ranting and raving

[awol]

those "freedoms" you spoke of were no more "freedoms" than oh, say anal raping a panda.  prolly not a law against that.  does that mean it is a constitutional right?  you folks (evangelists) infringed.  period.  and now that you are being called on it, you want to compare your level of "suffering" to the black population of the 60's?  while you live in the single most religiously free country?  in the single most christian-friendly time in it's history???  get help.

[Pa Kettle]

Did you call up and investigate the cite I posted, awol?

How is America experiencing the most "Christian Friendly" years since it began?

[awol]

why would i do that?

[Pa Kettle]

 Why wouldn't you?

[awol]

because that would extend to you a courtesy that you don't show anyone.

you are a small single-minded individual who believes he is living the best life possible, and therefore sees no particular harm in imposing that life on any and all he comes into contact with.

bout cover it?

[Pa Kettle]

I always read the provided sites, awol.
How am I small-minded--because I have passion and conviction?
As for "imposing " my beliefs on anyone---that's crap; pure and simple.
Anyone can and does choose to believe what they will, and live as they see fit, and for that I'm very grateful.
You can't impose Christianity on anyone, awol, even if the law caused  the outward trappings of Christianity to be mandatory.
You can't  make someone a Christian against their will, and besides, God does the "making"---not men or men's laws.

[awol]

How is America experiencing the most "Christian Friendly" years since it began?

just the existance of this should be disturbing.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_4_122/ai_n11842271

[Pa Kettle]

Why?

[awol]

I always read the provided sites, awol.
How am I small-minded--because I have passion and conviction?

no.  because you are not willing to have your convictions challenged.  i would bet you never have.

As for "imposing " my beliefs on anyone---that's crap; pure and simple.
Anyone can and does choose to believe what they will, and live as they see fit, and for that I'm very grateful.  You can't impose Christianity on anyone, awol, even if the law caused  the outward trappings of Christianity to be mandatory.

i didn't say anything about imposing a belief.  i know that is impossible.  a lifestyle, that's completely different.  a world with no more abortion, no pornography, no violent video games...

You can't  make someone a Christian against their will, and besides, God does the "making"---not men or men's laws.

"gods" - plural.  there are many.  just ask anyone non-christian.

[awol]

Why?

because the title wasn't "most influential jews", or athiests, or satanics, or buddists, or tao...

it's a sign of pandering to the evangelicals by a highly respected magazine.

[Pa Kettle]

I do read the provided sites, awol--I'm interested in anything that runs counter to my beliefs for several reasons, not the least of which is that I have a generally inquisitive mind.
As for having my convictions challenged; they're challenged every single day if you're a Christian living in a multi-cultural, secular society.

Also, in none of my posts have you/will you find a single incidence in which I stated that I think the laws should be changed to outlaw all abortions, pornography or violent video games--not one.

You've jumped to several conclusions, awol--you usually don't do that.

[awol]

you're right.  i made assumptions based on past experiences with others of your genre that may not apply to you.

so tell me.  are you a pro-abortion evangelical christian?

[Pa Kettle]

because the title wasn't "most influential jews", or athiests, or satanics, or buddists, or tao...

it's a sign of pandering to the evangelicals by a highly respected magazine.

Reporting about influential leaders and personalities of the predominant religion in an America that is currently examining the role of Christianity within and without the halls of government, schools, and other aspects of American life is "pandering".

By that criteria Rolling Stone "panders" to rock, soul, and hip-hop audiences at the expense of all those accordion fans out there.

[awol]

Reporting about influential leaders and personalities of the predominant religion in an America that is currently examining the role of Christianity within and without the halls of government, schools, and other aspects of American life is "pandering".

your words.  not mine.  "the predominant religion".  how can you possibly be opressed???

By that criteria Rolling Stone "panders" to rock, soul, and hip-hop audiences at the expense of all those accordion fans out there.

no, not exactly.  see i would expect the article i posted to be found in "christian today".

in exactly the same way i would expect ozzy osborne to show up in rolling stone.

an article on ozzy osborne in "christian today" would be as unexpected as the article i posted.

[awol]

ok, i gotta appologize for one thing.  i've been 'hot-seating' this debate cuz i wanna boost the posts in my area so i don't have to scroll so far.  usually i give it more thought.