Christians, ACLU join forces in favor of 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus'

Adam did not have the choice until the serpent set it before him. God commanded him not to eat of the tree. There was no choice.

God did not say I am giving you a choice. He commanded not to.

 

More logic

I would pretty much agree with this but the problem is that there is a large encroachment happening in this country against free speech within a lopsided bias against Christianity. How’s that?

ACLU lawyers sitting at school graduations assemblies in order to intimidate the student speakers with law suits that have dared to suggest using their right of free speech to proclaim Jesus Christ as the Lord of their life. Yet these same lawyers will quickly and gladly defend free speech according to their biases at a school functions when they deny or insult Christ while working in the loopholes to separate and form a difference.

As for your #2, in a perfect world you could have both, but with the biases and forces mounting against free speech mainly concerning Christianity the tide is shifting and the American citizen is being lead to believe and place faith in country first. I don’t mean to sound derogatory but here is only one God and to put Him first in one’s life they must forsake all others.

As for your #3 the very small encroachments ARE happening as the constitutional right of free speech is being defined in a manner to expel the voice of Christianity while embracing the voice of the world. You take a scale and the small encroachments as grains of sand then keep adding the greater to the side of the world and soon the encroachment is largely weighted on that side and the scale becomes unbalanced. Once the morals and rights of Christians have been removed in society they will not be reinstalled, for an example… abortion.

If Christians are not allowed to stand up in public and call a sin a sin because of instilled liberal beliefs that they should be deemed more offensive than worldly beliefs in the biases that are being adopted today in this country the truth of God’s Word WILL be shut down from the would be hearers.

Christians are becoming more and more passive against an increasingly aggressive opponent, so where is this country, that we so love, headed in that light if Christians won’t adopt a bias for their God against the growing tactics and agendas of the prevailing law makers (lawyers) of this country in defense?

 

Choice - Yes

Then obviously Adam was more powerful than God and made a CHOICE to do what he wanted and CHOOSE not to do what God wanted. Seems like you do not have a proper understanding of what Love is really about. Love does not stick a gun to your head and say love me or die. However, according to your posts that is how you see God, as sticking a gun to Adam's head and forcing him to love God. That is not love.

 

Again, God did not set before Adam the choice to eat of that tree, the serpent did. God COMMANDED Adam not to eat of it. He did not give him the choice.

Satan was the one who introduced the tree as a choice when he said 'Thou shalt not surely die'. Until the serpent made that statement, there was no choice. They both knew they were NOT TO EAT of that tree.

 

Choice - Yes

First, yes He did give Adam the choice because He placed the tree in Adam's life and simply told him not to eat of it. When it became an absolute was when God placed an angel in front of the tree to gaurd and ensure the tree could no longer be accessed by mankind. That is when the choice was removed, and not one minute before.

Satan merely caused them to doubt God's Word, the same as he does to us today. Satan would never give any possible good thing to man or to this world. With him it is always negative.

God wants love based on desire and not on a gun to our head.

 

That is preposterous. God commanded them not to eat of the tree. He did not say I am giving you a choice to eat of that tree. God said No.

God did not just tell Adam not to eat of the tree as you say He did. God commanded Adam not to eat of it.

When satan caused them to doubt, he set the choice before them.

And contrary to what you say, the angel was placed in front of the garden to guard the tree of life, not the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The knowledge of good and evil had already been known by mankind, there was no need to guard that anymore.

 

This whole issue is a sham. I hope at least Watchman will consider this. But it is my claim that this whole issue is a stage-managed coreographed opera. His imbecilic banner should never have attracted this much attention. It was an amateur attention-grabbing prank by the student's own admission... he should never have been humored with national attention.

 

HBSMN, if someone in your church is found committing adultery, do you take them out and stone them, as the Bible clearly commands. If you don't, then you are a hypocrite!

 

TH,
We are not talking adultery here. We are talking about the fact that the choice to sin was not given to Adam by God.

You want to talk about adultery... go open a thread and I may be in to participate.

 

In His Blood, would you better explain why you think that, though God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree, that He (God) didn't at the same time allow Adam to choose whether or not he wanted to obey? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.

I probably won't be back till later this evening, so don't think I'm ignoring you if I don't post again for a while.

 

Nice diversion.

This thread was about the sign, "Bong Hits for Jesus" which the school administrator destroyed. You claimed that he was correct and that we have the right to use the Bible to justify such actions. You claimed that the Old Testament applied today, so I asked you a question based on your comment.

