AU replies to the "War on Christmas"

[USIncognito]

I'm not sure if this is the correct subforum to place this in, but it seems right since the culture warriors strum und drang smells of political motivation. I'm on the Americans United for Seperation of Church and State mailing list and this open letter from Barry Lynn to Jerry Falwell was in my inbox today. I thought I'd share it, and see if there are any comments.

Dear Jerry:

Heres some news: There is no "war on Christmas!"

Ive seen you on various television news shows claiming that there is but, in fact, there simply isnt. Even as I write this, millions of Americans are erecting Christmas trees and nativity scenes at their homes, and thousands of churches are planning special Christmas services.

And, if I might say so, most of them are planning their lives without getting permission or encouragement from you.

I am deeply disappointed that you have chosen a time that Christians observe as a season of peace and good will and turned it into a time of religious divisiveness and community conflict. Your "Friend or Foe" campaign may be great for fund-raising and publicity, but it has sown discord unnecessarily.

Contrary to your wild allegations, Jerry, neither Americans United, nor any other civil liberties organization that I know of, is waging any kind of war on Christmas. The First Amendment of our Constitution ensures every Americans right to observe religious holidays or to refrain from doing so. We can wish each other a "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays," and its really none of your business which term we choose. We can call our decorated tree a "Christmas tree" or a "holiday tree," and thats our right. (We can observe the holidays of other traditions as well.)

I think we all know whats really going on with your campaign. You want an America where there is no separation of church and state and where your rather narrow interpretation of Christianity is forced on everyone. If you can convince Americans that their cherished Christmas traditions are under fire, you think maybe they will join your nefarious crusade to tear down the protective church-state wall that guarantees our freedoms.

Well, it wont work, Jerry. Americans are, by and large, a tolerant lot, and they are quite unlikely to join forces with someone like you who is so far out on the political and religious fringes. Many people remember the outrageous comments you made after the 9/11 terrorist assaults, suggesting that America had it coming because of our (in your opinion) sinful ways. They also remember your dire warning that Tinky Winky, a kids TV character, was brainwashing our children into homosexuality! You cant rehabilitate an image like that by trying to depict yourself as Father Christmas.

I am particularly outraged that you are attacking our public schools as part of your misguided project. Our public schools serve children from 2,000 different faith traditions and some who follow no spiritual path at all. They generally do a tremendous job of helping each of these students without imposing any particular religious viewpoint. They steer a careful course, broadly allowing student religious _expression while trying to avoid school endorsement of specific faiths. That means there are sometimes disagreements about what songs should be sung in the winter concert or what decorations should go in the hall. We can work through those decisions by applying common sense, the Constitution and plain old civility.

Thanks to the crusade by you and your allies, however, some of these schools are being targeted for venomous attacks. After the Alliance Defense Fund unfairly maligned a public school in New York for its holiday observance policies, education officials there received hateful mail of all sorts. One e-mail said "You are either bigoted Jews who hate Christians or mindless secularists."

Since I debated you about the Christmas issue on Fox News Channels "OReilly Factor," I have received 66 nasty e-mails, including two death threats. Observed one of my correspondents, "Hope you die soon. Merry Christmas."

Jerry, this is the kind of interfaith and community hostility that you are stirring up, and I implore you to stop it now. You are polluting the public square with animosity and anger. And at Christmas, of all times!! Have you no decency?

Youve dubbed your latest round of antics a "Friend or Foe" campaign. Well, Jerry, I am a friend of the Constitution and a foe of intolerance. You should be too.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays,

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn
Executive Director

PS: I saw on a couple of the news shows that you are again questioning my ministerial credentials. I believe the _expression that you used on Fox News Channels "The Big Story with John Gibson" is that I am "about as reverend as an oak tree" and that I never "preached in" a church. Drop me a line, Jerry, and Ill send you (again) a copy of my ministerial credentials from the United Church of Christ. And by the way, Id be happy to come to Thomas Road Baptist Church and deliver the sermon on the Sunday of your choice. Your congregation might like a change of perspective every now and then.

