Separation of Chuch and State, even Jesus said so and Paul Ryan

[Penelope]

It is always amazing that people don't 'get' the intelligent, penetrating metaphorical, and often ironic, sense to Jesus' words. 'God' would have to be the source of all and everything. All would be due to 'God', and due 'God'. What could a human possess that was not, ultimately, owed to 'God'? A coin with an image on it is still part of what would be 'God's' creation. Jesus side stepped an obvious attempt to trap him with words and instead trapped the trappers.

So you do not believe in the separation of church and state and suggest we become a theology government, like Saudi Arabia?

Whew! Another incredible distortion of understanding. Look up the conditional in English.
Jesus believed in 'God'. Any believer would be the same. For any true believer of any religion, there can be no separation of anything from 'God' and the believer's religion. Religious fanatics were trying to catch Jesus out on a particularly sensitive debate of that epoch. He very astutely side stepped them. My post merely stated what I saw in that exchange. My post said nothing about separation of church and state.
When one religion can show convincing proof of its tenets to everyone at the same time, then people can vote what they want to do about that. Until then, any one religion has absolutely no place in directly acting in American policy and politics beyond availing itself of the First Amendment. Any U.S. collective support for any religion anywhere is, and should be, prohibited.

It is always amazing that people don't 'get' the intelligent, penetrating metaphorical, and often ironic, sense to Jesus' words. 'God' would have to be the source of all and everything. All would be due to 'God', and due 'God'. What could a human possess that was not, ultimately, owed to 'God'? A coin with an image on it is still part of what would be 'God's' creation. Jesus side stepped an obvious attempt to trap him with words and instead trapped the trappers.

So you do not believe in the separation of church and state and suggest we become a theology government, like Saudi Arabia?

Whew! Another incredible distortion of understanding. Look up the conditional in English.
Jesus believed in 'God'. Any believer would be the same. For any true believer of any religion, there can be no separation of anything from 'God' and the believer's religion. Religious fanatics were trying to catch Jesus out on a particularly sensitive debate of that epoch. He very astutely side stepped them. My post merely stated what I saw in that exchange. My post said nothing about separation of church and state.
When one religion can show convincing proof of its tenets to everyone at the same time, then people can vote what they want to do about that. Until then, any one religion has absolutely no place in directly acting in American policy and politics beyond availing itself of the First Amendment. Any U.S. collective support for any religion anywhere is, and should be, prohibited.

Do I need to remind you of this.
17 So Jesus said to them, “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” They were utterly amazed at him.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is always amazing that people don't 'get' the intelligent, penetrating metaphorical, and often ironic, sense to Jesus' words. 'God' would have to be the source of all and everything. All would be due to 'God', and due 'God'. What could a human possess that was not, ultimately, owed to 'God'? A coin with an image on it is still part of what would be 'God's' creation. Jesus side stepped an obvious attempt to trap him with words and instead trapped the trappers.

So you do not believe in the separation of church and state and suggest we become a theology government, like Saudi Arabia?

Whew! Another incredible distortion of understanding. Look up the conditional in English.
Jesus believed in 'God'. Any believer would be the same. For any true believer of any religion, there can be no separation of anything from 'God' and the believer's religion. Religious fanatics were trying to catch Jesus out on a particularly sensitive debate of that epoch. He very astutely side stepped them. My post merely stated what I saw in that exchange. My post said nothing about separation of church and state.
When one religion can show convincing proof of its tenets to everyone at the same time, then people can vote what they want to do about that. Until then, any one religion has absolutely no place in directly acting in American policy and politics beyond availing itself of the First Amendment. Any U.S. collective support for any religion anywhere is, and should be, prohibited.

It is always amazing that people don't 'get' the intelligent, penetrating metaphorical, and often ironic, sense to Jesus' words. 'God' would have to be the source of all and everything. All would be due to 'God', and due 'God'. What could a human possess that was not, ultimately, owed to 'God'? A coin with an image on it is still part of what would be 'God's' creation. Jesus side stepped an obvious attempt to trap him with words and instead trapped the trappers.

So you do not believe in the separation of church and state and suggest we become a theology government, like Saudi Arabia?

Whew! Another incredible distortion of understanding. Look up the conditional in English.
Jesus believed in 'God'. Any believer would be the same. For any true believer of any religion, there can be no separation of anything from 'God' and the believer's religion. Religious fanatics were trying to catch Jesus out on a particularly sensitive debate of that epoch. He very astutely side stepped them. My post merely stated what I saw in that exchange. My post said nothing about separation of church and state.
When one religion can show convincing proof of its tenets to everyone at the same time, then people can vote what they want to do about that. Until then, any one religion has absolutely no place in directly acting in American policy and politics beyond availing itself of the First Amendment. Any U.S. collective support for any religion anywhere is, and should be, prohibited.

