We have the wrong type of Christians, eh?
No, not necessarily.
Since I've never been there, I don't think I could render an informed opinion on that.
My comment on the strength of the drink was pure speculation.
A reliable and repeatable method would do.
Well I can only relate my experience to you.
I heard about a faith based, Holy spirit church in my area.
And I decided that if there was something to this Holy Spirit thing I wanted it, and so I went down there one evening and when they ask if you wanted it to come forward, which about maybe a dozen or so people and I did. The attendants were praying and sometimes they would put their hand on my head, and encourage us to speak in tongues which seemed sort of awkward at first but eventually I got the hang of it.
As they went around the room they would confirm to each of us yes thats it you got it.
I'm not sure how much time passed but I would guestimate maybe 20 minutes.
Upon leaving I knew two things. I already had it before I went there.
And it was not of a carnal nature. Or in other words it was not something intellectual, emotional, or psycological.
It was something different from that.
Perhaps from some of your comments like me you already have it and don't know it.
Anyway over the next several years while serving there, was like a cultivation process where I began to be able to differentiate it from my own thoughts and my own spirit and basically confirm its presence.
Since up until that point I had lived completely and entirely in the carnal dimensions, it takes some again cultivation
to really differentiate it. It is extremely subtle, quiet. It is as if you have to be open to it, yield to it, prefer it sort of. Its not the least bit pushy or aggressive in any way.
Anyway, thats how I got it or perhaps confirmed it is a better term.
Hope that will help.
For some reason the religious - like those who claim paranormal abilities - can never repeat their results and always make claims about how unfair the test is, or how it's the wrong kind of church. Meanwhile the objective knowledge they pooh-pooh is shared by telling everyone the exact methods so anyone can replicate them...
So what does God have to hide? Why is he not as open about life-changing knowledge as mankind is?
My inclination there is to repeat what has been said before.
It's not about those things to him.
It's about relationship.
Yeah, sort of sounds crazy in a way.
I think that is one of the biggest reasons it took me so long to recognize it, and adjust to it.
I've said this before, in a way it is like my wife. It's unique, unlike anything else.
No, he's ruling in accordance with the following which states, in accordance with Jefferson's notable separation of church/state that;
and
Citing the 1st amendment in cases of discrimination according to a made-up story is nearly 150 years out of date.
A made up story?
Do you have a copy of the Constitution?
Granted it's a fine line with the lack of further definition.
But the bottom line is either we have religious liberty as purposely afforded by the first amendment or we don't.
If the Federal Government can usurp the provision at will, then we have no protection of liberties among any provision of the Constitution that is not subject to whim or popular opinion. Or as I put it earlier, mob rule.
Thats precisely why the "Bill of rights" was added.
The cited cases were in some ways two strikes against that provision but were not considered a direct assault on acceptable Christian doctrine.
In this case however, there would be no other conclusion to draw.
Three strikes and you hit tilt. and back to where we started.
Just in case you belief in infallability of rulings, this is another case the Supreme Court ruled on
Dred Scott v. Sandford.
It was also in line with current law.
It is said the great Virginia patriot, Patrick Henry when asked why he did not attend the Constitutional Congress.
He replied: "Because I know what the end of it will be".
How incredibly astute he was.
Actually it is.
As are yours, since they are in a book written and edited by men, changed countless times to suit the whim of whatever group is controlling the sect at that given time.
Perhaps.
Nevertheless, a higher moral authority is established in it's application.
Yet oddly that's not what happens....
"
"Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries."
Within the United States, we see the same pattern. Citing census data, he writes: "And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon."
And these findings are not limited to murder rates, as rates of all violent
crime tend to be higher in "religious" states. Zuckerman also points out that atheists are very much under-represented in the American prison population (only 0.2%)."
Source:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion
....its almost as if you're just making stuff up to suit your own agenda (and blind faith) rather than using any data.
And again as societies move away from religion they get less not more violent, you get less not more crime.
First of all, statistics are like silly putty, they can formed into almost any shape one likes.
And among the many variables often different conclusions can be drawn.
But assuming for a moment your references bear some reference to reality, they are all being taken among those that are still a basic cultural product of 2000 yrs. of Christian influence.
You would have to take some statistics in another 2000yrs to establish a valid control group by which to compare.
And thats assuming that the influence wanes considerably in that time.
I made no claims as to a time frame other than an eventuality.
Neither did I claim it is statistically based.
It is based on observation of the structure of moral authority and the resulting conclusion that could be drawn from a culural restructure of that.
Accordingly you would need to address why you believe on a level moral field of authority, anyone is obligated to adhere to anyone elses moral standard.
Some of the basis of law does come from religion, but much of what you would cite as religious law (i.e. the Bible) can be found both in older religions and also in secular law that predates the Bible.
Some of the Biblical law would not stand today, as examples Genocide in God's name is moral, death for blasphemy is moral, forcing rape victims to marry the rapist is moral, stoning rape victims for not crying out loud enough is moral. Well according to the Bible it is, personally I would not hold them as moral in any way. How about you?
Yes and at one time slavery was acceptable in the civilized world.
But again you are drawing all those conclusions under the benefit of 2000yrs of Christianity.
Obviously something must have changed, with regaurd to some Old Testament practices.
How about me?
Well I think Jesus put it rather well when he said" Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".
