jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (74 posts)

The Separation Of Church & State - The Law & The Bible

  1. Ben Bush profile image54
    Ben Bushposted 9 years ago

    There are many who say that, not only is the separation of Church & State not a truly legal concept, but it was never intended by God to be the true state of affairs in the United States.

    So, what is the separation of Church & State as reflected in law? As reflected in the Bible?

    Do you know or can you guess? Why is it Important?

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation … _and_state

      It certainly is implied in the first amendment and was put there so that there wouldn't be persecution for not following the teachings of a state religion which was why people came to America to begin with.

      What's more disturbing to me is your statement that "some say...it was never intended by God to be the true state of affairs in the United States"

      Just who are these people that claim to know the intent of God????

      1. Paul Winngert profile image61
        Paul Winngertposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        "So, what is the separation of Church & State as reflected in law? As reflected in the Bible?" Hmmm. Let's see. We are no longer permitted to sell our daughters into slavery. Rapoes don't get away with their crime by paying off the victim's father and marry her, we are not permitted to murder someone for working on Sunday, rape is a crime, etc. The Bibull was written for poorly educated 1st-century goat herders not for 21st-century living standards.

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
          The0NatureBoyposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          The separation of church and state isn't in any laws, by all I can glean it is the misinterpretation the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as I posted below.

          What is almost unknown to the people-en-mass is because of the Nicene Council the Vatican is a major player behind most western nations' laws and interpretations. It is one of the major holders of the world's money which gives it "dictatorship" in what man-en-mass believes. All denomination of Christianity still have ties to it and indirectly obey its dictate. "Separation of church and state" is just one of its commands.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            That you "interpret" the first amendment differently than most people, and different than the Supreme Court, doesn't make your conclusion correct.  On the contrary, the SCOTUS is the highest court in the land and does have both the responsibility and authority to interpret it, whereupon their decision becomes law.

            Whether you agree with their interpretation or not (I sometimes do not), the fact remains that it IS the law.

            1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
              The0NatureBoyposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              According to what is written in the United States Constitution, since it's said to be the supreme document of this land, "We The People" are supposed to be the authority for interpreting the it and I'm doing it on behalf of us. The people's "trustees" and the people who made SCOTUS to be the highest court over the Constitution's making the Supreme Court of this land to be and in our constitution it reads "any constitution or law ... to the contrary" IS INVALID.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                I see.  You have taken it upon yourself to be the supreme interpreter, although the rest of us delegate that responsibility to the SCOTUS.

                Article III, section I of the constitution establishes this: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

                It does NOT say "Final determination of law is vested in The0NatureBoy".

                1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
                  The0NatureBoyposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  No, I am not the interpreter, the Constitution's wording made it the interpreter. Your problem is you have bought into the "politically correctness" MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, has schooled man-en-mass into believing in. She established the SCOTUS for the reason contradict the constitution since they were schooling man-en-mass to believe in the leadership rather than the constitution.

                  Since The0NatureBoy chose education [i.e, "to objectively observe, participate as needed for seeing various outcomes, reasoning with them and establishing the ABILITY TO REVEAL THOSE REASONINGS to others"] it only make him not a follower of external leaders to my own discarnating like "schools of fish" often do. You may continue to be led by man intent on controlling your very thoughts if you want but NatureBoy has broken that chain which once bound him.

                  Be at PEACE as you follow your external leader.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Wait.  The constitution is responsible for explaining what the constitution means?  That doesn't even begin to make sense.  On the other hand, the constitution designating SCOTUS to explain the meaning of centuries old wording DOES make perfect sense: the writers of the document understood that it is all too easy to give false meaning and solved it by defining who is to do it.

                    You do understand that accepting what the law says, abiding by that law, and particularly agreeing with the morality of a law are very different things?  SCOTUS defines the law and we are bound by it whether we like it or not.  You make your own call whether the law is moral and right, and so do I, but that determination does not relieve us of the necessity of abiding by it: only removing ourselves from the reaches of the American justice system can do that.

