Gideons No Longer Allowed to Offer Bibles at Kansas Elementary School Following Complaint

HERINGTON, Kan. — Representatives for Gideon International will no longer be allowed to make Bibles available to students at an elementary school in Kansas following a complaint from a national humanist organization.

The American Humanist Association (AHA) recently sent a letter to the superintendent of Herington Schools and the principal of Herington Elementary School to advise that it had been contacted by the parents of several children who were unhappy with a recent one-day Bible distribution.

According to the correspondence, the Bibles were placed on a table in a commons area where those interested could freely take a copy.

“Your school district has allowed an outside religious organization, believed to be the Gideons, to distribute Bibles to young children at Herington Elementary School. The district’s actions in assisting the Gideons in distributing Bibles to elementary students represents a clear breach of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and we hereby demand assurances that this practice will discontinue immediately,” the letter, written by attorney Monica Miller, read.

It asserted that allowing the Bible placement sends the message that the school and district endorse Christianity.

“By assisting Gideons in distributing Bibles to a captive audience of elementary students, the school district sends the ‘unequivocal message that’ the school district, ‘as an institution, endorses the religious expressions embodied’ in the Bibles, and thus violates the Establishment Clause …,” Miller wrote.

Under threat of a lawsuit, AHA demanded a response advising that the Gideons would no longer be allowed to make the Bibles available at the school, and that teachers would be instructed that they too are prohibited from offering the Scriptures to students.

  • Connect with Christian News

On Tuesday, Superintendent Ron Wilson told the Kansas City Star that while the school was “in no way … trying to impose anything on anyone,” he and Principal Donalyn Biehler agreed that they would end the longstanding practice of allowing Gideon International to place Bibles at the school for a day.

“Our district respects all religious beliefs and the constitutional rights of every student,” Wilson told the outlet. “We will no longer allow distribution of religious materials.”

Webster

As previously reported, throughout early America, textbooks such as Noah Webster’s “Blue Backed Speller” and Benjamin Harris’ “New England Primer” contained numerous references to Christianity, and those such as Webster were strong advocates for teaching children the ways of the Lord. Webster is considered the Father of American education.

“Practical truths in religion, in morals, and all civil and social concerns, ought to be among the first and most prominent objects of instruction,” he wrote in 1839. “Without a competent knowledge of legal and social rights and duties, persons are often liable to suffer in property or reputation, by neglect or mistakes. Without religious and moral principles deeply impressed on the mind, and controlling the whole conduct, science and literature will not make men what the laws of God require them to be; and without both kinds of knowledge, citizens can not enjoy the blessings which they seek, and which a strict conformity to roles of duty will enable them to obtain.”

In 1830, Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence and founder of the Philadelphia Bible Society, wrote:

“[T]he benefits of an early and general acquaintance with the Bible were not confined to the Jewish nation; they have appeared in many countries in Europe since the Reformation. The industry and habits of order which distinguish many of the German nations are derived from their early instruction in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible. In Scotland and in parts of New England, where the Bible has been long used as a schoolbook, the inhabitants are among the most enlightened in religions and science, the most strict in morals, and the most intelligent in human affairs of any people whose history has come to my knowledge upon the surface of the globe.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Robin Egg

    How sad. I still have mine. It has to be 50+ years old. And well used. Nobody was ever forced to take one. If you didn’t want one, don’t take it. Very simple.

    • james blue

      Just out of interest…..Would you defend a school that allowed Korans, satanic books etc. to be placed on tables for your child to take?
      Do you not supply your own children with a bible?

      • Sorry but there is no correlation here.

        • james blue

          How so?

          • The Holy Word of God leads to life. The things you mentioned lead to pain, misery and death. Which do you want for your child?

          • Etranger

            Muslims believe their holy book leads to life as well. Just a different religion. Your bias shows – all the more reason such a program as the Gideons had at this school was wrong.

          • Islam is a satanic blood cult and the Quran is their play book.

            Open your eyes.

          • Etranger

            This is little evidence to back up your claim. Open your eyes.

          • Little evidence?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

            Have you been living in a cave that is shut off from the rest of the world?

          • Etranger

            Nope. Paying attention. All Muslims are violent satanists according to you. Talk about living in a cave!!!

          • Not my fault. It is what the Quran teaches.

          • Etranger

            So does the Bible but not all people who believe it are extremists. Not all Muslims interpret the Quran as extremists.

          • The Bible does not tell us to go out and kill anybody.

          • Etranger

            LOL

          • And you’re laughing……why?

          • Etranger

            Because it DOES! Come on, get real

          • Israel are God’s chosen people. He loves them immensely. Those in the Old Covenant that defied God by being an enemy against Israel paid the price for their actions. God fought for Israel to do this. Not once has He ever told us Gentiles, be it the Old or New Covenant, to go out a kill someone or anyone for any reason.

          • Etranger

            Sure he has. There is death prescriptions for many things.

          • Romans 6:22-23New King James Version (NKJV)

            22 But
            now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you
            have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

          • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

            Amen.

          • Etranger

            So?

          • The wages of sin is death. Because of Christ Jesus we now have the grace and mercy of time to seek forgiveness from God through Him instead of the swift and righteous punishments handed out in the Old Testament.

          • Etranger

            Deut 13, 17 And numbers 31 for a start.

          • Deut 13….Punishment by Israelis to Israelis for disobeying God.

            Deut 17……Punishment by Israelis to Israelis for disobeying God.

            numbers 31……Taking vengeance on the Midianites for the children of Israel.

            All of the above fits perfectly with what I already told you.

          • Etranger

            Fits perfectly with what I told you as well. There is a call to kill in the Bible. Just like in the Quran.

          • Not even close and not the same thing.

          • Etranger

            How do? You are pretty closed minded it seems. Remember interpretation is everything. There are Christians who believe the Bible justifies killing gay people for instance. Are they wrong? Same with Quran. Most Muslims do not interpret it like the extremists.

          • Interpretation is only everything if it comes from God’s Holy Spirit and yours does not. There are real Christians and there are CINO’s.

          • Etranger

            Ah okay, so you believe Christians want to kill gay people (as an example).

          • You need to bone up on your reading comprehension.

          • Etranger

            Ah okay, so you interpret the Bible differently than say a pastor Anderson or Phelps?

          • the Holy Spirit has been my guide and my teacher since 1997. Christians are not told by God to kill homosexuals.

          • Etranger

            Well the Bible clearly says too.

          • That was the Old Covenant. We are under the New Covenant because of Christ Jesus.
            —————

            John 3:16-17New King James Version (NKJV)

            16 For
            God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever
            believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

          • Etranger

            Again. All interpretation. Gotta tell those Christian extremists that!!

          • It is not an “interpretation” it is solid Biblical Truth.

          • Lark.62

            Accordung to Jesus, the “old covenant” remains in force. He should know.

            Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one dot of the Law to become void.

          • The Law He refers to is the Ten Commandments.

          • Lark.62

            Nice try. But no.

            And even then, the only list called “the ten commandments” is in Exodus 34. Have you observed the Feast of Weeks lately?

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            It’s not your place to judge who’s a “real” Christian. By the rules of your faith, that’s God’s job.

          • Please tell me more about “the rules of my faith”.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            Well, you should know. The ones that cause you to call people’s religions “demonic blood cults” and people “perverts” based on a sexuality they had no hand in choosing. Or the ones that tell you to tell others they are going to burn eternally in hell.

            But “judge not lest ye be judged” just sails right on by every single time, doesn’t it Doug?

          • Lark.62

            Some people who happen to be Christian (mis)use the bible to support cruelty and hate.

            Some people who happen to be Muslim (mis)use the koran to support cruelty and hate.

            Most people, regardless of religion, aren’t like that.

          • Lark.62

            Read your book.

          • It is not my Book. It is God’s Holy Word.

          • Lark.62

            Read your book.

            Yes it certainly does.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Psalm 137:9
            Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

          • Taken out of context.

          • Lark.62

            In context, that verse means exactly what it says. The Israelites are instructed to get revenge against Babylon inthe manner specified.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Here’s the context, and YOU provided it:

            “The Bible does not tell us to go out and kill anybody.”

          • TSandtheTwins

            Read Leviticus and Numbers. Fortunately, Jesus taught us to follow Him and not the OT Law (which He fulfilled completely in Himself).

          • Jesus is God and God is Jesus and we are now under the grace and mercy of time to reconcile with God through Christ Jesus. Christians are not told to kill homosexuals. The Law Jesus fulfilled is the Mosaic Law and gives us the command to love our neighbor as ourselves and love God with all of your heart and soul.

          • TSandtheTwins

            I agree that Jesus have is those two great commandments and that He is the fulfillment of all the law.

            So… Are you willing to now accept your gay brothers and sisters in Christ as equal members of the body of Christ? I’m grateful that my church does! 🙂

          • John 1:11-13New King James Version (NKJV)

            11 He came to His own,[a] and His own[b] did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

            ——————

            John 3:1-21New King James Version (NKJV)

            The New Birth

            3 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This
            man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You
            are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do
            unless God is with him.”

            3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

            4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

            5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The
            wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot
            tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born
            of the Spirit.”

            9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”

            10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.[a] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but[b] have eternal life. 16 For
            God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever
            believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

            18 “He
            who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is
            condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only
            begotten Son of God. 19 And
            this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and
            men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

          • TSandtheTwins

            And we’re talking about bibles in schools… not what it means to be saved. It’s a *legal* discussion.

          • You said…”So… Are you willing to now accept your gay brothers and sisters in Christ as equal members of the body of Christ? I’m grateful that my church does! :-)”

            And this is my answer……
            ——————

            John 1:11-13New King James Version (NKJV)

            11 He came to His own,[a] and His own[b] did not receive Him. 12 But
            as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of
            God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood,
            nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

            ——————

            John 3:1-21New King James Version (NKJV)

            The New Birth

            3 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This
            man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You
            are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do
            unless God is with him.”

            3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

            4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

            5
            Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of
            water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which
            is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is
            spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8
            The
            wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot
            tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born
            of the Spirit.”

            9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”

            10
            Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do
            not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what
            We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our
            witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe,
            how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has
            ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of
            Man who is in heaven.[a] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the
            wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever
            believes in Him should not perish but[b] have eternal life. 16 For
            God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever

            believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For
            God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that
            the world through Him might be saved.

            18 “He
            who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is
            condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only
            begotten Son of God. 19 And
            this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and
            men
            loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20
            For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the
            light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth
            comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have
            been done in God.”

          • TSandtheTwins

            Yep. We’re Christians. Thank you.

          • Unless you are born again you are not a child of God and not to be truthfully called “brothers and sisters in Christ”.

          • TSandtheTwins

            Why do you assume that we not? We are!

          • Matthew 7:15-29New King James Version (NKJV)

            You Will Know Them by Their Fruits

            15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

            I Never Knew You

            21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many
            will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your
            name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your
            name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

            Build on the Rock

            24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and
            the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on
            that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

            26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”

            28 And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, 29 for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

          • TSandtheTwins

            And? As Christians, we believe that too. Sorry that you don’t like the LGBT people that God made. I’ll pray that you may find love and compassion.

          • I have the love of Christ for you and everyone else and that is why I tell you the truth of God and His Holy Word. God does not make sin nor tempt you to sin and that is why no one is born LGBT.

          • TSandtheTwins

            Well, Doug, you’re wrong about how people are created by God, but I will still love you anyway.
            Peace.

          • I am in line with the Word of God and His Holy Spirit testifies to that fact. I pray that your eyes and heart are opened to Him and His Truth before it is too late for you and those you have wrongly influenced.

          • TSandtheTwins

            The Holy Spirit has blessed my walk in Christ, thank you!

          • May God bless you.

          • TSandtheTwins

            And you as well, Doug.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            TS is exhibiting far more Christian behavior than you are.

          • mary barnes

            Im proud of your church.

          • TSandtheTwins

            Me too 🙂 Thanks, Mary

          • TSandtheTwins

            Please try to understand the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

          • Please reread the article and apply some common sense.

          • TSandtheTwins

            Doug, the issue is about allowing religious material within a publicly funded school, showing implicitly an endorsement of one religion over others. That is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

          • Lark.62

            That is your opinion. Other people do not hold that opinion.

            If you do not want Muslims providing your children a Koran without your knowledge, you cannot hand out bibles to other people’s kids without their parents’ knowledge.

            Jesus commanded that his followers treat other people as they would like to be treated.

          • It is not my opinion, it is a fact.

          • TSandtheTwins

            The US Constitution and its First Amendment is not up to your opinion either… It is fact.

            You can’t mix preferential support for *any* religion within a publicly funded institution.

          • That is not what is going on here.

          • TSandtheTwins

            Yes it is, Doug. And it applies equally to all religions in a publicly-funded Institution.

          • The Bibles were not forced on anyone. They were left on an unattended table with a sign that said “free for the taking”.

          • TSandtheTwins

            You don’t seem to understand that that alone implied a preference for one religon over another. Are you willing to let Satanists have a table with their “bible” on a table for schoolchildren, “free for the taking”?

            The US Constitution’s First Amendment is clear, Doug: the school may not permit the distribution of any religious material, no matter what religious group provides it.

          • Nothing wrong with that.

          • Michael C

            Islam is a satanic blood cult and the Quran is their play book.

            Does this mean that you would not want someone passing out Qurans to your grandchildren at their school?

          • james blue

            Apparently he doesn’t want them to have the opportunity to “not be forced to take one” or “not take one because they don’t want one”.

            That opportunity should be reserved for the bible

          • The opportunity should be reserved for age and content appropriateness.
            Anything encouraging the violent oppression and death of “infidels” and lying to anyone that doesn’t agree with you, is not ever appropriate. And yes, this is the qu’ran. Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with our American history, and is not even compatible with our laws and society.

            A little common sense is needed here.

          • james blue

            Sigh.

            I’ve tried to persevere, but you are either not getting the point or you are deliberately ignoring it.

          • sigh. You are extremely close minded. I’m afraid you are completely missing the point.

            Well. I’ve tried to conduct a 2 sided conversation, but to do that, you need to acknowledge that there are actually 2 or more sides!

            I give up.

          • james blue

            You have conducted a conversation where you have decided to talk about what you want to regardless of what you were replying to. That’s not a conversation, it’s talking AT someone.

          • I know exactly what it feels like to be talked “at”
            It’s all you’ve been doing.

            I voiced an opinion and you’ve wasted a whole lot of space talking at me for why I shouldn’t have voiced that opinion.

            I’m done here. When a conversation is so one sided, and someone only see’s their side, it’s time to move on.
            Cya!

          • Actually, I replied directly to your points. And you ignored the replies. Like I said, one sided. Doesn’t work that way.

          • That is EXACTLY what that means.

          • Etranger

            Perfect. Then you understand why people would not want the Bible passsed out at school.

          • Yes I do understand. It is because Satan is the prince of this world since the downfall of man in the Garden of Eden. Satan hates God and all of mankind. Satan has done a good job of lying and sowing the seeds of hate and unbelief among men and that is why people like you do not want God’s Holy Word given out to the children or for that matter anyone else.

            All of this is why God gave us His son Jesus to reconcile us back with the Father.

          • Michael C

            Matthew 7:12

          • Matthew 7:12New King James Version (NKJV)

            12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
            ——————-
            And that is why I am so adamant about this. I do not want anyone hiding the Truth from me or anyone that I love and I love all people. The stakes are too high for it really is a matter of life and death.

          • TSandtheTwins

            Don’t promote any religion by publicly funded administrations and institutions and your all set. Off school property by private individuals.

          • No one is doing that in the article.

          • TSandtheTwins

            Yes, by endorsing one religion specifically in the school, they most certainly are.

          • True. I’m just saying that it is legal to teach the Bible as part of American history.

          • And world history.

          • Teaching that America was founded upon Christian/Biblical principles, though, is not promoting a religion, but simply teaching the historical truth.

            This can be done without breaking any laws. It’s simply HISTORY. Which is simply WHAT HAPPENED.

            It is legal.

          • TSandtheTwins

            The thing is, that’s not historical truth. You’d like it to be, but it’s not. And furthermore, that still doesn’t change the fact that the school violated the Establishment Clause.

            My church teaches our faith to our children, my spouse and I teach our faith to our children. No one needs a publicly funded school to teach their children about any particular faith over another.

            I was Orthodox for most of my life, a part of the earliest Christian Church. I’m Anglican now. Do you want Orthodox, Catholic or Anglican instruction given to your children?

            How about Daoism? Hinduism? Islam? Satanists? Atheism?

            The Establishment Clause is there to ensure no entanglement of*any* religion is made within the scope and funding of a public, secular institution.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            And that is what we call a “double standard.”

          • And what you adhere to is what I call myopic stupidity.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Just don’t try to tell me you’re for freedom of religion, then…because freedom for one religion while others don’t have it is not freedom of religion.

          • Islam is not a religion. It is a demonic blood cult.

          • Etranger

            Seriously – where do you get this stuff? I mean, you obviously received some education since you read and write, but your comments sometimes reveal an intellectual deficiency. Please provide some sort of basis for your absurd statement.

          • Turn on the TV or read a newspaper.

          • Etranger

            Oh you mean the extremists?

          • And the cowardly Muslims that are silent about it.

          • Etranger

            Really? Haven’t heard too many good Christians oppose the pat robertsons of the world. Oh wait I have but they are progressive. You hate those kind.

          • smh

          • Etranger

            You can syh all you want. Facts are facts.

          • Your post that I replied to did not state any facts.

          • It’s very true. Do you know anything about sharia law? It’s completely INCOMPATIBLE with American law and culture.

            You really need to read a qu’ran. it’s an eye opener.

            it is a very evil, violent political ideology masquerading as a religion.

            And just look around the world. ALL the most violent, evil terrorists groups that are murdering innocents just because they are Christian, even beheading 8 year olds in front of their parents! It’s all ISLAM.

            OPEN YOUR EYES.

            Because those that say “appease appease” are hung by those they seek to please.

            True fact.

          • Etranger

            “True fact.”

            Funniest thing I have read today! Thanks for the laugh.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Then, obviously, you wouldn’t want the Muslim equivalent of the Gideons passing out Korans at your local elementary school, right?

            (Please tell me you see my point….)

          • I see your point. Why do you hate God?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’re completely missing the point.

          • There is no muslim equivalent of the Bible. Can’t even compare the two.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            And now you’re the one missing the point.

          • I pointed out a very false statement. Simple.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            For one thing, I didn’t say “the Muslim equivalent of the Bible.” For the purposes of the point I was making, it is, though. My question was not even about Islam in particular. Substitute any other religion and it’s the same thing. Basically, it’s this: Do you want (insert name of a religion other than yours) distributing literature in public schools?

          • I wouldn’t mind the Jewish Torah. Or even Buddhism or Hinduism. They don’t promote the violence that the qu’ran does. And since almost all the terrorism in the world today is based on islam and the teachings of muhammad, I would only teach the qu’ran to my children as a warning. History is a great teacher. History never lies. And I can see what history has shown me about violent, political ideologies that masquerade as “religions.” The qu’ran is certainly not a religion of peace. Far from it.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            Another Christian who refuses to abide by the dictionary’s definition of things.

          • LOL

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            Glad it’s giving you a laugh but Islam is defined as a religion.

          • There are many things defined as something they are not.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            I think not. The dictionary works just fine for most of us.

          • TSandtheTwins

            Less ad hominem, more adult conversation, please.

          • LOL

          • TSandtheTwins

            Well, that sure is convincing…
            /s

          • TSandtheTwins

            Endorsing one religion over any other by a public institution in a publicly funded area is illegal, Doug.

          • Again I say no one in the article is doing that.

          • TSandtheTwins

            Again, your missing the legality issue at play.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Take out all the killing, invading of peoples, etc. out of the Bible and maybe it would be acceptable.

          • The Bible is acceptable just as it is. The OT is mainly historical, and is brutally honest. The OT doesn’t sugar coat anything. It is 100% accurate.

            Teaching Biblical principles generally starts with the New Testament which is more age appropriate. This is what private Christian schools do.

            But you don’t censure history just because it’s ugly. History is history, and you can’t learn from it unless you study the whole truth of it.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            If you want to exclude the Quran because of the violence that it espouses, you have to do the same for the Bible.

            The Quran is a text, not a cult. There actually are jihads in the bible even tho they be called something different. Nobody is proposing that Sharia law be enacted in the US.

            Your opinion as to whether or not Islam is a religion is irrelevant.

            Today’s violent history is due to extremists in the same way that the violence perpetrated by Christians in the past was not because of Christianity but because of extremists.

          • The Bible doesn’t espouse violence.
            In the Bible, the OT is history.
            The New Testament and the coming of Jesus, and Grace and forgiveness, opens up a whole new world.

            Christians don’t exist until the new testament, obviously.

            We are commanded to be like Christ. There is no jihad, no promotion of violence or oppression.

            Just the opposite, we are commanded to love and pray even for our enemies. Thou shalt not kill. Nor judge others. Nor lie. Honor our parents. Be faithful to our spouses.

            And the most important of all, we are to FORGIVE others as Jesus forgave us. This is major.

            These are all wonderful and necessary things that children should be taught.

            The qu’ran is absolutely a violent political ideology. No doubt about it. It’s oppressive towards women, considers them less than a man, give them no freedoms, etc. It obviously encourages violence and hatred, as evidenced by the bloody remains of “infidels” all over the world today.

            The violence of the past AND today is due to ISLAM’S violent teachings.

            Just open your eyes. Christians are the ones being killed by the hundreds of thousands in the worst genocide since the holocaust, and the anti American United Nations is doing nothing about it. It’s so sad and tragic.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            I’m sorry but the Bible espouses violence.

          • The Bible records the violence of human history. But never did Jesus EVER promote violence.

            muhammad does, but Jesus NEVER does.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            The Bible records G_D as commanding violence.
            More frequently than the Quran.

          • Not even close.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            you may want to look again. this not my first time on this rodeo

          • You obviously have not read the qu’ran or the Bible.

            I’ll ask you once more, since it’s not your “first time at the rodeo.”

            Show me ANYWHERE that Jesus espouses violence, or where Christians are encouraged to oppress anyone or use violence.

            Well? This should be easy since it’s ‘not your first time at the rodeo.’

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            The New Testament does not constitute the entire Bible.

          • Just compare the life and teachings of Jesus vs mohammad. Like I said, not even close.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Why limit the Bible to the New Testament. The Bible has at least as much G-D commanded violence as the Quran

          • The Bible RECORDS violence as an accurate part of human history. But it does not EVER promote Christians to use violence. Not ever.

            Christians did not exist until after the birth of Christ. And Christians are commanded to be Christ like. To follow the example of Jesus.

            The qu’ran makes no such distinction. Not only is violence a part of history, but is an ONGOING COMMAND to muslims.

            So where does Jesus command Christians to oppress anyone or commit violence as muhammad commands his followers to do?

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            The Bible RECORDS G-D commanding violence.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Nonetheless, the Bible records G-D commanding violence.

          • Show me ANYWHERE in the new testament where Jesus teaches or promotes any kind of violence. Christians are commanded to be like Christ, not like the violent past.

            So? Where does Jesus promote violence?

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            The bible consists of more than the New Testament

          • Yes, but the OT is history. Christians did not exist until the NT. And Christians are commanded to be Christ like. To emulate Jesus.

            So again, show me ANYWHERE that Jesus espouses violence.

            Mohammud does. But not Jesus. Unless you can show me where.
            Well?

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            The old testament is more than history.
            The Bible is more than the New Testament. The Bible records G-D ordering violence.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Extremists are the ones responsible for the violence. Today the flavor is Islamic, in the past it was Christian.

          • TSandtheTwins

            Let’s come back to the legal aspects of why religious distribution — of any kind — is illegal in public schools.

          • Try to stay on topic.

          • TSandtheTwins

            That’s what I’m asking *you* to do, Doug. The issue is a legal one!

