Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Necrosis on June 29, 2011, 09:56:34 AM
-
why do i hear fundies and repubs continue to say that america was founded on christianity, that this is a christian nation? do they not know the constitution or are they willingly lying and ignorant?
-
nation of christians
not a christian nation
people confuse those two a lot.
-
why do i hear fundies and repubs continue to say that america was founded on christianity, that this is a christian nation? do they not know the constitution or are they willingly lying and ignorant?
Founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but not a Christian nation. And yes, of all developed nations, the USA has the most people claiming to follow Jesus Christ, attending church 1 to 4 times a week, and donating money, time and blood to help the needy. No other developed nation comes even close.
-
Founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but not a Christian nation. And yes, of all developed nations, the USA has the most people claiming to follow Jesus Christ, attending church 1 to 4 times a week, and donating money, time and blood to help the needy. No other developed nation comes even close.
Even the Vatican?
-
Even the Vatican?
Yes, in so many ways!
-
Founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but not a Christian nation. And yes, of all developed nations, the USA has the most people claiming to follow Jesus Christ, attending church 1 to 4 times a week, and donating money, time and blood to help the needy. No other developed nation comes even close.
what do you mean by founded on judeo-christian principles? where does it say that specifically?
everything i have read including the treaty of tripoli and the constitution says otherwise, what evidence do you have for your claim?
-
Yes, in so many ways!
Interesting... I would have seriously thought that the Vatican would be higher by percentage.
-
what do you mean by founded on judeo-christian principles? where does it say that specifically?
everything i have read including the treaty of tripoli and the constitution says otherwise, what evidence do you have for your claim?
There are many threads already discussing this. I'll dig them up later.
-
Interesting... I would have seriously thought that the Vatican would be higher by percentage.
You missed the part where I said American Christians who "donate" money, time and blood to help the needy. The Vatican's population is not very large, and it is about 75% Clergy. What they do is their job, and they get paid money, food, shelter, health care, etc., for doing their job.
The Americans that I am speaking of are not clergy. They "volunteer" their time and money to help the needy.
Is the Vatican even considered a "developed" nation?
-
You missed the part where I said American Christians who "donate" money, time and blood to help the needy. The Vatican's population is not very large, and it is about 75% Clergy. What they do is their job, and they get paid money, food, shelter, health care, etc., for doing their job.
The Americans that I am speaking of are not clergy. They "volunteer" their time and money to help the needy.
Is the Vatican even considered a "developed" nation?
I'm sure it's considered developed... They have everything.
Also, I think being clergy in general is a volunteer thing... You certainly don't get paid anything for it.
You do it because you love th3 baby jesus.
-
I would refer you to the treaty of tripoli which states in art 11
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif
Art 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
the treaty was agreed on by majority and put forth by then president john adams.
Couldnt be more clear there, america is in no way founded on the christian religion and all it entails, ie morals, teachings etc.
-
I'm sure it's considered developed... They have everything.
Also, I think being clergy in general is a volunteer thing... You certainly don't get paid anything for it.
You do it because you love th3 baby jesus.
Show me a list of developed countries where the Vatican is even mentioned.
How is the clergy volunteer work when they have to do it full time, while they get food, shelter, clothes, money, etc.? They don't donate money, they take donations.
Most American devout Christians have jobs outside of the clergy and volunteer their time outside of work for free, and they volunteer their money too.
Stop trolling.
-
I would refer you to the treaty of tripoli which states in art 11
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif
Art 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
the treaty was agreed on by majority and put forth by then president john adams.
Couldnt be more clear there, america is in no way founded on the christian religion and all it entails, ie morals, teachings etc.
That Treaty was modified, with that portion "United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" TAKEN OUT, less than 10 years later.
And, the only reason it was put there in the first place was because the Muslim pirates in eastern Africa accused Americans of trying to turn impose Christianity onto them.
-
I would refer you to the treaty of tripoli which states in art 11
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif
Art 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
the treaty was agreed on by majority and put forth by then president john adams.
Couldnt be more clear there, america is in no way founded on the christian religion and all it entails, ie morals, teachings etc.
AMERICA WAS FOUNDED UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133677.msg1901265#msg1901265
-
I thought that a lot of our founding fathers were interested in Christianity, but not exactly "Christians"?
-
I thought that a lot of our founding fathers were interested in Christianity, but not exactly "Christians"?
That's incorrect. Please follow the link above and see what the founding fathers said.
-
I would refer you to the treaty of tripoli which states in art 11
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif
Art 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
the treaty was agreed on by majority and put forth by then president john adams.
Couldnt be more clear there, america is in no way founded on the christian religion and all it entails, ie morals, teachings etc.
"Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp
-
"Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp
wrong
you are going by hunter millers interpretation
Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States. Opponents claim variously that — despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English — the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty,[18], this is from miller, the link you posted.
However,
it is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.[18]
However the Arabic and English texts differ, the Barlow translation (Article 11 included) was the text presented to, read aloud in, and ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate.
your own link claims that the english version with art 11 is the one that is recognized, read aloud and voted on in a majority fashion. For whatever reason it was put in the text does not matter and i find it odd that mcways point "And, the only reason it was put there in the first place was because the Muslim pirates in eastern Africa accused Americans of trying to turn impose Christianity onto them" is somehow lost on him when extended to its logical conclusion.
-
did i mention the english version was the one unanimously ratified by the US senate?
-
AMERICA WAS FOUNDED UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133677.msg1901265#msg1901265
I don't have time to go into this but you're wrong. Thomas Jefferson was in no way a christian. He founded a university centered around a library, not a church. He didn't recommend his nephew reading the bible until 17 or so because he thought it was brainwashing to teach children religion. He edited the bible and took out the doctrine parts.The only place Ben Franklin mentioned religion in his autobiography was when he talked about how bored he got sitting in church. George Washington did not believe in Christianity the way that we understand the term today, see Edward Lengel's recent book on Washington. The only place religion is mentioned in the Constitution is no religious tests for political office holders, which we in no way respect today.
I could go into this for a long time but this debate has already been won. I'm sorry but this nation was not founded by Christians, it was not meant to be a solely Christian nation. Maybe that gives Christians today some validity in that they believe if so and so believed what they believed, and so and so were smart, then they themselves are smart for believing what they believe. It is not a virtuous act to tell lies in order to make what you believe more credible, I'm sorry.
Like I already said. We are a nation of Christians, NOT a Christian nation.
-
wrong
you are going by hunter millers interpretation
Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States. Opponents claim variously that — despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English — the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty,[18], this is from miller, the link you posted.
However,
it is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.[18]
However the Arabic and English texts differ, the Barlow translation (Article 11 included) was the text presented to, read aloud in, and ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate.
your own link claims that the english version with art 11 is the one that is recognized, read aloud and voted on in a majority fashion. For whatever reason it was put in the text does not matter and i find it odd that mcways point "And, the only reason it was put there in the first place was because the Muslim pirates in eastern Africa accused Americans of trying to turn impose Christianity onto them" is somehow lost on him when extended to its logical conclusion.
The title of this thread, and your argument says "Christian Nation"
Your "proof" to the contrary says
"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
The Government alone is not the Nation. Got anything else other than article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli?
