There is a big difference between true science and what is considered to be science today.

1Ti 6:20  O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1Ti 6:21  Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

2Tim.2:15; Rev.22:18-19

Simonline.

that hopes to appease both science and religion.

This said it all, compromise.

Mat 6:24  No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

How on Earth can it be 'compromise'?! The very foundation of scientific study is the belief that we live in an ordered universe that has been created by the Creator. There is absolutely no conflict between Theology and Science. The conflict comes because of the finite limitations of human creatures who struggle to reconcile different facets of the one Infinite Truth (Jn.14:6).

That being said I don't consider Robert Schuller to be a Christian anyway: http://www.apologeticsindex.com./s09.html

Simonline.

[Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society]

I'm currently studying the open theism issue. The quickest way to get up to speed is from reading and/or listening to debates (preferrably from degreed theologians). I am only aware of a couple of these. One is a book published by Baker Academic called,  Does God Have a Future?: On Divine Providence which was a collection of email exchanges between Christopher Hall and John Sanders. And the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society[/u] published a few exchanges between John Sanders, Gregory A. Boyd, Clark Pinnock and Bruce A.

And currently in progress at www.TheologyOnLine.com is a debate between Dr. Samuel Lamerson of Knox Theological Seminary and a pastor from Denver.

Those are the only debates I'm aware of (by degreed theologians) on the topic of open theism. If anyone knows of any others, please post them here. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks a lot in advance.

Have you read Creating God In The Image Of Man? - The New 'Open' View Of God - Neotheism's Dangerous Drift by Norman L. Geisler published by Bethany House Publishers ISBN 1556619359 (c) 1997?...a fascinating read.

Simonline.

I was so upset last night when I went to bed that my husband Dan registered and planned to post about your wholesale condemnation of me by accusing me of being someone else, with no evidence, no cause, no reason. I asked him not to. I said, if they already think I'm someone else under another name then they'll think you're me, anyway. It will just make things worse. Now I wish I had let him post, because he surely had something to say and I thought that by asking him to keep silent when others were falsely accusing me that I would have a better chance of actually convincing you I'm me instead of whoever it is you think I am.

I got up this morning early and logged on to read DreamWeaver's posts, and now I find that not only did you four accuse, judge, and render a verdict, all without even bothering to ask me, you also decided my husband was me, too, even though Dan didn't post. Now how much sense does that make? He didn't even post!
EDITED to add, why is it so funny to you that we have the same last name and ip? We are married, of course we have the same last name. And we live together, a radical concept these days I suppose but we're just old-fashioned that way.

I also wrote an email to my dad last night, asking him for advice and counsel. I asked, should I just "shake their dust from my feet" and look elsewhere? but now I don't know if I even need to wait for his answer. You have decided me, my husband and some innocent bystander from the UK are all the same person, and have enjoyed yourselves mightily by ridiculing us. If you're smart enough and suspicious enough to check the ip on me and my husband, then you ought to at least be smart enough to look at Simonlines's info and see that Simonline is from the UK, surely that can be done. I find it ironic that one of you is named "JudgeNot". I am so upset I don't know whether to cry, or feel contempt, or try to prove I'm me, or dismiss you as you have dismissed me. In one day you have made up your minds that I am someone else and made fun of and ridiculed me, yet you call yourselves Christians! The word "hypocrite" comes to mind. the words "Christian Fellowship" ring hollow here and the verses Matthew 7: 1-7, from which JudgeNot surely took his nick, should be a rebuke to you all.

I think now would be a good time for some humble pie and apologies guys. Even if we believe that this person is wrong in her convictions that does not give us the right to either belittle or riddicule her, does it?

Time to show what it really means to be a Christian eh?

Simonline.

Interesting post. Let us not forget however, that 'Biblical Communism' is based upon voluntary participation at every level ['God loves a cheerful giver'] and never social or political coercion, as is usually the case with Humanistic Communism (as history bears witness). Annanias and Saphira (Acts.5) were judged, not for witholding what was theirs to withold (thereby indicating that Christianity is not fundamentally against private ownership) but for witholding some of the proceeds from the sale of their property and then lying in order to deceive the Church into believing that they were contributing all of the proceeds from the sale into the communal purse.

Simonline.

I refer more to the communistic precepts in Acts, but the point is indeed valid that Biblical, or Christian, communism is very different from the communism we refer to today. My points were 1) Christians supported communism (and even Marxism, it seems!) at various points in history, so without something more on the beliefs of the two individuals quoted I cannot say this proves they are anti Christian or anti religious, and 2) Whether they were or not has no direct bearing on the question at hand - is the ACLU the supporter of everyone's civil rights, without discrimination, or are they anti-Christian ("bent on destroying God", I think someone said.) Maligning the founders, now dust, does not prove satisfactorily to me that the ACLU is anything but a defender of civil liberties for all.