          • wow, you better read the qu’ran and the Bible. The qu’ran is an evil political ideology. Not even a “religion” in the same sense as Christianity or Hinduism, etc.

          • Etranger

            This is an ignorant comment. It is very sad to see so much ignorance. Lots of words written about someone people know nothing about.

          • ?? who is this for? What is ignorant?

          • Etranger

            I have read it. Just like I have read the Bible. They are equally evil in many places. They are equally beautiful in others. I guarantee you have not really read the quran and studied it. I can always tell who hasn’t when they make comments like yours. I guarantee you have probably never had a discussion with a Muslim either! Better to avoid getting to know people who are different – wouldn’t want to change your ignorant worldview!

          • Now I know you lie. I’ve also read both, the the difference is ASTOUNDING. No comparison whatsoever.

            I can tell just by your general BS that you have read neither.

            I would suggest that you go buy these books and actually read AND study them.

            I would definitely avoid getting to know terrorists who believe in forcing “unbelievers” into dhimi’s and oppressing them in every way possible, and if this doesn’t work, then killing them as “infidels.”
            I have no interest in getting to know anyone who marries a 6 year old and consummates the marriage when their wife is only 9 years old.

            As for never having a conversation with a muslim, you would be DEAD WRONG. But gee, thanks for pretending that you know me at all! LOL

            I bet YOU never had such a conversation. And even if you did, there is this little thing reserved for non muslims called takiyah ….. but whatever floats yer boat!

            Yep, your abject ignorance of anything Biblical or from the qu’ran is so glaringly obvious, it’s pathetic.

            You aren’t fooling anyone, kid. Better luck next time. What a sad fool!

          • Etranger

            I volunteer weekly with refugees, all of whom are Muslim. So I know a thing or two about them and what they believe. They are not terrorists. Sorry for making an incorrect assumption about you – I took your complete disrespect for muslims as an indication that you probably had never met one. The fact that you have and still hold such incorrect, awful views is actually more troubling!

            Speaking of assumptions, it is funny you think I have read neither the Bible or the Quran. Also, I never said they were the same. I don’t think you like to have conversations about the actual topic at hand, but rather rant and rave about other off topic things.

            I never intended to “fool” anyone. Just looking to correct prejudice and ignorance. But the unwilling usually just remain prejudiced and ignorant.

          • muslims believe their holy book leads to 70 virgins in the afterlife.

            READ IT.

          • Etranger

            (72 actually)

            I agree – absurd. Christians believe equally absurd things! Their bodies will be reunited in heaven with their soul. Or, alternatively, if they are bad they will be condemned to an eternity of fire. These things are like a great fiction story!

          • Actually, you have a very shallow understanding of the Bible.

            It really has nothing to do with being “good” or “bad” because we are all sinners. Every last human being ever born.

            The ONLY perfect person to ever walk the earth was Jesus himself.

            You can’t spend eternal life with God just by being “good.” Nor are you condemned to eternal hell because you are “bad.”

            You don’t understand any of this, do you?

          • Etranger

            OH brother.

          • Yep, thought so. Not the least bit of comprehension. Guess you need to actually READ! lol

          • Correct. 72. Not that it matters. What’s a couple of virgins as far as the qu’ran is concerned? lol

          • Etranger

            Just funny that such a good reader would make such an error. But since you think it is irrelevant, I’ll accept an apology for your last comment about my characterization of the belief of heaven and hell (which, yes, was not detailed as you expected). Thanks!

          • Lark.62

            That is your belief. And you have every right to your belief. But other people have different beliefs. And no matter what you think about their beliefs, they have a right to their beliefs. This means they have the exact same right as you regarding strangers providing religious material to their children.

            If you do not want strangers providing Muslim, Hindu and Satanic Temple literature to your children behind your back, then Christians cannot provide religious literature to other people’s kids behind their parents’ backs.

            One set of rules applies equally to all.

          • Nothing was done behind anyone’s back.

            Seek Salvation through Christ Jesus while you still have the grace of time to do so.

          • TSandtheTwins

            Do you want the Satanic text being offered to children, Doug? The Qu’ran or the Vedas?

          • Asked and answered.

          • TSandtheTwins

            You don’t. Good. And by the same *legal* standing, NO religious material may be endorsed or promoted within the publicly funded institution.

          • Funny, but one of our high school’s students was stopped from praying during a graduation speech. The school was threatened with legal action for stomping on the student’s freedom of speech and religious rights.

            End result? The school had to issue a formal apology to the student, and PUBLICIZE it’s changes to the rules for graduation, insuring freedom of speech and religion for their students.

            The point is this: Students do not leave their first amendment rights at the school house gate. as per Supreme Court rulings.

            The first amendment was meant to protect the people’s rights to practice religion, not to protect people from religion.

          • TSandtheTwins

            You’re still missing the point.
            This issue is not about someone praying. This is about a school endorsing and preferring dissemination of religions material inside a publicly funded Institution. You need to learn about the Establishment Clause if you’re going to understand why the school was in violation.

          • No TSand, I don’t. You do. The establishment clause was written to put restrictions ON THE GOVERNMENT ONLY.

            The government can’t establish a federal religion, nor stop anyone from practicing their religion. It really is just that simple.

            The school is only in violation if they are not “neutral.” The point being, if a school shows “hostility” towards religion, they are also in violation of the establishment clause.

            Teaching that America was based on Biblical/Christian principles, and expounding on them, is not showing favoritism towards any religion either, since this is just a part of history. Which was also my point.

            I’m not sure if we were making the same point.

          • TSandtheTwins

            By favoring and endorsing, the school is *not* neutral. Again, if the *only* text being offered to students in a public school was the Qu’ran, how would you feel?

          • That is the truth. Plain and simple. And America’s history is pretty solid proof, if you really know it.

            It doesn’t matter if other people have different beliefs. What matters is that America was founded upon only ONE set of beliefs. The Biblical/Christian beliefs.

            Teach the truth. We don’t have to cater to muslims or any other religion when it comes to teaching American history.

            You can’t understand American History without understanding the Bible and Biblical history. Our founding father’s knew that and were well versed in the Bible. Most had read the Bible in both Hebrew and English, and Jefferson in 5 different languages at least.

            So just teach the truth about history. ALL of it. Our children deserve the truth.

            You can rightly and honestly teach how the Bible influenced our founding principles and laws and NOT be “promoting religion” because you are just teaching the truth about our American history. Simple.

          • james blue

            Well I did predicted that response.

          • There just may be hope for you yet but you must seek God through His son Christ Jesus to get it.

          • TSandtheTwins

            Let’s talk about the legality of the issue. Even as a Christian, I understand the legal requirement that the school board must follow.

          • THANK YOU. Amen.

        • TSandtheTwins

          Legally, there absolutely is correlation. Would you want your child’s school offering the Qu’ran to kids?

          • Again….asked and answered.

          • TSandtheTwins

            Legal, Doug. Think like a lawyer.

          • Common sense should apply.

            If the BIble was the foundation of America (and it was) with the 10 commandments in Washington DC’s Supreme court and all major courthouses, etc. etc. then why teach the qu’ran?

            Unless you are willing to be truthful about the qu’ran, that it spawned the most evil and violent terrorism all over the world, and that sharia law is not compatible with America’s laws and freedom.

          • TSandtheTwins

            The Bible was not the foundation of America. Common misconception by evangelicals. Many of the founders were Deists. The principles of some Christian ideals influenced, but not dictated, our beginning.

          • Actually, yes it was. A common misconception of millennials and pre-baby boomers is that the Bible was not used.

            Yet READ OUR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

            If your rights are the “unalienable rights endowed upon mankind by the CREATOR” – then your government is basing it’s laws on Biblical principles.

            It’s not rocket science. It’s just the simple truth.

            The founders were not deists, this is a common lie promoted by Bible and Christian haters, and is so easily disproven just by reading our founder’s own words, it’s pathetic anyone would actually believe it.

            The founders were Christian. Our foundation is Christian. Very much so.

            Facts are stubborn things.

          • james blue

            Yeah but people of other faiths don’t believe their creator is the same as ours and the DOI doesn’t state who that creator is.

          • TSandtheTwins

            You seen to be ignoring stubborn real facts in favor of your Evangelical rewrite of history.

            We’re at an impasse, so I’ll wish you a good day.

          • TSandtheTwins

            I’m not defending the Qu’ran or any other religious text. I’m a Christian and yet I agree with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

      • Maxwell Edison

        Not relevant to this discussion.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          It’s definitely relevant. Because that’s the way things work here. If you can distribute Bibles in public schools, you have to let any another religious texts be distributed.

          • Maxwell Edison

            It’s definitely relevant. Because that’s the way things work here.

            Attempts to change the subject isn’t the way things work here. FAIL.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Just because you choose to ignore something doesn’t mean it’s not relevant.

          • Maxwell Edison

            It’s the “all or nothing” ploy that I’ve seen over and over again. The fact is this isn’t about the Qur’an, as you (perhaps) don’t want it in schools yourself, but your hatred of the Bible. Which is why your point isn’t relevant.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The fact is this isn’t about the Qur’an,

            Well, you got that part right at least. The only reason I mentioned that was to use it as an example. Substitute any other religions ‘holy book’ and the question is still the same. Would you want, say, the Book of Mormon distributed at schools? The Bhagavad Gita? The Avesta? Or even, since I know how particular some Christians are about this, a different Bible version than your preferred one?

          • Maxwell Edison

            As I said, none of this is relevant. You just hate the Bible. And this conversation ends here.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            And this conversation ends here.

            Fine with me, it was rapidly going nowhere anyway.

          • Maxwell Edison

            A perfect description of your opinion.

          • Yep. I agree.

          • All Bibles have the same chapters and verses. Some are written in more modern language, but are still exactly the same in every other way.

            The Declaration of Independence only mentions the Christian/Biblical God. No other religion was used as the foundation of this country’s society and laws.

            So you can’t substitute any other “holy book” if you are teaching American History.

            And our children deserve the TRUTH, the WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the truth about THEIR TRUE HERITAGE.

            If you don’t understand the Bible, you won’t truly understand American History or anything our founding father’s wrote.

            So the only “holy” book that is pertinent to American history and development is the Bible. So why would you need to include any other religion? You don’t.

            If you teach the Bible as a part of our history, that is not promoting religion (everyone is free to follow their own) that is just promoting the TRUTH.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Actually, all Bibles don’t have the same chapters and verses. As originally published, the Bible had 72 Books. Jeremiah became split into Jeremiah and Lamentations so that number became 73. At the Reformation, a certain protestor felt that 7 of those texts/books did not warrant being in the Bible. So in his edition, there were 66 books (missing 7 books worth of chapters and verses). Commonly speaking these would be referred to as the Catholic and Protestant versions, respectively. Start distributing (or making available) Catholic Bibles and watch all the good Protestant Christians complain.

            The Bible is only significant in American history because most of the founding fathers were Christian. The fact that they were influenced by the Bible (to the extent that they were) is an accident as opposed to a necessary component. US history can be and has been taught very well without also teaching the Bible.

          • Yes and historically all Bibles still have the same chapter and verses. All Bibles have Jeremiah and Lamentations. And the same chapter and verse.

            Go ahead and try it. Look up any chapter and verse, in any Bible, and it will be the same. Some Bibles have a more modern language, but it will still be the same.

            The fact that our two founding documents are based on Biblical/Christian principles is no accident.

            The fact that the Declaration of Independence states our rights come from GOD, and that the Constitution was written to protect those God given rights, is no “accident.”

            If your rights come from God, and God’s law is higher than man’s law, then the government is obligated to protect your God given rights, and can never take them away (unless you vote them away yourself by taking God out of the government.)

            This is why we became the freest and most successful nation in history.

            If you take God out of the government, then your rights are only what the government decides to give you. Or take away whenever it wants. A perfect example of this is COMMUNISM. And we all know how that worked out. MILLIONS lived miserable oppressed lives and/or died under communistic rule. There was no God that the government answered to, and no protection of human rights.

            You see, it was no accident at all. The founders knew EXACTLY what they were doing. And it was BRILLIANT.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            I’m sorry but it is a demonstrably proven fact that not all Bibles have the same content. Does yours have the Book of Judith? I or II Maccabees? If so you have a Catholic Bible, if not you have a Protestant Bible. Protestants will argue that theirs is the “correct” bible while history proves them wrong.

            The fact that our rights stem from G-D does not mandate that the Bible be given any undue preference.

          • The Catholics have a few extra books, or canons as they call them. But the rest is identical.

            And yes, in America the fact that your rights are the rights of the Biblical Christian God, the one and only true God, absolutely mandates that the Bible be given special preference.

            It certainly wasn’t Buddhism or islamic principles that we owe our success to. Nor was any other religion such a huge part of our founding or history. So common sense would put the Bible is a major position of prominence. Just pure true, historical facts would as well.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            The protestants removed those books in the 16th century.
            I’m sorry but the Constitution disagrees with you.

          • You have your Biblical history confused. Catholicism is a Christian religion, but Christianity is a WORLDVIEW.
            The Constitution says what it says, whether you like it or agree with it or not.
            Sorry.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            I’m sorry but you have your history confused. For the first 1000 years Christianity = Catholic. It was the Catholics who determined the canon of the Bible in the 4th century and it was Luther who abbreviated it in the 16th.
            I’m afraid that you are the one who has been arguing against the constitution.

          • Umm, no. Catholicism does not represent Christianity at all. It is a part of the history of Christianity, but was NOT “=” to Christianity. Not even close to being that simplistic.

            The Catholics determined the Catholic canons in the Roman Empire. You leave out a whole lot of history, and it’s not how the Bible was first recorded in the first century after Christ.

            As for our American Constitution, it’s absolutely based on Biblical/Christian principles. Facts are facts, and history is history. It’s not what you think is fair or right, but just “what happened.” Simple.

            This is partially a timeline of how the Bible ended up in present day form:

            Early
            Development

            c. 1400–400 B.C. Books of the Hebrew Old Testament written

            The Old Testament has not changed
            since the Torah. The Old Testament was already accepted as divinely inspired
            and no changes were made.

            c. 250–200 B.C. The Septuagint, a popular Greek translation of the Old
            Testament, produced

            A.D. 45–85? Books of the Greek New Testament written

            90 and 118 Councils of Jamnia give final affirmation to the Old
            Testament canon (39 books)

            140-150 Marcion’s heretical “New Testament” incites orthodox
            Christians to establish a NT canon

            303-306 Diocletian’s persecution includes confiscating and
            destroying New Testament Scriptures

            c. 305-310 Lucian of Antioch’s Greek New Testament text; becomes a
            foundation for later Bibles

            367 Athanasius’s Festal Letter lists complete New Testament
            canon (27 books) for the first time

            397 Council of Carthage establishes orthodox New Testament
            canon (27 books)

            c. 400 Jerome translates the Bible into Latin; this “Vulgate”
            becomes standard of medieval church

            English
            Versions From Latin

            c. 650 Caedmon, a monk, puts Bible books into verse

            c. 735 >Historian Bede translates the Gospels

            871-899 King Alfred the Great translates the Psalms and 10
            Commandments

            950 The 7th-century Lindisfarne Gospels receive English
            translation

            955-1020 Aelfric translates various Bible books

            c. 1325 Both Richard Rolle and William Shoreham translate psalms
            into metrical verse

            1380-1382 John Wycliffe and associates make first translation of the
            whole Bible into English

            1455 Gutenberg’s Latin Bible—first from press

            English
            Versions From Greek

            1516 Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, forerunner to the Textus Receptus
            used by KJV translators

            1525 William Tyndale makes the first
            translation of the New Testament from

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            for the first 1000 years, all there was, was Catholic. That’s why it’s called Catholic–or, universal. As you note, it was at the (Catholic) Council of Carthage that the canon was established. The Septuaint was also established by the Catholic Church as the official canon of the Old testament. 1200 years later, Luther decided to change this. From the end of the 4th century, the “form” had not changed–simply the language (and, of course, the protestant redaction)
            There are two Jewish canons, first the greek then about 200 years later, the hebrew.
            The various texts that are in the Bible were collected by the Catholic Church and the canon was established so as to discriminated these texts from those not considered inspired.

          • There was no such thing as “catholic” when the Old Testament was recorded, and the OT was not part of any councils on what to include, because it was already accepted in it’s entirety.

            “Catholic” did not exist during the lifetime of Jesus either. Nor when the New Testament was first recorded.

            Nor was it only “Catholics” that sat on all the councils or decided what to include or not include.

            So the old testament never did change and is still basically the Torah, or the Books of Moses. The NT was written down before Catholicism was a “thing.” There were always others that tried to distort the Gospels, such as the gnostics, and that was why these councils were convened.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            There was no entirety to the Old Testament until and “entirety” was determined. Two different entireties were determined–a greek and then a hebrew version. The Catholic Church adopted the greek (septuagint) in order to come up with the current 73 books. Luther did not like seven of those books so he decided to change the canon to the hebrew version.

            The New Testament was not recorded during Jesus’ lifetime. It was recorded in the age of the Church–the Catholic or Universal Church. The Catholic church has been present from the beginning–that’s why it’s called Catholic or Universal. Up until 1054 it was not a “denomination.”

          • The OT was originally written in Hebrew. After that, Aramaic – which was the common language of the ancient middle east. THEN Greek. Koine Greek to be exact. Actually, Daniel was originally written partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic because it was written when he was in exile, in Babylon. But the point is that Greek was the third language that it was translated into.

            But that doesn’t matter. The books of the OT were not changed and were mainly accepted or canonized “as is.” There was never any discrepancy as to what books were authentic because they had already been in existence for 1000 years and that was already established, or understood. It was just made “official” by the council.

            It was the New Testament that needed to be kept “pure” so to speak.

            Basically the Catholic church accepted the Apocrypha (hidden) books. Churches closer to Rome tended to include the Apocrypha, while those closer to Palestine did not.

            It wasn’t just Luther that didn’t accept them. You are over simplifying again. There were many more “sects” for lack of a better word, then just “Catholic.” Some had never accepted the Apocrypha. But even Luther accepted that although the Apocrypha were not “inspired,” they were still good for understanding and historical purposes. This is commonly accepted by all Christians.

            The 14 extra books of the Apocrypha are the only difference between the Catholic Bible and any other Bible. The rest of the books of the Catholic Bible are the same as any other Bible.

            I never said that the NT was recorded during the lifetime of Jesus. It was about 100 or more years after he died that the NT started to be written down.

            Plus the original text of the NT was written by Christian Jews in a language that is not just Koine
            (or Common) Greek, but more like Koine Judeo-Greek. There was an important Jewish/Hebrew connection to this version of Koine Greek. It was a form of Greek used by Jews to communicate, and retained many words, phrases, grammatical structures, and
            patterns of thought characteristic of the Hebrew language. It was a seamless transition.

            I didn’t mean to get this far into it. But the point is that there is not any difference between any Bible today, and the difference between the versions that include the Apocrypha and those that don’t are minimal. It’s just an extra 14 books that are still useful. Just not “inspired.” The rest of the books are identical. And which books of the OT that were accepted as “inspired” were generally understood and accepted for centuries before Christ.

            There’s a whole lot more continuity than you realize.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            The old testament was originally written in several languages.
            There are two Jewish canons–one greek, composed first, the second hebrew.
            The Catholic Church adopted the Greek Canon–Septuagint–which consisted of

            Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua,
            Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon [Chronicles] two books, Job,
            the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the
            Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther,
            two books of Ezra, two books of the Maccabees.

            This is a historical fact. I don’t know why you are denying it.
            There are no “extra” books in the Catholic Bible. There are missing books in the protestant. Missing inspired books. The protestant edition came out in the 16th century. The complete edition had been in use for 1200+ years and all of it was considered inspired.

            You can go into it if you want. There are differences as you yourself noted–the “protestant” version is missing books. Given that there is no complete, original source, bible out there we have to settle for various sources and not all of them agree. So what any one bible contains is partly a function of which source(s) the translators used.

          • Greek was not the original language of the Bible, or Torah as it was known back then. Hebrew was. Mainly Hebrew, a little Aramaic.

            The Bible was not written all at one time. It took over 1500 years and 40 authors to write the Bible. The “books” have not changed since they were first written.

            The Torah was written BEFORE the Greek empire existed. Greek was not an “original” language.

            If you are referring to the New Testament, then the original language was the dialect of Koine Greek that I mentioned in the previous post. The Hebrew dialect of Koine.

            I don’t think that you realize what the Apocrypha was.

            Judith, Maccabees, etc., – the other books you mention ARE the “Apocrypha,” which I already said was adopted by the churches closest to Rome, while the churches closer to Palestine did not include them.

            You are saying the same thing. “Apocrypha” are the exact books that you mention.

            The two “versions” you are referring to are exactly the same except for the 14 extra books of the Apocrypha, which all churches found useful, historical and truthful, just not “inspired.” Which was why some included them and some did not. Not quite the huge disagreement or “different versions” that you think it is.

            The inclusion of the Apocrypha never changed the other 66 books of the Bible. They were still exactly the same.

            I’m sorry you did not understand the references to the Apocrypha. They are the very same books that you mention.
            The “historical fact” you mention IS the Apocrypha.

            And you are mistaken if you think there were different “versions” of the whole Bible just because of the Apocrypha. There are not.

            And of course there are extra books in the Catholic Bible. The APOCRYPHA.

            There is not as much difference as you think. Nor as much “disagreement” as you think.

            Plus, the OT has always been organized into sections and subsections; our present day chapter/verse divisions generally correspond to the traditional Jewish organization of the text.

            While the Old and New Testaments have been roughly organized at least since the Bible canon was established, it wasn’t until 1,000 years later that our present chapter and verse system was established. BUT REMEMBER, that this did not change the content at all. The content never changed.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Greek was the original language of many texts.
            The Apocrypha is the PROTESTANT designation for the books that are missing from their Bible.
            Nothing is EXTRA in the Catholic Bible.
            It is rather difficult to reconcile the statement that there are not different versions of the Bible when one version has 66 books and another has 73.
            I’ve seen the original languages. I know how much disagreement there is.

          • There are no “books missing from the Bible.”
            Every book you named is from the Apocrypha, even though you didn’t know it.
            So you are contradicting your own statements.
            And everyone already knows that the Catholic Bible includes the Apocrypha, and yes they are “extra books.”
            They are not considered contradictory to the Bible, just not “inspired.”
            True facts.

            When you say “different versions” this is what you are referring to. You actually NAMED the books of the Apocrypha. The actual contents of each book has never changed. Only which ones were included.

            I doubt you’ve ever read any Bible judging by your posts. More like you just parroted information and googled justification of it.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            In the Protestant version there are books missing from the Bible.
            There is no “Apocrypha” even if you don’t know it.
            The texts that you call apocryphal were in there from the very first moment the Bible existed and remained in there until the reformation.
            Read Hart and educate yourself as to how translations were made to reinforce the ideology of particular denominations.

          • No, not quite. The books of the OT were generally agreed upon and common knowledge of the time. They were just officially verified later.

            There are 14 books that make up the Apocrypha, you named them, and they actually DO exist. No one disagrees on the usefulness of their content either. They don’t contradict the Bible, they are just not “inspired.” There is nothing wrong with studying them.

            btw, there is no instant time that the Bible “very first existed.” The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years, by about 40 different authors. You really need to understand this, and the significance of this, before you can say that you understand the Bible and it’s history.

            HINT: Hart is not going to help you here. He will only hold you back.

            Another hint: There is only one Christian worldview.
            And all the “denominations” agree on it. Look it up.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Once again you get it wrong. There is a greek canon of the old testament. There is a hebrew canon of the old testement. They are different. There are other texts used as scripture the time of Jesus (quoted in the bible) that never made it into either canon.
            I did not name any apocrypha.
            The “Bible” is not the individual texts. The Bible did not exist until the canon was established.

