(Advertisement)

Grisham Shows Faith In Man, Not God

Posted: June 8, 2013 at 1:22 a.m.

I knew that eventually Lowell Grisham’s true core belief system would surface and it did in Sunday’s article (June I). His opinion piece is based on a set of ideas that come from man and not from the God of the Bible.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 06/08/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

The Enemy Can Be Found Everywhere

Give the Brits credit. When it comes to fi ghting terrorism, they know there’s no percentage in playing word games. Read »

Next Story »

LETTERS

In defense of the redneck By various communications, one is exposed to derisive materials regarding rednecks. To wit: swings made from tires or love seats, improvised picku... Read »

What will I be "saved" from?

Posted by: cdawg

June 8, 2013 at 3:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

From yourself would be a good start. Gosh, puppy, are you insane?

Posted by: JailBird

June 8, 2013 at 5:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )


Re; Grisham Shows Faith In Man Not God

THUMP, THUMP, THUMP

GO
HUMANIST

Posted by: REPUBLICANSRNUTZ

June 8, 2013 at 6:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

It is probably not noticed that all of the quoted Scripture can easily be "literally interpreted" to have a very different meaning than Mr Hanson obviously took. Language is that way. There is NO SUCH THING as "literal interpretation" in the way that fundamentalists would like. Some human is always in the loop. This is much too long a subject for this space but a very important step for true salvation...beyond the kind that the bible-thumpers think is the end-all.

Posted by: ajm

June 8, 2013 at 7:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

ajm,

You can name call all day long. The bedrock of Christianity is the notion that the only way to the Father is through the Son. The Grisham's article the other day aggravated some people because it appeared that a member of the clergy was saying that that underlying element of our faith isn't so and he is wrong.

I'm not thumping. Have blessed weekend.

Posted by: Tankersley101

June 8, 2013 at 8:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The very fact that so many religious leaders in the Christian Right pick and choose which of the Bible's proscriptions to keep and which to throw out is proof enough that the Bible is NOT some inerrant, absolute moral guide and that the morality of these religious leaders is just as subjective as anyone else's.”

No one is more moral than I am simply because they believe a Jewish carpenter 2 millennia ago walked on water, raised the dead, turned water into wine, was born from a virgin, etc., ad nauseum. Frankly, I think they suffer from a mental disorder to suspend all logic and rationality to believe such idiocy. There has never been proof of anything that has broken the basic laws of physics that rule our universe.

But that is their right as Americans. What is NOT their right is to impose that idiocy on the rest of us through legislative law.

Ours is the only nation on Earth that has no official state religion. The First Amendment gives Americans as much freedom FROM religion as it gives freedom of religion. Ours is truly a secular nation, which is something to be proud of.

There's a reason why our nation's founding documents are the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not the Bible or the Torah.

Posted by: BradBailey

June 8, 2013 at 11:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

According to the false prophet, Grisham, even Hitler will be given a place of honor with Jesus with the righeous Jews.

Posted by: JailBird

June 8, 2013 at 12:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hitler is dead. That's spelled d-e-a-d. He won't be going anywhere.

Posted by: BradBailey

June 8, 2013 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money, if you accepted the idea of reincarnation, it would make more sense.
The SOULS of individuals are not the same as their earthly personalities.
+++
It is really tiresome to read these theological arguments, over and over, from evangelical Christians who think that their particular interpretation is the only interpretation of Christianity. Or that Christianity is the only possible religion or spiritual belief.

Posted by: Coralie

June 8, 2013 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Chart of world religions--
Note Christianity, Islam, and Atheism have the most adherents. http://www.religionfacts.com/big_reli...

Posted by: Coralie

June 8, 2013 at 12:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie

A body (dust) combined with the breath of life (Spirit of God) makes a living being (soul). Take the Spirit away and the living being turns back to dust. "d-e-a-d"

Money is my name and education is my game.

Posted by: JailBird

June 8, 2013 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I totally agree with Craig Hanson, in fact here is a repost of my comments concerning Mr. Grisham's opinion article. (sorry, I still can't bring myself to call him Reverend) You either believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, or you don't. It's really that simple.

Mr. Grisham said: "All forgiven. All accepted. All saved. Everyone!"

Call it what you choose, Gospel of Inclusion, Ultimate Reconciliation, or something else, it's still the same false doctrine. Mr. Grisham, I am sure you are a nice person and an honorable man but are you sure you want to be a leader down this slippery slope?

John 14:6 Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me". NASB

Matthew 25:31-46 41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels" NASB

But here are three verses that carry the entire weight of the issue:
John 7:21-23, 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ NASB

If everyone is "Forgiven, Accepted, Saved" who are these ones who will not enter heaven?

On the Cross, Jesus paid the penalty for every sin ever committed by anyone who ever lived, or will live, on the earth. Each individual, however, must either accept or reject this sacrifice. Everyone has the opportunity. Everyone must decide.

Mr. Grisham, what's the point of trying to live a life pleasing to Christ if we will share Heaven with the likes of Herod, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Gacy, Bundy, Dahmer...What's the point if everyone lives happily, eternally.

The really sad thing is that ministers who subscribe to this doctrine are sending souls to Hell.

I certainly would not want that on my resume.

Posted by: patrioteer

June 3, 2013 at 8:08 p.m.

Posted by: patrioteer

June 8, 2013 at 4:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tankersley,

I'm very aware of the bedrocks of certain Christian sects. I wasn't name calling, merely referring to that particular subset. There are many Christians who, with reasoning and biblical references equally as valid as the writers, who find a significantly different path to salvation than the idolizing of Jesus put forth by many. My interpretation is that following the principles of Jesus as a path to salvation in this life was the substance of his message.

I think you missed or ignored my main point: Wording is never unambiguous, no matter who it is ascribed to, and especially if it has been translated from another language.

Posted by: ajm

June 8, 2013 at 5:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Good post, patrioteer, that Grisham heresy is called Universalism. When the blind follow the blind, both fall into a hole. Read that somewhere.

Posted by: JailBird

June 8, 2013 at 5:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Your right Money, a lot of people are speaking from their holes today.

Posted by: hadleyboy

June 8, 2013 at 6:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Patriot,

Thanks for putting that out there.

Posted by: Tankersley101

June 8, 2013 at 6:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Geesh, it's been over 40 yrs since mankind sent a human to the Moon and some of the tribal goat herders stuck in 2000 year old guilt are still debating this foolishness, making all sorts or bizzare claims about who's forgiven but what they're being forgiven "for" is never discussed nor defined with enough clarity for a 10 yr old to understand.

What if:

The Second Coming wherein 144,000 were to be lifted up to heaven has already happened?

Here's some more modern day goat herder's work that should interest low achievement types:

Birth Defects Were Caused By Sin"
.....
Keep in mind that the whole cosmos has been made imperfect — wounded — by sin. It is the principle of sin, rebellion against God and His truth which has brought about birth defects and other destructive natural occurrences. Leaving aside that for a moment, recent discoveries about the genetic code of each human being are a fulfillment of scripture. Your genetic code is the handwriting of God, written before you or the world existed. Our genetic blueprint is proof of the existence of the Living God and His infinite intelligence, purpose and design. Sadly, many will ignore the deeper spiritual truth which underlies the advance of this scientific knowledge.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyns...
-------------------------------
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”
--Seneca, the Elder

Posted by: cdawg

June 8, 2013 at 7:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Religion is a business that no honest follower of the Way could ever get involved in. What has been freely given to me, I give unto you freely without cost. Two things I really know how to do, outsmart the Feds and disclose the secret of eternal life.

Posted by: JailBird

June 8, 2013 at 8:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money
Now you have my attention...how do I outsmart the Feds?
now that would be a saving grace!

Posted by: Andyroo

June 9, 2013 at 7:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

“The propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregard the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained."