Personally, I think your quest for the truth based on factual evidence rather than unsubstantiated hearsay is admirable. Wish that all Christians would operate according to such principles.

Simonline.

Thanks much, JudgeNot. This is exactly the kind of detail I was looking for.

That said, please bear with me as I ask a few more questions (I may not be the brightest bulb in the box, or the sharpest stick in the quiver, but I try to be careful and thorough to help make up for it!)

I feel I must disregard your quote from William Z. Foster, unless you have a compelling reason to consider it as an ACLU statement. It seems to be that without knowing in what context he made the statement, it cannot be taken as an ACLU intent but rather as a Communist Party intent. As he was co-founder of the ACLU and former chairman of the Communist Party I cannot help but think that a quote talking about the "American Soviet government" must be part of the Communist Party platform, not the ACLU platform.

The Roger Baldwin quote is presented as a Harvard Reunion Book quote, yes? Also not ACLU platform statement.

So you have quoted the founders of the ACLU, from back in the 1930s. Further, neither quote is attributed as a platform statement of the ACLU, but rather private statements from founders. This is certainly smoke, but thin and whispy smoke. Further, both quotes revolve around communism, not undermining God - bear with me a minute here please - and communism in the 1930s was a rather amorphous social idea, not what we think of today as communism. Many Christians believed communism was the best way for a Christian to live, because all would be brothers, there would be no "rich men" who couldn't get into heaven, no oppression, etc. They thought Christ's teachings supported communism. He told people to give up their worldly possessions and to follow him in a vow of poverty. He communed. He wanted everyone to share what they had. Communism is the elimination of private property, a system in which goods are owned as common property. That's all it really is. What is became, what is now called "communism" isn't what the communists of the 1930's thought they were talking about.

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." - Acts 4:32

All of which means that a Christian in the 1930's could easily be persuaded that communism was the ideal way for a Christian to live. Not saying they all thought that, just saying that some did. Well, I guess it looked good at the time. That was before the communists decided religion was Bad, and so on, and it morphed into the communistic socialism we know today.  - I understand there are still some Christian Communists out there, who reject the whole "God is wrong" philosophy of most communists, I don't know much about them.

Now, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Foster may well have been Atheists, or Christians, or anything, but my question is not, what did the founders of the ACLU espouse, or what were their personal beliefs, or had they been saved. It is, why do you think the ACLU's ultimate goal is to undermine God? To which you offer two quotes espousing communism, which I do not believe was anti-Christian at the time the quotes were made, and what appears to be a conspiracy theory. Well, it may be so - not all conspiracy theories are false, just as they are not all true. But I will need something more substantial than those two quotes to convince me that they have a hidden agenda. The ACLU's stated mission is to defend civil rights for all. Neither of these quotes shows otherwise.

So here are my questions - is there more to these quotes? Are they part of official ACLU literature, or do you have additional reason for thinking they are? Do you have anything more recent than 1935? Anything ACLU rather than people who founded or worked for the ACLU?


thanks again - If I start to annoy you, please let me know! But I really appreciate you taking the time to help me explore this and clear up this because it has been a big question mark in my mind for years!

Interesting post. Let us not forget however, that 'Biblical Communism' is based upon voluntary participation at every level ['God loves a cheerful giver'] and never social or political coercion, as is usually the case with Humanistic Communism (as history bears witness). Annanias and Saphira (Acts.5) were judged, not for witholding what was theirs to withold (thereby indicating that Christianity is not fundamentally against private ownership) but for witholding some of the proceeds from the sale of their property and then lying in order to deceive the Church into believing that they were contributing all of the proceeds from the sale into the communal purse.

Simonline.

This has been quite an experience so far. I registered and posted with two questions, and wow, what an avalanche! I am a little overwhelmed.

 That means we is doin' our jobs!!  

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the ACLU defends "good guys" and "bag guys" (to use my terminology, above) and just because they defend "good guys" that doesn't excuse them defending "bad guys" - is that basically the point?

 That is a fair assessment of my right-thinking mentality.

I believe that the ACLU's ultimate goal is to undermine God, and their defense of religion in isolated instances is an attempt to veil their true intensions.  If I may again quote the founders of the ACLU:

"I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produced the wealth: communism is the goal." - Roger Baldwin, ACLU founder, Harvard Reunion Book, 1935

"The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the whole body to forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on." - William Z. Foster, ACLU co-founder and former chairman, Communist Party USA.

