This evening I came across a post over at ThinkChristian that wrecked my heart. No matter what our political differences may be, there are many real, concrete, and relevant reasons for our involvement in the Iraq War.
As American Christians, we sometimes take for granted the freedoms that are rightly given to us to express our faith. However, there are hundreds of thousands of Christians around the world that have nowhere near those same freedoms. The article For Iraqi Christians, Money Bought Survival sheds light on issues that I cannot even begin to comprehend.
Some highlights from the article:
* Insurgents have demanded a tax -called jizya- from Jews and Christians for centuries. Recently, this "tax" has come in the form of extortion and ransom.
(Correction: "Since the time of the Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, Muslims in the Middle East permitted that diversity in part through a special tax on Jews and Christians. The tax was called a jizya — and that is the name with which the insurgents chose to cloak extortion, Mafia-style, from Christians.")
* Christian congregations have paid as much as $150,000 for ransoms linked to kidnapped priests.
* Hundreds of dollars a month taken from Christian male home owners for "security" provided by the insurgents.
* Over 700,000 Christian Iraqis have been directly effected. In most cases, the Iraqi Christians knew this "tax" would be used to buy weapons that would be used to kill their own.
* "Leave or die" notes on the doors of those Iraqi Christians who sided with U.S. forces as insurgency filled their region.
* The U.S. could do little to protect the Christians for the fear of terrorist propaganda relating to the defense of a minority group. This led the Kurds to be in charge of protecting the Christian population. However, the Kurds had their own agenda of advancing their border and thus manipulated thousands and murdered hundreds of Iraqi Christians.
So, what can we do? The most simplistic, but most powerful tool we have.
Pray.
Pray for the Iraqis. Pray for our Christian friends in the Middle East. Pray for Jesus to be seen and heard in the hearts of all involved. Pray for the practice of faith. Pray for freedom. Pray for the Iraqi congregations, families, and priests.
Pray for Iraq
29 comments:
"Two hands working do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."
We should work toward a solution to the Iraq War and an end to the occupation - which will undermine the Islamist insurgent groups responsible for these kind of atrocities.
Your first highlight from the article "insurgents have demanded a tax - called jizya...for centuries," seems to be inaccurate. Insurgents are those that fight against the government or a similar authority. The insurgents this article speaks of haven't been in Iraq for thousands of years, just since the 2002 American invasion
Without the US invasion, you would be left with an unfair tax on Christians. The ill-planned invasion and occupation has caused lawlessness, lack of security, and lack of an Iraqi authority (you can have tons of authority in the form on US soldiers, but the majority of Iraqis will not respect them) has caused this sort of Mafia-style extortion and kidnapping. All of these violent deaths whether they be Sunni or Shi'a Muslim, Christian, or Kurdish are disgusting and atrocious.
I would be far more supportive of an American role in curbing this sort violent anarchy if I believed the American military was the best vehicle for bringing about profound change in Iraqi politics and society. It's just not though, and the presence of foreign occupiers who seem as they might never leave and are above Iraqi law and the Iraqi government is exacerbating a volatile situation.
That quote is subjective at best.
I miss spoke regarding the insurgents demanding a tax. "Since the time of the Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, Muslims in the Middle East permitted that diversity in part through a special tax on Jews and Christians. The tax was called a jizya — and that is the name with which the insurgents chose to cloak extortion, Mafia-style, from Christians." To correct myself, this is no longer a diversity tax, it is a death tax...literally.
"The ill-planned invasion and occupation has caused lawlessness, lack of security, and lack of an Iraqi authority." This most certainly existed before the military effort began. To dismiss this is intellectually dishonest. Sadaam was a ruthless dictator that killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people living in Iraq over his long, murderous "presidential" career.
"We should work toward a solution to the Iraq War and an end to the occupation - which will undermine the Islamist insurgent groups responsible for these kind of atrocities."
So, the U.S. does not want a solution and wants to continue the occupation?
No matter what your political beliefs are, you cannot honestly believe that our goal is not what you have stated. Sounds like you have been reading too many liberal editorials.
This issue WILL have a solution. In fact, the Bush Administration as of yesterday, spoke about a possible withdrawal of troops at year's end. However, that solution includes providing stability...not desertion.