Remember when you said:

This plainly implies that you think we have a right to use the Old Testament law today individually when this law is violated. I simply asked if this also applied to adulterers. Is it right to take adulterers out and stone them to death.

It is not surprising to see that you will not answer it since to do so truthfully will show your position to be hypocritical.

 

God did not give Adam a choice. God said 'That shalt not' There is no choice in 'Thou shalt not.'

 

My position is not hypocritical. I stand on the Word of God. If God told me to stone an adulterer, I would do it. If He tells me 'I have not condemned her or him', I could not myself.

 

Your interpretation of the Old Testament "tells" you to stone an adulterer to death.

Maybe you answered as you did because you are seeing the ridiculous problem with your previous stand. To obey the OT in the manner you prescribe would end up in getting you a long prison sentence or even the death penalty in today's world.

There is certainly nothing wrong with you having extreme right-wing convictions. Although I disagree with this stand, I do support your right to believe as you want and to even protest publicly. What I do have a problem with is your advocating the destruction of someone else's property because you disagree with the message. I know that I would not allow you to destroy my property regardless of what you thought about what I was saying.

 

What I think God said was don't or.... as in:

"thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

This is a cause and effect statement not a loss of freedom statement. For instance: I can eat a pound of chocolate(the cause), but the effect is that 5 pounds of weight will immediately jump to my hips. Or..

You can tell your son, "don't get a ticket or I'll take you car keys". It's a good command, but when your son is behind the wheel he still has the freedom to speed, run stop signs or anything else likely to garner a ticket and guess what? Your command may not mean much, cause you are not there to physically stop him from breaking it. In essence, so long as he doesn't mind suffering the consequence that you have set out, he is FREE to do as he likes.

So God gave Adam a command with consequences and left Adam to choose to do as he pleased. So long as that tree was in the garden and accessable, Adam was ABSOLUTELY FREE to do what he wanted including taking a bite and chewing it up and swallowing. All mankind paid the price of the consequences of Adam's actions, but Adam was FREE to make the choice.

God commands us to do and not to do all sorts of things. Does He force us to follow His orders or does He allow us the freedom to choose? Well, do you sin? I know I do and I bet if I thought hard enough about I could even specify a time that I broke a specific commandment. Did someone force me to break it? Did someone force me to keep it? Nope, like Adam I have the freedom to choose God's way or the consequences.

 

Fact is, God did not say 'or'. He said 'Thou shalt not'. God did not give a choice. God did not say you can either eat of the tree or not eat of it. He said 'Thou shalt not.

Before they believed the lie, there was no choice.

 

They did not even see it as a choice. Else, they may have chosen to eat of the tree before the serpent lied to Eve.

Once satan lied and Eve believed, she had a choice. The choice was to obey God, or the serpent.

She chose to listen to the serpent.

 

Okay then, who allowed the serpent into the garden?

 

If you were a juvenile delinquent attending the school that I was the principle and promoting illegal substance abuse to other children at a school function your problem would be insignificant to my action of destroying your little liberal activist paper sign.

…See above…

 

Yes, we are to obey God, but it is not our job to MAKE others obey. Did the Apostles go to hell for shaking the dust off their feet when they encountered a town that wouldn't turn from sin and toward Jesus? I dare say Paul didn't destroy the idols he encountered when he went to a town. I'm not saying I condone what the kids did. My point the whole time is that the principle had no right to cross the street (off school property) and destroy THEIR property. My post have nothing to do about whether the boys were wrong against God in what they did. Here is another (same) scenerio. Say someone had a van(their property) with the words "bong hits for Jesus" painted on the side. They went to the public libary in town and parked it in the public parking lot. Went inside the libary. Would a Christian have the right as a Christian and American citizen to spray paint over the words on the van? Should he have to pay for his crime of destroying private property. If you think not, I definately wouldn't want to vote you in as president of this country, because that being the case, any radical zealot of any religion would have a free reign here and have the right to destroy anybody's property. Though this country was founded on Christian principles, it was founded for religous freedom. God is those boys judge. He will deal with them. My point was, we have no right pouring His judgement on them, ESPECIALLY when they were doing nothing against the law of this country. We are not the judges of God's law, HE IS. For the people that thinks it would be ok to paint on that guys van, if you do, make sure I'm not on your jury if you go to trial. You are not the ones that pour out God's wrath on His law breakers, HE IS.