« GLAAD to present a free basic media workshop | Home | Peace & Justice E-Blast for July 13-20th 2007 »

Protesters disrupt first Hindu prayer in Senate

By David W. Shelton | July 15, 2007 |

On Thursday, July 12, Rajan Zed became the first person to offer a Hindu prayer on the Senate floor. Sadly, the prayer was disrupted by “Christian patriots” who were eventually arrested on the misdemeanor charge of disrupting Congress. This “protest” was an utter disgrace to not only the Senate, but to Christianity as a whole.

Fox News reported:

Zed, who was born in India, was invited by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Speaking in the chamber shortly after the prayer, Reid defended the choice and linked it to the war debate.

“If people have any misunderstanding about Indians and Hindus,” Reid said, “all they have to do is think of Gandhi,” a man “who gave his life for peace.”

“I think it speaks well of our country that someone representing the faith of about a billion people comes here and can speak in communication with our heavenly Father regarding peace,” said Reid, a Mormon and sharp critic of President Bush’s Iraq policies.

Now, I don’t think Senator Reid really understands that the Hindu religion doesn’t worship “our heavenly father.” But that’s not the point. His invitation to bring Chaplain Zed to pray on the Senate floor was a first for the Senate. The invitation drew the ire of the American Family Association as well as other fundamentalist groups.

It’s not clear what group the protesters were associated with, but their disruptive shouts were a true embarrassment to Christians everywhere. They yelled from the visitors gallery, “This is an abomination!” and were eventually arrested.

MSNBC reported the content of the prayer as well:

Zed, the first Hindu to offer the Senate prayer, began: “We meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds.”

As the Senate prepared for another day of debate over the Iraq war, Zed closed with, “Peace, peace, peace be unto all.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. As a Christian, I think that these three protesters are a disgrace and an utter embarassment to not only Christianity but to Christians everywhere. They should be ashamed of themselves, and I’m glad they were arrested. Sadly, I’m not surprised that this happened. 

Of course, the concept of “peace” is offensive to many fundamentalists, which is unfortunate. What concerns me more than anything is the notion that many of today’s Christians have that insists that the United States was founded to be a “Christian nation.”

If this were so, then why are the words “God” or “Bible” completely nonexistent in the Constitution?

Yes, many of the framers were Christian. John Adams and John Jay were both very passionate in their faith. They also understood that faith was a personal matter of the individual. And the individual expressions of faith (indeed forms of Christianity were the most prevalent) was meant to be exactly that: Individual.

When the first amendment was ratified, it clearly stated that “Congress would pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It would keep the federal government out of the religious affairs of the people. It would also prevent having one religion elevated above any others.

The modern idea of twisting this as a “Christians-only club” is as much a perversion as it would be to say that all of the framers were Christian. Clearly, they were not. More importantly, Christianity as most modern evangelicals understand it did not exist until the early 1800s with the rise of Charles Finney.

As I discussed this once, someone pointed out the final article of the Constitution:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America…

It seems that some Christians insist that the usage of the phrase “the Year of our Lord…” was indicative that this was intended to be a Christian nation. This is about as logical as insisting that because the sky is blue, this was intended to be a blue-skinned nation. Why is this?

Quite simply, it was a tradition of the time. Just as this is the year 2007 A.D. In fact, the Latin phrase ano domini translates to “the year of our Lord.” This was simply the calendar year—nothing more, and nothing less. It’s about as religious as saying, “God bless you” to a person who’s just sneezed.

Thomas Jefferson wasn’t in the country when the Constitution was written, but his clear approval of the hands-off approach to religion was an indication that he understood it enough to write to the Danbury Baptist association when he was president that the first amendment “erects a wall of separation between church and state.”

Faith was an important part in the lives of early Americans, and each faith was protected. We should be careful not to try to put words in the framers mouths by quoting them out of context and making them say that they intended to found America as a “Christian nation.” Clearly, they did not.

In fact, the Treaty of Tripoli, proudly signed by John Adams (who also co-wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence) in 1796 has a particular statement in article 11:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

There is, however, no question that the Christian faith was deeply rooted in the culture of the late eighteenth century. This was just a few decades after the Great Awakening, during which men like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield impacted the colonials through the power of the Holy Spirit in a profound way. Christian historians (including myself) believe that the Awakening prepared the hearts of the colonists for the long, bloody war that came with the Revolution.

