Turn Off Ads?
Page 45 of 45 FirstFirst ... 354142434445
Results 661 to 670 of 670

Thread: Bush backs Intelligent Design

  1. #661
    Harry Chiti Fan registerthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,872

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by GAC
    Because many believe that our human form of government, from which civil laws sprang, was instituted by God. Just as it states that foundation in Romans 13.
    But regardless of what you believe, our civil laws are not based on scripture, so what our laws state are exclusive to what scripture states, and do not require justification from them. That is why your statement confused me.
    We'll burn that bridge when we get to it.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #662
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,659

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by registerthis
    But regardless of what you believe, our civil laws are not based on scripture, so what our laws state are exclusive to what scripture states, and do not require justification from them. That is why your statement confused me.
    But our Founding Fathers say that both Christian and secular documents were influential in setting up our form of government and laws.
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations

  4. #663
    Harry Chiti Fan registerthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,872

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by GAC
    But our Founding Fathers say that both Christian and secular documents were influential in setting up our form of government and laws.
    That's irrelevant today. Being BASED upon a system does not mean that the current system requires JUSTIFICATION from the system it is based on.

    The English language is based upon earlier Germanic and Romance languages, yet the rules of grammar implemented since then are not dependent upon their agreement with or justification from any of the languages it is based upon.
    We'll burn that bridge when we get to it.

  5. #664
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,581

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by registerthis
    Reconciling the verses in Matthew, Mark and Luke require more than simply interpreting them within the framework of the time they were written in or the particularly literary turns of phrase which may have been used. You stated in an earlier post "With respect to the divorce issue, one writer adding additional information that another writer omitted is not necessarily a contradiction. In a harmony of the gospels, what one writer includes that another writer does not is simply more revelation, such as if one writer includes two people while another includes three doesn't mean that the writers are contradicting each other."

    The example you give there could be a simple misunderstanding of, what I mentioned earlier, is an inconsequential point. I'm not arguing on those terms.

    But the issue of divorce IS large--God says so himself. In this instance, I don't believe you can simply look at it as a case of "more revelation", because taken at face value the commands in Matthew and the commands in Mark and Luke are in contradiction with each other. Consider the case of the unfaithful wife: Matthew says it is OK to divorce her. Mark and Luke says it is not.

    In other words, the contradiction isn't merely a result of a grammatical or historical interpretive difference--it is fundamentally deeper than that.

    Now, how does that pertain to the items discussed in this thread? Well, I'll let my statements above speak for themselves on that.
    I very much respect this pastor, disagree with him on this issue as I do you, but this should be of interest to you
    http://www.desiringgod.org/library/t..._adultery.html
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  6. #665
    Harry Chiti Fan registerthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,872

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by traderumor
    I very much respect this pastor, disagree with him on this issue as I do you, but this should be of interest to you
    http://www.desiringgod.org/library/t..._adultery.html
    Thanks for the link. I don't necessarily agree with him either, but that is an interesting justification for his take on it.
    We'll burn that bridge when we get to it.

  7. #666
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,874

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by GAC
    But our Founding Fathers say that both Christian and secular documents were influential in setting up our form of government and laws.
    Yeah, and our government owes a huge debt of gratitude to the pagan Greek democracies as well as works like Locke's "Two Treatises of Government."

    So what's your point?

  8. #667
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,659

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Register says that our civil laws are not based on scripture. According to our Founding Fathers, scripture was influential in that process. Not the sole influence, but it was strongly evident. And I simply go by the physical evidence/testimony of those men who were there.

    They acknowledged the influence of such documents such as the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, and the Bible, and various others, as strong influences on the formation of our government and society.

    The fact that some of you TODAY wish to disavow that influence, and say it wasn't so, or is somehow not relevant to today, means very little to me. The evidence contained in the Library of Congress, and various other writings of those men, is overwhelming concerning that influence and guidance that Christianity had.

    But I'm certianly not going to get drawn into another long debate/argument with you over it. Been there-done that.
    Last edited by GAC; 08-27-2005 at 07:02 AM.
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations

  9. #668
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,581

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...c/divorce.html
    Reg,

    Here's a link to several articles on divorce and remarriage. This is an excellent sight.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  10. #669
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,581

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.d.../API/508270653

    Just in case you're wondering, I'm a gin' it
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  11. #670
    Harry Chiti Fan registerthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,872

    Re: Bush backs Intelligent Design

    Quote Originally Posted by GAC
    Register says that our civil laws are not based on scripture. According to our Founding Fathers, scripture was influential in that process. Not the sole influence, but it was strongly evident. And I simply go by the physical evidence/testimony of those men who were there.
    Nope, you're misunderstahnding my post--which I spelt out very clearly. There's no debate here, because I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing for. Our civil laws may have been INFLUENCED by scripture, but that does not mean that they are bound to them or require any type of justification from them in order to function. Abortion, for example, could never be outlawed simply because it was contrary to scripture. Gay marriage could never be banned simply because it is contrary to scripture.

    Of course our laws originally rose from scriptural-based laws, such as they did from the laws on non-Christian societies such as the Greeks. But aside from the fact that our laws have a root in scriptural texts, what on Earth does that have to do with our civil laws today concerning divorce? It's senseless to even broach the subject.
    We'll burn that bridge when we get to it.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25