Inaugural address 1789”

― George Washington

Posted by: mycentworth

June 9, 2013 at 9:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money - I agree with you an Andyroo. Good question, Andy.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 9, 2013 at 10:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Beating a Federal rap:

1. Federal agents rely on computers and tech.
2. Federal agents believe they are gods.
3. Federal agencies are bloated and get in each others way.
4. Federal computers are easy to hack.
5. Computers work under a certain set of rules and can't change.
6, Those rules are (garbage in, garbage out)
7. Federal agents work under a certain set of rules also (Always believe what your computer tells you, and you will always be justified in what you do)
8. With Feds, the right hand never knows what the left hand is doing.
9. Feds will rat any other agent out to gain a promotion.
10. If you don't know by now, ask cpuppy, it knows everything about everybody

Posted by: JailBird

June 9, 2013 at 2:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"if we will share Heaven with the likes of Herod, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Gacy, Bundy, Dahmer..."
Do you see Heaven as a place where these personalities are walking around?
To me that's a simple-minded and materialistic version of souls and Heaven.
If you're going to believe, at least believe something spiritual and not some cartoon.

Posted by: Coralie

June 9, 2013 at 2:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "If you're going to believe, at least believe something spiritual and not some cartoon."
I look forward to meeting the dead grandfather from "The Family Circus". You know he has stories to tell.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 9, 2013 at 2:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What you believe in doesn't so much matter, but who you trust and follow does.

Posted by: JailBird

June 9, 2013 at 3:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

John 6:28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

That is all there is to it.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 9, 2013 at 3:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"if we will share Heaven with the likes of Herod, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Gacy, Bundy, Dahmer..."
@Coralie: Do you see Heaven as a place where these personalities are walking around?
To me that's a simple-minded and materialistic version of souls and Heaven.
If you're going to believe, at least believe something spiritual and not some cartoon."

Coralie did you even read my entire comment, or do you just not understand my point.

You took this quote out of context and I distinctly remember you accusing me of taking something out of context and you said that made me a liar. So, what does that make you? However, now you say I am "simple minded and materialistic".

You don't understand spiritual issues because you don't have the Holy Spirit indwelling, and that's your self-admitted choice. Why don't you check with the piano tuner, he knows everything, or better yet why don't you just refrain from name calling and commenting on issues you don't understand.

Posted by: patrioteer

June 9, 2013 at 5:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Patrioteer - I completely understood your comment. Liberals, including Coralie, do that a lot - take a comment and twist it around to put you on the defense.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 9, 2013 at 5:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "You took this quote out of context"
And how does that change your meaning? Here it is in full:
"Mr. Grisham, what's the point of trying to live a life pleasing to Christ if we will share Heaven with the likes of Herod, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Gacy, Bundy, Dahmer...What's the point if everyone lives happily, eternally."
It's still a simple-minded, materialistic view. The point of living a life that is pleasing to Christ is that it presumably makes the world a better place. That is the point of living a moral life under any system-- religious, spiritual, or social. Not feeling special even though you've made the world a better place is, indeed, simple-minded and materialistic. And immature, selfish and shallow.

RE "You don't understand spiritual issues because you don't have the Holy Spirit indwelling, and that's your self-admitted choice."
Apparently you have a little difficulty with them as well, Holy Spirit and all.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 9, 2013 at 6:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The Disciples sure as hell had a hard time beliving much of anything Jesus said or did, but they did do a good job of following him everwhere. Only on the day of Penecost did they understand. None but Peter had a correct answer when Jesus asked them, "Who do you say I am?" He added, "Have you been with me this long and you do not know me." Come on mycent, you can believe everything Jesus said and did like the devils, but if you do not follow Him, take up your cross and follow Him through death into resurrection, your belief has been in vain.

Posted by: JailBird

June 9, 2013 at 8:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think Jesus is saying that it isn't by works you get to heaven, but by believing in Him. And when you do that, you do take up your cross and follow Him and do good works. No disagreement.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 9, 2013 at 8:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

patrioteer says "you said that made me a liar."
I have not used that language on these threads. I don't call people liars.
But it is intellectually dishonest to take quotes out of context.
Which I don't think I did here.

Posted by: Coralie

June 10, 2013 at 11:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

patrioteer says "now you say I am "simple minded and materialistic". .why don't you just refrain from name calling ."
I said that your religious interpretation was simple-minded and materialistic.. I did not say you were. Can't you see the difference, man?
+
Or is your ego so identified with your opinions that you make no distinction between them?

Posted by: Coralie

June 10, 2013 at 12:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sorry, it has never made sense to me that Gandhi or the Dalai Lama or Socrates or Buddha won't get to Heaven because they don't/didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus.
And obviously, not all Christian sects believe this..

Posted by: Coralie

June 10, 2013 at 12:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

By mycent's proposition, "Jesus is saying that it isn't by works you get to heaven, but by believing in Him[.]", it must follow, that a good, kind, caring, peaceful and generous man, who did his best to make the world a better place, but by his life experience concludes that there is no God, is damned to suffer eternal horror and pain. Conversly, a low, violent, selfish, cruel, abusive, man, who, when death approaches, decides that, indeed, he now believes with all his being in the salvation of Jesus Christ, is blessedly welcomed into eternal heavenly peace and contentment.

This, then, is the nature of God's "justice"?

Posted by: Lmore

June 10, 2013 at 1:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lmore - No, I believe he just is separated from God and not able to enjoy the glorious reward for believing and following Him (heaven). Hell is for the evil, I believe. "In my house are many mansions" (to believers) and also, "they have their part in the lake of fire" (the non-believers) which I think may just be complete destroying of body and soul. That is what I derive out of the Bible. I don't know for sure and I don't think anyone does. There are different levels for both heaven and hell, I believe.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 10, 2013 at 1:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dante knows.

Posted by: JailBird

June 10, 2013 at 1:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, I think our Biblical interpretations are very similar. I too have come to believe that there must be diverse outcomes for non-believers, just as there must be different rewards for believers. I have also come to believe that, for the non-believer, separation from God means darkness, because God is light, and a void as if one was in a dark cave with no hope of seeing light or escaping, and just a sense of emptiness. I wouldn't want to experience that.

I do however disagree about the complete destroying of body and soul. I believe we are eternal beings. No offense intended to your belief, just my thoughts.

As you have said we don't know for sure.

Posted by: patrioteer

June 10, 2013 at 2:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

@ Coralie: "And obviously, not all Christian sects believe this."

Just when I think you can't possibly say anything less coherent you come up with this jewel.

Let me quote just one secular source, Merriam-Webster: "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"

Now before you jump on "teachings", as I know you will, consider this teaching of Jesus:

John 14:1-7 New American Standard Bible 1 "Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. 3 If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And you know the way where I am going.” 5 Thomas *said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” 6 Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

Coralie, they can't be Christian, (no matter what they call themselves) if they don't believe the only way to the Father is through Jesus. You don't profess to be a Christian, don't try to tell me what Christians believe. You and the piano tuner ain't that smart.

Posted by: patrioteer

June 10, 2013 at 2:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycent and patrioteer - Can I safely assume by your responses to my previous post that you acknowledge: that by truly believing in Jesus, a man who by his behavior on earth could only be described as some greater level of evil, can gain passage to heaven. Yet, the man who by his acts on earth, demonstrates a goodness akin to Jesus himself, but does not believe, is barred from heaven and thus, must suffer a punishment of some kind?

And, that this is the sort of fairness and justice you admire?

Posted by: Lmore

June 10, 2013 at 3:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

No Lmore, you cannot be a Christian and do evil things. The two do not mix. God cannot look on evil. When you receive Christ, you are made "white as snow", and cease to willfully sin.

One that does good and still does not believe in Christ will not go to heaven. Christ is the only way as there are a multitude of verses that say so. Actually, I don't worry about it, because I know I love and obey Him, as much as this earthly body can.

