Show of Hands

I partially agree. I think the ol' motto:"The good of the many outweigh the need of the few" should be considered in most cases. However, in recent years, the need of the few has been elevated above the common good.

In Paris, for example, they passed a law that Muslim women cannot wear full facial covering because it prevents identifying individuals by law enforcement. The Muslims all cried foul and said it was their right, to which the French said:" France is for the French. Assimilate or take a hike."

I think it's a fantastic stance and utterly stomps on political correctness.

I fear in the US, with everyone playing the victim, minority outcry seems to always trump common sense. Over here, the Muslims would win that battle.

Except the most fundamental form of Christianity FOUNDED this country and still had the wisdom to separate church from state to prevent a theocracy.

Weird.

So why do so many of the fundamentalist GOP members want to cross that line of separation? I find it disturbing.

You'd have to give me specific examples of a case.

I know on many cases, like gay marriage...both the GOP and Dems are wrong.

I could care less which religion it is, I don't want any kind of theocracy taking over our government.

A commonly-cited example is "Dominionism", an attempt by certain right wing Christians to gain control of our government for their religion. I'm too lazy to look up more.

www.theocracywatch.org

Lol, no problem. Well, I'd be on your side. In that regard I'm also against secular ideology taking over. You don't need a God behind a doctrine to oppress. Secular Humanism gives me the creeps.

Don't believe the TV. Donald Trump is a politician and the race tension is a manipulation.

I'm a white German immigrant married to a black woman in the Deep South. Pluralism isn't just normative here, it's beyond common to see biracial couples and multicultural families. My boss is a good ol boy with an Asian wife.
I know a guy who brews moonshine in the woods of Georgia with his black wife.

The #blacklivesmatter crowd and these idiot trump-supporters are not an indicator of culture.
That's just my experience. Purely anecdotal.

PS: did you know a Muslim man can marry a Jewish or Christian woman, but not a non-believer?

Did you know that a Muslim woman on the other hand, can ONLY marry a Muslim man?

How tolerant.

A Christian on the other hand can marry anyone, even a non-believer. It's not recommended and they're allowed to divorce if the marriage becomes unsuccessful because faith turns into an issue...but the Bible absolutely allows both men and women to marry any culture, any faith and any race.

In fact, the Old Testament has an example of God cursing a racist with Leprosy.
Moses married a Cushite (African from Ethiopia). One of his family members cussed him out for not picking a Jew, so God cursed her with skin as white as snow.

" You wanna be white? I'll make you white!"

Got her kicked out of the camp until she recovered.

Christians are not supposed to marry outside of their faith. It's called being unequally yoked. They feel it causes a couple to go in different directions with regard to decision making.

That's a recommendation, not a doctrine. Similar to the one the apostle Paul made when he recommended men don't takes wives at all, because it could distract from God.

But they can make life very unpleasant for you if you choose to even date outside of your faith. Not doctrine but personal interpretation at work. I dated a Jewish guy once (one of many) and I had a friend tell me she was going to pray for my relationship to end because it's not what God wanted. She made my life difficult and constantly tried to convert the poor guy.

1 Corinthians 7:12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. iOtherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you2 jto peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, kwhether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

With every religion, it's a matter of interpretation, the Bible offers just as much justification for murder or vile acts as the Koran. Just like many Christians don't prescribe to every single text in the Bible, most Muslims don't with the Koran.

There are two Muslim members of Congress already, Keith Ellison (MN) and Andre Carson (IN). Not only have they participated in American democracy just as any other congressman and clearly NOT advocated any form of Sharia law, but Carson has been subject to death threats from Americans for his religion. Just like any religion there is a peaceful interpretation and a violent interpretation. Just look at Myanmar where there are Militant Buddhists who kill Rohingya Muslims in the name of their religion.

I know they don't teach the Bible in school anymore, so I don't fault anyone for citing Old Testament human rights atrocities as proof for a violent faith.

Christians don't use the Old Testament as a doctrine for life. Any Christian who does is a heretic.

The Old Testament was about God teaching people the consequences of sin. Take sacrifices for example.
God demands animal sacrifices to atone for sin. Any Bible teacher with the tiniest shred of understanding will tell you that God didn't want their goats, chickens and cows. The sacrifice was a lesson. "Because you sinned against a Holy God, something has to die! It should be you, but like with Abraham and his son...I will provide an alternative."

The instances in the Old Testament where cruelty is seemingly excessive, you see the same theme. Keep the law, the wages of sin is death.

(Continued)

(Continued)

This only applied to the Jews and they did NOT convert. So unlike Islam, they didn't March on Europe and try to convert under the sword.

Once Christ fulfilled the prophecy of the Old Testament, the law of the Jews died. There is no more need for sacrifice and ritual because Christ was the final (and only) worthy sacrifice. Debt paid.

That is the Gospel. Any Christian who uses the Bible as a weapon is not a Christian. That's not a matter of interpretation. It's in black and white.

Have you read the bible

Yes

Yea. Absolutely. James Madison was an arch-pluralist and with Jefferson, formed the origins of the Republican Party. He was an episcopalian.

Christianity is incredibly pluralistic. Probably why it's practiced globally in every culture.

But if we were to follow th Bible to the word in America would we still have a modern nation

Nobody is suggesting following the Bible as a national theocratic doctrine. The founders were ALL fundamentalist Christians and they ALL helped form a nation which explicitly separated church and state.

You do realize that Protestant Christians designed the separation of Church and state in order to prevent a theocracy?

I don't even think Catholics were allowed to join the nation for a while, simply because the Catholic Church was hell bent on theocratic rule...as well as the Church of England.

While I don't disagree that some aspects of Islam seeks to convert the world to Islam, what is the goal of Christianity? Don't all religions have the same goal? A couple of trolls here will call me a Christophobe which is not true but I'm really starting to get disgusted with the hysteria. I don't want any religious law trumping the constitution.

No not really. Judaism for example does not seek to convert. It is actually doctrinal that as long as you follow the laws of Moses you can't have a relationship with God without converting as a full practicing Jew. Christianity on the other hand does try to convert. However they have a very strict rule governing conversion techniques. I think it's 2 Peter 3:18 that outlines mission habits. It says that Christians should have gentleness and respect. It says that they should give a reason for the hope that is in them. It says also in a different book that if they are attacked they should turn the other cheek. Further says that if they should die, to live is Christ to die is gain.

Under the rules of sharia and the laws of Islam, and the habits of the Prophet Mohammed, the entire world is to be converted. If they do not convert they should die. Unless they are Christian and Jews. In those cases they can either be taxed or enslaved. That is in there scripture.

My post is riddled with errors. I'm dictating to Siri while I have my hands full.

It was supposed to say that you can have paradise if you follow the Jewish laws and you can have a relationship with God if you follow the Jewish laws but you don't necessarily have to convert to Judaism

I do recall reading something similar. I'm no Quran scholar but there are some here who are qualified to comment better than me. I'll look up this bible verses. I like to make sure I'm also getting the full context when I read. Thanks for the reply.

And You should see the texts I send with Siri!
😁

And there are some Christians who would consider Suri to be the work of the devil.😉

Everyone knows Siri is communicating through mind control. 😜

But they aren't allowed to talk about it. You must be very strong to hold off the controlling waves. 🤖👏🏻😎

😊 Siri and the moon landing...never to be spoken about.

Anything they cannot control (they use the word "protect") doesn't exist.