Sick of an untrue excuse

[0JesusFreak]

The statement of "Separation of Church" and State being in the constitution is entirely false and I can prove it.

All anyone needs to do is look up the U.S. Constitution on the web and use ctrl+F. search for any part of that and you won't find "Separation of Church and State" anywhere in it.

So my question is this: why and how do the politicians get away with this everytime?

(I'm actually surprised that I couldn't find a post about this.)

[McCulloch]

There is a large difference between saying that you're a Christian and being a Christian. Often times I feel very alone because, not all, but most "Christians" I know don't even try to follow Christ's teachings 100% of the time. We may fail and fall but at least I and a few of my friends still try.

Yes, it is hard to be humble when you are one of the few who get it right!

Maybe, but we must remember who and what God is. He made everything. He rules and commands...everything. We think that it is petty to hate someone who lies, but a lie, even with good intentions, is still a lie and still wrong.

Is that why God did not directly lie, but instead sent a deceiving spirit?

God's ultimate command is to love unconditionally.

You mean unlike the love God has for humans? He apparently sent his son to take our punishment, but then still puts conditions on our being with him in the afterlife.

Also remember that God is God.

Thank you for another tautology. What do you mean when you use the word God?

He can hate and still love. In truth, He might even hate because He loves. Hmmmm...I shall have to think on this.

Think carefully.

[0JesusFreak]

Is that why God did not directly lie, but instead sent a deceiving spirit?

You misinterpret. In this passage God has permitted a demon, who is not of us nor is like us, to entice the King of Israel to go to war. It was the Demon who said deceive and the prophet Micaiah who said that it was sent to deceive. God allowed this to happen because He understands how to do so without doing wrong. He even told Micaiah to lie. It was a test of the king so that the king would grow. Again, remember that God is a parent dealing with His children. A parent does not let a child do what it is not yet ready to do so that it can be done properly when the child has matured enough.

You mean unlike the love God has for humans? He apparently sent his son to take our punishment, but then still puts conditions on our being with him in the afterlife.

I don't think I understand. Please elaborate?

[McCulloch]

Is that why God did not directly lie, but instead sent a deceiving spirit?

You misinterpret.

No interpretation at all.

Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of these your prophets, for the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you.

Just what it says.

You mean unlike the love God has for humans? He apparently sent his son to take our punishment, but then still puts conditions on our being with him in the afterlife.

I don't think I understand. Please elaborate?

If Christ took on the sins of the whole world, then why would anyone be destined for Hell? Salvation clearly in the minds of Christian theology is conditional. You must have faith. Why the conditional love and not unconditional?

[0JesusFreak]

Is that why God did not directly lie, but instead sent a deceiving spirit?

You misinterpret.

No interpretation at all.

Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of these your prophets, for the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you.

Just what it says.

I mean that it must be taken in full context and read word by word for what the book itself is. It is a recorded history, hence the title Chronicles. Also as I previously stated:

In this passage God has permitted a demon, who is not of us nor is like us, to entice the King of Israel to go to war. It was the Demon who said deceive and the prophet Micaiah who said that it was sent to deceive. God allowed this to happen because He understands how to do so without doing wrong. He even told Micaiah to lie. It was a test of the king so that the king would grow. Again, remember that God is a parent dealing with His children. A parent does not let a child do what it is not yet ready to do so that it can be done properly when the child has matured enough.

You mean unlike the love God has for humans? He apparently sent his son to take our punishment, but then still puts conditions on our being with him in the afterlife.

I don't think I understand. Please elaborate?

If Christ took on the sins of the whole world, then why would anyone be destined for Hell? Salvation clearly in the minds of Christian theology is conditional. You must have faith. Why the conditional love and not unconditional?

He didn't take on the sins of the WHOLE world, just the sins of the world. In other words He took on the sins that we offer to Him that are of this world, that we know exist, the sins of the phenomenal world. For all we know there could very well be sins that exist in noumenal world, those our senses cannot perceive.[/quote]

[McCulloch]

If Christ took on the sins of the whole world, then why would anyone be destined for Hell? Salvation clearly in the minds of Christian theology is conditional. You must have faith. Why the conditional love and not unconditional?

He didn't take on the sins of the WHOLE world, just the sins of the world. In other words He took on the sins that we offer to Him that are of this world, that we know exist, the sins of the phenomenal world. For all we know there could very well be sins that exist in noumenal world, those our senses cannot perceive.

Forgive me if your response is beginning to look like theological doublespeak, for I am lacking in spiritual insight.

Are Christians only forgiven for the sins that they perceive? Or are they only forgiven for the sins that they can perceive? If these alleged noumenal sins are not forgiven, then how is anyone going to get to heaven?

Was not Christ's sacrifice great enough to take away the sins of everyone, or is Christ's power limited? Why is God's love for us conditional when he apparently teaches us to love unconditionally? Why is faith and belief required to access God's forgiveness? How much faith is enough? Are those Christians who have occasional doubts in danger of losing their salvation?

[0JesusFreak]

Remember what I said about the "trial by fire?" When we die it seems, from scripture, that we must first be found in God's book, the Book of Life, then we must review our lives, beginning to end, then we undergo a trial by fire in which all that is left, noumenal or otherwise, is burned away leaving only that which is good. After all of that we wait until the "end of days" after which the judgement day will begin after we have entered His house and those who have made it this far, for at this point those who failed any of the previous will be gone will be separated

[quote="Matthew 25:31-46]34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
[/quote]

Only after all of this will the great feast finally begin.

Christ's power is not limited but the gift of grace only truly means anything special when it has also been accepted. If it is forced upon then we don't love God because we want to but because we have to and that is not what God wants. He has struggled for millennia to receive our willing love. To force it in the end would be meaningless.

His love for us is completely un conditional but it is humanities denial that negates His loving actions from ever effecting it as a whole. As for how much faith is enough? If we should have the faith the size of a mustard seed or the purity of a child's, that is all that is required. And salvation itself can never be truly lost.

[ChaosBorders]

If Christ took on the sins of the whole world, then why would anyone be destined for Hell? Salvation clearly in the minds of Christian theology is conditional. You must have faith. Why the conditional love and not unconditional?

Not all Christian theology, in fairness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation

[DeBunkem]

Jefferson's take, and why the Texas schoolbook churchfolk have demoted him in US history:

Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution?
The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.

What does "separation of church and state" mean?
Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

1.A law must have a secular purpose.
2.It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3.It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.

http://www.ffrf.org/publications/nontra ... an-Nation/
This Clause has not prevented the US from continuing to be the most religiose developed country in the world.

[chatfouz]

Jefferson's take, and why the Texas schoolbook churchfolk have demoted him in US history:

Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution?
The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.

What does "separation of church and state" mean?
Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.
way to bring the conversation back to the original subject matter!!



1.A law must have a secular purpose.
2.It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3.It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.

http://www.ffrf.org/publications/nontra ... an-Nation/
This Clause has not prevented the US from continuing to be the most religiose developed country in the world.