[micatala]

It appears quite clearly that it is everything and everybody else versus "one" Christian voice (made up of a certain large number of Evangelicals). Interesting don't you think? Especially people that claim to be "a" Christian siding and indeed members of anti-Christian forces allied against that "one" Christian moral voice. It's interesting but not really unexpected or scary (there is a great comfort in Biblical truth). Look at "Reverend" Barry Lynn, he is certainly allied against Christ, every chance he gets.

This position seems to be begging the question "who counts as a true Christian." It appears you are defining Christianity to be only that which comes out of or subscribes to certain evangelical Christian doctrines, etc. Furthermore, I think you are off-base in labeling anything that doesn't fit into this 'one voice' as anti-Christian.

The fact that a person or group of people disagree with evangelical Christian positions does not make them anti-Christian. Even if a Christian is fairly literal in their interpretation of the Bible, it is clear that the Bible allows believers to disagree on matters of doctrine and practice in good conscience. See Romans Chapter 14, for example

Vouchers should be allowed as a tax break to allow "moral opinions" the same right as any other personal behavior. But it always boils down to the same thing with the anti-Christs. Sex over God. It's always OK for schools to push an immoral sexual agenda that should be a private matter instead of attacking religious choices.

Vouchers are not required to allow people to have whatever moral opinions they wish. You are conflating free speech with tax-supported public education. Not allowing tax dollars to go to sectarian schools is in no way an 'attack on religious choices.' The logic behind this assertion completely escapes me.

We have, at times, sent our children to private religious schools, and most of the time we have home-schooled them. In some areas, homeschoolers do have problems from the government, sometimes deserved but often undeserved. However, this is a separate issue from the idea of vouchers.

As far as the 'Sex over God' comment, I'm sorry, this seems an incredibly over-simplistic assertion. It does not at all accurately characterize the public education system, or Christians who do not subscribe to the existing evangelical trends of today.

Again, I am not here to defend Lynn, but I would strongly disagree with the contention that promoting 'separation of church and state' is necessarily anti-Christian.

At any rate, we are a bit off the topic of 'Christmas' here. There is another thread or maybe more than one that is devoted to vouchers.

[melikio]

But Mel,

It appears quite clearly that it is everything and everybody else versus "one" Christian voice (made up of a certain large number of Evangelicals). Interesting don't you think? Especially people that claim to be "a" Christian siding and indeed members of anti-Christian forces allied against that "one" Christian moral voice. It's interesting but not really unexpected or scary (there is a great comfort in Biblical truth). Look at "Reverend" Barry Lynn, he is certainly allied against Christ, every chance he gets.

1J226, what are you talking about; really?

All I'm saying is that MANY Christians ARE indeed terrible and difficult people; I've seen it and certainly experienced it. I'm certain enough that God doesn't "approve" of the behavior that many call "love". For those who either dismiss or miss completely the intellectual (and/or spiritual) dissonances represented by the myriad things which are declared "moral" or "righteous", I suppose they are likely blissful AND comfortable (even as they wantonly ride the backs of others). I'm not surprised one iota.

I'd much rather depend 101% upon faith, hope and charity... than the biblical interpretations many are poised to impose upon others. I don't pressume to be capable of contending with God and every other "Christian"; but I do depend totally upon the gift of grace Jesus Christ afforded every imperfect person who ever came into this world. While some have made an industry of siphoning or wicking that grace away from others (as they see fit); I have acceptec that such grace was mankind's only true hope. Most people are certainly outside of their span of "authority", to stand harshly in "judgement" of others.

How good are "Christians"? The overall goodness and moral credibility of any person can be suspect; only God knows who they really are. And just because someone or some group has a firm view or stance based upon the "Bible", doesn't mean they really have things in the right perspective. Opinions and biases can support those perceptions (of reality), but faith, hope and love cannot be effectively measured by focusing upon the faults (sins) of human beings. Look closely enough at ANYONE (except Jesus), and you'll see my point exactly.

-Mel-

[carlmalaski]

The Bible foretells how man's governments will turn against God. (Psalm 2:9; Revelation 2:27; 19:15) I believe in the Bible not Christendom and her clergy which was created by Roman Emperor Constantine the Great at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. Christendom is an apostate Church system and this is the Church that Jesus and the apostle Paul warned us about. The "harlot" church system which "prostitutes" itself to the world's elitist political system and their plans for a "New World Order" under a reformed United Nations. The nations will be broken with a rod of iron like a potter's vessel, just as the Bible foretells. There is nothing anyone can do to stop our governments from throwing religion ou because Bible prophecy clearly shows that this prophecy WILL be fulfilled. Man's governments will be smashed to pieces and Christ's government will be the ONLY government that rules during the 1,000 years of peace.

[snappyanswer]

The last three posts prove that there are people called "real Christians" and those that are false Christians.

micatala wrote:
This position seems to be begging the question "who counts as a true Christian." It appears you are defining Christianity to be only that which comes out of or subscribes to certain evangelical Christian doctrines, etc. Furthermore, I think you are off-base in labeling anything that doesn't fit into this 'one voice' as anti-Christian.

Your argument wouldn't be with 1John, but with Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, Jude and Stephen.

Please show the similarity between a "weak" brother or sister in the faith and a heretic or anti-Christ? I don't get your use of Romans 14. I understand Romans 1 very well and other places in the New Testament that make absolute statements about behavior/cause and effect in regards to believers and non-believers. I don't see Barry Lynn being a weak brother but a heretic or anti-Christ. He doesn't regard Christmas as one day or another but wants a Christianty silenced in the public and educational setting. Odd, since Paul did his best preaching within the political structure.

Romans 14

The Weak and the Strong
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Please show the similarity between a "weak" brother or sister in the faith and a heretic or anti-Christ? I don't get your use of Romans 14. I understand Romans 1 very well and other places in the New Testament that make absolute statements about behavior/cause and effect in regards to believers and non-believers. I don't see Barry Lynn being a weak brother but a heretic or anti-Christ.

Give me your definition of "heredic". From what I can gather, I would guess you might label anyone who declines to promote discrimination and theocracy to be anti-Christ.

Falwell's ilk are "true" Christians? If that is true, then perhaps this is not the religion for me. I was under the immpression that followers of Christ promoted peace, not fired rumors of imaginary Christmas wars to get attention.

Romans 14 is perfectly applicable. Some more:

1Co 10:15
I'm talking to intelligent people. Judge for yourselves what I'm saying.

1Co 11:13
Judge your own situation.

Eph 5:10
Determine which things please the Lord.

Phi 1:9
I pray that your love will keep on growing because of your knowledge and insight. That way you will be able to determine what is best and be pure and blameless until the day of Christ.



Thank God that I am Biblically justified to err from the fanatic Christian norm.

[melikio]

Thank God that I am Biblically justified to err from the fanatic Christian norm.

Amen.

Some people wouldn't be happy with religion (or Christianity), if it didn't seem like some highly-exclusive club. Consequently, the few who think that way about religion in general, are often relegated to attempting to force others to "conform" to their unique and overly-narrow definiton/s (interpretation) of man's relationship to God.

Unconditional loves only "seems" like a broad or permissive approach; in reality it is the power and will of God rolled into something that is universally accessable to ALL human beings. God wasn't "stupid", and that is why Jesus was often putting LOVE, well before "religion". Today's Christians are afraid of "watering-down" the Gospel, but so often do that very thing by putting LOVE on the back burner.

There will NEVER be an army of "better-than-human", sinless Christian-clones. That is an unrealistic concept, although many want to imagine that is what we'll see. That common people CAN protest against "Christianity", is testimony to the reality that God's grace and love are present.

If "religion", "norms", "rules/laws" and "moral standards" were the TOTAL (sum) of "Christianity" (salvation)... no one would be good enough to warrant anything less that a sentence of DEATH period. "Christian" people who lean so heavily upon sterness and discipline instead of a true modicum of LOVE and LIBERTY, do more damage to "THE GOOD NEWS", than any whore or drug-addict walking the streets. It's time people took note of what LOVE over an attitude of "control" or "power" can accomplish.