    2. Misha profile image76
      Mishaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I am not arrogant enough to pretend to know God's intentions smile

      1. Ben Bush profile image54
        Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Unfortunately some do, even in the face of evidence otherwise.

    3. The0NatureBoy profile image46
      The0NatureBoyposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      The supposed "separation of church and state" is only a misinterpretation of Amendment one's phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." but it does not imply that at all. It disallow governmental laws to disrespect religious establishments from PRACTICING their beliefs with the kicker "as long as they do no harm to themselves nor others. In that day's writers used commas and/or semicolons along with conjunctions while today's punctuating require either or which make it appear to be two separate statements. It has a "double subject" with religion first followed by practice as a latter.

      With that understanding any religious violation of the nations laws designed to "to form a more prefect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, provide for the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity" are punishable by law. It doesn't matter if the person is in government, law enforcement, Judiciary or business no one's religion allows discrimination and or prohibits causing any of those six condition to be violated.

      So again, there is no evidence to support separation of church and state.

    4. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
      Slarty O'Brianposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      US constitution is clear. The government is forbidden from taking on any official religion or funding one. This is for two reasons. One is to prevent religious persecution of any other religion, and because of guaranteed freedom of religion.

      It is required in any multi cultural society in order to treat all citizens equally, including atheists. 

      In Canada the constitution also guarantees religious freedom. Church and state are separate. The difference is, in the US you have a hard time getting elected unless you profess some sort of faith. In Canada you can't get elected if you mention religion. You can get elected if you're religious, just leave it at home. You represent all citizens. Your religion is irrelevant to the issues. .You can vote how you like, just don't mention you're doing it for your religion, and don't try to sway votes on a religious basis.

      I think that's how it should be. So did the religious people who gave America their constitution.

      1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
        The0NatureBoyposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        According to the last clause in the U.S. Constitution's Article 6, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", and Amendment 1's, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", the United States' tradition of claiming religion is in violation of the constitution. What has happened is an unauthorized replacement constitution has been used for governing this nation for so many years few of today's "We The People", except those the Supreme Court's saying "Corporations are People", know anything about it.

        Those who wrote the constitution intended this for nation to break the tradition of religions being the "brainwashing scare tactics" scaring the people into submission to the government. However, when we look close at Amendment 1 everything in it suggests religions, Quakers for example, are to assemble, discuss, publish their findings and when they see the government violating the Constitution they are to "in writing" petition the government of their error(s). We have the people making lots of noise before the government without showing specific violations of the Constitution needing correcting.

        With that understanding, there is no "separation of Church and State" in the U.S. and the state is allowed two punish "child molesting" priests and nuns which England was not to do. It's the "Deep State's" control of government that has made it appear to be here but the constitution reads differently.

        I'm agreeing with you, Slarty O'Brian, not opposing.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image84
          Slarty O'Brianposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          A very well written reply. Being Canadian I don't know enough about your history to argue with you on these points, but I do know the Quakers were running from English persecution when they came there. So your claims have , in my uneducated opinion about the subject,, a good chance of being true, for what ever that's worth.

          I was just putting my opinion about the necessity of separation of church and state in the mix. That I am qualified to argue. wink

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            A good example is the Puritans in the early US.  They, too, ran from persecution...only to set up one of the worst religion controlled societies we've seen, persecuting anyone not of their belief and most of those that were.  Yes, separation is a necessity - the writers of the constitution knew that, wrote it into our constitution and the Supreme Court recognizes that.

            1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
              The0NatureBoyposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Why did the atheist Trump claim a religion if the Dis-United States of America's Amend 1 require separation of church ands state? Why was there such of a concern because JFK as a Catholic? The misinterpretation of Amendment 1 by the supreme court is the culprit responsible for it and I have yet to find any evidence suggesting it.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Your characterization of Trump being atheist is out of line: I've never heard or seen make that claim.

                To get elected: the constitution does not say that no one may vote based on their religious principles - only that govt. cannot supply that religion.

