a "Christian nation".

Let's back the silliness up, and define terms.

Christian nation - the majority of Americans are Christian.

According to a 2014 study by the Pew Research Center, 70.6% of the American population identified themselves as Christians, with 46.5% professing attendance at a variety of churches that could be considered Protestant, and 20.8% professing Roman Catholic beliefs.

@calfoxwc said:

I believe the point being made is that many Christians, have taken to political activism, to the point that they have elevated a political idea to that of the Kingdom of God. All you have to do is look at facebook for an example, or your thread as an example of this. I have many friends that think Christianity=Republican. This is clearly seen within the streams of social media.

Granted, a good portion of Christian principles are seen within conservative-ism, but this hardly equates the two. I believe if you were to ask many Christians what is more important God or Country, most would say God. But, is their social interactions representative of this, for many, I see the opposite and agree with Boyd's sentiment. But there are many who might say that they are just as equal.

Understand, that as Christians, we are disciples of Christ. What was His example? Also, think about what was his RIGHT? He could have done whatever he wanted, but he chose not to overthrow Rome. He chose not to establish a throne on earth. It was His right, but as Christ said, my Kingdom is not of this world. If the kingdom is not here, why should Christians be so vigilant in trying to fight a political war? That's not what Christ did, and that is Boyd's.

I think Christians serve this world and the Kingdom better by serving people. What would be better, Christians being seen helping, serving, giving to those in need or yelling "Jesus Said Homo's are wrong and should Die". Not saying you can't believe that, because homosexuality is not part of God's design. But the way our world is progressing, perhaps a better battle would be to fight poverty, hunger, social injustice, etc.,

**********************************************************

this generalization is worse than stupid. many in America hate white people because they are black activists.

what is the point? there are a lot of people who think a lot of things.

want to bet that more people are PROUD of their flag than the "many" boyd mentions?

as in, he took a "poll" or what? just nonsense rationalization. You still are all about Daniel. Hitler and the nazis

accrued tremendous wealth, they did it through terrible evil. What the bleep does accruing wealth have to do

with the op?

ANSWER: nothing. but continue to ramble on, you be trippin, i think.

@calfoxwc said:

Why should the government get involved, because we are a post-Christian nation. And I will argue that Boyd is about as unbiased as they come and tries to present information and theology on a very historically based hermeneutic. Still, care to address any of his points?

dumb woodpecker

Jesus doesn't run our gov. You're saying we should just follow Jesus and

not take care of our country and our families?

You are rambling like a pothead hippie on lsd. I didn't laugh at Boyd, but rather, laughed at

your saying I'm biased, then using a biased Boyd as your perfect rebuttal.

That the gov honors marriage is not a spiritual thing, sure. But that isn't what you said earlier.

Marriage has it's roots from the beginning in Jewish/Biblical times. The INSTITUTION has spiritual

origins. That doesn't mean only Christians get married. So, with the division of church and state,

why the bleep should the gov interfere with the originally Jewish/Biblical definition of Real Marriage?

That was the point about the civil union. Now, I won't be surprised if you argue back and use

ET, the alien character in the movie, as your proof of having a valid point.

@mld-woody said:

got woodpecker poop on your feathers again?

@calfoxwc said:

I understand the issue perfectly fine. It would appear that your issue is that you have put too much trust in a government and politics when the man you should be following never did.

Tell me why Boyd thoughts are to be laughed at? Give me one good counter point to ANY of those I listed that isn't based on westernized, neo-view of Christianity, instead of "lol".

And I'm not arguing against the design of "Marriage". What I am arguing is that a secular, pagan, view of marriage, held by a government, does nothing on a spiritual plane. I also argue, that faith in a politician to usher in morality, is also idolatry if you think about it, which is what you espouse.

Oh, sorry, spelled Cesar wrong, I suppose that makes the point I'm making void.... right, logically speaking?

Understand, that we are on the same team. I just put no faith in man right this nation. It's not going to happen through politics, Trump, HRC, or any politician.

@calfoxwc said:

You should consider your all black and white view on the issue as not helping you understand the issue

I laughed

You should consider your all black and white view on the issue as not helping you understand the issue.

According to your line of reasoning, a car is not a car if it is lacking a carb, or a steering wheel.

