The word “holy” means “set apart”, which is inherently divisional.
The key is “how” that’s done. The Scribes of the Bible would not interact with gentiles. Makes it rather difficult to be a light and blessing to all nations, it seems. The Muslims tend to force conversion. Hindus believe cows are dieties.
Jesus declared that he who would be first must make himself least and be a servant.
The founders knew very clearly which god they referred to, and were not vague to allow invitations of “Allah” or “Kali” or “Ba’al” or “Molech”.
No formal religion may have their manifestation of faith fully correct, but many religions endorse moral frameworks that are completely incompatible with Biblical teachings.
We cannot condemn child sacrifice or genital mutilation of children and say that we must allow full freedom of religion. Some religions consider those things forms of worship. It isn’t possible to square that circle.
On top of that, the constitution wasn’t vague. It says very explicitly, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. So 1. No Anglican / Roman state-sponsored church 2. No shutting down or telling some church what they can’t do.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=A6R_-AvCUsQ
In spite of its many flaws, Islam is probably not wholly off the rails, having some redeeming aspects, but also neither “freedom of religion” nor “the Constitution” is compatible with it. A nation will either be Christian, Islamic, or transitioning.
The word “holy” means “set apart”, which is inherently divisional.
The key is “how” that’s done. The Scribes of the Bible would not interact with gentiles. Makes it rather difficult to be a light and blessing to all nations, it seems. The Muslims tend to force conversion. Hindus believe cows are dieties.
Jesus declared that he who would be first must make himself least and be a servant.
The founders knew very clearly which god they referred to, and were not vague to allow invitations of “Allah” or “Kali” or “Ba’al” or “Molech”.
No formal religion may have their manifestation of faith fully correct, but many religions endorse moral frameworks that are completely incompatible with Biblical teachings.
We cannot condemn child sacrifice or genital mutilation of children and say that we must allow full freedom of religion.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=A6R_-AvCUsQ
Some religions consider those things forms of worship. It isn’t possible to square that circle.
The word “holy” means “set apart”, which is inherently divisional.
The key is “how” that’s done. The Scribes of the Bible would not interact with gentiles. Makes it rather difficult to be a light and blessing to all nations, it seems. The Muslims tend to force conversion. Hindus believe cows are dieties.
Jesus declared that he who would be first must make himself least and be a servant.
The founders knew very clearly which god they referred to, and were not vague to allow invitations of “Allah” or “Kali” or “Ba’al” or “Molech”.
No formal religion may have their manifestation of faith fully correct, but many religions endorse moral frameworks that are completely incompatible with Biblical teachings.
We cannot condemn child sacrifice or genital mutilation of children and say that we must allow full freedom of religion.
Some religions consider those things forms of worship. It isn’t possible to square that circle.