So if troops withdraw under a Republican administration it's because Iraq is a stable, liberal, pro-American democracy. If a withdrawal occurs under a Democratic president they're deserting.
Doesn't make much sense to me.
The U.S. wants military bases in Iraq and access for American oil companies to Iraqi crude. Yes of course the Bush administration would rather American troops not stand on Iraqi street corners, but they still want perks that the Iraqis won't accept.
End the occupation, empower the Iraqi government, undermine the insurgency, give Iraq back to the Iraqi people. Allow Iraqis to make the decision regarding their natural resources and security needs. If they feel they need bases to ward off Iranian aggression, they'll ask. As of right now, PM Maliki seems very opposed to permanent bases in his country.
Your first statement is misled. This situation will be solved under the next administration, be that Republican or Democrat. Either way, it will end up in an "I told you so" resolution. That's Washington.
Seriously, how many liberal editorials do you read? Of course the United States will look for fringe benefits, and if that is oil, so be it. Do you think Barack Obama will negotiate with Iran, Syria, and North Korea without the same principals in mind? His goal in those negotiations should start by asking what can we do to progress America's interests? This is a give-and-take world. Besides, Barack and his liberal cronies and environmentalists frown on off-shore drilling, the excavating of oil shale, and Alaskan drilling. Oil must grow on trees.
The Iraqi PM is obviously not going to publically announce his desire to have American military posts in his country when it remains unstable. I would give him more accountability credit than that. As the country builds upon its increased stability, the Iraqi government will slowly ease American interests into the mix. Where their has been a military war, occupation, and/or conflict, there is an American base. Most are seen as regional stability posts and function in relation to national guard posts in the States.
Again, things will pan out. However, we can not accept a candidate that promotes the idea of desertion because, as we all know...elected or not, that will simply just not happen.
Ryan, your post started by telling me that there were real, concrete and relevant reasons for the war in Iraq. You went from there to describe the persecutions faced by Christians in Iraq. The end of your post said that the only thing we can do is pray, pray, pray.
I am excited about he dialogue you can open with this logic. It seems as though our brothers and sisters are being persecuted in Iraq, and we, therefore, are called to respond. My question then is what does scripture, and what does Christ tell us to do when we are being persecuted? (I'm thinking of Romans 12:14.) Notice, I am trying to connect this verse to the Iraq War. I'm looking forward to reading your response.
Romans 12:14 is a perfect example of what we, as Christians, should be doing. Not only must we pray for those Christians who are being persecuted in Iraq, but we should most definitely pray for those who persecute.
Christ would see ALL people as capable of receiving God's grace. I think it is important for those Iraqi Christians to stand up for their faith, but also to be the face of Jesus. Show love. Show hope. Show mercy. Show forgiveness. Give those who deny Christ's love something worth following.
People have said that God is absent in dark places. However, I would contest that He is just harder to find. God will prevail.
I hate to make it sound like I'm trying to catch you in a trap, I'm not. But your post made it seem as though the Iraq War was justified because of the persecution of Christians (and other reasons.) I just want to discuss whether or not the persecution of Christians should be used as a rationale for warfare. What are your thoughts?
This situation should not play a part in the Iraq War. I posted it because it sheds light on horrific acts of religious intolerance and manipulation in the Middle East toward Christianity.
Religion and government are best represented when seperate from each other. Unfortunately, this includes military operations that may show favoritism/support for a particular religion. The U.S. military should protect and secure the freedoms of every Iraqi citizen. I know the U.S. military has a high population of Christians, but this should be treated as a military first ordeal. Which, I'm sure it has been.
So am I right to assume that your stance on the war in Iraq is similar to my stance on gay marriage? While you disagree with war from a Christian standpoint, you realize that the USA is not a Christian institution and therefore is not restricted by Christian prohibitions?
My interpretation of Christianity does not allow for war or gay marriage. And yet I support limited continued military involvement in Iraq and gay marriage. My argument may go something like this: I think Christ endorses neither war nor gay marriage. But I do not think the laws of the United States of America are in line with the laws of the Gospel. If the USA followed Christian law, then it should be illegal to wage war, and it should be illegal for gays to marry. Yet, the USA does not follow Biblical law, nor should it. Therefore, the Christian prohibitions against war and gay marriage should not extend into the US Law. Just as I am a pacifist who supports the war effort, I am simultaneously a Christian who supports gay marriage.
