vote.

If I have misinterpreted... please tell me what you mean by "let the goverened make their own decisions".

Classic examples involved one party suing another to set a judicial precident. That effectively tells congress, "Don't try to make a law to the contrary, we'll strike it down. Who cares if that's what the people want, we want the contrary."

It does nothing of the kind. When laws conflict, or when the meaning of a law in in contest, it is the job of the judiciary to adjudicate the actual application. The Judicial system makes no new law, they create applications of given law and determine how laws interact. That is their function.

Laws only get struck down if they are incongruant with higer laws... a federal law which violates the constitution would be an obvious example.

For example, the constitution says that the government cannot abridge your freedom to speak... the congress passes a law that says it's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded thatre, and it's illegal to say the president is a bad man. Both parts get contested.

The supreme court finds that yelling "fire" is not constitutionally protected speech, but that complaining about the president is. The second part of the law is shot down.

If congress would like to make it illegal to say mean things about the president, they need to first modify the law that guarentees your right to express your opinion (the first ammendment)... which it is within their power to accomplish.

[JerryLove]

)(*@@# Lost post

Short version (I hate when I put effor in... I don't have it a second time).

this has been addressed by Travis COUNTLESS times, and every single time you've ignored his refutation of this ridiculous objection. considering you're an atheist and Travis is a Christian, I think I'll trust Travis's teachings about Christianity over yours.

No, I've dealt with his arguments as well, then he starts shutting down threads and deleting posts. I counter your second part with "He's not a 'real Chrsitian (TM)' cause he follows part of the old covenant"

The power of the Supreme Court is not spelled out by law. If it were, why do you think Justice Marshall (may be the wrong name, can't remember it right now) was able to so expand their duties? It's because what they can and can not do is not spelt out to the extent they should/could have been.

Yes, it is spelled out by law. You cite the power I'll cite the law. As to your question over an event... it's nebulous. Can you be spcific please?

How does congress go about over turning Supreme Court decisions, I am truly curious. Through a Constitutional amendment?

It varies but "yes, that would work".

No, did I say that? No. What did I say? "(I believe) it is wrong when unelected officials (the justices) make policy-setting decisions for the entire country."

You did say it when you said: "Let the governed make their own decisions, to whatever end."

You said the governed should do what the judeges now do, which would require all court cases to be adjucated by public vote.

Classic examples involved one party suing another to set a judicial precident. That effectively tells congress, "Don't try to make a law to the contrary, we'll strike it down. Who cares if that's what the people want, we want the contrary."

The courts do not make law, they only interprete law. If a law is struck, it is because it conflicts with a higher law. All congress need to is modify the higher law. Why do you think "no gay marriage" was proposed as an ammendment instead of a law? Because a law would be unconstitutional.

[Jas de F]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

But he's not a "True Christian (TM)" because he holds some of the old covenant.

once again, I'll point out that you are far from the authority on what a "true Christian" is, considering you're an atheist and a taoist.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Pieter Friedrich

once again, I'll point out that you are far from the authority on what a "true Christian" is, considering you're an atheist and a taoist.

You are far from determining wheather a atheist can know what a "true Christian (TM)" is as you are not a true Christian (TM).

[Jas de F]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You are far from determining wheather a atheist can know what a "true Christian (TM)" is as you are not a true Christian (TM).

Jerry, quit trying to make an ass of yourself.

[JerryLove]

As long as I'm being a "true ass" and not simply paying lip-service or actually following a false ass.

Hopefully, however, you see the danger in trying to judge who is and is not right without a standard other than "agrees with me"?

[Jas de F]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

As long as I'm being a "true ass" and not simply paying lip-service or actually following a false ass.

Hopefully, however, you see the danger in trying to judge who is and is not right without a standard other than "agrees with me"?

I continue to see how ridiculous it is for you, a non-Christian, to suggest that we should believe you when, speaking about Christianity, you tell us the Old Covenant has been done away with. you have no authority to speak on the subject.

I'm not judging who is and is not right. I'm saying that someone who adheres to and daily studies a certain belief will be able to speak much more reliably about that belief than someone who denies that belief.

