Why do conservative christian fundamentalists tend not to follow their own bible?

[Storm]

That applied only to the federal government (note not the state governments until the Supreme Court made an incorrect ruling to the contrary) establishing a religion as a state religion. So in that way the federal government is secular, but it was never intended to erase religion, specifically Christianity, from the public sector.

OK, first off, who are you to say the Supreme Court is incorrect?

Secondly, secularism isn't about 'erasing religion.' It's about religious neutrality.

 

[jacobweymouth]

OK, first off, who are you to say the Supreme Court is incorrect?

Because the 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." If it also applied to the state legislatures, it would have mentioned them.

Secondly, secularism isn't about 'erasing religion.' It's about religious neutrality.

There are those who say otherwise, and are really pushing that agenda

I believe religious neutrality is what the founding fathers intended in the federal government itself -that is no endorsment, or official status. However, they are the ones that instituted the concept of prayer in the Congress, of using Bibles for the various oaths -George Washington was the one who established the tradition of saying "so help me God" at the end of the Oath. So we must conclude that the place religion has in the federal government would be perfectly acceptable according to the original intent of the founding fathers.

Religion in the public sector is an entirely different thing.

 

[Storm]

Because the 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." If it also applied to the state legislatures, it would have mentioned them.

I meant, what are your qualifications? Are you a Constitutional lawyer? Do you have any relevant authority?

There are those who say otherwise, and are really pushing that agenda.

They're as wrong as you are.

 

[jacobweymouth]

I meant, what are your qualifications? Are you a Constitutional lawyer? Do you have any relevant authority?

Do you? I admit, that sort of question really annoys me.

Of course not. I'm 16! But I did read a book: Internet Archive: Details: The Constitution of the United States : its sources and its application / by Thomas James Norton

Written in 1922 (out of print), its author who was a constitutional scholar said as much. That was before the 1947 ruling, however.

I also know that the legislatures were mentioned when something applied to them.

On the side, I would contend that one doesn't need a constitional law degree to comprehend what the constition says. -It's not a long, or complicated document. In the way of constitutions, it's relatively short and simple.

They're as wrong as you are.

I know that -you need to tell them that

 

[dawny0826]

One of the fundamentals of Christianity is that Christians are to share the gospel with others. This act of FOLLOWING our own holy book is deemed "imposing" by many people.

I'm not going to deny that there are many who place themselves before Christ. Self righteousness isn't Godly and lashing out at others, demeaning others, isn't Christ-like either. Please don't forget as you belittle Christians that there are many of the "strict and devout" persuasion who really WOULD clothe you, feed you, pray for you and provide for you, during your time of need. There are many who haven't forgotten how to show love and compassion.

Christians are flawed people too. That's a given. But I don't understand why a non-believer would wish to use verses within a holy book that they reject...against those that at least claim to follow it.

 

[Storm]

Do you? I must admit, this sort of question really annoys me.

It really annoys me when laymen contradict experts.

On the side, I would contend that one doesn't need a constitional law degree to comprehend what the constition says. -It's not a long, or complicated document. In the way of constitutions, it's relatively short and simple.

No, but one does need sophisticated understanding to reconcile federal and state laws, balance precedent and social evolution, and the myriad other duties that such rulings entail.

I know that -you need to tell them that

I frequently do.

 

[jacobweymouth]

It really annoys me when laymen contradict experts.

I did cite Thomas Norton, and he was an expert.

No, but one does need sophisticated understanding to reconcile federal and state laws,

What do you mean?

balance precedent and social evolution, and the myriad other duties that such rulings entail.

Social evolution? What do you mean by that?

 

[Storm]

What do you mean?

I can't think of another way to say it.

Social evolution? What do you mean by that?

Societies change and evolve like organisms. That progress needs to be considered.

Example: the 2nd Amendment. When it was written, a big factor was ensuring the people's ability to overthrow the government (again) if necessary. Now the government has stealth bombers and ballistic missiles, and that part is kinda obsolete.

 

[jacobweymouth]

I can't think of another way to say it.

I just wanted to make sure you meant what I thought you meant.

No, but one does need sophisticated understanding to reconcile federal and state laws,

Agreed -in most cases. This is a fairly simple question.

I would note that, as a society, we have become to reliant on the opinions of "experts". Beware of brain trusts. -Washington was a farmer, yet he presided over the convention that drafted a constitution that has remained for 200 years.