Patrioteer - There is a verse that states 'where both body and soul are destroyed". I will have to look it up. One of my faults is not memorizing verse/chap., but I remember a lot of passages.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 10, 2013 at 3:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I should add to the above, "when you REPENT of your sins and receive Christ, you are made 'white as snow and cease to willfully sin.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 10, 2013 at 3:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lmore I agree with what mycentworth said regarding your question. I would further add that just because someone declares themselves to be Christian does not make them a Christian. As I posted in my comment previously:
John 7:21-23, 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ NASB

There has been speculation by theologians whether an evil person could, on his/her deathbed decide to ask Jesus into their heart (as you earlier questioned)
and gain entrance into Heaven. The quick answer, and the one supported by the Bible, is that they could be saved. However, the Bible also states: Isaiah 55:6 NASB Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near.

My point being that after a life of evil what would convince us that the Holy Spirit would be available to the person to repent. I think it entirely possible that the Holy Spirit had long ago withdrawn from quietly trying to draw this person to repentance. Therefore there would be no desire by the person to repent.

Just look at the people who post here who have no inclination or desire to find God, they only ridicule faith. Is it possible the Holy Spirit has given up on them? The fact that you question at all, rather than just disparage Christianity is a good sign.

Posted by: patrioteer

June 10, 2013 at 4:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycent and patrioteer - thank you for your thoughts. You both seem to agree that my theoretical situation is a correct assessment of the potential implications of mycent's original proposition. Here is the real issue that one must contend with: Do you as an individual believe it is just and fair?

mycent states the he '[doesn't] worry about it' and so perhaps simply accepts that God is not just, which one must conclude if my scenario is true. How about patrioteer - is God just?

If you agree with mycent that God's essential morality on the question of whether or not to believe in Christ, is not just or fair in the way we humans understand justice, the only next question is: Then why do we call him God?

Posted by: Lmore

June 10, 2013 at 5:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

One cannot be a Follower of Jesus and be a Democrat. Oil and water don't mix. Lowell Grisham has led more living beings to hell than Judas ever thought of. Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

Posted by: JailBird

June 10, 2013 at 5:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lmore, I don't know how you came to your conclusion, but the reason I don't worry about it is because I trust and know God is just. You may not think his way is just, but you are not His judge. No one is good enough to get to heaven without the great sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross who died in our place. Most believe that covers past, present and future sins. I think you will be accountable for any willful sin, if committed, after you are saved. However, I do not know for sure and just trust God to be fair. After all, He wants all saved.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 10, 2013 at 5:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

PAT: "Let me quote [dictionary]: "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ">>

Tough questions are just so nice and simple when you're a patrioteer. Over 30,000 divisions of Christianity but hey, no problem. If you believe in the hearsay teachings of fellow (a mere carpenter?) who died 2,000 years ago, precisely as Patrio understands them, then you're a "Christian." If you don't, then you're not. Nice and simple, just like a fundamentalist like Patrioteer likes it.

In picture form here: https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.ne...

D.
-----------
"Facts and Stats on "33,000 Denominations"
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a1...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

June 10, 2013 at 9:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lmore, thanks for your reasoned questions. You are making me think about things I have taken for granted. I would like to suggest that you get a Bible commentary, one written by an evangelical, someone like Billy Graham for example.

I began writing and it was starting to look like a book so let me regroup and share some of my thoughts.

God is Holy and cannot look upon sin. He gave man "the law" which wouldn't make us holy but could keep us from sin. Man had difficulty trying to keep the law, and in fact only one man ever did, and that was Jesus.

Because God loved us and wanted to be with His creation He sent his Son, Jesus Christ, being both fully God and fully man. Mankind had sinned and separated us from God and since God cannot look upon sin, Jesus was the only way to redeem mankind and reconcile us to Him. Jesus willingly gave His life blood on the cross to pay the penalty for every sin ever committed by mankind. A gift that we must accept or reject.

I don't fully understand Holy, but I know that if I was able to create something I wouldn't be happy if my creation treated me the way we treat God.

So, to finally answer your question, do I believe God is just? Yes. Not only just, but merciful to me, a sinner who deserves to die for my offenses to my Creator, but was freely offered and given a reprieve.

Posted by: patrioteer

June 10, 2013 at 9:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hey, FFT. Is that all you've got? Such a theologian!

Posted by: patrioteer

June 10, 2013 at 9:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Then the LORD answerd Job (FFT) out of the whirlwind. Who is this that darkens counsel without knowledge?"---Job 38:1-2

Posted by: JailBird

June 11, 2013 at 5 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Every Saint has a past and every sinner has a future. Oscar Wilde

Posted by: mycentworth

June 11, 2013 at 8:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"One cannot be a Follower of Jesus and be a Democrat." Hmmm...even though Democrats are far more compassionate than Republicans (generally speaking of course). One of Jesus' main teachings is "compassion". Therefore Republicans cannot be Christians either. I guess, as an Independent, I have the best chance!

I am a "follower" of Jesus but do not wish to be called a "Christian" because of all the junk that the multiple "true religions" have heaped upon the term. Too bad they are so blind to their own failings of Jesus' teachings...

Posted by: ajm

June 11, 2013 at 12:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mycent&Patrioteer - I appreciate your effort to bridge the gap a bit and help me understand your reasoning. I believe I have the answer I sought. In a nutshell, you believe with certainty that God must be just, and Patrioteer adds 'merciful' as well. And, according to the rules that you abide and admire, a horrid individual who believes in God can be rewarded, while a truly good man, though atheist, faces certain punishment.

The situation defies any conception of justice and mercy in my view, unless one would redefine the meaning of those words as the opposite of how most people understand them. I don't see how it can be reconciled. I'm going with Grisham on this one.

Posted by: Lmore

June 11, 2013 at 1:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lmore - That would be a hypocrite and not a Christian. A Christian would never be a "horrid individual". The law they follow is a much higher law than society's law. Love is the key and when you love others, how can you be a horrid person. When you truly become "born again" nothing is as important as pleasing the Lord and learning all you can about Him.

I was raised in church and was a "good person". But at age 24, I had a change that just made me see things differently. I couldn't get enough of reading the Bible. That thirst was filled, however, I still read it more often than any other thing else. It is a constant communication with the Lord. ff

Posted by: mycentworth

June 11, 2013 at 1:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I find all this revelation enlightening, but it always seems to come down to the religious not having any tolerance for beliefs outside of their own.

I hold no key to the ultimate truth we find with Death at our door, but I have my beliefs. I am Christian, and share may of the beliefs expressed here.

But I also believe in our Constitution, and I don't want my belief to be taken away from my freely expressing it because someone has put their belief into our law. There is no conflict in having these two action existing at the same time, if each one tolerates the other. Our religious conflicts with our laws currently exist because of intolerance of one side for the other. If the religious would be happy with their belief and being able to have it, and not try to enforce it on others in our law, we would all be happy and more productive.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 11, 2013 at 3:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ecsmith - Who is trying to enforce Christian belief on others? It seems to me it is the Christians that are being attacked because of their belief. You are expressing your belief and so are others, including me. What's the problem?

Posted by: mycentworth

June 11, 2013 at 4:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Democrats kill babies inside the womb, REDRUM. Anyway you look at it, Jesus paid the price for you or you will pay it yourself. But someones gonna pay.

Posted by: JailBird

June 11, 2013 at 4:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I live as a Christian and will die a Christian. That doesn't mean I have lost my mind or abdicated my responsibility for myself and for my neighbors. As far as I can judge, the Rev. Mr. Grisham is communicating his deeply-held conviction that Jesus taught and demonstrated a radical kindness toward others, a kindness and care that brings each of us into a Kingdom of God now. I agree with Mr. Grisham. If you disagree, that is certainly your right, and I hope you are not who is passing me on the road when I am attacked by bandits and left for dead.

