FreeThinkerNZ Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Please forgive me for picking up a part of your conversation with Bhim, but I wanted to ask you something about what you said. [snipped] (1.) Yes, it does seem that Theistic Evolutionists are quite rare. Admittedly, it poses the potential for my being castigated by more Fundamental Christians, if and when they find out my beliefs. But, these are the beliefs I’ve always had, and I have my own academic reasons for holding them, as opposed to the typical run-of-the-mill reasons Fundamentalists have for holding theirs (i.e. “my pastor told me such and such...”). At the same time, I don’t feel any animosity towards them. If they want to interpret the Bible in a more ultra-literal fashion, I figure they have the freedom to do so, even if I can’t join in with them in that way. But what about when their interpretation leads them to do immoral things, like: -bombing abortion clinics and murdering health professionals -parents abusing their gay teens to the point of suicide -encroaching into the public square and threatening the constitutional separation between state and church (basically infringing on others' rights) -parents who physically discipline young kids to the point of abuse -patriarchal quiverfull families where girls and women are treated as second class citizens These are just the first examples that came to mind, I haven't done any current googling or reading to come up with those. Under the law, fundies don't have the right to do most of these things that they base on their ultra-literal interpretation of the bible. Do you still believe they have the freedom to act like this, and should they? Hi FreeThinkerNZ, That's quite alright--pick away if you see it needs some pickin'! And you are quite right to point this out. Perhaps I should use the term 'ultra-literal' a little more literally, if I'm going to use it at all. By this I mean that I originally had in mind only that some Christians will adhere with extreme tenacity to their interpretations, without any recourse or consideration to alternative possibilities. But I understand that many people (i.e. non-Christians), being sensitized to the ridiculous shenanigans of the Wackadoo Westboro Baptists and other groups, like 'Christian Identity,' will hold more to the typical connotations in connection to the hyper form of literalism. It's just then, we need more terms. Because, if I consider myself in some ways 'literal' in regard to the Bible, but I'm in no way envisaging the shape of my faith to be that of Fundamentalists, then what does that make Fundamentalists who believe very strongly, but still don't do the crazy things you've listed above? Ok, then. In essence, Hyper-Fundamentalists should not be able to act in ways that are physically violent or a direct and abusive desecration of other people's viewpoints and/or person-hood. Great questions, Free. Peace 2PhiloVoid Thanks for clarifying. The sentence I've bolded raises another issue that I'd like some clarity on. Are you saying non-xians make the mistake of thinking all xians (or at least, all fundy xians) are crazy like Westboro? I'm a non-xian but I'm also an ex-xian, who understands the range of different kinds of xian there are. The abusive kind of xian in my examples exist in far greater numbers than just the Westboro kind. The pages of this forum are filled with personal stories about abusive xian parents, spouses or other family members, and also pastors and other leaders. I've read about this phenomenon in a range of blogs and other websites, mostly from the US. It gives me the impression there's a lot of fundy abuse going on. I think it's important for anyone calling themselves a xian to denounce the extremists and to acknowledge how big of a problem the extremists create, particularly in American society. Some very liberal xians even co-operate with secularists in an effort to support the separation of state and church. It's a good thing IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2PhiloVoid Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Please forgive me for picking up a part of your conversation with Bhim, but I wanted to ask you something about what you said. [snipped] (1.) Yes, it does seem that Theistic Evolutionists are quite rare. Admittedly, it poses the potential for my being castigated by more Fundamental Christians, if and when they find out my beliefs. But, these are the beliefs I’ve always had, and I have my own academic reasons for holding them, as opposed to the typical run-of-the-mill reasons Fundamentalists have for holding theirs (i.e. “my pastor told me such and such...”). At the same time, I don’t feel any animosity towards them. If they want to interpret the Bible in a more ultra-literal fashion, I figure they have the freedom to do so, even if I can’t join in with them in that way. But what about when their interpretation leads them to do immoral things, like: -bombing abortion clinics and murdering health professionals -parents abusing their gay teens to the point of suicide -encroaching into the public square and threatening the constitutional separation between state and church (basically infringing on others' rights) -parents who physically discipline young kids to the point of abuse -patriarchal quiverfull families where girls and women are treated as second class citizens These are