                Because many people don't like Catholics and feel they are not Christian.  They want a Christian president (and govt., in their foolishness).

                Are you confusing what people want and what the law is?

  2. Mark Knowles profile image61
    Mark Knowlesposted 9 years ago

    Who says that the separation of church and state is not a truly legal concept ?

    Could you add some links to their websites?

    By the way - I looked up the soldier who went MIA and claimed diplomatic immunity in a Catholic church and could find nothing. Would you add some links to that also?

    And what exactly did god have to do with writing the US constitution?

    1. Ben Bush profile image54
      Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Here are a few links:

      Pro Separation of Church & State

      http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues

      http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/Re … tyMain.cfm

      http://www.ffrf.org/purposes/

      http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2496


      Anti-Separation of Church & State

      http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT00G4

      http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesAr … asp?id=123

      http://www.aclj.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=775

      Mark, I'll have to look up the AWOL MP in my archives. It may be a few days.

      According to the Founding Fathers, God was all over the place in its formation. Even Ben Franklin reminded the convention of the fact the God surely views the rise of an "Empire." He then called for prayer, even though they didn't pray at that time. Surely you're not going to argue with ole Ben?

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Well, I would happily argue with ole Ben if he was telling me he knew what god wanted - and from my understanding of god - he couldn't care less one way or another about the rise and fall of yet another empire - whether they claimed to know his wishes and enforce those wishes by use of the police and military or not smile

        All those links don't really address the "legal " aspect of separation. They certainly address the wishes of certain groups of people - who, coincidentally, also know what god wants and feel it should be written into state law - and use the police and other state powers to enforce those laws. Because they are right. lol

        SJ - thank you for those links.

        One really has to use one's common sense here. The founding fathers obviously knew what they were doing.

        Keeping power for themselves. And ensuring that no religious group was allowed to take power. Smart move. Sarah Palin types notwithstanding.

        Clever people smile

        1. Ben Bush profile image54
          Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Mark,

          Here's the small article from the Dallas Morning News. It doesn't come up in their archives search (plus, you have to pay for access to it), but this is the article as I copied/ typed it a few days after I read it.


                                        Church protects soldier who fled Fort Hood

               The Dallas Morning News of  March 30, 2003 contained this brief on page 24A.
               Fort Hood soldier Ralph Padula tried for months to obtain conscientious objector status. But as his military police unit shipped out to Iraq, and officers made it clear that he too would be deployed, he fled on Thursday and sought sanctuary at a Roman Catholic church in Round Rock, north of Austin. His supporters at St. John Vianney Church were vowing to protect the soldier until the Army promises to treat him fairly, the Rev. Samuel Hose said. The priest is seeking an independent psychiatric evaluation of the soldier.





          Can one use common sense when dealing with the thoughts and actions of men who were regularly referring to God being involved in their politics?smile



          Technically you're right. The core issue of "separation of Church and State, as written into the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment, is hardly ever at stake in the many court cases which supposedly deal with this issue. All is at stake is the public display or articulation of religious thoughts and ideas. And these aren't "rights" which are at stake. By law, they are mere priviliges, which are granted and regulated by the Government. All these arguments do is make money for the Lawyers and keep certain segments of the public agitated.

          1. Make  Money profile image78
            Make Moneyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I believe Ralph Padula has a right to be a conscientious objector on the grounds that it is against his religion.  I can't find it right now but in the last book of the Bible it says we are not to take part in the last war or Apocalypse. http://www.drbo.org/book/73.htm

            Mike

            1. Ben Bush profile image54
              Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              I believe John The Baptist addressed this issue when asked a question by soldiers in Luke 3:14. Adhering to the first one was impossible and still remain a soldier.

              1. Make  Money profile image78
                Make Moneyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Yeah exactly, Apocalypse or not.

  3. SparklingJewel profile image76
    SparklingJewelposted 9 years ago

    Mark Alexander
    From Patriot Post Vol. 03 No. 33; Published 15 August 2003

    There is serious threat facing our nation, the resolution of which will have far-reaching implications for the survival of our republic.

