Rightwinger.  You said it well.  I kept saying AMEN to everything you wrote here.  People have no idea.   Demon possession or control is most of the time quite subtle.  I saw one blatant demon possesed individual in my life and it was real.  I had known the guy for quite a while and thought he was a Christian.  He went into full demon possessed mode when his new wife was getting baptized.  It took four men to physically restrain him and he was moaning and groaning the whole time.  They said later a sulfer like smell (there you go Lula) was coming out of him.  It was very very scary. 

I've had many experiences over the years where I could see demon interference.  I remember one time I was trying to reach my unbeliever grandmother.  Everytime I tried to speak with her at her home, the phone would ring at the right (or wrong) time.  It felt like she was right there starting to get the answers to her questions when all of a sudden the phone would ring.  This happened more than once. 

So I decided one day to put it on paper and mail to her.  I wrote out, in red pen, the whole plan of salvation using the Roman's road and mailed it.  A couple days later she called me asking if I had sent her something.  When I said I did she said "you know that big rain storm we had?"  I said "yes."  She then went on to explain how her mailbox got flooded out (never happened before) and my letter, written in red, bled.  It all ran in such a way she couldn't even read it. 

Reminds me of Daniel.  After receiving a terrible vision about the end times for the Jews he prayed and fasted for 3 weeks.  The Angel Michael came in answer to the prayer but said he was fighting demons (and chief demon to Persia) to reach Daniel.  While  Daniel's prayer was heard on the first day it was a full three weeks before it was answered because of the spiritual battle going on. 

Yes.  I read recently that a network director or producer was giving a seminar to comedy writers.  One of the things he said struck a nerve with me.  He said for a comedy to be really funny at least three commandments need to be broken.  We've been conditioned for quite a while now to laugh at sin.  We don't even realize we're doing it.  The next time you watch a comedy notice this. 

Not to my knowledge.  He had plenty to say about the religious leaders who were leading the people astray (like I do) but when it came to secular government he said things like "pay to Ceasar what is Ceasar's." 

In Proverbs it says that God puts the kings in their places.  He allows it and we need to recognize it.  Sometimes I think he gives us what we deserve or what we ask for. 

Yes. And that means that secular government in itself is not something Jesus would find sinful. (Although people who want to speak in his name might.)

Exactly.

I mean his concept of hell.  While he was very eloquent in portraying his divine comedy, his notion of eternal suffering was from his roots in christianity.  He embellished on it.  And to my knowledge, most christians have not picked up the concept of hell being frozen over with satan chewing the greatest betrayers of all time (at the time of the writing, a mere 3, but I am sure he would like to include more if he were writing it now - or since the 3 represented the unholy trinity, replace them with some from the more modern era).

Thanks.

Well, I'm sure HE was a Christian; just what was inside him wasn't all that happy with what was going on. And if you want to be perfectly strict about it, demons, and even Satan,  Old "Mr. Scratch", himself, are indeed believers.

That whole thing about your grandmother is a good testimony. If she could have been made to see the hands a work, it might have made your efforts a little easier.

I'm just going on memory here, but we used to have these neighbors, a family of five, which was actually scared into going back to church, because they had purchased a house that had a spirit in it. For whatever reason, it didn't like the father. They eventually sold the house and moved to a rental, but it had followed them.

They weren't church-goers, at all, according to them; in fact they were pretty much agnostics, until the whole family, kids and all, I guess, saw the dad physically lifted into air and thrown down the steps.

When I saw "Paranormal Activity", it kind of reminded me of their story. They had tried everything; psychics, paranormal researcchers, etc.

Finally, a psychic came and did a "reading" of the place, or something, and told them that it wasn't a ghost, but something much more powerful, and recommended they get a priest to bless the house and, if necessary, perform an exorcism. They did so, and the thing disappeared and left them alone, from then on. That's when they started looking for a church.

+LOL+ That's probably very true.

I love, to my everlasting shame, "Two and a Half Men"; it's a guilty pleasure, as is "South Park" which, despite its deservedly raunchy rep, is actually one of the most subtly consrvative shows on the air, as far as social commentary. Many of the subjects it addresses are approached from the right, showing how moronic the more liberal ideals are.

He might not find anything wrong with it per se, but I'd think He would appreciate it much more, if it were a nation organized and governed in His name, referencing, and based on, the values He promoted.

A nation like America, for example.

Rightwinger posts:

KFC posts:

Ditto. And thank you for sharing becasue it has given us a lot of food for thought as well.

It's a spiritual battle for our soul that as a consequence of Adam and Eve's Fall everyone of us is engaged whether we know it or not, believe it or not.

Agree.

However, there are some good movies out there that do a good job depicting demonic invasion and possession. I'm thinking of "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" which is based on the true story of a young German girl.

Yes, This is absolutely so!

