-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Roy Moore continued. Who are the law breakers?
- Thread starter Dale-c
- Start date
While I believe that the Ten Commandements do not go against the constitution, and I am very conservative, I also believe Roy Moore was wrong. He was wrong because there is no mandate to post the Ten Commnadments iether by scripture or by State or Federal Constitutions.
At the point his boss told him to remove them, he should have. His bosses reasons were wrong but he was at the same time right by virtue of the fact that he was the superior officer of the court.
Removing the Ten Commandments is silly and at the same time grevious. But Roy Moore handled this wrong. I am sorry to say.
At the point his boss told him to remove them, he should have. His bosses reasons were wrong but he was at the same time right by virtue of the fact that he was the superior officer of the court.
Removing the Ten Commandments is silly and at the same time grevious. But Roy Moore handled this wrong. I am sorry to say.
menageriekeeper
Active Member
Well now Dale, I think I see the point of divergence between the two of us with this quote:
While it's not necessarily his faith I expect him to leave at home, I do expect him to leave anything at home that would bias his judgement. For example: If a judge were Muslim and overseeing a case involving a Muslim on one side and a Christian on the other, I would expect the judge to be able to see both sides of the case clearly without being bias toward the side of the person who shares his religious belief.
In the same way I expect a Christian judge to be able to lay aside the biases he may hold because of his Christian beliefs and judge fairly between Christain and nonChristian. I don't believe that this necessarily constitutes a denial of ones faith.
When Moore defied the court order, he created doubt about his ability to judge fairly without forcing his religious views on those who don't believe the same as he.
When God allowed the creation of this country, He allowed our fore fathers to put this little clause in our Constitution that allows for freedom of religion. Freedom of religion by necessity also means freedom FROM religion if one so chooses.
We Christian's can't have our cake and eat it too. If we don't want the possibility of being told we must become Wiccan or tolorate Wiccan symbols on the walls of our courthouse(in the name of decoration of course), then we must not put ourselves in the position of forcing our views others and decorating our courtrooms with Christian symbols.
While it's not necessarily his faith I expect him to leave at home, I do expect him to leave anything at home that would bias his judgement. For example: If a judge were Muslim and overseeing a case involving a Muslim on one side and a Christian on the other, I would expect the judge to be able to see both sides of the case clearly without being bias toward the side of the person who shares his religious belief.
In the same way I expect a Christian judge to be able to lay aside the biases he may hold because of his Christian beliefs and judge fairly between Christain and nonChristian. I don't believe that this necessarily constitutes a denial of ones faith.
When Moore defied the court order, he created doubt about his ability to judge fairly without forcing his religious views on those who don't believe the same as he.
When God allowed the creation of this country, He allowed our fore fathers to put this little clause in our Constitution that allows for freedom of religion. Freedom of religion by necessity also means freedom FROM religion if one so chooses.
We Christian's can't have our cake and eat it too. If we don't want the possibility of being told we must become Wiccan or tolorate Wiccan symbols on the walls of our courthouse(in the name of decoration of course), then we must not put ourselves in the position of forcing our views others and decorating our courtrooms with Christian symbols.
menageriekeeper said:
I see. I will try to answer this kindly because you have been kind and I think you really believe this.
Are you in favor of abortion?
Should abortion be legal?
If not why?
Should fathers be allowed to molest their daughters?
If not why?
Should I be able to walk into wallmart and pick up a cd and stick in into my coat pocket and walk out with out paying for it?
If not why?
You may say that it is against the law and you would be right. But where does the law come from?
All nations have laws based upon their idea of God.
We are instructed in Psalm 2 very clearly that "10 ¶ Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling."
God has ordained government. It is from God that they get their authority. Because of that fact, they are also bound to uphold God's law.
Now that does not mean they compel people to go to a Christian church or to profess Christ personally.
Only God can save souls and only God can draw sinners.
God has delegated the Church and the family to evangelize to the world and not the government.
The government has no business getting involved in the affairs of a church, nor does a church have any right to act in a governmental fashion.
The church is a ministry of God for GRACE
The government is a ministry of God for JUSTICE
They have two very distinct roles but they both derive their authority from the same place and both are to answer for the same God.
Without an acknowledgment of God, you rule out any argument against any crime!
The Liberterians of our day are the ultimate example of this.
They do not believe in God (with perhaps some exeptions) so they don't want ANYONE telling them what to do.
There is a common misconception that unbias is possible.
It is NOT possible.
All judges rule by what they believe to be the right or wrong or by the law.
Law is legislated by what the legislators deem to be right and wrong.
All of these come from biases.