One of the phrases I hear a lot is “original intent.” This is something that we have to be very careful of, especially since the “original intent” of the framers was clearly that only white men would have a say in what their country would look like. Radical ideas of women who vote, black men who vote and own property, and the end of slavery were far-reaching pipe dreams as far as the framers knew. Even Washington and Jefferson were slave owners.

The Constitution was written to allow some flexibility in several issues, and its interpretation clearly changes with time. During his 2000 Presidential campaign, Then-Vice President Al Gore spoke of it as a “living and breathing document” that changes with time. This is the opposite extreme. In reality, the constitution is neither rigid nor living. It’s deliberately specific in its language yet deliberately vague in its application.

Where the “original intent” interpretation fails in the relationship with Church and State is that there is little argument that the framers had a Christian worldview. We simply can not apply that same worldview to the multi-cultural society that is in the United States today.

Here in Clarksville, there are literally dozens of different countries represented in its residents. There are Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, as well as Christian residents. Yes, most of Clarksville’s residents are Christian. But our city is best reflected when we celebrate the spiritual diversity of the region. Such is the same with the Senate.

This really isn’t all that different from last year’s brouhaha over Keith Elliston’s swearing-in ceremony where he placed his hand on a Quran instead of the Bible. Interestingly enough, the copy of the Quran that he used once belonged to Thomas Jefferson (By the way, such ceremonies are common, but are not the “official” swearing in, which is done on the Congress floor en masse).

Clearly, even if it was in the days of the Framers, the United States is clearly no longer a Christian nation. It’s important that we respect the intent of the framers and their flexibility by keeping faith where it belongs: in the churches and hearts of the American people, and out of government. They knew then just as we know now that when government meddles in religious affairs, it will only result in tyranny.

Just imagine what kind of a country those three protesters would have us live in. I sure wouldn’t want any part of it.

About David W. Shelton

Posts by David W. Shelton are copyright (c)2006, 2007, 2008 by the author. All rights reserved. David W. Shelton is a writer, speaker and activist in Clarksville, and serves on the Clarksville Human Relations Commission. His passions include film and complete equality for all people, and he has worked in various capacities to work toward this goal. He is currently an illustrator, graphic designer, trainer, and is the owner of Imagine Media Solutions. He is an Adobe® Certified Instructor in Photoshop®.

Web Site: http://www.skippingtothepiccolo.com/

Email: dwshelton@att.net

Sections: Opinion, Politics, Spirituality
Topics: Harry Reid, Hindu prayer, Separation of Church and State, US Senate

22 Responses to “Protesters disrupt first Hindu prayer in Senate”

1. Jeff Mack Says:
   July 15th, 2007 at 12:16 pm

   Pergamos!

2. Charlene D. Says:
   July 15th, 2007 at 7:46 pm

   Mr. Shelton. It appears to me that you didn’t check your history well enough. If you did, you would have known the criteria of the delegates from the thirteen colonies representing congress. To be a representative, they swore allegiance to the Bible affirming that it was truth. Sir, this country was founded on “God We Trust” like it or not. You quoted a few things some of the founding fathers said, but left out anything that would not support your comments. I don’t appreciate that. What Harry Reid did was to shame the founding fathers of this nation. You know as well as I that if Mr. Reid did that back then, Congress would have ran him out of the country. It’s not clear to me why you mentioned the constitution. You even go so far and quote a clearly liberal man of the world, Al Gore, about the constitution being a living document. It is only living document to those that want to change it to promote one of the two parties that run our nation. If the basic document is changeable, then nothing is scared to these two parties. That is far too much power. When that can change our constitution without the vote of the majority, then the people work for the government. The government no longer works for the people. As our nation turns away from God, God will turn from our nation. Sir this county has lost its way. It doesn’t remember where it came from; therefore, it doesn’t know where it is going. Your comments even make it worse.