Do I need to remind you of this.
17 So Jesus said to them, “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” They were utterly amazed at him.

The post was very mindful of how amazing Jesus' words were. He was quite a character, and misunderstood then as now.

 

[Penelope]

It is always amazing that people don't 'get' the intelligent, penetrating metaphorical, and often ironic, sense to Jesus' words. 'God' would have to be the source of all and everything. All would be due to 'God', and due 'God'. What could a human possess that was not, ultimately, owed to 'God'? A coin with an image on it is still part of what would be 'God's' creation. Jesus side stepped an obvious attempt to trap him with words and instead trapped the trappers.

So you do not believe in the separation of church and state and suggest we become a theology government, like Saudi Arabia?

Whew! Another incredible distortion of understanding. Look up the conditional in English.
Jesus believed in 'God'. Any believer would be the same. For any true believer of any religion, there can be no separation of anything from 'God' and the believer's religion. Religious fanatics were trying to catch Jesus out on a particularly sensitive debate of that epoch. He very astutely side stepped them. My post merely stated what I saw in that exchange. My post said nothing about separation of church and state.
When one religion can show convincing proof of its tenets to everyone at the same time, then people can vote what they want to do about that. Until then, any one religion has absolutely no place in directly acting in American policy and politics beyond availing itself of the First Amendment. Any U.S. collective support for any religion anywhere is, and should be, prohibited.

It is always amazing that people don't 'get' the intelligent, penetrating metaphorical, and often ironic, sense to Jesus' words. 'God' would have to be the source of all and everything. All would be due to 'God', and due 'God'. What could a human possess that was not, ultimately, owed to 'God'? A coin with an image on it is still part of what would be 'God's' creation. Jesus side stepped an obvious attempt to trap him with words and instead trapped the trappers.

So you do not believe in the separation of church and state and suggest we become a theology government, like Saudi Arabia?

Whew! Another incredible distortion of understanding. Look up the conditional in English.
Jesus believed in 'God'. Any believer would be the same. For any true believer of any religion, there can be no separation of anything from 'God' and the believer's religion. Religious fanatics were trying to catch Jesus out on a particularly sensitive debate of that epoch. He very astutely side stepped them. My post merely stated what I saw in that exchange. My post said nothing about separation of church and state.
When one religion can show convincing proof of its tenets to everyone at the same time, then people can vote what they want to do about that. Until then, any one religion has absolutely no place in directly acting in American policy and politics beyond availing itself of the First Amendment. Any U.S. collective support for any religion anywhere is, and should be, prohibited.

Do I need to remind you of this.
17 So Jesus said to them, “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” They were utterly amazed at him.

The post was very mindful of how amazing Jesus' words were. He was quite a character, and misunderstood then as now.

I do not think there can be no confusion, God may of put the minerals on earth , but Caesar minted the coins. Should we talk about stealing?

 

[Auld Phart]

It is always amazing that people don't 'get' the intelligent, penetrating metaphorical, and often ironic, sense to Jesus' words. 'God' would have to be the source of all and everything. All would be due to 'God', and due 'God'. What could a human possess that was not, ultimately, owed to 'God'? A coin with an image on it is still part of what would be 'God's' creation. Jesus side stepped an obvious attempt to trap him with words and instead trapped the trappers.

So you do not believe in the separation of church and state and suggest we become a theology government, like Saudi Arabia?

Whew! Another incredible distortion of understanding. Look up the conditional in English.
Jesus believed in 'God'. Any believer would be the same. For any true believer of any religion, there can be no separation of anything from 'God' and the believer's religion. Religious fanatics were trying to catch Jesus out on a particularly sensitive debate of that epoch. He very astutely side stepped them. My post merely stated what I saw in that exchange. My post said nothing about separation of church and state.
When one religion can show convincing proof of its tenets to everyone at the same time, then people can vote what they want to do about that. Until then, any one religion has absolutely no place in directly acting in American policy and politics beyond availing itself of the First Amendment. Any U.S. collective support for any religion anywhere is, and should be, prohibited.

It is always amazing that people don't 'get' the intelligent, penetrating metaphorical, and often ironic, sense to Jesus' words. 'God' would have to be the source of all and everything. All would be due to 'God', and due 'God'. What could a human possess that was not, ultimately, owed to 'God'? A coin with an image on it is still part of what would be 'God's' creation. Jesus side stepped an obvious attempt to trap him with words and instead trapped the trappers.

So you do not believe in the separation of church and state and suggest we become a theology government, like Saudi Arabia?