If this is correct then the ulterior motives of the ACLU in defending peoples rights as a means to the establishment of an American Soviet State should be opposed by all those who are seeking to establish and live by the Truth that sets men free.

Simonline.

JudgeNot,

Thanks! I "get it" now.

This has been quite an experience so far. I registered and posted with two questions, and wow, what an avalanche! I am a little overwhelmed.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the ACLU defends "good guys" and "bag guys" (to use my terminology, above) and just because they defend "good guys" that doesn't excuse them defending "bad guys" - is that basically the point?

But isn't the whole point of the ACLU to defend the legal rights of all U.S. citizens irrespective of their personal religious or political stance? Doesn't the constitution exist to uphold the rights of all US citizens and not just those of any one particular section of American society (including Evangelical Christians)?

Surely, if the UCLA were only defending the legal rights of certain sections of U.S. society (or even worse, just one section of U.S. society) then wouldn't they be guilty of a grave dereliction of duty?

Simonline

Whoa! A liberal invasion!  

I suggest some actual research into the ACLU's history before defending the indefensible.

For the record, I am a 'strict and particular' orthodox conservative Evangelical Christian and definitely not a liberal. Furthermore, I am not defending the ACLU. I am defending the Truth.

Simonline.

I see that this is your first post here. Welcome to Christians Unite.

I can also see that you have not been in the Military to understand how such services are conducted. No one is forced or even persuaded to join into any sort of worship service. All beliefs are accepted and all individuals are given the opportunity to practice their beliefs within the confines of the law. Even those that may have the duty on the day of their worship are afforded the time to their worship service if at all possible.

Just because a person is in uniform does not mean that they have no rights to their own beliefs and worship. Although Christians are the majority I have also worked along side Jews, Buddhists, JW's, Satanists and many more. Each was afforded their own time to worship as they would or not to any worship at all if that was their choice. It has been this way for many, many years.

Sometimes there would be some prejudicial treatment in this area but it was the exception not the rule.

To change this by preventing it would then be the government controlling religious rights. Taking religious freedom away from them instead of protecting the right to religious freedom.

Please specify to whom your post is addressed? Thank you.

Simonline.

[ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !]

What's wrong with this picture?

If you look closely at the picture above, you will note that all the Marines pictured are bowing their heads. That's because they're praying.  

This incident took place at a recent ceremony honoring the birthday of the corps, and it has the ACLU up in arms. "These are federal employees," says Lucius Traveler, a spokesman for the ACLU, "on federal property and on federal time. For them to pray is clearly an establishment of religion, and we must nip this in the bud immediately."

When asked about the ACLU's charges, Colonel Jack Fessender, speaking for the Commandant of the Corps said (cleaned up a bit), "Heck with the ACLU." GOD Bless Our Warriors, Send the ACLU to France.

Please send this to people you know so everyone will know how stupid the ACLU is Getting in trying to remove GOD from everything and every place in America.
May God Bless America, One Nation Under GOD!

So..What's wrong with the picture?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !

Actually, as a Christian, I beg to differ. The ACLU are correct on this point. As a nation who's constitution prohibits the amalgamation of 'Church and State' (in order to prevent the religious abuses that have taken place in the 'old' (my) world when 'Church and State' have been merged into 'Christendom' (swat up on your Church history guys)) the State must not only be religiously neutral it must also be seen to be religiously neutral as well.

That means the State must not engage in either encouraging or disparaging any faith (including Christianity) but must uphold the right of every American citizen to practise their own faith in accordance with the requirements of that faith and their own conscience. Only if, in the exercise of that faith, an individual or group of individuals belonging to that faith (whichever one it may be) commit a criminal offence as a result of practising their faith (such as 'human sacrifice' for example) should the State intervene and only to prosecute those responsible for the carrying out the criminal offense.

No State employee, in their capacity as a State employee (i.e. 'whilst on duty') should ever participate in a public act of faith. Only as a private citizen (i.e. 'off duty') can that person ['employee'] publicly practise their faith or engage in any public act of faith (and the State must always uphold their right as a private citizen to do that).

In situations where representatives of the State are required to be present at public acts of faith they should be there respectfully as passive 'neutral observers', but not 'active participants' since they are there in their capcity as representatives of the State who, according to the United States' constitution, MUST at all times be religiously neutral and impartial with respect to ALL faiths.  

In the case of the military, etc. (who are 'officially' 'on duty' 24/7 when not on leave), provision should be made to allow military personnel 'space' to engage in corporate acts of faith as 'private citizens' as military operations allow [Of course, such personnel, like those of the emergency services, are exempt from strict 'Sabbath observance' whilst they are 'on duty'].

That should start quite a debate...?

Simonline.