3. Bill Larson Says:
   July 15th, 2007 at 8:09 pm

   Lets point out the basic flaw in your argument. The word “God” does not appear within the text of the Constitution of the United States. After spending three-and-a-half months debating and negotiating about what should go into the document that would govern the land, the framers drafted a constitution that is secular. The U.S. Constitution is often confused with the Declaration of Independence, and it’s important to understand the difference. Then we have the fact that the consitution forbids a religious test for office… The Constitution forbids any religious test to hold office. A godless person is just as eligible as a godly one! (Article 6, Paragraph 3) Here’s why they did that. “When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.” Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992 It makes sense to me. Lets not forget a very clear statement that even a strict constructionist justice could love… In 1797 our government concluded a “Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary,” now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words: As the Government of the United States…is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion–as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen–and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate’s history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today. Musselmen are more commonly known as Muslims now adays… Then we have a more recent example: “Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?” Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner on the Ten Commandments ruling, June 27, 2005 For a good starting point to become more informed on the subject Charlene D and Jeff Mack try this article: Our Godless Constitution: http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050221&s=allen 231 years later, I think it’s clear from our rather blessed history that either God approves, or just doesn’t care. You should try and follow his example.

4. Jeff Mack Says:
   July 15th, 2007 at 8:23 pm

   How long did you have to search for Pergamos to find out what I meant or do you knw what it means?? LOL!! The best thing that Charlene said was this, “As our nation turns away from God, God will turn from our nation.” This is true no matter what the US Constitution says!!

5. David W. Shelton Says:
   July 15th, 2007 at 8:32 pm

   Jeff Mack said: long did you have to search for Pergamos to find out what I meant or do you knw what it means?? LOL!! Well, the nice thing about Biblical words is that they’re not that hard to find. Your comment was clearly in reference to Revelation 2:12-17, which is a letter to the Church in Pergamum. Verse 13 is of particular interest. In that verse, Christ identifies the city of Pergamum as where “Satan has his throne.” This is a little puzzling… are you suggesting that Washington, D.C. is Satan’s throne? If so, I know a lot of people who would agree with you on that one.

6. Bill Larson Says:
   July 15th, 2007 at 8:41 pm

   I believe in God, I don’t believe in Government being involved with religion and vice versa. God loved man so much that he gave us the ability to choose if we wish to love him or not. It’s a sad thing when some Christians try to remove the ability for others to make that glorious choice. God provided the world with many chances and paths for people be able to follow in order to find him. You see Christanity is one of many paths to God. It is not the only one as you mistakenly seem to believe. I have yet to see any religion, which has it totally right. How sad it must be for those Christians who were taught that God could be so small and petty, and who’s hearts are closed enough to actually believe it.

7. C3PO4RF Says:
   July 15th, 2007 at 8:55 pm

   Clearly, most of you have searched your deepest depths for a Religious Compass. It is, indeed, the most sad, to see those who seek to follow their hearts and souls, yet wind up being led into tempation and fear. It is not from our country, that salvation befalls us, it is from our inner-self which God leads. I am certain that driving the public Christian bus into the lake of fire, as some of you are doing, is against God’s wishes, by all accounts. Rather than fight over who the driver will be, why not agree that God drive, and trust the bus will steer itself. Those of you who believe that America was founded in order to oppress other religions, rather than uphold them, are the same who discriminate against race, culture, ethnicity, health, sexual orientation, and the original inhabitors of our great land. You are those who seek peace by annihilation rather than diversity. Let me remind you, God says he wishes prophecy by love, rather than disciminatory blather. Brittish Religious Tyranny came in the form of taxation, denial of social status, and oppressive snuffing out of religious diversification. If you disagree with that, you clearly are Anti-American and must be a modern-day Benedict Arnold.

8. Beaz Says:
   July 17th, 2007 at 6:37 pm

   So much for religious observances in government buildings. I actually have no problem with Hindus, or Muslims, or even a Satanic cult leading a prayer before Congress. You can’t even leave out a prayer because that could be viewed as the government establishment of atheism. This country was founded on the concept of religious freedom. The fact is, we are a predominantly Christian nation and therefore in a representitive republic those people’s desires will be met more readily than any other group. The people who were protesting, though it’s their right, have a problem with intolerance. Obviously our founders saw no problem with religious observances in public buildings and we should not either, even if it’s an occasional Hindu, Jewish, or Muslim prayer. That isn’t the point, the point, I believe was to show how tolerant our country is to other beliefs. Which, sadly, some are not ready for.

9. David W. Shelton Says:
   July 17th, 2007 at 9:47 pm

   Well said, Beaz. Thank you.