Roy Moore is a Christian. The Alabama constitution was written with a Christian vew and therefore has a Christian bias which no Christian should apologize for.
Secular humanism is a religion as much as any other, full with it's own morality and code of ethics.
it is taking over our courts and we will see further eroding of our religious liberties as a result.
It won't be much longer if this kind of thing is allowed before they ban ANY public profession that Christ is the only God.
It will be considered a hate crime to publicly state that members of other religions are going to hell.
I know I have posted this before but I beg you to please read it as it is a lot more eloquent that I could ever be and the author is much more knowledgeable and wise than I am.
It is a short article but I think it is only fair to give a Christian brother like Moore the chance to explain his side. Actually this isn't even him but another who came to his defense.
He is a retired chaplain and I had the opportunity to hear him in person once.
Here it is.
http://www.morallaw.org/Text/eidsmoe.html
Please read it and carfully consider it.
I am still learning to. The mass media of our day is not on the side of Christ and they constantly undermine Christian doctrine but in such a subtle way that we as Christians find ourselves caught up in it without even realizing what has happened.
This is much bigger than Roy Moore
This is about our entire view of who God is and what his place is in our lives.
Thank you for reading this and it is my prayer that can take my not so eloquent words to help at least one Christian to stand firm in this never ending struggle for our Faith.
Dale
This was quite easy for our founders because they never had the intention of the 1st amendment being viewed the way it was today.
The establishment of a religion referred to a Christian denomination. It was to keep the Presbyterians from ruling over the Baptists etc.
it in no way was to preclude God in anyway and of course mentions the Creator (capital C) in the preamble as the source of these rights.
This was in no way to advance paganism but only to allow all men to serve the one true and living God the way each man believed was right.
Not a blanket acceptance of all religion.
Having said that, people of other faiths were not persecuted as long as they obeyed the Biblically based civil law.
They of course were not forced to become born again Christians but they did have to live by civil laws based on God;s word.
Interstingly, it was about the only time in moderen history that there was no religious persecution.
Now that we have adopted humanism, Christians are being persecuted.
The ten commandments are disallowed in the state courthouse but The Greek Goddess is erected at the federal courthouse a few miles away.
All religions are now tolerated, except Christianity.
All of the false gods are united in their war against the One True and Living God, the God of the Bible.
So again, there is no contradiction between the 1st amendment and the 1st commandment if both are taken in their proper original meaning.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Dale-c said:
There are lots of libertarians who believe in God(I cannot tell you what percentage any more than I can tell you the percentage of those on the Authoritarian Left or Authoritarian Right who believe in God). Libertarians(except for a few extremists) do not advocate no law. We simply want limited government. We want the government to do only what individuals and groups of individuals cannot do for themselves - such as national defense, the courts, the police.
And a large segment of we libertarians is PRO-LIFE - www.l4l.org.
Last edited:
Ken, I understand your point and I too know libertarians and actually agree with them MOSLTY. They actually come up with a very good idea of government but their basis on a national level if flawed IMO.KenH said:
If I am incorrect in what they believe correct me.
The principle remains the same but if I have been wrong about facts of certain people,please let me know.
If the authors meant Christian demonination, they would've written "Christian denomination" - they were very literate and not all of them were strictly Christian.Dale-c said:
You're confused - the preamble does not mention God or Creator. It speaks of Justice, Liberty, Tranquility but not of God. The Blessings are of Liberty not of Christ.Dale-c said:
You're right that this was not meant to advance paganism and it was not meant to advance any particular religion. Not so much an acceptance of all religions, but certainly a tolerance of them.Dale-c said:
Civil law was based on God's word as well as the Enlightenment, the Rights of Man (aka humanism), common law, etc, etc.Dale-c said:
Christians, who constitute something like 85% of the population, including most if not all polititcians, judges and military are being persecuted? How exactly?Dale-c said:
The Greek Goddess? Um, which Greek goddess and how is she represented at what federal courthouse?
1st Commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.Dale-c said:
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Your interpretation of the 1st Amendment is that any religion may be established as long as it's Christian? I don't think so.
You're right, I should have said the declaration of independence.
Themis in the federal building in montgomery
Check here if you don't believe me.
Seems a bit inconsistant doesn't it?
The war is against Christ and all other religions are accepted.
It seems most Christians are on the wrong side.
Inconsistant to have a symbol of law and justice in front of a courthouse? Well, not really.Dale-c said:
Um, yeah right, those Themis worshippers are taking over the country!Dale-c said:
It's more than a little dishonest to pretend that anyone believes in an actual Goddess of Justice, that the modern depictions of Themis are anything other than a conceptualization of law and justice which are entirely appropriate for a courthouse.