            Given that you have no idea what Hart wrote, you are only displaying ignorance.

            Hint: there are multiple christian worldviews, look it up.

          • You do realize that the OT was comprised of books written in Hebrew (and some Aramaic) before anything was ever canonized? And BEFORE it was translated into Greek?

            The books are the same. The content of the books does not change.

            And what other texts are quoted by Jesus?

            You named books of the Apocrypha. You just didn’t realize it. You still don’t, which is kinda funny. Look it up.

            I already stated that the books of the Bible were written over a period of 1500 years by 40 different authors. So what about that do you not understand?

            Nope. There is only one Christian worldview. Look it up.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            The Greek canon was established before the birth of christ, the hebrew canon after.
            What we call the old testament is not exhaustive of all the texts that were used as scripture in the old testament times.
            I named the books that YOU and your ilk identify as Apocrypha. That does not make them apocrypha. They were identified as being part of the canon at the very council that YOU indicated established the canon.
            What we know as the Bible evolved over the course of many years. That does not mean that the bible existed during the course of that evolution.
            There are many christian world views. Look it up.
            You have dispensationalists, you have predestinationalism, you have calvanism which carries with it a world view, etc., etc.,

          • ??? You are not differentiating between the OT and the NT. Which is making your statements not quite accurate.

            Yes, there were more “books” than what is considered the OT today. But which ones were “inspired” were common knowledge.

            There were no public schools back then. These books were what people were educated from. All of them. But not all were considered inspired, and common knowledge was simply officially recognized when the OT books were agreed upon.

            You would have to study the actual HISTORY of Israel and of ancient civilizations of that time to really grasp that. Like I said, history never lies, and provides the context. If you don’t know what was historically accepted as common knowledge back then, you would not know this.

            The actual books that were chosen to be canonized may have “evolved” but the actual content of the books themselves has never changed. You completely miss this. Right over your head.

            It means that the books that make up the Bible have existed LONG BEFORE they were arranged in the Bible that we know today. It’s only the form, not the content, that has changed.

            You fail to grasp this, or it’s significance. You completely ignore it.

            And you completely fail to grasp what a Christian worldview is, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with “denominations.” Sad.

            There is only one. Period. There may be many denominations, and some slight differences between those denominations, but the foundation is exactly the same. You are completely ignorant here.

            Honestly, and you wonder why I suggest that you actually read a Bible. Really

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            We were talking about the OT.
            History doesn’t lie but historians have multiple interpretations of said history.

            The “inspired” books were only commonly known after having been sanctioned as “inspired.” If texts are commonly used as inspired that is prima facie evidence that there was not “common knowledge” of what was going to be considered the canon.
            Given that there are two different canons both the form and the content have changed. The form of one is more inclusive than the other.

            World views have a lot to do with denomination. Various “world views” are evident in today’s political structure and those views are coming from people of faith who have opposing, scripturaly based, world views.

          • History is simply what happened. Not what you think should have happened, or what is fair or unfair, or right or wrong.

            Just, what happened.

            The inspired books of the OT were commonly understood in that culture. They were only made official when canonized, not changed in any way. You are looking at it from a modern perspective, without any knowledge of the people of that ancient time. The people of that time certainly had their common knowledge, especially about something that was the main source of their education and society.

            And the different “canons” just involved a few different choices of existing books whose content never ever changed. Not a major difference.

            The Gospels were the Gospels, whose content never ever changed, whether you decided to include the Gospel of Thomas, for example, or not. Just excluding Thomas did not change the content of Thomas, or the content of Mark, Matthew, Luke or John, which remained.

            And of course, the message itself never changed.

            You make it sound as though the entire NT was rewritten when nothing could be further from the truth.

            There is truly only one Christian worldview, in spite of minor differences.

            One church for instance, might believe in the laying on of hands, and the other not. But the Christian worldview of both is exactly the same.

            Perhaps you could give an example of 2 different Christian world views, as I truly have no idea what you are referring to.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            history is what the historians thin happened. May the hidden one help you

          • If you say so. Then I guess you can’t believe anything of which you posted, since it’s only what historians “think.” 🙂

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            My the hidden one guide you to all truth, to the point where you know in the same manner that you are known.

          • God points me to truth. He’s the only one qualified. And God already knows every single hair on my head. 🙂 Truth!

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            which is not equivalent to knowing, having, or perceiving the Truth; It admits that what you know is incomplete and imperfect. You are learning

          • Too bad you are not learning. Whatever you falsely think is the “equivalent to knowing” is only in your mind.

            Like I said, GOD points me to truth. He is the ONLY one qualified. Not you.

            And God’s truths are never “incomplete and imperfect.” They are absolute.

            So stop trying to take HIS place and change my words.

            My statements stand as is.

            I WISH you would learn. sigh.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            you are beginning to learn. However your awareness of that Truth is far from absolute

          • Not matter how you divvy it up, the Christian worldview is common to all “denominations.”

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            May the Hidden one continue to lead you along the path of truth.

          • He’s not “hidden” to me, Desiderius. Only to you. May you find Him someday. God Bless.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            What non canonical texts are quoted in the NT? You mean that there is something that your exhaustive study has not taught you?
            Your arrogance is unsurpassed.

          • Well? I see you didn’t answer the question.

            Is it unsurpassed arrogance on my part to ask you that, and expect an answer?

            Nope.

            If I don’t know, I ask. That is not arrogance.

            YOUR response, however, IS supremely arrogant. You can’t answer the question, so you divert and insult. Good job! LOL

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            You really expected to learn something from someone else?
            Oh. In that case: The book of Enoch. It’s cited numerous times. A pretty direct reference in one instance.

          • I would like to know the chapter and verse. I don’t remember Jesus referring to a book of Enoch.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Google will help
            Jesus is quoted as citing it in several places (as in quoting the text and when a person is talking there is generally not a chapter and verse reference). And the text itself is cited, I believe, in James.

          • Everything in the Bible is recorded in chapter and verse. There is no where that I’ve ever come across where Jesus quotes a “book of Enoch.” Not even in James.

            I’ll read it again even. But I believe you got your information wrong. The Bible has never relied on outside sources for validity. Not anywhere.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            try google.
            ” The Bible has never relied on outside sources for validity?” I think that you misunderstood what I said.
            And, before I misunderstand, are you asserting “sola scripture?”

          • Ah, the 5 solas! I just ordered a sweatshirt with the 5 solas on it. 🙂

            I’m not quite sure I understand what you are asking. Do Christians accept the Bible as the absolute truth, the inspired word of God?

            Yes, this is part of that Christian worldview that is common to ALL Christians, whether protestant or catholic, no matter what “denomination.”

            I think there may be some confusion as to what “denomination” refers to. Normally when someone would ask “What denomination is your church” most people would answer “Baptist” or “Methodist” or “non-denominational.” Or even Catholic or Protestant. You are using “Catholic” and “Protestant” in a broader sense. In that case, since I’m not Catholic, I would identify with the Protestant label. But my church is non-denominational and I don’t bother with minor differences of “denomination.”

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            If by absolute you mean “only” then no, it’s not what all christians believe.
            May the Hidden one continue to lead you along the path of truth.

          • What is not what all Christians believe? The the Bible is the inspired word of God?

            Of course it is. There may be cults that deviate, just like there were in ancient times, but all Christians, Catholic or Protestant, believe this.

            They all believe in the Holy Trinity
            They all believe that Jesus is the Son of God and our Savior.
            And that He died on the cross at Calvary and rose from the dead on the 3rd day.

            These are all part of the Christian worldview that is common to ALL Christians, no matter what “denomination” they are.

            And I don’t know what you are referring to when you say “only.” I don’t have any hidden meanings. When I say “absolute” I simply mean “absolute.” Nothing else.

            Don’t change my words. You can ask me to explain, but don’t be so arrogant as to explain for me.

            And God is only the “Hidden One” to you. Good luck with that. Really. I hope He doesn’t remain hidden from you forever.

          • By “absolute” I only mean “absolute. No hidden meanings.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            aka “sola.” a 500 year old tradition. May the hidden one illuminate your heart and mind

          • God has already illuminated my heart and mind. May the “hidden one” reveal Himself to you someday. For your sake.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            May the hidden one walk with you on the path of knowledge and truth.
            It isn’t necessary to insult someone as you are blessing them.

          • It’s more a matter of turning an insult around. 🙂

          • Works for me! LOL

            Sorry. Couldn’t resist.

          • Why “google” if I have a Bible? There is nothing in James that refers to a “book of enoch.”

          • There is no disagreement on the content, message or philosophy of the Bible at all. A very important fact that completely escapes you.

            You are lost in the forest. You really need to at least read a Bible.

            I love the King James version. The same King James English that the Federalist papers are written in. The original English of the founders of this country. But whatever, the King James English can be difficult for newcomers to the Bible, so the NIV works as well.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Keep repeating that if it makes you feel better. The NIV is one particular version that was translated to accommodate denominational beliefs.

          • It was translated into a more modern language. Hart is misleading you here if you believe that.

            Don’t believe me? Just compare the NIV and the KJV. Same exact message and beliefs.

            sigh. You REALLY need to read a Bible.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Maybe you should actually read the literature instead of rest on your assumptions.

          • LOL! My conclusions, or “assumptions” as you call them, are from my own reading and studying. Not someone else’s.

            My statements stand. You REALLY need to read a Bible. And consider it’s impact on history. Really.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Maybe you should expand your knowledge base.

          • As in comparing other civilizations religions and histories? That is pretty darn expanded.

            “Laws of the Ancient Hebrews” is also pretty expansive. Much more fact and less opinion, and much more edifying than Hart.

            Perhaps you need to expand a little. 🙂

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            obviously not expanded enough.

          • Obviously WAY too expanded for you to deal with. Sorry.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Whatever helps you sleep at night.

          • The truth (absolute truth) helps me sleep at night. You?

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            ditto.

          • We agree on something! Yea! 🙂 Maybe there is hope…..

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            As far as the New Testament portion of the Bible goes, you may find David Bentley Hart’s “The New Testament” enlightening. For one thing, you will see how translations were made so as to selectively favor one theological position (ie a particular denomination’s world view) over another. No, not all versions of the Bible are the same and yes, there was a wide range of the use of Greek–from the coarse to the refined.

            I, for one, do not need your inadequate attempts at rationalizing bigotry.

          • I suggest you actually READ and STUDY a Bible, or maybe a couple of different versions. And don’t tell me that you have, because you have no idea how transparent you are.

            I don’t need to read other people’s opinions of the Bible. I’ve read it and studied it for years myself. I am perfectly capable of being analytical and thinking and reasoning on my own. And perfectly capable of coming to my own conclusions without needing Hart or anyone else to give me “my” opinion.

            Call me old school.

            All versions of the Bible are the same. Even if one includes the Apocrypha and one doesn’t.

            As for a wide range of the “Greek,” I’m the only one that pointed out Koine (Common) Greek and the Judaic Koine dialect, which retained words and character of the Hebrew language. I doubt you see the significance of this.

            And what any of this has to do with bigotry is beyond me. Only in your mind.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Sweetie, I have. You have no idea what you are talking about. Read Hart’s book. Educate yourself.

          • Sweetie, I would only be UN educating myself with Hart’s drivel. Been there, done that. He’s one of many.

            But whatever floats your tunnel vision, narrow minded boat. Good luck with that.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            What is it that threatens you?

          • Nothing at all. You?

          • Schroooom! Right over your head, “sweetie.” 🙂

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Keep telling yourself that if that’s what you need.

          • You might want to actually buy a Bible and study it. Your lack of Biblical knowledge is abysmal. EDUCATE YOURSELF!

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Keep repeating that if it makes you feel better.

          • Truth makes me feel better. You?

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            at least what you understand to be truth.

          • Truth is absolute. 🙂 Really.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            So you think.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            “Truth” ™ is a metaphysical concept that can not be totally grasped by the human mind. If it could, we would be gods. We can try to understand the Truth ™ to the best of our ability but in no was shape or form will our understanding be “absolute.”
            Really.

          • LOL! Truth is ABSOLUTE. If it was true yesterday, then it will still be true today, and will forever be true in the future.

            If something was true yesterday, but not today, then it never was true at all. Really.

            Truth cannot exist without Love, and vice versa. When all else is gone, Truth and Love will continue. Forever.

            It’s not that deep or complicated dude!

            Absolute truth does exist, and humans (most of us, anyway) are capable of perceiving it.

            Really.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Truth ™ is absolute but don’t expect to get absolute knowledge of the Truth ™. To believe otherwise is arrogance.

          • Ok. Whatever. At least we agree that absolute truth exists.

            I would suppose that “absolute knowledge of the truth” would belong to God. That is a very different thing.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Thank you.
            And the implication of that is that our understanding that “absolute” truth is subject to error.
            The implication of that is that it would be prudent to be less dogmatic in our assertions.

          • Being able to perceive an absolute truth is much different than professing to know ALL absolute truth. Like I said, that is a very different thing.

            The point is that absolute truth exists. And we are able to perceive it.

            We don’t know ALL absolute truth, but we know that certain absolute truths absolutely exist. 🙂

            And we should be very dogmatic in persuing and clinging to it.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            If by “perceive” you mean “an imperfect awareness” then yes.
            Be careful that it is not your “perception” of the absolute truth that you are dogmatically perusing and clinging to.

          • When you perceive an absolute truth, this is not an “imperfect” awareness. None of us are perfect, but that doesn’t stop us from knowing certain absolute truths.

            And yes, we should always cling to the truth. Absolutely.

            Saying that we really can’t perceive truth is a cop out.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            I’m sorry, I can’t agree. If you had perfect awareness you would be in possession of the absolute truth. Every perception is mediated. Two people can experience the same exact event and have two very different perceptions of that event. Don’t be so arrogant to assume that your perception of a metaphysical reality is more correct than someone else’s.

          • You keep trying to change my words. No one is “in possession of absolute truth.” “In possession” seems to imply “all absolute truth.”

            You don’t have to experience any specific event either.

            We are still capable of perceiving an absolute truth, and absolute truth still exists.

            Don’t be so arrogant as to think that you can keep adding to or changing my words.

            It’s not rocket science, nor is it that complicated. Absolute truth does exist. And we are capable of recognizing an absolute truth. Simple No more or less, no hidden meanings.

            And we should all diligently pursue the truth. Simple. Nothing to do with “perception” when you are speaking of “absolutes.” It’s universal.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            May the Hidden one continue to lead you along the path of truth.

          • I thought you didn’t believe in any kind of absolute truth? lol

            Not sure what “Hidden One” means. That’s your thing, not mine.

          • YOU actually told me that. With every post. 🙂

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            and now you have reading comprehension problems

          • Nope. My only problem is with narrow mindedness.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            how ironic.

          • How true.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            yes truly ironic
            may the hidden one illuminate your heart and mind

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Honey, there is no doubt that you are steeped in knowledge from your own denominational perspective. Given the fact that you gloss over the history of the development of scripture and the first 1500 years of Christianity, lack of awareness that the 66 books of the protestant bible came about by deleting texts from the bible that had been in use for 1200+ years, it’s a fair bet that you knowledge is pretty restricted to that one viewpoint.

            A well rounded education would have you learning from scholars from across the board in terms of denominations. In case you missed it earlier, that’s exactly what I had. Now, you can pull the usual rant and dismiss everything I have to say because it does not fit with what you believe or you can acknowledge that I might actually know something. Not everyone who disagrees with you is uneducated or uninformed. To suggest so is nothing short of an ad hominem and you are obviously more intelligent for that.

          • Oh honey, there is not doubt that YOU are steeped in your OWN knowledge from your own uninformed perspective.

            For instance, I am not the least bit “denominational.” LMAO! I guess you woudn’t understand that, even in your own self professed, profound and deep knowledge. giggles.

            And the sad part is, you’ve obviously never studied a Bible. So sad because there is so much more there than you have even begun to touch on.

            A well rounded education would have you studying HISTORY.

            *History never lies.*

            And the Bible has a way of recording history in absolute BRUTAL honesty. Something that is unique to the Bible and Israel.

            I believe in studying All history. Other ancient civilizations history. And other religions as well. You need to compare the different historical recordings and religions to each other, and see how they fared historically. Does that make sense? The truth is in the outcome.

            I guess we all have our own way of approaching things. I’m not “glossing over.” I do have a completely different perspective.

            Denominations are irrelevant. Completely. This is that tunnel vision I mentioned, you can’t see the forest for the trees if you get stuck here.

            For instance, I think of America’s founding on Christian principles, and the belief that our rights are the “unalienable rights endowed upon mankind by the CREATOR.” Our rights come from God.

            And because God’s law is above man’s law, our Constitution is written to protect our God given rights. The government can’t take them away (unless we are stupid enough to vote them away).

            Now compare this to an atheist, or secular government. If your rights do NOT come from God, then from where? From the government. Your rights are whatever the government decides to give you. OR take away whenever it wants. A perfect example of this kind of government is COMMUNISM. And we all know how that worked out.

            So you have to examine how different religious beliefs affected history, which are viable and beneficial, etc. It’s an AMAZING revelation when you get down into it.

            I could care less about the denominations, because the message has never changed. It’s the WORLDVIEW that counts.

            And Christianity is just that. A WORLDVIEW, not a “denomination” or even a “religion.”

            (Jesus actually warns his followers against religion).

            Does this make sense?

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            My dear, you could not be more wrong.

          • ? Wrong about what? You might be just a little more specific if you want to make sense.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            What’s the point? you know everything there is to be known.

          • Thought so. If you can’t defend your statements, why make them?

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            I have been. You’re only response is “study the bible.” that’s a non response.

          • No, you have not. You haven’t responded at all to my example of how the Bible has affected history, especially that of the United States. Not a whisper. And that was a pretty long post.

            I also told you that the “Bible” was written over a period of 1500 years by 40 different authors.

            Not agreeing with everything you say is not the same as a “non-response.” I was pretty explicit.

            You just refused to defend or even explain your general statement.

            After a rather lengthy post on my perspective, and the history of a government based on Christianity as opposed to a secular government, your only remark was “you are wrong.” ??? mmmm.

            See what I mean? YOU are giving the non-response.

            Or you are only interested in YOUR perspective without recognizing any other.

            Whatever floats yer boat.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Writing an essay doesn’t make you right.
            No, I am interested in recognizing a diversity of perspectives without having some narrow minded bigot insist that theirs is the only correct one.

          • Never said that writing an essay makes someone right. But you accused me of just “non-responses” like “read a Bible” when that was not true. I was very explicit in stating my point of view.

            Nor am I the “narrow minded bigot” that insisted you accept my view. I even asked you if it made sense to you. I didn’t ask you to agree.

            So “who” is the narrow minded one here? Mmmm.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Read your responses to this article and you will understand the accusation of bigotry.
            Yes, you have been very explicit in explicating your view. You have also been very explicit in stating that this is the only correct view. That is narrow mindedness. If calling attention to that and offering alternative views is being narrow minded then I guess I am.

          • I think you need to look in the mirror. Read YOUR responses.
            My post on the effect of the Bible on history, especially the history of America as opposed to Communism, was just my perspective. And AGAIN, all I asked you is if it made sense.

            Your curt response of “you are wrong” with no explanation exposes YOUR extreme intolerance and bigotry. AND your arrogance. Not mine.

            At least if I disagree, I explain myself. I don’t just arrogantly dismiss your comments with “you were wrong” or “you couldn’t be more wrong” as though only YOUR opinion matters.

            You see, it is possible to disagree with the great Desiderius without actually being a “bigot.”

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            yes. bigotry.
            My intolerance is that of being intolerant to someone claiming absolute knowledge of the truth.

          • Oh please. No one ever claimed to have absolute knowledge of the truth. Those are your words.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            May the Hidden one continue to lead you along the path of truth.

          • And who has claimed any absolute knowledge of truth? I never did. Are you? So much for bigotry! 🙂

          • Read YOUR responses. Many of which were just a curt “You are wrong.” No explanation. You just write off any other view as though yours is the only one that counts. Quite arrogant and bigoted.

            I only asked you if my viewpoint made sense to you. That is not bigoted at all in the slightest.
            Go ahead. Read over the posts if you don’t believe me.

            You couldn’t even acknowledge whether or not my viewpoint made sense or not. Again, arrogant and bigoted.

            You seem to have a very big problem with someone who disagrees with you. They are “bigoted” or “arrogant.”

            Welp, got news for ya. You can actually disagree with the great Desiderius without actually being bigoted! Or arrogant even.

            Really. 🙂

            A good long look in the mirror is warranted here.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            “Least bit denominational” what do you call your persistent reference to books of the Old Testament as “apocryphal?”

          • sigh. The OT is not “apocryphal.” Never even insinuated that. And that would not be “denominational” either.

            You named the Apocryphal books yourself. You still don’t get it.

            So no, I am not “denominational” at all. Not in the least.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Then why do you keep referring to the books missing from the protestant bible as “apocrypha?”
            You are so denominational that you can’t even see it.

          • You are confused as to what “denomination” is. I don’t adhere to any specific domination.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            You learned your ideology from somewhere. Whether conscious or not.

          • From the Bible.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            PROTESTANTS call those texts apocrypha. By calling them such, you identify yourself as adhering to beliefs of one of the Protestant sects.

          • You need to expand your reading beyond Hart. Many Biblical scholars and historians refer to those 14 books as the Apocrypha. You don’t have to be Protestant.

            But gee, thanks again for pretending that you know me! lol

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Yes, many PROTESTANT scholars.

          • Many scholars and historians, period. Not limited to Protestant.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            you are incorrect.

          • Not all Biblical scholars and historians even have a denomination. Many archaeologists for example. Secular historians as well. Not just “protestant.” Even secular historians will admit that the Bible is the most accurate, and sometimes the only source of information we have about ancient times. That brutal honesty that is commonly acknowledged, that is unique to the Bible.

          • You fail to differentiate between the old and new testament.

            I clearly stated that the OT was originally written in Hebrew (and some Aramaic, for example, the book of Daniel).

            Period. The OT was not originally written in any other language.

            Now when you get to the NT, yes.

            I don’t know why you keep naming the books of the Apocrypha, and you think you are saying anything different.

            Seems you don’t know what they are.

            There are no missing “inspired” books. Sorry.
            And yes, the extra books in the Catholic Bible are the Apocrypha. Sorry.

            The Apocrypha, like I’ve said, as been agreed upon as accurate and useful for understanding the Bible and for historical purposes. This was way some Bibles (like the Catholic Bible) included it.

            But it’s not considered “inspired.” So the Protestant Bible did not include it. So you are making a simple thing much more complicated than it is.

            Different editions may have contained different books, but the contents of each book is consistent. It’s not as complicated or confused as you are trying to make it sound. lol!

            You have such tunnel vision! wow.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            The Bible is the Bible. When you say “Bible” it means both the Old and New testaments.
            The books in the Catholic bible have been there since the canon was first established. Sorry.
            Read Hart, educate yourself.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            “This is commonly accepted by all Christians.” no it’s not. It is generally accepted by most protestants. The complete canon of the Bible stayed as it was until the reformation.

            “Koine Judeo-Greek” is Koine Greek. Koine meaning that which was spoken by the common person.
            Remember, Paul wasn’t addressing Jews and would have had no need to judaize his texts.

            The Jews did not establish their canon until the centuries before and after Christ. Prior to that there were texts that were thought to be inspired but never made it into the canon. One of those was even quoted extensively in the New Testament (the book of Enoch)

            Prior to 1054 the (Catholic) churches from the middle east to europe accepted, as canonical, the (what is now) 73 books of the Bible. The orthodox have a couple more but I am not sure when those entered into their canon.

          • Sorry, but there were different dialects of Koine. That should be quite obvious and inevitable in a diverse population such as the Roman empire encompassed.
            The dialect of Koine that the Jews spoke was common Koine, but a dialect that retained much of the character of Hebrew. It was the dialect that they used to communicate with each other, and the dialect that the New Testament was written in.