Treaty of Tripoli
by David Barton
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article XI, is commonly misused in editorial columns, articles, as well as in other areas of the media, both Christian and secular. We have received numerous questions from people who have been misled by the claims that are being made, namely, that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Advocates of this idea use the Treaty of Tripoli as the foundation of their entire argument, and we believe you deserve to know the truth regarding this often misused document. The following is an excerpt from David Barton’s book Original Intent:
To determine whether the "Founding Fathers" were generally atheists, agnostics, and deists, one must first define those terms. An "atheist" is one who professes to believe that there is no God;1 an "agnostic" is one who professes that nothing can be known beyond what is visible and tangible;2 and a "deist" is one who believes in an impersonal God who is no longer involved with mankind. (In other words, a "deist" embraces the "clockmaker theory" 3 that there was a God who made the universe and wound it up like a clock; however, it now runs of its own volition; the clockmaker is gone and therefore does not respond to man.) Today the terms "atheist," "agnostic," and "deist" have been used together so often that their meanings have almost become synonymous. In fact, many dictionaries list these words as synonym.4
Those who advance the notion that this was the belief system of the Founders often publish information attempting to prove that the Founders were irreligious.5 One of the quotes they set forth is the following:
The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.GEORGE WASHINGTON
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is the source of Washington’s supposed statement. Is this statement accurate? Did this prominent Founder truly repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of its source. That treaty, one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the "Barbary Powers Conflict," which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.6 The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States,7 thus constituting America’s first official war as an established independent nation. Throughout this long conflict, the four Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving "Christian" seamen8 in retaliation for what had been done to them by the "Christians" of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella’s expulsion of Muslims from Granada9). In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations.10(Concurrently, he encouraged the construction of American naval warships11 to defend the shipping and confront the Barbary "pirates"—a plan not seriously pursued until President John Adams created a separate Department of the Navy in 1798.) The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of "Peace and Amity" 12 with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure "protection" of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean.13 However, the terms of the treaty frequently were unfavorable to America, either requiring her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of "tribute" (i.e., official extortion) to each country to receive a "guarantee" of safety or to offer other "considerations" (e.g., providing a warship as a "gift" to Tripoli,14 a "gift" frigate to Algiers,15 paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers,16 etc.). The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims.17 Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.18
This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government. Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation, they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation. Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them. This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," 19 by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," 20 and by John Adams as "rational." 21 A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:
The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it.22
Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:
Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown—general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land!23
Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:
The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours. 24
Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. 25
Adams’ own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation. Additionally, the writings of General William Eaton, a major figure in the Barbary Powers conflict, provide even more irrefutable testimony of how the conflict was viewed at that time. Eaton was first appointed by President John Adams as "Consul to Tunis," and President Thomas Jefferson later advanced him to the position of "U. S. Naval Agent to the Barbary States," authorizing him to lead a military expedition against Tripoli. Eaton’s official correspondence during his service confirms that the conflict was a Muslim war against a Christian America. For example, when writing to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, Eaton apprised him of why the Muslims would be such dedicated foes:
Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims’] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful.26 Eaton later complained that after Jefferson had approved his plan for military action, he sent him the obsolete warship "Hero." Eaton reported the impression of America made upon the Tunis Muslims when they saw the old warship and its few cannons:
[T]he weak, the crazy situation of the vessel and equipage [armaments] tended to confirm an opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians, that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians.27
In a later letter to Pickering, Eaton reported how pleased one Barbary ruler had been when he received the extortion compensations from America which had been promised him in one of the treaties:
He said, "To speak truly and candidly . . . . we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation." 28
When John Marshall became the new Secretary of State, Eaton informed him:
It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that "The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well." 29 And when General Eaton finally commenced his military action against Tripoli, his personal journal noted:
April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking!30 May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy’s forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don’t he come and take it?31
Shortly after the military excursion against Tripoli was successfully terminated, its account was written and published. Even the title of the book bears witness to the nature of the conflict:
The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton . . . commander of the Christian and Other Forces . . . which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between The United States and The Regency of Tripoli32
The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Those documents completely disprove the notion that any founding President, especially Washington, ever declared that America was not a Christian nation or people. (Chapter 16 of Original Intent will provide numerous additional current examples of historical revisionism.)
Endnotes
1. American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, s.v. "atheism."
2. Id., s.v. "agnostic."
3. Id., s.v. "deism"; see also American College Dictionary (1947), s.v. "deism."
4. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language (1964), see synonym for "deist"; Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary(1963), see synonym for "atheism"; The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia(1895), Vol. I, see synonym for "atheist"; Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of the English Language (1966), see synonyms for "skeptic."
5. Society of Separationists, "Did you know that these great American thinkers all rejected Christianity?" (Austin, TX: American Atheist Center); see also Los Angeles Times, August 3, 1995, p. B-9, "America’s Unchristian Beginnings," Steven Morris.
6.Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers, Claude A. Swanson, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1939), Vol. I, p. V.
7. Glen Tucker,Dawn Like Thunder: The Barbary Wars and the Birth of the U. S. Navy (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1963), p. 127.
8. A General View of the Rise, Progress, and Brilliant Achievements of the American Navy, Down to the Present Time(Brooklyn, 1828), pp. 70-71.
9. Tucker, p. 50.
10. President Washington selected Col. David Humphreys in 1793 as sole commissioner of Algerian affairs to negotiate treaties with Algeria, Tripoli and Tunis. He also appointed Joseph Donaldson, Jr., as Consul to Tunis and Tripoli. In February of 1796, Humphreys delegated power to Donaldson and/or Joel Barlow to form treaties. James Simpson, U. S. Consul to Gibraltar, was dispatched to renew the treaty with Morocco in 1795. On October 8, 1796, Barlow commissioned Richard O’Brien to negotiate the treaty of peace with Tripoli. See, for example, Ray W. Irwin, The Diplomatic Relations of the United States with the Barbary Powers (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1931), p. 84.
11. J. Fenimore Cooper,The History of the Navy of the United States of America (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1847), pp. 123-124; see also A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents: 1789-1897, James D. Richardson, editor (Washington, D. C.: Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, pp. 201-202, from Washington’s Eighth Annual Address of December 7, 1796.
12. See, for example, the treaty with Morocco: ratified by the United States on July 18, 1787. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America: 1776-1949, Charles I. Bevans, editor (Washington, D. C.: Department of State, 1968-1976), Vol. IX, pp. 1278-1285; Algiers: concluded September 5, 1795; ratified by the U. S. Senate March 2, 1796; see also, "Treaty of Peace and Amity" concluded June 30 and July 6, 1815; proclaimed December 26, 1815, Treaties and Conventions Concluded Between the United States of America and Other Powers Since July 4, 1776 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1889), pp. 1-15; Tripoli: concluded November 4, 1796; ratified June 10, 1797; see also, "Treaty of Peace and Amity" concluded June 4, 1805; ratification advised by the U. S. Senate April 12, 1806. Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers: 1776-1909, William M. Malloy, editor (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1910), Vol. II, pp. 1785-1793; Tunis: concluded August 1797; ratification advised by the Senate, with amendments, March 6, 1798; alterations concluded March 26, 1799; ratification again advised by the Senate December 24, 1799. Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers: 1776-1909, William M. Malloy, editor (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1910), Vol. II, pp. 1794-1799.
13. Gardner W. Allen, Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1905), pp. 33, 45, 56, 60.
14. Allen, p. 66.
15. Allen, p. 57.
16. Allen, p. 56.
17. (See general bibliographic information from footnote 17 for each of these references)Morocco: see Articles 10, 11, 17, and 24; Algiers: See Treaty of 1795, Article 17, and Treaty of 1815, Article 17; Tripoli: See Treaty of 1796, Article 11, and Treaty of 1805, Article 14; Tunis: See forward to Treaty.
18. Acts Passed at the First Session of the Fifth Congress of the United States of America (Philadelphia: William Ross, 1797), pp. 43-44.
19. John Jay, Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p. 491, Address to the Annual Meeting of the American Bible Society, May 8, 1823.
20. John Quincy Adams,An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 17.
21. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. IX, p. 121, in a speech to both houses of Congress, November 23, 1797.
22 Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 339.
23. Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s Speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry and In favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young. Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1844), p. 52.
24. John Adams, Works, Vol. VIII, p. 407, to Thomas Jefferson on July 3, 1786.
25. John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
26. Charles Prentiss, The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton: Several Years an Officer in the United States’ Army Consul at the Regency of Tunis on the Coast of Barbary, and Commander of the Christian and Other Forces that Marched from Egypt Through the Desert of Barca, in 1805, and Conquered the City of Derne, Which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between the United States and the Regency of Tripoli (Brookfield: Merriam & Company, 1813), pp. 92-93, from General Eaton to Timothy Pickering, June 15, 1799.