just the first examples that came to mind, I haven't done any current googling or reading to come up with those. Under the law, fundies don't have the right to do most of these things that they base on their ultra-literal interpretation of the bible. Do you still believe they have the freedom to act like this, and should they? Hi FreeThinkerNZ, That's quite alright--pick away if you see it needs some pickin'! And you are quite right to point this out. Perhaps I should use the term 'ultra-literal' a little more literally, if I'm going to use it at all. By this I mean that I originally had in mind only that some Christians will adhere with extreme tenacity to their interpretations, without any recourse or consideration to alternative possibilities. But I understand that many people (i.e. non-Christians), being sensitized to the ridiculous shenanigans of the Wackadoo Westboro Baptists and other groups, like 'Christian Identity,' will hold more to the typical connotations in connection to the hyper form of literalism. It's just then, we need more terms. Because, if I consider myself in some ways 'literal' in regard to the Bible, but I'm in no way envisaging the shape of my faith to be that of Fundamentalists, then what does that make Fundamentalists who believe very strongly, but still don't do the crazy things you've listed above? Ok, then. In essence, Hyper-Fundamentalists should not be able to act in ways that are physically violent or a direct and abusive desecration of other people's viewpoints and/or person-hood. Great questions, Free. Peace 2PhiloVoid Thanks for clarifying. The sentence I've bolded raises another issue that I'd like some clarity on. Are you saying non-xians make the mistake of thinking all xians (or at least, all fundy xians) are crazy like Westboro? I'm a non-xian but I'm also an ex-xian, who understands the range of different kinds of xian there are. The abusive kind of xian in my examples exist in far greater numbers than just the Westboro kind. The pages of this forum are filled with personal stories about abusive xian parents, spouses or other family members, and also pastors and other leaders. I've read about this phenomenon in a range of blogs and other websites, mostly from the US. It gives me the impression there's a lot of fundy abuse going on. I think it's important for anyone calling themselves a xian to denounce the extremists and to acknowledge how big of a problem the extremists create, particularly in American society. Some very liberal xians even co-operate with secularists in an effort to support the separation of state and church. It's a good thing IMO. FreeThinkerNZ, (lol).....no, I'm not implying that non-christians think all christians are "Westboro Wackadoos." I can fully see that you and many others here are wise to the fact that there are a few intelligent Christians still around, but "obviously" hiding from plain view. And don't worry, I'm prone to call out extremists of all sorts....from the "Rhema Word" Super-Faith fanatics, all the way to the militant muslim commandos, and even to negligent, atheistic psychiatrists, particularly those like the one who was in charge of my mother's psychiatric "care" for 15 years, and whose hero, as he told me, was Bertrand Russell. (He probably shouldn't have told me that last tidbit...because he lost a very lucrative, double-doped customer when I pulled my mom away from his unaccredited clutches...) So sure, I'm all about standing up to extremists...of all kinds. Peace, 2PhiloVoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Please forgive me for picking up a part of your conversation with Bhim, but I wanted to ask you something about what you said. [snipped] (1.) Yes, it does seem that Theistic Evolutionists are quite rare. Admittedly, it poses the potential for my being castigated by more Fundamental Christians, if and when they find out my beliefs. But, these are the beliefs I’ve always had, and I have my own academic reasons for holding them, as opposed to the typical run-of-the-mill reasons Fundamentalists have for holding theirs (i.e. “my pastor told me such and such...”). At the same time, I don’t feel any animosity towards them. If they want to interpret the Bible in a more ultra-literal fashion, I figure they have the freedom to do so, even if I can’t join in with them in that way. But what about when their interpretation leads them to do immoral things, like: -bombing abortion clinics and murdering health professionals -parents abusing their gay teens to the point of suicide -encroaching into the public square and threatening the constitutional separation between state and church (basically infringing on others' rights) -parents who physically discipline young kids to the point of abuse -patriarchal quiverfull families where girls and women are treated as second class citizens These are just the first examples that came to mind, I haven't done any current googling or reading to come up with those. Under the law, fundies don't have the right to do most of these things that they base on their ultra-literal interpretation of the bible. Do you still believe they have the freedom to act like this, and should they? Hi FreeThinkerNZ, That's quite alright--pick away if you see it needs some pickin'! And you are quite right to point this out. Perhaps I should use the term 'ultra-literal' a little more literally, if I'm