ptwild

Check your messages Jerry.

I have not called you any names. In fact, I have tried to help you. I pm'd you some very serious invofmation that you should look into immediately.

Exactly.

John: You and I OBviously have some differences that you see as warranting "separation." From what you say, I understand that "separation" does not mean you would not come to my aid if I were in need (an act of brotherly love). Am I to understand it to mean that we could not sing hymns together, or that we could not pray together, or that our families could not share a meal together?

Or David could have simply been speaking in a figurative sense. It just seems to me that when the Bible applies human conditions to God, the writer is merely doing the best he can to relate things in terms humans can understand. For example, I don't necessarilly thing there will be "streets of gold" or even streets at all, in heaven. I see that as a human doing the best he can to describe the grandness of heaven by using something (gold) that we as humans see as grand. Now, I could be absolutely wrong and there could be mile after mile of golden paved streets in heaven. But, I don't think we can even comprehend how marvelous heaven will be.

I believe that would be a clear violation of equal protection. We can't treat one group of people different from everyone else based solely on their religion.

No one said he wasn't using a book. I said, "is it not possible . . ." And while I do believe that in this instance, "book of life" does not refer to an actual bound group of pages, it is of course more than possible for it to mean that. It's just as possible that it is figurative.

I have a feeling God "could" do anything he so wills.

I'm not really sure what that has to do with my previous comments but, yes, if a legitimate law that could withstand constitutional scrutiny were passed prohibiting a mosque (and any and all other places of worship) from being build in a certain location (I'm thinking of maybe a zoning ordinance), then that would be ok. However, to withstand constitutional scrutiny, there would have to be a rational basis, it couldn't be passed to keep certain people from getting their feelings hurt or because a specific group just doesn't like the idea or based simply on emotionalism.

Do you believe that God needs a literal book to keep track of us? We are talking about God here. He knows how many hairs are on our heads - I'm pretty sure he can remember if we have accpeted his son as our Lord and Saviour.

John: No doubt that if someone has to break the law to practice their religion then we must prohibit the practice to the extent that it breaks the law. However, until we have evidence that they are breaking the law, there isn't any reason to prohibit them from practicing their religion. Your snake handling example is a good one. Those folks claim to be Christians. Should we prohibit everyone from practicing Christianity because one group of supposed Christians happens to endanger themselves and others in their practice of Christianity?

Is it not possible that the "Book of Life" is a figurative phrase? I don't believe God is standing behind a podeum in heaven with an ink pen in his hand writing down everyone's name at the moment their faith in Christ is manifested. I see it more as we humans' best attempt to illustrate the fact that only those who have accepted Christ will ever receive his salvation.

First of all, quit comparing your self to Christ. It's insulting. And I didn't threaten you. You are a Christian and I am a Christian. Christ died for both of us, not prefering one to the other. One day, we will both be in heaven and I'm afraid that once we get there, you won't have a choice as to whether you will fellowship with me or not. That's the reckoning I am looking forward to. I don't think you (or a reasonalbe person I should say) could have have honestly concluded that I was threatening you in any way - you just want to sensationalize the issue. The above part in bold is an great example of why you are wrong. If there were ever an occassion where you had little food and I had plenty, or you had some other trouble and I offered to help. You would reject me because I was baptized as a baby. On the flip side, I had little food and you had plenty, or I had some other trouble, you would not offer to help. You would sit in your pseudorighteous corner thanking Jesus for how "right" you are. You don't love your neighbor as yourself. You love yourself and you judge your neighbor. Like I said, one day you are going to be surrounded by whole host of Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians . . . and I don't believe you'll have any choice, or desire, but to join with them in worshiping our Lord. God never commanded you to not fellowship with other Christians. I love how you try to twist scripture to say how "Jerry" feels. Other than that, pickles to you Sir, pickles I say.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. All Irishman is saying is that he can fellowship with someone he doesn't agree with 100%. You and I believe the same thing about salvation and I suspect our only real difference is that I believe in infant baptism. Should that keep us from setting down to dinner together and talking about how good God is and how blessed we are to have such a merciful saviour? Should supposedly infamous differences keep us divided when we have so much more in common? Do you ever think that it might be you whom Christ tells to depart from him?

This is for the best. We all need to forget about the way things were or the way they are supposed to be. The leaders are in place for the best of our society. Let them do their jOB. We all have a role to play, and roles not to play. The ones in charge know what is best.