27. Prentiss, p. 146, from General Eaton to Mr. Smith, June 27, 1800.
28. Prentiss, p. 150, from General Eaton to Timothy Pickering on July 4, 1800.
29. Prentiss, p. 185, from General Eaton to General John Marshall, September 2, 1800.
30. Prentiss, p. 325, from Eaton’s journal, April 8, 1805.
31. Prentiss, p. 334, from Eaton’s journal, May 23, 1805.
32. Prentiss.
-
more on christian revisionist history
1.Did Article 11 belong in the treaty at all?
The evidence seems to indicate that it did not, crude attempts at textual criticism notwithstanding. However, several Skeptical sites follow the lead of one linked above and say:
The fact which completely destroys [the religious right's] argument is that none of the Senators who read, accepted, approved, and ratified the Treaty could read Arabic. The official and only 1797 Treaty with Tripoli which was read, accepted, approved, and ratified by the Senate of the United States was the one penned by Joel Barlow in the English language. And, whether the so-called "religious right" revisionists like it or not, Article 11 of the official 1797 Treaty with Tripoli was in the Treaty in 1797 and is appropriately recorded in the official treaty book: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
2.The Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the United States Senate clearly specifies that the treaty of was read aloud on the floor of the Senate and that copies of the treaty were printed "for the use of the Senate." Nor is it plausible to argue that perhaps Senators voted for the treaty without being aware of the famous words. the treaty was quite short, requiring only two or three pages to reprint in most treaty books today--and printed, in its entirely, on but one page (sometimes the front page) of U.S. newspapers of the day. The lack of any recorded argument about the wording, as well as the unanimous vote and the and the wide reprinting of the words in the press of 1797, suggests that the idea that the government was not a Christian one was widely and easily accepted at the time.
The ratified agreement included article 11 and it was unanimously agree on, what argument can be made? it doesnt matter if the original arabic conversion is accurate, it may of been scholars contend (more likely not) the one that was presented to the senate was the Barlow version.
-
I don't have time to go into this but you're wrong. Thomas Jefferson was in no way a christian. He founded a university centered around a library, not a church. He didn't recommend his nephew reading the bible until 17 or so because he thought it was brainwashing to teach children religion. He edited the bible and took out the doctrine parts.The only place Ben Franklin mentioned religion in his autobiography was when he talked about how bored he got sitting in church. George Washington did not believe in Christianity the way that we understand the term today, see Edward Lengel's recent book on Washington. The only place religion is mentioned in the Constitution is no religious tests for political office holders, which we in no way respect today.
I could go into this for a long time but this debate has already been won. I'm sorry but this nation was not founded by Christians, it was not meant to be a solely Christian nation. Maybe that gives Christians today some validity in that they believe if so and so believed what they believed, and so and so were smart, then they themselves are smart for believing what they believe. It is not a virtuous act to tell lies in order to make what you believe more credible, I'm sorry.
Like I already said. We are a nation of Christians, NOT a Christian nation.
Thomas Jefferson
Notes on Virginia, 1782:
God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.
John Adams
Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1812
"The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion."
Letter to Zabdiel Adams, 21 June 1776:
Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.
Letter to Abigail Adams, 3 July 1776:
The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward for evermore.
Diary, 26 July 1796:
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity.
Address to the Military, 11 October 1798:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.
-
I don't have time to go into this but you're wrong. Thomas Jefferson was in no way a christian. He founded a university centered around a library, not a church. He didn't recommend his nephew reading the bible until 17 or so because he thought it was brainwashing to teach children religion. He edited the bible and took out the doctrine parts.The only place Ben Franklin mentioned religion in his autobiography was when he talked about how bored he got sitting in church. George Washington did not believe in Christianity the way that we understand the term today, see Edward Lengel's recent book on Washington. The only place religion is mentioned in the Constitution is no religious tests for political office holders, which we in no way respect today.
I could go into this for a long time but this debate has already been won. I'm sorry but this nation was not founded by Christians, it was not meant to be a solely Christian nation. Maybe that gives Christians today some validity in that they believe if so and so believed what they believed, and so and so were smart, then they themselves are smart for believing what they believe. It is not a virtuous act to tell lies in order to make what you believe more credible, I'm sorry.
Like I already said. We are a nation of Christians, NOT a Christian nation.
George Washington
Circular letter of farewell to the Army, 8 June 1783:
I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.
First Inaugural Address, 30 April 1789:
No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.
First Inaugural Address, 30 April 1789:
The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.
Letter to General Assembly of Presbyterian Churches, May 1789:
While all men within our territories are protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of their consciences; it is rationally expected from them in return, that they will be emulous of evincing the sanctity of their professions by the innocence of their lives, and the beneficence of their actions: for no man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society.
Farewell Address, 1796:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.… And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.… Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
-
I don't have time to go into this but you're wrong. Thomas Jefferson was in no way a christian. He founded a university centered around a library, not a church. He didn't recommend his nephew reading the bible until 17 or so because he thought it was brainwashing to teach children religion. He edited the bible and took out the doctrine parts.The only place Ben Franklin mentioned religion in his autobiography was when he talked about how bored he got sitting in church. George Washington did not believe in Christianity the way that we understand the term today, see Edward Lengel's recent book on Washington. The only place religion is mentioned in the Constitution is no religious tests for political office holders, which we in no way respect today.
I could go into this for a long time but this debate has already been won. I'm sorry but this nation was not founded by Christians, it was not meant to be a solely Christian nation. Maybe that gives Christians today some validity in that they believe if so and so believed what they believed, and so and so were smart, then they themselves are smart for believing what they believe. It is not a virtuous act to tell lies in order to make what you believe more credible, I'm sorry.
Like I already said. We are a nation of Christians, NOT a Christian nation.
Benjamin Franklin
Letter to Messrs, the Abbes Chalut, and Arnaud, 17 April 1787:
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.
Constitutional Convention, 1787:
In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor.… and have we not forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: “that God governs in the affairs of man.” And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? …
I believe farther that this [new government under the Constitution] is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
-
loco are pantheism and deism the same as christianity?
the sermon on the mount and the ten commandments are not christianity either, i see your logical conclusion that he must be a christian but if he refutes jesus but likes the commandments he is not a christian, the logical extension is not implied from that sentence.
-
The title of this thread, and your argument says "Christian Nation"
Your "proof" to the contrary says
"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
The Government alone is not the Nation. Got anything else other than article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli?
nation includes people and the government, the latter of which decides for the majority opinion. The treaty clearly states my assertion, also im in the negative position i dont have to prove anything, the burden on the person making a claim. I asked why do people think this is a christian nation, or that it was founded on christian belief. You and many christians say it is. If someone says it was founded on unicorns i dont have to look for references to the contrary i can just ask for proof. The fact is, rarely will you find articles and discussions ruling out negatives, for example
the American nation is in no way a nation founded on christianity, unicorns, cupacabra, magic, steven speilberg etc.. the list is infinite.
show me something that says this is a nation founded on christian beliefs.
-
loco you stated it was founded on judeo-christian principles, prove your point. What principles exactly?
original sin?
the ten commandments?
hell?
working on the sabbath?
the devil is real?
what principles were outlined specfically?
-
great post using logic
The Declaration of Independence was not a founding document, but a statement of intent of sort that led to the founding, and while it was deistic, and in fact the idea of where our rights come from continued to be deistic, when it came to the actual founding of the country, the founders debated long and hard and came to the conclusion that the only way in which true freedom of belief could be protected was to establish a wholly secular and neutral government in order to to protect equally the rights of all Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
They saw that any sort of official sanction given to not only any particular belief, but to even belief over lack of belief, would necessarily diminish the equal standing of the other positions.
Even Jefferson himself, who was the principle author of the Declaration Poptorts keeps referring to, famously stated;
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
and
Though he did so as Governor of Virginia, during his Presidency Jefferson refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer and thanksgiving.
They understood that what they may have done personally and on a local level was different than what they did when concerning the official structure of the nation as a whole and the government and documents that we designed to serve that whole.
This has been persistently attacked and eroded over the years by Christians trying to reshape us after the fact into a Christian nation by not only denying and lying about this foundation, but in intentionally conflating vague deism with specific Christian doctrine and faith etc, and between private matters of conscience, and official government establishment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/david-barton-glenn-beck_b_521485.html
http://www.liarsforjesus.com/
etc.
