Christ Centered Gamer

If it's any combination of the things I mentioned, then yes, I do believe so. I mean, you could argue that even a prodding of the Holy Spirit to leave an encouraging note on a coworker's desk could be an example of that more general variety of divinely inspired text. Did God Himself dictate the words to you? Maybe... or maybe note. That wouldn't matter in this case. God saw a need and used you to fulfill it, you know?

So, there you have it. Proceed

ChickenSoup wrote:If it's any combination of the things I mentioned, then yes, I do believe so. I mean, you could argue that even a prodding of the Holy Spirit to leave an encouraging note on a coworker's desk could be an example of that more general variety of divinely inspired text. Did God Himself dictate the words to you? Maybe... or maybe note. That wouldn't matter in this case. God saw a need and used you to fulfill it, you know?

So, given that, why are you dismissive of the idea of the Constitution being divinely inspired?

Sstavix wrote:

ChickenSoup wrote:If it's any combination of the things I mentioned, then yes, I do believe so. I mean, you could argue that even a prodding of the Holy Spirit to leave an encouraging note on a coworker's desk could be an example of that more general variety of divinely inspired text. Did God Himself dictate the words to you? Maybe... or maybe note. That wouldn't matter in this case. God saw a need and used you to fulfill it, you know?

So, given that, why are you dismissive of the idea of the Constitution being divinely inspired?

Because there's a very broad gap between "God thought the USA would be a good thing" and "God inspired the very words of the Constitution itself." On the one hand, we have a blessed nation we should take care of. On the other, we have a document that is unquestionable because God Himself effectively wrote it through man.

I see that it could be "divinely inspired," but only in the broadest and most suggestive sense (so, the "prodding" vs. the "penning").

ChickenSoup wrote: Because there's a very broad gap between "God thought the USA would be a good thing" and "God inspired the very words of the Constitution itself." On the one hand, we have a blessed nation we should take care of. On the other, we have a document that is unquestionable because God Himself effectively wrote it through man.

As I mentioned earlier, there are some conservatives, and even Christian churches, that do believe the latter. Although I tend to be a bit uncertain myself as to how much influence God had in writing the Constitution, I am of the opinion that our elected representatives should regard the Constitution as sacred and unquestionable. All of them take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution. They need to keep it in mind as they draft and vote on legislation, not their own personal opinions. As I mention from time to time, we elect representatives, not rulers. They need to remember that they are our servants, and are restricted by the bounds of the Constitution.

That isn't to say that we can't debate what the authors of the Constitution meant when they penned their words. We certainly do that with our own scriptures - that's why there are so many different Christian denominations, after all. But to blatantly disregard it or dismiss it as old and outdated? Any politician that takes that position, in my opinion, is unfit for public office and should not serve.

Well, I never disregarded to Constitution in the first place. I disregard this:

As I mentioned earlier, there are some conservatives, and even Christian churches, that do believe the latter. Although I tend to be a bit uncertain myself as to how much influence God had in writing the Constitution, I am of the opinion that our elected representatives should regard the Constitution as sacred and unquestionable.

I couldn't disagree more. If it's unquestionable, why do we need to be able to amend it? Someone questioned certain parts at some point and facilitate very necessary additions or changes.

Nothing man-made should be unquestioned, be it traditions or documents. Does that mean everything is wrong? No. The Constitution holds up to questioning and has stood the test of time. That which doesn't can be amended after great deliberation--because some people questioned it.

The ability to question something doesn't mean that it's able to be thrown out on a whim. It just means that you don't mindlessly submit to something that could potentially be flawed--and if it's flawed, you can point it out, discuss it, and change it. Ta da! Frankly, naming something unquestionable (especially man-made works) is pretty anti-intellectual and is a suppression of independent thinking. That in itself can be a dangerous.

But to blatantly disregard it or dismiss it as old and outdated? Any politician that takes that position, in my opinion, is unfit for public office and should not serve.

True, but some parts of it may eventually be revealed as outdated, or at least the document can be found to require updating. Case in point: amendments regarding slavery. Someone had to have recognized that. But yes, people who view the whole thing as useless are also dangerous, as they probably aren't likely to try to operate within their legal bounds.

Perhaps "unquestionable" isn't the best term to use (although you did bring it up. )

ChickenSoup wrote: Once again, I think you'll have to define what you mean by divinely inspired. I don't mean to argue semantics or be meticulous and pick over your words, but I ask because there's a lot at stake, so to speak. If we start attributing that weight to it, it potentially starts to become unquestionable.

But certainly those who are dismissive of it - or worse, try to ignore or subvert it entirely, are not people who should hold public office. And it's sad that there are a lot of people out there who have absolutely no clue how our government works or our history who actually vote....