            It was common Koine, but with a Hebrew influence. Not a big deal, but still true.

            Yes, Paul was sent to preach to the Gentiles. But remember, it wasn’t Paul that wrote down the New Testament. So not sure what you mean here.

            I’m not sure what you are trying to prove. Regardless of what books eventually became agreed upon for the New Testament, the books themselves never changed. The scribes were very educated men and amazingly accurate and consistent in keeping accurate copies of all these books. This amazes even modern Biblical scholars.

            The books that make up the Bible in the form we are familar with today has been around for over 1000 years.

            The content of the “books” never varied, whether they ended up being canonized or not. You don’t seem to realize this. Not the legitimate, inspired books anyway. Any “book” that was not inspired, was rejected.

            There was never any disagreement over the books of the OT. It was commonly understood even before it was officially “canonized.” It was the NT that needed to be kept pure and “inspired.” It was starting to get out of hand, so this is why the councils were convened.

            The NT books that ended up as canonized were never re-written, their contents never changed, not ever. This is what made then legit.

            And the Bible has been in it’s present day form, unchanged, for over a thousand years. AND published in every language in the world, and exists in just about every country and area of the world.

            It’s the longest existing, unchanged book in history. It’s the best selling book of all time. And no other book has influenced the destiny of nations (including America) more than the Bible. It’s truely unique.

            You are completely biased. You will never really have a full, rounded knowledge of the Bible as you fail to see the significance of it’s existence and of it’s influence on people and nations. There is so much more than your narrow minded “research” can reveal.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Sorry, Koine is Koine.
            The very fact that the Greek Canon is different from the Hebrew Canon illustrates the fact that there was disagreement over the Old Testament canon.
            If it was “starting to get out of hand” there was not agreement as to what was canonical.
            The Bible has been in it’s present form for 1700 years.

          • In a very large empire comprised of so many different peoples, it would be impossible not to have different dialects. The Hebrew influence is there. Yes, Koine is Koine, and everyone understood Koine. But that Hebrew “flavor” of Koine that was common to the Jews still existed.

            There were no official “canons” when the Hebrew Torah (the OT) was written. That came later. All I am saying is that when it came time to agree on which to include, it was easy as it was already commonly understood which were inspired.

            And yes, the present form is about 1700 years old. On that I agree.

            But I must point out that the individual books themselves are much older. The oldest books of the OT are twice that old, and their content was the same as it was when it was first written.

            So while the present form, or arrangement is about 1700 years old, the content of the oldest books is much older.

            Which is exactly what I meant when I said that the Bible was written over a period of about 1500 years, by some 40 different authors.

            In spite of this, the message and content is impossibly consistent.

            The books were written from Israels nomadic wondering in the desert, to her heyday as the eminent power of the ancient world, to her exile and diaspora, and yet, the exact same message and truth exists throughout.

            Think of just how much our societal morals have changed just over the last 50 years, in the exact same country. The morals preached in the Bible, and it’s overall message never changed or waivered in over 1500 years and 40 different authors. Absolutely amazing. And never ever done before or since. The Bible is truly unique in every analytical, historical sense.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            may the hidden one inform you

          • No need. God has already informed me. 🙂 May God reveal himself to you as well. That way you will become truly informed.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            May the hidden one guide you to all truth–that includes assuming what others do or do not know.

          • “If what you mean is ….” Your words. Don’t “assume.” Listen. God leads me to truth. No “hidden one” involved.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            then you are better than St. Paul.
            May the Hidden One guide and bless you

          • God leads anyone who will listen to truth. You just don’t know how to listen to anyone but yourself. And possible this mysterious “hidden one” that you keep referring to. I think the hidden one is actually your alter ego. giggles.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            at least you realize that you aren’t there. If you were as well versed in Christianity and its expression through time and culture, you would recognize the reference. May that One guide you

          • Perhaps you don’t understand the reference. 🙂 Peace!

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            and perhaps neither do you.

          • And perhaps I do. 🙂

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            and perhaps I do

          • Absolutely you don’t understand the reference. No “perhaps” about it! LOL

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Your previous responses had not demonstrated said understanding. Perhaps you decided to educate yourself. If so, bravo!

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            if that’s what you meant that’s what you should have said

          • It is exactly what I said. Don’t try to change or “assume” anymore and you won’t get confused.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            If it was exactly what you had said you wouldn’t have said (to the effect) “what I meant was…”
            May the hidden on guide you to all truth.

          • I never said “what I meant was.” Look back at the post, because YOU said “If what you mean is this…”

            Like I said. No “Ifs” What I said is simply what I said.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            sure.
            May the Hidden One guide and Bless you

          • God has already blessed me. May He bless you as well.

            Actually, He already has, but you just don’t know it.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            You have no idea what I know.

          • ditto.

            Wow, something else we agree on!

            Just when I thought we could never find common ground …. giggles

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            May the Hidden one deepen your joy.

          • Only God deepens my joy. In ways that you could never imagine.

            Ah the peace that transcends all understanding! May you find that someday. Really.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            and if you were as well versed in Christianity as you say you are–particularly as expressed in the Middle East, You would know that I’ve been saying the same thing. Perhaps you’ll realize that someday.

          • Actually, since you are NOT well versed in Christianity, you wouldn’t know that you are contradicting the Bible and are not saying the same thing. Perhaps you’ll actually read a Bible someday and realize that.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            you’re funny

          • May God deepen your joy and understanding.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            “There’s a whole lot more continuity than you realize.” After having studied this for over fifty years, with some of the best scripture scholars that harvard and the area seminaries had to offer, you can’t even begin to imagine what I realize.

          • After reading and studying the Bible, Biblical and ancient history, and other texts like Laws of the Ancient Hebrews, etc. etc., MYSELF, for over 50 years, YOU can’t even begin to imagine what I know.

            Sorry. I do my own reading and research. I don’t rely on others to give me my opinions.

            I can read other opinions and play devils advocate with the best. But I still do my very own reading and studying of the Bible.

            I would buy one and actually read it if I were you. You have no idea of the absolute wealth of love and truth and prophecy and LIFE in that book. And it’s only by studying ALL religions and making comparisons, and then really delving into the Bible, that all this starts to become clear.

            You are too hung up on extraneous facts and the not very relevant and differing opinions of others.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Honey, I have multiple translations on my shelves including ones in the original languages. I’ve studied them all, including the best and brightest of the scripture scholars. It is possible for someone to disagree with you and still be informed.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            as far as the Constitution it is based on principles that are also found in the Bible. That doesn’t mean that the Bile is the cornerstone of our country, nor that the antiestablishment clause should be violated so as to enshrine it as so.

          • The founders of this country based America on the Biblical principle that God’s law is above man’s law, and that our rights are the unalienable rights that God gave mankind. The entire foundation of our country and it’s laws are founded firmly upon Biblical/Christian principles.

            The establishment clause is also Biblical. It only has 2 prohibitions against the government.

            1) the government cannot establish a federal religion (as England did)
            2) the government cannot prohibit the free expression of religion in society

            simple.

            So the first part of the first amendment, which deals with freedom of religion, is based on Biblical principle.

            As Jesus said: No man can come unto me but of his own FREE WILL.

            In other words, Christianity cannot be forced on anyone. It has to be a personal decision made from the heart, out of love, or it means nothing. So the establishment clause is based on this teaching of Jesus. AND it prevents a theocracy from ever occurring because it’s prohibitions are on the GOVERNMENT, not on individuals.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            The founders of this country based America on principles that are common to the Bible and lots of other texts.
            The separation clause is more complex than your 1 & 2.
            I’m not sure what Bible you read but I can’t find: No man can come unto me but of his own FREE WILL.

            It wasn’t individuals that this article was referring to. It was an agency of the government.

          • There is no “separation clause” anywhere in the Constitution. That is a common misconception.

            And yes, the first part the the first amendment is just that simple. That is all there is on religious freedom.

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            See? It really is as simple as “my” 1 & 2.

            And religious freedom was deliberately mentioned first. It was also known as freedom of conscience. If you could control a man’s conscience, or how he thinks, then you could control the man. All the other freedoms depend upon freedom of religion. Once that is gone, all the other freedoms will eventually follow.

            And Moses and the 10 commandments were NOT common to other religious texts.

            I did paraphrase a bit with what Jesus said. Because it’s stated in numerous books of the Bible in slightly different ways.

            For instance: Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.–ROM. 10:13. Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.-
            John 6:44 – No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

            We choose to listen to God, or to the Holy Spirit. We come to Jesus as the savior of our own free will.
            There is no jihad, nor dhimi’s, or takiyah, nor any oppression or coercion in the Bible. Love and truth are what Christian’s have to CHOSE.

            I hope that clears it up a bit.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Not your 1 & 2.
            They argue against that which you are arguing for.
            The so called “christian values” reflected by the founding fathers are not unique to christianity.

          • No other government in the history of the world was ever based on Biblical/Christian values, including that of SELF GOVERNMENT, as our government was.

            Did you know that America was considered the “greatest experiment in self government in history” ?

            AND that America was (and actually still is) considered the most Christian nation on earth?

            Have you ever read DeTocqueville’s “Democracy in America?”

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            And neither was or is our government.

          • ???? You can’t run away like that. How bout a whole sentence that actually means something?

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            try the view in discussion option

          • I was. Your sentence does not reflect a compete thought.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Your difficulty to comprehend is not my problem.

          • Your difficulty to write a complete, coherent sentence that clearly communicates a complete thought is not my problem. No one is a mind reader, so you’ll just have to do better next time.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            if you insist m’lord

          • You keep saying this, but you never explain or give examples. What values do you think are not unique to the Bible?

            Just for starters, only the Bible contains the 10 commandments. This is truly unique.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Your 1 & 2 are examples.
            The principles elucidated in the 10 commandments are far from unique.

          • Israel was the only monotheistic nation among her peers. So yes, the commandments concerning loving the one true God and not having any other gods or idols would be completely unique to Israel.

            You history sucks.

            And you divert and lie again. I never said that ALL the “principles” were unique to the Bible.

            But the 10 Commandments themselves ARE unique to the Bible.

            Sorry kid, but your ignorance and lack of historical knowledge are showing here. Haven’t you had enough? giggles

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            The underlying principles of the 10 commandments are not unique to the Bible. It is those underlying principles that are reflected in the structure of our government.

            Why do you find it necessary to insult? That’s the least effective form of argument and will usually reflect the strength of one’s reasoning.

            Goodbye.

          • Because you do lie. The 10 commandments themselves are ONLY in the Christian/Judaic Bible. Fact.

            And Israel WAS the only monotheistic nation of her time. FACT.

            The first commandments of Loving God, and having no other gods nor idols is unique to the Bible.

            So while some commandments may REFLECT common beliefs, which would make sense because they contain universal truths, the very first ones are unique to a monotheistic nation.

            My statements stand in spite of your dishonest diversions. That is no way to have a conversation, and insulting in itself.

            Facts are very stubborn things, my friend.

            Good bye.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            I understand that’s what you believe.
            goodbye.

          • It’s a fact. Research it. You really are thick as a brick. If you broke free from your politically correct indoctrination, you just might discover the truth.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            I understand that’s what you believe.
            Goodbye

          • You understand nothing.

            I understand facts and truthful history.

            Sorry, my statements all stand as factual and true.

            YOUR opinions are just what YOU believe.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            There is G-D ordered destruction of other peoples in the Bible.

          • And? So? History is history.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Because you have kept insisting that the G-D of the Bible, in contrast to the same G-D of Islam, did no such thing.

          • Now where did I do that?

            There is no comparison at all between Christianity and Islam.

            The Bible does not promote jihad, or dhimis or takiyah.
            Nor does Islam have any concept of God as a loving Father, this would be an alien concept to a muslim.
            Nor does Islam believe that Jesus was the Son of God who came to save the world.
            And most importantly, Islam has no New Testament, or concept of grace. No salvation.
            No new dawn or age with the coming of Grace.

            You see, the qu’ran does not delineate between past history and the present. It has no advent of grace and no new dawn for mankind.

            The Bible does. Everything changes with the crucifixion and grace. No longer are Christians to judge anyone. That is God’s domain, and his alone. God is sovereign. No where in the words in red will you find any mandate to murder anyone for any reason.

            Thou shalt not kill. Period..

            The differences are IMMENSE and PROFOUND.

            And this is why it is SO important to actually read the Bible and qu’ran yourself, and to study them yourself.

            Just like there is no comparison between Jesus and Mohammad.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Free exercise is not the same thing as right to conscience. It refers to the EXERCISE of religion–not the right to do anything you want to because you claim religious belief.

          • You are confused as to what the forefathers meant by “right of conscience.” It did not mean the right to do anything you want. And if you understood their faith, you would know that.

            They were well aware of their responsibilities not just to God, but to their fellow man.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            There is no “right of conscience” in the constitution.

          • I never said that there was a specific “right of conscience” in the Constitution.
            The first amendment is quite simple, as I’ve already posted. So don’t put words in my mouth.

            It was considered a principle of Freedom of Religion. Again, just read “Memorial and Remonstrance” by Madison, where he explains freedom of religion as akin to freedom on conscience. Freedom of thought.

            The freedom to choose one’s religion, or to choose no religion at all. To change your mind, or to worship as your conscience dictates.

            Simple.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            May the hidden one continue to enlighten you.

          • I don’t know any “hidden one.” God continues to enlighten me, and He is the only one qualified to do so.

            Perhaps you can explain who this “hidden one” is?

          • In the words of our founding fathers, freedom of religion was also freedom of conscience.
            James Madison objected to the government “establishing” religion and for interfering with *freedom of conscience.* Just read “Memorial and Remonstrance.”by James Madison. His exact words. And Jefferson agreed with those exact words.

            And these two men were the main drafters of the Declaration and the Constitution. Madison is known as the father of the constitution.

            You ought to know by now that I do know my American history.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            I’m sorry but that’s not what’s written in the Constitution
            May the Hidden One continue to guide you

          • That is what is written in Memorial and Remonstrance. Madison himself used those words.

            He simply explained freedom of religion as freedom of thought.

            My statements stand, in spite of your lack of comprehension.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            It’s the constitution that binds us.

          • And that is what is written in Memorial and Remonstrance. It aids in your understanding of the Constitution. So your point is?

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            It doesn’t really matter what’s written in M&R.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Before you start saying that many of the principles elucidated in the Bible are not common to other religions, you may want a second look.
            Principles, not verses.

          • Belief in one “Supreme” God is exclusive to the Bible. The Israelites were the ONLY monotheistic people in the world.

            Many of the names and phases used were strictly from the Bible.

            You might want to take a first look.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Belief in one supreme G-D is not exclusive to the Bible. Islam is also monotheistic.

          • Islam came much, much later than the Torah, OT or the New Testament. At the time the Bible was written, they were the one and only monotheistic people in the world.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            That’s irrelevant
            May the Hidden one open you up to the Mysteries

          • The truth is never irrelevant.

            God will enlighten you more than any “hidden one” ever could. And reveal that which is mysterious and confuses you today.

            Seek and ye shall find!

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            How ironic.

          • How so? Explain please. 🙂

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            I’m asking G-D to bless you and you say that G-D will enlighten you more than G-D ever could.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            These have absolutely no bearing on the government:

            Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
            saved.–ROM. 10:13. Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.-
            John 6:44 – No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

          • If you know the Bible, this is Jesus saying that all men have free will, and can choose to “call upon the name of the Lord” at any time. . If they do, they will never be turned away.

            You can call upon the name of the Lord of your own free will, but you can never ever be forced to do so. No jihad. No dhimis. No oppression or coercion of any kind.

            The point being, is that no one can be forced to “choose” Christianity or Jesus. No one. It has to be a choice made of your own free will. Which is exactly what the first amendment is based on.

            So if you knew the beliefs of our Christian forefathers, and the Biblical principles they deliberately used as the basis for their new country, this would make perfect sense to you.

            Like I said, unless you understand the Bible and Biblical history, you will never truly understand American history and how these principles propelled America into the most successful, powerful and FREE nation on earth.

            You are actually proving my point beautifully.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            And our government is not a theocracy.
            The fact that our founding fathers were christian does not mean that there was a conscious effort to incorporate that christianity.

          • A theocracy would be against Biblical principles. I already stated that the first amendment prevented a theocracy, or any kind of coercion.

            And of course there was a conscious effort to deliberately claim mankind’s rights as endowed upon us by GOD. Did you think that they wrote “GOD” by mistake? Or perhaps referred to God as the Supreme ruler of the world by mistake? A slip of the pen?? giggles.

            You’re silly. I seriously doubt that anything in the Declaration of Independence was “un” conscious. Quite obviously just the very opposite!

            I hope you read DeTocqueville. He explains the total Christian integration of the Bible and our government much more elequently than I.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            “G-D” doesn’t presume Christianity.
            May the Hidden one continue to lead you upon the path of knowledge

          • Actually, is usually does. If someone asks you if you believe in God, and you say yes, the most obvious assumption is that you are a Christian.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            note the word “assumption.”

          • Yes, “assumption” is a word in the dictionary. Are you confused as to the meaning? Note also “usual” assumption ……

          • In America, that is EXACTLY what a belief in God presumes. And is.

            May God lead you on the path to truth and knowledge. 🙂

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            You must live in a different America than me.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            There is also no “religious freedom” in the constitution. That is a common misconception. The government can not impose restrictions on the EXERCISE of religion. If you look at SCOTUS records from the late 1800s you will see that the Government can and has limited PRACTICES that individuals claimed as part of their religion. So, for example, as long as discriminating against people is not part of your practice of religion, it is not protected.

          • ??? The first part of the first amendment GUARANTEES religious freedom. So what you are saying is ridiculous.

            The government cannot establish a federal religion and force it on anyone.
            The government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion in society.

            This prohibits a theocracy from ever forming, which would inhibit the free expression and choice of religion. And prohibits the government from interfering in any way.

            So yea, there is absolutely “religious freedom” guaranteed in the Constitution. It’s your very first CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

            I’m not sure I get your last statement:
            So, for example, as long as discriminating against people is not part of your practice of religion, it is not protected.

            ??

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            read it again.

          • It is contradictory. You are actually saying that as long as you don’t discriminate, you are not protected. Makes no sense.

            I think you typed an extra “not.”

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Possibly. In any event, your “right to conscience” doesn’t permit you to act in a way contrary to the laws of the land.
            May the Hidden one bless you.

          • Actually, you are correct. Jesus famously held up a Roman coin and said “Give unto Caesar what is due unto Caesar, and give unto God what is due unto God.”

            Jesus never promoted civil disobedience. 🙂 Not ever. And this is also a very strong tenet of our Constitution, which is a government of law, not of man. And based on Supreme law, God’s law.

            There might be hope for you yet.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            that assumes that the only source of authority is what’s in the Bible.

          • That would be the Christian worldview that is common to all denominations, yes.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Trust me, MOST christians do not espouse that world view. It is one that came into being in the 16th century.

          • “Give unto Caesar what is due unto Caesar, and give unto God what is due unto God.”

            Exactly.

            Freedom of Conscience only refers to Freedom of Religion. Nothing more. Which is the law of the land, not “contrary” to it.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            and “freedom of religion” is what? Not a constitutionally protected right

          • TheKingOfRhye

            There is no “separation clause” anywhere in the Constitution. That is a common misconception.

            A “misconception” held by the Founding Fathers themselves, apparently….

            James Madison: “Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov’t in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history”

            Thomas Jefferson: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

          • No, a misconception held by people like you.

            What you post is Madison’s reasoning for INCLUDING prohibitions against government meddling in private religious affairs.

            There is NO mention of “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. Those words do not exist in it.

            Madison is explaining the prohibition against government interference in religion, and if you notice, the ONLY 2 prohibitions are AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.

            And Jefferson’s quote is from letters between himself and a Baptist minister, who wanted assurance that the new government would not be able to interfere with his church. NOT in the Constitution.

            Both are explaining that the first amendment prohibits government coercion or interference in freedom of religion by the government.

            You do understand this, right? So not sure what your point is. There is no misconception by the founders at all.

            They intended the first amendment to prevent the government from establishing a federal religion and forcing it on everyone, like England did (hence the “**government*** shall make no law respecting an establishment of (a federal) religion). And the government CANNOT interfere or prohibit the free expression of religion in society (or prohibit the free exercise thereof).

            So where is the “misconception?”

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Both are explaining that the first amendment prohibits government
            coercion or interference in freedom of religion by the government.

            Notice, though, Madison specifically mentioned “encroachment by (not encroachment of) Ecclesiastical Bodies.” Sounds to me like he’s talking about religion interfering with government.

            You do understand this, right? So not sure what your point is. There is no misconception by the founders at all.

            Perhaps you misunderstood what I was getting at there. I wasn’t saying that they had a “misconception,” I am saying that what you think of as the misconception that the Establishment Clause gives us separation of church of state is not a misconception at all; it’s the view held by the Founders. That’s the point of Jefferson’s quote; he’s saying exactly that. He’s literally saying it “builds the wall.”

            And, of course, that’s also the view long held by the Supreme Court, who are the people whose job it is to interpret our laws, after all.

            I think, and I think Madison and Jefferson and others knew, that separation of church and state works both ways.

          • All “separation of church and state” means is that the government is prohibited from interfering in freedom of religion.

            That is a Biblical principle. Just because the Declaration and Constitution are based on Biblical principles doesn’t make America a “theocracy.” The first amendment prevents a theocracy, if that is what you are implying.

            The foundation of our government is still entirely based on Biblical principles. Simple. No hidden meanings.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            A wall separates things on both sides from the other. Jefferson said a “wall of separation,” not a “turnstile of separation”, where things can go through one way but not the other. I’ll even go back to Madison’s quote again….”encroachment by ecclesiastical bodies” is exactly what is going on here, in this story.

          • Um. A turnstile does not represent any “separation” but the opposite. A way of traveling between the two. Both ways.

            The idea is that the government should have nothing to do with Religion, not establishing one nor prohibiting one.

            The government has to remain strictly neutral, neither “hostile” nor “favoring” any religion.

            So not sure what the heck you are trying to say. ????

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I thought it was clear…..what I’m saying is keep government out of religion and keep religion out of government. If it’s a “wall of separation”, nothing goes through either way. No such thing as a “one-way wall”, at least not that I’ve ever seen. You said yourself, government has to be neutral….well, keeping religion out of government only helps with that.

          • I’m not sure what you mean by “keep religion out of government.” Our rights are protected by God. No doubt. The 10 commandments are in our Capital.

            This does not mean we are a theocracy or that we are forcing anyone to follow Christianity. It just means that our government is based on Christian principles. And there is nothing wrong with that.

            There is nothing wrong with the 250 year old practice of starting every house and senate session with a Christian prayer. Or having Christian symbols, like the frieze of Moses on the wall of the house of representatives, around Washington DC. They are all a part of our history and heritage.

            As long as the government doesn’t establish a federal religion or interfere in the practice of religion, we’re all good, and have been good for 250 years.

            If you are suggesting that we wipe all trace of Christianity from our government, then no. I do not agree with erasing our history or heritage.

          • The “danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies” was simply another reference to the government favoring an establishment of religion. This did happen in England, when the entire country became Catholic (didn’t go over or end very well- the Catholic church basically took over and was often at odds with the king). And at the time of the revolution, I believe the English church, and therefore all of England, was Anglican. No one had any other choice.

            If you read all of Madison’s comments, he wanted religion to flourish unfettered. He even felt this was absolutely essential to the continued existence of America. And this can only happen in the absence of government interference, which he explains well in Memorial and Remonstrance.

            Both Madison and Jefferson wanted religion to flourish, and for very good reason …

            We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion….

            Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
            John Adams

            Because the government was OF, FOR and BY the people, it was important for the people to be moral and righteous. They all knew this.
            And of course, this was why we were known as the “greatest experiment in self government in all of history”
            AND as the “most Christian nation on earth.”