Hence the slew of mid 1950's McCarthy era Red Scare Christian Establishment moves, meant to intentionally promote and establish the US as a Christian nation contrary to the perceived atheist threat of Communism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare#Second_Red_Scare_.281947.E2.80.9357.29
1952: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer
1954: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_the_words_.22under_God.22
1956: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust (as the official National Motto)
1957: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust (mandated on all currency, coinage and paper)
And so on...
And unfortunately many now have the false impression that these things were always a part of our country, in spite of actually violating both the Constitution and the clear principles set forth by the founders themselves, which stood for many years before these unConstitutional and unAmerican acts.
It has always been telling to me that the Christians felt the need to replace "E Pluribus Unum", meaning "Of Many, (come) One"... a celebration of the diversity from which American was formed and from which it drew its strength... with the divisive phrase "In God We Trust" that explicitly violated the principles this nation was founded on, in order to promote falsely the idea that all Americans trusted in or believed in a God, much less the Christian one... an act that has since been a source of conflict due to the very reasons which the founders were wise enough to avoid it for in the first place. It necessarily promotes one type of belief that doesn't actually reflect equally the state of all Americans
in god we trust is divisive and unconstitutional. to say its not is flat out lying. What of those who dont believe in a god? atheists? what about those who believe in reincarnation? many gods? etc.. all left out. Removing reference to god as was intended by the original statment seen above is much more mature and civilized.
-
Thomas Jefferson
1. Built his university centered around a library, not a Church as was the common practice in that day.
2. Eliminated all doctrine references in his own version of the Bible
3. Did not want his nephew reading the bible until age 17 because he feared teaching children about religion (Christianity) was simply brainwashing.
4. Advocated a wall of separation between religion and politics
5. Owned slaves he used for sex (you seriously are going to advocate the christian ethics of a man that would do this?)
see:
Ben Franklin
1. Read his autobiography. It's clear. He gives all of his credit to his own hard work and determination. He never thanks Jesus or gives praise to the Christian God. Like I already said, the only time he mentions religion is when he talks about how bored he got while sitting in church and thought of it as a waste of time.
George Washington.
1. Read Edward Lengel's Inventing George Washington: America's founder in myth and memory.
2. Or read here (page 2): http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/books/inventing-george-washington-by-edward-g-lengel-review.html?scp=1&sq=edward%20lengel&st=cse
Alexander Hamilton
1. When asked at the time why references to God and religion were not included in the Constitution, he answered "we forgot"
In regards to the Constitution: No mention of Christianity or Jesus. Only references to religion within body is the "no religious tests for public officials" which means religion should have no part in who we elect.
In regards to the Declaration: No references to Christianity or Jesus. See Alan Dershowtiz's two books on the Declaration:
http://www.amazon.com/Blasphemy-Religious-Hijacking-Declaration-Independence/dp/0470281685/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_4
http://www.amazon.com/Religious-Right-Wrong-Separation-Church/dp/1591021146/ref=pd_sim_b_3
http://www.amazon.com/America-Declares-Independence-Alan-Dershowitz/dp/0471264822/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_7
-
US Supreme Court Building, Moses and The 10 Commandments
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=373821.0;attach=410847;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=373821.0;attach=410848;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=373821.0;attach=410849;image)
-
U.S. Congress opens each session with a prayer to God, in a Federal building, during work hours.
First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774
(http://chaplain.house.gov/images/continental_prayer.jpg)
O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!
Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.
Amen.
Reverend Jacob Duché
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m.
http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/continental.html
-
US Supreme Court, Marsh v. Chambers
"In light of the history, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, a violation of the Establishment Clause; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0463_0783_ZS.html
-
Loco, I'm sorry but you will not win this argument. This is not a debate where Person A and B try to convince each other with valid arguments. You are simply wrong.
The supreme court has made decisions taking both sides of this argument.
Yes many people in this country are Christians. Probably well over half. This might have even been true since the founding. That does NOT make this a christian nation. Yes there are Christians in this country. That does not make this a christian nation. This is not a christian nation, this is a nation of Christians. I don't understand why you don't either A) Address that point or B) Accept it.
You are avoiding each of the points that Nec and I have brought up and are taking things out of context and trying to expand them. This is wrong. You need to first define what a christian nation is, and then explain how this criteria have been met. If your point is only that Christianity has influenced some people in this country, and some of those people are/were involved in politics, then of course we would agree with that. You are making an incredible leap from that to saying that the entire founding of this country was for the purpose of making this a "Christian nation". Taking things out of context to support your own previous biases and prejudice is NOT a virtuous act.
You are either A) Deliberating being deceitful to try to give your own beliefs more credence or B) Ignorant about the truth yet unwilling to admit you're wrong while trying to find little loopholes to prove you are right. I don't believe neither deceitfulness or ignorance is acceptable. Again I'm sorry, but unless you drastically change the definition for a "christian nation", you are wrong.
-
I don't have time to go into this but you're wrong. Thomas Jefferson was in no way a christian. He founded a university centered around a library, not a church. He didn't recommend his nephew reading the bible until 17 or so because he thought it was brainwashing to teach children religion. He edited the bible and took out the doctrine parts.The only place Ben Franklin mentioned religion in his autobiography was when he talked about how bored he got sitting in church. George Washington did not believe in Christianity the way that we understand the term today, see Edward Lengel's recent book on Washington. The only place religion is mentioned in the Constitution is no religious tests for political office holders, which we in no way respect today.
I could go into this for a long time but this debate has already been won. I'm sorry but this nation was not founded by Christians, it was not meant to be a solely Christian nation. Maybe that gives Christians today some validity in that they believe if so and so believed what they believed, and so and so were smart, then they themselves are smart for believing what they believe. It is not a virtuous act to tell lies in order to make what you believe more credible, I'm sorry.
Like I already said. We are a nation of Christians, NOT a Christian nation.
Interesting post, I knew that about Jefferson and I've read the Franklin Biography. I know Washington was a big time Freemason, and had an interest in the occult (not sure if occult is the right term)...
-
Thomas Jefferson
Notes on Virginia, 1782:
God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.
John Adams
Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1812
"The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion."
Letter to Zabdiel Adams, 21 June 1776:
Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.
Letter to Abigail Adams, 3 July 1776:
The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward for evermore.
Diary, 26 July 1796:
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity.
Address to the Military, 11 October 1798:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.
What do those quotes have to do with Christianity? Not being critical, just curious? ???
-
Is Jesus mentioned in any of those quotes?
???
-
many of the founding fathers were deists hence the reference to god. It makes sense to say god in deism and allah or jesus for their respective religions.
its not really a debatable fact to be honest, i just dont get why people when faced with overwhelming evidence and FACT continue on. I understand it's self serving purpose but as a rational human with an open mind i sincerely do struggle with how fundies view reality. If jesus came down from heaven tomorrow or evidence for a god came to light i would gladly say im wrong and convert to theism.
you have been told this is true since you were a child, stop and think if it makes sense. Its not rational, but faith isn't by definition.
i still see no evidence for this being a christian nation founded on christian principles, as ambiguous as that is.
-
US Supreme Court Building, Moses and The 10 Commandments
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=373821.0;attach=410847;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=373821.0;attach=410848;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=373821.0;attach=410849;image)
"MOSES or Musa is an important figure in both the Qur'an and the New Testament"
-
Loco, I'm sorry but you will not win this argument. This is not a debate where Person A and B try to convince each other with valid arguments. You are simply wrong.
The supreme court has made decisions taking both sides of this argument.
Yes many people in this country are Christians. Probably well over half. This might have even been true since the founding. That does NOT make this a christian nation. Yes there are Christians in this country. That does not make this a christian nation. This is not a christian nation, this is a nation of Christians. I don't understand why you don't either A) Address that point or B) Accept it.
You are avoiding each of the points that Nec and I have brought up and are taking things out of context and trying to expand them. This is wrong. You need to first define what a christian nation is, and then explain how this criteria have been met. If your point is only that Christianity has influenced some people in this country, and some of those people are/were involved in politics, then of course we would agree with that. You are making an incredible leap from that to saying that the entire founding of this country was for the purpose of making this a "Christian nation". Taking things out of context to support your own previous biases and prejudice is NOT a virtuous act.