Posted by: GrandHolly

June 11, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lmore, I guess we didn't do a good enough job bridging the gap if you still prefer to go with Grisham, and that is certainly your choice. No one is trying to force our beliefs on anyone, as ecsmith2 seems to believe.

At the end of the day it's whether you choose to believe or not. God loves each individual too much to send them to Hell, their choice decides that. If you are driving down the road and you come to a fork in the road you have to make a choice. Which fork do you take? The only way you can decide which fork is right for you is if you know, or are given, facts about each road. The decision is then yours and the outcome of traveling down that road is one that you chose while knowing the consequences. Kind of like touching a hot stove after someone warning you, or those folks that just have to test something marked as wet paint.

I completely agree with mycentworth that a true Christian doesn't live a life of debauchery. Just because someone calls themselves Christian doesn't mean they will end up in Heaven. That's plainly spelled out in one of the Bible verses previously included in my comments. I think we might be surprised at some of the folks we find in Heaven and equally surprised at some we thought would be there.

Anyway, thanks for the civil debate, that's extremely rare here.

Posted by: patrioteer

June 11, 2013 at 5:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Grandholly, just because we disagree with Grisham on his statement that everyone is saved and everyone is going to Heaven doesn't mean we don't love our fellow man and have compassion. That's certainly not what Jesus taught. Not sure where you got that...

The same Jesus that said "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter." is the same Jesus who told us to love and have compassion for our fellow man. My argument with Grisham is how can he dismiss a direct quote from the same Jesus he claims to be following.

Posted by: patrioteer

June 11, 2013 at 5:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Grandholly - If you "love you neighbor as yourself" the second of the two great commandments, you certainly will not leave anyone on the road if attacked.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 11, 2013 at 5:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mycent - "That would be a hypocrite and not a Christian."

I tried to show an example of a man who was 'horrid' his whole existence up to the point he became a Christian on his death bed.

I suppose his only hypocrisy in that case would be in choosing to be 'born again' just prior to dying. In so doing he would be acting contrary to the principles he lived by his whole life.

Posted by: Lmore

June 11, 2013 at 5:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lmore - God knows the heart - you can't fool Him. I do believe if a man on his death bed truly repents, he will enter heaven, but I doubt that a truly evil man would repent.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 11, 2013 at 5:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I go with Grisham and also with Socrates, Buddha, Lao Tze, Confucius, and other good and wise persons who lived before there was a Jesus to follow or believe in.

Posted by: Coralie

June 12, 2013 at 12:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Patrioteer -"...just because someone declares themselves to be Christian does not make them a Christian." and later reiterated in your latest post.

I think this is where our forks diverge. Enjoyed your analogy, and I'm partial to Yogi Bera's, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it."

Because, how can one tell if someone else is really a Christian? We can't. But, if one is to judge, such as Craig Hanson is judging Grisham, he is gauging for himself whether the Rev. is a 'true' Christian, or not, and trying to convince others with 'evidence' of some kind.

I think someone's behavior indicates whether or not they are true to the beliefs they communicate. So, their 'acts' would be the proof, as it were, for their Christian ethic. This is why I think Grisham likes the idea of including all, because it's not simply what they profess to believe, it is how they actually live in the community of humankind.

Posted by: Lmore

June 12, 2013 at 1:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Of course, as you probably are aware, this is the perennial argument of the 'Great Awakening' occuring in colonial New England starting sometime in the mid-1700s or so; 250+ years ago and we're still debating - I don't think it will be settled anytime soon.

Yes, Coralie, there are many worthy forks in the road! And, I'm rather optimistc that most all of them lead back home.

Posted by: Lmore

June 12, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Grisham Shows Faith In Man, Not God"
Let's see: jealous, passive-aggressive, manipulative, abusive, genocidal, inconsiderate, uncommunicative. If God were a person, nobody would like Him. On the whole, people are the better choice, as there are relatively few of them who demonstrate all of God's unlikeable characteristics, and most of them are probably alcoholics or other addicts.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 12, 2013 at 2:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, in the abortion issue the belief that God is involved in putting that fetus in a dependent position in the woman is being used to stop abortions. If it truly was murder, that anti-abortion folks would have had an easy time years ago getting abortion classified as murder. but they can't, so we are trying to rig the game in all sorts of other ways to deny ethical medical procedures to people with different beliefs.

No one is forcing anyone with the belief that contraception is immoral to take or use contraceptives. That contraceptives are part of a health care insurance policy causing immorality in an employer is an overreach.

Government is supposed to be reamining neutral when it comes to religion, that is why organized pray during public school events, religious Christmas displays on government grounds, sanctioned by the government, should be avoided. That in no way infringes anyone's religious belief and they are perfectly able to demonstrate that belief in public. Nothing is stopping that from happening.

And gays getting married or belonging to the Boy Scouts does nothing to other people in society. Homosexual acts are inappropriate activity at a Boy Scout meeting, and surprisingly, so are straight sexual acts. There is no reason a baker with a strong religious belief that homosexuality is immoral cannot sell a wedding cake to a gay couple being married. There is no harm. Majorities in states that have passed laws prohibiting gay marriage have enforced their religious beliefs on everyone in that state.

Those are the 4 major ones at the moment, mycentworth. None of these attacks Christianity. I am a Christian. These things are not anything that attacks my religious beliefs. But what the religious want to do, to create a society where they do not have to tolerate what they believe to be immoral, is to put things into the law that makes them illegal.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 12, 2013 at 3:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, on July 4th, 2005, my Church decided to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. That became part of our religious belief.

Any state that has now passed a law not allowing gay marriage, and if I remember correctly the wording of the First Amendment, is now infringing on our right to religious belief.

So, in one sense, some Christians are being attacked in this country. It is just not the ones you think it is.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 12, 2013 at 3:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If your church is performing gay marriages, then it isn't a church but a spawn of hell. As are the members.

Posted by: JailBird

June 12, 2013 at 4:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: the shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."---Leviticus 20:13

Posted by: JailBird

June 12, 2013 at 4:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Or dso you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdon of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor adulters nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanders nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were."---1 Corinthians 9-11

Posted by: JailBird

June 12, 2013 at 4:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You forget, ec, we were formed on the word of God. Believe as you want. We still live in a free country, I think.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 12, 2013 at 5:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Or dso you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdon of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor adulters nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanders nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Money, that must be the kind of world they like. They are welcome to it. Not me. There is something much better coming.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 12, 2013 at 5:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, what about the scripture that states a woman should be stoned if she's not a virgin on her wedding night, or the abomination of wearing mixed fibers, or eating shellfish? Or that disobedient children should be dragged to the city walls and stoned to death?

Why keep some proscriptions and not others? That so-called Christians pick and choose which to follow and which to ignore is proof in itself that Christian morality is subjective and that fundamentalists don't really believe in their own baloney that the Bible is some infallible moral guide.

Posted by: BradBailey

June 12, 2013 at 6 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

BB - Like I have said before, laws to the Israelites in the O.T. were for them only. The law was very rigid, and needed sacrifices to cleanse them (a type of Christ - unblemished, until Jesus, our final lamb, crucified on the cross - "the pearl of great price'

You would have to tell me the scripture and verse as I don't remember 'women being stoned for not being a virgin''. I remember in the N.T. the woman who had many partners and God told her to go and sin no more. And again, like I said before, Jesus Christ brought new laws - the 2 great commandments (Matt.22:36-40) that cover all the law of the prophets. That is what we call freedom in Christ. 1 Corinthians 6:17 He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." If we are one with Christ, how can we sin?
I remember in the O.T. the Lord saying the people's observances made him sick (paraphrasing) because it meant nothing to them and I think the Sabbath was included in that. I couldn't find it, but will keep trying.

If you read the part about disobedient child, the child was far more than disobedient.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 12, 2013 at 7:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It dosn't matter what you are, but you must repent and sin no more. Otherwise you are damned.

Posted by: JailBird

June 12, 2013 at 8:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, I understand I am free to believe as I want. You are the one that seems to think that if you don't believe it, though, it is okay to make it illegal.