Sstavix wrote: They need to remember that they are our servants

The problem is we don't beat them enough. Prescribed public flogging of politicians would fix this country in a generation.

Sstavix wrote:Perhaps "unquestionable" isn't the best term to use (although you did bring it up. )

ChickenSoup wrote: Once again, I think you'll have to define what you mean by divinely inspired. I don't mean to argue semantics or be meticulous and pick over your words, but I ask because there's a lot at stake, so to speak. If we start attributing that weight to it, it potentially starts to become unquestionable.

But certainly those who are dismissive of it - or worse, try to ignore or subvert it entirely, are not people who should hold public office. And it's sad that there are a lot of people out there who have absolutely no clue how our government works or our history who actually vote....

Absolutely, but that isn't what I was arguing against. I was arguing against the attribution of divine validity to a man-made document; against an attitude that it or any man-made document, institution, or tradition should ever be above criticism or reexamination; and against the thought that our political existence should revolve around what the founding fathers would have wanted. I absolutely agree that those who subvert or ignore the overarching foundational be-all end-all set of laws in the country should not be allowed to serve.

The problem is we don't beat them enough. Prescribed public flogging of politicians would fix this country in a generation.

We need to bring back caning, man.

Holy Spirit

If you haven't read up the Holy Spirit's purpose then check this out. Truth is, man is wretched. History perfectly testifies against us on all imaginable grounds. Humanity is guilty of a lot of things.

However, the Holy Spirit is a gift to all Christians, so that God may lead them.

The Spirit also functions as fruit-producer in our lives. When He indwells us, He begins the work of harvesting His fruit in our lives—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). These are not works of our flesh, which is incapable of producing such fruit, but they are products of the Spirit’s presence in our lives.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Spirit-toda ... z36bh5zhlQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ChickenSoup wrote: Absolutely, but that isn't what I was arguing against. I was arguing against the attribution of divine validity to a man-made document; against an attitude that it or any man-made document, institution, or tradition should ever be above criticism or reexamination;

Ah, but some could argue that the Bible is also a man-made document. After all, God did not actually, physically write the Bible - it was through people. And people are fundamentally flawed. Therefore, wouldn't anything they touched turn out flawed as well? Some would even argue (especially atheists) that religion itself is a man-made institution and deserves to be questioned.

ChickenSoup wrote:

The problem is we don't beat them enough. Prescribed public flogging of politicians would fix this country in a generation.

We need to bring back caning, man.

Public caning!

Actually, I've thought for a few years that too many people are getting elected - or re-elected - because they're more into the power trip than actually serving the people. Some sort of change to make political offices somehow less appealing - so that only those who want to serve the people - needs to be put into place. A couple thoughts I have had would be term limits (two terms, just like the President, for all federally-elected positions), and a complete overhaul of congressional salaries - including the President. No more pensions, no more compensation for travel expenses, no more paid vacations, and the annual salary is tied specifically to the national average annual wage in the nation. Basically, they would have to live like the rest of the people they are representing.

Ah, but some could argue that the Bible is also a man-made document. After all, God did not actually, physically write the Bible - it was through people. And people are fundamentally flawed. Therefore, wouldn't anything they touched turn out flawed as well? Some would even argue (especially atheists) that religion itself is a man-made institution and deserves to be questioned.

Of course it should be questioned. Why would anyone dive into something without deciding if it's something with enough truth to be followed? "Is this a doctrine I really believe in?" "Is this text worthy of being the spiritual foundation for my life?" I just happened to arrive at the answer of "yes" to those questions. That doesn't mean I don't occasionally question and reexamine my beliefs. That's a healthy part of living. The best part is that your faith can get stronger as it is reexamined and, if you've chosen... wisely, it is found to hold true over the course of your life.

In government, the need for questioning becomes even more apparent. Should we mindlessly submit to tyranny? No, no we shouldn't. I'm not arguing that we live under tyrannical dictatorship, by the way--my point is that nothing is unquestionable, and no person or institution is above criticism.

ChickenSoup wrote: This comment is proof that you're getting fed up with people who disagree with you.

No, that comment was proof that I had a short fuse because my mom was dying of cancer and I needed to take a step away from the discussion.

But I hope your cheap shot made you feel good about yourself.

viewtopic.php?p=465566#p465566

ArcticFox wrote:

ChickenSoup wrote: This comment is proof that you're getting fed up with people who disagree with you.

No, that comment was proof that I had a short fuse because my mom was dying of cancer and I needed to take a step away from the discussion.

I'm really sorry to hear about your mother, and I'll keep her as well as yourself and your family in my prayers.

But I hope your cheap shot made you feel good about yourself.

Just doin' my job.