You are either A) Deliberating being deceitful to try to give your own beliefs more credence or B) Ignorant about the truth yet unwilling to admit you're wrong while trying to find little loopholes to prove you are right. I don't believe neither deceitfulness or ignorance is acceptable. Again I'm sorry, but unless you drastically change the definition for a "christian nation", you are wrong.
What is wrong with you, Mr. Magoo? You can read, can't you?
Founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but not a Christian nation. And yes, of all developed nations, the USA has the most people claiming to follow Jesus Christ, attending church 1 to 4 times a week, and donating money, time and blood to help the needy. No other developed nation comes even close.
-
"MOSES or Musa is an important figure in both the Qur'an and the New Testament"
Mohammad is the most important man in Islam and the Koran, not Moses. The founding fathers came from Europe, not from the Middle East. They had knowledge of the Bible and Christianity, not the Koran and Islam.
-
What do those quotes have to do with Christianity? Not being critical, just curious? ???
Did you actually read them? The text in red shows that when they mention God and religion, they are referring to the God of the Bible and Christianity.
Thomas Jefferson
Notes on Virginia, 1782:
God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.
John Adams
Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1812
"The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion."
Letter to Zabdiel Adams, 21 June 1776:
Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.
Letter to Abigail Adams, 3 July 1776:
The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward for evermore.
Diary, 26 July 1796:
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity.
Address to the Military, 11 October 1798:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.
-
What is wrong with you, Mr. Magoo? You can read, can't you?
Thank you for admitting that the United States is not a Christian Nation. It is merely a nation with a large percentage of the population following Christianity. Also in regards to your post reply to P.I.P, it seems you implicitly admit that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were not in any real sense Christians as the term is understood today. You seem to be reduced now to only quoting John Adams mainly. You are wrong when you say "the text in read shows that when THEY mention God and religion, THEY are referring to the God of the Bible and Christianity." There is no "they". There is only John Adams. Thomas Jefferson did not believe in God of the Bible and Christianity. I think it is equally plausible to say that he believed in the god of nature. There is no evidence leading one to believe he trusted Jesus Christ as his lord and savior. I'm sorry but that is not enough to conclude the founding fathers were Christians.
However, you did say that the country was founded on "judeo-christian" principles. Please explain what you mean. I hope you don't mean the subjection of women, the owning of slaves, the rape of slaves, or the free killing of native americans, etc. Doesn't sound very christian to me.
-
Thank you for admitting that the United States is not a Christian Nation. It is merely a nation with a large percentage of the population following Christianity. Also in regards to your post reply to P.I.P, it seems you implicitly admit that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were not in any real sense Christians as the term is understood today. You seem to be reduced now to only quoting John Adams mainly. You are wrong when you say "the text in read shows that when THEY mention God and religion, THEY are referring to the God of the Bible and Christianity." There is no "they". There is only John Adams. Thomas Jefferson did not believe in God of the Bible and Christianity. I think it is equally plausible to say that he believed in the god of nature. There is no evidence leading one to believe he trusted Jesus Christ as his lord and savior. I'm sorry but that is not enough to conclude the founding fathers were Christians.
However, you did say that the country was founded on "judeo-christian" principles. Please explain what you mean. I hope you don't mean the subjection of women, the owning of slaves, the rape of slaves, or the free killing of native americans, etc. Doesn't sound very christian to me.
I never said that the United States is a Christian Nation. I actually said that it isn't. So I do not have to admit to anything. You cooked that up in your head.
Stop putting words in my mouth!
I have no idea whether or not the founding fathers trusted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Only God knows that. I am simply posting stuff they said and symbols of Christianity all over the US and US history.
I am not here to "win" an argument.
"Arguing on the Internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded."
I don't have to prove anything. I am simply answering Necrosis question. I am showing why so many people believe that the US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. It is very easy for any person, native or foreign to the US, to come to that conclusion.
Oh, and Thomas Jefferson loved the Gospels so much that he took the time to write his own version including only his favorite parts. ;)
-
John Jay, one of the framers of the Constitution, was appointed by George Washington in 1789 to be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (and later served two terms as governor of New York). He wrote, in a private letter(1797) to clergyman Jedidiah Morse:
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
It is to be regretted, but so I believe the fact to be, that except the Bible there is not a true history in the world. Whatever may be the virtue, discernment, and industry of the writers, I am persuaded that truth and error (though in different degrees) will imperceptibly become and remain mixed and blended until they shall be separated forever by the great and last refining fire."
-
Why are U.S. presidential and congressional elections on Tuesday?
"In 1845, and for many years after that, only the county seats had a polling places. For many voters, this meant at least an overnight trip on horseback or buggy. If the election were held on Monday, people would have to leave on Sunday, which in 1845, was reserved for church."
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=post;topic=387396.25;num_replies=44
-
Why are U.S. presidential and congressional elections on Tuesday?
"In 1845, and for many years after that, only the county seats had a polling places. For many voters, this meant at least an overnight trip on horseback or buggy. If the election were held on Monday, people would have to leave on Sunday, which in 1845, was reserved for church."
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=post;topic=387396.25;num_replies=44
this argument is non-sequitor. Say obama instilled muslim tradition today would that make the US a muslim nation founded on muslim principles? if something occured in 1845 it doesnt change the foundation, just the same as if something occured today.
-
US Supreme Court Building, Moses and The 10 Commandments
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=373821.0;attach=410847;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=373821.0;attach=410848;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=373821.0;attach=410849;image)
I have to wonder which set of 10 commandments Moses is shown to be holding there... The ones he smashed or the ones he got that replaced the smashed ones that were different and rarely mentioned by preachers.
-
US Supreme Court, Marsh v. Chambers
"In light of the history, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, a violation of the Establishment Clause; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0463_0783_ZS.html
And yet, even with the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer, politicians still seem to screw things up... weird huh?
-
I have to wonder which set of 10 commandments Moses is shown to be holding there... The ones he smashed or the ones he got that replaced the smashed ones that were different and rarely mentioned by preachers.
And your point is?
-
And your point is?
hmmmm.. that there are two seperate 10 commandments that moses was given by god and they were different. That probably 90% of christians don't know that little tidbit. And that the sculpture reminded me of that fact. So I thought out loud, which set is it?
-
hmmmm.. that there are two seperate 10 commandments that moses was given by god and they were different. That probably 90% of christians don't know that little tidbit. And that the sculpture reminded me of that fact. So I thought out loud, which set is it?
What does that have to do with the discussion in thread?
-
And yet, even with the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer, politicians still seem to screw things up... weird huh?
And your point is?
-
And your point is?
value of prayer in the government is questionable at best. Thought that was obvious..
-
this argument is non-sequitor. Say obama instilled muslim tradition today would that make the US a muslim nation founded on muslim principles? if something occured in 1845 it doesnt change the foundation, just the same as if something occured today.
You are missing the point, Necrosis! I am not arguing. I am giving you an abundance of reasons why so many people inside and outside the US believe that the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
In the example above, why would an atheist nation or government bother to set presidential and congressional elections on Tuesday just to avoid disrupting Sunday Church? Why not just make voters skip Sunday church once every four years?
-
What does that have to do with the discussion in thread?
Call me the thread color commentator if it helps.
-
value of prayer in the government is questionable at best. Thought that was obvious..
And?
-
US presidents and other federal officials swear on the Bible and say the words "so help me God."
-
You are missing the point, Necrosis! I am not arguing. I am giving you an abundance of reasons why so many people inside and outside the US believe that the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
In the example above, why would an atheist nation or government bother to set presidential and congressional elections on Tuesday just to avoid disrupting Sunday Church? Why not just make voters skip Sunday church once every four years?
didnt say the nation was atheistic either, im just saying that it was not founded on christian principles and that this was a key point. They specifically wanted no religion, as a protection of all religions and to avoid divisive policies wrt the nation.
im not missing your point i see the religious undertones, i get that the majority are christian im specifically speaking about whether America was founded on christian principles which is obvious it was not. They may have been christian, may have had religious underpinnings but they kept it seperate. They may also have been cannibals and pro-slave etc.. however, the agreed upon constitution and treaty do not bare this.
