Formo
15 years ago



BTW, religion is religion. God's calling for all Christians is to spread His word. You are basically saying that people should keep their spiritual beliefs to themselves. Which is against what America stands for, but also against what Christians are called to do.

"dhazer" wrote:



I bolded the part i have to question you on, what country have you been in because you can't speak religion in public schools and hell they were trying to take IN GOD WE TRUST off of our money.

"Formo" wrote:



lol I'm aware of this.. And it's why I'm against what has been happening. That doesn't mean the country wasn't founded on those principles, though.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Rockmolder
15 years ago
Tebow denies Wonderlic incident 

by Mike Florio

So I had a telephone conversation today with quarterback Tim Tebow.

Ever heard of him?

He reached out, via agent Jimmy Sexton, in response to Tuesday night's story regarding the incident during the Wonderlic testing at the Scouting Combine. As a league source told us, Tebow said something in the testing room about saying a prayer. And then another player said something in response. And then some of the other players laughed.

But Tebow says it didn't happen.

"Not one single word of it is true," Tebow told me.

Tebow has a very genuine and disarming way about him. There's a innocence and kindness in his voice that conflicts with the image of a highly successful college quarterback, who was arguably one of the best college football players of all time.

He was nevertheless firm and resolute in his denial.

"One of the number one things for me is being someone of character and when I say something people can take it to the bank," Tebow said. "That story is absolutely not true."

Tebow then named several of the other players who were in the room, and he invited me to check his version with each of them.

Tebow explained that he said nothing to the group of roughly 100 players, and he said that he spoke only to BYU quarterback Max Hall.

After talking to Tebow, I immediately contacted the source for the story, who agreed with my assessment that Tebow is "the real deal." But the source didn't back down.

It's possible that Tebow made a comment intended for Hall that was overheard by another player, who then made a profane comment in response that was not heard by Tebow. Still, Sexton told me in a follow-up e-mail that Tebow "never said anything remotely close" to what had been attributed to him.

We'll keep digging on this one. We're confident that our source didn't make it up, but we were impressed by Tebow's willingness to reach out and explain his position. Though I'm usually even more skeptical when someone tells me multiple times in a seven-minute conversation that he always tells the truth, when Tebow said it I believed it.

That said, there has to be a way to harmonize the two stories. Tebow believes he's telling the truth, and I believe our source. We'll keep after this one and report back when we have more.

vikesrule
15 years ago

... That doesn't mean the country wasn't founded on those principles, though.

"Formo" wrote:



The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

As far as "In God we Trust", that did not appear on any US coinage until the Civil War (1864), or on any paper currency until 1957.

"In God we Trust" did not become the official motto of the USA until 1956.

The motto E Pluribus Unum (Latin for "One from many" or "One from many parts.") was approved for use on the Great Seal of the United States in 1782. It still appears on coins and currency, and was widely considered the national motto de facto until 1956.
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
+1 to the first person to identify the source of the phrase "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion."

That phrase is, by the way, the supreme law of our land.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
15 years ago

Christianity is an inherently proselyting religion, so technically, to keep one's beliefs to oneself is a direct violation of Jesus' commands. The tricky part is how to proclaim "the reason for the hope that you have . . . with gentleness and respect," as Peter says in 1 Peter 3:15. When someone announces their faith, someone will inevitably be offended -- that's human nature. The never-ending challenge is to be open about one's faith in a manner that draws the most people to your beliefs and repels the fewest away.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



Well said, but for the word "proselytizing". More accurately, Christianity is a "witnessing" religion.

"I'm a Christian" is good, even required.

"I'm saved," is okay.

"I'm going to hell if I don't pray" is okay as a statement of faith, but bad theology.

"You're going to go to hell if you don't listen to me" is where the rub comes in.

If you're personally called to prophesy, then the terms of your call may include being what others think an officious, meddlesome prick who doesn't mind his own business. Because if it's indeed your call, that "gentleness and respect" that Peter calls for will still be interpreted badly by many. (Witness the end to which Peter and Paul both came.)

On the other hand, if you aren't called to prophesy, but to do something else in God's service (teaching say, or helping lepers or Democrats), then you should keep your mouth silent about the damning of others and concentrate on your own soul.

The problem is that it is too easy to claim such a call. I think that is what bothers me about too many public figures who are vocal about their religion. I just don't buy the prophesy and judgment part.

