If you were Roy Moore, what would you do?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Dale-c, Jul 18, 2006.

?

How would you have answered the question?

  1. I would acknowledge God, no matter what.

    61.1%
  2. I would acknowledge God, unless a court ordered me not to.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. I would not acknowledge God

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. None of the above.

    38.9%
  1. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    How would you have answered this Question?
    Please answer based on this question, regardless of what you thought about the rest of the case and the monument. Moore himself said he would not replace the monument, once others removed it.
     
    #1 Dale-c, Jul 18, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2006
  2. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3

    Americans always have the right to break the law if they believe in something very strongly. They have to be prepared for the consequences. People who act strongly like this because of their convictions can make a difference.
     
  3. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    189
    I would acknowledge God with all that I am. (Of course, just acknowledging God is doing nothing more than the demons do.) Moreover, I would learn to follow all the teachings of Jesus, including loving my neighbor as myself, and giving to Caesar what is Caesar, and giving to God what is God's.

    And when acting as an employee of the government, representing the official position of the government, I would act in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and not try to use the power and influence of an earthly government to try to promote the Kingdom of God.

    If Moore wants to be a religious person, he should probably carry on about the Ten Commandments and trying to get the government to give official sanction to his religion.

    But if he wants to be a Christian, that is, one who actively obeys the teachings of Jesus, he should publicly repent of his foolishness.
     
  4. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you don't think he is a Christian?
     
  5. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, you too would have lost your job for giving God what was His when asked that question?
    Somehow, from the rest of your post, it looks like you would have given what belonged to God to Caesar.
     
  6. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, without people who risked their lives, fortunes and sacred honor, we would still be under England.
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Of course he should acknowledge God.
     
  8. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    189
    Nope, didn't say that.

    I was making a distinction between what a religious person might do and what a Christian is called to do.

    True Christians are interested and committed to doing what Jesus taught, even if they don't yet understand how to do it yet.
     
  9. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    189
    A believer can and often should make distinctions between personal convictions and their official roles as representatives of the state.

    For instance, I don't mince words about my faith at work, during non-professional moments with co-workers or in casual conversation. But I don't use company meetings or meetings with clients as a platform to promote my religious opinions.

    And when I'm evaluating the performance of subordinates, they know that they will be rating on the basis of their performance according to the rules and practices of the firm, not their religious views.

    A judge must not only be unbiased toward the persons in his/her court, the judge must also appear unbiased to persons in his/her court so that all people will know that the judge is acting on the merits of the legal action and not on his personal beliefs regarding the religious convictions (or lack thereof) of persons appearing before him. If he can't do that, he should not be a judge -- fortunately, he is not.

    Why is this so hard to understand?

    You just don't get it (or don't want to get it).

    Jesus, Who happens to be my ultimate authority, teaches clearly to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God.

    You lack of comprehension does not change the reality of my position.
     
  10. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    189
    And without Christians who have the nerve to stand up against those who want to blur the line between separation of church and state, we might as well be back under the authority of England and her state church.
     
  11. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you believe that the government is not under God and is a purely secular institution?
     
  12. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    189
    The government is under God, like all things under heaven and earth.

    God has given humankind the freedom and responsibility to create governments to provide order and protection in this fallen world. But humankind has not been given the authority to build governments that interfere or presume to mingle with the Kingdom of God.
     
  13. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe strongly in the seperation of Church and State. It is not stated in those words in the constitution, but I do believe that.
    Moore also believes that as well.
    But, the laws of God are the source of our civil law, or at least they should be.

    Michael Peroutka puts is very well:
    So, Forcing one to become a Baptist is totally wrong and not the job of government.
    Even forcing one to become a Christian of any sort is not the job of government.
    But even if you are not a Christian, you still have to obey the law, such as Thou Shalt Not Kill.
    This isn't forcing religion, but enforcing the law.
    If Government does not acknowledge who God is, then they leave themselves as gods. That is idolatry and God will judge a nation for that.
    He is doing so to us already.
     
  14. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    189

    I’m glad to hear that, but I wonder if you have a different definition...


    The exact wording is not, but the principle is there.


    I have a hard time believing that based on his record, but I’m willing to read up on his views on separation.


    The laws of God given to ancient Israel are one major source of our law today. There are also other sources.


    Absolutely. But even more than that, endorsing the Baptist faith or attempting to support it through laws, monies or influence is also wrong.


    Absolutely. Especially since there is no way to “force” someone to become a Christian. You can certainly force someone to masquerade as a Christian, but since being a Christian is a fundamental matter of the heart’s devotion to Christ, there is no way for external forces to control it.

    Therefore, any laws, monies or influence that encourages people to become Christians actually works against the Kingdom of God, encouraging people in rebellion to God to masquerade as a believer for worldly gain.


    Yes.


    Yes. That law promotes “the general welfare” of the people and “secures the [most basic] blessings of liberty” for all.


    No, that’s a non sequitur. A government is made up of people who have bound themselves together with a common organization of laws and organization for the common good.

    The “government” itself is not a person. Only persons can commit themselves to God or commit idolatry.