    For the last decade, The Federalist has followed the judicial tenure of Roy Moore, the Alabama judge who was sued by the ACLU in 1995 -- to no avail -- because he displayed the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and opened his court with prayer. Two years ago, when this outstanding Patriot was sworn in as Alabama's Chief Justice, he declared, "God's law will be publicly acknowledged in our court. [It is my duty] not only to maintain the honor and integrity of the court system and the judicial branch, but to restore and preserve the moral foundation of our law."

    Chief Justice Moore not only keeps the Decalogue in his courtroom, but in 2001 he installed a monument in the rotunda of the Alabama Justice Building featuring a relief of the Ten Commandments, engraved with quotes from our Founders. At the dedication of that monument, Justice Moore declared, "To restore morality we must first recognize the source from which all morality springs. From our earliest history in 1776 when we were declared to be the United States of America, our forefathers recognized the sovereignty of God."

    That, of course, prompted a federal lawsuit by the ACLU claiming violation of the First Amendment's so-called "separation clause" (based on the erroneous assertion that Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists proclaimed that the Constitution ensured all manner of "separation of church and state").

    Despite the fact this case has received only marginal media attention, we believe it is the most important test of federalism in decades, not only of federalism as detailed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, but also of the First Amendment's restriction that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," which has been stretched by Leftjudicial activists beyond recognition. This case should be of utmost interest to any American who is a Christian and/or a constitutional constructionist.

    Defending the protection of the state from federal jurisdiction in this case, Justice Moore testified, "The basic issue is whether we will still be able to acknowledge God under the First Amendment, or whether we will not be able to acknowledge God." But U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson would have none of that and ordered the monument removed.

    Justice Moore took his case to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, protesting that "...Federal district courts have no jurisdiction or authority to prohibit the acknowledgment of God that is specifically recognized in the Constitution of Alabama," but Judge Ed Carnes upheld Thompson's ruling. Carnes wrote: "Any notion of high government officials' being above the law did not save [states' rights proponents] from having to obey federal court orders, and it will not save [Alabama Chief Justice Roy S. Moore] from having to comply with the court order in this case. ... If necessary, the court order will be enforced. The rule of law will prevail."

    Apparently, Judge Carnes relied on the same adulterated version of our Constitution used by Thompson. Our copy still says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," which applies to, well, Congress, not Chief Justice Moore, who was elected to state office by the people of the state of Alabama. The only parties in this case involved in "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion are the ACLU and their Leftjudiciary minions.

    Chief Justice Moore has appealed the 11th Circuit Court ruling to the Supreme Court, declaring: "We must defend our rights and preserve our Constitution. ... To prohibit the acknowledgment of God upon Whom our justice system is established is to undermine our entire judicial system. We will defend this display in the judicial building vigorously. It is an acknowledgment of a sovereign, holy God Whose laws superintend those of man. We will not retreat from that position, because it is true."

    Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist has noted previously, "The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. ... The greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intention of the drafters of the Bill of Rights."

    Ironically, in the Supreme Court, the Ten Commandments are etched in a marble relief above the Justices' bench, for indeed they are the moral foundation of American law. Thompson, meanwhile, renewed his demand that Chief Justice Moore remove the monument by August 20 and threatened "substantial fines against Chief Justice Moore in his official capacity, and thus against the state of Alabama itself, until the monument is removed."

    Stepping into the fight in late July, Congress voted 260-161 for an amendment to defund any effort by U.S. Marshals to remove the monument. "None of the funds appropriated in this [bill] may be used to enforce the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit," said Rep. John Hostettler.

    The foundational question all constitutional constructionists should be asking: On what legitimate constitutional grounds can a federal judge lodge demands, punishments and fines against chief judicial officers in the several states -- or does the federal bench now assume that the states are nothing more than administrative agencies of the central government -- rather than federally separated governments subject to their own constitutional sovereignty?