going to use it at all. By this I mean that I originally had in mind only that some Christians will adhere with extreme tenacity to their interpretations, without any recourse or consideration to alternative possibilities. But I understand that many people (i.e. non-Christians), being sensitized to the ridiculous shenanigans of the Wackadoo Westboro Baptists and other groups, like 'Christian Identity,' will hold more to the typical connotations in connection to the hyper form of literalism. It's just then, we need more terms. Because, if I consider myself in some ways 'literal' in regard to the Bible, but I'm in no way envisaging the shape of my faith to be that of Fundamentalists, then what does that make Fundamentalists who believe very strongly, but still don't do the crazy things you've listed above? Ok, then. In essence, Hyper-Fundamentalists should not be able to act in ways that are physically violent or a direct and abusive desecration of other people's viewpoints and/or person-hood. Great questions, Free. Peace 2PhiloVoid Thanks for clarifying. The sentence I've bolded raises another issue that I'd like some clarity on. Are you saying non-xians make the mistake of thinking all xians (or at least, all fundy xians) are crazy like Westboro? I'm a non-xian but I'm also an ex-xian, who understands the range of different kinds of xian there are. The abusive kind of xian in my examples exist in far greater numbers than just the Westboro kind. The pages of this forum are filled with personal stories about abusive xian parents, spouses or other family members, and also pastors and other leaders. I've read about this phenomenon in a range of blogs and other websites, mostly from the US. It gives me the impression there's a lot of fundy abuse going on. I think it's important for anyone calling themselves a xian to denounce the extremists and to acknowledge how big of a problem the extremists create, particularly in American society. Some very liberal xians even co-operate with secularists in an effort to support the separation of state and church. It's a good thing IMO. FreeThinkerNZ, (lol).....no, I'm not implying that non-christians think all christians are "Westboro Wackadoos." I can fully see that you and many others here are wise to the fact that there are a few intelligent Christians still around, but "obviously" hiding from plain view. And don't worry, I'm prone to call out extremists of all sorts....from the "Rhema Word" Super-Faith fanatics, all the way to the militant muslim commandos, and even to negligent, atheistic psychiatrists, particularly those like the one who was in charge of my mother's psychiatric "care" for 15 years, and whose hero, as he told me, was Bertrand Russell. (He probably shouldn't have told me that last tidbit...because he lost a very lucrative, double-doped customer when I pulled my mom away from his unaccredited clutches...) So sure, I'm all about standing up to extremists...of all kinds. Peace, 2PhiloVoid That's good, but have you done anything to promote the separation of state and church, or to try and reduce the harm the large numbers of fundies do? In what ways are your own faith and practice different to theirs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2PhiloVoid Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Please forgive me for picking up a part of your conversation with Bhim, but I wanted to ask you something about what you said. [snipped] (1.) Yes, it does seem that Theistic Evolutionists are quite rare. Admittedly, it poses the potential for my being castigated by more Fundamental Christians, if and when they find out my beliefs. But, these are the beliefs I’ve always had, and I have my own academic reasons for holding them, as opposed to the typical run-of-the-mill reasons Fundamentalists have for holding theirs (i.e. “my pastor told me such and such...”). At the same time, I don’t feel any animosity towards them. If they want to interpret the Bible in a more ultra-literal fashion, I figure they have the freedom to do so, even if I can’t join in with them in that way. But what about when their interpretation leads them to do immoral things, like: -bombing abortion clinics and murdering health professionals -parents abusing their gay teens to the point of suicide -encroaching into the public square and threatening the constitutional separation between state and church (basically infringing on others' rights) -parents who physically discipline young kids to the point of abuse -patriarchal quiverfull families where girls and women are treated as second class citizens These are just the first examples that came to mind, I haven't done any current googling or reading to come up with those. Under the law, fundies don't have the right to do most of these things that they base on their ultra-literal interpretation of the bible. Do you still believe they have the freedom to act like this, and should they? Hi FreeThinkerNZ, That's quite alright--pick away if you see it needs some pickin'! And you are quite right to point this out. Perhaps I should use the term 'ultra-literal' a little more literally, if I'm going to use it at all. By this I mean that I originally had in mind only that some Christians will adhere with extreme tenacity to their interpretations, without any recourse or consideration to alternative possibilities. But I understand that many people (i.e. non-Christians), being sensitized to the ridiculous shenanigans of the Wackadoo Westboro Baptists and other groups, like 'Christian Identity,' will hold more to the typical connotations in connection to the hyper form of literalism. It's just then, we need more terms. Because, if I consider myself in some ways 'literal' in regard to the Bible, but I'm in no way envisaging the shape of my faith to be that of Fundamentalists, then what does that make Fundamentalists who believe very strongly, but still don't do the crazy things you've listed above? Ok, then. In essence, Hyper-Fundamentalists should not be able to act in ways that are physically violent or a direct and abusive desecration of other people's viewpoints and/or person-hood. Great questions, Free. Peace 2PhiloVoid Thanks for clarifying. The sentence I've bolded raises another issue that I'd like some clarity on. Are you saying non-xians make the mistake of thinking all xians (or at least, all fundy xians) are crazy like Westboro? I'm a non-xian but I'm also an ex-xian, who understands the range of different kinds of xian there are. The abusive kind of xian in my examples exist in far greater numbers than just the Westboro kind. The pages of this forum are filled with personal stories about abusive xian parents, spouses or other family members, and also pastors and other leaders. I've read about this phenomenon in a range of blogs and other websites, mostly from the US. It gives me the impression there's a lot of fundy abuse going on. I think it's important for anyone calling themselves a xian to denounce the extremists and to acknowledge how big of a problem the extremists create, particularly in American society. Some very liberal xians even co-operate with secularists in an effort to support the separation of state and church. It's a good thing IMO. FreeThinkerNZ, (lol).....no, I'm not implying that non-christians think all christians are "Westboro Wackadoos." I can fully see that you and many others here are wise to the fact that there are a few intelligent Christians still around, but "obviously" hiding from plain view. And don't worry, I'm prone to call out extremists of all sorts....from the "Rhema Word" Super-Faith fanatics, all the way to the militant muslim commandos, and even to negligent, atheistic psychiatrists, particularly those like the one who was in charge of my mother's psychiatric "care" for 15 years, and whose hero, as he told me, was Bertrand Russell. (He probably shouldn't have told me that last tidbit...because he lost a very lucrative, double-doped customer when I pulled my mom away from his unaccredited clutches...) So sure, I'm all about standing up to extremists...of all kinds. Peace, 2PhiloVoid That's good, but have you done anything to promote the separation of state and church, or to try and reduce the harm the large numbers of fundies do? In what ways are your own faith and practice different to theirs? Well, for starters, I'm not a Theonomist, and that counts for a lot of the difference between me and a number of other American Christians. The Old Testament is the Old Testament, and the New Testament is the New Testament, and while I believe the Old Testament is firmly in place for the Jews (unless they become Christians), it isn't for me since I'm under the New Testament instead. Gotta luv those Loop Holes! (...and yes, I expect a Matthew Chapter 5 'sucker punch' any second now.....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 That's good, but have you done anything to promote the separation of state and church, or to try and reduce the harm the large numbers of fundies do? In what ways are your own faith and practice different to theirs? Well, for starters, I'm not a Theonomist, and that counts for a lot of the difference between me and a number of other American Christians. The Old Testament is the Old Testament, and the New Testament is the New Testament, and while I believe the Old Testament is firmly in place for the Jews (unless they become Christians), it isn't for me since I'm under the New Testament instead. Gotta luv those Loop Holes! (...and yes, I expect a Matthew Chapter 5 'sucker punch' any second now.....) That's all very interesting, but you haven't addressed the questions, so I'll repeat them here: That's good, but have you done anything to promote the separation of state and church, or to try and reduce the harm the large numbers of fundies do? In what ways are your own faith and practice different to theirs? Since you anticipate me mentioning the part of the NT that refutes your interpretation that the OT is irrelevant, what is your response to it? What do you think Jesus meant in Matt 5, particularly 17-19? Whether your religion is OT+NT or just NT, you still need to keep it separate from the state. Is that an issue that's important for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Please forgive me for picking up a part of your conversation with Bhim, but I wanted to ask you something about what you said. [snipped] (1.) Yes, it does seem that Theistic Evolutionists are quite rare. Admittedly, it poses the potential for my being castigated by more Fundamental Christians, if and when they find out my beliefs. But, these are the beliefs I’ve always had, and I have my own academic reasons for holding them, as opposed to the typical run-of-the-mill reasons Fundamentalists have for