Man's righteousness is worth NOTHING, if love is not backing it. Jesus illustrated and justified that very point; the Bible supports this as being "more" important than having one's "religion" or moral standards remain predominant in society. The reality is, that Christianity (the essence of it) can't be done away with. However, the social conventions surrounding it may not look anything in 1000 more years, as it does today.

God (The Creator) may not change (in ways we imagine), but people WILL change... and so will "religion". I can't see where God will ever condone any "treatment" of people, if the treatment is not based upon attitudes of compassion and/or LOVE. God will ALWAYS come down on the side of the oppressed. I wish that I could say that the "religious" would NEVER oppress anyone, but it's clear that I cannot say that (be it present day, or part of historical record).

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

You all can't take a passage obviously addressing a specific topic of foods, and apply it to justify the war on Christians and Christmas.

Romans 14?

AU and most of Lynn's camp are applying made up laws to take apart and dissolve Christianty. Why is that argued against? It is clear for all to see?

This is chilling:

Meliko wrote:
How good are "Christians"? The overall goodness and moral credibility of any person can be suspect; only God knows who they really are. And just because someone or some group has a firm view or stance based upon the "Bible", doesn't mean they really have things in the right perspective. Opinions and biases can support those perceptions (of reality), but faith, hope and love cannot be effectively measured by focusing upon the faults (sins) of human beings. Look closely enough at ANYONE (except Jesus), and you'll see my point exactly.

This means that a bunch of anti-Christ politicians or a single judge can wipe away the Christians by simply deciding things for them. Choosing to use the facade of anti-discrimination laws or the made up lie that there is a seperation clause against Christianity in the Constitution, that can be used always to silence Christians IS OK! Because; the "overall goodness and moral credibilty of any person (except anti-Christians) can be suspect."

Extremely terrifying concept of state against Christians once again, seen actually happening time and time again.

What cannot be suspected as bad is certain kinds of people and certain kinds of actions being leveled against Christians and Christmas.

Christmas is over but the relentless attack to use made up and newly invented laws against Christians will not be over anytime soon.

[melikio]

This is chilling:

Quote:
Meliko wrote:
How good are "Christians"? The overall goodness and moral credibility of any person can be suspect; only God knows who they really are. And just because someone or some group has a firm view or stance based upon the "Bible", doesn't mean they really have things in the right perspective. Opinions and biases can support those perceptions (of reality), but faith, hope and love cannot be effectively measured by focusing upon the faults (sins) of human beings. Look closely enough at ANYONE (except Jesus), and you'll see my point exactly.

What is "chilling", is that you misunderstand what I have meant to say. But it's not hopeless, because I'm not in charge of the YOU nor THE WORLD and do not pretend to be. The world doesn't revolve around my sole perceptions or beliefs. By the same token, it doesn't revolve around the those of any given "Christian". Admittedly, this life, this world CAN have a chilling effect, especially when people believe that they have THE TRUTH and that is somehow "challenged".

This means that a bunch of anti-Christ politicians or a single judge can wipe away the Christians by simply deciding things for them.

Under the Constitution, it also means that a bunch of pro-Christian politicians cannot force their beliefs upon the unwilling. America's Founders understood that quite well.

Choosing to use the facade of anti-discrimination laws or the made up lie that there is a seperation clause against Christianity in the Constitution, that can be used always to silence Christians IS OK! Because; the "overall goodness and moral credibilty of any person (except anti-Christians) can be suspect."

It's not a facade. And I'm no Constitutional expert, but I do understand that basic concept. Religion not being THE LAW, but also the law not being THE RELIGION. ANd I don't see anywhere in the Bible, where it commands that "Christian" values shall define THE SECULAR LAWS. The Founding Fathers got it right on religion, and history supports them readily.