I don't know, but I think this may be part of the reason that many denominations develop "ordination" type requirements. Because those who hit the pulpit inevitably are going to play the prophesy and perhaps even the judgment role. (Not judgment of individuals, that remains God's job alone; but the judgment of acts taken by individuals, which may sometimes be necessary.) Ordination provides a way to help the prospective prophet identifies the true call.

Because, unlike Saul on the road to Damascus, God does not appear and say "this is what you are supposed to be doing for me, Wade. Sure, there's the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule and all that, but none of that says what the *individual* in particular must do.

Finding one's call is a very deliberative process. One can be "born again" in an instant, but figuring out one's call tends to take a lot longer.

I assume that Tebow is sincere in his expressions of belief. I assumed that Reggie was sincere. I even assume that Deion Sanders is sincere in his. But I don't buy either Tebow or Sanders as prophets of the Word just yet. (Indeed, I admit, I was always skeptical of Reggie in this regard, too.)

Because "getting the call right" is more than being sincere. It's more than just believing that Christ is our Lord and Savior and that anyone who doesn't do so will be damned by their sin and their sinfulness. "Having faith" and "having a particular call" are two different things.

But all that said, I also know that teaching of Paul's that we should tread lightly in criticizing those people of faith whose theology we disagree with. I might think Tebow's theology a bit juvenile and more than a bit misreading of the Bible. But I cannot judge whether he is a believer "full of faith" or not. And, in the end, whether he gets the theology right or not, that "full of faith" is God's only requirement.

And satisfaction of that requirement only God can determine.

Everything else, well it's just the world trying to distract you from the Great Commandment.

So, Tim, if you're out there reading, here's what I think. I think that if you keep reading and praying diligently you'll eventually come to realize that a bunch of what you are doing today is kind of silly. But in the meantime, if you think God wants you do it, keep doing it. Because you're trying to please God -- and trying to please God is what you're here for. Nothing else.

No matter what I or other naysayers might think is silly or annoying.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
vikesrule
15 years ago

+1 to the first person to identify the source of the phrase "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion."

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



You know your history. :thumbright:
Formo
15 years ago

... That doesn't mean the country wasn't founded on those principles, though.

"vikesrule" wrote:



The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

As far as "In God we Trust", that did not appear on any US coinage until the Civil War (1864), or on any paper currency until 1957.

"In God we Trust" did not become the official motto of the USA until 1956.

The motto E Pluribus Unum (Latin for "One from many" or "One from many parts.") was approved for use on the Great Seal of the United States in 1782. It still appears on coins and currency, and was widely considered the national motto de facto until 1956.

"Formo" wrote:



PRINCIPLES.

Hence the Second sentence you read when reading the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Those words, my friend, weren't written by an atheist.

I guess the days of prayer and fasting prior to finally all agreeing on the Declaration of Independence had nothing to do with how this country was founded..

::roll:
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
15 years ago

+1 to the first person to identify the source of the phrase "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion."

That phrase is, by the way, the supreme law of our land.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



IIRC it was used in a treaty made in either Washington's or Jefferson's administration, but I can't be sure. and I'm too lazy to check.

For me, this "founded on the Christian religion" is one of the reasons I'm not a conservative, but a libertarian/anarchist.

Governments are founded upon ideologies. And since a religion is a kind of ideology (you can't define your religion except by differentiating it from other religions, just as you can't define "conservative" without pointing out how it is "not liberal").

But, IMO, belief in Jesus is not a religion, but a relationship. I can have a relationship with Jesus regardless of whether other people do or not have such a relationship, for the same reason Rourke (or anyone else) can have relationships with more than one person regardless of whether I have a relationship with them. That's the way relationships work.

But government is not just a relationship. It's an agreement that doesn't just say "yes" to something, it's an agreement that says "no" to something else. We went with federalism in the Consitution because a certain group (the ones who prevailed) believed not-Confederation preferable to Confederation. European nations chose parliamentary government rather than US style republicanism in part because of what it was not. Same for the Bolsheviks or the Maoists or Gen Y voiting for Obamaism. They were't the Tzar. They weren't the empire. They weren't Bush.

But Christian belief doesn't work that way. The notion that Jesus's teaching's can or should be reduced to an ideological stance, either in 1787 or in 2010, strikes me as repugnant.

Because while the Consitution may be the supreme law of the political entity named the United States, that only makes it the supreme holder of second place.

And the notion that some yahoo from the Trinity network or some nabob from the state department can make it otherwise....well, at best its a silly idea.

IMO, the phrasing of the supremacy clause is unfortunate. To quote:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The way I was long ago taught this emphasized that it was all about the essential principle of federal superiority over state, and legislative superiority over judicial, when it comes to "making law." And I think that is what the founders probably intended.

But that is not what the clause says. The clause puts Constitution and legislation and treaties on the same level as "supreme law". And that, IMO, is pernicious. It forces a choice between the "supremacy" clause and the notion of "enumerated powers" (see amendments 9-10).

And "supreme" trumps everything else, by definition.

People like me like to complain about the emasculation of Amendments 9 and 10, but given the way the supremacy clause reads, we shouldn't be surprised.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Formo
15 years ago

+1 to the first person to identify the source of the phrase "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion."

That phrase is, by the way, the supreme law of our land.

"Wade" wrote:



IIRC it was used in a treaty made in either Washington's or Jefferson's administration, but I can't be sure. and I'm too lazy to check.

For me, this "founded on the Christian religion" is one of the reasons I'm not a conservative, but a libertarian/anarchist.

Governments are founded upon ideologies. And since a religion is a kind of ideology (you can't define your religion except by differentiating it from other religions, just as you can't define "conservative" without pointing out how it is "not liberal").

But, IMO, belief in Jesus is not a religion, but a relationship. I can have a relationship with Jesus regardless of whether other people do or not have such a relationship, for the same reason Rourke (or anyone else) can have relationships with more than one person regardless of whether I have a relationship with them. That's the way relationships work.

But government is not just a relationship. It's an agreement that doesn't just say "yes" to something, it's an agreement that says "no" to something else. We went with federalism in the Consitution because a certain group (the ones who prevailed) believed not-Confederation preferable to Confederation. European nations chose parliamentary government rather than US style republicanism in part because of what it was not. Same for the Bolsheviks or the Maoists or Gen Y voiting for Obamaism. They were't the Tzar. They weren't the empire. They weren't Bush.

But Christian belief doesn't work that way. The notion that Jesus's teaching's can or should be reduced to an ideological stance, either in 1787 or in 2010, strikes me as repugnant.

Because while the Consitution may be the supreme law of the political entity named the United States, that only makes it the supreme holder of second place.

And the notion that some yahoo from the Trinity network or some nabob from the state department can make it otherwise....well, at best its a silly idea.

IMO, the phrasing of the supremacy clause is unfortunate. To quote:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The way I was long ago taught this emphasized that it was all about the essential principle of federal superiority over state, and legislative superiority over judicial, when it comes to "making law." And I think that is what the founders probably intended.

But that is not what the clause says. The clause puts Constitution and legislation and treaties on the same level as "supreme law". And that, IMO, is pernicious. It forces a choice between the "supremacy" clause and the notion of "enumerated powers" (see amendments 9-10).

And "supreme" trumps everything else, by definition.

People like me like to complain about the emasculation of Amendments 9 and 10, but given the way the supremacy clause reads, we shouldn't be surprised.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



wat?

lol Anyway, I liked how you brought up how belief in Jesus is a relationship vs. religious.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
15 years ago

... That doesn't mean the country wasn't founded on those principles, though.

"Formo" wrote:



The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

As far as "In God we Trust", that did not appear on any US coinage until the Civil War (1864), or on any paper currency until 1957.

"In God we Trust" did not become the official motto of the USA until 1956.

The motto E Pluribus Unum (Latin for "One from many" or "One from many parts.") was approved for use on the Great Seal of the United States in 1782. It still appears on coins and currency, and was widely considered the national motto de facto until 1956.

"vikesrule" wrote:



PRINCIPLES.

Hence the Second sentence you read when reading the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Those words, my friend, weren't written by an atheist.

I guess the days of prayer and fasting prior to finally all agreeing on the Declaration of Independence had nothing to do with how this country was founded..

::roll:

"Formo" wrote:



Ah. But saying that the founders were believers is not the same thing as saying that the US system of government is based on Christian religion.

The first statement I agree with. IMO the "deism" argument is a simplistic one foisted upon us by sloppy academics who don't understand the difference between a "religion" and a "belief", and, often, between a belief in a particular conceptualization of God and a belief in God. Or between belief in the existence of God and trusting in God in a particular way.

But the second I cannot. I'm not sure what it means to say the Constitution is based on " Christian religion." Beliefs of those thinking themselves "Christian", yes. "Christian belief" even, yes. "Christian religion, no. The first two are positions of faith, positions that we are guided by a desire to serve God first. But the last is saying "we know what God wants of society and what God doesn't want of society.

If anything would violate Matthew 7, I think that would be it.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Fan Shout
Martha Careful (2h) : 1 round 7 min, with one extra minute if there is a trade. 2nd round 4 minutes, 3rd -3, 2 thereafter IMO
Martha Careful (2h) : Agree
dfosterf (3h) : Great idea imo
dfosterf (3h) : 1st round to 7 minutes with one extension
dfosterf (3h) : NFL comissioner wants to shorten the 2st
Mucky Tundra (7h) : @jalenreagors They’re discussing if Sheduer can go back to college on NFL Network LMFAOOOOO
beast (9h) : Great point Martha
beast (9h) : Buddy Ryan used to say if a candy bar goes missing, there are two to blame, Rex and Rob 🤪 jk 😁
Martha Careful (12h) : Bum Phillips used to say there are two ways to get better. Get better players or get players to play better. We have a new DL coach
Zero2Cool (12h) : Yes. Look at the losses last year. They can win.
beast (13h) : Can Packers win with their current DL?
bboystyle (14h) : waiting for a pass rusher.
dfosterf (16h) : 5 minutes between picks in the 3rd
dfosterf (17h) : 3rd. Hate this phone
dfosterf (17h) : 4rd
dfosterf (17h) : 5 minutes in the 4
dfosterf (17h) : 7 minutes between picks in the 2nd round
Martha Careful (17h) : Sorry to bitch, but the headline writers in that section absolutely mislead, or don't know how to read. It is maddening
Martha Careful (17h) : No thanks. Not a dependable guy to be in the right place and run the right route. Dumb as a box of rocks.
Zero2Cool (18h) : Losing 2nd round pick for a one year rental, not ideal. Especially a headcase.
TheKanataThrilla (18h) : Pickens for Jaire may be interesting. Definitely not sure we want Pickens long term.
dfosterf (18h) : No.Absolutely not
Zero2Cool (18h) : NO NO NO NO NO NO!!1 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
dhazer (18h) : scenario: Our main prospects are off the board when our pick comes around, do we just throw a 2nd round pick at Pittsburgh for Pickens
TheKanataThrilla (19h) : Hopefully she had some comfort that her son will be live his dream when she passed away. Sad news.
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Damn that sucks
Zero2Cool (20h) : News about Derrick Harmon mom, saddening.
Zero2Cool (21h) : Mark Murphy: "I predict we will trade up once and down twice."
beast (22h) : Rip the Packers and getting the fans yelling and booing him
beast (22h) : Super competitive Bears fan and WWE "superstar" wrestler, Seth Rollins is supposed to announce a Bears pick and absolutely rip Packers
packerfanoutwest (25-Apr) : Golden
beast (25-Apr) : I want DT Derrick Harmon, Oregon
Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : And I can't be looking at my phone
Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : Hey I'm at work lol
Zero2Cool (24-Apr) : btw, new site chat won't delete auto like
Zero2Cool (24-Apr) : because everyone left like wimps
TheKanataThrilla (24-Apr) : I am wondering if there is some type of autoclear when there isn't activity after a certain amount of time.
Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : What happened in the chat? Me and Zero posted a few things earlier and they're all gone
dfosterf (24-Apr) : 10-15 min bs plus flyover
dfosterf (24-Apr) : Yes
Zero2Cool (24-Apr) : 7pm is when this kicks off????
buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : I told him. IT'S VONTE MACK , no matter what!
buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : He asked me who I thought The Browns were taking.
buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : 2. Would of had to wear Browns gear all week. NOPE I'll watch from my living room.
buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : He wanted to know if I would go. 2 things, would have had to fly from Detroit to Green Bay. Nope
buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : All expense paid trip to the draft. He will be in the Browns section. I told him to say hi to J-10VE for me 😃😃i
buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : For a call from my nephew, he won an sllexp
TheKanataThrilla (24-Apr) : Hope to see everyone in the Chat tonight!!! Go Pack Go!!!
TheKanataThrilla (24-Apr) : Jeanty would be a great pick-up for the Bears. I see Warren mocked to them as well who I think would be a great selection.
Zero2Cool (24-Apr) : GameDay Chat is open. Posting bits an tids in there.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
8m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18m / Green Bay Packers Talk / earthquake

30m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

24-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

24-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.