-
US presidents and other federal officials swear on the Bible and say the words "so help me God."
sure? i agree, what does that have to do with the foundation of the nation being built on christian principles?
What principles exactly are outlined?
i believe it is you who is missing the point, stop for a second and read what im saying.
one nation under god was added in 1954, again this has nothing to do with the principles of the nation and constitution. God is also somewhat ambiguous, allah? odin? wotan? which god, im sure you assume it to imply your god but it is not a logical conclusion.
-
didnt say the nation was atheistic either, im just saying that it was not founded on christian principles and that this was a key point. They specifically wanted no religion, as a protection of all religions and to avoid divisive policies wrt the nation.
im not missing your point i see the religious undertones, i get that the majority are christian im specifically speaking about whether America was founded on christian principles which is obvious it was not. They may have been christian, may have had religious underpinnings but they kept it seperate. They may also have been cannibals and pro-slave etc.. however, the agreed upon constitution and treaty do not bare this.
I seriously doubt that fundies and repubs, as you call them, want a theocracy, or believe that the founders wanted a theocracy.
-
I have to wonder which set of 10 commandments Moses is shown to be holding there... The ones he smashed or the ones he got that replaced the smashed ones that were different and rarely mentioned by preachers.
And which "different and rarely mentioned" commandments would these be?
-
US presidents and other federal officials swear on the Bible and say the words "so help me God."
your point?
(see how silly this game is?)
-
your point?
(see how silly this game is?)
Why would an atheist government have presidents and other federal officials swear on the Bible and say the words "so help me God"? This is yet another reason why so many people inside and outside the US believe that the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
Unlike you, I am staying on topic. Stop trolling!
-
And which "different and rarely mentioned" commandments would these be?
Ironically, found this post that you had quoted from me in another thread..
The first ten Commandments found in Ex 20
The Ten Commandments
1 And God spoke all these words:
2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before [a] me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Moses comes down with the two tablets, sees the golden calf, has a fit and smashes the two tablets.
He goes back up to get replacement tablets and here is what is written on them.
Exodus 34
17Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
18The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
19All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
21Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
22And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
23Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.
24For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
25Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
26The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
27And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
-
Ironically, found this post that you had quoted from me in another thread..
The first ten Commandments found in Ex 20
The Ten Commandments
1 And God spoke all these words:
2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before [a] me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Moses comes down with the two tablets, sees the golden calf, has a fit and smashes the two tablets.
He goes back up to get replacement tablets and here is what is written on them.
Exodus 34
17Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
18The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
19All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
21Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
22And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
23Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.
24For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
25Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
26The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
27And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
You forgot the very FIRST verse.
Now the LORD said to Moses, "Cut out for yourself two stone tablets like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered. ".
That would mean that those are the SAME commandments.
-
You forgot the very FIRST verse.
Now the LORD said to Moses, "Cut out for yourself two stone tablets like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered. ".
That would mean that those are the SAME commandments.
Except...that the writer of the manuscript didn't do that and outlined what went on the new tablets and they were different.
-
Why would an atheist government have presidents and other federal officials swear on the Bible and say the words "so help me God"? This is yet another reason why so many people inside and outside the US believe that the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
Unlike you, I am staying on topic. Stop trolling!
Secular government
not an atheist government. Loco you are really changing what you are trying to prove in this thread. First you tried to show the founding fathers were christians, and we disproved that. Then you tried showing that because john adams was a christian, therefore the founding fathers were Christians, then we disproved that. Then you backed off a little bit and said its impossible to know for sure whether or not they were Christians (I think we can make a pretty accurate guess). Then you said we were founded on christian principles, but you never tried to explain what christian principles that slave owning/raping, native american killing, sexist, violent, prideful men actually held near and dear to their hearts. Now you are only saying that "many" people believe we were founded on christian principles and are giving evidence to try to explain why MANY people believe we were (you stopped claiming that you yourself believed this to be true). Just because many people believe something to be true does not mean it is true.
Once again, if your point and only point is that some people that lived in the United States in the past 300 years were Christians, and some of those people were elected into public office, then why even bring it up? You're trying to prove something true for the large because it is true for the small. Can't do that. Take a minute to set back and reformulate what your point is in explicit detail.
-
Except...that the writer of the manuscript didn't do that and outlined what went on the new tablets and they were different.
Those verses appear to elaborate further on what the Commandments instructed Israel to do. Nonetheless, verse 1 starts with the declaration that the second set of tablets woudl have the words that were on the first set (or former) tablets.
That means there were no different set of Ten Commandments.
-
Those verses appear to elaborate further on what the Commandments instructed Israel to do. Nonetheless, verse 1 starts with the declaration that the second set of tablets woudl have the words that were on the first set (or former) tablets.
That means there were no different set of Ten Commandments.
Except that they were.... I don't know what else to say. Whether you read the chapters in excerpts as I presented, or in it's entirety, the result is the same. The second set of 10 Commandments were different than the first set.
-
Secular government
not an atheist government. Loco you are really changing what you are trying to prove in this thread. First you tried to show the founding fathers were christians, and we disproved that. Then you tried showing that because john adams was a christian, therefore the founding fathers were Christians, then we disproved that. Then you backed off a little bit and said its impossible to know for sure whether or not they were Christians (I think we can make a pretty accurate guess). Then you said we were founded on christian principles, but you never tried to explain what christian principles that slave owning/raping, native american killing, sexist, violent, prideful men actually held near and dear to their hearts. Now you are only saying that "many" people believe we were founded on christian principles and are giving evidence to try to explain why MANY people believe we were (you stopped claiming that you yourself believed this to be true). Just because many people believe something to be true does not mean it is true.
Once again, if your point and only point is that some people that lived in the United States in the past 300 years were Christians, and some of those people were elected into public office, then why even bring it up? You're trying to prove something true for the large because it is true for the small. Can't do that. Take a minute to set back and reformulate what your point is in explicit detail.
Wrong!
Mr. Magoo,
I already told you once, stop putting words in my mouth. How about whatever you say I have claimed you quote me on it to prove that I said it or claimed it?
-
Except that they were.... I don't know what else to say. Whether you read the chapters in excerpts as I presented, or in it's entirety, the result is the same. The second set of 10 Commandments were different than the first set.
They don't look different to me, just written in the Bible in a different order, not necessarily the order God wrote them on the stone tablets.
-
Wrong!
Mr. Magoo,
I already told you once, stop putting words in my mouth. How about whatever you say I have claimed you quote me on it to prove that I said it or claimed it?
I can't believe I spent 10 minutes doing this. But here.
These are your points:
In reply #2: You said “Founded on Judeo-Christian principles” as a fact.
Reply #2, 4, 8, 11: You only sought to show that America has/had Christians in it
In Reply #13, you discussed the treaty of Tripoli (Which you have noticed I have left out of my own discussion. My point can be made without referring to that document)
In Reply #15: You said the founders were Christian, and you told P.I.P to follow the link to see the evidence that they were Christians.
In Reply #22, you quoted Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to show that they were Christians
In Reply #23, you did the same for George Washington; #24, you did the same for Ben Franklin
In Reply #30 and #31, you talked about the buildings of courthouses and how Congress opens up with prayer
In #32, you cited a Supreme Court case
In #43 you changed your point from Reply #2 by saying “I am showing why so many people believe that the US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles
In #43, you changed your point from Reply #15 by saying “I have no idea whether or not the founding fathers trusted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior”
In #44, you cited John Jay’s claim to be a Christian
Once again in #54 you changed your point from #2 by saying “I am giving you an abundance of reasons why so many people inside and outside the US believe that the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.”