Daisey said, "How do you reconcile the 1st Amendment with the 1st Commandment?"
The probable reason for the first amendment was actually based on three separate events and the fact that England had a state official recognized church.
1. In June of 1700 Massachcusetts passed a law that ordered all Roman Cahtolic priests to leave the colony with 3 months or face the penalty of life imprisonment or execution.
2. in 1702 (month not known) the Anglican Church of England was established as the official church of Marryland. This official church was supported by an imposed tax on free men, male servants and slaves.
3. In November 1706 South Carolina established the Anglican church as the official church.
It would seem that purpose was to keep a state religion from being formed. I am not entering your debate just providing some info.:smilewinkgrin:
The probable reason for the first amendment was actually based on three separate events and the fact that England had a state official recognized church.
1. In June of 1700 Massachcusetts passed a law that ordered all Roman Cahtolic priests to leave the colony with 3 months or face the penalty of life imprisonment or execution.
2. in 1702 (month not known) the Anglican Church of England was established as the official church of Marryland. This official church was supported by an imposed tax on free men, male servants and slaves.
3. In November 1706 South Carolina established the Anglican church as the official church.
It would seem that purpose was to keep a state religion from being formed. I am not entering your debate just providing some info.:smilewinkgrin:
menageriekeeper
Active Member
Dale, I have to say that we do agree on something! We were in agreement this far:
(I figured out the quote thing!
raise: )
Now for what we disagree on:
This is a false logic. There are many athiests who willingly follow the law without acknowledging God. Also, in my opinion, Muslims, Buddists, Wiccans and the like all worship a false god, but they are still expected to follow the laws of the land. And they expect in turn to be treated fairly by that law even though I think they worship something false.
Ken dealt with your opinion of Libertarians better than I.
You are correct. Everyone hold biases that are specific to themselves, even judges. A Muslim judge may think I worship God the wrong way. But if he bases his decision of my guilt or innocence, whether or not the insurance company cheated me or takes my children away from me, solely because I am a Christian, then we have a judge with a problem.
Judges are there to judge based on the laws passed by Congress and not on what the Bible says, what the Koran says or even what Confuscious says. Unfortunately, Judge Moore could not remove the doubt that he would be able to judge based on the laws of the USA instead of on the law of God. (and even we Christians can't always agree on that)
Now I know it goes against the grain of Christian's to not use the Bible as the superior law, but that is the conundrum that our Founding Fathers left us with. Since God left certain things up to the intelligence of man to decide, the FF decided on our method of deriving laws as best and fair to all. So if a man is unable to judge a secular matter based on secular law then it is very possible that he will make less than a fair judge.
It isn't the acknowlegement of God that is the problem. The problem is the putting forward of one man's interpretation of what God's law requires ahead of the laws of the government. We have laws in this country that attempt to bring as much freedom as possible to every person regardless of their religion or lack of religion.
As for the rest of your post: If Christian's don't like the way this country is run they need to do one of two things: Put their money where there mouth is and buy an island somewhere and form their own country where only Christians are allowed or get busy, get to work and change the hearts and minds of the people in this country. That in turn will lead to changes in the laws regarding abortion and child molestation.
(I figured out the quote thing!
raise: )Now for what we disagree on:
This is a false logic. There are many athiests who willingly follow the law without acknowledging God. Also, in my opinion, Muslims, Buddists, Wiccans and the like all worship a false god, but they are still expected to follow the laws of the land. And they expect in turn to be treated fairly by that law even though I think they worship something false.
Ken dealt with your opinion of Libertarians better than I.
You are correct. Everyone hold biases that are specific to themselves, even judges. A Muslim judge may think I worship God the wrong way. But if he bases his decision of my guilt or innocence, whether or not the insurance company cheated me or takes my children away from me, solely because I am a Christian, then we have a judge with a problem.
Judges are there to judge based on the laws passed by Congress and not on what the Bible says, what the Koran says or even what Confuscious says. Unfortunately, Judge Moore could not remove the doubt that he would be able to judge based on the laws of the USA instead of on the law of God. (and even we Christians can't always agree on that)
Now I know it goes against the grain of Christian's to not use the Bible as the superior law, but that is the conundrum that our Founding Fathers left us with. Since God left certain things up to the intelligence of man to decide, the FF decided on our method of deriving laws as best and fair to all. So if a man is unable to judge a secular matter based on secular law then it is very possible that he will make less than a fair judge.
It isn't the acknowlegement of God that is the problem. The problem is the putting forward of one man's interpretation of what God's law requires ahead of the laws of the government. We have laws in this country that attempt to bring as much freedom as possible to every person regardless of their religion or lack of religion.
