The quasi-quote you gave wasn’t a change in opinion, rather a confession that my priorities were a bit out of whack. I’ve still not fully reconciled faith & politics; people have been trying to for 2,000 years… I don’t reckon I will. As for the bigger issue…

Reconciling homosexuality & biblical faith is something that is an impossibility; to embrace one is to reject the other. Either God’s Word is truth or it is not, and I would recommend to you The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message about Homosexuality by James White & Jeffrey Niell.

I know you well enough to know that you understand the Truth, and I also know that you know that if you compromise Truth, the only thing that remains is a lie.

You’re a good friend and I care about you, Justin… and I fear that you are jeopardizing your soul. What profit is it to gain a homosexual relationship if it costs you your soul, and how much of an idol is it that you would refuse to cast it aside to embrace the Father of Lights?

Just curious, though, where exactly did I say that? Because I didn’t find it at all in your archives.

Anyway, like you, opinions change. I know we’re talking about me here, but wasn’t it you who said something along the lines, “I’m sorry for having forgotten about Jesus, and telling everyone I know about Ron Paul. Jesus Christ is the only Person that matters?” And look at you now! Somewhere along the way you managed to reconcile your faith with your politics.

I am on the same road, only instead of politics, it’s human sexuality.

For the past five days now, I’ve really felt the presence of God. I’ve kept to my Bible readings, I’ve kept to my prayers. Last night I memorized five passages of Scripture (John 10:10, 1 John 2:1, Psalm 51:1–3, Romans 10:9–10, and Matthew 1:1–4). But the best part of it all is the fact that I feel so free from my sinful nature! God has removed all desire to flee from Him.

I find this a bit ironic, because I am pro-gay rights, but I think every Christian (pastors or congregation) should have the freedom of speech granted within the First Amendment to express their displeasure with homosexuals. I am fiercely against any piece of legislation that destroys an American’s individual right to free speech. If, however, a pastor were to rail against homosexuals in such a way that there is a clear link between his sermon and a crime involving the abuse of a homosexual(s), I would have no problem with the hate-crime bill.

I agree that silencing a Christian’s belief is wrong, however much I may disagree with it. Civil discussion is the best policy.

Although, Senior is right. Hate-crime bills are in place because, in principle, they are meant to protect homosexuals from radicals. Sadly, hate-crime bills are, in practice, used against otherwise innocent Christians to further the infamous “gay agenda.”

I suspect that that is the principle reason for the existence of the laws.”

Unfortunately the law is in place to end the semblence of intolerance towards homosexuals. It is not the radicals they are trying to curb, indeed we have a surprising few right wing radicals, it is the middle-of-the-road conservative-but-do-little-but-talk-about-it types it is levied against.

I agree that America should grow. However, as argued by Schaeffer in his Manifesto, it is the freedoms & form of government which we have in America which must be safeguarded. It’s less about maintaining the “Christian-esque” aspects of it and more about maintaining the constitutionality of it — that we are a Republic and that the government is subject to a specific law — the Constitution.

Such a governmental system has its roots in Protestant Christianity, arising out of the Reformation from the work of Samuel Rutherford, who was seen as treasonous in England for daring to question the divine right of royalty, as well as followup work by the (nonchristian) John Locke.

Schaeffer argues that it is the Christian basis & understanding of this form of government which makes it work and that when it is implemented in nations which do not have a Christian base or worldview, the results are not pretty. Of course, I do not know enough about world history to know what the heck he is talking about. :P

He also points out that the big challenges to Christianity or separation of church & state or various other things in America didn’t exist until mass immigration in the early 20th Century brought in millions who did not have the same Christian worldview — not necessarily Christian beliefs specifically, but rather a “big picture” view of the world.

Schaeffer recommended How Then Should We Live about a thousand and two times in A Christian Manifesto, but thank you also for the recommendation. It does seem like a book I would enjoy and benefit from; I just need to get through my current umpteen books that I’m reading.

Again, don’t worry about the rudeness; I didn’t even notice it. :P

(And I take it you’re in high school? I’ve been thinking you were at least my age if not older!)

Take care!

I don’t know why I felt the need to lash out at you. I guess it’s just because I think we cannot legitimately say that America (or, rather, the DoI and the CotUSA) is founded on Christianity. You can make the argument that it was founded on Christian-like beliefs, but “Christian-like” and “Christian” are two inherently seperate things. Mormonism, for example, is very Christian-like, but it is, and never can be, Christian. It is a false religion that poses to be truth. (Then again, I’m not exactly a Christian myself, but that’s neither here nor now).

True, both Jefferson and Franklin had a different concept of God than “pure deists” did, but that doesn’t mean they “moved toward a Judeo-Christian concept of God.” A false god is a false god is a false god, no matter how much it resembles the true God. And because it is this false god that Jefferson and Franklin had in mind when writing the DoI, I’m still skeptical as to whether it can reasonably be said America is founded on Christianity.

I read Schaeffer’s “Christian Manifesto” (well, a little over half of it. I also read “How Then Should We Live,” which was really fascinating, read it if you haven’t.), so I know about the courts and judges that argue in favor of the “America is a Christian nation.” Of course, a little knowledge in history tells me that the founders were, in large part, Puritans.

However, just because we start out in some way, doesn’t mean we should stay that way (assuming America was founded on Christianity). Granted, you would disagree. :P

Either way, this was a great discussion. I love a rousing history debate (which I’m actually thinking of having as a second major once I go to college next year).

Again, sorry about my rudeness.

I simply find it fascinating that in establishing our nation, these intelligent men moved away from their beliefs toward a Judeo-Christian concept of God. It’s amazing to me because today we see the complete opposite; government is moving away from God in any form as quickly as court decisions or popular opinion will allow.

Regarding my statement that government is subject to God, I believe the declaration supports this. The whole context of the statement you quoted is the unalienable rights which are endowed by the Creator; to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men — instituted by who? I would say God, and I’m sure the framers had in mind Romans 13:1–7, the first verse using even the same language: “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

That government derives its powers from men still refers back to the rights; if government violates these unalienable rights, it is no longer exercising “just powers” and must be cast off. That there ought to be human government, however, is an institution of God and all are subject to Him. I doubt the framers would disagree, especially in light of their recognition of Him as Supreme Judge who exercises providence.

Unless of course the writers of the Declaration were being completely hypocritical in the use of faithful language as men are apt to do… I suppose that is a possibility, but then what I’ve always been taught about these men is that they were of an upstanding character. Hypocrisy doesn’t seem becoming of them.

Declaration states, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The difference? Government, according to the Declaration, is subject to the governed. Not God.

Granted, they were not atheists. Therefore, they did have religious convictions, albeit deistic rather than theistic. But they were not Christians, and a basic knowledge of history can support this.

Take Jefferson, for example. He compiled what we know as “The Jefferson Bible” wherein is his personal opinion about what Jesus really did teach. In the Jefferson Bible, you will not find a single reference to the deity of Jesus, the Trinity, miracles (including the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus). Why? Because he believed that all these were misinterpretations of Jesus’ teaching added to the Gospels by the four Evangelists. Of course, you and I both know that in order to be a Christian, a person needs to believe in the complete deity of Jesus Christ.

What about Benjamin Franklin? No, he didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus, either. In a letter to Ezra Stiles, he wrote, “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity.”

Were they religious men? Yes, there is no denying that. But to suggest they were Christians is to turn a blind eye to what history has so kindly recorded for us.