[Indazone]

Originally Posted by Pieter

are the quotation marks meant to imply that there is no right religion that we can know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is right?

No, the quotations are meant to imply that people always assume THEIR religion is the "right" one.

So if we have 10 different religious countries in the world, each saying their religion is the "right" one, then obviously 9 of them, maybe all 10 are wrong.

I without a shadow of a doubt believe Christianity is the right religion. But maybe my neighbor believes that Islam is the 100% right religion. Does that mean we cannot co-exist? Can we not treat each other respectably? Of course we can. I believe that America should continue to prosper as a nation of free thought and religion because there are people in this country that don't view Christianity as 100% right, and I don't think political laws should force them into belief, and I believe God would prefer that people's hearts are changed by his glory not by human dictation.

[hockey_chick19]

i would vote for bush any day, but i think kerry will win the election. have you ever noticed that when kerry is asked about the war in iraq he won't comment? i believe that if he is elected he will sign a 'peace treaty' with the middle east. that will fully be a huge sign that we are in the endtimes! it's time to wake up and realize that if kerry becomes president our country as we know will fade away. i believe that john kerry is an evil man. the first time that i saw him i got chills and God gave me this discernment. if you're smart you won't vote for kerry. ~sarah~

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by Travis

Performing rituals of worship before a pagan shrine, known to be ways of worshiping pagan gods, is idolotry, no matter where your mind was.

(A) You asked for my opinion ("what would you have done?")
(B) We are instructed by Scripture to look at the fruits of other believers, and also to rebuke and correct others.

Does that mean that God only looks at the heart and doesn't care about external actions?

Why "must" you have gone to a pagan center of worship?

How is being around sinners the same as going to a pagan temple and performing outwardly actions which signify worship? That's denying The Lord by one's actions.

Newsweek (as the quote in my signature and the quote I posted both say).

Is he a professing believer? If so, I think it's a bad idea because in the English language "Allah" is known to denote the pseudo-god of Islam, not the God of the Bible.

And that's exactly what I did. Apparently you don't like my answer, and really just meant that question as a way of trying to assert that anyone would have done the same thing.

My friend is a born again believer who has been ministering to Muslims in Morocco for more years than you have known Christ. Please don't question him because all you know is the culture of the west or English speaking countries. If he had listened to you saying it's a "bad idea", none of these people would ever know Christ. Are you saying that all these people who have now come to know Jesus are truly not saved because their God is "Allah"? I have confirmed that they don't go around saying "God" but rather "Allah". Maybe trying to understand other cultures might make you less judgmental through the application of your western view.

Because you cannot seem to grasp this concept, I know for a fact that you did not put youself in my place because, once again, you applied a western view to my situation. I will apologize for this comment if you can tell me what it is like living in a Buddhist culture and what the ceremony is like. Let me know and my wife, who is Caucasian, will confirm your perceptions. You place more significance in the ceremony and that temple than the unbelievers there! Once again, WE WERE NOT WORSHIPPING BUDDHA! We were pouring out our hearts to God, not to Buddah, for comfort in our time of mourning and praise for the life He gave my mother. Answer this, is my mother's confession that Christ was her King, nullified by her funeral ceremony in a Buddhist temple?

FYI, I have been a born again believer for over 18 years, having been saved by His grace and not by my works in the past or now. Jesus said that the well don't need a doctor and I will tell you that I was sick. It was His kindness that led me to repentance, not His judgement. Read I Cor. 13. As a "Biblicist" you probably already know this one. Instead of judging me, love me as a brother in Christ and accept the fact that God is my King, no matter if He leads me to visit a Buddhist, Mormon, JW temple or where ever He wants me to shine His light in the darkness.

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by Indazone

Sorry, it's been a while since freshman year American Government. Thank you for placing all the rights of voting on the shoulders of a misplaced reference. If it was for people like you, illiterate slaves and first generation descendants of immigrants would most likely been denied their right to vote. I'll take my misplaced, yet valid idealogical reference over your asinine elitism any day of the week, thanks.

