Question; could an atheist and a christian be married?

No argument here. Glad you were willing to work with that window information at the time.

 

It may be better in confining matters that may be sensitive or prone to controversy to a place where it does not distract from another mission such as we have here. But as for better answers, I always find it more helpful to talk to people who have not made up their minds on a subject or at least a sampling of people with various ideas than one or more who have already settled a single answer. I learn best by taking the best from all I meet and I meet wonderful people in the most unlikely places.

 

As well it should!

 

I assumed you were all employed. Henry is a builder, no? So what do you Hank? Pound a nail, write a thesis here, pound another nail ... :-*

I get eye and muscle strain headaches from all the library-related computer work alone. It's all I can do to handle a bit of banter in the Fun and Games area.

 

I am retired from paid (by someone else) employment. I assumed you all were too. You mean you are goofing off at work posting here? I still do have some jobs to do, just no one pays me to do it for the most part.

 

Prima Donna-

You work in a library and are from Wisconsin? Me, too

I skim the long postings...........

KT

 

Yes, I'm a builder, which in today's economy is like saying you took early retirement. . We still get out there and sell jobs, but it's a tough go. So in between trying to keep our crews working and checking them, I come to this place and spend my time with you wonderful folks. It is too enjoyable not to.

 

June,

I'll reply to your question as it relates to what I believe.

I think God speaks to me through guidance of the Holy Spirit. I agree with what Hank said about some being more sensitive to what God is saying. When I am focused on God, praying, reading the Word, witnessing, I hear from God more clearly. I also believe God speaks to people through dreams and through "messengers" that come in the form of other people. I think he gives us signs in answer to our prayers/questions/problems.

The other way God speaks to me is through scripture. I can't tell you how many times I've opened the Bible and there it was.....something that I really needed to read. It just jumped out at me and it spoke to a challenge I was facing or a decision I had to make.

I don't think everything in the Bible is literal. I think some of it is historical, some literal, and some parable. Jesus used parables to teach so why wouldn't God use parables to teach. That part never really bothered me because I consider the Bible as a message from God letting us know he's been around from the beginning, He will always be here, and Jesus is our way to salvation.

 

I can relate to what you say though my take is slightly different. I get hung up whenever people make statements that seem to say in essence 'we' have decided God can only speak to us in this way. It doesn't fit to me that God would be limited in any way no matter what anyone says or wrote. It kind of defies the definition of God as I understand it.

 

I agree, June. God is God......it's up to Him on how and when He speaks to His creation.

I never put limits on God.

 

Hank,

Thanks for getting back to me with your views on the Scriptures. Interesting. Do you ever find that your "interpretation" for want of a better word is different from others? I suppose that is the challenge for a document that is now a couple of thousand years old and read by millions.

edit: I just re-read the bit above and realize it might sound sarcastic (curse of the written word etc) but it's not meant to. Is a genuine question/observation.

As for democracies, their founding principles and where they are at now - I am a "separation of church and state" person. It's a tricky thing in practice though - balancing the separation with the people's right to practice their own religions (or not).

 

INS,

Absolutely, my intepretation will be different than those of others, even right here on the forum. The scriptures can only be interpreted within the light of our own personal experiences. I wrote about one of mine earlier as a kid at summer camp. Well, I have my experiences that validate that God does speak to us in various ways, at least speaks to me. Others do not have those experiences, but have the experiences that God does NOT speak to man. I can't expect someone who has never had one of these experiences to necessarily believe that God still speaks today. Yet there are enough people out there whose experiences validate my experiences. So for me, I choose to believe that He does speak to us. That is how I explain the accounts of certain of my experiences and the experiences of numerous people whom I know and trust. If I had different experiences, I might look at things differently.

Regarding the role of religion and the separation between church and state, think of it as the founders did. America was an experiment, a scientific experiment. Just Google "American Experiment." Read the first few inaugural addresses and search for the word, "experiment.". What you will discover is that the American founders established their new nation as an experiment to determine whether a nation that is established to discern and perform God's will on earth would be protected by the divine Providence. Just look at the last line of the Declaration of Independence. It says, "With a firm reliance on the protection of the divine Providence, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.". Read George Washington' farewell address. In it he writes that this nation is an experiment to see whether any nation that follows exalted principles, exalted meaning those from God, would experience felicity. He says the experiment is worth a full and fair trial.