In Reply #63, you said “IF the U.S. Government is atheist, then why…”
This is how I have responded to those points:
First you said for certain the U.S. was founded on Christian principles. I asked you to explain this in detail, you still have not done this. I agreed with your point that there are Christians that live and have lived in the United States, that is a given. I disproved your next point that the founders were Christians, but I granted that John Adams was, and John Jay was. However, those are not enough. I disproved your point about Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Ben Franklin. Buildings of courthouses and Congress praying does not mean this country was founded on Christianity. If I said the only reason they pray is to appeal to Christian voters, that would be equally valid, but it would also disprove that this country was founded on Christian principles as opposed to politicians appealing to voters. I said the government is secular, not atheist. Also the Supreme Court has made decisions both supporting and refuting your argument, so appealing to them is not enough. You need to reformulate your point on what Christian principles exactly was the slave owning/raping, native American killing, sexist, violent, prideful founders of this country held near and dear to their heart.
-
I can't believe I spent 10 minutes doing this. But here.
Because you are obsessed with winning an argument on the Internet. ::)
You are still putting words in my mouth. You do know how to use the "Quote" link on each of my posts, don't you? Stop saying "you said" and quote me. Having a discussion with you is like having a discussion with an old person with dementia. Claiming I said "the US is a Christian nation", you went on a meltdown earlier in the thread when I actually said the opposite.
-
Because you are obsessed with winning an argument on the Internet. ::)
You are still putting words in my mouth. You do know how to use the "Quote" link on each of my posts, don't you? Stop saying "you said" and quote me. Having a discussion with you is like having a discussion with an old person with dementia. Claiming I said "the US is a Christian nation", you went on a meltdown earlier in the thread when I actually said the opposite.
I am not putting words in your mouth. Go back to the replies I referenced by number and examine what you said. That serves the same purpose as me quoting you and is much easier to read. You keep avoiding it. I have nothing else to say that wouldn't be restating what I've already said.
I am probably obsessed with winning this argument. That is because I have done my homework in this area and I have had this same argument many times before. I'm sorry loco, but as already shown in my last post, you have failed in this thread. If you want to come out on top, you need to restate your point in explicit detail. IF your point is only that some people that lived in the united states were christian, then that is a very different claim from saying the United States was founded on christian principles (as you claimed it in fact was in reply #2 but changed later on as evidenced by my last post). In my last post I brought up every point you made and showed how every one of those points has been answered.
I think it's demeaning to Christianity to claim sexist, violent, bigoted, murdering, raping, slave owning, etc men had christian principles in mind when founding this country.
your move stud.
-
I am not putting words in your mouth. Go back to the replies I referenced by number and examine what you said. That serves the same purpose as me quoting you and is much easier to read. You keep avoiding it. I have nothing else to say that wouldn't be restating what I've already said.
I am probably obsessed with winning this argument. That is because I have done my homework in this area and I have had this same argument many times before. I'm sorry loco, but as already shown in my last post, you have failed in this thread. If you want to come out on top, you need to restate your point in explicit detail. IF your point is only that some people that lived in the united states were christian, then that is a very different claim from saying the United States was founded on christian principles (as you claimed it in fact was in reply #2 but changed later on as evidenced by my last post). In my last post I brought up every point you made and showed how every one of those points has been answered.
I think it's demeaning to Christianity to claim sexist, violent, bigoted, murdering, raping, slave owning, etc men had christian principles in mind when founding this country.
your move stud.
Yes you are putting words in my mouth and you are not quoting me. It is not my fault that you are Internet Forum illiterate. It is actually easier to use the "Quote" feature because it includes a link that one can click and be redirected to the actual post one is quoting. Look:
"Arguing on the Internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded."
See how easy that is? ;)
I've already clearly stated my point and given an abundance of reasons for it. Go back and actually read what I've posted, and try your best not to forget what you read before you reply. ::)
-
Yes you are putting words in my mouth and you are not quoting me. It is not my fault that you are Internet Forum illiterate. It is actually easier to use the "Quote" feature because it includes a link that one can click and be redirected to the actual post one is quoting. Look:
See how easy that is? ;)
I've already clearly stated my point and given an abundance of reasons for it. Go back and actually read what I've posted, and try your best not to forget what you read before you reply. ::)
If that is your only reply, that I should actually quote Replies #2, #15, etc, in one post instead of saying "Reply #2" and "Reply #15" etc, then that is the end of this thread. You really have nothing else going for you. You do know those "In Reply..." all referred to just this one thread, right? It's not that hard to click back and see what you said in reply 2, 15, etc.
You have not clearly stated your point. You have had many different points (as I pointed out) and you even changed some of those points (as I pointed out). I'm not sure if you're just being a dick, or you dont understand my long reference post (Reply #72), or you really just don't have any further arguments. Except that "it's just the internet dude"
End of thread.
Let's recap: 1) The United States is not a Christian Nation 2) The United States was not founded on Christian principles 3) Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Ben Franklin were not christians. 4) John Adams and John Jay may have been Christians 5) There are a lot of christians living in the United States today 6) Some Christians were once on the supreme court. 7) Many people believe the United States was founded on Christian principles
-
If that is your only reply, that I should actually quote Replies #2, #15, etc, in one post instead of saying "Reply #2" and "Reply #15" etc, then that is the end of this thread. You really have nothing else going for you. You do know those "In Reply..." all referred to just this one thread, right? It's not that hard to click back and see what you said in reply 2, 15, etc.
You have not clearly stated your point. You have had many different points (as I pointed out) and you even changed some of those points (as I pointed out). I'm not sure if you're just being a dick, or you dont understand my long reference post (Reply #72), or you really just don't have any further arguments. Except that "it's just the internet dude"
End of thread.
Let's recap: 1) The United States is not a Christian Nation 2) The United States was not founded on Christian principles 3) Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Ben Franklin were not christians. 4) John Adams and John Jay may have been Christians 5) There are a lot of christians living in the United States today 6) Some Christians were once on the supreme court. 7) Many people believe the United States was founded on Christian principles
Man, you are either lazy or you lack reading comprehension. I did clearly state my point, and I have changed nothing. Quote me if you dare and stop putting words in my mouth. I thought the Mr. Magoo thing was just an Internet name, but maybe you are an old, blind man with dementia. And I am not "being a dick", but you are. I don't appreciate you posting over and over that I said the US is a Christian nation when I actually said the opposite from the beginning, and all the other stuff you claim that I did and said. Go back and actually read my posts. ::)
-
3) Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Ben Franklin were not christians.
Now that's very interesting!
Why Have Scholars Underplayed George Washington’s Faith?
Historian Peter A. Lillback, Ph.D., is president of The Providence Forum, president of Westminster Theological Seminary, and senior pastor at Proclamation Presbyterian Church in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. He is the author of the bestseller George Washington’s Sacred Fire (2006, Providence Forum Press).
Within this vast collection of Washington’s own words and writings, we now have a remarkable ability to uncover what earlier scholars were unable to access. And when we let Washington’s own words and deeds speak for his faith we get quite a different perspective than that of most recent modern historians. Washington referred to himself frequently using the words “ardent,” “fervent,” “pious,” and “devout.” There are over one hundred different prayers composed and written by Washington in his own hand, with his own words, in his writings. He described himself as one of the deepest men of faith of his day when he confessed to a clergyman, “No Man has a more perfect Reliance on the alwise, and powerful dispensations of the Supreme Being than I have nor thinks his aid more necessary.”
Rather than avoid the word “God,” on the very first national Thanksgiving under the U.S. Constitution, he said, “It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor.” Although he never once used the word “Deist” in his voluminous writings, he often mentioned religion, Christianity, and the Gospel. He spoke of Christ as “the divine Author of our blessed religion.” He encouraged missionaries who were seeking to “Christianize” the “aboriginals.” He took an oath in a private letter, “on my honor and the faith of a Christian.” He wrote of “the blessed religion revealed in the Word of God.” He encouraged seekers to learn “the religion of Jesus Christ.” He even said to his soldiers, “To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian.” Not bad for a “lukewarm” Episcopalian!