holding theirs (i.e. “my pastor told me such and such...”). At the same time, I don’t feel any animosity towards them. If they want to interpret the Bible in a more ultra-literal fashion, I figure they have the freedom to do so, even if I can’t join in with them in that way. But what about when their interpretation leads them to do immoral things, like: -bombing abortion clinics and murdering health professionals -parents abusing their gay teens to the point of suicide -encroaching into the public square and threatening the constitutional separation between state and church (basically infringing on others' rights) -parents who physically discipline young kids to the point of abuse -patriarchal quiverfull families where girls and women are treated as second class citizens These are just the first examples that came to mind, I haven't done any current googling or reading to come up with those. Under the law, fundies don't have the right to do most of these things that they base on their ultra-literal interpretation of the bible. Do you still believe they have the freedom to act like this, and should they? Hi FreeThinkerNZ, That's quite alright--pick away if you see it needs some pickin'! And you are quite right to point this out. Perhaps I should use the term 'ultra-literal' a little more literally, if I'm going to use it at all. By this I mean that I originally had in mind only that some Christians will adhere with extreme tenacity to their interpretations, without any recourse or consideration to alternative possibilities. But I understand that many people (i.e. non-Christians), being sensitized to the ridiculous shenanigans of the Wackadoo Westboro Baptists and other groups, like 'Christian Identity,' will hold more to the typical connotations in connection to the hyper form of literalism. It's just then, we need more terms. Because, if I consider myself in some ways 'literal' in regard to the Bible, but I'm in no way envisaging the shape of my faith to be that of Fundamentalists, then what does that make Fundamentalists who believe very strongly, but still don't do the crazy things you've listed above? Ok, then. In essence, Hyper-Fundamentalists should not be able to act in ways that are physically violent or a direct and abusive desecration of other people's viewpoints and/or person-hood. Great questions, Free. Peace 2PhiloVoid Thanks for clarifying. The sentence I've bolded raises another issue that I'd like some clarity on. Are you saying non-xians make the mistake of thinking all xians (or at least, all fundy xians) are crazy like Westboro? I'm a non-xian but I'm also an ex-xian, who understands the range of different kinds of xian there are. The abusive kind of xian in my examples exist in far greater numbers than just the Westboro kind. The pages of this forum are filled with personal stories about abusive xian parents, spouses or other family members, and also pastors and other leaders. I've read about this phenomenon in a range of blogs and other websites, mostly from the US. It gives me the impression there's a lot of fundy abuse going on. I think it's important for anyone calling themselves a xian to denounce the extremists and to acknowledge how big of a problem the extremists create, particularly in American society. Some very liberal xians even co-operate with secularists in an effort to support the separation of state and church. It's a good thing IMO. FreeThinkerNZ, (lol).....no, I'm not implying that non-christians think all christians are "Westboro Wackadoos." I can fully see that you and many others here are wise to the fact that there are a few intelligent Christians still around, but "obviously" hiding from plain view. And don't worry, I'm prone to call out extremists of all sorts....from the "Rhema Word" Super-Faith fanatics, all the way to the militant muslim commandos, and even to negligent, atheistic psychiatrists, particularly those like the one who was in charge of my mother's psychiatric "care" for 15 years, and whose hero, as he told me, was Bertrand Russell. (He probably shouldn't have told me that last tidbit...because he lost a very lucrative, double-doped customer when I pulled my mom away from his unaccredited clutches...) So sure, I'm all about standing up to extremists...of all kinds. Peace, 2PhiloVoid That's good, but have you done anything to promote the separation of state and church, or to try and reduce the harm the large numbers of fundies do? In what ways are your own faith and practice different to theirs? Well, for starters, I'm not a Theonomist, and that counts for a lot of the difference between me and a number of other American Christians. The Old Testament is the Old Testament, and the New Testament is the New Testament, and while I believe the Old Testament is firmly in place for the Jews (unless they become Christians), it isn't for me since I'm under the New Testament instead. Gotta luv those Loop Holes! (...and yes, I expect a Matthew Chapter 5 'sucker punch' any second now.....) There's more to it than Mathew chapter 5, Philo. Most, if not all, of the references to scripture in the NT, are referring to what you call the OT. They have to be, because at the time the letters (epistles) and gospels were written the NT didn't even exist. I say most, because there is some vague mention in one of Peter's letters that the writings of Paul are hard to