Whew! Another incredible distortion of understanding. Look up the conditional in English.
Jesus believed in 'God'. Any believer would be the same. For any true believer of any religion, there can be no separation of anything from 'God' and the believer's religion. Religious fanatics were trying to catch Jesus out on a particularly sensitive debate of that epoch. He very astutely side stepped them. My post merely stated what I saw in that exchange. My post said nothing about separation of church and state.
When one religion can show convincing proof of its tenets to everyone at the same time, then people can vote what they want to do about that. Until then, any one religion has absolutely no place in directly acting in American policy and politics beyond availing itself of the First Amendment. Any U.S. collective support for any religion anywhere is, and should be, prohibited.

Do I need to remind you of this.
17 So Jesus said to them, “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” They were utterly amazed at him.

The post was very mindful of how amazing Jesus' words were. He was quite a character, and misunderstood then as now.

I do not think there can be no confusion, God may of put the minerals on earth , but Caesar minted the coins. Should we talk about stealing?

God may of put the minerals on earth , but Caesar minted the coins.

and you just explained why the chaplain was asked to retire.

 

[BlackSand]

...
17 So Jesus said to them, “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” They were utterly amazed at him.
...

It's a trick question, with the intention to make one think ...
Jesus tells people to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what belongs to God.

But ... There is Psalms 24:1 and a plethora of other references in the Bible (referenced in the link) ...
That clearly state, the world, everything in it, and all those who dwell on it, belong to God.

Jesus is saying to give Caesar what they think is his and not God's ... Which would be nothing.

.​

 

[BlackSand]

It is always amazing that people don't 'get' the intelligent, penetrating metaphorical, and often ironic, sense to Jesus' words. 'God' would have to be the source of all and everything. All would be due to 'God', and due 'God'. What could a human possess that was not, ultimately, owed to 'God'? A coin with an image on it is still part of what would be 'God's' creation. Jesus side stepped an obvious attempt to trap him with words and instead trapped the trappers.

So you do not believe in the separation of church and state and suggest we become a theology government, like Saudi Arabia?

I think it would be more beneficial to recognize that whatever you and your silly government consists of ... Is of no consequence to God.

According to the rules as far as I can tell (I am no theologian) ...
He doesn't need you to do anything ... He already owns your soul ... You just get to decide what you do with it while here on Earth.

It's the ultimate futility of your argument ...
What you do with the rent property He allows you, is not going to change God.

.​

 

[TNHarley]

The Implications of Christians Forcing Christianity on Others

Religious people are bad about that.
Non religious people are bad about forcing christians to act against their beliefs.
Weird how that works ey?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Haven't been to church, with the exception of weddings, funerals, and christenings in about 55 years.

Unlike you, I believe in Freedom of Speech and Religion.

Bingo.

And don't you say anything bad about Islam, or the Regressives will come after you with everything they've got.
.

Replying to your comments would be going down to your level. I'm not going there.

Yeah, the obvious is difficult to refute.
.

Baiting tactics huh?

Whatever you'd like. It sure worked. As usual.
.

Well there you're wrong. Think about it.

 

[Mac1958]

Bingo.

And don't you say anything bad about Islam, or the Regressives will come after you with everything they've got.
.

Replying to your comments would be going down to your level. I'm not going there.

Yeah, the obvious is difficult to refute.
.

Baiting tactics huh?

Whatever you'd like. It sure worked. As usual.
.

Well there you're wrong. Think about it.

Sure will, thanks!
.

 

[Penelope]

News Releases - Freedom From Religion Foundation

Seriously?

Yes I am serious. The way your laughing might give you TMJD.

 

[Penelope]

I guess the conservative evans don't believe in freedom of religion, do they?

do jews, catholics, muslims, atheists, etc?

(especially atheists)

So you think the house and senate are only made up of Christians, think again.
Religious makeup of 115th Congress

Have you ever considered taking a course in reading comprehension?

I didn't even HINT at that.

I think you did, after all it was a Muslim he let give an opening prayer, which pissed the Evans off. Interfaith is quite common in the US now and we have an interfaith congress, and I bet there are some atheists as well, but they won't admit it.

There is a fine line between what is political and if that prayer was too political for the Evans, I suggest no preacher take his place.

was he the first one?

seems there have been at least 2

one in 2012, one in 2014

Two what?

 

[Auld Phart]

News Releases - Freedom From Religion Foundation

Seriously?

Yes I am serious. The way your laughing might give you TMJD.

TMJD?

 

[Penelope]

The Implications of Christians Forcing Christianity on Others

Religious people are bad about that.
Non religious people are bad about forcing christians to act against their beliefs.
Weird how that works ey?

The more the Christians push their Christianity on everyone and impose laws, the more others will become against it. Weird how that happens hey?

