Help Needed

How is that any different than making millions of copies of the bible it's contained in and passing it out, or sticking a big tall steeple on your church or putting a big fat cross on your property or blanketing a town with tracts or telling complete strangers they're going to hell if they don't believe like you do?
All of those are much more aggressive, in your face, look at me type things than a stone tablet that's been sitting calmly in the same place for years.
Since when is not wanting God's words banned from public places unchristian behavior? If it was banned from private homes would you obey the law there too?
By the way, there is nothing that directly says "don't take the ten commandments down". There is an expectation that you use your God given brain and not have to have a written list of everything on earth that is a good or bad idea. "Should we agree with making the scripture less and less visible and known" shouldn't require too much brain power to figure out.
This isn't just about the ten commandments in a public place. What you're seeing is the result of Christians finally getting fed up with having their beliefs shoved into a corner and hidden away from everyone. Ban prayer, ban religious talk, make things condemned in the bible legal, ban the bible as reading material in schools, ban clothes with religious words or religious trinkets from public places, take down the ten commandments...it's starting to boil over now. Some people are starting to realize that while each little thing in itself hardly makes a dent, all of this together is making a huge gaping hole!
Does that make any sense to you? At the least do you better understand why this means so much to other people even if you disagree?
Gina


Gina

 

No, I gave you facts, showing you whose side is really into the revisionism. If you can disprove my side, then please do so. If not, then you lose the argument.

 

Now, see, that he said. We have primary records of him writing this.

Now, let's see the primary records of Madison, shall we... Oh, wait - there aren't any. There is no proof at all that he said what you say he said.

 

How can you possibly accuse Scott of revisionist history when he actually provided a source for his evidence, whereas you did not.

Anyway, Jailminister, why don't you fight your battles against abortion, which is a far, far, far greater evil than whether or not the 10C can be displayed. I mean, who cares? Regardless of your apocalyptic predictions, the U.S. won't fall apart if poor judge Moore can't keep his monument.

 

Please provide proof that non-Christians see us as equating the ten commandments themselves as a deity. </font>[/QUOTE]Proof? Proof can only be accepted if the person asking for proof is willing to receive it.

But here’s very compelling evidence from the mouth of Judge Moore himself.

From the lead story on the CNN website:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/21/ten.commandments/index.html

It seems that Moore equates the presence of the monument to Ten Commandments in the capitol to the presence of God Himself. (Kind of like an Ark of the Covenant, which had the Ten Commandments inside it.)

Any way you look at it, only an idolatrous theology would conceive that human laws, human will, or the presence/absence of objects contain God.

 

Oh come on, you're smarter than that! Do you also think people believe a prayer is God when they say "We've taken God out of public schools"?
Read the statment again.

Now tell me, do you really and truly believe he meant that the monument was God and he was trying to contain God inside of the courthouse?
What do you mean "if I was willing to accept it"?I asked for evidence that people believe that and would accept it as true if it were. I'd have too. It wouldn't mean much except people aren't as intelligent as I like to give them credit for, but I'd still have to accept that.
Gina

 

I think they believe that God will not be with them and the schools unless they have the state mandate an official time for prayer in the schools. That’s what people like David Barton (probably one of the most influential “get God/prayer back in school” apologists today). He has an entire book devoted to the subject (“America: To Pray or Not To Pray”) that essentially says just that. It also has a lot of cobbled together (and wildly inaccurate) charts and graphs that allegedly “prove” that God has left the nation’s public schools since the state-sponsored school prayer decisions of 1962/1963.

Judge Moore seems to be saying the same thing.

NOTE: My use of the word "contain" in my first post does not have the meaning that God is within the monument like a chicken breast in Tupperware. The word contain is intended to convey the meaning of "restricting" God from His activity.

Now tell me, do you really and truly believe he meant that the monument was God and he was trying to contain God inside of the courthouse? </font>[/QUOTE]If you’ll notice, I compared the monument to the Ark of the Covenant, not God Himself. To Moore, it seems He believes God will remain “in” the capitol if the monument stays. Furthermore, the comparison to Wallace's stand at the door to bar black students from entering and the references to "in" and "out" definitely seem to indicate a spatial relationship.

