Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - The Bible Trumps The Constitution

In response to The Bible Trumps The Constitution posted by pink101:

I just got finished saying that the Bible does NOT trump the Constitution in the context of government and citizenship. Did you not read that, Pink????

Having a Catholic or a Mormon President has NO bearing on my personal daily spiritual life (where the Bible DOES trump the US Constitution).

When I vote for President, I'm not voting for who I want to be my pastor. I'm voting for who I think will do the best job as President.

As Jerry Falwell (God rest his soul) recently said (in response to whether he'd insist on a "Christian" President): "If I have brain surgery, I don't care if the surgeon is Christian or not. I care if he's qualified or not."

p.s. As for "Inherit the Wind," I've seen it several times. I own it.

» pink101 - The Bible Trumps The Constitution

In response to The Bible Trumps The Constitution posted by BrianTubbs:
.
At the moment, as I write this, Jerry Falwell is in grave physical condition. He may not last the hour. He was discovered unconscious this morning on the floor of his office after he didn't show up for a scheduled meeting.
.
http://www.annointed.net/Article861.html
.
This appears to be the latest in a series of attacks he has suffered this year.
.
Falwell is DEAD.
.
http://ap.washingtontimes.com/dynamic/st...
.
I didn't say anything about your beliefs when I said we won't be wanting a lot of Christians or a Catholic or a Mormon in the presidency. The Catholic Church has as recently as yesterday asserted its right of authority over the state. Many, very many, others believe that what God wants them to do and be is more important that what the Constitution allows and prohibits.
.
My point is that we had better pay close attention to the religionists running for office so we can be sure to vote against them as they would subvert our Constitution at their first chance.
.
As for "Inherit the Wind," I've seen it several times. I own it.
.
Pretty good movie.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Inherit the Wind

In response to The Bible Trumps The Constitution posted by pink101:

The movie does a great job in showing the dangers of simple-minded "religionism." However, it is NOT an accurate portrayal of the Scopes Trial. It's a work of fiction. Very compelling fiction, but fiction nevertheless.

» Brian Tubbs - Mormons, Catholics, etc.

In response to The Bible Trumps The Constitution posted by pink101:

If a candidate running for office makes it clear that he/she will not be taking orders from some ecclesiastical office, then I don't see any reason for the American people to discriminate against that candidate for his/her religious beliefs.

Of course...the American voter is free to use whatever criteria he/she sees fit to cast his/her vote. If a voter wants to elect only people who part their hair on the left side, that's that voter's perogative.

» pink101 - Mormons, Catholics, etc.

In response to Mormons, Catholics, etc. posted by BrianTubbs:
.
If a candidate running for office makes it clear that he/she will not be taking orders from some ecclesiastical office, then I don't see any reason for the American people to discriminate against that candidate for his/her religious beliefs.
.
Both Guliani and Romney have made their positions clear in the past; but, both are either waffling or have changed their position fully.
.
That points to the idea that religionists who claim they will put the Constitution in front of their religious beliefs cannot be trusted. After all, consider the authority one gives to the god of the Bible. It is an awesome dedication of one's beliefs and actions.
.
We need some strong clarifications in our society regarding the definition of the First Amendment prohibitions.
.
We have had that in the past. Now, we are wavering and turning into a theocratic form of government based on the idea that the will of the people is more important than the Supreme Law of The Land.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Big Important Distinction

In response to Mormons, Catholics, etc. posted by pink101:

Pink, being loyal to one's conscience (which may be informed by prayer and Scripture reading - and, yes, influenced by a church) is DIFFERENT from being beholden to a particular denominational or ecclesiastical office.

The Founding Fathers - who WROTE the Constitution - had ZERO problem with a President who had a religiously-informed conscience. In fact, they ENCOURAGED this. Read Washington's Farewell Address. (Pay close attention to what he says about "religion and morality" - and remember that he was the president of the convention that drafted and approved the Constitution!)

Keep this important distinction in mind.

» HeadZenCards - Mormons, Catholics, etc.

In response to Mormons, Catholics, etc. posted by pink101:

God and children is certainly an odd place to have a political discussion, but I suppose politics is more appealing than thinking about what the LORD GOD had in His mind when He demanded infanticide from his followers.

Thinking about a LORD GOD who knew that knives go dull after cutting the guts out of infants, who knew of the blood and brain that smashing babies heads into stone walls would cover His followers with, what with his being all-knowing and all, is more depressing.

Imagining another religionist president is also depressing, but hopefully less bloody.

-- posted by HeadZenCards

» Migisi - Clarification

In response to Clarification posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I admit to being uncomfortable with some of the things God did in the OT, but I believe He did them.
.
Believing that he committed and ordered such atrocities - can you love him with all your heart, mind, and strength (per Jesus-IS-God's great commandment)? Can you trust that he's NOT committing atrocities around the world right now? What if you discovered he was... would you not be repulsed? Could you still love and worship him?
.
it would NOT be toward disbelief in God, but rather disbelief in the canonization process.
.
You've mentioned this before. Would you explain what you mean?
.
However, I also believe in the Trinity - God in three persons.
.
A triad or Trinity is not an original or unique concept to Christianity. I'm sure you've heard of these triads people believed in at one time:
--- Trimurti - the Hindu triad (some ~still~ believe today)
--- Nimrod, Tammuz, Simerimas (or Shamash, Sin, and Ishtar) - the Babylonian triads
--- Mitra, Varuna, Indra - the Hittite triad
--- EL/Yah, Tammuz/Baal, Ashtoreth/Shekhina - the triad of backslidden Israel
--- Jupiter, Mars, Venus - the Roman triad
--- Oriris, Horus, Isis - the Egyptian triad
--- Zeus, Apollo, Athena - the Greek triad
.

-- posted by Migisi

» HeadZenCards - Clarification

In response to Clarification posted by BrianTubbs:

Glad to see that you have gone from confrontation and support of a LORD GOD that inspired infanticide to acknowledging being uncomfortable.

Disbelief in the canonization process should be your aim now. Work hard at it.

You say that you believe in the Trinity.

You mention only two fellas: Jesus, but then you say that Jesus is God. So that's really only one person, or two if Jesus and/or God is indeed schizophrenic.

Who is the third person?

-- posted by HeadZenCards

» Brian Tubbs - Biblical Canon

In response to Clarification posted by Migisi:

Think of the whole "Word of God" concept at the following levels...

1. God's revelation
2. The author's receipt of that revelation
3. The author's transmission of that revelation
4. The copying and preservation of that transmission
5. Deciding where that transmission fits in with the others - i.e., is it "Scripture" and thus part of the Bible?
6. The numerous translations of the Bible (and the various transmissions included in the Bible)

Logically...it is not necessary to reject ALL six of the above stages if one is unable to accept God ordering the violence that took place in the OT. There could've been a breakdown at any stage - and the ONLY stage that speaks to God's reality is Stage One.

Now, again, speaking for MYSELF...I believe the Bible we have today fairly accurately reflects the Bible written by the original authors. I base that confidence more on the evidence than faith, since the Bible has more manuscript evidence backing it than any other work of ancient literature.

However, other Christians like PaperTurtle are going to argue that there were breakdowns in the stages I've outlined above. Since I'm the Protestantism editor, I'm trying to be fair to all my Protestant brethren and sistren.