All this is to say that, rather than viewing God as some ethereal, possibly nonexistent entity that the founders prayed toward, look at the founding as they did, as a scientific experiment, in full feature to all the requirements of the scientific method, to see if in fact God would provide for a nation, as the Old Testament gives evidence with Israel, if the nation's people would live according to His laws. So God as nothing to do with religion in this context. God is an assumed truth necessary for the existence of the united States of America, an assumed truth, INS. So if God does not exist, according to the founders' logic, America does not exist. That is the way the Declaration of Independence is written. Jefferson was a pretty cool character to have slipped that in.

 

I've followed David Barton for years. He lectures on the topic of "separation of church and state." He has a vast library of the original documents of the founding fathers. He has been a regular on the Glenn Beck show lately; educating the viewing audience on this topic.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123

Once you get past the campy intro, I think this is worth a listen. Dr. Kennedy always had my utmost respect.

On the veracity of Scripture:

http://www.coralridge.org/medialibrary/default.aspx?mediaID=TTT100907

 

PD,

Thanks for those links. I didn't have any luck with the second one - I got to the website but couldn't open the article about the scriptures.

Hank,

The topic of interpreting the Scriptures (or in fact any text) is interesting. It seems like you take a kind of "post modern" approach that each reader will engage with the text on an individual level. When that text is talking about a way to live and behave does it not become problematic that the messages are open to interpretation? Surely God's Law is God's Law regardless of the time and place it is read? I think this is why people struggle with for example with the idea of the ordination of women. Western societies now don't allow gender discrimination, yet churches do, based on the teachings of the Bible. Difficult areas to navigate.

With regards to a separation of church and state. I wasn't thinking specifically or historically about the US experience, but broadly and as a principle. It is the latter which I favour - but I see how it is difficult in practice. There's been discussions recently about France's ban on the Burqua for example.

 

The divine right of kings is not remotely in effect in England. As in a few other European countries, England has a constitutional monarchy. The only difference in England is that the "ruling" monarch -- Queen Elizabeth II, currently -- is also deemed to be the head of the Anglican Church. As opposed to a place like Spain, where "royalty" remains as a purely ceremonial vestige of the past. And that anachronism has nothing to do with the divine right of kings, so much as it was an administrative decision taken by Henry VIII when he split from the Catholic Church.

 

Sorry Wino. In Britain the crown is the sovereign. The reason she is the head of the church is that she is ordained by God to rule. The crown agrees to allow House of Commons to make law. The crown also agrees that the House of Lords will interpret the law. But the authority for those houses is delegated by the crown, by agreement in the British constitution, not a document, but a set of documents that date back to the Magna Carta. The House of commons is a democratic body, but only by agreement and authority of the crown. The government as a whole is a monarchy that conforms to the divine right of kings model.

 

INS: "When that text is talking about a way to live and behave does it not become problematic that the messages are open to interpretation?"

Problematic? Not sure I would use that term. I don't see a problem with various individuals, or groups earnestly studying the scriptures, seeking counsel with the Holy Spirit, and making personal life choices as a result. So we don't all agree with what the scriptures mean. Just like right here, many times disagreement fosters analysis and then learning, and then possibly even eventual concensus. No, I do not see a problem. No one is compelled to believe or act in any particular fashion. If religion were compulsary, I could see a problem.

 

Here is the official title of Queen Elizabeth, conferred at her coronation:

"Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith"

So she is Queen, by the grace of God, Head of the Commonwealth of Great Britain. She is Queen over Great Britain by divine right, the sovereign over Great Britain with only God as her superior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_of_the_British_sovereign

 

Me too, and I refuse to read any of those long novels with or without A.D.D. on a message board that is supposed to be for writing messages (not chapters in a book).

 

Uh, the day the House of Commons boots her out, she is out, just like all those 'heirs to the throne of ...' languishing around the world.