Not how that freedom of religion thing works.

I do have no problem with believing that God created us. But my God is powerful enough to know that we would be created in His world and evolution is the process He used.

It is not part of my belief to need to get a quorum court to allow me to put a nativity scene up in front of a public building, and that if that is not allowed to understand it is not an attack on my religion, I am free to put it up in full view from the public highway in my yard.

It is not part of my belief to require all people to follow actions from what I believe are moral only because of my religious belief.

You don't. You can't have gays being married in your society. Why?

You can't have people making their own health care decisions. Why?

You think Christianity is being attacked, but you can never explain how you think it is happening, you just say it is. Why?

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 13, 2013 at 1:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

ec - When I was growing up, this nation followed the word of God. It was not until those that disagreed wanted to stop the open worship of our God. They still had the right to believe as they wanted, but did not want government to endorse a religion. The founding fathers never forced a religion on anyone, just acknowledged God, as you can easily see in the writings and beginning of this country. The ONLY THING THEY DID NOT WANT WAS FOR PEOPLE TO BE FORCED TO FOLLOW ANY BELIEF, which they were not.

But that was not good enough, so now the left just keeps pushing us farther and farther away from God's commands. It wasn't enough that they took prayer out of school and government, now they want Christians to allow gays into their Christian groups, homes, etc. You just cannot stop, can you?
But YOU WILL NEVER GET Christians to go against their beliefs. We have kicked God out and that is why we have lost His blessing and protection.

Why don't you try defending God's Word instead of always trying to nullify it? Tolerance was a movement by the left that has gotten way out of control, which was, of course, the objective. I remember I saw the word 'tolerance" in bold letters in our school's Social Studies book, back in the early 90's. The left's agenda got in the schools and that caused much of our problem. Our kids are at risk because they do not know what is right and wrong according to God.

You keep watching, things are not going to get better until Jesus Christ sets up His kingdom. I for one cannot wait.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 13, 2013 at 9:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "When I was growing up, this nation followed the word of God."
Examples?

RE " It was not until those that disagreed wanted to stop the open worship of our God."
Is that what they wanted? Yet we still have open worship.

RE "They still had the right to believe as they wanted, but did not want government to endorse a religion."
The Constitution does not want the government to endorse a religion, either. Read the First Amendment.

RE "The founding fathers never forced a religion on anyone"
Please keep that in mind.

RE "just acknowledged God, as you can easily see in the writings and beginning of this country."
The words "God", "Jesus", "Christ", "Holy" and "Spirit" do not appear in the Constitution or any of its amendments. The word "religion" appears once in the text. There is no acknowledgement of God in the Constitution. No other writings matter.

RE "It wasn't enough that they took prayer out of school and government"
Individual prayer is still permitted in schools, and the House and Senate have prayers every day they're in session.

RE "But YOU WILL NEVER GET Christians to go against their beliefs."
Says the woman who complains that public prayer-- which Jesus proscribed-- has been eliminated, and whose posts otherwise repeatedly bear false witness.

RE "We have kicked God out and that is why we have lost His blessing and protection."
How embarrassing that an all-powerful god can be "kicked out". O ye of little faith! Clearly this is God's plan-- try to cope.

RE "You keep watching, things are not going to get better until Jesus Christ sets up His kingdom."
What kind of loving God prevents people from seeing the good in the world?

RE "I for one cannot wait."
Believe me: neither can I.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 13, 2013 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

To back up his homophobia, Money quotes from Leviticus--my favorite book of the Bible--not.
There is a lot in Leviticus about how priests should conduct animal sacrifices.
There are detailed instructions about what to when your house has leprosy. It includes killing a songbird.
There is some commonsense advice about going to the edge of the camp to do your business and covering it over.
Leviticus is our instruction book for modern times.

Posted by: Coralie

June 13, 2013 at 1:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie - Where in Leviticus?
I couldn't find your claim anywhere about killing a songbird.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 13, 2013 at 1:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I FINALLY FOUND JESUS! Amen, brothers and sisters. The Lord surely works in mysterious ways:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06...

Posted by: BradBailey

June 13, 2013 at 3:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I didn't know Jesus was lost.

Posted by: JailBird

June 13, 2013 at 4:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Leviticus 14:32-53
"49 And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:

50 And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water:

51 And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times:

52 And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet:

Posted by: Coralie

June 13, 2013 at 4:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

More Leviticus for your edifications:

1:5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
1:6 And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.
1:7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire:
1:8 And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:
1:9 But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.

Posted by: Coralie

June 13, 2013 at 4:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, I still don't see the word 'songbird'. I know Leviticus is all about the sacrifices and cleansing and don't read it very much. Thank God, we don't have to do any of that!

Posted by: mycentworth

June 13, 2013 at 4:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, I remembered it as songbird and it just says "bird" here. I think if they were talking about poultry it would have said "fowl."
Now is that really significant?
A little earlier, describing purification of humans with signs of leprosy (or other skin disease) it says
"4:22 And two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, such as he is able to get; and the one shall be a sin offering, and the other a burnt offering. "
+++
Money was the one who quoted Leviticus that
same-sex relations were an abomination, and I was suggesting that Leviticus of all the books in the Bible was especially limited by the way people lived and what they knew at the time. Culture-bound. Tribal not universal.
Even you, mycent, don't particularly like it.

Posted by: Coralie

June 13, 2013 at 5:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I suggested removal for BradB's post. If that had been Mohammad, I know darn sure they would have removed it promptly.

Coralie - Now we know why God chose the Jews. They wouldn't argue with Him so much.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 14, 2013 at 2:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, Why did you want my last post removed? There were no dirty words in it that could offend children. Why did you want it removed?

Posted by: BradBailey

June 14, 2013 at 5 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

It did not honor our Lord Jesus at all. Very degrading. The picture even said that it could have been altered.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 14, 2013 at 7:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Best to ignore it, mycent. Leave the "humanist" to his own destruction. Blasphemy is unforgivable.

Posted by: Tankersley101

June 14, 2013 at 8:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

You are probably right, but we can't always be silent. I certainly am not sorry for wanting removal.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 14, 2013 at 9:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Just like "banned in Boston" used to sell books, I went to the link because you all were arguing about it.
It was childish chain-yanking.
I don't care whether it stays or goes.
.
But your comment to me, Mycent, was mysterious. First of all, Jews are probably more argumentative than most of us (in an intellectual sense). Do you remember when Jesus went to the Temple when he was about 12 years old and basically ran rings around the priests with his answers?
Jews don't just read the Bible but centuries of rabbis have commented on it.
The Talmud is over 6,000 pages long.
.
Were you attempting to say that I was arguing with God?
Instead I was saying that some parts of the Bible are more inspiring than others, and Leviticus while interesting anthropological info about life in the Levant 3,000 years ago isn't inspiring at all. So why quote it in a prescriptive way?

Posted by: Coralie

June 14, 2013 at 3:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, 'Peace". Your leprosy comment seemed to make fun of the rituals God required of the Israelites. That is what I was referring to.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 14, 2013 at 3:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm not making fun of people who lived 3,000 years ago and didn't have the benefit of our scientific information.
But I see no reason to abide by all their beliefs.

Posted by: Coralie

June 14, 2013 at 4:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

No, we don't have to abide by their beliefs. That was Jewish law.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 14, 2013 at 4:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I also posted a New Testament quote about homosexual sin.

Posted by: JailBird

June 14, 2013 at 4:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "That was Jewish law."
You're tinkling in the wind. Jesus was an observant Jew. He considered Himself to be the fulfillment of Jewish law and prophecy, and He didn't repeal any of the old laws.

But just go ahead and pick and choose. Jesus would be so proud of your convenient, selective faith.