            The founders also felt that the people should “prefer Christians” in seats of government, but also felt that there could be no religious test or requirement. Quite the experiment.

            So the founders had no problem basing their government on Christian/Biblical principles. And it’s a Christian principle that no one can be forced to accept Christianity. Jesus said so himself. It had to be a freely made choice, from the heart, or it meant nothing. It’s a totally personal decision. And the first amendment protects that personal decision. No contradiction there.

            As Ben Franklin said, “unless the Lord build the house, we labor in vain that build it”
            And “if a sparrow cannot fall without His notice, can a nation rise without his aid?”

            Ben Franklin started the practice of starting every House and Senate session with a Christian prayer, and actually paid local clergy to officiate with government funds. A practice that is still ongoing today, almost 250 years later.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            it was important for the people to be moral and righteous. They all knew this.

            Religion (and whatever you want to call Christianity, since I always hear that thing about how it’s “not a religion”) is not required to be moral. Jefferson knew that as well.

            “If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            Your summary is not quite accurate. The council at Carthage established not only the new testament canon but the old as well. Canon 36 reads:

            [It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon (Chronicles) two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John.

            Thus [it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated. (From Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, translated and published in English as The Sources of Catholic Dogma)

            Two key points should be noted. First, while the names and divisions of some Old Testament books differ from contemporary usage (for example, the four books of Kings are, in modern Bibles, divided into 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings), the canon is that of the Catholic Bible, not of the Protestant. Second, this canon was to be confirmed by the “Church
            beyond the sea”–which means Rome.

          • omg. Genesis is Genesis. Deuteronomy is Deuteronomy. Exodus is Exodus. No matter what Bible you open, all these books will be exactly the same. Their content has never changed throughout history, nor has the message.

            Even if Maccabees isn’t part of it. And most Christians have read Maccabees and studied the rebellion as a matter of history anyway.

            All Catholic Bibles are the same. All Protestant Bibles are the same.

            Whether your Bible contains the Apocrypha or not makes no difference. The common 66 books are exactly the same whether you have a Catholic Bible or a Protestant Bible.

            And both Catholics and Protestants agree that the Apocrypha is factual history and a valuable learning tool, even if they don’t consider it “inspired.”

            The fact that our rights come from God, and that the Biblical foundation made us the most successful, powerful and free nation on earth (Just as the Bible predicts in Numbers and Deuteronomy, etc) ABSOLUTELY DOES mandate that the Bible be given preference. And reverence as an essential part of our History, and for guiding our history and even foreign and domestic policy. In very profound ways.

            And the Bible has to be given preference if you really want to understand American founding principles and history.

            Everyone has the right to know the full truth about where they came from, even if you don’t agree with it.

            Once you have the full and unvarnished truth, you can make up your own mind.

            The Bible doesn’t mandate any preference in a communist or totally secular country’s history, but it certainly does in ours!

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            May the hidden one illuminate your heart and mind

          • sigh. The present day Bible is comprised of 66 books. They are all the same.

            And yes, I know that Jeremiah, for example, was split. But the content remained the same. Exactly the same.

            Even if the form changed, the content and the message never did.

            You are still lost in the forest for the trees.

            And yes, the Catholic version is different than the “Protestant” version.

            But the Christian worldview, and foundation, are exactly the same.

            The actual books in common are exactly the same.

            And it is no accident at all that the founding fathers based their new country and founding documents on Biblical principles and a belief in the Supreme Ruler of the world. And that our rights came from God. They were ABSOLUTELY aware of EXACTLY what they were doing. And why.

            Alexis DeTocqueville actually provides what is considered the most accurate and profound evaluation of America ever written. I’ll find it for you.

            American history cannot truly be understood without an understanding of where the underlying principles came from, and what they are.

            I never really understood American history until I read the Bible.

            Things just started jumping out. Such as Lincoln’s reference to “a nation divided against itself cannot stand.” I didn’t realize that he was quoting the Bible for quite some time.
            He was referring to Israel’s civil war, and the splitting up of Israel into the northern (Israel) and southern (Judah) kingdoms. And of course, the Assyrians carried away Israel, and 100 years later, the Babylonians carried away Judah. This was one time when Lincoln actually learned from history instead of just repeating it.

            That is just one example. I read Kings and Chronicles in chronological order (not an easy task) and I could have been reading American history. So many Biblical principles that are incorporated into our laws also jumped out. Such as “the punishment shall fit the crime.” Biblically “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Our first amendment. And so many other things. Being told “be honest in weights and measures, and business will come to you.’ Our strong legal structure has made it possible for us to flourish in business.

            American history has not really been taught at all. I didn’t realize just how much was lacking until I read the Bible. Then, and ONLY then did I understand the quotes and writings of our founding fathers. ALL the references are so Biblical! Even if it wasn’t evident at the time.

            Again, the content of each individual book has never changed. Just which ones were considered “inspired.” There isn’t as much “confusion” as you seem to think there was. Nor has the message ever changed. Don’t get lost in the forest.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            The present day Bible consists of 73 books in the “Catholic” bible and 66 books in the “Protestant” Bible.

            Given that reading the Scriptures in their original languages is a fruitless task (for many reasons, not the least being the ambiguity of translations), it is a simple fact that some translations of the Bible favor one theological ideology over another. “Content” is governed by translation. For the most egregious example, look at the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

            Just because elements of our legal system reflect the same principles as expressed in the Bible, does not make the Bible the basis of our legal system. The same principles are reflected elsewhere.
            You can look at civil history through the eyes of the Bible and I have no doubt that that is edifying.

          • Actually, the Bible has been successfully translated into just about every language on earth. Far from a “fruitless task,” history has proven you wrong already. And the 66 books that are common to both the Protestant and Catholic Bible are exactly the same and haven’t changed since they were written. Something which you continually ignore.

            There is no “favored” ideology when it comes to the Christian worldview, the foundation upon which all “denominations” agree on. There is only one. And there is only one message and content no matter what the translation. Just because you are unaware of it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

            The founders of this country were Christians who were Biblical scholars by today’s standards. Very much so. So yes, the elements came from their knowledge of the Bible. Simple. Some of these principles may be common to other cultures, and many are not. The 10 commandments are unique to the Bible, and exist in our Supreme Court and all major courthouses in the country for reason. The frieze of Moses (the BIBLICAL LAWGIVER) is on the wall of the House of Representatives for a reason. And each and every single session of the House and Senate has been started with a Christian prayer for the last 250 years or so for a reason. Even officiated by local clergy who are paid by our govt. to do so. And I could go on and on with the uniquely Biblical and Christian symbols and habits of our government. Even above most of the older courthouse doors, you will see “Vox Populei, Vox Dei.” The voice of the people is the voice of God. Self governing, Biblical principle.

            The Bible is an integral part of American “civic” history and can’t be fully understood without a sound knowledge of it.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            At this point, I do not believe that further dialogue would be advisable. You are not going to convince me of what you perceive as the errors of my ways and I am not going to convince you that your knowledge of the Truth ™ is anything more than imperfect.

            May the Hidden One continue to bless you and draw you closer to all that will be revealed.

          • What error of your ways? Whatever. May God lead you to the truth someday. Read a Bible. It’s worth your while.

          • Desiderius Erasmus (mark)

            May the Hidden one continue to lead you along the path of truth.
            Notice the difference?

          • Perhaps if you actually read a Bible, you would notice the difference. Any hope of that? Not for me or may sake, but for yours.

            There really are absolute truths. May you grow in your walk until you can actually perceive them. I still have hope for you.

            But you need to actually read and study a Bible and stop getting lost in the forest.

            What would it hurt to actually study a Bible, perhaps get involved in a Bible study? Afraid you might learn something? giggles. Perhaps!

          • Why? If the BIble is the ONLY book that was used as the foundation of America’s society and laws, and the ONLY book which contains the 10 commandments that are in the Supreme Court in DC and all major courthouses, and the Frieze of Moses (the BIBLICAL lawgiver) that is in the House of Representatives, etc. etc…..

            Then why can’t you teach the Bible as a part of American History (which it is)?

            Why would you have to include all other religions if they were not a part of the founding of this country?

            Truth is truth, facts are facts. There is nothing wrong with teaching the truth. You don’t have to include all other religions to cloud the truth. Everyone is free to learn whatever religion they want at home in America.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            For one thing, we’re not talking about “teaching the Bible as a part of American history.” This story was around the Gideons distributing Bibles in schools. I mean, I’m perfectly fine with schools teaching the roles religions played in American history, however big or small or non-existent those roles were. That’s not what the Gideons do; that’s the job of the schools themselves. If you want to say the schools should be teaching more about that, that’s a completely different topic. I’m just saying we can’t forbid other religions from access to schools if we have the Gideons do that.

          • Yes, I agree. I know what the original story was about.

            My point was that the Bible and Christianity is the only worldview (or “religion”) that is pertinent to the founding of this country, and the only one that you need to truly understand if you are to fully understand the principles of America’s founding.

            So it is the most important and the only necessary one to have to learn.

            It’s not about the roles “religionS” played in America’s founding.

            It’s about the role that CHRISTIANITY and the BIBLE played in America’s founding.

            My point is that you can teach Biblical principles as a necessary part of understanding American history WITHOUT including other religions. Because other religions did not affect our founding. It’s just a matter of history.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If you know what the original story is about, why are you continuing to go off on this tangent that has nothing to do with it? No one was talking about teaching American history.

          • But teaching the Bible WAS mentioned. And I pointed out the reason that the Bible should be taught as a part of American history.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Teaching the Bible was mentioned? You mean in the original article? It wasn’t relevant there either.

          • It was mentioned in subsequent posts. It’s not really up to you to decide what is relevant or not. It’s bound to come up in such a discussion as this.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Sure, conversations can go off on tangents, here or anywhere else. I just don’t understand why you were talking to me about that when I wasn’t talking about anyone teaching anything. I was talking about what the article actually was about.

          • Sorry, but I AM talking about teaching the Bible as a part of American History. Instead of distributing the Bibles around the school, I would incorporate Biblical teaching into American history because it’s the only way to truly understand our history.

            Nor is American history about the “role(s) of religion(s) in American history.”
            True American History is about THE special role of *Biblical Christianity* in American history. No other “religion” was the foundation of our country.
            And the EXCLUSIVE role that Biblical Christianity played in American history, as the foundation of our society and laws, is undeniable.

            Then the issue of leaving Gideon Bibles around the school is mute.

            YOUR problem is that if we DO acknowledge the special and exclusive role that Biblical Christianity played in our heritage and history, and taught it as a very necessary and truthful part of American history, then there would be no reason to include any other religion. Because our country was not founded upon any other religion.

            You resent the truth about our Biblical and Christian heritage as a nation, and don’t want to give the Bible the credit it is due.

            I am proposing a solution. If you are just teaching American history, then you don’t need to incorporate anything but the Biblical Christian worldview because it is the ONLY one that our country is founded upon. Simple. You don’t have to worry about including “all other religions” because they are simply not a part of our founding.

            Solved.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Sorry, but I AM talking about teaching the Bible as a part of American History.

            Okay, so you just want to change the subject to something only sort of related. I guess at least you’re admitting that. What I don’t understand is why you started this whole line of conversation with ME when I was not talking about that. It’s like you’re arguing with me about something I never said.

            I mean, of course Christianity played a huge role in American history…heck, the first settlers were Christians trying to get away from other Christians, basically. I haven’t denied that.

            And the EXCLUSIVE role that Biblical Christianity played in American
            history, as the foundation of our society and laws, is undeniable.

            Now that I can, and have denied, especially the part about laws. Remember what I said about the Ten Commandments? Also, I believe you mentioned the reference to God in the Declaration….but then how come the Constitution only makes two mentions of even the word “religion”, and never any god?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Why? If the BIble is the ONLY book that was used as the foundation of
            America’s society and laws, and the ONLY book which contains the 10
            commandments

            If the Bible is the foundation of American law, why is that only two, or maybe 3 depending on how you look at it, of the 10 Commandments are things that have parallels in our laws? And the ones that do, are things that are against the law basically everywhere, so you can’t really say people ONLY get those from the Bible.

          • Not sure which laws you are referring to. Remember that the 10 commandments have been there for about 250 years.

            The laws concerning murder and bearing false witness will always apply.

            There used to be laws concerning adultery. They are no longer “on the books” but it’s still considered wrong.

            They are also symbolic of the principles that this country and it’s laws are based upon.

          • james blue

            Your first sentence makes no sense, could you please explain what you mean?

            2nd sentence I think you mean don’t kill and don’t steal. Bearing false witness (lying) is only a crime under oath or to commit fraud.

            Adultery laws were found to be unconstitutional, so though they may have been “on the books” they shouldn’t have been.

          • first sentence? Just saying that the depiction of the 10 commandments have been in our capital for over 200 years. Meaning that our society was much more conservative and specifically Christian back then. It makes more sense when you remember what the times and people were like.

            Actually the commandment is don’t bear false witness against your neighbor. But yes, broadly it means do not lie. Which is against the law in many ways, such as contract law, under oath, in advertising and business, etc. It all applies.

            If you are not supposed to lie, you are not supposed to ever lie, no matter what the situation. Whether its an actual “crime” or not.

            Adultery laws fell by the wayside because it was extremely difficult to prove (especially back then) and too complicated to litigate. They were never deemed “unconsitutional.” Just not practical.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            OK, look at the things we’re talking about here, though. The things that are prohibited in the 10 commandment and prohibited by US law: Murder, theft, perjury, and (at one time) adultery. Those are things that are either outlawed or at least frowned upon in the case of adultery, pretty much everywhere, so that’s not some sort of uniquely Biblical influence.

          • It’s part of the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments are still only a part of the Christian/Judeo Bible.

            And our founders used the Bible.

          • james blue

            The ten commandments are not actually in the SCOTUS. building and the frieze depicts many religious “lawgivers”

          • I take it you’ve never visited Washington DC.

          • james blue

            I have, have you? There are depictions of many “lawgivers” including Moses, but his tablets are blank

          • I grew up not far from Washington DC, and my first trip there was in 1969, when you could walk into any session without any security concerns like today.

            The tablets are not blank. If I remember correctly, you could only see the first 5 commandments because of the way the carving was made. Not the same thing.

            The 10 commandments are the 10 commandments, whether you can see them all or not.

          • james blue

            AH you must be thinking of the sides where Moses has fragments of words of the last five commandments on a tablet, but then on the opposite side there is a depiction of Muhammad and fragments of words from the koran on the tablet he holds, so if your claim is fragments of the last 5 on one tablet show we were founded on Judaeo Christian principles the fact that right next to him the words from the koran must show we were also founded on Islamic principles.

            The SCOTUS building does not have the 10 commandments it has depictions of various “lawgivers.

          • No, I’m talking about the figure of Moses above the door that is front and center, with all the other religions (such as the pedophile mohammad) looking UP to him. Moses undeniably has the position of honor above the others. And the tablet Moses is holding has only the 10 commandments on it. Even if you can’t see them all, it obviously represents the 10 commandments.

            What the hell are you doing, googling this stuff? I guess you had to be there.

            So yea, SCOTUS has various lawgivers, but if you actually go and SEE it in person as I did, you’d see who has the prominent place of honor. MOSES. And he’s only holding the 10 commandments. All the other figures are off to either side and are looking up to MOSES. MOSES REIGNS SUPREME.

            And of course, it’s a frieze of MOSES that is on the wall of the House of Representatives, across from the speaker of the house. And ONLY Moses.

            Sorry, but if you visit Washington DC, you will see TONS of Christian, Biblical references ALL OVER THE PLACE.

            Washington DC’s capitol area is even laid out in a cross.

            Plus, just read the Declaration of Independence. Or visit the memorials. It will be worth your trip.

          • Either you’ve never been there, or you are not being honest. You can see Moses at the very top, front and center of the door, in a place of honor, ABOVE ALL THE OTHERS.

            The others are off to the side, and are ALL LOOKING AT MOSES. Looking up to him.

            You’d know this if you ever visited Washington DC. I think you just googled it.

          • Not true.

            Either you’ve never been there, or you are not being honest. You can
            see Moses at the very top, front and center of the door, in a place of
            honor, ABOVE ALL THE OTHERS.

            The others are off to the side, and are ALL LOOKING AT MOSES. Looking up to him.

            You’d know this if you ever visited Washington DC. I think you just googled it.

            And the Declaration of Independence states that our rights come from GOD. The Biblical/Christian/Judeo God. Not muhammad or any other religious figure.

            You should really visit Washington DC and walk around.

          • james blue

            A depiction of Moses is there, but the tablets are blank.

            The DOI says “Nature’s God” it says “their creator” without stating who that creator is. It certainly doesn’t say the “biblical God”

          • Yes, it says “the Creator” and also “God and Nature’s God.” Common Christian references to “God.” “Providence” (God’s will) is another common reference of the time.

            These are all the Biblical God. William Blackstone’s Commentaries (on English common law) also had a huge influence on our founders.

            William Blackstone was a Christian who used the same terms.

            And the 10 commandments and Moses are ONLY in the Christian Bible.

            Ben Franklin only quoted the Christian BIBLE and the Christian God when he proposed starting all house and senate sessions with a Christian prayer, led by local clergy. And yes, the US government paid this clergy for their service.
            AND it’s still done today, almost 250 years later.

            There is no doubt in our history that the founding principles are entirely Biblical and Christian. We were known as the most Christian nation on earth for good reason.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            And the 10 commandments and Moses are ONLY in the Christian Bible.

            Try telling that to some Jewish people, and see what they think about that. Also, Moses is all over the Koran.

          • Ahem. The first Christians WERE Jews. Christ was a Jew. And the Christian Old Testament is basically the Torah. AND the 10 commandments are in the Old Testament.

            Sorry, I always think that these things are obvious. But not all people are familiar with the Bible or it’s history.

            As for the qu’ran, just because the qu’ran mentions Moses doesn’t mean that it’s comparable to the Bible.

            And the qu’ran does not contain the 10 commandments. It actually contains opposing principles.

            Where the Bible simply states “Thou shalt not lie,” the qu’ran states that you can’t lie to a fellow muslim, but it’s OK to lie to an infidel, or to further the cause of islam.

            BIG BIG difference. And there’s lots more where that came from.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Ahem. The first Christians WERE Jews. Christ was a Jew. And the
            Christian Old Testament is basically the Torah. AND the 10
            commandments are in the Old Testament.

            I’m well aware of all that, I’m just saying when you say “only the Christian Bible”, that’s technically not true.

          • Sure it is. The Bible consists of an old and a new testament. The old testament may basically be the Torah, but it’s still the Christian Bible as well. Christianity’s roots are entirely Judaic.

      • I would definitely NOT allow my children to be exposed to satanic books. That is just crazy and abusive.

        And the koran can be taught properly, for what it is. A violent, political agenda bent on forcing islam and sharia on the world. Evil. And correctly point out that the koran as spawned incredible terrorist violence all over the world.

        As long as you teach the truth about what the koran and the Bible are, there is nothing wrong with that.

        The Bible is the ONLY worldview that America was founded upon, so understanding the Bible is paramount if you want to understand American History.

        None of the other religions will teach your children about American history and the principles we are founded upon. But it doesn’t hurt to teach about other religions. Just make sure you are teaching the truth about our Bibical/Christian foundation.

        • james blue

          My question had nothing to do with teaching anything. It only asked if he’d be okay with those other books being placed on a table in schools. His stance was nobody was forced to take a Bible, The same rules would apply to Satanic books…. right?

          However I’ll deal with your last. You want to teach the truth? What biblical principle was the enslavement of Africans and the genocide of the native population? If you want to say our nation was founded on biblical principles then look at what that founding involved.

          The bible is the foundation of the church in our nation. Not the founding of the nation.

          • The Bible is also the foundation of our nation. Read the Declaration of Independence.
            Our rights are protected in this country because they come from GOD. And all our laws are based on that premise. Our founding documents say so.

            And I was answering a post that asked about “teaching” the qu’ran, not just leaving it on a table.

            No, the same rules do not apply to satanic books and the Bible. There is a big difference.

            That’s like saying the same rules apply to pornography. There are age and school appropriate material, and then there is not.

            The Bible states that slave traders will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Although slavery existed, the Bible never condoned it. AND slavery was abolished BECAUSE of the Biblical principles America was based upon.

            And if you are saying that our founding involved the defeat of the Indians, then yes. You would be right. There is not a nation in history that didn’t start with one people defeating another. History is history. It’s not about what is “right” or “wrong,” but about “what happened” and how we can learn from it.

          • james blue

            Don’t know what post that was, but it wasn’t my post that you responded to.

            No difference in books, they are both religious and the question was about not being forced to take them, not the content. Please read it again.

            So your argument was that Christians saved slaves from other Christians so it was Christianity that saved them? BTW some of the founders were slave owners and slavery continued way past the DOI which said we have the inalienable right to “life , LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. It also went on after the constitution was signed. Yet you claim it along with the DOI to be a founded in “christian principles”.

            “our founding involved the defeat of the Indians

            That’s an interesting way of putting it.

          • I must of responded to the wrong post, then. I was not responding to being “forced” to take anything. I’ll have to scroll around and see where I left off.

            I don’t have an argument. I’m just relaying history. Jefferson was a Christian, and he inherited slaves. But even though he grew up in that culture (which was all over the world then) he still knew that it was wrong.

            Jefferson wrote one of the most poignant treatises on slavery every written.
            “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and his wrath cannot sleep forever.”

            He was referring to slavery and why it was wrong. Jefferson not only freed his slaves upon his death, he encouraged and helped them to learn to read and write, and even provided for his older slaves in his will, so they would not end up on the street when he died. they were taken care of like family until they died.

            It was Abigail Adams that took black kids into her home to school them, and insisted that what few schools were around then would take them in. As first lady, she had some sway.

            In reality, slavery was certainly not invented by America. It had existed from the dawn of man. Did you know that there was a thriving slave trade in Africa for over 700 years BEFORE the first white person set foot there? The plantations in the American south just opened up a new market for a centuries old slave trade.

            And yes, it was Christian principles and people that objected to the evils of slavery. Jefferson wanted to make slavery illegal in the Constitution (even though he owned slaves himself) but he couldn’t get all the states to ratify the Constitution that way. The priority at the time was to get the Constitution ratified, or there wouldn’t be a United States.
            HOWEVER, he left in the part about “All men are created equal. ” He knew darn well that he was opening a can of worms for the future, he wrote about it quite a bit.

            And only a few founders actually owned slaves. The northern states’ economy depended upon the stock market and trade, not slavery.

            Yep. Just read DeTocquevilles “Democracy in America.” Another very important historian, DeTocqueville wrote what was considered the most profound and accurate book on the new country ever written. I’ll find it for you.

          • james blue

            Jefferson not only freed his slaves upon his death,

            How very Christian of him. BTW he was a deist. Not a follower of Christ as his savior

            “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

            —John Adams

          • Not true. Jefferson was the main author of the Declaration of Independence, which states that our rights come from God.

            And the quote that you found is not a part of our founding documents, but from the Treaty of Tripoli, which was negotiated with muslims who did not trust anything “Christian.”

            No wonder you provided no link to your quote. But I recognized it anyway. How dishonest of you! LOL

            Here is the rest of it: He wrote to Secretary of the Treasury Oliver
            Wolcott, Jr., September 26, 1800: “The Senate, my good friend, and I
            said so at the time, ought NEVER to have **** ratified the TREATY alluded to,*** with the declaration that ‘the government of the United States, is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.’

            But John Adams, outside of a treaty with muslim pirates that were attacking our ships, was a committed Christian who believed in the Biblical principles that our country was undeniably founded upon.

            “But I must submit all my Hopes and Fears, to an overruling
            Providence, in which, unfashionable as the Faith may be, I firmly
            believe.”