Extremely terrifying concept of state against Christians once again, seen actually happening time and time again.

State agains Christian "control" makes sense. State against Christian "beliefs" does not. Every one isn't a "Christian", and not ALL "Christians" believe the same things. And what do we do when the dominant religion "switches"? Is this going to become a Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, Wiccan nation, as soon as the "numbers" allow such a definition of it? Honestly, it is amazing how much freedom which people of DIVERSE beliefs enjoy in this nation; it's also amazing how much peace in a relative sense there is between those various citizens.

I (and others) don't see anything wrong with promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, this politically-motivated scramble for conservative-Christian CONTROL that I'm seeing today, is a catalyst for the majority of what is truly "chilling" today.

What cannot be suspected as bad is certain kinds of people and certain kinds of actions being leveled against Christians and Christmas.

ANYTHING can and should be questioned, especially if humans have any hand in shaping what affects large numbers of people. That is, it's one thing for a small group of people to decide what they shall be devoted or subjected to, but completely another thing for THAT sigular group to determine that ALL shall align themselves with those "beliefs", "values" or "morals". The U.S. Constitution strikes and amazingly effective balance between recognizing BOTH religious and secular values. More specifically, it really doesn't restrict "Christianity" in the hearts and minds of the individuals who ascribe to those sets of religious beliefs/practices. There will ALWAYS be challenges to the interpretation of the Constitution (as various cases illustrate), but the fact that we can take it to court rather than start actual wars over such things speaks for itself.

Christmas is over but the relentless attack to use made up and newly invented laws against Christians will not be over anytime soon.

Are YOU a believer or NOT? When is Christmas ever "over"? I for one, have always been a believer that thinks it's (spiritually) RIGHT and HELPFUL to express "Christmas" (in some way) every day of the year. It seems to me that LOVE is the best way to do that; not getting into some typical grab for religious or social power, which mankind has certainly seen enough of in this world. Don't wait for that single chunk of time just before winter, to believe and express what you could YEAR ROUND; beat the RUSH.

Now, I'll explain what I MEANT in another way:

How good are "Christians"? The overall goodness and moral credibility of any person can be suspect; only God knows who they really are.

Many people make the mistake of embracing the idea that a "person" labeled "Christian", doesn't need to be challenged or scrutinized. A person can appear to be good, but reality proves that we cannot depend upon that alone. God knows a person's "heart", we cannot.

And just because someone or some group has a firm view or stance based upon the "Bible", doesn't mean they really have things in the right perspective.

MANY are those who believe that THEIR beliefs are THE beliefs to honor. Even Christians have unique and conflicting views of the "Bible". Many (if not all) may in their hearts interpret differently what that book is saying to themselves and mankind. There is a type of "standard" that it can set for an individual, but it is not some MOLD to be applied by a few upon the many (by LAW). That has rarely (if ever) worked.

Opinions and biases can support those perceptions (of reality), but faith, hope and love cannot be effectively measured by focusing upon the faults (sins) of human beings. Look closely enough at ANYONE (except Jesus), and you'll see my point exactly.

I honor the spiritual value and sincerely-good things which I know can stem from religion. But I'm also aware that some people (including those in power) can indeed sport forms of faith that are ultimately TOXIC to a society upon which they are imposed. And the only check/balance is to challenge those people (in a civil sense); at some point any given secular or religious practice SHOULD be challenged (at least philosophically or intellectually). What's REAL and SIGNIFICANT about "Christianity" cannot be undone by mankind. That's not an idea that has to be FORCED upon anyone; love doesn't call for that.

Jesus' love was perfect. He was/is the model for any human being who labels theirself "Christian". And it is NOT difficult to see where Christians and/or Christianity LACKS, when we make THAT particular comparison. It IS a litmus test period. And in this day and age, people DO need a sort of "field kit", that can be relied upon to make a reasonable determination about what is/isn't "Christian". For me, I have seen and determined that much of what this present conservative-Christian movement represents, isn't about LOVE or JESUS period; it's about who gets to CONTROL American society itself. A bunch of CARNAL TOOLS employed in an attempt to garner a SPIRITUAL result; it's foolishness (IMHO).

