Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
The official " will israel do it " discussion
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 1892732" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>I am not searching, and I was waiting for this argument. You refer to the New Testament; as it happens, I quite agree with you that the New supplants the Old. That said, you refer to the Old (Ezekiel) as an argument. Do you find it convincing? If so, my question stands; if not, why do you refer to it?</p><p></p><p>Apologies for the deferral of my next response; I'm for bed. Rest assured that should this thread remain open in the morning, I will respond in full to any questions posed of me (and if I miss any, I invite all to call me out on such). Before I recess for the evening, though, I offer a clear statement of my position:</p><p></p><p>I do believe in the forgiveness-oriented posture of the New Testament. I do not believe that we should be using any religious text as the basis of governmental policy. I believe the Founders would agree with me ("no religious Test," etc. Art. VI, Paragraph 3). I believe that using any part of a religious text--especially a supplanted part--as an excuse to go to war, sacrificing our own brave young men and women, for a cause that is not our own--read that as "against an enemy that has not directly attacked us"--is folly. I am not prepared to consign our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines to the grave because an ancient text which very few claim to follow in its entirety says so.</p><p></p><p>Again, I shall answer any questions asked of me; until the morrow, sleep well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 1892732, member: 13624"] I am not searching, and I was waiting for this argument. You refer to the New Testament; as it happens, I quite agree with you that the New supplants the Old. That said, you refer to the Old (Ezekiel) as an argument. Do you find it convincing? If so, my question stands; if not, why do you refer to it? Apologies for the deferral of my next response; I'm for bed. Rest assured that should this thread remain open in the morning, I will respond in full to any questions posed of me (and if I miss any, I invite all to call me out on such). Before I recess for the evening, though, I offer a clear statement of my position: I do believe in the forgiveness-oriented posture of the New Testament. I do not believe that we should be using any religious text as the basis of governmental policy. I believe the Founders would agree with me ("no religious Test," etc. Art. VI, Paragraph 3). I believe that using any part of a religious text--especially a supplanted part--as an excuse to go to war, sacrificing our own brave young men and women, for a cause that is not our own--read that as "against an enemy that has not directly attacked us"--is folly. I am not prepared to consign our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines to the grave because an ancient text which very few claim to follow in its entirety says so. Again, I shall answer any questions asked of me; until the morrow, sleep well. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
The official " will israel do it " discussion
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