Maybe this is pandering? I don't know. I don't mean to usher in an endless string of comments, but if you'd care to respond, I think it's a good discussion going.
I understand your logic, but I tend to disagree.
Our disagreements seem to fall under interpretation. From your response, it sounds as though you put U.S. law before Biblical law? In my mind, I am a Christian before anything else.
The United States of America and its government entity is man-made. It is a part of everthing that is fallen. Your point is the exact instance where I believe we as a human race has become problematic. We, who are all children of God whether we believe or not, have put other laws/words/sanctions above that of the Word of God. The U.S. will never be a "Christian Nation," but that is because of our choices. The same gift that was supposed to make us unique is also our own demise.
War is the most debatable issue regarding the Word. The Bible is FULL of imagery relating to war. In fact, it is my thought that Christ strongly disagreed with War because it was more of a political vehicle than an act that defied God. This is where the idea of the separation between church and state originates from. The Bible prophecizes war. It historically records war. It is one area, between man and a Heavenly God, that actually happen in both worlds (earthly and heavenly).
Gay marriage, no matter what Barack Obama says about the Sermon on the Mount, is rightly condemned by Christ.
So, when it comes down to it, I follow Christian law before anything and everything else. By doing so, I have committed no crime or act of injustice on U.S. law. The real injustice is following something other than the Word of God, something that so many people have mistakenly chosen to do.
Good points Ryan. Your response would certainly be correct, and your reproach necessary if it were true that I place US law before Biblical Law. In my heart, I do not believe I do this. It is difficult for me to clearly explain the nuance in my belief regarding this matter, so forgive me if the explanation below is unhelpful.
It all rests on what I expect from non-Christians. I do not expect non-Christains to behave as Christians. In fact, I do not even go so far as to encourage or request non-Christians to behave as Christians.
In my opinion, if we try to change people's behavior before they are Christians, we run the risk of succeeding. If we succeed, and people behave as Christians without ever having accepted Christ, they will experience the peace that comes from Christian obedience, but will not experience the grace of God that comes from submission to Jesus. This would be serious indeed. I believe the thing that drives people to Jesus is the great disrupt in their hearts. They sense something is wrong, and want it fixed. If we were to lull the world with the peace that anyone can get through following the law, we would in effect drug them with the peace and rob them of the true gift of the cross, which is God's grace.
Notice, it is the old covenant that relies on the law. The new covenant relies on grace. The old covenant began with laws and granted grace. (The law was the foundation.) The new covenant through Jesus begins with grace and grants the law. (I hope I am making sense.)
Because the US Constitution is not a Christian document, I do not expect it to behave as if it were. Therefore, I do not believe the US Constitution should behave in a Christian way. I believe the US Constitution should behave in a way that is consistent with itself. If it does so, and people see that even the beautiful US Law does not grant peace, maybe more people will look toward the grace of Christ.
My political support for issues that oppose Christianity is not meant to imply my consent for those depraved behaviors. My political support intends to support the US in what it is, a fallen broken system of the world. I do not want to pretty up US Law and make it more Christian, because I run the risk of succeeding. Again, if we did succeed, and people found peace through US Law, they may be less likely to feel the disconnect that drives men to God.
I know it is a complicated understanding of things, but I believe it to be rooted in a Scriptural interpretation of the Gospel. I hope it no longer implies that I believe US Law is superior to the law of Christ.
I don't know if that made any sense. Feel free to email me if you would like to discuss this more and don't want to have to put it all on the blog. My email address is joshuaelek@gmail.com.
If you would rather continue this discussion on the blog, that's fine with me as well.
If you want to conclude that you and I just disagree, and that's that, then that would be fine as well. I only want to discuss these things if you want to discuss them with me.
I really enjoyed the dialog Josh and Ryan...
I found something interesting in one of your statements that reminded me of a few quotes:
You said, "Because the US Constitution is not a Christian document, I do not expect it to behave as if it were. Therefore, I do not believe the US Constitution should behave in a Christian way. I believe the US Constitution should behave in a way that is consistent with itself. If it does so, and people see that even the beautiful US Law does not grant peace, maybe more people will look toward the grace of Christ."