            – John Adams

            Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

            – John Adams

            “Human passions unbridled by morality and religion…would break the
            strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.”

            – John Adams

            “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the
            comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service when it is
            violating all His laws.”

            – John Adams

            So much for cherry picking, my friend!

          • james blue

            This site doesn’t allow links. Is it a factual quote or not?
            Jefferson was a deist, which means he believes in the existence of (a) God, he was not a Christian as he didn’t accept Christ as his savior.
            The US was founded on religious freedom. Within certain boundaries (you can’t do human sacrifice) you are free to worship or not worship as you wish. There is not and never has been a requirement to be a Christian, in fact the constitutions says specifically there shall be no religious test.
            You are free to be Christian, you are free to be a Christian in government, but the government is secular. The founding papers talk of power deriving from the people. They do not talk about appointment from God.
            The first amendment specifically prohibits enforcing the religious parts of the ten commandments, You can have any God you wish over the God of Abraham.

            The founders specifically designed our government to not be theocratic and they didn’t claim to be divinely appointed or kings.

          • Jefferson was not even close to being a deist. Did you read his treatise on slavery?

            Just that one line, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and his wrath cannot sleep forever …” Is a completely Biblical and Christian quote.

            Deists back then still believed in God. Even the Christian God. They just didn’t believe that God still got involved in the affairs of men.

            Obviously Jefferson was NOT a deist. He DID believe that God would judge America harshly on the issue of slavery, and did not hesitate to say so.
            This is so obviously NOT a deist.
            That is just a common falsehood advanced by atheists who are offended by the Christian founding of this country. But facts are very stubborn things, and the truth always comes out in the end. . 🙂

            And you obviously never heard of the Jeffersonian Bible. Jefferson took all the words in red (The words of Jesus) and made his own “Bible” from them. It only had the words and teachings of Jesus, whom Jefferson revered. Yes, Jefferson did believe in and adore Jesus Christ. He was never a deist.

            And the Declaration of Independence states that the founders were “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world” – Yes GOD.

            Deists do not believe in a “Supreme Judge of the world.” The Bible refers to God as the Supreme Judge.

            AND for “support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of *Divine Providence* ”

            Yes, Divine Providence is also God. They were relying on God’s protection.

            So yes they do talk specifically about the divine appointment of God and of God’s will for His people.

            And the first amendment only puts prohibitions on the GOVERNMENT.

            The only thing the first amendment states about religion is that:
            (1) the government can’t enforce a federal religion (such as England did)
            (2) the government can’t prohibit the free expression of religion anywhere in society.

            No more and no less. Nothing to do with the 10 commandments.

            The first amendment prevents a theocracy from ever occurring.

            AND did you know that the first amendment was also based on Biblical principles? As per Jesus: “No man can come to me except of his own free will”

            Jesus himself was the author of freedom of religion. No one can be forced to accept Jesus or Christianity, or it doesn’t mean anything. You have to make this decision personally, from the heart, of your own free will. Or it means nothing.

            The founders believed that God was in control of things, or they would not have relied upon his “Divine Providence.”

            And you have to admit that the American Revolution was won against all logistical odds. Truly one of the greatest David vs Goliath stories of all time.

          • james blue

            what do you think a deist is?

          • Deism was a fad about 80 years before the Declaration of Independence was written. It didn’t last long. And deism back than was different from deism today.

            Deists back then still believed in the Christian God, they just didn’t believe that God was still involved with the affairs of men. Deists had their differing sects as well.

            None of which applies to the founding fathers. They were Christians.

          • Enniscorthy

            You said, “Deism was a fad about 80 years before the Declaration of Independence was written. It didn’t last long. And deism back than was different from deism today.”

            If deism still exists today, and it does, then obviously it DID last long, and it wasn’t a fad

          • So you understand all the Biblical references that I posted from the Declaration of Independence? Good. That is settled then since you didn’t refute a single one.

            And you do understand the Biblical foundation of the first amendment? You didn’t refute that one either.

            My statements stand.

          • james blue

            I have no desire to repeat myself over and over.

            Have a blessed life

          • I have no desire for those that ignore obvious original texts and proof, change subjects to avoid admitting the truth, and continue to parrot the same stuff over and over. Have a very blessed life yourself.

    • Lark.62

      Very Simple. Then members of the Satanic Temple can distribute Satanic Temple literature in public schools. And Muslims can distribute Korans.

      Parents can provide their kids with whatever religious literature they think is appropriate. But school employees cannot play favorites and help one sect hand out religious literature to other people’s kids.

  • james blue

    I support Gideons, but have this thing about leaving other people’s children alone just as we want our own left alone. We raise our own children in our faith

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    Two Minutes with Paul Washer …… THANK YOU SO MUCH …………… that is like an hour with most other preachers …………..

  • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

    All this rejection and hatred of God and His Word shows that the Bible is true. How sad they can’t see the truth. And by the time they do it will be too late.

    • Etranger

      “Rejection” and “hatred” of God? Re-read the article – none of that is at play here.

      • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

        I don’t expect you to understand what and or why I said what I did. I’m also not here on this Christian site to argue or fight with you or your fellow Atheist/ Agnostic/antiChistian trolls who are coming here to harass us who believe in God And His Word. Some are are being sent here and sent to other Christian site from BobRumba right Etranger?

        • Etranger

          Since you are on a Christian site and claim to be christian, you probably shouldn’t spread misinformation/lies like you did in your original comment. Just saying 🙂

          Not sure I am an Atheist/Agnostic/Anti-Christian troll coming here to harass anyone. I clicked on a story of interest and commented on it. I have absolutely no clue what BobRumba is….

          You should still be praying!

        • TheKingOfRhye

          I’m an agnostic atheist, but anti-Christian? Well, if by “anti-Christian” you mean “not believing in Christianity,” okay then. Just keep in mind I’m not any more “anti-Christian” than I am “anti-” any other religion. (Despite what Reason2012 will tell you….) I always liked Thomas Jefferson’s quote: “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are
          twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks
          my leg.” That doesn’t mean, however, I can’t object to what some Christians say or do.

          As for BobRumba, I know him, but neither him nor anyone else “sent me here.”

          • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

            I know you are a part of the group ((BobRumba)) has formed to go against Christians on Christian sites.
            It is wrong what you all are doing and I pray that God will protect the Christians from your hate and that God will stop you and the others in His perfect timing and through His perfect Will. In Jesus Name.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Just tell me what I have said here that is “hate,” because I ain’t seeing it.

          • I’m in agreement with your prayer, in Jesus name. Amen.

          • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

            Thank you and Amen!

          • Well said, Lady. Amen.

          • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

            I figured something funny. I made a comment to one of your sock puppets but you responded to me on your (TheKingOfRhye) account.Funny it took me one day to figure it out. The Lord showed it to me. So I give Him all the Glory and the thanks. And you (lied) to me about not being sent by (BobRumba). This is a spiritual war and through Christ I will win it. You and some other have agreed to harass us on Christian News Network.And other Christians on other sites.He sends you all where he wants you all to to go.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I made a comment to one of your sock puppets but you responded to me on your (TheKingOfRhye) account.

            I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying this supposed sock account is someone else in this conversation? You are mistaken, and maybe paranoid as well. For one thing, I have never had a need to use a sock puppet here. I’ve never been banned once (here anyway) so it was never necessary. I stand by whatever I say.

            And you (lied) to me about not being sent by (BobRumba).

            Sorry, you’re wrong. I knew him before from another site (not Disqus), but I came here by myself. Even if that were true, so what?

            Also, I just gotta ask, why do you have to put parentheses around our names?

          • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

            Mocking me is so cute. But that’s all you have. With the kind of hate within you I don’t expect anything kind from you

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That’s all I have? Uh, no. I was bringing various points into the discussion, none of which you responded to whatsoever.

    • Lark.62

      This is not about rejection or hatred. This is about adults using public schools to give religious literature to other people’s kids.

      If someone is a Southern Baptist, they probably do not “hate” catholics or episcopalians. Yet I am confident that a Southern Baptist would not like their children to be given literature at school encouraging belief in catholic saints or promoting infant baptism.

      This is not about hate. This is about kids at public schools having a right to attend public school without being proselytized into someone else’s religion.

      • sammy13

        No one was forcing the children to read the Bible. Freedom of choice.

      • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

        I already know how BobRumba is sending you all to harass Christians. I will pray for the Christians that you all harass because you hate them. Other than that I’m not playing your games of hate It’s a shame what you all are doing to Christians on a Christian site.

        • Lark.62

          No one is sending me anywhere. I read this site because I think it is healthy to listen to and converse with people who hold different views.

          I value our secular government. No group should use public schools to influence the beliefs of children.

          I would also object if atheists handed out religious material in public schools (except in a pointed attempt to ensure multiple views are represented when christian proselytizing cannot be stopped).

          School personnel cannot play favorites when it comes to religion. Every kid – yours included – has a right to attend school without school employees seeking to influence their religious beliefs.

          • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

            You really don’t have to lie to me. I already know the truth.

    • Rexxon™

      Maybe in your mind, but most people require some form of evidence before making a determination of whether something is “true” or not. Despite roughly 2,000 years since the alleged birth of Christ, no such evidence has been proferred.

      • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

        Tell BobRumba I said hi and I’m still praying. Now I have added you to my list of people to pray for.

        • ThroatwobblerMangrove

          I don’t think anyone knows who you are talking about. Only King of Rhye so far seems to know.

          • Ancient Birds

            Shh… it’s easier on their fragile psyches if they can convince themselves that the Devil and his minions is behind all of those who oppose them. The idea that millions of Americans are finally rejecting the Jesus Fraud is too much for them to handle.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Flagged for blatant trolling.

            Jesus Fraud? You won’t be saying that when He returns. Every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess Jesus is Lord. That includes you.

          • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

            They do understand just as you understand. I know more than you all think I do. What I don’t know God knows.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            And if you were being honest with everyone here and honest with God, wouldn’t you then also mention your own discussion group designed to silence those of us who question some of the ideas you have about what constitutes Christian behavior?

          • Maxwell Edison

            Do you need a tissue as well?

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            No, considering that unlike yourself I don’t show up here to whine.

          • Maxwell Edison

            I show up to stand up to anti-Christian bigots since the mod lacks the spine to ban them on sight.

            You know, people like you.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Flagged for name calling. I’m tired of this nonsense.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Then treat Christians here with respect or leave. Your choice.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I respect you enough to speak up when I think you are wrong about something. Which in your world somehow entitled you to censoring me and silencing my opinion.

          • Etranger

            Your comments are nothing but courteous. Yes, you present counterarguments to many people here, but there is no reason for someone to accuse you of disrespect or insult you. Maxwell is an awful offender of the comment rules here.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Thank you for your nice comments and I agree with you completely.

          • Maxwell Edison

            We have not had any reason to believe a single word that comes out of the mouth of the atheist trolls that spew here, including you.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I’m not an atheist, and considering that you got that very basic bit of information completely wrong, there’s not a single reason any one should believe a word you say about anything.

          • Maxwell Edison

            I’m not an atheist,

            Baldfaced liar. Enough.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Flagged for name calling and violation of this channel’s rules.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Sorry, bigot, but if you wish to be treated with respect, it usually helps to not come into a Christian website and not attack God, Jesus, the Bible, Christians and Christianity. And then pretend as if you never have.

            That dog don’t hunt, dude.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Flagged for name calling and abuse. I’m starting to think you don’t WANT to learn.

          • Maxwell Edison

            This website does not exist as the personal playground for people who hate. You think you wish to teach that, and with impunity?

            I am the one doing the teaching. Treat Christians with respect on a Christian website, or leave. There is no third option.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            When your teachings are lousy and people point them out to you, you scream and try to get their comments removed. That doesn’t sound like you’re into learning at all, to me. And the most hateful words I’ve heard here have been straight out of your mouth.

          • Maxwell Edison

            When your teachings are lousy and people point them out to you

            Because they are Christian conservative viewpoints. Remember where you are.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            That doesn’t make them automatically right. First lesson.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Unless they are based on Biblical truths. If God said it, thus endeth the lesson.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Take a bit of your own medicine then. What sort of reaction are you hoping to get when all you dish out is mocking, self righteous obnoxiousness?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m still just wondering who she thinks is my “sock puppet.”

        • Ancient Birds

          BobRumba? Is that some kind of dildo brand?

          • Maxwell Edison

            Flagged for inappropriate content.

    • JD

      They are not rejecting anything. The school did the right thing.

      • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

        Tell Bob I’m still praying.

        • JD

          Thats nice.

          But that fails to address the statement.

          • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

            Because I respect this Christian site and the Christians on it. But most of all I respect God, there are a few people I’m not wanting to make comments to. Those who have a connection to Bob.

          • JD

            So, you mean you judge folks before actually meeting folks?

            Alrighty then.

          • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

            Hmm, it seems to me like you are trying to set me up to have an argument by using the (judging people) against me on a Christian site.

            That could be a Temptation to me. God has given us a way out of all temptations including arguing with others.
            1 I could ignore you.
            2 I could ask you to respect me enough to stop.
            3 I could block you.

          • I’d go for “block him” lol. Problem solved!

          • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

            That would be my best choice. Thank you.

          • Glad to be of service! And thank you for your thoughtful posts. I enjoy reading them.

          • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

            Again thank you. I enjoy reading your post.

          • JD

            Or, we could sit and share a cuppajoe and have a genuine conversation.

            For contrary to what some think those of different paths are not your enemies. We’re your neighbors.

            Now. Regular or decafe? ☕☕😄

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’ve come to the conclusion she’s not interested in any sort of discussion.

          • JD

            Thats a shame. ☹

  • Etranger

    Not sure what the reference to 18th and 19th century educational materials has to do with any of this, but this is a good thing. Most critical-thinking Christians understand it is a good thing as well! (Imagine another text being distributed….like…the QURAN!).

  • Vince

    The atheists claim that reading the Bible turns people into atheists, so if they were logical (and they aren’t) they would approve of handing out Bibles everywhere. In fact, if they really believed Bibles turn people into atheists, they would distribute Bibles themselves.

    Of course, they LIE a lot.

    • james blue

      What effect would reading the koran have on you?

      • Hopefully NOT to emulate the violent and misogynistic mohammud!

        • james blue

          So following the logic of the comment that question was concerning shouldn’t you be encouraging people to read it?

    • Lark.62

      Reading the bible without skipping over the uncomfortable parts has been known to turn people into atheists.

      I approve of people reading the bible, and have even provided my kid with a copy.

      I do not approve of public schools involving themselves in the religious beliefs of students by handing out the sacred text of just one religion.

  • Maxwell Edison

    I find it rather funny people are bringing up the Qur’an. Not only is that not even relevant, but there’s no reason there would be any objection, as history has shown us.

    Any reference to the Qur’an in threads about the Bible is a red herring and should therefore be ignored. Continuous references should be flagged as trolling.

    • ThroatwobblerMangrove

      Your attempts to shut down discussion on a forum that exists for the purpose of discussion really speak volumes here. No one hates the Bible, no one hates God, no one hates anything, this isn’t even a question of “hate”. It’s a question of whether this is appropriate, and I think it’s an excellent rule of thumb to substitute any other holy book for the Bible in this case and then re-examine whether it’s OK. Because if you’re going to say such a thing is OK for the Bible but not OK for the Qu’ran then I think there is a very strong case to be made for hypocrisy going on.

      Note Maxwell that I’m not attacking you here, I’m not saying anything that should cause you to feel that my response should be flagged for trolling or otherwise removed. I’m just making the simple point that what you would do for one faith you must do for them all, which is fair.

      • Maxwell Edison

        “No one hates the Bible,” etc.

        Liar.

        • ThroatwobblerMangrove

          It isn’t a lie, and name calling is a violation of this channel’s rules.

          Think about it, it’s a book. Just a bunch of words on paper. There is no reason to hate that. There is, however, good reason to stand up to those who manipulate the meaning of those words for their own purposes.

          • Maxwell Edison

            It’s a lie. Period.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            That is merely your opinion.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Based entirely on fact.

            Stop wasting bandwidth and my time arguing there was veracity to your original post. I can generate a nice list of people (including those who post here, and shouldn’t) that would make you nothing but a proven liar.

            Do yourself a favor and drop it unless you are some kind of masochist who wishes further embarrassment brought upon you.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            People engaging in the same kind of petty, small-minded bigotry and hatred is not anything to be writing home about. I reject your suggestion and feel no embarrassment – after all I do not attempt to censor others or mute people simply because their answers might contain truth.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            How would a “nice list of people” prove that one person “hates the Bible”? I really don’t know where you’re going with that one.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Because you are an atheist libtard. And learn how to read: I was referring to more than just the Bible.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Flagged for name calling.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Of course. Trying to get me banned?

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Based on the way you talk to everyone here, I would say you are working really hard to get YOURSELF banned.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Wrong. Again.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Well, like I said, I don’t know where you were going with that. So, tell me.

        • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

          I don’t hate the Bible, but I sure have issues with the hatred you manage to mine from it with some of your interpretations.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Liar.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            Jerk.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Tissue?

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            For you to cram it, you mean?

          • Maxwell Edison

            How old are you? Five?

    • TSandtheTwins

      You don’t understand the premise of either the issue or the responses… So your solution is to declare everyone who doesn’t agree with your uninformed position, a “troll”… Please, try to be adult about this. If conversing with others bothers you, then leave at your own discretion.

      • Maxwell Edison

        Remember this is a Christian website, not an atheist. Further, your use of the word, “uninformed,” shows a contempt for those who believe, again at a Christian website. Which you came to, by the way.

        Troll.

        • TSandtheTwins

          Ah, the Drive-By Accusation, of course.
          Listen: not ALL Christians agree on all matters of doctrine and interpretation — and haven’t for millennia! YOU, sir, are NOT the arbiter of who can speak and who cannot. I will listen to your Evangelical Fundamentalist views and I expect you to mutually listen to my Anglican views. Try to show some dignity toward others.

          • Maxwell Edison

            I should the arbiter. If the mod was doing their job, the atheist trolls would be gone. But since they aren’t, I will do their job for them by making it clear those who are not welcome here, aren’t.

          • TSandtheTwins

            You’re not a mod. It’s not your job to “police” anyone. Your opinion on a public forum is no more valuable than anyone else.

            Try listening to other Christians, people of other faiths and even those without any faith. Act like a grown up and be able to discuss with those holding various, diverse views.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Try listening to other Christians

            I do. But I also listen to the Word of God. Romans 3:4 says, “Let God be true, but every man a liar” which means we should trust God and what He says before we trust any man. Believe only what you can read for yourself from your own Bible.

            There are people who say you can be a homosexual and a Christian at the same time. That same-sex marriage is okay. That abortion is okay. That you can use God to achieve great or generous wealth and/or success. That we should pray to Mary, as she is an intermediary between God and Jesus.

            And every single one of those people are wrong. Because the Word of God says otherwise. In fact, the Bible also says you should neither welcome such doctrine in your home, nor such people who would attest to it.

            I do not care if you don’t like it. If you wish to debate the Bible, go someplace where they would allow that, like the Friendly Atheist.

            It’s not your job to “police” anyone.

            Sure it is. It’s actually the mod’s job to remove the bigots, but if they won’t, what are we supposed to do? Sit back and allow them to take over the Christian websites, which has been a stated mission from at least one source?

            How about no?

          • TSandtheTwins

            Listen to yourself.
            Like a whole lot of unrelated, separate issues together in your vain hope of discrediting a few.

            If you don’t want to debate theology, Maxwell, I suggest that *you* take a hike to another forum that’s more to your echo chamber proclivities.

            Most adults should know how to debate topics. If you’re afraid of doing so, I suggest you sit out for a while and rethink why you’re here.

        • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

          Always with the name calling. Always.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Get over it.

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            Learn proper manners and decorum.

          • Maxwell Edison

            It’s called respect, and you earn it. Coming to a Christian website to belittle folks who believe as well as what they believe will never, ever warrant respect.

            And why do you still have posting privileges?

          • ThePantomimePrincessMargaret

            Was going to ask you the same thing, slidellman4life.

    • Symphalangus

      I find it funny that you think the quran is so different from the bible.

      • Maxwell Edison

        Not so funny as you thinking otherwise. Troll.

  • There may be legal recourse on this –

  • Reason2012

    Notice these same people do not mind that islam is taught – that they read out of a Koran to students in more and more public schools (google it – countless different sites report on it) while Christianity is simultaneously censored. It shows they’re not “humanists”, they’re not “LGBT”, they’re not “atheists” – but time and again they only hate Christianity which shows they’re anti-Christian, pro-islam activists using those other groups as a means to eradicate Christianity one piece at a time.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      I’d be just as much against Korans being distributed (note that’s what this story is talking about: giving out Bibles, not “reading out of them.” Reading out of the Koran, or the Bible, could be talking about what is done in a class that teaches about religion in general, not some sort of “indoctrination”) as I am against Bibles being distributed.

      they’re not “LGBT”

      What are you even talking about? What does LGBT have to do with anything here? You’re pretty hung up on LGBT people, aren’t you?

      • ThroatwobblerMangrove

        I think that gives us an insightful look into not just Reason2012’s mind, but the mindsets of others like him who are trying to identify “the enemy”. The LGBT community are often at loggerheads with Christians but it’s because many (not all) Christians actively reject homosexuality and homosexuals, and when the LGBT people stand up for themselves, Reason2012 views it as an “attack”. The other two examples in his message, “humanists” and “atheists” are two other groups this brand of Christians feels threatened by.

        It’s this whole concept of the “other” and “them vs. us” that fuels a lot of their anger.

  • Croquet_Player

    All students are entitled to a thorough education, which includes a basic understanding of all the world’s major religions and the religious texts they use. But when you let only one group set up a “free giveaway” table of their religious texts at a school, you are de facto promoting a particular religion over others, and students have a constitutional right to be free from any sort of religious proselytization while they are legally required to be at school. Every school library should have copies of all major (and even plenty of minor) religious texts. You cannot be an informed, well educated citizen, without at least a general understanding of various faiths around the world. But there’s a difference between offering comprehensive general education about religions, and permitting one or another religion’s direct access to students, and excluding others.

    • Lark.62

      Yes. Comparative Religions is an appropriate topic for a HS social studies class.

      Handing out New Testaments to elementary school kids is promotion of christianity.

      • And since Christianity is much more than a “comparative religion” in American history, but is the ACTUAL worldview that this country is founded upon, this is a bad thing “because….?”

    • You are forgetting something. Regardless of other religions, ONLY CHRISTIAN/BIBLICAL principles are what America was founded upon. This is immensely important to our history.
      Which makes the BIble and Christianity a MUST for students to learn if they are to understand the history of their own country.

      To teach the truth is not “promoting” anything. It’s just the truth. Our Declaration of Independence states that our rights are the “unalienable rights endowed upon mankind by the CREATOR.” The Christian God. And is based on the Christian Bible.

      The Constitution is based upon this premise, and is written to protect our “God given” rights. Even signed “In The Year Of Our Lord,” (“as God is our witness).

      The 10 commandments which are in the Supreme Court and all major courthouses in the country are from the CHRISTIAN BIBLE.

      The fact that Ben Franklin started the practice of Christian PRAYER before each and every house and senate session, and that local clergy are PAID to officiate, for the last 250 years is not “religious proselytization” but simply Historical TRUTH.

      And students are entitled to the truth. The WHOLE truth about their Christian heritage. Once you have the truth, you can make up your own mind as to what you want to follow or do. But you have to start with the truth.

      The frieze of Moses (The Biblical Lawgiver) that is front and center over the door of the Supreme Court, and on the wall of the House of Representatives is from the Christian Bible.

      Abe Lincoln’s speech in which he states a “nation divided upon itself cannot stand” is taken directly from the Bible. And it’s a direct reference to Israel’s civil war and the consequences of splitting into two nations.

      How are students to understand this without understanding the Bible? They can’t.