The reason I said you should not vote is because you have been exposed to the knowledge of the Constitution. Yet, you go on a public forum and spread disinformation as if it was truth. In fact, your opinion is based on this misinformation and so would others if they didn't know better. You, have no excuse for not knowing. I would not deny the slave or the first generation descendant of immigrants their right to vote because they didn't know - that is only your presumption. It's kind of like knowing that homosexuality is an abomination to God, but saying it's okay because society says it's okay. All I will say is that God says that He will not be mocked. That's why we have the example of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[JerryLove]

I continue to see how ridiculous it is for you, a non-Christian, to suggest that we should believe you when, speaking about Christianity, you tell us the Old Covenant has been done away with. you have no authority to speak on the subject.

So truth is now decided by the authoritativenes of the speaker? Correct me if I'm off here, but the only person with authority to dictate which covenant is in place is God... any one else is a falty sinner.

So now we fall back to your argument being "someone who claims to be a Chrsitian said so, so it's true". That reasoning lacks any reasonable grounding. If I find a Christian that disagrees (how about the seventh-day adventists?) does that make them right? While we are on an appeal to authority, why not an appeal to popularity? There are more of them then there are of Travis.

I'm not judging who is and is not right. I'm saying that someone who adheres to and daily studies a certain belief will be able to speak much more reliably about that belief than someone who denies that belief.

So someone who spends more time studying quantum mechanics will neccessarily have a better understanding of it than someone else? Regardless of their mental facility, objectivity, comprehensoin, etc. Belief that it's true means you neccessairily understand it better; looking at it longer means you neccessairily understand it better?

BTW, while we are discussing "daily studies"... I'd wager I've put at least as much time into the matter as anyone here who is not majoring in Bible Study.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

My friend is a born again believer who has been ministering to Muslims in Morocco for more years than you have known Christ.

That's great, but it's not really relevant to the question at hand.

Originally Posted by Hopeful

Please don't question him because all you know is the culture of the west or English speaking countries.

(A) You asked me what I would have done and what I thought! You can’t ask me what I think and then get angry when I tell you.
(B) I fail to see what culture has to do with the question at hand. God’s laws are not culturally relative.

Originally Posted by Hopeful

If he had listened to you saying it's a "bad idea", none of these people would ever know Christ.

Are you God? Do you know whom He has chosen to save, how, and how He will do it? How did you determine that your friend saying “Allah” is what made these people come to Christ?

Originally Posted by Hopeful

Are you saying that all these people who have now come to know Jesus are truly not saved because their God is "Allah"?

No. The sins or poor methods employed by an evangelist have no bearing on the true salvation of an individual they bring to the faith, even if it’s through poor methods.

Originally Posted by Hopeful

I have confirmed that they don't go around saying "God" but rather "Allah".

They may or may not be saved. I have serious doubts about anyone who uses the word for a pagan god in place of God, though.

Originally Posted by Hopeful

Maybe trying to understand other cultures might make you less judgmental through the application of your western view.

(A) Biblical mandates are not culturally relative.
(B) This is just a way of saying “you can’t understand, so just accept what I believe as being true.”

Originally Posted by Hopeful

Because you cannot seem to grasp this concept, I know for a fact that you did not put youself in my place because, once again, you applied a western view to my situation.

I.e., Travis will always be wrong and not putting himself in your shoes unless he agrees with you.

Originally Posted by Hopeful

I will apologize for this comment if you can tell me what it is like living in a Buddhist culture and what the ceremony is like.

It’s irrelevant what the pagan ceremony is like. The whole point is that it is a pagan ceremony

Originally Posted by Hopeful

Let me know and my wife, who is Caucasian, will confirm your perceptions. You place more significance in the ceremony and that temple than the unbelievers there! Once again, WE WERE NOT WORSHIPPING BUDDHA! We were pouring out our hearts to God, not to Buddah, for comfort in our time of mourning and praise for the life He gave my mother.