understand, although I still don't see where Peter acknowledges them as scripture. Of course, the current understanding is that Peter didn't write first or second Peter anyway, as I understand it, and that it was written well after the epistles of Paul were circulating among the early churches. I could be in error here, and if so, I would welcome correction. Nonetheless, what scriptures were the NT writers referring to then Philo, if not the scriptures of the OT when they referenced scripture? There are many examples, and I'll post some if you wish, but I suspect you already know what I'm saying is correct. There was no NT at the time that the events in the NT were said to have taken place, so all references to scripture in the NT letters to the churches and in the gospels had to be the OT scriptures. A Christian can't claim to be removed from the OT. Would you do away with every prophecy in the OT of your Jesus, Philo? Jesus, of course is never mentioned in the OT, but in the NT there is plenty of "as it is written" stuff isn't there, implied if not in so many words? Jesus name drops Moses, Noah and Jonah, for example. You can read the entirety of Mark chapter 7, but I suspect you'll see that I'm not taking this quote from your Lord out of context. It stands alone, if need be: Mark 7:13King James Version (KJV)13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Are you sure, Philo, that your position and assertions are tenable? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2PhiloVoid Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 That's good, but have you done anything to promote the separation of state and church, or to try and reduce the harm the large numbers of fundies do? In what ways are your own faith and practice different to theirs? Well, for starters, I'm not a Theonomist, and that counts for a lot of the difference between me and a number of other American Christians. The Old Testament is the Old Testament, and the New Testament is the New Testament, and while I believe the Old Testament is firmly in place for the Jews (unless they become Christians), it isn't for me since I'm under the New Testament instead. Gotta luv those Loop Holes! (...and yes, I expect a Matthew Chapter 5 'sucker punch' any second now.....) That's all very interesting, but you haven't addressed the questions, so I'll repeat them here: That's good, but have you done anything to promote the separation of state and church, or to try and reduce the harm the large numbers of fundies do? In what ways are your own faith and practice different to theirs? Since you anticipate me mentioning the part of the NT that refutes your interpretation that the OT is irrelevant, what is your response to it? What do you think Jesus meant in Matt 5, particularly 17-19? Whether your religion is OT+NT or just NT, you still need to keep it separate from the state. Is that an issue that's important for you? FreeThinkNZ, In sum, it is my view that Matthew 5:17-20 simply indicates that Jesus' ministry (~ N.T.) fulfills the requirements of the O.T. Law and brings about the beginning of the fulfillment of the Prophets (which is then carried on by The Church). Because of the fulfillment of the Law (and its penalties) made by Christ, those who enter the Kingdom of God by way of faith are no longer under the O.T. However, I should be clear, the fulfillment of the O.T. doesn't mean that it is abolished. Is separation of church and state important for me? To some extent, it is. I'm like you in that I don't want any Wackadoo Christians (or Atheists) to take office who will suppress my democratic right to express my religious conscience and beliefs in the way that I think is appropriate and fitting. What am I "doing" about church and state separation? At the present, not much, mainly because I have other priorities and responsibilities. Moreover, the way things are going where I live, the Liberals will probably have a definitively upper hand given another 10 years anyway. So, what difference does it make? Christians will lose. 2PhiloVoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 FreeThinkNZ, In sum, it is my view that Matthew 5:17-20 simply indicates that Jesus' ministry (~ N.T.) fulfills the requirements of the O.T. Law and brings about the beginning of the fulfillment of the Prophets (which is then carried on by The Church). Because of the fulfillment of the Law (and its penalties) made by Christ, those who enter the Kingdom of God by way of faith are no longer under the O.T. However, I should be clear, the fulfillment of the O.T. doesn't mean that it is abolished. Is separation of church and state important for me? To some extent, it is. I'm like you in that I don't want any Wackadoo Christians (or Atheists) to take office who will suppress my democratic right to express my religious conscience and beliefs in the way that I think is appropriate and fitting. What am I "doing" about church and state separation? At the present, not much, mainly because I have other priorities and responsibilities. Moreover, the way things are going where I live, the Liberals will probably have a definitively upper hand given another 10 years anyway. So, what difference does it make? Christians will lose. 2PhiloVoid Don't worry, there are no atheists who seek to suppress you rights to free expression or to religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts