steveorino

I'd say you are wrong. If the indiginous people of wherever had never heard of Christ or had access to scripture, how in hell could they ever get to him? In order for someone to come to a particular religion, they need to be taught or they will remain ignorant of that religion. I said w/o scriptures, not w/o evangels. The first Christians did not have a bible (as we know it now) for 100s of years. The message was brought by the Apostles and other disciples. Letters of Paul, Peter, James John, and other writers were circulated, but not available to everyone. The message was word of mouth. For the most part that is how it is today. While most homes in the USA may have a bible the majority of the people who became a Christian did so through the preaching or teaching of someone else. (info from Barnha Research) steveOrino

And possession of the holy spirit is determined how exactly? Read Acts 1 & 2. JC declares it come on his followers who are born again. I have heard this reasoning by born-again Christians (almost always Protestants) to exclude people who are Catholics or Eastern/Greek/Russian Orthodox who do not consider themselves to be "born again" - even if they simply grow up in the faith, and believe in Jesus Christ as a result of their upbringing and life experience and practice. I challenge anyone to tell my very devout Catholic parents-in-law that they are somehow less possessed of the Holy Spirit than someone who considers himself a "born-again Christian". They will laugh out loud. I read that too, and I agree with you. I believe Christianity is about accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior, not which church denomination you attend. The term "born again" took on a life of its own in the 1960s. steveOrino

Jack's question sounded like a request for scripture references to me. Should I have pasted Acts 1 & 2 for you? steveOrino

And possession of the holy spirit is determined how exactly? Read Acts 1 & 2. JC declares it come on his followers who are born again. Let me get this straight. In order to understand the Bible, I need to have the Holy Spirit with me. But in order to know if I have the Holy Spirit with me, I need to read the Bible? You have got to be kidding. I'd say millions and millions of Christians have come to Christ w/o the benefit of scriptures. Typical of most people today you assume everyone everywhere lives like those in the US and Western Eurpean countries. However, the passage that indicates the HS gives insight to scripture to Christians that those who are not Christian do not have is not from me, but from the Apostle Peter. If you take umbrage with that you'll have to address him, not me. steveOrino

And possession of the holy spirit is determined how exactly? Read Acts 1 & 2. JC declares it come on his followers who are born again. steveOrino

And given that many passages seem to be open to interpretation in nearly limitless ways who the hell really knows when the holy spirit is guiding them? I tell you what, who do you think has been most guided by the holy spirit out of this list: The Eastern Orthodox The Western Orthodox The Assyrians The Oriental Orthodox The Catholics The Episcopals The Anglicans The Evangelicals The Lutheran Protestants The Reformed The Presbyterians The Congregationalists The Anabaptists The Methodists The Pietists The Baptists The Spiritual Baptists The Brethren The Apostolics The Pentacostals The Charismatics The NeoCharismatics The African Initiated The United The Quakers The Christian Scientists The Mormons The Adventists The Jehovahs Witnesses Or You? You assume that all these groups disagree on most issues. The truth be known most of them agree on the essentials of Christian faith. They typically follow the teaching of St. Augustine. "In the essentials of faith have unity, in the non-essentials of faith have liberty; in all areas of faith show charity (love)" Of those you listed most believe the orthodox teachings of Christianity. Of tht majority most feel the JWs, Mormons, Christian Scientists (what christian church is the assyrians??) are cults because they do not follow orthodox teachings of Christianity steveOrino

One thing I do believe is those who do not have the HS have ZERO possibility of understanding Him. steveOrino

No, not me, or my professors. Even though free interpretation of scripture is a major tenant in protestant christianity, I believe we need a guide. So does the Apostle Peter according to his second letter to the church. "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation" (2Pet.1:20), Peter goes on to say it is the Holy Spirit who is the guide who gives correct interpretation. steveOrino

That happens a lot here in SC when atheist quote texts out of context from te bible. Especially parables from JC. While they may have read portions of the bible (or even all of it), undoubtedly they have no understanding based on how they misues the different genres of scripture to prove their point. steveOrino

I'm not sure I know how to access that information if it is out there apart from an academic library. That would take some time. What justification would a non-theists give for slavery? i cannot say for sure, perhaps the white race was superior to darker races?? Did they believe they were more advanced in the evolutionary chain? I don't know. What I do know for a fact is William Wilberforce, with his Christian beliefs, saw slavery as morally wrong, and did something about it. He lobbied the government to change the laws based on his Christian beliefs. Now, please do not misunderstand or misquote me. I have been very open that much wrong has been done in this world in the name of religion, particulary Christianity. My point was not the world would be a better place if people legislated their version of morality My point was, the freedom each person in the USA has to lobby and vote with our own particular worldview is a treasure we should cherish and fight to keep. To silence any vote is wrong, IMHO, regardless of what motivates that person to vote. steveOrino

