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?