You are arguing perfection in being basically a Christian nation. All Christians are sinners, but an entire nation

can't be imperfect and still be a Christian nation?

come on. That is right out of liberal grade school nonsense. We are not officially a Christian nation because we

do not allow a gov-mandated official religion - that was another great consern of Founding Fathers, some of who

WERE Christians. Their goal was unselfish - FREEDOM for ALL.

wait, lol...you beeactch about ME being biased in my opinons, (well, "duh")..

and then you use Boyd as your rock of unbiased opinions? LOLLOL

your assumptions give you false claims. and random arguments don't apply. Nobody

said anything about Jesus being political. Nobody.

I'll see you your ONE guy, and give you a bunch of sites where you can learn about the issue

you want to discuss.

@calfoxwc said:

Cal, you're clearly biased in your opinions. If our country was EVER "Christian" the way Christ would have defined a nation, we are a horrible example. I gave you a few examples of why we were never a Christian nation and you pick out Slavery. Slavery is one yes, how we treated Native Americans under the guise of Manifest Destiny. We basically treated immigrants like slaves during the late 18th century and early 20th century during the industrial revolution.

Here are some quotes from Pastor, Author and Theologian from his book Myth of a Christian Nation.

“Consider these questions: Did Jesus ever suggest by word of example that we should aspire to acquire, let alone take over, the power of Caesar? Did Jesus spend any time and energy trying to improve, let alone dominate, the reigning government of his day? Did he ever word to pass laws against the sinners he hunt out with and ministered to? Did he worry at all about ensuring that his rights and the religious rights of his followers were protected? Does any author in the New Testament remotely hint that engaging in this sort of activity has anything to do with the kingdom of God? The answer to all these questions is, of course, no.”

― Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church

“Participants in the kingdom of the world trust the power of the sword to control behavior; participants of the kingdom of God trust the power of self-sacrificial love to transform hearts. The kingdom of the world is concerned with preserving law and order by force; the kingdom of God is concerned with establishing the rule of God through love. The kingdom of the world is centrally concerned with what people do; the kingdom of God is centrally concerned with how people are and what they can become.The kingdom of the world is characterized by judgment; the kingdom of God is characterized by outrageous, even scandalous, grace.”

― Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church

“The holiness of the kingdom of God must be preserved. If Jesus refused to acknowledge and fight for Israel as God's favored nation- even though it was the one nation in history that actually held this status at one time- how much more must his followers refuse to acknowledge and fight for America as God's favored nation" To say it another way, if Jesus was committed solely to establishing a kingdom that had no intrinsic nationalistic or ethnic allegiances- not even with Israel- how much more should his followers be committed to expanding this unique, non-nationalistic kingdom?”

― Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church

“I believe a significant segment of American evangelicalism is guilty of nationalistic and political idolatry. To a frightful degree, I think, evangelicals fuse the kingdom of God with a preferred version of the kingdom of the world (whether it’s our national interests, a particular form of government, a particular political program, or so on). Rather than focusing our understanding of God’s kingdom on the person of Jesus—who, incidentally, never allowed himself to get pulled into the political disputes of his day—I believe many of us American evangelicals have allowed our understanding of the kingdom of God to be polluted with political ideals, agendas, and issues.”

― Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church

...we must also recognize that people who have diametrically opposing views may believe *they too* are advancing the kingdom, which is all well and good so long as we don't christen our views as *the* Christian view. As people whose citizenship is in heaven before it is in any nation (Phil 3:20), and whose kingdom identity is rooted in Jesus rather than in a political agenda, we must never forget that the only way we individually and collectively represent the kingdom of God is through loving, Christlike, sacrificial acts of service to others. Anything and everything else, however good and noble, lies outside the kingdom of God.”

― Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church

“when the kingdom of God is manifested, it’s obvious. It looks like Jesus. But America as a nation has clearly never looked remotely like Jesus. There was nothing distinctively Christlike about the way America was “discovered,” conquered, or governed in the early years. To the contrary, the way this nation was “discovered,” conquered, and governed was a rather typical, barbaric, violent, kingdom-of-the-world affair. The immoral barbarism displayed in the early (and subsequent) years of this country was, sadly, pretty typical by kingdom-of-the-world standards. The fact that it was largely done under the banner of Christ doesn’t make it more Christian, any more than any other bloody conquest done in Jesus’ name throughout history (such as the Crusades and the Inquisition) qualifies them as Christlike.”

― Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church

“Jesus’ life and ministry consistently reveal the humble character of a servant. Though he rightfully owned the entire cosmos, he, by choice, had no place to lay his head (Matt. 8:20). Though he rightfully should have been honored by the world’s most esteemed dignitaries, he chose to fellowship with tax collectors, drunkards, prostitutes, and other socially unacceptable sinners (Matt. 11:19; Mark 2:15; Luke 5:29–30; 15:1; cf. Luke 7:31–50). Though he rightfully could have demanded service and worship from all, he served the lame and the sick by healing them, the demonized by delivering them, and the outcasts by befriending them. This is what the kingdom of God looks like.”

― Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church

“...we must never confuse the positive things that America does with the kingdom of God, for the kingdom of God is not centered on being morally, politically, or socially positive *relative* to other versions of the kingdom of the world. Rather, the kingdom of God is centered on being *beautiful*, as defined by Jesus Christ dying on a cross for those who crucified him.”

― Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church

“For many in America and around the world, the American flag has smothered the glory of the cross, and the ugliness of our American version of Caesar has squelched the radiant love of Christ.”

― Gregory A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church

And if you think that for one second Donald Trump is some moral compass that is going to put us right back on the "Christian" path, you're mistaken.

Christ never aligned himself politically, EVER. He said give to Cesar what is Cesar's and give to God what is God's when confronted by leaders who wanted to trick him into picking sides. THe nation of Israel clamored for a King so they could be like other nations, GOd didn't want to give them a king, but He gave in and gave them Saul. See how all those kings worked out for Israel. They were all human and had their issues and for some, their sins led Israel into captivity and bondage. But, what do some Christians like YOU, want? A political king to somehow right this "Christian" ship of a nation. Not going to happen. They are all corrupt.

So, let ask this, one example of Daniel (actually 4 if you count Shadrach Meshacn and Abednego), doesn't count? Why? Give me a good reason. Daniel lived under pagan rule and prospered. He would not have if he acted like you or many Christians of today. SO his example isn't good enough for you?

Also, our current traditions of marriage hold no spiritual weight. If so, you need to provide me some scriptural evidence to support your thesis. A governement document doens't mean jack shit when it comes to spiritual recognition.

you got a title of ownership?

nope. right back at ya, lizardlips.

@calfoxwc said:

Well, Brownskidd, you sound like a racist rapist nazi.

How's that for a bounceback? Sorry if you got mad, but it's your fault you are.

Your stupid claim that I proclaim that gays are bad makes you look like pee wee herman, Brownskid.

Ask anybody on the board except for the dimwitted birdbrain, woodypeckerhead - I have said many, many times

that I have worked with people who were gay, more than a few times in my career. I have run meetings with

people who were gay. They never knew, to my awareness anyways, that I knew. They never telegraphed it

knowingly, and most? of the time, I was surprised to find out from a mutal friend. Both make and female, btw.

I always, always, treated them just like anybody else, I treated them the same before and after I found out.

Gays are people, too.

So, that's rotten egg of your rambling right there. I do defend Real Marriage, and the gov forcing all Americans

to redefine it, is wrong. Real Marriage is between a man and a woman. An institution, among other things, that

ascribes responsibility to take care of, and be responsible, for biological and adopted kids, etc.

Now, civil unions would have done that. I believe in leaving people alone. Let gays and goths and nose ring

and lizardpeople be who they are, who they want to be. Just leave me along, too.

Ah, but there is the problem. The left demands to not leave other people alone, while you had better leave them alone.

I was fine with civil unions. Just create it, and run with it. Makes sense. Gays should have the same legal protections, etc.

that Married Couples do. Call it a "civil marriage" maybe.

But to politically and legally demand that all of America CHANGE THE MEANING OF A WORD shouldn't stand.

Ranks up there as stopping a grade school child from silenetly praying at lunch.

The left is due for a rude awakening. And, btw, your nonsense about "What would Chist do..." is okay, until

you ignorantly assume Christ would have done your will.

That's another problem - you hard core, all in libs believe you are gods and your emotionalism rules.

Vote for Trump. We surely need CHANGE from the leftist direction we are going in.

@calfoxwc said:

You do know your "source" on marriages in churches and synagogues comes from an Islamic-based website, right? Not exactly the best way to support Christian viewpoints...

@jbluhm86 said:

another hilllwacky-cintuckucki gif.

@calfoxwc said:

*creates thread called "Jesus condemned the teachers of homosexuality being ok" to justify stance on "real marriage"...

"Lots of people", sure, I agree with that. But "lots of black people" hate police hate white people,

lots of white people don't trust inner blacks...

hardly basis for labeling an entire country on. I was just disputing his claim of our country being "post-Christian"

@calfoxwc said:

Lots of people identify as Christian because that is how they were raised. Clearly, they aren't holding any hard line about the faith or else we would be living in a theocracy.