A couple of points ... #1 I don't equate my voting as forcing people to do something. I believe voting is my constitutional right. In the USA how I vote is 100% up to me. #2 I believe Christians would be better served if they lived the teachings of JC first and foremost. If they did so, then most likely they would find very little legislation they needed to influence with their worldviews. Still to my point, ANYONE, including Christians should have no limits on how they vote. A few years back both the Christian and secular society saw little wrong with a class system that included African slaves. In fact, as many pointed out, many Christians used the bible to justify this thought process. However, men like William Wilberforce felt conviction in his spirit this was wrong, and was motivated by his Christian faith to change the worldview of England. I'm glad he lobbied based on his religious convictions. steveOrino

I'm done here. We've gone around in circles. I think everyone in the USA should be able to vote their conscience, regardless of their worldview -- you don't. steveOrino

Should Christian force others - either directly or indirectly - to follow Christ teaching as well? No, but they are free to participate in our legal system. Which means they can vote based on their Christian worldview. What part of that do you not understand? It appears you wish the USA to be like the USSR and tell people how to vote, or worse, eliminate their right to vote their conscience. Personally, I'm glad we are not like that. steveOrino

AGAIN! I have asked you several times not to mix when people votes are based on _facts_, and when people votes are based on _beliefs_. You and environmentalists are not the same. They have facts, and you have the Bible. Not so, there remains a debate among scientists about global warming. It is based on theory, not facts. steveOrino

Exactly - because your voting affects everyone, not just you. A Christian for whom Christ's teachings does not pervade their every thought is not much of a Christian. Rev 3:15-16 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. steveOrino

But when they express their opinion that you should not skydive in a vote, and it turns into law - just because there is more people who do not skydive, which makes them a majority - what would you say then? I'd say I better get busy and educate the non-skydivers and change the law. Even given your extreme example, I would not desire to deny the evironmentalists their right to vote their conscience. steveOrino

Sorry, I took your statement (or Volitaire's) to an illogical conclusion. steveOrino

Perhaps, but a society w/o laws or moral convictions would not be as favorable as you may think. I'm not one who cares that much about whether or not gays can marry. I have a defintion of marriage that I think is sound, but I do not believe I need to legislate my convictions. steveOrino

I'm not your judge. Do your thing. Marry your mom, sister or dog. steveOrino

at least you are consistant. steveOrino

Says the man who believes same sex marriages should not be allowed. As I have said many times. same sex marriage, I'm against on the ideal of what I believe marriage is. I have no issues with same sex civil unions. How about you, sir, does your freedom allow a man to marry his mom? or his sister, or his dog? No??? Are you against freedom? steveOrino

Impartial according to whom? You!!?? No, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. I'd be okay for civil ceremonies. If marriage was legal for gays. I would not campaign to change it unless they inacted a law that required me to precide over the ceremony. I would not do that under any circumstances. Here's the rub. I don't care if you are gay or not. It doesn't effect me one way or another. I simply believe marriage is to between one man and one woman. I also do not want any restrictions on voting or free speech even if you are Fred Felps of Westboro Baptist Church. Now I'd like to clock him one in the jaw, but he has the right to say what he thinks. He has the right to interpret the Bible the way he wants. He has the right to let his misguided interpretations (IMHO) sway his conscience. Freedom of speech is not free if you only offer it to those to those to whom you do not dissent. steveOrino

You are still trying to tell me how to vote, no? Believe me I seldom vote out of emotion. I have reasons for for my convictions. They are not simply the knee jerk reactions of my emotions. steveOrino

All this reminds of the initial reason I got on dropzone.com many years ago. My screen name was simply my name. I wanted to find out if skydivers would be open to a ministry for skydivers at boogies. Most were, except the few atheist who wish to deny my personal freedoms. I remember one person saying, "How would you feel about a Satanist having a tent at a boogie next to yours?" Like that was supposed to either anger me or scare me. LOL! He was a little taken back when I said, "He has every right to be there." steveOrino

I don't have one. That is not my argument. My point is anyone, including religous people, should have the right to lobby & vote their conscience whether it be a personal conviction or the conviction of the religion they support. So based on your first statement above. I should be able to vote my conscience unless it is self serving to me or my community? steveOrino