BONUS REBUTTAL
RE "Now we know why God chose the Jews. They wouldn't argue with Him so much."
Wrong again. Read the Old Testament. Abraham, Jonah and Job argued with God. Check Lamentations and some of the Psalms. Many Jews consider prayer to be an argument with God. The argumentative cast of study of the Torah is an argument with God.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 14, 2013 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Moneymyst - Yes, it is a sin back then and now. The left just thinks they can get a rise out of people if they bring up all these O.T. laws.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 14, 2013 at 5:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha - Yes, some did question God, to get him to change his mind & spare man, and it worked, but not ever called right what God said is sin.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 14, 2013 at 5:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ec - When I was growing up, this nation followed the word of God. It was not until those that disagreed wanted to stop the open worship of our God. They still had the right to believe as they wanted, but did not want government to endorse a religion. The founding fathers never forced a religion on anyone, just acknowledged God, as you can easily see in the writings and beginning of this country. The ONLY THING THEY DID NOT WANT WAS FOR PEOPLE TO BE FORCED TO FOLLOW ANY BELIEF, which they were not. - mycentworth

I have only seen the last 60 years of the nation's history myself. I am not sure exactly what you are describing when you say the nation followed the Word of God. And what open worship of God has been stopped, or is being demanded to stop?

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 14, 2013 at 5:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

But that was not good enough, so now the left just keeps pushing us farther and farther away from God's commands. It wasn't enough that they took prayer out of school and government, now they want Christians to allow gays into their Christian groups, homes, etc. You just cannot stop, can you?
But YOU WILL NEVER GET Christians to go against their beliefs. - mycentworth

How is the “left” is pushing you away from God's Commandments? If I was in school today, what would be stopping me from praying? What would stop you? Where in government is the necessity for prayer? I didn't realize that if you were gay, you could not be Christian at the same time. Last I remember, homosexuality is just sinful, and isn't it a common thing for Christians to claim that only Jesus was without sin?

There is no need for any overt display of religion in government. That does not mean you, as a Christian, cannot be a government worker. It only means you need to keep your overt displays of your religion on your time. That is not denying you your religious beliefs, it simply keeps agents of the government from any kind of show that might make it look like an endorsement of any religion.

An example: A couple of years ago, when the NFL had replacement referees for a while, it came out before a New Orleans Saints game that one of the referees had quite the display on his Facebook page that he was quite the active Saints fan. The NFL, in an attempt to not show any impropriety towards the other team, removed the referee from being part of the game. There was nothing to show that he was going to be unfair to the other team, but with a visible display, it makes people uncomfortable. Now lets say you go to the zoning commission, and the gentleman taking you information to investigate has a great deal of things in his office that clearly shows he is a Muslim. You leave the office and when the information gets to the board, with others for zoning changes, the board meets. During the meeting your request gets turned down, but another Muslim individual's request is approved. Is it possible you might thing you did not get a fair hearing and that the investigator perhaps favored the other Muslim individual. The display of a individual's personal religious beliefs while working within the government is not necessary, and can make other people question whether the government may not function in a fair manner, if they are not a part of that religious group, especially a minority person. It has nothing to do with denying any one in the government their religious beliefs.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 14, 2013 at 5:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Why don't you try defending God's Word instead of always trying to nullify it? Tolerance was a movement by the left that has gotten way out of control, which was, of course, the objective. I remember I saw the word 'tolerance" in bold letters in our school's Social Studies book, back in the early 90's. The left's agenda got in the schools and that caused much of our problem. Our kids are at risk because they do not know what is right and wrong according to God. - mycentworth

I am happy to defend God's Word, but in my 60 years, no one has tried to take it away from me. From the wording of your posting, this is a point where I am trying to understand what is attacking God's Word for you. Defending God's Word does not mean you should get to put it where it is not necessary to have it. You don't have the right to have a public school give a prayer during a graduation ceremony just because your child is graduating. Public schools are part of the government, and the government only needs to be indifferent to religion, and if you put religious things into official government events, the government is not being indifferent.

You say tolerance is way out of control, but you don't explain how. It is easy to say you are right about a math problem, and no one can challenge your belief, if you don't show us the problem you were trying to solve. What is the left's agenda? And what problem has it caused? Again, it is easy to just say there is a problem, and we should just do things your way, without telling us what the problem is. How do we know your solution will work without knowing what the problem is? It is not the public school's responsibility to teach what is right and wrong from your God's perspective. Society has laws and science, and that is where the school's responsibility lies for right and wrong. If you want your child to have God's perspective, that is your responsibility.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 14, 2013 at 5:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You keep watching, things are not going to get better until Jesus Christ sets up His kingdom. I for one cannot wait. - mycentworth

You are aware that Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world. I believe he told that to Pilate, when Pilate asked where his kingdom was, trying to extract some evidence to find him guilty of treason against the government.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 14, 2013 at 5:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

God told me to mutilate my son's genitals by cutting off his foreskin. Allah told me to castrate my daughter by sawing off her clitoris so she wouldn't have a sex drive and be a virgin on her wedding night.

Jesus is coming to beam up the faithful to his magic spaceship in the sky while everybody else can go straight to hell. Just can't wait for it, can you, mycent? Twelve thousand years of culture, of learning, of beautiful art and architecture, all the advancement of scientific knowledge-- gone. This is nothing less than a death cult mentality.

Christopher Hitchens was right-- religion poisons EVERYTHING.

Are you going to suggest removal for this comment, as well?

Posted by: BradBailey

June 14, 2013 at 6:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"You cannot imagine the things that God has prepared for them that love Him." You haven't seen nothing yet, BradB. That is what I am looking forward to - the unimaginable. Christians do experience some of God's Kingdom here on earth, if they believe in Him and His Spirit dwells within them, but this world is so full of hate, evil and sorrow, that I don't understand anyone that wouldn't look forward to a world without sorrow.

No one needs to go to hell, that is a choice. The way is clear and easy. God is giving all plenty of time. Believe and follow Him or not. It sounds like you have made your choice.

That is the first time I suggested removal of any post. You know, God loves you BradB. You don't know what you are missing..

Posted by: mycentworth

June 14, 2013 at 7:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yes, mycent, I have made my choice. I made it long ago: to stick it out in this evil sorrowful world and fight to make it a better place, not for me, but for generations to come.

There is unimaginable beauty in this world: a magnificent variety of sights and sounds and smells and tastes, of sublime natural wonders.

There is an incredibly rich, interwoven tapestry of life on our planet. There is the legacy of thousands of years of different human cultures throughout the world, and how they have contributed in one way or another to our own.

There are mind-numbing relationships between something as small as a particle one-trillionth the size of a proton to galaxies that take 250,000 years to cross if you could travel at 186,000 miles a second.

The recent discovery of fractal geometry has unlocked one of nature's big secrets, revealing how clouds, mountains, and even life itself are formed in predictable patterns. And the more we discover, the more wondrous it all becomes.

This world is full of wonder, mycent. We just have to open our eyes to see it.

Posted by: BradBailey

June 14, 2013 at 9:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I agree, BB, God has opened up a lot of the mysteries in the world, but evil is spoiling it. I know you credit man with the revelations in the science world, but God opened it up to man. Just imagine what is waiting in His kingdom. It is going to happen just as the Bible has said thousands of years ago.

Over and over in Revelation it says"and man still would not repent". This world will not last without God. He is saving it from destruction by His intervention, but wants to save man without the evil..