-Mel-

[micatala]

Quote:
micatala wrote:
This position seems to be begging the question "who counts as a true Christian." It appears you are defining Christianity to be only that which comes out of or subscribes to certain evangelical Christian doctrines, etc. Furthermore, I think you are off-base in labeling anything that doesn't fit into this 'one voice' as anti-Christian.

snappyanswer:
Your argument wouldn't be with 1John, but with Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, Jude and Stephen.

No, my argument is with people who think that only their understanding of Jesus et.al. is the correct one.

It seems to me that 'appropriating' the role of 'arbiter of the faith' is what some in the evangelical community are trying to do, and I am simply pointing out that this is not a role that the Bible allows believers to take, at least not in the sense that they are allowed to impose their own views as orthodoxy on all other believers.

You all can't take a passage obviously addressing a specific topic of foods, and apply it to justify the war on Christians and Christmas.

First of all, as I think has been amply demonstrated previously, there is no war on Christmas and neither is there on Christians, at least in this country. The fact that some people, Christians or non-CHristians, disagree with the views of certain Christians does not in any way constitute a war. This is an abuse of the term war.

Secondly, although Paul is explicitly addressing foods and the celebration of Holy Days, etc., I think it is fairly clear that the intention is to address other 'debatable matters' among brethren. Paul says we are not to judge our fellow Christians based on their disagreeing with us on debatable matters.

If believer A tries to claim believer B is not a Christian because B does not share A's views is clearly violating what Paul is saying in verses 10 and following. It is to Christ that we as believers are subject, not to each other.

AU and most of Lynn's camp are applying made up laws to take apart and dissolve Christianty. Why is that argued against? It is clear for all to see?

No, it is not clear for all to see because it is over-blown hyperbole, so much so that it is false. That is why it is being argued against.

No one is trying to 'wipe away Christians.' This is simply paranoid hyperbole. Who is being silenced? Millions of Christians and thousands of pastors speak their minds every day, just like you are doing here on this site.

How is Christianity being 'dissolved?' Can you give any specific examples? When you say this, the implication is that AU is working to see that churches are closed down and people are not allowed to practice their faith. This is so far from any reality in this country I honestly can't imagine how you can believe this.

Disagreement or opposition does not constitute a war or persecution.

Extremely terrifying concept of state against Christians once again, seen actually happening time and time again.

What are you talking about? Do you have any examples of what you mean by this? I thought we were talking about AU, and now you are saying 'the state.'

[1John2_26]

I don't desire to answer Meliko just yet. The hair on the back of my neck is too uncomfortable for that.

micatala wrote:
This position seems to be begging the question "who counts as a true Christian." It appears you are defining Christianity to be only that which comes out of or subscribes to certain evangelical Christian doctrines, etc. Furthermore, I think you are off-base in labeling anything that doesn't fit into this 'one voice' as anti-Christian.

snappyanswer:
Your argument wouldn't be with 1John, but with Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, Jude and Stephen.

No, my argument is with people who think that only their understanding of Jesus et.al. is the correct one.

It seems to me that 'appropriating' the role of 'arbiter of the faith' is what some in the evangelical community are trying to do, and I am simply pointing out that this is not a role that the Bible allows believers to take, at least not in the sense that they are allowed to impose their own views as orthodoxy on all other believers.

Have you ever tried to "shovel" snow off of your driveway with a "spade?" The two are different things yet are sometimes confused as being the same thing. The New Testament is clear on so many teachings that it is hard not to believe that some people that use it to promote abomination and evil are not evil themselves.

Quote:
You all can't take a passage obviously addressing a specific topic of foods, and apply it to justify the war on Christians and Christmas.

First of all, as I think has been amply demonstrated previously, there is no war on Christmas and neither is there on Christians, at least in this country.

Menorahs yes. Kwanzaa yes. Nativity no. Thank you Fox News.

