[mr.fundamental]

I used the Theory of Evolution for a reason. As I said, man finding himself in a position such that he wanted to reject or rebel against the rightful authority of God, came up with his own idea of how he came into existence. What we got as the replacement for God's own account of creation was the big bang and Evolutionism. In an attempt to develop those theories and make them plausibly applicable, scientists used proven science to retro-engineer what have since become the present day elaborate fabrications being taught to every American. Which theories BTW, being exposed to constant scrutiny, every so often run up against the hard reality of actual proof and creative allowances must be made to prop things back up. The two theories, though incredibly intricate, rest none the less on one false premise. There is no God.

The four questions are just another example of retro-engineered reasoning by the writers of your Britannica article, who would never have even ventured down that path if they did not have an ax to grind with our factually traditional Christian heritage. Those who are so rightly uncomfortable with the prospect of one day facing The Omnipotent Creator and Judge, like the scientific community who represent them, strive continually to defend things like global warming, Evolutionism and other secular and religious heresies. None of whom like the idea that the US was founded on Christian principles. Hence the hair on fire push to separate the Church's influence on issues of State, and the exclusion of nativity scenes from town squares. So it's off to shoot the messengers again, this time the very persons of the founders. The onslaught is being perpetrated by revisionists and heretics. The fruits of their labor may be seen on the campuses of US institutions of higher learning as students are demanding they be made 'safe zones', free evidently from the burden of US law. So the future leaders of this land known for being a nation of laws, are calling for zones free from laws. Anybody else see trouble brewing here?

The words freedom of conscience are not included within any founding document. As I mentioned to you, the only known mention was in state law in the process of being hammered out, (one state), but was intentionally omitted from the final draft. There are no dangers in a proper understanding and adherence to Scriptural truths applicable to any life situation known to man. However, the notions of men who follow their own conscience freely are rife with guarantee of error. Proverbs 14:12 (KJV)
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

I know better than to get drawn into a protracted and convoluted debate made so complex and convoluted by the debates of days past, by better men than I. The founders knew the arguments you're trying to make front and back, and the language of the documents was thoroughly debated. I defer to them.

LOL, here we go again. Same liberal arguments based on whatifisms. Answer, one day equals 24 hours, and that would be from God's perspective as well as man's. Truth is always truth regardless of the application, whether that be in spiritual terms or secular. Now, if you're asking if one day (the 24 hour variety) or one year for that matter, has any particular impact on The Almighty, the answer is no. God's existence is timeless. In fact among the other laws of nature, time is a mere commodity He afforded man to both frame and limit his earthly existence. He was here before the universe and man were created, and so will He ever be. Hence the verse to which you were no doubt alluding:
2 Peter 3:8 (KJV)
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I am well aware of the blessings this land has afforded me. A fact of which the meaning was honed to a much sharper image by my having actually served in the Armed Services. Did you proffer that fundamental service to your country there mister, or are you a natural born expert on the matter?

If you want to spend a lot of effort in slamming the validity of The Lord's own involvement in the historical and present sense of American history, please knock yourself out. That is if you can tear yourself away from your tv time out. :biggrin:

His ways are not my ways, His thoughts are not my thoughts... I remember reading that somewhere, but now I am told that I can be on par with God. Wow! That my friend is a scary thought. We have no concept of God's time, my opinion, how could a mortal understand immortality, we do know that God placed mortality on our hearts... read that somewhere too.

No, I never did serve, tried, but being legally blind was a damper on joining the Air Force. My cousins, uncle, and grandfathers all served each in the Navy, two in the Army. Served in wars of Korea, Vietnam, Iraqi Freedom, and peacetime.

Who has slammed anything, I give thanks to my Lord to live in a land of the free and as for me and my family we will worship Him. He asked "Do you love me?" Peter said yes you know that I do, then how did Jesus reply?

Again, people condemn people by using the law, which in truth, we are all condemned. We are to love God with all of our heart, mind, and spirit. We are to love our neighbor as we are to love ourselves.