How can we be "post-Christian" when there are Christian churches all over our country?

check this out::

US Christians numbers 'decline sharply', poll finds. The number of Americans who identify as Christian has fallen nearly eight percentage points in only seven years, according to a new survey. Pew Research Center found that 71% of Americans identified as Christian in 2014 - down from 78% in 2007.May 12, 2015

so it was a bit over THREE FOURTHS of our country, per the poll, and now it's a bit less than 3/4ths?

we're "post-Christian" like obamao was supposed to be "post-racial" ?

nonsense.

check this out:

http://www.soundvision.com/article/wedding-statistics-in-the-united-states

@calfoxwc said:

I don't know what to think about that rambling.

I do agree that Civil union should be allowed, as you do. But we should understand, that the word "Marriage" has no spiritual value, at all. So what if our government says, "let's call it marriage". So what? What does that do on any spiritual plane of existence? Nothing. Let people call it marriage, no skin off my back, yours or anyone else's.

What should be realized is that government recognition of anything, does not validate it spiritually. A signed legal document means nothing in a spiritual sense. Marriage has and will always be a commitment between two people, that's it. The government got involved because the government saw opportunity.

Think of it like this. When are a man and a woman married? By today's westernized tradition it's after the marriage certificate is signed and then a person licensed to oversee the marriage signs the marriage certificate. Where, in this process, is it spiritually binding? There is nothing in that Bible that tells us how it should be done, and if we look to tradition, which tradition is used? IMO, as said earlier, it's a commitment between two people and their witnesses. Most marriages have used witnesses as a way to validate the social marriage of two people. Then, the consummation of the marriage sealed the deal between the man and the woman. That is when, I believe, at least according to Jewish tradition (which Christianity would be closely related) is when the marriage is spiritually binding.

But, even then, divorce was allowed in ancient OT.

How our government defines marriage is okay with me. I don't have to accept it, nor do I have to agree with it. Marriage is only a word and its secular defining means nothing spiritually.

I say all that to say this. We are living in a post-Christian society, and I would argue that we were hardly ever a Christian nation to begin with (see the treatment of indians, slaves, immigrants, etc.,). There is no politician that will usher in an era of Christian morality, so thinking trump somehow will change 'Murica is vain and wishful thinking.

A good example of someone that lived his fullest while living in a carnal society is that of Daniel. Daniel managed to live and prosper during the Babylonian period, along with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. The babylonians were FAR from Jewish. Yet, Daniel through his life and example flourished and was blessed. Do you think Daniel was blessed because he fought against secular meaning of a word? Do you think he prospered by spouting religious rhetoric in public venues in his time?

We don't have to agree with what the government does, but we do need to live a life that is an example of what our God is.

How's that for a bounceback? Sorry if you got mad, but it's your fault you are.

Your stupid claim that I proclaim that gays are bad makes you look like pee wee herman, Brownskid.

Ask anybody on the board except for the dimwitted birdbrain, woodypeckerhead - I have said many, many times

that I have worked with people who were gay, more than a few times in my career. I have run meetings with

people who were gay. They never knew, to my awareness anyways, that I knew. They never telegraphed it

knowingly, and most? of the time, I was surprised to find out from a mutal friend. Both make and female, btw.

I always, always, treated them just like anybody else, I treated them the same before and after I found out.

Gays are people, too.

So, that's rotten egg of your rambling right there. I do defend Real Marriage, and the gov forcing all Americans

to redefine it, is wrong. Real Marriage is between a man and a woman. An institution, among other things, that

ascribes responsibility to take care of, and be responsible, for biological and adopted kids, etc.

Now, civil unions would have done that. I believe in leaving people alone. Let gays and goths and nose ring

and lizardpeople be who they are, who they want to be. Just leave me along, too.

Ah, but there is the problem. The left demands to not leave other people alone, while you had better leave them alone.

I was fine with civil unions. Just create it, and run with it. Makes sense. Gays should have the same legal protections, etc.

that Married Couples do. Call it a "civil marriage" maybe.

But to politically and legally demand that all of America CHANGE THE MEANING OF A WORD shouldn't stand.

Ranks up there as stopping a grade school child from silenetly praying at lunch.

The left is due for a rude awakening. And, btw, your nonsense about "What would Chist do..." is okay, until

you ignorantly assume Christ would have done your will.

That's another problem - you hard core, all in libs believe you are gods and your emotionalism rules.

Vote for Trump. We surely need CHANGE from the leftist direction we are going in.