My usual response to demands for “proof” regarding controversial issues is to ask “what kind of proof would you accept”? By establishing a standard before providing evidence, the person demanding proof is required to have some integrity with their handling of the provided evidence. Most people are close-minded and are not honestly asking for evidence that might change their minds. By demanding “proof”, they are simply attempting to shut down the discussion and make the other person jump through hoops only to reject offered evidence as not being “proof”.

They reason I did not respond that way to you Gina is that I know you and know that you are as honest as you can be with facts. So I just simply pointed out how difficult it is to “prove” things to someone who might not be willing to consider evidence honestly.

 

...or when the other side doesn't accept documented evidence and critical thinking...

 

Awww, please be nice now people! I enjoyed reading your thoughts, wouldn't want the thread to get shut down or become non-productive.
Gina

 

Thank you for your ikind words, Sister Sherrie.

Short statement:
Jailminister has the right to try to
recuit (implied by the title "Help Needed").
Jailminister has an obligation
before God to minister in the manner that God
directs.

I have the right to ignore Jailminister's
call for "help". I am obligated
before God to minister in the manner that
God directs me.
I have been required of God to pray foir fellow brothers and sisters who are servants of God.

May all God's good blessings be unto
Brother Jailminister, his family,
and his ministry. Amen!

BTW, Baptist Believer, I rather thenk the
pictures come from an earlier anti-gay rally
and not the current Alabama demonstrations.

 

This issue is a very emotional one, and because of that those of us on either side can be guilty of not clearly thinking through the matter. Perhaps we are not the only ones. From the district judge's findings:

Laying aside the overall issue and just focusing on these statements, is it just me, or are these personal feelings concerning the monument's "appearance", "air", and "aura" just a little bit of nonsensical mumbo jumbo as far as legal findings go?

 

Can someone who opposes this display please tell me what religion is being established by its presence? Does it represent some form of coerced conversion? Is there any reason to believe that justice will not be meted out fairly and in accordance with the highest moral principles and even-handedness because of this monument?

This isn't about the Constitution nor the imposition of a state religion. It is all about a bunch of whiners that are offended. It is as if they consider open acts or displays of Christianity in the same vein as a moral nation once considered public nudity and lude conduct (like homosexuals kissing in a public parade).

Why is it that when conservative Christians speak up when we are offended, we are warned not to restrict someone else's rights but when others are offended we are told to back off lest we violate their rights? I don't claim the right to not be offended... I simply don't accept other's claim of it either.

Truth is- the 10 Commandments were written to the hearer (reader). They are for application to self, not others. The principles they embody are the foundation stone for self-governance in America or any other successful free society.

Our founders established a nation under these principles in which men were expected to conduct their daily lives in such a way as to sustain the blessings of liberty. Responsibility and morality didn't need to be legislated.

It is not surprising that liberals want the 10 Commandments and their message gone. In a nation governed by individual moral restraint, they lose all power to control and indoctrinate others.

It would be far more accurate to say that the thoughtful opposers of this display are far more intent on establishing their religious principles by law than is Justice Moore. To my knowledge, he has yet to inhibit the free exercise of anyone's religion... but his accusers are inhibiting the religious will of 80% of Alabamans. Remarkable how useless democracy is when liberals don't get things their way.

 

Well this is JMO but I am behind Judge Moore. That is the problem today is that we Christians sit back and let things like this happen so I say God Bless you Judge Moore Also why is it that everyone is so against getting rid of stuff because we might hurt this one or that one but no one thought of that say just 30 or so years ago.

 

Jailminister: "10 I stand in front of
abortion clinics every week and protest ..."

Reminds me of my cousin.
He has only seen his mother a few times
in the last 12 years. He jumped bail
in the state where she lives and isn't free
to go back there.
Yes, this Mennonite pastor has adoped
four unwanted children and raises them with
his own two.

 

Dear Scott,

You responded to one of my posts...

Personally, I see this as a symbolic act of a 21st century prophet reminding America and its government of our motto :

IN GOD WE TRUST?

HankD