10. Jeff Mack Says:
    July 17th, 2007 at 10:44 pm

    John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Ezekiel 33:8 If I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked person shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. 33:9 But if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, that person shall die in his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. I don’t say this, the bible does. Choose not to heed the God’s word at your own peril. I used to think as you do, Bill. That all religions were just trying to get to the same place, they were just going a different route to get there. “Zed, the first Hindu to offer the Senate prayer, began: “We meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds.” Did he say..”who is inside the heart of the Earth”? Scarey to me (ok…it’s a little out of context but he still said it! LOL!!) Final thought— No Jesus, No Peace - Know Jesus, Know Peace

11. David W. Shelton Says:
    July 18th, 2007 at 5:59 am

    Jeff, I know that this might be a shock to you, but not everyone believes that the Bible is the Word of God. In fact, not everyone even believes that the Bible is infallible. Even Christians will disagree with how they approach the Scriptures. Some view it as the “pure Word of God, perfect and infallible.” Others see the holy writ as inspired texts that show God’s intent, but not necessarily word-for-word “perfect.” When dealing with people of other religions, it is absolutely critical that we “not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth” (1 John 3:18). Slamming them with Scripture verses does little more than push people further away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, I think all Christians do well to read the entire book of 1 John (especially the third chapter) and meditate on it (Joshua 1:8) so that we can understand that even though there are those whose path is different from our own, we can show the love of Christ not only by our knowledge of Scripture, but in actions. It’s our actions that often drive people away, so why not use our actions to magnify the glory of Jesus Christ? We can point the way… or we can SHOW the way. Quoting scripture might point the way, but it’s how we live, and how we interact with others that truly show others how there is indeed a “more excellent way” (1 Cor 12:31).

12. Bill Larson Says:
    July 18th, 2007 at 1:15 pm

    That was very eloquent David, and I agree 100%

13. Debbie Boen Says:
    July 18th, 2007 at 6:19 pm

    Jeff, It scares you that God may be inside the heart of Earth? That being that you channel is not God.

14. Jeff Mack Says:
    July 18th, 2007 at 9:14 pm

    Your right Bill, it was very eloquent. I agree with most of it, but I will not compromise the word. I chose to look at the bible like Billy Graham, John Hagee, Jack Van Impe, just to name a few. I think you know what camp I’m in on the Bible. I take the bible at what it says. It’s all true or it’s all false. Again, pretty easy to see where I am on this. Where are you David? A couple of questions: Is John 14:6 the truth or not? Is God’s law bendable? Bill, Good job on bringing in a ringer to fight your battle. I’d like to know your answers to the questions above also. Debbie, WHAT? Please, don’t talk down to to me, it’s not becoming. Notice it was a joke. I know what he meant and I changed the context on purpose for humors sake. Channeling God? I won’t get into how silly that sounds? 1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. If I did not love, I would hold to the word to myself and not share it with everyone. I believe that is the great commision of Christians to share the “Good News”. Would you agree? John 4:13 Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” I took the 4:14 water over the 4:13 water. You can lead a horse to (the living) water, but you can’t make them drink.

15. Bill Larson Says:
    July 18th, 2007 at 9:28 pm

    David is far more knowledgeable on the subject than I am. He came into this on his own, not via any instigation on my part. I have a simple policy, one that you should consider following… You worship God your way, I will worship him in mine. In the end God will decide who was right or wrong. I am willing to stake eternity on it, are you? Because if I am right, you are likely to be pissing God off… Never a good thing to do. I will say my beliefs are 100% in line with the teachings of Christ, but not with those of modern Christianity. In the end, I think it best if we simply agree to disagree

16. Jeff Mack Says:
    July 18th, 2007 at 9:36 pm

    Bill, I can say the same thing…If I’m right your upsetting God. Would I be haveing this dialog, if eternity wasn’t at stake? Simple question:I asked you this once before and I never got an answer. Do you truley believe Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God, crucified for my sins and yours, who defeated death after 3 days and rose from the grave? Answer yes and I’ll never bug you about it again. (Unless you bring it up)

17. Bill Larson Says:
    July 18th, 2007 at 10:17 pm

    I think the teachings of Jesus when followed are the pathway to a better world. I think Jesus came to show the world a new a path to God. Beyond that I do not know. I have read the bible and I follow the teachings of Christ because my God given sense of morality and ethics tell me that they are right and just. But I don’t limit myself to the Bible. To do so ignores over 2,000 years of God’s continuing influence in the world. We were even told how to figure it out, “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” The nature of God changed in the bible between Genesis and Revelation, do you believe that God stopped changing just because the final form of the modern bible was approved by a group of imperfect men in 1563 I also acknowledge that the bible is not remotely consistent, 100% factual, or accurate. It’s been cross translated and re-edited too many times for that to be possible. I think the bible we read now bears little resemblance to what it meant when it was written down, and less resemblance to the actual occurrences. The fact that you believe otherwise, to me violates all sanity and reason.