    To assess the importance of this case, consider this evaluation from 11th Circuit Judge Carnes in his ruling against Chief Justice Moore: "If Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument were allowed to stand, it would mean a massive revision of how the courts have interpreted the First Amendment for years."

    We encourage every American Patriot, who believes as our Founders did that our Constitution should not be subject to the vagaries of an activist Leftjudiciary, to sign an open letter in support of Chief Justice Roy Moore's defense of religious liberty and states' rights.

    Link to -- http://patriotpetitions.us/openletter


    this is one perspective...more to come

  4. SparklingJewel profile image76
    SparklingJewelposted 9 years ago

    Library of congress official copy of Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to Danbury church where the phrase "separation of church and state"  comes from

    http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebreco … 4&v3=1

  5. SparklingJewel profile image76
    SparklingJewelposted 9 years ago
  6. SparklingJewel profile image76
    SparklingJewelposted 9 years ago
  7. SparklingJewel profile image76
    SparklingJewelposted 9 years ago

    there have been several "interpretations" of this phrase by law and historical professors that I have read in the past. I am looking for them... they were very unique in their interpretations

  8. Inspirepub profile image79
    Inspirepubposted 9 years ago

    Haven't we done the whole Founding Fathers thing before?

    I'm getting a Groundhog Day sensation ...

    Jenny

  9. SparklingJewel profile image76
    SparklingJewelposted 9 years ago

    I think the whole separation of church and state thing is a very good subject to continue. It brings up the perspectives of where people are at in their thinking on God and government and can make clear where people are abusing their power.

    The average liberal American wants to keep religion out of government and the average conservative wants to keep government out of their religion.Why in heavens name does there have to be an argument about who is right and who is wrong? Can't we all try to say the same thing...that there is a middle ground where we should be looking for common understanding?

    Nobody wants a religious state government...but I see that many liberals want conservatives to not think the way they do and try to take away the conservatives religious freedoms and speech thereof. Christians have a certain belief system about particular things, and don't make any bones about what they think of certain "moral/value" issues, but I haven't seen them trying to take away  liberals'  freedoms and speech.

    No conservative tried to take away a gay's right to free speech, except where gays  have tried to impose their beliefs through school systems without consent (prayer was in schools from the founding of the country, accepted as a way of life)...why can't both "sides" be heard? But liberals have certainly tried and accomplished taking prayer out of schools and attempting to do the same with the Pledge of Allegiance and a state or cities' right to have prayer in local meetings and crosses in cemetaries.  Who is trying to control whose consciousness?

    Some liberals are doing the same thing to conservatives that they are accusing conservatives of doing to them. How is not wanting to allow the concept of God any different than wanting to allow the concept of God? How is a liberal  accusing conservatives of being cold and indifferent to certain populations and their ideals any different than a liberal being indifferent to certain religious populations' ideals?

    From my 50 years of life and 20 years of spiritual study, it seems to me that the "sides" have more in common than they do in differences. The diversities aren't the problem, thinking that someone is right and someone is wrong is the problem. We need to be going after the core of inhumanity within our selves and reaching out to others to help overcome those that truly abuse us in common...the power elite in monopolies of all kinds, be it in governments, banks, corporations, or churches/religions that want to use their powers to control people.

    Geez, people need to wake up and see who really is in control here, cause it isn't God within themselves or the natural order of the universe, it's the freedoms of the soul being manipulated through the everyday systems we have allowed to expand unchecked that controls our lives.

    1. Ben Bush profile image54
      Ben Bushposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The bible says in Proverbs that, "The rich rule over the poor and the borrower is a slave to the lender."

      The United States is a nation of slaves. Not only that, our representatives have made slaves out of us by going bankrupt themselves, thus making the people responsible for the debt. This is the issue where most of the controls stems from, monetary entanglements. It is only natural that loss of freedoms follow the flow of debt.

  10. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 9 years ago

    "and officers made it clear that he too would be deployed, he fled on Thursday and sought sanctuary at a Roman Catholic church in Round Rock, north of Austin. His supporters at St. John Vianney Church were vowing to protect the soldier until the Army promises to treat him fairly, the Rev. Samuel Hose said. The priest is seeking an independent psychiatric evaluation of the soldier." He must be crazy.