The basic question is: is it morally, ethically, and even spiritually correct to impose our own mores on people that (a) can be profoundly affected by them and (b) don’t share them? Do we have a right and (dare I even say) an obligation to say that my beliefs are more important than yours and therefore mine are the ones that stand? That as a Christian, my moral code is far superior to yours and this gives me the obligation to impose this on how you live your life?

 

[Auld Phart]

do jews, catholics, muslims, atheists, etc?

(especially atheists)

So you think the house and senate are only made up of Christians, think again.
Religious makeup of 115th Congress

Have you ever considered taking a course in reading comprehension?

I didn't even HINT at that.

I think you did, after all it was a Muslim he let give an opening prayer, which pissed the Evans off. Interfaith is quite common in the US now and we have an interfaith congress, and I bet there are some atheists as well, but they won't admit it.

There is a fine line between what is political and if that prayer was too political for the Evans, I suggest no preacher take his place.

was he the first one?

seems there have been at least 2

one in 2012, one in 2014

Two what?

Muslims giving the opening prayer?

(didn't you even read your own post?)

 

[Auld Phart]

The Implications of Christians Forcing Christianity on Others

Religious people are bad about that.
Non religious people are bad about forcing christians to act against their beliefs.
Weird how that works ey?

The more the Christians push their Christianity on everyone and impose laws, the more others will become against it. Weird how that happens hey?

The basic question is: is it morally, ethically, and even spiritually correct to impose our own mores on people that (a) can be profoundly affected by them and (b) don’t share them? Do we have a right and (dare I even say) an obligation to say that my beliefs are more important than yours and therefore mine are the ones that stand? That as a Christian, my moral code is far superior to yours and this gives me the obligation to impose this on how you live your life?

GOD


(did that make you wet your panties?)

 

[Penelope]

News Releases - Freedom From Religion Foundation

Seriously?

Yes I am serious. The way your laughing might give you TMJD.

TMJD?

temporomandibular joint disorder/dysfunction.

 

[Penelope]

The Implications of Christians Forcing Christianity on Others

Religious people are bad about that.
Non religious people are bad about forcing christians to act against their beliefs.
Weird how that works ey?

The more the Christians push their Christianity on everyone and impose laws, the more others will become against it. Weird how that happens hey?

The basic question is: is it morally, ethically, and even spiritually correct to impose our own mores on people that (a) can be profoundly affected by them and (b) don’t share them? Do we have a right and (dare I even say) an obligation to say that my beliefs are more important than yours and therefore mine are the ones that stand? That as a Christian, my moral code is far superior to yours and this gives me the obligation to impose this on how you live your life?

GOD


(did that make you wet your panties?)

And therein lies the problem. We do not run government by the bible, if we had laws according to the bible, Trump would be stoned in the OT and be blind in the NT.

 

[Auld Phart]

The Implications of Christians Forcing Christianity on Others

Religious people are bad about that.
Non religious people are bad about forcing christians to act against their beliefs.
Weird how that works ey?

The more the Christians push their Christianity on everyone and impose laws, the more others will become against it. Weird how that happens hey?

The basic question is: is it morally, ethically, and even spiritually correct to impose our own mores on people that (a) can be profoundly affected by them and (b) don’t share them? Do we have a right and (dare I even say) an obligation to say that my beliefs are more important than yours and therefore mine are the ones that stand? That as a Christian, my moral code is far superior to yours and this gives me the obligation to impose this on how you live your life?

GOD


(did that make you wet your panties?)

And therein lies the problem. We do not run government by the bible, if we had laws according to the bible, Trump would be stoned in the OT and be blind in the NT.

We do not run government by the bible,

You're correct.

despite the chicken littles running around screaming the sky is falling every time someone mentions GOD

 

[Penelope]

It is always amazing that people don't 'get' the intelligent, penetrating metaphorical, and often ironic, sense to Jesus' words. 'God' would have to be the source of all and everything. All would be due to 'God', and due 'God'. What could a human possess that was not, ultimately, owed to 'God'? A coin with an image on it is still part of what would be 'God's' creation. Jesus side stepped an obvious attempt to trap him with words and instead trapped the trappers.

So you do not believe in the separation of church and state and suggest we become a theology government, like Saudi Arabia?

I think it would be more beneficial to recognize that whatever you and your silly government consists of ... Is of no consequence to God.

According to the rules as far as I can tell (I am no theologian) ...
He doesn't need you to do anything ... He already owns your soul ... You just get to decide what you do with it while here on Earth.

It's the ultimate futility of your argument ...
What you do with the rent property He allows you, is not going to change God.

.​

You act like you know God, which God??

 

[MaryAnne11]

The Implications of Christians Forcing Christianity on Others

Great article, Penelope. That describes exactly how I feel. You do not tell me, I do not insist you agree with me.