Non Christian thought

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I talk to atheists just about every day. I know what I'm talking about. Do you have good relationships with atheists? If not, then maybe you should reach out and build a relationship with one.
That's obvious: To provide counseling and encouragement to others from a non-religious perspective.
They could say the same things about most religious groups. They participate in the free exchange of ideas, like Christians, and like all sane people, believe their are correct in their views. The teachings of Jesus can stand up to anything that an atheist might propose. I know this because I do it every day. We don't need to be afraid of atheists. We need to help them work through their viewpoint/worldview and help prepare their mind and senses for an encounter with God.

Yes, I know some atheists, though some are much more conservative than you and even liked Trump as president and cannot stomach the Dems. And of course Christ and his word prevails. But it's not individuals I'm talking about. Your posts miss the broader picture, thus buying into and repeating the rhetoric, the doublespeak of so-called secularists.

 

[Baptist Believer]

The "separation of church and state" is a Marxist expression.

This is the root of the problem. Where did you hear this gem?

 

[Yeshua1]

What do "they" want to do to those "who are conservative and also Christian?"

To make sure that we shut up and try not to live and speak out for Lord Jesus, to try to bring him into the public square!

 

[Yeshua1]

There has been a creeping movement toward federal tax monies going to faith groups for "secular" purposes, which is a violation of the separation of church and state. Strings of control come with government money (rightly so), which undermines the liberty of the faith group who receives it, as well as misuses tax money paid by citizens who would not want their money going to those faith groups. For instance, I wouldn't want my tax money going to support Mormon social ministries, which extend the influence of that group as they serve the community.

What they want is for us to hold tightly to the principle of the separation of church and state -- a Baptist principle.


I know a lot of atheists. I don't know any who want to persecute people of faith. Sometimes they tease Christians, but that is hardly persecution. Christians tells all kinds of tales about atheists that are cruel and unkind. Many atheists have taken that position because of abuse within Christian churches when they still believed. When they rightly reject the abuse piled on them, they often reject the faith that they abusers claim, and see it as part of the problem.

You may want to trot out China and the USSR as examples of Christians being persecuted by atheists, but that is more a function of a political system trying to destroy anything that claims ultimate allegiance over the citizenry.


They are not claiming neutrality, they want our government to be neutral in regarding to religious convictions. They want separation of church and state to be consistently enforced.


You are equating worldviews and religious faith, they are not the same.


Yes, exactly. They want the US government to give consideration to those who are not religious when evaluating their refugee status, just like the government takes into consideration that a refugee who is Christian may well face persecution in a country where they are a religious minority. In other words, they seek equal treatment under our law. Why would you be against equal treatment for everyone under our law?

So when the IRS was illegally spying and interfering with conservative and Christians groups under Obama, that was a "good baptist thing"

 

[Baptist Believer]

To make sure that we shut up and try not to live and speak out for Lord Jesus, to try to bring him into the public square!

Again, I ask, who are "they" who allegedly want us not to speak of Jesus?

 

[Baptist Believer]

So when the IRS was illegally spying and interfering with conservative and Christians groups under Obama, that was a "good baptist thing"

What a non sequitur! Please don't try to change the subject.

We are talking about separation of church and state, not the alleged IRS monitoring of religious and political groups during the Obama Administration.

 

[Yeshua1]

Again, I ask, who are "they" who allegedly want us not to speak of Jesus?

Media and the Dems!

 

[Yeshua1]

What a non sequitur! Please don't try to change the subject.

We are talking about separation of church and state, not the alleged IRS monitoring of religious and political groups during the Obama Administration.

Not alleged, was proven!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Not alleged, was proven!

You used the term "monitoring." Rather than "monitoring," the scandal was special review of applications for non-profit status AND auditing of non-profit groups that potentially had a political agenda.

In any case, it is off-topic. That issue has nothing to do with separation of church and state.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Media and the Dems!

So all of those Christians in the mainstream media and all of the Democrats who are Christians are opposed to speaking the name of Jesus? That's paranoid nonsense, but I'm sure you are getting it from the extremist media sources you believe.

 

[Ronnie Vaughan]

So all of those Christians in the mainstream media and all of the Democrats who are Christians are opposed to speaking the name of Jesus? That's paranoid nonsense, but I'm sure you are getting it from the extremist media sources you believe.