  11. Live to Learn profile image80
    Live to Learnposted 4 months ago

    The bible spent an entire section (let's call it the Old Testament) detailing why Church ruling state equates to unfortunate things.

    The next section points to the realm of religion being separate.

    1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
      The0NatureBoyposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      I beg to disagree, LTL.

      Most of the Old Testament is spent showing how king and president ruled nations usually fail. For the most parts, before Israel rebelled against "judges" ruling the land they faired well but when they turned to kings and presidents ruling everything went downhill, in all except a few cases. You should reread it and see.

      1. Live to Learn profile image80
        Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        However you interpret it, the end result was a failed system. Failing so miserably that the inhabitants of the realm were enslaved and subsequently scattered across the breadth of the, then, civilized world.

        After which, they displayed a singular inability to assimilate which eventually led to another scattering which lasted over 1000 years.

        Definitely not something to aspire to emulate.

        We,as humans, have the unfortunate inclination to think we know better than another. Where one fails, we simply assume we can succeed. Every known example of a theocracy is a miserable display of government. Will some never learn?

        1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
          The0NatureBoyposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          "Every known example of a theocracy is a miserable display of government" is true when they are human/woman [inccomplete man unable to comprehend all things] running things. "The Son of Man" who is to be the last ruler of these Dis-United States of America is to be "one of" or "the only" exception.

          1. Live to Learn profile image80
            Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Tell you what. When Jesus appears, I'll have faith in that theocracy. Until then, let's leave religion out of government.

            1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
              The0NatureBoyposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Few people know that Christianity is the prediction of the Dis-United States of America, it's rise and fall. As long as we talk about the happenings in the USA we are talking religion, true also of almost every nation since religion means "a source of reverence" and not a belief in god as it usually implies here in MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT...

              1. Live to Learn profile image80
                Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                roll

                1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
                  The0NatureBoyposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  You think not? Check out Genesis 49:8-12, interpreting the symbolism = USA

                  Micah 5:2's "thou, Bethlehem [means 'house of bread'] Ephratah [means 'plentiful' with the USA being 'the land of plenty'], though thou be little [first read last, then least and now little] among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

                  Daniel 2:41-44 describes the USA.
                  Those three tells us where the finial Christ comes to.

                  Ezekiel 28:13-18 is the USA prior to and after being taken by England.

                  Revelation 17:15 [the same as Daniel 2:41-43] & 18 is how she will be destroyed by Atomic, Nuclear, napalm and all other weapons she has used in the 3 wars [European Wars 1 & 2, Vietnam and not the middle east].

                  And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Read and believe out deny it, your choice.

  12. Live to Learn profile image80
    Live to Learnposted 4 months ago

    I would assert that those who want church lording over state are possibly insecure in their beliefs, incapable of instilling their values in their children (possibly because they don't live by the values they espouse) and lack the ability of self restraint.

    1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
      The0NatureBoyposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      I concur.

  13. Jessie L Watson profile image95
    Jessie L Watsonposted 4 months ago

    It's annoying to see people refer to God as a person with an opinion rather than an inexorable force of nature that civilizations have refined over many millennia to represent the best possible authority over behavior . Anything "intended" is human intended and along with that always comes with some inherent margin for error. The Son of God is meant to serve as a means to update the system across time.as circumstances change.  Yes, Christ wants us to use some common sense.

    1. The0NatureBoy profile image46
      The0NatureBoyposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      The concept of god and devil both annoy me because of how Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things" reading in the present tense.

      Everything that ever happens does in the same ways eternally, there has never been a beginning nor will there be an end to anything except the various cycles.

      "Son of God" and "Son or Man" both means one who has devoted much of their life to the process necessary for comprehending everything's purposes. They overcome judging things which removes the blinders from human's minds  which prevent one from understanding, after all, man means "mind able to comprehend all things" and is not A GENDER.

 
working