18. Jeff Mack Says:
    July 18th, 2007 at 11:31 pm

    The Holy Spirit and Faith tells me the Bible is correct, not any man. Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever God doesn’t change..never has, never will. God didn’t change from the Old Testament and the New. The Covenant between man and God did, through the blood shead on the cross by Jesus Christ. If you try to make God something that he isn’t, or change Him to suite your needs, that is called idolitry. That is changing God to god. Job 33:14 For God speaks in one way, and in two, though man does not perceive it. God’s wisdom is greater than mans. It’s not for me to understand everything that God does, because I can’t. Neither can you. I just have to take what He says on faith and believe. Call me insane or a fool if you wish. I call it faith. What are we to do, study Hebrew and Greek, get a copy of the dead sea scrolls translate it for ourselves? I think I’ll just take the copy I have now, trust in the Spirit and faith. Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. I’ll take that and go with it!

19. David W. Shelton Says:
    July 19th, 2007 at 5:54 am

    John 14:6 has a powerful message. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father but through Him. I’ve said ti before, and I’ll say it again: Quoting Scripture does nothing but quote Scripture. There is no life in that. There’s little truth in that. Even the Way isn’t in quoting Scripture. This is where I think a lot of evangelicals and fundamentals have missed the point of the power and beauty of the Christian faith. Learning Scripture and even memorizing it is wonderful– but the reality is that the Bible is not the Word of God. Shocking statement, I know. But even the Bible says this. The Word of God is a person, and His name is Jesus. That’s why Jesus speaks of Himself as the Way, Truth and Life. Don’t look to laws, rules, and regulations. Look to the person of the living risen savior who is Lord. No, this isn’t bendable… but it isn’t law either. That’s the problem with much of our modern expression of Christianity. We’ve traded one law for another. We’ve traded death for a spiritualized version of death. We’ve taken our hate, and whitewashed it and have become modern Pharisees. In the process, we’ve spat on the very message of Jesus: Love God, love men. The power of the Gospel is shown by action. The grace of God is shown by how we have grace for others. And the love of God is best shown in how we share that love with others. Where is the love shown when we throw the book at someone? The film, “Saved!” has a brilliant moment where one character is so outraged at another that she threw her Bible at the other girl. “I’m FILLED with Christ’s love!” How often have we done the same thing? It’s no better than when someone from outside the Christian faith belittles a Christian. “I’m better than you!” One person says to another… then it becomes a spiritual pissing contest that will bear no fruit but strife and contempt. When we start seeing that level of strife (kind of like what this thread is becoming) is when something horrifying is realized: For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. (James 3:16) We all know where we stand on certain issues. We shouldn’t be so presumptuous to think that we have it 100% correct. Let’s not get into our heads that the Bible is crystal clear… if it were, then there wouldn’t be thousands of denominations. It’s NOT clear. It’s NOT interpreted the same even by Christians. Indeed His wisdom is greater than ours. His ways are higher than our ways, and his thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isaiah 55:9). We should never presume to think we have the whole truth on any matter, especially when it comes to our understanding of the nature of the person of God. Incredibly, a lot of us have taken the idea that “the truth” is a set of doctrines that must be matched by any believer. We must believe thus-and-so to be Christian. This isn’t what Jesus said. Jesus said to believe in HIM. After all, HE is THE TRUTH. That’s right, the Truth isn’t a system of beliefs, it’s not even a doctrine. He is a Person. It’s when we get our eyes off of Him and onto our own petty differences that we see such strife and bitter discourses. Let’s leave this one alone, and move on.