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. --Patrick Henry
The highest story of the American Revolution is this: It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. --John Adams
The Bible is the Rock on which this Republic rests. --Andrew Jackson
We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us . . . to govern ourselves according to the commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded. --James Madison
It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. --George Washington
America, I believe, was founded on Christian morals, values, and laws. It is seen throughout many of our early historical documents. However, over time, we have lost sight of these foundations. We have made them conform to our ever eroding society and the Word of God has become somewhat of a myth or a trivialized self-help commercial.
It is in my opinion, that these are very important times. A lot is riding on our generation of Christians to stand up and get back to basics.
In response to your quotes and specifically the Adams quote about the "indissoluble bond" between civil government and Christianity. I happen to think that this once again, is an interpretation issue and based on their interpretation of the Bible, maybe they (some)felt that they created the document purely based on "the Bible" "Christianity.
But, the only problem is, and pardon me for oversimplifying it, but aren't those merely men and are we giving them too much power by now trying to persuade people (politicians, citizens) to go back to the principles that a few men thought up based on their interpretation of the "Bible?"
I'm open for discussion on this one. And honestly, I can appreciate the passion with which these men dedicated themselves to forming "law" and basis for our County. That's not at issue. What I take issue with is the meshing of their law documents (human) and God's law. A lengthy discussion is also needed on the role of Jesus and the New Covenant that has been established...
Would like to dialog, just some of my thoughts...
I do not want to relate these quotes to an agenda for Christian Law, but I do want to make a rationalization. These are merely men. We are merely men. But, we both were made in the image of our creator. A creator that weeps at our own injustices. A creator that opens his arms as we turn our backs.
It is astonishing that a group of men would seek to incorporate the morals, values, and laws of Christianity when forming a country that would be the light for the world to follow. I passed a church sign today that read: Thank God for 1776. There is so much depth and substance to that simple statement. There is something to be said about that.
My argument is not between Constitutional Law and Christian Law. My argument is between those who covet and conform man-made law (because we are merely men) before God's Law. This world has simply pushed God "under the bus" for our own satisfaction and agendas. We, both non-believers and believers, have made a push to rely on ourselves rather than the Grace of God. I understand that people are made up of different sexes, races, religions, and politics...but if I believe in the Bible, which I do, then I believe that we are all God's children no matter what we may be led to believe or follow. This is the "gift" of free will.
When we start to "enhance" and "change" the Bible to fit our personal agendas (ie gay marriage), who are we defying? Man or God? Both in my opinion. Man because we dig ourselves a deeper hole. And God, because we have done the very thing that relates back to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
We put our trust in something other than our Lord.
It's the biggest trick anyone has ever fallen for.
Ryan,
Your argument is a religious one and in that context I agree with you that when we push God out of our lives we offend both men and God. But the point I'm trying to make is that the meshing of those two things is complicated and is, in my opinion, so rooted in one's interpretation of the Bible.
Also, you said that America is the "light for the world to follow" Ryan, I love my Country and because I love my Country I dialog like this and take stands on social issues etc. But it is my opinion that America is not the "light of the world" as you say it is because I think many of our decisions internationally and within our own borders (you've argued against many social happenings here in our own County) are not an example for the world to follow much less a light. This does not mean that I don't appreciate my Country and enjoy the freedoms here, but it doesn't mean I think it's a light. I lived in England for a while it was a very nice Country, not perfect but nice. I suppose other Countries are nice as well, but I don't think we have the monopoly on nice people, good services and God's favor.
Also, in your last paragraph you said
"when we start to enhance and change the Bible to fit our own agendas ie gay marriage we defile both God and man"
I agree Ryan, but we all enhance and change the BIble at times because we interpret it and we are flawed as humans. So no one is immune to this including the United States of America and its founders.
Enjoying our dialog...
This post was originally much longer, but I decided to delete the history lessons, and allow the quotes to speak for themselves.
"Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"
- John Adams
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
- James Madison (Author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights)
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution" - James Madison again
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of." - Thomas Paine
"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." - Thomas Jefferson
"I then considered it [The book of Revelation] merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherencies of our own nightly dreams...You will perceive, I hope, also that I do not consider them as reveladons of the supreme being, whom I would not so far blaspheme as to impute to him a pretension of revelation, couched at the same time in terms which, he would know, were never to be understood by those to whom they were addressed." Thomas Jefferson. (Notice, Jefferson is saying that god would never reveal himself to his creation, because we would not understand him.)
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire...I have, with most of the present dissenters in England some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." - Benjamin Franklin
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..." - The Treaty of Tripoli, written and approved by Congress and signed into law by John Adams.
I do not believe the Constitution was written by Christian men. You may argue that though the men were not Christian, they still wrote a document with Christian values. I will concede that there are Christian values in the Constitution, but their presence does not mean that the US was founded on Christian principles. It would be more accurate to say that the US was founded on Deistic principles, some of which are in line with Christianity.
You spoke about taking issue with the men who change God's law to conform to man's. Not to sound cheeky, but I think the men who "covet and conform man-made law... before God's law" were the founding fathers of America.
Ryan I really do not want to sound confrontational, and I fear that my comment may be taken that way. My true desire here is merely to illustrate that, contrary to what is commonly believed today, the founding fathers were largely not Christians.
As to your comments implying that I am trying to shove God's law "under the bus" I certainly hope I am not doing so. If you can find a way in which I have done so, please explain it to me.
I just want to make it a point, before it takes us in another direction, that I was not using those quotes as a basis for my personal agenda regarding this issue.
Again, it does fall upon the interpretation of our beliefs.
From my observations of this conversation, it seems as though both of you have decided to accept environmental situations that have been manipulated by inappropriate human intervention. You seem to support this manipulation because it is human nature and not all human nature follows Christian guidelines.
So in essence, you're saying...if you can't win them (not neccisarily you or I), join them in terms of acceptance?
I think that type of mindset, if that is what you are saying, has been one of the main reasons for why our society is numb to so many social issues facing our world today. We have allowed for this continual deterioration of morals and values because we have "joined them" rather than stand for what we know to be true.
It seems as though this discussion is no longer about the war, but about gay marriage. Ok. I want you to understand Ryan that we agree on gay marriage. You think it is wrong, I think it is wrong. You think the Bible prohibits it, I think the Bible prohibits it. You think the Christian Church should not permit it, I think the Christian Church should not permit it. We agree. I do not understand why you continue to characterize my position as an alteration of God's law. I am upholding God's law, and demanding that the Church uphold God's law even though it is an incredibly unpopular thing to do. We must yield to Scripture here.
We disagree in our belief that all Christian prohibitions should also be US Prohibitions. Christianity prohibits swearing. I do not think the US Constitution should outlaw swearing, because such a law would violate the First Amendment. Christianity prohibits crass jokes. I do not think US Law should prohibit crass jokes because it would violate the First and Ninth Amendments. Christianity prohibits premarital sex. I do not think US Law should prohibit premarital sex because such a law would violate the ninth amendment. Christianity prohibits gay marriage. I do not think the US should prohibit gay marriage because such a prohibition would violate the ninth and fourteenth amendments.
We do not disagree about God's law here. We disagree about man's law. Please do not continue to equate my position regarding man's law to my position on God's law. By doing so, you are unintentionally accusing me of heresy.
Rather than discussing me, and why I may think the things I think; rather than discussing what political bent or bias summarizes my position, please, let's talk about my argument.
Do you agree that a prohibition of gay marriage violates the ninth and fourteenth amendments? Or do you think a prohibition of gay marriage maintains the integrity of the US Constitution?
Joshua,
From your last question, it seems as though you are confused about my position regarding man's law and God's law.
In my opinion, we need to ask ourselves this question: Am I more worried/ about (or inclined to) violating a man-made law or a God-made law?
I uphold the laws of the Constitution because I am a law abiding citizen. I am a player in the game just like everyone else. But, do I believe those laws to be flawless and indisputable? No. Do I believe that man-made laws inheritently factor out God and factor in man? Yes. Do I believe that we manipulate our own evolution of thinking to put man above God? Yes.