I'm not getting myself any deeper in this than to say one thing. The Evangelical Church
Alliance ordains over 70% of the US Armed Forces Chaplains. I was licensed into the ministry by the ECA and went to yearly regional meetings for several years. The main complaint, and a frequent topic was that those ministers that were in the military were (as in definitely, no if ands or butts about it) being pressured not to pray at public events in the name of Jesus; and, the pressure was only coming from democratic groups or groups that had a large democratic majority and the democratic party was beholding to them. Just saying.

 

[Reformed]

The document linked in the second post of this thread is not as innocuous as some may think. If the purpose was simply to remove any government alliance with religion that would be one thing, but that is not the case here. The purpose, clearly stated, is for the Democrat party to advance secularism (i.e. godlessness). You cannot seriously believe that secularism and biblical Christianity can peacefully co-exist. The former always persecutes the latter. Of course, Christians are to endure persecution when it occurs, and the path this nation is on will see an increase in both the occurrence and severity of persecution.

 

[Salty]

... being pressured not to pray at public events in the name of Jesus; and, the pressure was only coming from democratic groups or groups that had a large democratic majority and the democratic party was beholding to them. Just saying.

So you would have no problem with a Muslim chaplain praying in the name of Allah?

 

[Ronnie Vaughan]

No I wouldn't, that's what Muslims do. Why would I expect him to be any less convicted about his faith than anyone else is about theirs? You find nowhere in the New Testament where any of the apostles ever give in to being commanded not pray or speak in the name of Jesus...quite the opposite.

 

[Yeshua1]

You used the term "monitoring." Rather than "monitoring," the scandal was special review of applications for non-profit status AND auditing of non-profit groups that potentially had a political agenda.

In any case, it is off-topic. That issue has nothing to do with separation of church and state.

Everything to do with it, as the Fed Govt shows that they are JUST focusing on groups and Individuals who are pro life and pro Christ!

 

[Yeshua1]

So all of those Christians in the mainstream media and all of the Democrats who are Christians are opposed to speaking the name of Jesus? That's paranoid nonsense, but I'm sure you are getting it from the extremist media sources you believe.

The Dems and Media that are now in charge do push foward antichrist spirit!

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not getting myself any deeper in this than to say one thing. The Evangelical Church
Alliance ordains over 70% of the US Armed Forces Chaplains. I was licensed into the ministry by the ECA and went to yearly regional meetings for several years. The main complaint, and a frequent topic was that those ministers that were in the military were (as in definitely, no if ands or butts about it) being pressured not to pray at public events in the name of Jesus; and, the pressure was only coming from democratic groups or groups that had a large democratic majority and the democratic party was beholding to them. Just saying.

Did not the Dems and media make sure to get busted chaplain who "dared
to pray in the name of Jesus only?

 

[Yeshua1]

The document linked in the second post of this thread is not as innocuous as some may think. If the purpose was simply to remove any government alliance with religion that would be one thing, but that is not the case here. The purpose, clearly stated, is for the Democrat party to advance secularism (i.e. godlessness). You cannot seriously believe that secularism and biblical Christianity can peacefully co-exist. The former always persecutes the latter. Of course, Christians are to endure persecution when it occurs, and the path this nation is on will see an increase in both the occurrence and severity of persecution.

The Dems and Media ONLY seem to want to target and make sure real Christians either shut up or lay down!

 

[Yeshua1]

No I wouldn't, that's what Muslims do. Why would I expect him to be any less convicted about his faith than anyone else is about theirs? You find nowhere in the New Testament where any of the apostles ever give in to being commanded not pray or speak in the name of Jesus...quite the opposite.

The big problem is that they seem to allow any name except for jesus!

 

[Salty]

No I wouldn't, that's what Muslims do. Why would I expect him to be any less convicted about his faith than anyone else is about theirs? You find nowhere in the New Testament where any of the apostles ever give in to being commanded not pray or speak in the name of Jesus...quite the opposite.

Thank you for your answer. At least you are consistent in your thinking -
BUT
here is the bottom line. - and this is based on what a conservative Baptist Chaplain told me.

Within a Chapel service a commander has NO authority to instruct the Chaplain as to how to run his service. (For example - I was talking to another chaplain who believed in closed communion - and he would never serve communion in his chapel- so he always had a "guest speaker" who would then serve that communion) -- BUT when it is a non-Chapel event - say a NCO graduation - the commander has every right to instruct the Chaplain NOT to pray in the name of Jesus or any other religious figure (ie Allah, Buddha, ect) - NOW here is the most important part - if a Chaplain has been requested to NOT pray in the name of Jesus - he is NOT required to pray at all then! He may refuse the invitation- without repercussions!