20. Jeff Mack Says:
    July 19th, 2007 at 9:46 pm

    David, If you don’t believe that the bible is the inspired word of God, what do you use as study material? If you don’t believe it, how do you know what parts are real and what is not real? How can any of it be true, if even a sentence is not true? Which part is not factual? If you can give me unequivial evidence that one part of the bible is not true, you’ll win me over! I’m not the one who says that I am 100% in line with Christ. Check Post 15. Post 16. I asked Bill the BIG question and he does not afirm Christ in his answer, yet he says that he is 100% in line with Christ. David, please tell me you see the 800lb gorilla. I have no envy, what is there to envy? No self ambition. Ambition for what? My only message is Christ crucifed. I am a sinner! To God, my righteousness is like fithy rags and I fall short of the grace of God EVERYTIME. I do not deserve His grace, mercy or love. I’m not worthy of Jesus’ saving grace. He gives it freely, if I believe that Jesus is the Son of the living God, that He died for the sins of the world on a cross, that he rose from the tomb after 3 days, that I would be saved. Nothing else matters! I accept His gift and I claim His gift and I want to share that gift with the world! Matthew 10 14 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. 15 Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town. John 19:30 …He said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. May God have mercy on all of us.

21. Bill Larson Says:
    July 19th, 2007 at 9:59 pm

    Nope I sure didn’t answer your question to your satisfaction did I? As I said you worship your way, I will worship mine. In the end God will decide which of us was right, wrong, or in the neighborhood. I have enough faith in God to trust in his choice in the matter. Now my suggestion is to drop the subject and get back to the topic at hand which wasn’t Christianity, or who’s the best Christian… I would rather not make this forum 100% secular, but I will if pushed.

22. David W. Shelton Says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 6:05 am

    “David, If you don’t believe that the bible is the inspired word of God, what do you use as study material? If you don’t believe it, how do you know what parts are real and what is not real? How can any of it be true, if even a sentence is not true? Which part is not factual? If you can give me unequivial evidence that one part of the bible is not true, you’ll win me over!” I’ve often said that fundamentalism in any form is as dangerous as it is an insult to people of faith (especially Christians). This post from Jeff Mack is a classic example. It’s just like the wonky claim from Ken Hamm that “if one doesn’t believe 100% in Creationism, then have to be atheists.” Such all-or-nothing mindsets do nothing to advance discusssion. They do nothing to encourage conversation. They’ve already made up their mind. Sadly, even when their “infallible” book is proven to be less than infallible (After all, rabbits do not chew the cud, Satan does not have a throne in Pergamum, there are no locusts with lion heads, and Scripture can’t determine whether Josiah began his reign at 8 or 18, jut to name a few). If I were an atheist, I’d have plenty of ammunition to say that the Bible was imperfect. In fact, many atheists were once fundamentalists. They, like fundamentalists, have attempted to view the Bible as if it were perfect beginning to end. When they were faced with the stark reality that it is indeed not infallible, and even the KJV has translation errors (its usage of the word ‘Easter’ is particularly interesting), they left faith entirely. It’s a sad extreme, but happens more often that one might think. Another point: if the Bible were 100% true, all the time, as literalists and fundamentalists claim, then why are more people not handling snakes? After all, isn’t Mark 16:17-18 true? “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” If this is true, then all Christians can exorcise demons. All Christians can speak in tongues. All Christians are immune to poison, and all Christians are protected from snakebites. Even the modern cessationist/charismatic debate wrestles with this verse. If these have ceased as some claim, then what’s to say that other things haven’t ceased as well: like grace and salvation? It’s just this kind of mentality that disrupted the prayer in the Senate chambers last week. That isn’t faith. It’s just heckling. Just like what Jeff Mack has been doing here… heckling. It’s just the same as a childish did-your-mommy-know-you-pee-in-your-oatmeal kind of thing. This is exactly why I said before that I pray that people like this never reach positions of power. Their utter contempt for their fellow man (God forbid that anyone actually think differently) would preclude any possibility of freedom of religion. In the end, I’ve embraced the Bible, warts and all. I don’t have to think that it’s perfect to believe the core message of love, grace, and salvation. The Bible isn’t the third Person of the Trinity. It’s not even perfect. It is a rich, valuable gemstone for Christians everywhere to embrace as their love letter from God, a guide for living, and as the inspired Scriptures they are. As much as I disagree with literalist and fundamentalist Christians, I can not judge them or their salvation. They, like I, are to work out their own salvation, and follow their own path. I regret that some will turn such a blind eye to reality, but life must go on. Further, this site should represent the secular as well as the faithful, since both are element of people’s lives. EDITOR’S NOTE: Comments closed.

Feeds

• Full
• Comments