Posted by: mycentworth

June 15, 2013 at 7:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Daniel 12 (King James Version)
1And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

3And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

4But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

http://www.brunswickcounty.com/the_fo...
Check it out.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 15, 2013 at 8:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

sorry, I couldn't get up the website from the post, but it is the verse that is most impressive.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 15, 2013 at 8:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"It wasn't enough that they took prayer out of school and government, now they want Christians to allow gays into their Christian groups, homes, etc."
First, in most of this country "they" took prayer out of public schools long ago. Back in the 19th century, Catholilcs objected to the Protestant cast of school prayers, etc. You do know that Catholics use a different translation of the Bible?
And there were a lot of Catholic immigrants in Northern cities.
Also many Jews and Greek Orthodox immigrants came to this country 100+ years ago, with different religious traditions, and they didn't want the schools to act llike Protestant Sunday School.
By the time I went to school in the 1930s and 1940s (in Minneapolis and in Cleveland, Ohio) there was no question of school prayers, class Bible readings, posted 10 Commandments, or public prayers at ball games.
When this policy imposing government neutrality came to the rural South and Lower Midwest, it was severely resisted and resented.
But please don't act as if this was a new policy for the whole country.

Posted by: Coralie

June 15, 2013 at 11:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

And second, the notion that "they" want Christians to allow gays into their church groups and homes.
Do you note how similar that is to arguments against desegregation 50 years ago?
Nobody is forcing gays into reluctant churches much less people's homes.
How could they?
Did Civil Rights mean that you had to invite someone of a different color into your home?

Posted by: Coralie

June 15, 2013 at 11:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

In my Church's version of the Apostle's Creed, it is the Holy Christian Church. In the Catholic version, it is the Holy Catholic Church. I am not sure Catholics are really Christian. There are a lot of graven images in Catholic churches, especially of the Virgin Mary, and a lot of the Catholics pray to those images.

I am pretty sure that last one is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 15, 2013 at 12:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

We went through all this before about renting to someone you do not want. Not going there again.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 15, 2013 at 12:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh, you're talking about renting to someone.
Like a room that is part of your own home? A boardinghouse where you live? Not too many of those anymore.
Otherwise it is just pure discrimination.

Posted by: Coralie

June 15, 2013 at 1:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm not sure but what the Bible itself and the Decalogue can be idolized and treated as graven images.
A lot of people swear on the Bible or by the Bible who don't seem to know much about what is in it.

Posted by: Coralie

June 15, 2013 at 1:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Actually, Coralie, Jesus is the Word of God.

John 1:1,3 In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was WITH GOD, and
the word WAS GOD. 2)The same was in the beginning with God 3) All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 15, 2013 at 1:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Actually, Coralie, Jesus is the Word of God."
As I pointed out above, that would include all of the words of God in the Old Testament that you choose to ignore. (There was no New Testament until long after Jesus died.) Yet you pick and choose the words you will obey.

It's like having no religion at all.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 15, 2013 at 2:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha, Jesus was always there with God. He hadn't died & rose yet, therefore the O.T. laws were for the Jews, the people God chose to show himself to the world. After Christ's death, that freed them & us from the rituals of cleansing in the O.T. for those who believed in Him. To me it is very clear, I'm sorry you don't understand.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 15, 2013 at 3:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Catholics wrote the New Testament, preserved it, decided what parts of it were inspired, selected the books that would be in it. The was not other church on earth until the reformation in the 1600 hundreds. 1500 years and only the Catholic Church. AlphaCat is right. There was no New Testament until the Council of Hippo. Look it up mycent.

Posted by: JailBird

June 15, 2013 at 5:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I am not Catholic and do not know what Council of Hippo is. I didn't know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were Catholic. I know they followed Jesus and were disciples of Christ - the first Christians.

I don't know what we are getting into, I just quoted the verse that said Jesus was the Word. It has nothing to do with religion. He was with God before he came to earth, sent by God to pay for our sins.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 15, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (AD 393) voted on the canon of Scripture. This was reafirmed by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. St. Augustine was head of these councils and resulted in the publishing of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible in 383.

All original letters and parchments were gone by then, but the Roman Catholic had translated then from Greek to Latin and perserved them. For nearly four hundred years there was no Bible only fragments scattered all over Asia Minor.

The were all Catholic, Mark was Pope Peter's scribe. "Upon this rock, I will build my church."

Posted by: JailBird

June 16, 2013 at 4:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jesus is not a book or collection of books called a Bible. John 1:1 "En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos."

Logos is a hard word to translate into English. Its meaning is "the Godhead, the very essence of the Living God, the Trinity, all that comes forth from the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Simply translated "Word" (Logos) The spoken word is certainly a small part of the Logos.

Posted by: JailBird

June 16, 2013 at 4:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money,

I noticed you haven't said anything about women sleeping with women, what's the deal. Were you raised by a domineering mother, do you have a lesbian relative, what's the story. You damn men but say nothing about women, this has to say something about your way of thinking. I for one believe in keeping my nose out of peoples personal and intimate lives, man or women. True love is true love it doesn't matter who or what the gender is. We need to stay out of others lives, we need to respect each other regardless of our sexual persuasion. It would be good for you to stop using scripture to try to make your case. Scripture is just scripture that is just writting in a book nothing more. Writtings in a book should not create the hatered I have seen on this post, no book or writting should illicit such responses, if it does then it should be put down and never opened again. This is what is wrong with religion, you can attack, murder, insult or anything else you want to do against a person or group then run and hide behind your religion. It is time to stop and accept people for what they are flesh and blood just like everyone on this planet. Gay, straight, black, white, old, young, short or tall, democrat or republican, it doesn't matter.

So Money you should think about what you are going to say before you say it. Your spoken thoughts seem to indicate a fear of certain groups of people, one can only speculate as to why. My Money is on the fact that you don't realize that your hatred only makes you look small and insignificant. I have friends that are gay, I am not, but I have found they are more honorable and respectful than most people I have known who are not gay. Leave them alone, let them live thier lives the way they want too, the same as you.

GO
HOGS

Posted by: REPUBLICANSRNUTZ

June 16, 2013 at 6:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money - "The Roman Catholic Church Puts a great deal of emphasis on Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him."

First site I read: (now this may not work, as I'm unsuccessful in copying and pasting websites)

http://carm.org/is_peter_the_rock

I, as a Christian, not Catholic, know that Jesus Christ is the rock himself on which he will build his church and that is how I take the scripture. No membership in a physical church will save you. The true church of God is all believers that trust Jesus as their savior, no building or man-made religion is needed.

I agree to disagree, mm. Just don't put your faith in your religion - only Jesus.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 16, 2013 at 8:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

You nailed it mycent, good post.

Posted by: hadleyboy

June 16, 2013 at 11:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"I am not Catholic and do not know what Council of Hippo is. I didn't know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were Catholic. I know they followed Jesus and were disciples of Christ - the first Christians.

I don't know what we are getting into, I just quoted the verse that said Jesus was the Word. It has nothing to do with religion. He was with God before he came to earth, sent by God to pay for our sins."

Posted by: mycentworth

mycentworth, this is where you overreach. You don't know they followed God, or that Jesus is the Word, or that Jesus was with God before appearing on earth.

You have a belief in those things.

It is a subtle difference and you should come to understand what that difference is.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 16, 2013 at 11:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "To me it is very clear, I'm sorry you don't understand."
You need to reread your post. It isn't clear at all.

But believe whatever you have to if it allows you to pick and choose the laws of God that you will or will not keep. Apparently religion can't be completely redeeming if it isn't also convenient.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 17, 2013 at 3:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

wehave, I didn't express an opinion or a bias, I simply quoted the Bible. Your problem is with Scripture, not me. Take you petty complants to God, not me.

Posted by: JailBird

June 17, 2013 at 4:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MM: "I didn't express an opinion or a bias, I simply quoted the Bible.">>

That's always easier than thinking.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

June 17, 2013 at 10:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I simply quoted Leviticus, but then was accused of mocking Christianity thereby.
It seems that on even days, the OT doesn't matter/is superseded, but on odd days you can quote from it in order to oppose gay marriage or whatever you want to oppose or uphold.
+++.
And practically nobody quotes the Bible about how you should treat the poor better, and how the rich people are grinding them down. There are many more of those quotes than the ones about S-E-X, but I guess they sound too much like what social conservatives call class envy.