Comedians make obscene jokes about people, positions and body parts and the audience roars with laughter. I had no idea how immoral we've become until my son brought home a car and motorcycle magazine every other page filled with scantilly clad girls.

You know, I see it on here all the time, and hear from a friend and co-worker who's a Wiccan (or, as he prefers, simply, "pagan"), how so many of  the "major" religions in the world have the same, basic spine to their makeup, and how this is because they all, over the millennia, simply have drawn from one-another, to make up other myths and religions. Much as the Romans drew from the Greeks for their gods and myths.

This, according to the atheists, is supposed to prove that all of it is false; a lie, made up by man to enslave the minds of the masses.

I suppose that's possible, but isn't it at least as likely, that all the religions and their according beliefs could, just possibly, have arisen from a single, common denominator?

A single, central Truth, that simply morphs and adapts to cultural and societal mores?

We can't all be completely right, but perhaps we're not all completely wrong, either.

Yeah, because Jesus was all about following religious authority.

A Birkenstock conservative, if you will.

Could be.

Leauki posts:

It's not so much that Christ said anything against secular government...He told us that God the Father is the source of all authority, including civil authority.

Read St.John 19: 1-11, the account of Jesus' trial as He stood before Pilate who certainly a civil authority. Pilate questioned Jesus, Are you the King of the Jews?.... Where are you from?  But Jesus remained silent which frsutrated Pilate and he said, "You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have the power to release you, and power to crucify you?"  And Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above;.."

This helps our understanding of Romans 13:1-3.

13:1 "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: (the governing authorities). For there is no power (authority) but from God, and those (authorities) that are, are ordained by God."

v. 2, "Therefore whoever resists the power (the authority) resists the ordinance of God, and they that resist bring judgment upon themselves."

v. 3, "For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to evil. ....."

Cute; but hardly what I meant, and I think you know that. Although, He did wear sandals.

He challenged the religious authority, because the religious elite had become such hypocrites and tyrants, all in the name of His Father.

Jesus' ministry was about following God's authority, not the copious rules and regulations the Pharisees had subtly imposed on the people over the years, by "interpereting the Constitution", if you get my drift. His message was much simpler, as was God's, in the beginning. It was the Pharisees which had made it unweildy; virtually impossible to follow all the rules. And that's why Jesus came, and it's why He died. So we didn't need all those rules and regulations, anymore.

You know, I've often wondered.....what do Jews do now, to atone for their sins? Aren't they still supposed to follow the old ways?

I mean, I never hear about PETA protests outside synagogues, where lambs, bulls, doves and sparrows are sacrificed to make up for the sins of the faithful.

We fast. Like in the old days.

What?

Good. Then we are done with secular government being a sin.

Next?

Ah, you didn't read for meaning Romans 13:1:3 did you?  

Christ said that government authority is subject to ALmighty God and they are to be a terror to good...and allowing children to pray to God in school is a good work, and a government that removes or forbids that is being a terror to a good work.  

Yes, we care for and love people who call themselves Atheists by telling them the truth. It's the truth that sets us free.

Just as the human will can freely and deliberately sin and do the most abominable things, so the human mind can defiantly and illogically deny the most self-evident truths. Denying the existence of God denies reason and the general consent of all peoples from the beginning of the world.

Whatever happened to sacrificing animals? That's what I meant by the snarky PETA crack.

Non sequitur. A secular government does not "remove or forbid" G-d.

Sacrificing animals is suspended in Judaism whenever the Temple doesn't exist, same between the first and second Temple.

Okay; see, I never heard that before. I've asked other Jews, and they never gave me a straight answer. Thanks.

The USSR did; Nazi Germany tried. China executes Christians.

You're welcome. It's a valid question.

Nazi Germany also used the services of the Church as well as Muslim preachers. I wouldn't call them exactly "secular" since the Nazis had pretty good ideas which religions they liked and which not.

The Soviet-Union didn't persecute religions because it was secular but because it was communist.

I agree that Jesus wouldn't support a communist government. (Although I believe he would love socialist socieities like kibbutzum.)

Iran does too. But Iran is hardly secular.

I think you are confusing secular (doesn't care about religion) with anti-Christian (does care about religion).

I agree that many who advocate a secular government really want an anti-Christian government. But that says more about those people than about secular governments.

In the Soviet-Union and China they have a secular government because they want to persecute Christians, not vice versa.

Come on, that's intellectually dishonest. The USSR persecuted religions BECAUSE it was Communist, and communism, as practiced, at least, is an atheistic, secular-humanist ideology. Religion interferes with loyalty to the State.

The Nazis didn't particularly "like" any religions; all the bigwigs were atheists. They were just cynical; they picked and chose which ones they would work with. They tried to discourage the German love of Catholicism and the Lutheran church, and even to replace Christianity itself, with a return to the pagan Norse gods. They worked with Arab Muslims, which they obviously considered an inferior race, because of the Jew-hatred they had in common.

Jesus promoted charity and agape love, not statist redistribution of wealth and effort. There's a difference. Paul wrote: "For even when we were with you, we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither would he eat." (2 Thessalonians 3:10) That's not Socialism, as we know it.

Again, intellectully dishonest; Iran is a Muslim nation. It kills Christians, because Christians worship Yahweh, instead of Allah. You're dodging, or perhaps ignoring, the point.

So, you're saying that Lenin and Mao, each, imposed Communism on their respective nations, simply to persecute Christians? I have to disagree with that premise. I think, for reasons I laid out above, that one simply goeds hand-in-hand with the other.

Loyalty to the Christian God is seen as a threat to the State. How often do they burn Bhuddist temples, as opposed to burning Christian churches?

I think you are being intellectually dishonest if you claim that a feature of communism is a feature of secular government just because a communist regime is a secular government.

That's like saying that water does not help against thirst because some water (that in the oceans) is too salty. The problem is not the water, the problem is the salt.

The Nazis thought that the different "races" had different status. They believed that the Japanese were the yellow master race and they believed that the Arabs were the middle-eastern master race (all ultimately led by the top master race in northern Europe). The entire Nazi ideology was complete nonsense which is also why it contradicts itself. The Kurds and Persians are "Aryans" in the ethnic sense while the Arabs are closely related to the Jews. The Japanese are related most closely with (perhaps) the Turks, but even that relatioship is of over 10,000 years ago.

The Nazis certainly didn't mind cooperating with the surprisingly loyal churches in Germany. And the Vatican was also created by the fascists. It was quickly learned that religion was also an excellent instrument to keep people loyal.

The highest level of charity is where the donor does not know the recipient and the recipient does not know the donor.

Prominent members of the Confessing Church, those protestants in Germany who didn't collaborate with the Nazis later said that a Christian can only be a socialist.

If your point is that persecuting Christians is a feature of secular governments but that pointing out that it is governments both secular and non-secular that do so the, yes, I am ignoring your point.

But then your point would be tautological and useless.

You would just be saying that secular governments persecute Christians hence governments that persecute Christians are secular hence all secular governments persecute Christians. What would be the point?

Don't rephrase what I say in order to have a better attack vector.

You are making the same mistake as above. Not all A -> B can be rephrased B -> A.

Just because persecution of Christians (actually all religions) is a feature of communist dictatorships doesn't mean that such persecution is the sole reason for their existence.

I don't know. One rarely hears about those things.

Rightwinger posts 36

Wait a minute...not so fast!    "Sacrificing animals is suspended in Judaism"…..”suspended in Judasim”??? No..no..no..nope.  No sale.

Not according to God; and not according to the Old and New Testament. The Old Mosaic Temple sacrifices as ordained by God to Moses are done....done for good.  Almighty God was making it known that at moment of Christ's crucifixion when the Temple Veil was rent from top to bottom, that the rites and ceremonies of the Old Law were to be abolished for good in 70AD. 

It does if it's run by Secular or Atheistic Humanists.

You are not Jewish. You don't know anything about Judaism. You have proven that again and again here in these forums.

Rightwinger wanted a real answer, not your opinion.

The "New Testament" doesn't define Judaism.

The "Old Testament" does describe the time when there was no Temple and makes it clear that sacrifices happen in the Temple.

If you want to learn about Judaism (and I know you don't), you have to read the Jewish Bible and the Talmud, not the New Testament.

Says who?

G-d didn't "make that known". The early Christians certainly didn't make it known. (And how could they? They neither spoke for G-d nor for Judaism.)

But all of that is pointless anyway, since Rightwinger wanted to know about sacrifices in Judaism, not your religion.

Here's the answer to Rightwinger's question from Rabbi Tzvi Freeman of Chabad, the most influential Hassidic sect:

And the Torah prescribes a whole slew of sacrifices to be made in the Tabernacle in the desert, and then later in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. And guess what? In our prayers, for the past 2,000 years, weve been asking for G-d to let us rebuild that Temple so that we can start doing those sacrifices, just like He asked us to. 

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2942/jewish/Animal-Sacrifices.htm

In contrast to you Rabbi Freeman is an authority on Judaism and Jewish law. He actually knows Jewish law and Jewish traditions and, and this is what I love about him, does not spend his time on the Internet making up stuff about other people's religions.

If by "removing god" you mean that a secular government might stop you or some other band of religious fanatics to force your morality on everybody else then, yes, secular government does "remove god". And thank G-d for that.

Luckily secular government allows neither you nor the Taliban to order people around.

The last thing G-d or Jesus wanted is for the beliefs of one group to be forced on another. Force is the opposite of faith.