From your statments regarding the Amendments, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems as though you support taking God out of the equation to situationally fit man-made situations? You want to protect everyone (blanket equality) even if it moves further and further away from true law.
I'm not arguing that you believe any less in God or that you put him below man, but are you not possibly (unintentionally) implying this through the argument of man v.s. God law?
Didn't we already clear up the "man's law, God's law" thing?
Ryan, I would like to hear your response to Josh's question about gay marriage that he posed at the end of his last post.
I think this is where the issue is. The issue is not your respect for God and his law, I know you both have a tremendous respect for that.
From the responses, I definitely do not see it as cleared up.
His questiondoes not align with my belief. Neither options work for me. I believe I answered the question in my last post, but I can cater to the question if needed...
"Do you agree that a prohibition of gay marriage violates the ninth and fourteenth amendments?"
Yes, but I do not agree with the Amendments regarding this issue. Again, an interpretation of man law.
Or do you think a prohibition of gay marriage maintains the integrity of the US Constitution?"
Yes/No. It does not directly state anything regarding the marriage of same-sex couples. Again, an interpretation of man law.
To me, too much emphasis on man law. The exact problem I discussed in the above post.
Rather than continue to explain myself, I think it might be helpful for me to see if I understand what you think Ryan.
Please correct me if I'm wrong:
1. You do not believe gay marriage is permitted by Scriptures.
2. You do think the constitution permits gay marriage, but you are morally opposed to this permission, and would like to revoke it.
3. You think Christians who don't want to revoke those permissions believe man's law to be superior to God's law.
Is this correct?
I'm really interested in the dialog, especially now that we've narrowed some things down. But I think a definition of God's Law is in high order here. Exactly how are we using the term "God's Law" It may seem juvenile, but I think it's the root of some disagreement among believers today.
Sorry if this is too simplistic, but God's Law is simply Biblical teaching. Listening and reacting to God's Word. Upholding Christian values.
If I'm hearing you correctly, you think the Constitution should be rewritten so that it is in accordance with the teachings of the Bible, and failure to support that belief is sinful. Am I correct? I don't want to put words into your mouth.
If this is correct, I wonder what your response would be to altering the constitution so that it also prohibits swearing, course joking, adultery, lust, and greed.
Do you support altering the constitution to prohibit these things as well? Or are you only concerned with altering the constitution to prohibit gay marriage?
I'm not trying to sound cheeky, I'm just trying to understand how deeply you think Christian law should be ingrained into the Constitution.
I believe that God's Law is supreme. Also, not following it is sinful. Hence, the fallen world in which we live.
Therefore, I would support a Constitution that upholds God's Law. Rewritten? Unfortunately, because of religious differences, this would never be accomplished. However, I do believe that God's Law is the ultimate form of perfection and something that we should strive to follow. In my opinion, we are going in the opposite direction.
Most of the sins you described (specifically lust, greed, and adultery) already have foundations in our current laws. I would argue that these sins are the root of most crimes committed today.
Swearing, in Biblical terms, is more associated with using the Lord's Name in vain. With the creation of language differences, man has determined what is foul and what is not. I would also support that.
Great! We agree on most of what you have written here.
I agree that God's law is the ultimate form of perfection and we should strive to follow it.
From your response, it sounds as though you would be in favor of rewriting the US Constitution to make it in line with Biblical Law. This is where we disagree.
I won't go into defending my position because I feel like I've already done that. If you want to know more about it, I can answer questions you may have. It seems as though this is the root of our disagreement, and I'm glad to have uncovered it.
I only hope that, even though we disagree on this, we both recognize that we are both God-fearing Christians bent on obeying God's law. I see you are zealous for God's law and I applaud that. I hope you see my commitment to the same even though we disagree about whether or not all US Citizens should be mandated to obey Christian law.
I think the dialog covered some of how "God's Law" was being used. To be sure, it isn't as simplistic as implied with translation and interpretation issues. But the root of God's Law, love, is supreme.
I'm glad that this thread seems to have come to a head. I think the issue all along has never been whether anyone was opposed to "God's Law" it's always been Christianity related to our Country and the constitution. I think when the two are too closely meshed, it's very dangerous.
This is why democracy is so much not Christianity, the two aren't as related as some think...
great dialog fellas...
Post a Comment