      It is NOT “religious proselytization” to tell the truth. It is honesty.

      There are other religions in the world, but in all honesty, there is not a single one other than the Christian worldview that propelled America into the most prosperous, advanced, powerful and free nation in the world. There are reasons for that, and our children DESERVE TO KNOW THEIR TRUE HERITAGE.

      Simple.

      • Croquet_Player

        But the Gideons are not there to teach history classes. They’re Christians, there to giveaway Christian texts with the aim of promoting Christianity. A basic understanding of all the world’s major religion’s texts is fundamental to a good education. (You certainly won’t get some of Shakepeare’s jokes and asides without at least a passing familiarity with the bible.) I am strongly in favor of excellent, thorough educations for all our students. But as I have pointed out before, there’s a big difference between education and indoctrination. And if you let one religious group in to hand out free texts, you better be prepared to admit them all.

        • A basic understanding of the Christian Bible is much more important than any learning other religion when it comes to understanding American history and the principles that this country was founded upon.

          Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. have nothing to do with America’s founding principles and will not further anyone’s understanding of America. For an American, the ONLY worldview that is pertinent is the Biblical/Christian one.
          And American children deserve to know their true history.

          If you want to teach other religions in a different course, fine. No problem with that.

          And leaving Bibles on a table for kids to CHOSE to pick up or not, is not really promoting Christianity. But it gives children a choice as to whether or not they want to read that book.

          • Croquet_Player

            I agree with you that students must learn about American history. My father’s family came from England in 1629, on what is known as the “Higgson Fleet”. They were deeply religious people. This was around 140 years before the American War of Independence, culminating in 1776. Until that time, we lived under British government. And as I’m sure you’ll recall, the sovereignty of the English King was said to be established by God. So, when the American colonialists revolted, they were widely accused of being “atheists” and “against God”. (Despite being very religious people.) And yet the American colonialists took a different view of the bible, and why they were justified in revolting against a sovereign King, who was said to be God’s representative on earth. So I certainly agree with you that a passing familiarity with the bible is important to understanding American history. And of course it is important to understand the American writers’ of the constitutions views, as much as the Archbishop of Canterbury’s views, at the time.

            And I hope you will agree with me that for a young student to be properly educated to go out in the world, they should have at least a basic understanding of all the world’s major religions. We would do a major disservice to children without telling them generally about who believes what, where they mainly live, and so forth. This is not indoctrination, this is education. I would hope that indoctrination is, as always, a very personal family matter, far above and beyond any government interference.

          • Yep. I would agree with you there. I have no problem teaching kids about different religions. But from grade school on, they should FIRST learn what it means to be AMERICAN. So the Bible and Christianity should always be first and foremost. After they learn what it means to be an American, then go on to study other religions. That is just my view. I do agree with all that you’ve said.

          • JD

            Then you should have absolutely no problem for others from others religions to leave their books on the tables.

          • Not where American history is concerned. No other religion applies here. Only the Bible and the Christian world view is what our new country was based on. And there is no way to truly and fully understand American history without understanding the Biblical principles that our forefathers used.

            So you should have no problem with the Bible being included in any American history class.

        • That doesn’t change the fact that in order to truly understand American history, and the founding principles of this country, you need to understand the Bible.
          NOT the qu’ran, or the Book of Mormon, or any other religious text. And yes, you are right about Shakespeare being a Christian.
          And you also wouldn’t understand Abe Lincoln’s reference to “a nation divided against itself cannot stand” if you never read the Bible either. As a matter of fact, our founding documents and most historical documents can’t be understood without a basic understanding of the Bible.

          This is not “indoctrination” but EDUCATION. Since only the BIBLE is necessary to understanding America and her history. NOT all the other religions. This is just fact. History and fact.

          You don’t have to include any other religions at all if you are teaching the Bible as a part of American history. Because only the Bible is part of American history.

          If you are teaching a class on “religions of the world” or “history of the worlds religions,” then you would include other religions as well.

          You don’t have to admit any religions that promote hate or violence towards others, which would exclude the qu’ran. That is also perfectly legal. “Incitement to violence” is a perfectly legal thing to censure anything for. It’s actually law.

          You can pick and choose a multitude of religions for such a class, just exclude those that promote violence or incite anyone to break the law. And the qu’ran would be excluded, but most other religions included.

          I’m just being perfectly honest and using some common sense. Now if you are speaking of high school children, and you want to include the qu’ran, fine. But be honest about the violence and pedophilia that it accepts as ok.

        • Franki Spiewak

          The Bibles are free to take or not take, as the student wishes. No one is standing at the door “handing” them a bible. The Bibles are on a table, if you want one, take one – if you don’t want one, don’t take one. How is that indoctrination? Would you object if it was the Koran or some other “religion” having their book available?

          • Croquet_Player

            I understand how the materials are distributed. The very fact that the Gideons are there in the school at all implies that the school endorses them. And yes, I would object to any and all religious groups being permitted to set up a free giveaway table at a public school for their materials. Students have the right to be free from proselytization of any kind while they are legally required to attend school. It doesn’t matter whether they’re being forced to take the materials or not. If religions want to set up free material giveaways, they are free to do so elsewhere.

      • getstryker

        Well said and accurately stated – thank you!

        • Thank you, kind sir! Much appreciated.

          • getstryker

            The praise is honest and deserved 😉

      • Franki Spiewak

        Very well stated!!

  • Recognizing_Truth

    the Bibles were placed on a table in a commons area where those interested could freely take a copy

    Which is perfectly acceptable, as it allows CHOICE and not coercion – and is completely different than the fallacious claim of “Your school district has allowed an outside religious organization, believed to be the Gideons, to distribute Bibles to young children at Herington Elementary School

    No one is forcing (distributing), Availability is NOT anti-constitutional and the school has the right and responsibility to allow the Bible to be made available.
    If:
    – they have pamphlets or booklets of medical nature (cover that cough, etc.)
    – they allow LGBTQ (etc.) to post on their bulletin boards, or provide information, or “counseling” services.
    Then the school MUST ALSO allow the Gideons since they allow other organizations. Failure to do so is DISCRIMINATION against a religious group form the same privileges provided others simply because it IS a religious group.

    That’s the law. Whether the AHA or FFRF likes it or not. The Supreme Court has ruled on this.

    The school does not have to, and must not, break the law to satisfy the AHA. SCOTUS rulings have been used in cases like this to shut the AHA and FFRF up.

    • Croquet_Player

      Well, it depends. If they allow one group to set up a free giveaway table for materials, then they must allow any and all groups equal access to do the same. Does the school permit access to all other organizations? I very much doubt it. Are you in favor of letting any and all groups set up tables where students may pick up their materials for free? I’m not, and I would imagine you’re not either. The KKK describes themselves as a Christian organization. Does the KKK get to set up a distribution table? I certainly think not. The Gideons are free to distribute their materials in public places, and to any private schools or businesses which choose accept them. They may not have exclusive access to students in public schools.

      • Actually, anything that incites to violence, or encourages breaking the law (the KKK fits those categories!) or is obviously foul or offensive, can be censored by the school. The school can use common sense in deciding what is allowed and what is not.

        The Gideon Bible can teach a whole lot about American history, and the principles it’s founded upon. No comparison to the KKK or satanic organizations.

        • Croquet_Player

          Actually a public school cannot rely upon a school board or an administrator’s personal version of “common sense”. (And that’s a very fortunate thing, as what you or I might consider “common sense” might not be the view they hold.) They are obligated to follow the constitution. When there is a conflict, or apparent conflict, the matter is almost always promptly settled by either party’s legal advisors offering counsel. Advice usually is: “You broke the law, or are in danger of breaking the law, and you should stop now before you enter an expensive lawsuit which you will most certainly lose.” Or ,”No laws were broken, and you should stop now before you enter an expensive lawsuit which you will most certainly lose.” If that doesn’t work, then it goes to the courts, which are entitled to rule on constitutional issues. It’s the brilliant system of government our founders set up, and I’m 100% behind it.

    • TSandtheTwins

      Are medical health flyers and LGBT clubs considered religions? I think not. We’re only discussing the legality of preferring a single religion access to students within a publicly funded institution… which is illegal according to the terms of the Establishment Clause.

    • Exactly. I agree. Freedom of religion, speech, expression and choice. Thank you!

  • Rexxon™

    How dare they deprive the children of the Bible’s moral lessons! For example, take this example from Deuteronomy 22:23-24: “If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn’t cry out loud enough, then the men of the city shall stone her to death.”

    • Oh please, it’s always those who are completely ignorant of the Bible that cherry pick and lie about it.

      First off, this is the actual verse:
      Deuteronomy 22:23-24King James Version (KJV)

      23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

      24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
      ———————-

      Both man and woman are punished for adulterous behavior.

      Now that being said, the OT is mainly historical. Even the most secular of historians admit that the Bible is the most accurate and at times the ONLY record we have of ancient civilizations. It is brutally honest, and sugar coats nothing.

      HOWEVER, not all man’s laws agreed with God’s laws, which are embodied in the 10 commandments.

      ALSO, the OT is historical. There were no Christians in the OT as Christ had not been born yet.

      With the coming of Christ, came the introduction of Grace and forgiveness.

      You show me ANYWHERE in the New Testament where any adulterers are commanded to be stoned.

      As a matter of fact, Jesus stopped one such stoning simply by saying “He who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

      And everyone faded away. Because we all sin.

      So that is the beautiful TRUTH of the Bible that you ignorantly and uneducatedly ignore by cherry picking and taking things out of context. And yes, our children WOULD be deprived of that beautiful example if the New Testament were not given to them.

      FAIL. Better luck next time.

    • Maxwell Edison

      What a lame troll. Go away.

  • Truth73

    Wow – Big purge of comments and banning of users. Probably good – the conversation got way off topic and some folks were pretty nasty! Glad to see maxwell deleted.

    • Krissy

      How is it a good thing to silence alternative voices? We can all learn and grow. Many of the deleted comments were thoughtful and substantive.

      • Yes, they were. I posted nothing “nasty.” I guess if maxwell doesn’t agree with you, he just deletes comments. How sad, when someone silences the truth. I really only posted about the Biblical/Christian foundation of this country.

        I’m beginning to think that this post is not worth while, since so much biased and hateful purges occur. I’ll probably be next for saying this! LOL

        But then again, maybe not. I’ve noticed that my posts are still there, and the opposing view points are still there.

        Maybe Maxwell has a point. A little cleaning never hurt as long as it’s just for the nasty posts.

        • james blue

          “maxwell” isn’t a mod. it looks like he has been banned. This site is pretty good at allowing opposing viewpoints and often heated discussions, however it’s their site and they do not owe us a platform.

          I support their right to delete comments for any reason or no reason, even if they don’t violate any comment rules.

          • I suppose if it’s your site, you can do what you want. I thought more posts were deleted, but after looking through it does seem as though only those that got particularly nasty were deleted. You’re right, they are pretty good at allowing discussion.

          • Krissy

            Many thoughtful and non nasty comments are gone. And the authors banned.

          • Then he did a good job. That keeps the conversation concentrated on content, not insults. I do see a lot of opposing views, which keeps it interesting.

        • Krissy

          It went from 296 posts to 56. And most of the deleted posts just emphasized that everyone should treat other people like they would like to be treated and not use public schools to influence kids’ religious beliefs.

      • Truth73

        Fair point. I just thought one person seemed to get pretty nasty. But I agree there were definitely thoughtful views here, especially on the issue of other religions.

  • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

    If it is God’s Will for these Children to have one of these Bibles, may they receive a Bible in another way.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      You know, don’t most elementary school kids have smartphones and/or computers these days? And, schools generally have libraries, as well. Just saying, it’s not exactly like if people aren’t giving Bibles out in schools they can’t read it anywhere else.

      • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

        Hi!
        As I said if it is God’s Will for the Children to have one of those Bibles, may they receive one in another way 🙂

        • Chet

          You can bet sexology filth would not have been so critiqued, nor the study of other “world religions” via materials and handouts…

          • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

            For some reason people fear the Bible. But seem to approve everything that goes against the Bible.

          • I agree. That seems to be the politically correct meme of the times. I wish our young people who criticize the Bible would be more tolerant and open minded. At least as tolerant of the Bible as they are of every other abomination that doesn’t seem to bother them in the slightest!

          • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

            The future belongs to the youth. Their future doesn’t look too good to me.

          • True. That is sad. But on a more optimistic note, Trump’s administration is the most evangelical one we’ve seen in many decades, perhaps ever. I’m hoping he changes the perspective for the better. Repeal of the Johnson act, more laws protecting people of faith, moving our embassy to Jerusalem, etc. Gotta have faith! And pray. Always pray.

          • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

            Prayer is one thing at. If Trump will do at least three things. I hope they will be moving embassy to Jerusalem. Next would be protecting people of faith.. Next repeal of the Johnson act. And one more thing help for the Unborn.

          • AMEN.

          • Chet

            Although they hate the thought of it, they cannot altogether eliminate the notion there just might be a holy God Almighty out there somewhere and that this judgment thing might be for real. And even though they continuously strew around Hell as an adjective, they know not, but fear deep down inside, that this awful place (noun) just might be real and who is going there… So, best to try real hard to consider it all as nonsense and go ahead and do whatever feels good, dudes… Meanwhile, we who know the Lord Jesus Christ of Calvary, personally, continue to sound the alarm. Jesus saves from the guttermost to the uttermost must somehow reach the masses. Repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and Him crucified, risen and soon to return for His own. God bless…

          • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

            God Bless…

  • glenbo

    One of two things are necessary before any religion can use taxpayer funded public schools to recruit tithers:
    1) Encompass ALL religions.
    2) Tax religion.

    • OR you can teach ALL of American history. The whole truth about it’s Biblical Christian foundation. Actually have children READ the Declaration of Independence stating that our rights come from God, and that our founders relied on God’s providence, and the “supreme ruler of the world.” All in the Declaration.

      You can’t understand American history without understanding the Biblical principles that it was deliberately founded upon, and why.

      That wouldn’t involve any other religion at all. Only the one that America is actually founded upon. American history is ONLY founded upon the Christian Bible, so no need to bring up any other extraneous religion at all.

      You wouldn’t have to “tax” any history classes or include any other religion that was not involved in American history.

      Problem solved and the truth finally taught. Simple.

      • glenbo

        >>” American history is ONLY founded upon the Christian Bible, so no need to bring up any other extraneous religion at all.”<<

        Is this why the colonists came to America originally?

        • Don’t they teach anything in public schools anymore?

          • glenbo

            >>”Don’t they teach anything in public schools anymore?”<<

            What makes Christianity "a part of American History?"

          • sigh. You must be young. They definitely don’t teach American history anymore.

            Read the Declaration of Independence, just for openers. Then visit Washington DC.

          • Actually, DeTocqueville explains the results of basing a nation on Biblical principles much more eloquently than I. I hope you know who DeTocqueville was, as “Democracy in America” is a very famous book and considered the most historically accurate and profound analysis of America ever written.

            Anyway, here it is:

            Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political
            consequences resulting from this new state of things.

            In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned
            in common over the same country.

            Religion in America…must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point
            of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

            I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion — for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of
            republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

            In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious…there is no country in the world where
            the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is
            powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

            In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people…

            Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent…

            I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors…; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system
            and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

            Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.

            America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

            The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.

            The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other

            Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts — the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

            >> All so very true, and collaborated by the original documents written by the founders of this country as well.

          • glenbo

            So it’s okay for me to own slaves?
            Cool.

          • The Bible actually states that slave traders will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
            God never condoned slavery. But of course, us humans never fully obeyed or listened to God, did we?

            Nice try, kid. I suggest you actually read a Bible before you try this nonsense.

          • glenbo

            God never condoned slavery.
            Please explain Exodus 21:20,21

          • sigh. This is what happens when you don’t even own a Bible. Ok, I’ll explain what should be obvious if you had any Biblical knowledge at all.

            Slavery was common in the Middle East as far back as ancient
            Egypt. If God had simply ignored it, then there would have been no rules for their treatment and they could have treated them harshly with no rights. But since they did have rights and rules for their protection, it showed that God cared for them as well. However, this is often misconstrued for an endorsement of slavery, which it is not.

            Also, if God had not protected slaves/bondservants by such commands, then many people surrounding them, who did have harsh slavery, would have loved to move in where there were no governing principles as to the treatment of slaves. It would have given a “green light” to slave owners from neighboring areas to come and settle there. But with the rules in place, it discouraged slavery in their realm.

            You also need to be aware of the culture of the time. The Hebrew word for “slave” can also be translated “bond servant.” Bond Servants were being paid something, and were therefore in a state more akin to a
            lifetime employment contract rather than “racial” slavery. Slavery was not the same as the “racial” slavery that existed later. Slaves and bond servants were of all ethnic groups.

            And is there anything about Exodus 21:16 or 1 Timothy 1:10 That you do not understand? Clearly just a couple of examples of how harshly God objected to slavery of any kind. Even bond servants.

          • glenbo

            Why did God call humans “property?”
            Why did God endorse kidnapping people into slavery?
            Why did God declare children are born into slavery?
            Why did God give instructions on purchasing slaves?
            Why did God provide a loophole to trick a slave after 6 years into a lifetime of slavery?
            Why did God allow beating a slave to death?
            It is NEVER moral to own another human being as property.
            www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=Qtl8hIzb66A

            www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=7ycVwZ3gaAM

            You are deceiving yourself by justifying God’s barbaric ways.
            Your “bondservant” excuse is b.s.
            Now…why did God murder children?

          • Why did God call humans “property?” ?? He didn’t.
            Why did God endorse kidnapping people into slavery? He didn’t.
            Why did God declare children are born into slavery? ?? whaaaa?
            Why did God give instructions on purchasing slaves? where?
            Why did God provide a loophole to trick a slave after 6 years into a lifetime of slavery? God never endorsed slavery.
            Beating of slaves was never permitted in Israel. Not ever.

            God doesn’t have barbaric ways.

            You do. Humans do.

            All you have to do is open an actual Bible and read it.

            (The bondservant information was simply to cure your ignorance of the culture at that time. But you can stay ignorant, it’s your choice. 🙂

            You are deceiving yourself. I already posted God’s laws > chapter and verse.

            You posted no proof of anything, except of how afraid you are of the Bible. Pretty cowardly dude! LOL

            pssst: There are no monsters hiding under the bed or in the pages of the Bible. You can come out now! giggles

          • You do realize that since I own, read and study a Bible, that I don’t need your false links?

            Not the least bit interested in your biased and bigoted links. And I’m not following them.

            Try referencing the Bible only. CHapter and verse.

          • glenbo

            skepticsannotatedbible(dot)com/says_about/slavery(dot)html

          • And is there anything about Exodus 21:16 or 1 Timothy 1:10 That you do
            not understand? Clearly just a couple of examples of how harshly God
            objected to slavery of any kind. Even bond servants.

          • So do you now see how the Bible prohibits slavery, and why the Constitution stated that ALL mankind is created equal? This IS Biblical, and the basis that Christians used to abolish slavery in America.
            America did not invent slavery. It was just a part of all human cultures at the time.
            America was the very first nation to completely abolish all forms of slavery, though. And the Constitution paved the way.

            Thomas Jefferson actually wanted to make slavery specifically illegal in the Constitution for this reason (even though he had inherited and owned slaves). But he couldn’t get all the states to ratify the Constitution with that provision, and if he couldn’t get the Constitution ratified, America might never have been. Which was the obvious priority.
            So he settled for just leaving the “all men are created equal” part in. And he knew that the issue of slavery was a can of worms that would be a problem in the future. He even said so, and basically predicted the civil rights movement that occurred later.

            He wrote one of the most profound and poignant treatises on the evils of slavery ever written. Google “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and His wrath cannot sleep forever.”

            Jefferson also freed all his slaves upon his death. During his lifetime, he encouraged his slaves to learn to read and write, and learn any skill they could. He also even provided for his elder slaves in his will, so that they would be financially taken care of for life. The same way he provided for his family. He did this because he knew the older slaves would not be able to find employment or support themselves. A just and admirable man, Jefferson was.

          • Here is a chapter and verse. Notice that God listed slave traders among the worst of sinners
            in 1 Timothy 1:10 (kidnappers/men stealers/slave traders).

            And in Exodus as well: Exodus 21:16

            He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely
            be put to death.

            God is absolutely against slavery. So there you have your answer.

          • glenbo

            >>”God is absolutely against slavery. So there you have your answer.”<<

            Why are there far more pro-slavery verses than this one anti-slavery verse?

          • There are not. You don’t even own a Bible, let alone studied one. You are obviously afraid of the BIble.

            I would ask myself why. 🙂 Mmmmmm.

          • glenbo

            >>” You don’t even own a Bible”<<

            I own 4.
            My original Sunday School bible with my name embossed in gold. (KJV)
            My Mother's bible. (KJV)
            A Gideon's bible.
            And an Orel Roberts bible.

            Perhaps since you are so fluent in the bible, you can explain the following verses:

            Leviticus 25:44-46
            Exodus 21:2-6
            Exodus 21:7-11
            Exodus 21:20-21
            Ephesians 6:5
            1 Timothy 6:1-2
            Luke 12:47-48

          • I think you lie. giggles. You’ve obviously never read them.

            If you did, you’d be able to explain these verses and know that they answer your question:

            1 Timothy 1:10 King James Version (KJV)

            For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for
            **menstealers,** for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

            Or if you prefer more modern language:

            the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, **enslavers,** liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound[b] doctrine,

            for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for **slave traders** and liars and perjurers–and forwhatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

            Exodus 21:16 KJV

            And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

        • JD

          I find it quite interesting that one of the reasons the the colonists came the old world was of religious persecutions. I just don’t think they intended for their religion to become the very thing they tried to escape several hundred years later …

          • glenbo

            >>” I just don’t think they intended for their religion to become the very thing they tried to escape several hundred years later …”<<

            I could not have said it better!

          • ?? LMAO! Our Constitution is the longest lasting, unchanged Constitution in the history of mankind.

            And it’s still based on Biblical/Christian principles and our rights are still given and protected by God.

            So what is anyone running away from? It’s been the greatest success story of all time!

            Who is trying to escape religious persecution in America? LOL!

            Nobody. What a hoot!

          • glenbo

            America does NOT make its laws based on religion or the bible..

          • America bases it’s entire legal structure on the Biblical/Christian premise that GOD has endowed mankind with unalienable rights. And the Constitution is written specifically to protect those God given rights. AND it’s signed “In the year of our Lord.”

            And of course the 10 commandments are in our Supreme court and all the major courthouses in the country.

            A big frieze of Moses (The Biblical Lawgiver) is in the House of Representatives.

            Christian symbols and references are ALL OVER Washington DC, and in the original writings of the founders.

            Sorry, but history and the true facts prove you wrong. Sorry you are so threatened by the truth.

          • glenbo

            >>”And the Constitution is written specifically to protect those God given rights. AND it’s signed “In the year of our Lord.””<<

            No where are biblical principles or religious tenets mention in ANY of our founding documents.
            None. Nowhere.

          • Anyone who has ever read them would know better. Try reading the Declaration of Independence. The WHOLE thing.

            Sorry kiddo. You are amazingly uninformed. Shame on you for not knowing your own history.

          • glenbo

            >>”Try reading the Declaration of Independence. The WHOLE thing.”<<

            I did. I found NO reference to the Judeo Christian God.
            Perhaps you can pinpoint it?

          • You’re a complete idiot. READ THE DOI. Our rights come directly from GOD. As per our governmental founding documents.

            And the Constitution is based on nothing BUT Biblical principles, and protecting our God given rights. Our government recognizes GOD’s existence, our reliance on God and His grace/providence.

            EVERYWHERE. Just visit Washington DC. /BIBLICAL ARTIFACTS AND SAYINGS ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE.

            Can’t you read? How sad. You completely ignore what is right in front of your face.