Nowadays, the papers would whining about "proper legal experience"

Societies change and evolve like organisms. That progress needs to be considered.

Example: the 2nd Amendment. When it was written, a big factor was ensuring the people's ability to overthrow the government (again) if necessary. Now the government has stealth bombers and ballistic missiles, and that part is kinda obsolete.

Again, I wanted to see exactly what you meant. And we are wandering into reconstructionism.

I disagree with the entire principle -and so do a number of professionals.

 

[Storm]

I disagree with the entire principle -and so do a number of professionals.

What principle? Social evolution, or the example of the Second Amendment?

 

[jacobweymouth]

What principle? Social evolution, or the example of the Second Amendment?

Neither -reconstructionism: the principle that the social evolution of a country carrys over to the constitution.

 

[Storm]

Neither -reconstructionism: the principle that the social evolution of a country carrys over to the constitution.

But it has to. If it didn't, slavery would still be legal and women couldn't vote. It shouldn't be done lightly, but it has to be done.

 

[jacobweymouth]

But it has to. If it didn't, slavery would still be legal and women couldn't vote. It shouldn't be done lightly, but it has to be done.

Recontructionism is the idea that the constitution changes without the need for amendments.

I agree that social change leads to the need for amendments.

Really the only thing that matters for interpreting the constitution is understanding and knowledge of the constitution itself, and oringinal intent. You don't need a degree for that.

 

[ChristineES]

When I read the OP I had a nice little speech to write out, but after reading the entire thread, my little spiel wouldn't fit.
But I guess I can still answer the OP:
I follow Jesus commandments to the best of my ability. I have read the Old Testament as well.

 

[jacobweymouth]

When I read the OP I had a nice little speech to write out, but after reading the entire thread, my little spiel wouldn't fit.
But I guess I can still answer the OP:
I follow Jesus commandments to the best of my ability. I have read the Old Testament as well.

That's just it. Christians can't be perfect, and there are those that are bad, but that doesn't make the Bible any less relevant.

I wish you had posted your speech -it may have gotten us back on topic.

 

[Seven]

Sorry to interrupt guys

Regarding the original question I couldn't help but notice a pattern in Jacobs first answer:

What this is saying is...

All that verse was saying was...

Look at the context...

I think this is the key to why no Christian group seems to follow the bible exactly. They're not following what the bible says so much as what they think the bible means to say.
It's also the reason why there are so many forms of Christianity in the first place. (And any other religion that follows a holy book for that matter.)

Anyway sorry again for interrupting.

 

[jacobweymouth]

Sorry to interrupt guys

Regarding the original question I couldn't help but notice a pattern in Jacobs first answer:

For the "turn the other cheek" verse, I was putting it into context. As far as the others are concerned, I was not interpreting, I was just clarifying because I don't use the version he was using.

think this is the key to why no Christian group seems to follow the bible exactly. They're not following what the bible says so much as what they think the bible means to say.

True, but there are those that come closer then others.

It's also the reason why there are so many forms of Christianity in the first place. (And any other religion that follows a holy book for that matter.)

You're right. That is the reason there are so many denominations.

 

[ChristineES]

Sorry to interrupt guys

Regarding the original question I couldn't help but notice a pattern in Jacobs first answer:







I think this is the key to why no Christian group seems to follow the bible exactly. They're not following what the bible says so much as what they think the bible means to say.
It's also the reason why there are so many forms of Christianity in the first place. (And any other religion that follows a holy book for that matter.)

Anyway sorry again for interrupting.

Actually, this is a very legitimate answer to the OP. When anyone reads The Bible, their own interpretation will always creep into. Sometimes, there is more than one way to interpret what a passage means. This is particularly true if the writer or speaker of said passage doesn't translate what it means.

 

[Seven]

True, but there are those that come closer then others.

Who decides which interpretation is closer?

I was not interpreting, I was just clarifying

Sorry if this sounds a little blunt but who are you to clarify scripture.

And what about this?

There's a difference between looking at the Bible and saying "according to the Bible, that is wrong", and making your own personal judgments. There is nothing wrong with judgment.

'Judge not, that you be not judged' is not the same as 'don't judge others (unless of course you think they are going against your interpretation of scripture)'

Besides, your reasoning in this matter leads you to say 'there is nothing wrong with judgment' - a flat out contradiction of the scripture.

 

[Smoke]

There is nothing wrong with judgment.

So Jesus was wrong about that?