God demands worship in the way He wants to be worshiped. Being worshiped at a pagan temple is not the correct way. If you don’t think God is particular about how He is worshiped, read the Old Testament laws about the tabernacle or the temple. Read about Uzzah, who had good intentions in trying to stop the Ark of the Covenant from falling, but was stricken dead on the spot for doing so (2 Samuel 6:6-8).

Originally Posted by Hopeful

Answer this, is my mother's confession that Christ was her King, nullified by her funeral ceremony in a Buddhist temple?

No. How would anything I’ve said even implied that?

Originally Posted by Hopeful

As a "Biblicist" you probably already know this one. Instead of judging me, love me as a brother in Christ and accept the fact that God is my King, no matter if He leads me to visit a Buddhist, Mormon, JW temple or where ever He wants me to shine His light in the darkness.

One could similarly say:

“Instead of judging me, love me as a brother in Christ and accept the fact that God is my King, no matter if He leads me to rape and kill children.”

“Instead of judging me, love me as a brother in Christ and accept the fact that God is my King, no matter if He leads me to be a homosexual.”

“Instead of judging me, love me as a brother in Christ and accept the fact that God is my King, no matter if He leads me to kidnap someone and hold him for ransom.”

Loving you as a brother does not entail accepting whatever you do and not speaking out when something is wrong. Nor would God ever lead you to disobey Him—and worshiping in a pagan temple is disobedience.

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by Travis

(B) I fail to see what culture has to do with the question at hand. God’s laws are not culturally relative.

No. The sins or poor methods employed by an evangelist have no bearing on the true salvation of an individual they bring to the faith, even if it’s through poor methods.

They may or may not be saved. I have serious doubts about anyone who uses the word for a pagan god in place of God, though.

(A) Biblical mandates are not culturally relative.
(B) This is just a way of saying “you can’t understand, so just accept what I believe as being true.”

I.e., Travis will always be wrong and not putting himself in your shoes unless he agrees with you.

It’s irrelevant what the pagan ceremony is like. The whole point is that it is a pagan ceremony

God demands worship in the way He wants to be worshiped. Being worshiped at a pagan temple is not the correct way. If you don’t think God is particular about how He is worshiped, read the Old Testament laws about the tabernacle or the temple. Read about Uzzah, who had good intentions in trying to stop the Ark of the Covenant from falling, but was stricken dead on the spot for doing so (2 Samuel 6:6-8).

No. How would anything I’ve said even implied that?

One could similarly say:

“Instead of judging me, love me as a brother in Christ and accept the fact that God is my King, no matter if He leads me to rape and kill children.”

“Instead of judging me, love me as a brother in Christ and accept the fact that God is my King, no matter if He leads me to be a homosexual.”

“Instead of judging me, love me as a brother in Christ and accept the fact that God is my King, no matter if He leads me to kidnap someone and hold him for ransom.”

Loving you as a brother does not entail accepting whatever you do and not speaking out when something is wrong. Nor would God ever lead you to disobey Him—and worshiping in a pagan temple is disobedience.

You are trying to do the moral equivalent argument with these examples - I never implied any of these things. You put God in a box when all you do is view things from the western point of view. When you say that worship of God is not culturally relevant, just what do you mean? Are you saying that God only works in western cultures? Did God move out of the region of the Jews? Do only Americans deserve His grace and mercy? Here's what I say, you have a judgemental spirit that needs some seasoning and a world view of God.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

You are trying to do the moral equivalent argument with these examples - I never implied any of these things.

Sure you did. You compelled me to stop "judging" you because "God had led" you to do something, without addressing my argument that it was wrong. The same argument could used for anything that you would admit is wrong. You must refute the idea that it is wrong first--otherwise your arguments are the same as those examples I posted.

Originally Posted by Hopeful

You put God in a box when all you do is view things from the western point of view.

(A) What does that even mean?
(B) Is God culturally relative? Is morality?

Originally Posted by Hopeful

When you say that worship of God is not culturally relevant, just what do you mean? Are you saying that God only works in western cultures?

I mean that God has established rules of worship which trancend culture. The fact that someone is in the East doesn't mean there is a different standard than there would be in the West. God has one standard for all.