            For 250 years our GOVERNMENT has opened every house and senate session with a Christian prayer right out of the Bible.

            In God We Trust is our NATIONAL MOTTO genius.

            Have you ever recited the Pledge of Allegiance? One nation, UNDER GOD.

            Hellooooooo? Are you now going to insist that the Pledge contains no reference to God?

            Probably. Thick as a brick. You are so threatened by the Bible and Christianity that you have to lie to hide from it. So sad that you run from the truth instead of embracing it.

            No one can make an informed, intelligent decision, or form any viable, educated opinions, unless they start with the truth.

            You insist on pathetic, cowardly lies. Good luck with that.

          • glenbo

            America is a Nation of religious freedom.
            Freedom to worship any god of your choosing, or not to believe.

            There is no religious mandate in any American law or founding document.

            Therefore, your religious beliefs have NO power over anyone but yourself.

            Now back to my question you have avoided so far:

            What is your message/intent on gay couples raising children?

          • No, but DeTocqueville said it MUCH better:

            n the United States, the sovereign authority is religious…there is no country in the world where
            the
            Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men
            than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of
            its conformity to human nature than that its influence is
            powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

            In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to
            the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people…

            Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent…

            I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her
            harbors…; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich
            mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system
            and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

            Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits
            flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and
            power.

            America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

            The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.

          • glenbo

            America does NOT make its laws based on religion or the bible.

          • I can say it better. And more truthfully.
            The founding fathers founded their new country on Biblical/Christian
            principles. That in itself does not constitute a theocracy. The first
            amendment prevents a theocracy from every occurring. So what is there to escape?

            We have become the freest nation on earth. So the principles were sound and true, and certainly proven to be successful.
            Our amazing rise to the top, in the shortest time ever in human history,
            is more than proof of the viability and wisdom of basing a country on
            Biblical principles. It was an incredible success. History doesn’t lie.

          • De Tocqueville said it best:

            n the United States, the sovereign authority is religious…there is no country in the world where
            the
            Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men
            than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of
            its conformity to human nature than that its influence is
            powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

            In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to
            the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people…

            Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent…

            I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her
            harbors…; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich
            mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system
            and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

            Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits
            flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and
            power.

            America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

            The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.

          • Not sure what you are trying to say. The founding fathers founded their new country on Biblical/Christian principles. That in itself does not constitute a theocracy. The first amendment prevents a theocracy from every occurring. So what is there to escape?

            We have become the freest nation on earth. So the principles were sound and true, and certainly proven to be successful. Our amazing rise to the top, in the shortest time ever in human history, is more than proof of the viability and wisdom of basing a country on Biblical principles.

          • JD

            One of the reasons the pilgrims left the old world was religious persecution. I don’t think they intended for centuries later for their belief system to oppress others.

          • Nick Halflinger

            Considering Roger Williams and Mary Dyer, I am not sure that claim holds up too well.

          • Why? Mary Dyer was hung in 1660. Roger Williams was banned from the colonies.

            This was long before our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written.

            The Constitution ended any state government from enforcing a religion on anyone. Roger Williams and Mary Dyer were long pre-constitution.

          • ?? How does the Christian belief system oppress others?

            The Bible clearly and severely condemns slavery. And Christians were the main people responsible for eliminating it.

            As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently said, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and his wrath cannot sleep forever.” Jefferson knew that slavery would anger God. All Christians do.

            And the first amendment protects religious freedom and was meant to allow it to flourish in society. The first amendment also prevents a theocracy. From a Biblical perspective, a person can only come to accept God of his own free will. Jesus said so. No one can be forced, because it has to be a personal decision made from the heart. The first amendment ensures this. It’s actually Biblical.

            And these Biblical principles are what propelled the United States into the most successful, powerful and FREE nation on earth. Not exactly “oppression” dude! Just the opposite.

          • JD

            I’d love to reply to you but most things I’ve posted to you thus far have been either removed or still hung up in pending. Perhaps on a different channel that isn’t so anti non-Christian where we can talk more openly.

      • TheKingOfRhye

        Actually have children READ the Declaration of Independence

        I don’t know what they’re doing these days, but I definitely read it. I’m pretty sure they don’t try to pretend the DOI does not exist, but if so, that would be pretty ridiculous. For the umpteenth time though, this is not about “teaching history.” This is
        not about what some history class is teaching. This is about an outside
        group going in to a school and distributing religious literature. Sure you can say YOU are talking about teaching history, but the fact is that that is a completely separate topic, and you’re responding to someone who wasn’t talking about it, in a comment thread on a story that has nothing to do it.

        • My kids were not required to read the DOI. I was, but they were not. Common Core is abysmal and evil.

          I don’t care what you want to force on anyone, or if you want to control the content of other people’s posts or not. Too bad.

          I AM POSTING my opinion that the Bible should be a part of American History. And that way, the only “religion” you have to worry about is Christianity (which is actually a “world view,” not a specific “religion, but that’s another story…)

          This way you can have the Bible taught in school without having to worry about any other groups or religions, and at least children will learn the truth about their heritage.

          Too bad if you don’t like my response. Don’t pay any attention to it then. Honestly, why do you feel so threatened by it? Because it’s true?

          Again. Too bad. This is my solution to the problem of Gideon wanting to leave Bibles around. And it works. And it benefits American children.

          • JD

            What about the Native Americans’ history and their religions? Black slaves history and their religions? Chinese immigrants histories and their religions?

            They are part of American history as well.

          • You haven’t read previous posts.

            The Indians are most certainly a conquered people. Their way of life was not compatible with the European’s ways so there was no way to assimilate. It’s a matter of history.

            As for slavery, are you assuming that America invented slavery?
            Slavery existed all over the world LONG before America. It was a part of HUMAN culture since the dawn of man.

            America didn’t invent slavery, but was the very first country to completely eliminate all forms of slavery.

            And Chinese religious philosophy has nothing to do with the founding principles of America, so why would you include Chinese religion in an American History class?

            You can certainly teach about all the different ethnic groups, but only the Bible is essential for understanding America’s founding principles. The founders were Christians.

          • JD

            There’s a vast difference between demanding bibles in school as part of history from having Bible study tributed at schools with explicit purpose to convert kids to Christianity. This school recognize this and hence stopped the practice of allowing the giving out bibles. If you want kids to learn about the bible that is your job, not the schools.

            Btw, do you know why they call America the land of the free? Because it was stolen.

          • wow you’re dumb! lol

            No one is “demanding” Bibles for history class. ?? lol!

            No one is forcing anyone to read a Bible just because it’s available.

            No one is “forcing” anyone to “convert” just by leaving a Bible on a table! ROTF! omg! really? HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA!

            My dear, you are definitely completely threatened by the Bible. How sad! Funny, but sad too.

            Now, if you want your kids to REALLY learn the entire truth about American History, and really understand it, then the Bible is an essential part of any American history course. And that is the school’s job to teach American history. A little common sense, please!

            And so sorry to break this news to you, genius. The Indians did not win. They were conquered. But they do get all kinds of freebies and perks today (including free educations, like a friend of mine did), and are a part of American society. They have fought in our wars and defended this country. They are American.

            So are all the other immigrants that came here over the decades. They came here to BECOME AMERICAN.

            Duh. really. unreal!

        • If you actually read the DOI, then you should know that it cannot be fully understood, or perhaps not understood at all, without an understanding of the Christian Bible.

          My proposal, as a solution to the problem of leaving Gideon Bibles around and therefore having to open the door to every Tom, Dick and Harry, IS TO INCLUDE THE BIBLE WHEN TEACHING AMERICAN HISTORY.

          This IS my solution to THIS topic. This way the Bible is rightly included in American history, this does not open the door to every other religion, because it’s an American History class, and the problem is solved.

          Simple. And it works. You just don’t like the idea that it works,and legally would allow the Bible without having to include any other religion.

          Too bad. Don’t respond if you don’t like the proposal. You are entitled to your opinion, and I’m entitled to mine.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If you actually read the DOI, then you should know that it cannot be
            fully understood, or perhaps not understood at all, without an
            understanding of the Christian Bible.

            I’m not too sure about that. I don’t see how you necessarily have to understand the Bible to see that people have unalienable rights. And, for another thing, the references are to a “creator” and “Nature’s God”…..that’s not necessarily only a Christian thing. I mean, you could believe in those without being a Christian, certainly.

            My proposal, as a solution to the problem of leaving Gideon Bibles
            around and therefore having to open the door to every Tom, Dick and
            Harry, IS TO INCLUDE THE BIBLE WHEN TEACHING AMERICAN HISTORY.

            You know, I actually don’t completely disagree with you there. Let’s not have outside groups at all distribute literature in public schools, but we can have the roles, whatever they were and are, of religions in history be taught. Fine with me….I guess what we’re disagreeing on is what that role exactly was, in the case of Christianity. But, you know, though…American history isn’t the only history taught in schools. Schools teach WORLD history as well, not to mention there are even classes on world religions in particular.

          • The DOI doesn’t just state that MANKIND has unalienable rights.

            The DOI states that all mankind has unalienable rights endowed by GOD.

            Funny how you leave that most important part out.

            And yes, God and Nature’s God were very common references to God, and exclusive to the Christian Bible. And if you believe in God, you believe in God. There is no in-between.

            You forget that the founding fathers were all CHRISTIAN. They came from ENGLAND. They were not muslim (thank GOD!) or Hindu or anything else. They were CHRISTIAN.

            This is extremely important, too. Because if your rights come from God, and God’s law is above man’s law, then the government can’t take your rights away. NOTE that in the DOI, God is also referred to as “The Supreme Ruler of the world.” Think about that.

            If your rights don’t come from God, then where do they come from, and how are they protected?
            They can only come from the government, and the government would answer to no one. No “supreme ruler.”
            So your rights would only be whatever the government decided to give you. OR take away whenever it chose.
            A perfect example of this “God -less” atheistic government would be COMMUNISM. And we all know how that turned out.

            So, starting to see the difference, and why basing a government on Biblical/Christian principles made us the FREEST nation in history? Yep. All because our rights are protected by God as stated in our founding documents, and our God given rights are protected by our Constitution.

            Also note that the 10 commandments, which are in our Supreme Court and in every major courthouse in the land, are exclusive to the Christian Bible.

            It is undeniable that our founders were Christian (did you read DeTocqueville?) and that our government was based on Biblical Christian principles, not the principles of any other religion or world view on earth.

            I firmly believe that American children should be taught American history first and foremost starting in grade school. Immediately. It’s only fair to learn your own culture and history first, and what it means to actually BE an American. Where you came from. If you don’t know truly where you came from, you’ll never know where you are going. One nation, Under God.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You forget that the founding fathers were all CHRISTIAN.

            I ask you this: If someone said this, would you say they were a Christian, or not?

            “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. … But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding….”

            The point is, some of the founding fathers were Deists, and I think a lot of people would say that’s not “true Christianity” if they were around today. The phrase “Nature’s God” was often used to talk about the deist concept of God.

            If your rights don’t come from God, then where do they come from, and how are they protected?

            Protected and given by society, the people, the government. I mean….actually I suppose you’re right in that they aren’t really “unalienable” rights. But…if the rights supposedly “endowed by our creator,” namely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are so “unalienable”, why do people so often deny others those rights? It’s not too hard to see some Christians do quite a lot of denying those to others. (Perhaps those are the people who really need to take another look at that part of the Declaration!)

            what it means to actually BE an American

            I’m curious; what, in your own words, does it mean?

          • Actually, they were not Deists. Not at all, which is evident from the wording of the DOI (which all 56 men signed, pledging their lives, fortunes and “sacred honor” to it). They could not possibly have been deists and wrote that Document, or the Constitution.

            Those words (about the “mystical generation of Jesus”) sound somewhat like Thomas Paine. The poor man wrote one truly historical document, then sunk into drunkenness and poverty. He was shunned by the founding fathers for the most part as well. Sad story. But anyway. You are still asking a non-sensical question that has no point or relevance to the DOI or the men that signed it.

            This is called “revisionist history.” It is false, and its totally dishonest and unfair to American children to teach them lies, instead of the truth about where we came from. And dangerous as well.

            “Nature and Nature’s God” was never used by deists. It was used by all the Christians of the day, including men like William Blackstone, who wrote “Blackstone’s Commentaries” on the common law of England and it’s Christian foundation. It was a famous book of the time and greatly influenced the founders.

            No, deism was never a part of the founding father’s faith. None of them. I don’t consider Paine a founding father, and he was actually shunned by them. Pure revisionist history and a lie. Our children deserve better than that. You deserve better than that. Just read the DOI, and also the original documents written by our founders. About as far from deism as anyone could ever get. George Washington even prayed 3 times a day, and kept a diary of his daily prayers, still in the archives of Washington DC. Ben Franklin started the practice of opening every house and senate session with a Christian prayer, officiated by local clergy, who were actually paid for their service with government funds. Thomas Jefferson wrote his “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just” treatise on the evils of slavery. Madison declared that our form of government was only suitable for a moral and religious people. John Adams as well. Noah Webster declared that the Bible and history should forever be a part of public school instruction. And in the beginning it was. I could go on and on and on. All exclusively Christian. No deism at all.

            I’m not sure who or what you are referring to when you say that people so often deny others those rights. What people? How are they be denied “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Christians would be the last to deny anyone these rights, as they are Christian principles.

            An American is not just a “member of a global society.” We are LEADERS of the free world. As such, we have a responsibility to set a proper and moral example for the rest of the world. We have a responsibility to defend our allies, and those being oppressed. We have a responsibility to defend freedom at home and abroad. We have a responsibility to help those in need (which we do a pretty good job of, we are the first on the scene of any disaster to offer tons of aid, even if it’s in an “enemy” country.)

            If we say we are just another member of a global society, we are absconding from our responsibilities, and failing the rest of the world by failing to acknowledge our leadership and example role. That is not fair to us or anyone else.

            We are Americans. We do what is right. We do what is just. We help others when at all possible. We defend freedom and the oppressed. We set a shining and moral example for the rest of the world to follow. We lead with compassion and righteousness. We honor God so that the rest of the world sees the benefits bestowed upon obedient nations and follows our example.

            We love and honor our military and all those who sacrificed before us (don’t ever forget the wars your fathers fought).
            We are patriotic and love our country.

            America is all these things. And we love posterity enough to want to preserve this greatest of nations for them, so that future generations have the opportunity to live the lives that we have had the opportunity to enjoy.

            This is what America means to me, and then some. I honor her history, the men who made it all possible, yesterday and today. And I strive to preserve and improve America whenever I can. I am proud of the principles that we stand for and for all the good we do in the world. And we do much more good than bad. No nation is perfect, but none are better at performing than we are. This is just all off the top of my head.

            What does being an American mean to you?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m not sure who or what you are referring to when you say that people
            so often deny others those rights. What people? How are they be denied
            “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Christians would be the
            last to deny anyone these rights, as they are Christian principles.

            Well, just for one example off the top of my head, it’s usually Christians denying those rights to LGBT people, at least in this country. And of course, you could always go back in history and look at all the people that felt that slavery and racial discrimination were justified by Christianity.

            As for Jefferson being a deist….I just saw this quote from a Catholic theologian, Avery Dulles: “In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God,
            in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and
            punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation.
            He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest
            expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral
            teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among
            other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson’s religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day.”

          • ?? How do Christians deny rights to LGBT people?

            How did Christianity justify slavery or discrimination?

            Exodus 21:16 and 1 Timothy 1:10 just a couple of examples of how harshly God objected to slavery of any kind. Even bond servants.

            Now mind you, people such as you and I do not always obey God. But that doesn’t change God’s laws. God abhorred slavery and any kind of discrimination.

            You make no sense at all. It was the Christians in this country that supported the black vote and helped push it through. Black men could vote a good 50 years before white woman, btw, BECAUSE of Christians, many of them husband and wife teams.

            Same for slavery, it was the Christians that objected (like Thomas Jefferson and his “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just ….) and others.

            Someone is filling you up with a bunch of politically correct revisionist history.

            As for Jefferson’s deism, That is one person’s opinion of Jefferson’s beliefs.

            But I seriously doubt a “deist” would fear God’s wrath coming down on America because of the issue of slavery.

            Nor would a deist rely “on the Supreme Ruler of the World” and on “Divine Providence.”

            Jefferson also worshiped Jesus. He created his own Bible with just the “words in red.” Just the teachings of Jesus.

            Plus, Jefferson read the Bible in it’s original Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English, Anglo-Saxon, and French. DELIBERATELY. Yes, he spoke and wrote all those languages.

            Doesn’t sound like a deist to me. Not buying it, but that Catholic priest is certainly entitled to his opinion.

            Perhaps you need to visit the Jefferson Memorial.

            He was certainly a Christian.

          • glenbo

            >>”The DOI states that all mankind has unalienable rights endowed by GOD.”<<

            Which God is specified in the DoI?
            There are many.

          • Bob Johnson

            The Declaration of Independence is, technically, a British document, directed to the King of England, who is head of the Anglican Church. Therefore, since the colonies were claiming to be going over the head of state we might assume that the Nature’s God would be the Anglican (Episcopalian) God.

            As an aside, many folks on this website do not consider Episcopalians to be Christians.

          • I’m not sure that applies. Some of the founders went to a Presbyterian church, others Baptist. There were many denominations in America.

            And ALL these denominations are CHRISTIAN. It was the Christian God referenced in the DOI. Not any specific denomination.

          • glenbo

            >>”It was the Christian God referenced in the DOI.”<<

            Please post the part of the DOI that specifies a Christian God.

          • ??? For real? Why don’t you just read it? “The Creator.” “The Supreme Ruler of the World” “Nature and Nature’s God.” “Divine Providence.” It’s not like the DOI is hard to find.

            READ. COMPREHEND. LEARN.

          • glenbo

            There is NO direct reference to the Judeo Christian God in the Declaration of Independence.

            First of all, “the” creator is inaccurate. The correct wording is THEIR creator. That could be anyone or anything…such as Nature. You are misquoting. (Deliberately misquoting is manipulative.)
            Second, the Supreme “ruler” of the world is also inaccurate. The correct wording is Supreme “judge” of the world. Again, Nature fits. You are misquoting again. (Deliberately misquoting is manipulative.)
            Third, “Nature’s God” does NOT specify the Judeo Christian God. Nature’s God can be interpreted to mean anything.
            And fourth, “divine providence” also does NOT specify the Judeo Christian God. Nature could easily explain this.

            Our Founding Fathers were Deists, (Nature being in control) not theists. (Religion being in control.

            Our Founding Fathers were very careful NOT to specify any specific God or particular religion.
            Not having a full understanding as to how Nature operates (as was the case in the 1600’s and 1700’s) creator, ruler and divine could mean anything, but specifically, it fits with a Natural explanation of our existence, as there is NO evidence otherwise.

          • The founding fathers only adhered to the Christian Bible. All their references were from the Christian Bible.

            There may be many different beliefs, but the founding fathers had only one. So your question doesn’t even make sense, and betrays a profound lack of historical knowledge.

          • glenbo

            >>”The founding fathers only adhered to the Christian Bible. All their references were from the Christian Bible.”<<

            What evidence can you present to prove they referenced the Christian Bible and you aren't lying?

          • wow. Just amazing, the lack of historical knowledge about your own country, assuming you are American. I’m hoping not.

            ALL of American history, and anything at all that these men wrote is solid proof.

            For one, every house and senate session is started with a Christian prayer, led by local clergy. The practice was started by Ben Franklin BEFORE the Constitution was even ratified. This is still done TODAY, almost 250 years later.

            Did you ever read Ben Franklin’s speech promoting starting sessions with a prayer? And ALL THE FOUNDERS AGREED WITH HIM and they alll prayed, so the practice was instituted:

            Here is some of Ben’s speech:

            In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were
            sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine
            protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously
            answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.

            To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And
            have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?

            I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the s scred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.”

          • glenbo

            >>”God Governs in the affairs of men.”<<

            Where does God say that one cannot own another human being as property?
            Where does God say rape is immoral?
            Where does God say that child molesting is immoral?

          • So you are not denying that the Christian Bible is the foundation for our country anymore?

            Well?

            Then we can move onto your other questions. I can see you’ve never read or studied the Bible.

          • glenbo

            >>”So you are not denying that the Christian Bible is the foundation for our country anymore?”<<

            Why don't you just answer my questions?
            How do we come to the knowledge of the above being immoral if the bible never addresses them as immoral?

          • You didn’t answer my question. So you now understand that the Christian Bible is the foundation of our country?

            Yes or No? It’s a simple yes or no answer.

            Answer my question, and I’ll copy and paste chapter and verse where the Bible severely condemns those immoralities. Every single one.

          • glenbo

            >>” So you now understand that the Christian Bible is the foundation of our country?”<

            NO.

            Nowhere is Christianity or the Judeo Christian God mentioned anywhere.

          • wow. And why, sir, would you accuse me of lying? To what end? Do you lie?

          • glenbo

            >>”And why, sir, would you accuse me of lying?”<“All their references were from the Christian Bible”>”Do you lie?”<<

            No, I don't. There is no need for me to. I have no agenda.

          • What makes you think I have an agenda?

            I believe YOU do.

            Yes, I’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the founding fathers referenced only the Christian Bible.

            YOUR agenda is to revise history because you don’t like it’s Christian roots.

          • glenbo

            >>”Yes, I’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the founding fathers referenced only the Christian Bible.”<>>”YOUR agenda is to revise history because you don’t like it’s Christian roots”<<

            Nowhere is Christianity mentioned in any of our Founding documents.

          • My claims were backed up by exact quotes from the founding father’s themselves. This is hardly a “claim” or “opinion.” They are original source documents that actually exist in our national archives.

            I also brought up symbols and traditions that actually exist TODAY.

            For instance, I did not “claim” that the 10 commandments are in the Supreme Court and every major courthouse in the country. Nor is it an “opinion.”
            It is a FACT. They exist.
            Just like the frieze of Moses, the Biblical lawgiver, exists in the House of Representatives.
            And just like every house and senate session is commenced with a Christian prayer, which is a tradition started by Christian Ben Franklin, and has been carried on in our government for almost 250 years.

            None of this is a “claim.” It’s a FACT. You seem to be confused as to the difference between “FACT” and “OPINION.”

            All my “claims” have been backed up with actual FACTS.

            So sorry, all my statements stand as true fact.

            So do YOU now understand that our govt. is based on Christian/Biblical principles,and that this is a FACT?

          • glenbo

            >>”>So do YOU now understand that our govt. is based on Christian/Biblical principles and that this is a FACT?”<<

            Wrong. Nowhere is Christianity mentioned in any of our Founding documents.

      • Bob Johnson

        “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

        Curiously, the words “Nature’s God,’ and “Creator” occur in the first and second sentences. The third sentence, above, destroys your idea that “our founders relied on God’s providence, and the “supreme ruler of the world.”

      • Peter Olins

        The modern countries of the Western Hemisphere were founded on the actions of invading Europeans who used their religion to justify theft and slaughter. Teaching children the “foundation” of America is a worthy activity, but I seriously doubt if that this is the motivation for sharing Gideon Bibles.

  • Chet

    Why, oh why do those so threatened by these people always drop and roll over? How about daring to be a Daniel. Try doing the right thing and watch how God Almighty works it all out to His glory and honor. Stand Up, Stand Up For Jesus Ye Soldiers Of The Cross…

  • Lemmylemon

    If it was the satanic bible they’d have no problem. Christian soldiers don’t run. What happened to the Armor of God?

  • glenbo

    How interesting it is that when logic turns the table on a debate censorship kicks in.

    • The moderator has allowed many different points of view, and much discussion. I seriously doubt your comments were censored due to “logic.”

      • glenbo

        >>>”The moderator has allowed many different points of view, and much discussion. I seriously doubt your comments were censored due to “logic.””<<

        Then answer this question:
        What is your message/intent on gay couples raising children?