    Individuals who do not “acknowledge” God (your words) may well “leave themselves as gods.” But as I’ve noted before, the demons acknowledge God and His authority, but that doesn’t make them holy or favored in God’s eyes. Simply believing a theological assertion is useless unless a person is going to exercise faith – that is, commit themselves to the consequences of that knowledge in an appropriate, active and transforming way.

    Governments are composed of individuals who are both Christian and pagan. Simply trying to baptize a government my making official theological assertions does not do anything to encourage true committed active faith in Christ.

    I happen to believe that God is not interested in hearing insincere invocations of His name (read the OT prophets) or seeing His name in print in our official documents. He is not like some vain person fishing for compliments so He can feel important!

    God is interested in fellowship with people who worship in spirit and truth, and He has chosen and commissioned the church to be His earthly spiritual organization that represents the Kingdom of God among us.

    The United States government (or any other earthly government) is not a worthy or chosen instrument of the Kingdom of God. Interference in the Kingdom of God by well-meaning “support” is the real idolatry, for it presumes to place a shaky earthly government in a mediating and supporting role for the unshakable Kingdom of God.

    That is the true idolatry, and God will judge a nation for interfering in the Kingdom of God!
     
  15. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3

    We might still be fighting in Viet Nam too. We should think about the view that the war in Iraq is unjust. Did bush ever settle on a valid reason for invading Iraq?
     
  16. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    'Separation of church and state' was meant to protect the church from the state - not the state from the church.

    We need more men who will take a stand for God.

    We are to obey man's law unless it goes against God's Laws.

    I had the privilege of hearing Judge Moore speak at a church July 8th of this year. He is definitely a man of God and also an excellent speaker.

    I am proud to have his autograph in my Bible.

    IMHO, stepping down from politics and stepping up to preaching is a good thing...

    If man passed a law today saying we must take the sign of the beast...would you obey that law or follow God's Law which says we are NOT to take it?
     
    #16 I Am Blessed 24, Jul 19, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 19, 2006
  17. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Interesting thought. Do you have any historical evidence to suggest this? It is an interesting concept, and our founding fathers surely acknowledeged God, but I don't recall anything saying that sepration of church and state only went one way.


    Separation of state goes both ways, IMHO. There is no place for the church in the state or the state in the church. I am grateful the wisdom of our founding fathers in making it clear that these are separate entities to be "protected" from each other."

    I would obey God, but God never said, "Thou shalt display in granite the Ten Commandments on state property."
     
    #17 NaasPreacher (C4K), Jul 20, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 20, 2006
  18. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    We may differ...
    Separation of Church and State.
    Church is an institution. The State is an Institution.
    The two institution should be separate.
    There is no time when the two should mess in the others business.
    The Church does not prosecute criminals and the State does not mess with the business of the Church.
    Both are ordained of God and get authority from him.
    Both are subject to God's laws.
    Government is very limited, only for punishing the evil doer..and that only the evil doer that commits actual crimes...not just anything the Church considers a sin.

    But those crimes, murder etc, are defined by God.
    Because of the first table of the ten commandments, the right and responsibilities of the second table of the ten commandments should be protected and enforced by the government.

    Government should always acknowledge God as it's highest source of authority.
     
  19. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is true. Only people within the government can sin.
    That is why I do not believe one form of government over another is particularly right or wrong.
    Personally I do not like monarchies but the Bible does tell us to submit to Kings.
    The ministers of God which is what Romans 13 refers to the officers of the state, are personally responsible to carry out God's law.

    To sum up: Moore was given an unlawful order. One that the judge in question had no business getting involved in.
    It was a State matter..the US Federal court does not have the jurisdiction to dictate how the state of Alabama decorates their judicial building.
    Moore made and oath..he upheld that oath.
    He complied with Romans 13 and Psalm 2.
    He submitted to the HIGHER powers (God and the constitution) WHen a lower power (the federal judge) gave him an order that conflicted with the other two higher powers.

    One thing Roy More is NOT is lawless. He is one of the most law abiding people I have ever read about.
    The problem is that now we call law a long black robe, rather than the written text of the constitution.
    All government officers are bound first to the law and second to orders given to them.
    If there is an order that is contrary to the law, then it is his DUTY to disobey the order.
    The lawless judge in this case was the one that expected him to deny the constitution and his God.
     
  20. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree!
    Protection is the key word here and the CHurch is what needed to be protected.
    If you mix milk and water, it doesn't matter which one you out it first, they are no longer separate. In that sense, It does go both ways.

    But let me ask you all this:
    Which Church did Roy Moore mix with the State of Alabama?

    I would rather hear him speak than most pastors on the BB because he knows the bible better than almost all of them.

    There are some I am sure that WOULD find and excuse to take it.


    Yes, I agree but what does that have to do with this? Roy Moore never violated that principle.

    With that line of logic, you could justify allowing the state to edit your sermons.

    You could say..."The bible doesn't say I have to preach on that THIS MORNING"
    I am not directly commanded to preach on this, this morning!

    There are many ways in which to acknowledge God.
    The monument was not required but once it was up, to take it down was to say that there was a higher authority than Almighty God and that would have been wrong not only against God but against his oath.

    The COWARDLY thing to do would have been give in.
     

Share This Page

Loading...