The fact that some people, Christians or non-CHristians, disagree with the views of certain Christians does not in any way constitute a war. This is an abuse of the term war.

Silence, then. Outlaw, then. Either one is appropriate.

Secondly, although Paul is explicitly addressing foods and the celebration of Holy Days, etc., I think it is fairly clear that the intention is to address other 'debatable matters' among brethren. Paul says we are not to judge our fellow Christians based on their disagreeing with us on debatable matters.

If believer A tries to claim believer B is not a Christian because B does not share A's views is clearly violating what Paul is saying in verses 10 and following. It is to Christ that we as believers are subject, not to each other.

Big difference between eating with Gentile converts what would not be allowed for Orthodox Israelites and what has now been embraced by people that call themselves Christians.

1John wrote:
AU and most of Lynn's camp are applying made up laws to take apart and dissolve Christianty. Why is that argued against? It is clear for all to see?

No, it is not clear for all to see because it is over-blown hyperbole, so much so that it is false. That is why it is being argued against.

You just don't hear him (Lynn/AU) going after Muslims and Jews or African religion worshippers or ever protecting the rights of Christians anywhere.

No one is trying to 'wipe away Christians.' This is simply paranoid hyperbole. Who is being silenced? Millions of Christians and thousands of pastors speak their minds every day, just like you are doing here on this site.

And forty years ago Pastors were warning their Churches that evil would one day be embraced and that truth would not be "tolerated." Illinois in the united States, has a law that Churches and Synagouges cannot discrimainate against people that are not Christians or Jews being hired in Churches or Synagouges. I wonder why? It is unthinkable that the state could mandate by law what kinds of people are "employed" by Churches and Synagouges.

A perfect place to see an attack on Christianty for sure. Lesbians or Gays or Satanists or Pornographers could very well bring down churches in one lawsuit after another. Forced, to tolerate anti-Christians that have one desire and that is to wipe away Christian morality that they do not like. That is not hyperbole but reality. Where is Lynn on the un-Constitutional attack on religion here?

How is Christianity being 'dissolved?' Can you give any specific examples? When you say this, the implication is that AU is working to see that churches are closed down and people are not allowed to practice their faith. This is so far from any reality in this country I honestly can't imagine how you can believe this.

The school system is one very loud place where Christianty is indeed wiped away. The legislation is embracing one after another law against Christians being able to feel free about believing the Bible as it was written and is easy to understand.

I am a Christian that believes that Jesus said things that were true. Satan has indeed made it now where Christianity is a bigots paradise of intolerant actions, when it is a place of beauty and decency. Pure Satan's magic working in the political world now. Christians are fighting him where he dwells in the biggest house. If you do not believe that Satan exists and has been given permission to sift men's minds then there is no need to respond to this post. I once thought Satan was allegorical. Not anymore.

Disagreement or opposition does not constitute a war or persecution.

It does when laws like the ones in Illinois are passed against them. Laws mind you.

Quote:
Extremely terrifying concept of state against Christians once again, seen actually happening time and time again.

What are you talking about? Do you have any examples of what you mean by this? I thought we were talking about AU, and now you are saying 'the state.'

There is no such thing as seperation of church and state. It was gleaned from the something that Jefferson thought. What about the millions of other far better people than Jefferson that think diifferently?

Respecting or establishing a religion over another is a far cry from what is happening now under the guise of progressive secualrism. Christians are seen as bigots and worse and are being legislated as hate crimes perpetrators for preaching against Islam, liberalism, homosexuality, and other anti-Christian forces that Christians have a right to believe are not Christian and/or what Christians can believe in.

That Christians do not want to support things that are clearly designed to destroy them is seen as intolerance and discrimiantion. Yet, the noose is being tightened on the necks of every Bible-believing Church and Christian in America and around the world, with no cry to support them. Muslims kill us and no cry of it. Homosexuals demand laws against us and no one says a word about our rights. Christmas and any other show of Christianty is opposed vehemently in a way no other culture is allowed to endure. And Barry Lynn and AU is always on the side against us.