re: Still zero Christian terror attacks

Eric Robert Rudolph

quote:

---

I’m not talking about banning the Bible or the 10 commandments from schools or banning Christianity. I’m talking about legislation that forces putting the Ten Commandments on the wall in every classroom. By all means, put the Bible or 20 Bibles in the library. Fellow of Christian Students, Young Life, Bible study groups, etc. No problem with any of these student groups in public education.

---

Let me be clear, then: it sounds to me that you would like to ban the Bible and Christianity from the education system, specifically in terms of curriculum and exposure inside the formal education. It sounds like you're fine with the Bible being allowed in schools and Christianity to be present in the form of the student body, but you don't agree with Christianity being forced into the classroom. Am I correct in that? If so, you would like to have Christianity and the Bible "banned" in that context, which is what I was getting at.

What I was originally pointing out was the irony of censorship. You had initially called attention to the banning of books that would be done by Christians, clearly disagreeing with the view that certain books should be censored in schools. I was drawing attention to the similarities between banning books and banning Christianity (and the 10 commandments) from classrooms (in terms of formal education). You want to censor such religious studies because you believe they don't belong in the classroom. That's your prerogative to believe that. I was just calling attention to the apparent hypocrisy of condemning Christians for censorship in education while you seemed to be advocating for something similar.

quote:

---

There isn’t educational value in forced public school curriculum around Bible study, creationism, etc.

---

I disagree. We differ because you don't believe the Bible is actually true, and therefore you think it a waste of time to include anything about it in the educational system apart from general religious studies classes, I suppose. I believe the truth should be taught and that there is a lot of educational value in doing so.

quote:

---

There also plenty of private school options for people that want religious education for their kids. School is challenging enough already without dedicating time to teach kids about Adam and Eve or Noah’s Ark. If you want to teach elementary kids that they are going to hell if they don’t accept Jesus, send them to private school or take them to church.

---

I'm sure you disagree, but I don't believe that God can be relegated to one pocket of a person's life and ignored elsewhere. God is God over all creation. Christ is head of the Church, but He is also King over all the nations. It's in no one's best interest to be kept in the dark about this, and secular humanism is not a legitimate substitute to biblical Christianity, which is why I'm engaging in this thought exercise about a Christian government.

Still zero cucks.

quote:

---

Ever hear of Northern Ireland ?

---

They weren’t truthfully fighting for Christianity. Are you that dense?

quote:

---

Wasn’t this thread about terror attacks? Start a new thread a pedo priests.

---

His point is, every time a priest abuses a child, that is an act of terror against that child.

There are varying degrees of acts of terror. Very public ones, like what happened in New Orleans, but also very private ones.

So saying "Still zero Christian terror attacks" is wrong. We have no idea how many terror attacks are happening in the name of Christ behind closed doors.

quote:

---

The only one there is: Exodus 20 lists them.

---

I think Catholics and Lutherans may argue with you on that one.

quote:

---

Of course you would say that. You already have your arbitrary moral code codified in your mind and you only accept the commandments that fit.

---

So what should the civil punishment be for worshipping a graven image?

What if I skip church on Sunday? How much trouble am I in?

"The Ark Encounter better explains the truth of our history, IMO."

While I very much appreciate your civil responses throughout this thread, this one only goes to show that your method of explaining history is based on a religious opinion, which really has no place in the attempt to examine and explain history. Some people believe humans and dinosaurs existed simultaneously, some people believe Adam and Eve were in Missouri, some people believe a book was handed down by an angel, with the help of magical spectacles, some people believe in repeated incarnation ending in enlightenment. None of this can be objectively proved and and none of this has a place in an (admittedly flawed) objective scientific method, which relies on an openness of mind ready to adjust to new discoveries which may prove existing theories and opinions wrong.

quote:

---

While I very much appreciate your civil responses throughout this thread, this one only goes to show that your method of explaining history is based on a religious opinion, which really has no place in the attempt to examine and explain history.

---

Why is a religious opinion less valuable than a secular one? That seems to show some bias on your part.

Let’s presume for a moment that the Bible’s account is true. That would mean that an all-knowing and perfectly honest God has revealed an eye-witness testimony to such historical events. I suggest that such testimony would be more valuable than attempting to piece together those events thousands of years after the fact, using presuppositions that could be wrong which determine speculative conclusions. What you propose is not necessarily truth, but consistency with a materialist worldview.

quote:

---

Some people believe humans and dinosaurs existed simultaneously, some people believe Adam and Eve were in Missouri, some people believe a book was handed down by an angel, with the help of magical spectacles, some people believe in repeated incarnation ending in enlightenment. None of this can be objectively proved and and none of this has a place in an (admittedly flawed) objective scientific method, which relies on an openness of mind ready to adjust to new discoveries which may prove existing theories and opinions wrong.

---

I would suggest that when talking about past events where no other credible witness testimony exists, all that can be done is interpret what facts and evidence exist. Interpretations are not infallible, and therefore there would be no objective method of determining the truth of the matter at all. As a Christian, I don’t dispute evidence, however I recognize that evidence and facts are not brute, but must be interpreted. Conclusions, therefore, may and will differ based on the interpretive framework one uses in approaching those facts. When one only regards naturalistic materialism, then the conclusion that he draws will be vastly different than someone who does not regard naturalistic materialism as the only view for determining truth.

All this to say that I respectfully disagree with you and that history may very well be correctly explained by “religious opinion” as I believe it, though it may be rightly said that naturalistic materialism is a religious belief of a certain kind in itself, though you may not agree. There is a faith component to such a worldview that assumes much that cannot be proven.

quote:

---

I think Catholics and Lutherans may argue with you on that one.

---

I would be happy to have such a discussion with Roman Catholics or Lutherans. There was such a discussion a few months ago, but it was with an atheist. I don’t recall any Catholics or Lutherans joining in, though.

quote:

---

So what should the civil punishment be for worshipping a graven image?

---

The civil magistrate can do what it wants in that case as there is no command that all governments must have the same punishments for all crimes they legislate. I don’t think governments need to enforce the 10 commandments in any particular way, as there is a true separation of spheres of authority between the home, the church, and the state, where the state doesn’t necessarily have the authority to compel adherence to the Christian religion but rather acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and make conditions favorable for the spread of the Christian Gospel.

Such being the case, in practice, perhaps a Christian government can promote and support the Christian religion while leaving religious observance up to the Church, itself. This would allow for toleration of other religions to exist within the civil sphere while not backing away from a commitment to Jesus Christ. This is the Reformed position, namely that the civil government should enforce civil crimes while the Church should enforce religious laws.

quote:

---

What if I skip church on Sunday? How much trouble am I in?

---

Same response as previous. You would not be obligated under civil law to go to a Christian church, however if you did belong to a Christian church, you would be counseled by the Church, not the state.