As for the rest of your post: If Christian's don't like the way this country is run they need to do one of two things: Put their money where there mouth is and buy an island somewhere and form their own country where only Christians are allowed or get busy, get to work and change the hearts and minds of the people in this country. That in turn will lead to changes in the laws regarding abortion and child molestation.
Can you back that up Biblically?
Umm...actually they tried that in 1776. It lasted a little while but not that long unfortunately.
You know, some religions don't condemn child molestation.
But as for the completely ridiculous claims you made...
And:
u, wrong answer, God did NOT let certain things for man to decide. The Bible is our source for ALL morality. You could use a good dose of Psalm 2.
And as for what we were left by the founders:
Here are some more if you don't believe the other ones.
This one is not really a direct founding father but rather, through his writing, one of the most influential men in early american law.
Wow, we have seen the results of this last one.
We allow blasphemy all around our land. We allow the slaughter of innocent babies and of helpless adults. We allow the sodomite to live freely. We tear down God's law from our public life.
We allow islam as a free religion while taking away Christian symbols in order to not "establish a religion"
PLease, I beg you, quite falling for Satan's lie!
This is a serious issue and "LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain"
You are all in my prayers.
God bless,
Dale
This one is not really a direct founding father but rather, through his writing, one of the most influential men in early american law.
Wow, we have seen the results of this last one.
We allow blasphemy all around our land. We allow the slaughter of innocent babies and of helpless adults. We allow the sodomite to live freely. We tear down God's law from our public life.
We allow islam as a free religion while taking away Christian symbols in order to not "establish a religion"
PLease, I beg you, quite falling for Satan's lie!
This is a serious issue and "LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain"
You are all in my prayers.
God bless,
Dale
menageriekeeper
Active Member
First off, if this is implying that I have taken taken the Lord's name in vain you better be perpared to quote it! I don't take lightly such accusations.
Now back to the topic:
Remember you asked!
Lu 20:20And they watched him, and sent forth spies, who feigned themselves to be righteous, that they might take hold of his speech, so as to deliver him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor.Lu 20:21And they asked him, saying, Teacher, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, and acceptest not the person [of any], but of a truth teachest the way of God:Lu 20:22Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?Lu 20:23But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them,Lu 20:24Show me a denarius. Whose image and superscription hath it? And they said, Caesar`s.Lu 20:25And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar`s, and unto God the things that are God`s.
1pe 2:13Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord`s sake: whether to the king, as supreme;1pe 2:14or unto governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to them that do well.1pe 2:15For so is the will of God, that by well-doing ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:1pe 2:16as free, and not using your freedom for a cloak of wickedness, but as bondservants of God.1pe 2:17Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.1pe 2:18Servants, [be] in subjection to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.1pe 2:19For this is acceptable, if for conscience toward God a man endureth griefs, suffering wrongfully.1pe 2:20For what glory is it, if, when ye sin, and are buffeted [for it], ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer [for it], ye shall take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
Ro 13:3For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same:Ro 13:4for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.Ro 13:5Wherefore [ye] must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience` sake.Ro 13:6For this cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God`s service, attending continually upon this very thing.Ro 13:7Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
See also the above scriptures.
All of Psalm 2 hasn't happened yet.
If the Founding Father's had intended for the Bible to be the ONLY source for the laws of our country, why do you suppose they bothered to write a Constitution? A Bill of Rights? Why not just use Moses' law as it was written?
This wasn't aimed directly at you. And it wasn't talking about swearing but rather those talk about God but don't mean it as judge Moore would have done if he had not taken his stand.
As for any personal attack against you, I don't know your heart. You are the only one that can answer that. As to whether you mean it or not.
I am fully aware of the scriptures that you have quoted.
Were the soldiers in Germanu then justified? Just rendering unto Ceasar?
If commanded then they were right to kill all of the jew, and the others that didn't go along with the Nazi's right?
By the way, I am all for submission to the government. I am not however for blind obedience of unlawful orders.
Wives are also supposed to submit to husband but that doesn't mean that husbands can tell them to do unlawful things.
Were the soldiers in Germanu then justified? Just rendering unto Ceasar?
If commanded then they were right to kill all of the jew, and the others that didn't go along with the Nazi's right?
They meant for it to be the BASIS for our law. Those documents are to be an application of God's principles. In a way you were right that God leaves somethings up to man but not in a way that man can do whatever he wants, he must rule and makes laws consistent with the Biblical role of government. If a law is not Biblical, then it is not Law.
By the way, I am all for submission to the government. I am not however for blind obedience of unlawful orders.
Wives are also supposed to submit to husband but that doesn't mean that husbands can tell them to do unlawful things.