Posted by: Coralie

June 18, 2013 at 5:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Way it goes on this thread Coralie, IQ level here is not near as high as the Springdale city council.

Posted by: JailBird

June 18, 2013 at 5:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Not just this thread.
Very few Bible-quoters anywhere mention any of the 300+ quotes about poverty and social justice like these:
Ps. 140:12.
I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the poor.
Deuteronomy 10:18
He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing.
Deuteronomy 15:7-8
If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs.
Psalm 12:5
"Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy, I will now arise," says the LORD. "Then I will protect them from those who malign them." .
Isaiah 10:1-3
Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches?
Jeremiah 22:16
"He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" declares the LORD.

Posted by: Coralie

June 19, 2013 at 4:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, Christians do all of the above, or at least should. What God doesn't like is taking the labor of others and giving it to those who could work, but would rather take from others. Even Paul worked for his keep and talked about not owing anyone.

We are not saying there aren't people in need who need help, but we are saying there are people who are taking advantage of the system - big time, rich and poor alike.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 19, 2013 at 7:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I especially like this one:
"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless."
And all the time justifying themselves by falsely exaggerated notions that most people who get food stamps or disability or unemployment compensation are gaming the system. It happens, but you act like it's the whole story.
And how do you know "what God doesn't like" when the Bible says little or nothing about the situation yo describe of people who could work but would rather take handouts?

Posted by: Coralie

June 20, 2013 at 1:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

He who does not work, neither shall he eat is a II
Thessalonians 3:10.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 20, 2013 at 2:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I didn't work once and got locked up for stealing two watermelons, then I got three squares a day. So Paul isn't 100% right all the time.

Posted by: JailBird

June 20, 2013 at 4:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MM - That wouldn't work these days - you have to do something really bad to get put in jail, and sometimes not even then.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 20, 2013 at 5:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"you have to do something really bad to get put in jail"
In some places, loitering will do it. Depends on your haircut, clothes, skin color, etc.

Posted by: Coralie

June 20, 2013 at 6:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"He who does not work, neither shall he eat is a Biblical aphorism derived from II Thessalonians 3:10.
In the 20th century it became popular with socialists....article twelve of the 1936 Soviet Constitution states:

In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”

While discussing the 2013 United States farm bill, Representative Stephen Fincher, Republican of Tennessee, used this quote to justify cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. This provoked criticism because he received $70,554 in farm subsidies in the year 2012, and received $3.48 million in taxpayer cash from 1999 to 2012."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_d...

Posted by: Coralie

June 20, 2013 at 6:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Like I said, Coralie, both sides are responsible for our problems. I, by the way, I love the poor people more than you think. There many hard working poor, and I am not against helping them, and those that cannot work because of a physical condition should be provided for. If there wasn't such a terrible waste and abuse by the government of our money, there would be plenty to help all, I believe.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 20, 2013 at 6:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Why does Congress then not concentrate on changing the laws to eliminate the waste and abuse, instead of wholesale cutting of programs?

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 21, 2013 at 9:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

ecsmith - Because Congress isn't there anymore to represent the people, it is just politics to them and a way to line their own pockets. Why do you think they will spend millions of their own money to run?

Posted by: mycentworth

June 21, 2013 at 11:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Why do you think they will spend millions of their own money to run?"
While some politicians spend millions of dollars of their own money, most politicians-- even millionaires-- run on other people's money.

When you consider the unaccounted and unaccountable money from PACs thanks to the Citizens United decision, the situation is worse. When the source of money is not known, the source of influence is not known. Politicians do not line just their own pockets.

If you are truly concerned about this problem, as you let on to be, then you cannot be too perturbed about the imaginary scandal at the IRS. They were doing their job: trying to keep ineligible groups-- liberal and conservative-- from exercising unaccountable influence on elections and politicians.

And lest you try to make me out to have said something I didn't say, I'll point out that this is asignificant problem in at least two of our major political parties.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 21, 2013 at 2:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Come on, Alpha. Very few if any liberals were scrutinized so closely, and asked such inappropriate questions and still many still have not received their tax-exempt status. That is intimidation and harassment beyond measure. Then their information was given to the libs for their targeting. Face the facts and quit covering for the disgrace of this government.

Posted by: mycentworth

June 21, 2013 at 4:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Come on, Alpha. Very few if any liberals were scrutinized so closely"
The reason you managed to miss the entire brouhaha is apparently that liberal groups are not as prone to whine as conservative groups are. See
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/a...

It would appear that one reason there are fewer liberal groups represented in the figures is that relatively few of them applied for tax-exempt status.

RE "still many still have not received their tax-exempt status."
As noted in the article above, the speed at which applications are processed is a large part of the scandal, even given the large number of groups that applied. But it is also safe to say, given analysis that has been done on completed applications, that those groups whose applications have not yet been processed represent a mixture of political leanings. For those that have been processed and are known, see http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/featur...
To summarize: Of the 176 groups whose applications have been completed and status approved, 122 are conservative, 48 are liberal or non-conservative, and 6 are of unknown persuasion.

RE "Face the facts and quit covering for the disgrace of this government."
You wouldn't know a fact if it walked up and bit you on your heinie (which is what most facts would do to you). I face facts all the time. You are the one who won't face them, even when they are provided to you.

As I said elsewhere, you don't get much good out of the Internet.

Posted by: AlphaCat

June 21, 2013 at 8:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

An organization applying for tax-exempt status is not automatically entitled to tax-exempt status.
Especially not if it is really a political group thinly disguised as something else.
I suspect that a bunch of tea-party political groups applied for tax-exempt status--for which they would not qualify--in order that they WOULD be turned down, so they could make a stink about it.

Posted by: Coralie

June 22, 2013 at 2:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bad internet info, Blame Bush!

Posted by: JailBird

June 22, 2013 at 4:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I agree mycntworth. I am outspoken about the need to remove money from our political system. In this age of the internet, it would be entirely possible to have the government setup forums for each elected official position to have candidates face questions from voters. Nothing would be anonymous. Candidates would answer what they want, and the voters would then know exactly where they stand. And no one would need much money at all to do this.

The two major parties are the biggest special interest groups mucking up our political system and our government. The parties should certainly be removed from any influence they have in our government. And they influence their party members by holding the threat of withholding money from their campaigns. If money is no longer needed to get elected, we remove that influence.

People should be elected for the ideas they have for what they want to try to do if elected, not get elected for how much money they can raise.

Posted by: ecsmith2

June 24, 2013 at 8:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Many other democratic countries ban or restrict political campaign ads on television.
TV time is probably the biggest expense of modern day political campaigns.
The competitive necessity to pay for TV ads is escalating the cost of campaigns thus making candidates beholden to big donors and inviting corruption.
In many countries the national political campaigns take only a few months. Not only do they cost much less but they save the citizens from all the negative ads that do not inform them but only polarize them.

Posted by: Coralie

June 24, 2013 at 1:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"the United States has the unappealing combination of a relatively short presidential term and an unusually long election process. ...in a sense the U.S. spends at least a quarter of each presidential term actively discussing and debating who the next president will be. ...But I can't think of any country that spends a year or more actually running the campaign. In Canada, for example, the Elections Act mandates that the minimum length of a campaign be 36 days, and the longest campaign ever recorded (in 1926), was only seventy-four days. In Australia, elections generally last about two months."
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2...

Posted by: Coralie

July 5, 2013 at 1:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"On September 15, voters in Denmark elected a new parliament and prime minister. The campaign lasted all of three weeks. There were no political ads on television. And participation was estimated to be above 80 percent.

Compared to the United States—the land of the permanent campaign—the parliamentary democracy of Denmark offers us a glimpse of what elections could be.

But the biggest difference in campaign season between our two countries (aside from the length) is the money. With a ban on political TV ads in Denmark, cash plays a much smaller role in the blitz for votes ."
http://www.campaignsandelections.com/...

Posted by: Coralie

July 5, 2013 at 1:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )