Forgive me…
As a newbie I quoted someone in the reply and assumed it would be in “boxes” that made it clear the original poster’s words, and my replies. It didn’t turn out that way.
Sorry for the confusion…and;
Can someone tell me how to put quoted material in boxes to avoid confusion in the future?
thanks.
The Bible is for counsel and teaching.
The Holy Spirit is referenced there.
God wrote His word for our benefit, we would do wise to read it for wisdom.
vanilla, do you believe that we have access to the Holy Spirit in other ways?
Lib, well-spoken.
Welcome to ** the raindog**!
To put something in a box, write <quote> at the beginning and </quote> at the end – EXCEPT – instead of using the “<” and the “>” use a “[” and a “]” . And leave off the quotation marks. 
Yes!
But one can easily imagine something they want or beleive is from the Spirit; if so, it must match up with scripture.
Like if one felt the Holy Spirit leading them to marry a non beleiver it would NOT be correct.
It must be checked against the standard, the Bible.
Thanks!
[/quote]
test…let’s see if I got this right…
Thanks for your guidance!
Thanks, Libertarian, for your insights concerning idolatry. I have a fuller and richer understanding of the text because of what you said. However, it still seems to me that Christ is teaching that we must fulfill our obligations to government (taxes) and to God (worship of God alone). He still says, in effect, “give to the government what belongs to it.”
Let me rephrase my question, then: Is God is capable of grounding us through his own written Word–the canonical Scriptures, if he so chooses?
Of course, Christians have used the word “Word” in several senses. The Eternal/Incarnate Word refers to one, and the written Word to another. Do you assume that God cannot have more than one “Word,” even when corresponding to the two distinct uses of the word? God must have a very poor vocabulary if he is limited to just one “Word.”
Yes, Christ is the Eternal and Incarnate Word. I know that. However, that in itself does not deny in the slightest that the proclamation of a prophet is the spoken word of God, and the letter of an apostle is the written word of God.
But using equivocation, I can prove your point quite elegantly:
The Bible is not Christ.
Christ is God’s Word.
Therefore, the Bible is not God’s Word. 
In an individual case, pledging allegiance may or may not involve breaking a divine commitment, depending on the country and the individual, etc. But since not every act of pledging allegiance is forbidden, the mere act in general does not categorically violate a commitment to God. Thus we can determine whether there is a necessary violation.
I agree. But consider this: What if a Christian’s government demands that he swear his loyalty thereto? Then he must obey his government’s law and pledge allegiance, if Paul is correct in teaching submission to the law of the land. My point was that if our government asks us by law to declare our allegiance, then we can and should submit. (For all of the above: provided that the law does not compel us to sin).
In general no, I would agree…But that is a global assesment. Whether I am specifically violating a divine commandment is a question that only I can answer. As you noted, the country, the person and how that person perceives what the pledge involves (in relation to his conscience) all play into whether it is a violation or not. Ultimately that is a decision between him/her and God. I think we proably agree with that in substance.
The most important part of this IMHO is the last sentence in paranthesis. It is conceivable that a Christian may come to the conclusion, based on his/her careful examination of the scriptures, that any pledge of allegiance is a violation of his faith, and therefore a sin if he submits to the demand. A reasonable person may simply refuse to swear his allegiance if the government demands it. As In said earlier, subjection is one thing; allegiance is another.
This “demand” (or rather, the lack of one) is an important distinction to me. I agree with the OP. My point, however, is that a person (in this country anyway) need not subscribe to many of the basic tenets of “our republic for which it stands”, and may have deeply held beliefs that make the pledge untenable. The state has every right to demand subjection, manifested in part by following laws. In short, you may govern my behavior. But you may not govern what I feel or believe, which is essentially what a pledge of allegiance is.
My last post is ambiguous. To be more precise, my assertion is:
It is not the case that (Every pledge of allegiance to a country violates a commitment to God).
Therefore,
It is not the case that (Necessarily, (Pledging one’s political allegiance to a country violates a commitment to God) ).
In other words, a pledge may violate a commitment to God, but does not necessarily do so.
Some questions for the raindog, if I may ask:
What part(s) of the pledge do you find objectionable?
What Scriptural principle(s), if any, would you disobey by pledging the Pledge?
Welcome! 
A side note from your rather interesting studies on this subject -
I’m sorry, but I have to interject something here. I’m afraid that, at least from my point of view, pledging in this matter to not rebel is against the very concept of America, especially in the definition of the founding fathers. In fact, it is my understanding that they saw rebellion as a prime tool of the population to keep the government in line, and in effect have limited rebellions through voting governments out of power. The theory would be that the government would be a slave to the people, not vice versa. The Pledge came out the immediate postbellum time, which reflects a different meaning of “indivisible.” In fact, I strongly believe that, for these reasons, the patriots who founded this nation would be opposed to the Pledge at all. The concept would be to prevent America from becoming a tyrrany, which is still possible, and if it were to happen, you’d be damned sure that I would rebel, with violence if need be.
We have seen a number of times in recent history where individuals have rebelled against the government’s decisions, with some success. I do not consider those people to be traitors - I consider them to be patriots.
I do not mean to threadjack here, but we need to reanalyze what the pledge means. It shouldn’t be a pledge to the government - it should be a pledge to the nation of people
If the pledge is mainly intended to be recited every day as reinforcement and reminder of our loyalty to the country, what then differentiates this from any other type of propaganda, which is generally applied in the same manner, through regular and constant reinforcement of the message?
Also, why are only school children subject to it? Why aren’t adults in their workplace required to recite it? Is it assumed that adults been sufficiently indoctrinated so that it is no longer necessary? Or is it that the authorities know they couldn’t impose this on adults of voting age?
Vanilla
Surely, you know that one can just as easily imagine something they want or believe is from scripture. For example, that Mr. Rogers is burning in hell, or that Jews killed Christ, or that God sanctions slavery. On many occasions, scholars challenged our Lord with scripture — even Satan himself did this. And nowadays, people use not just the scripture, but paraphrases of the scripture in foreign languages (e.g., English) as a means to achieve their own personal ends. The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, is God Himself, Whom Jesus promised to send to those who trust. Certainly, men can invoke God’s name in the commission of every manner of evil. They can also invoke scripture, reason, or patterns of clouds in the sky. They have first made their moral decision; it is only after that that they find a justification for it.
No, He is saying, “Give to idols what belongs to them” — that is to say worthless things like coins and other things made of dust. But give your allegiance, your reverence, your worship to God. He did not answer any question about taxes, even though that was the question asked. The question was a trick; a false dichotomy that would have trapped Him either way. The answer undermined the treachery. Otherwise, to be consistent, you must invoke the other scripture you cited as justification that the inability to afford paying taxes is no excuse for not paying them. The poor should be expected to pluck coins out of the mouths of fishes and fulfill their obligations just as Jesus did. “You will do even greater things than these.” They are empowered by their faith to pay their taxes no matter what, even if, like Him, they have no money. But Jesus was not concerned about taxes and governments and the petty politics of man. To borrow from Kahlil Gibran, Christ did not come down through the ages to rule an anthill for a day.
God must in fact be impotent if He is limited to just one book. Particularly one that is compiled by Nicean politicians in league with a Roman Caesar. The Bible is corruptible. It is fallible. It is incomplete. “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” But the Word is complete, uncorruptible, and infallible. It is not I who is equivocating. I very much know the difference. If you want to invoke God’s Word as justification for moral action, then you’d better invoke the right One.
Thanks!
First let me say that it is not my intent to debate the issue of Christian nuetrality as it relates to citizenship (nor do I perceive you’re asking me to). My point is simply that a Christian may reasonably come to that conclusion from the scriptures. (recognizing that another Christian’s faith may take him to a different conclusion on the matter) I would also add that I found it refreshing that you buttressed your convictions with liberal use of the bible. I’n new here and I saw another rather lengthy thread on a similar topic and everyone under the sun was quoted except the bible.
As to my specific feelings on the matter, I believe that is God alone that we should worship, pay homage to or owe an allegiance to. As I said earlier, I believe it is my Christian duty to obey the laws of the country that I live in. There is some incongruity in my mind that Christians may be pledging allegiance to flags (and by extension, governments) which many times are in direct conflict with one another. This has had the effect of Christians on opposite sides of wars, killing each other. Ironically, warring nations have often been ostensibly “Christian” nations. More people have been killed in the name of God than perhaps any other reason. Christians, IMHO, should not be engaged in warfare to advance political ideals. (Matt 26:52, Isa 2:2-4, Luke 6:27,28)
It is not simply the notion of being pressed into military service that disturbs me. The pledge is much more comprehensive and inclusive than simply stating that one would obey the laws of a country. Let’s see if I can remember…“to the flag of the UofA and to republic to which it stands…” That we would pledge allegiance to a symbol raises concerns as to idolatry. Symbols are very powerful things, as evidenced by the proliferation of American flags post 9/11. I would object to veneration of any flag. (1 Cor 10:14, 1 John 5:21, Luke 4:8) Early flags were often religious, and the origin of many sprang from religious symbols.
“…one nation under God…” Certainly the nation of Israel of the OT could make a valid claim that they were God’s chosen people. In modern times God has not taken as active a role in political affairs. Early Christians, after becoming Christians, would no longer serve in the military and in most cases would not serve in government positions. Jesus himself was pressed to serve in a political office and chose to flee. (John 6:15) Consistently he made it clear that his kingdom had no affiliation with the current Jewish/Roman political establishment. (John 18:36) Christians look to God as their ruler and owe subjection to the governments. (Rom 13:1, 5-7) Neither Jesus or his apostles took part in wars or held political office. They saw themselves as “no part of this world.” (John 17:16) Even as his execution neared Jesus pointed out that his kingdom had no part of this world. (John 18:36) The mark of a Christian would be of love. (Luke 6:27,28 John 13:34,35) Further, the apostles recognized the the temporal world was largely “in the hands of the wicked one” and Christians were admonished to keep free from the world. (while of course, being in the world and subject to it’s various laws) (Jas 4:4, 1 John 5:19, John 14:30) Interestingly enough, when Jesus came down from the wilderness after his baptism and was accosted by Satan, one of the things he tempted him with was to offer him all the kingdoms of the world. (Matt 4:8,9) Jesus never disputed that Satan had them to offer. In verse 10 he made it abundantly clearly saying, "…“Away with you Satan!” replied Jesus, “the scrpiture says, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (bold/italics/underline mine)
It is for these reasons (and others…) that I find the pledge untenable. And so while I both appreciate and agree with the OP, it is largely moot as I cannot support the pledge, with or without UG. Because the pledge is not required (actually demanded) I find the whole issue rather benign to my faith. Consistent with Romans 13 I an content to stand respectfully for the pledge (or the national anthem) but I will not participate. Now, if it was required of me (or my children in school) it would be another matter and put me on a collision course with my faith. (Acts 5:29)
Regards,
Matthew.
[quote]
I have another perspective on this. If I were Mr. Newdow I would not be quick to embrace ragerdude. The fact that both have come to the same end is of almost total coincidence. If I (Mr. Newdow) could be persuaded that ragerdude spoke for the majority of professed Christians, I might be intrigued enough to listen.
But the fact is that most professed Christians would take a contrary view to ragerdude. It is true that ragerdude makes an extremely compelling argument and is able to articulate his views with skilled use of the bible.
It’s also true that most Christians are not very familiar with their bibles and would not be as persuasive as ragerdude. But that’s the average Christian. If a Christian group were to appear before the supreme court, and had a view that was opposite to ragerdude, they would certainly be able to muster up a representative every bit as articulate and skilled with the bible as ragerdude. Whether either one was “correct” as it related to biblical principle would be irrelevent. The SCOTUS would not inject itself in what would then be a religious debate.
Mr Newdow, assuming he could add ragerdude’s reasoning to his repetoire, could not reasonably pick and choose who is legitimate to represent the “Christian” viewpoint. I am not a lawyer and don’t know the protocal, but it seems to me that allowing one “Christian” into the dialogue is likely to attact a lot more who have something to say. Most of them would be hostile to Mr Newdow’s goal.
My guess is that Mr. Newdow feels he has a strong case on the merits. There is also clarity in his message that would be at best diluted by adding a “religious” perspective. (even if in the end agreeing with him) He doesn’t lack for intelligence or skills, and I doubt ego.
I think there’s more risk for him, than potential benefit.