Historians ought no longer be permitted to do the legerdemain of turning Washington into a Deist even if they found it necessary and acceptable to do so in the past. Simply put, it is time to let the words and writings of Washington’s faith speak for themselves.
http://hnn.us/articles/34925.html
What we did prove, and quite conclusively, is that Washington cannot be called a Deist—at least, not in a sense that excludes his being Christian. Although he did most often address God in the proper names a Deist might use—such as "Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be" and "Disposer of all human events"—the actions that Washington expected God to perform, as expressed both in his official public prayers (whether as general or as president) and in his private prayers as recorded, are the sorts of actions only the God of the Bible performs: interposing his actions in human events, forgiving sins, enlightening minds, bringing good harvests, intervening on behalf of one party in a struggle between good and evil (in this case, between liberty and the deprivation of liberty), etc. Many persons at the end of the 18th century were both Christians and Deists. But it cannot be said, in the simpleminded sense in which historians have become accustomed to putting it, that Washington was merely a Deist, or even that the God to whom he prayed was expected to behave like a Deist God at all.
Michael Novak - Washington’s Sun God: Reviewing a review. National Review Online, March 14, 2006
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217044/washingtons-i-sun-i-god/michael-novak
-
Stop this already. I have already pointed you to a new book and a new york times article discussing the myth around George Washington's religion. That article you posted by a preacher, is wrong. (Needless to say, I never called Washington a deist, I said he is not a Christian as we understand the term today; of course you know that is completely compatible even if George Washington stood on top of a mountain and shouted "I am a Christian" 400 times a day. Of course, He never admitted to being a Christian, nor really discussed his faith).
Please read back over my posts in this thread, find the title of that book, and read it. Stop google searching to prove me wrong, politics and political philosophy is my area of interest Loco.
You are wrong. How many times do I have to say this or prove it before you'll stop this childish nonsense. I'm beginning to think you aren't being sincere and are just trying to get on my nerves.
This thread is already finished. The conclusions have already been stated.
-
Stop this already. I have already pointed you to a new book and a new york times article discussing the myth around George Washington's religion. That article you posted by a preacher, is wrong. (Needless to say, I never called Washington a deist, I said he is not a Christian as we understand the term today; of course you know that is completely compatible even if George Washington stood on top of a mountain and shouted "I am a Christian" 400 times a day. Of course, He never admitted to being a Christian, nor really discussed his faith).
Please read back over my posts in this thread, find the title of that book, and read it. Stop google searching to prove me wrong, politics and political philosophy is my area of interest Loco.
You are wrong. How many times do I have to say this or prove it before you'll stop this childish nonsense. I'm beginning to think you aren't being sincere and are just trying to get on my nerves.
This thread is already finished. The conclusions have already been stated.
QFT
-
I can't believe I spent 10 minutes doing this. But here.
These are your points:
In reply #2: You said “Founded on Judeo-Christian principles” as a fact.
Reply #2, 4, 8, 11: You only sought to show that America has/had Christians in it
In Reply #13, you discussed the treaty of Tripoli (Which you have noticed I have left out of my own discussion. My point can be made without referring to that document)
In Reply #15: You said the founders were Christian, and you told P.I.P to follow the link to see the evidence that they were Christians.
In Reply #22, you quoted Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to show that they were Christians
In Reply #23, you did the same for George Washington; #24, you did the same for Ben Franklin
In Reply #30 and #31, you talked about the buildings of courthouses and how Congress opens up with prayer
In #32, you cited a Supreme Court case
In #43 you changed your point from Reply #2 by saying “I am showing why so many people believe that the US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles
In #43, you changed your point from Reply #15 by saying “I have no idea whether or not the founding fathers trusted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior”
In #44, you cited John Jay’s claim to be a Christian
Once again in #54 you changed your point from #2 by saying “I am giving you an abundance of reasons why so many people inside and outside the US believe that the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.”
In Reply #63, you said “IF the U.S. Government is atheist, then why…”
This is how I have responded to those points:
First you said for certain the U.S. was founded on Christian principles. I asked you to explain this in detail, you still have not done this. I agreed with your point that there are Christians that live and have lived in the United States, that is a given. I disproved your next point that the founders were Christians, but I granted that John Adams was, and John Jay was. However, those are not enough. I disproved your point about Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Ben Franklin. Buildings of courthouses and Congress praying does not mean this country was founded on Christianity. If I said the only reason they pray is to appeal to Christian voters, that would be equally valid, but it would also disprove that this country was founded on Christian principles as opposed to politicians appealing to voters. I said the government is secular, not atheist. Also the Supreme Court has made decisions both supporting and refuting your argument, so appealing to them is not enough. You need to reformulate your point on what Christian principles exactly was the slave owning/raping, native American killing, sexist, violent, prideful founders of this country held near and dear to their heart.
checkmate?
-
Government/Worldly Religion.....Same thing.
Whats that one verse in the bible??
" Every sperm is sacred.................. .." ?
True. SPERM IS SACRED too GOVERNMENT/WORLDLY RELIGION. All about REPRODUCTION. MORE PEOPLE EQUALS MORE MONEY for the government-(worldly religion)
SPERM=$$$$$$$$$
Whats that other verse also...........
" Do not conform to the world but instead conform by the renewing of your mind..............?"
WORLDLY RELIGION is conformity. Its conformity to the world and its religious believes.
-
The modern motto of the United States of America, as established in a 1956 law signed by President Dwight D Eisenhower, is In God We Trust.
(http://dagblog.com/sites/default/files/igwt-house.jpg)
http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx
-
Whats that other verse also...........
" Do not conform to the world but instead conform by the renewing of your mind..............?"
WORLDLY RELIGION is conformity. Its conformity to the world and its religious believes.
;D
Romans 12:2
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.
Government/Worldly Religion.....Same thing.
Whats that one verse in the bible??
" Every sperm is sacred.................. .." ?
I don't remember ever reading that one ??? Can you please post the scripture?
-
The modern motto of the United States of America, as established in a 1956 law signed by President Dwight D Eisenhower, is In God We Trust.
(http://dagblog.com/sites/default/files/igwt-house.jpg)
http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx
God, not Jesus?
Does God belong to Christianity exclusively? I thought the title of the thread was Christian Nation, not Religious Nation? ???
-
I don't remember ever reading that one ??? Can you please post the scripture?
It's right after the one that says "Don't go swimming for an hour after you eat or you'll get cramps" ;D
-
3) Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Ben Franklin were not christians.
Now that's very interesting! If Benjamin Franklin was not a Christian, then what was he, a deist? I deist would not have said the following:
Benjamin Franklin
Letter to Messrs, the Abbes Chalut, and Arnaud, 17 April 1787:
Constitutional Convention, 1787:
In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor.… and have we not forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: “that God governs in the affairs of man.” And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? …
-
Loco, I'm done with this thread. You can keep google searching for little lines here and there taken out of context to try to unravel some mystery that supports your religious beliefs, but it's a waste of time. Whatever point you was trying to prove is wrong. It looks like you're google searching each person trying to find a hint here and a hint there. I've spent a lot of time on this subject and I have talked it over with several political theorists/historians/literature professors/political philosophers, etc. This is my field. No one I have talked to agrees with the point that I think you are trying to make. The only people I have seen try to depict the founding fathers as bible carrying, jesus believing, born again christians who we today should emulate are christians (or Fox news employees) without any background knowledge in the subject.
-
Loco, I'm done with this thread. You can keep google searching for little lines here and there taken out of context to try to unravel some mystery that supports your religious beliefs, but it's a waste of time. Whatever point you was trying to prove is wrong. It looks like you're google searching each person trying to find a hint here and a hint there. I've spent a lot of time on this subject and I have talked it over with several political theorists/historians/literature professors/political philosophers, etc. This is my field. No one I have talked to agrees with the point that I think you are trying to make. The only people I have seen try to depict the founding fathers as bible carrying, jesus believing, born again christians who we today should emulate are christians (or Fox news employees) without any background knowledge in the subject.
Mr. Magoo, you are just a name on the Internet. You may just as well tell us that you have Ph.D s in American History, in Philosophy, Politics, Religion and it wouldn't make a difference. You are not presenting evidence of anything, just telling me to go read a book. ::)
Happy Independence Day, commonly known as the Fourth of July! ;D
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Us_declaration_independence.jpg/505px-Us_declaration_independence.jpg)
-
In the Spirit of July 4th:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Self-evident, as in not from a Bible or a preacher. Evident by nature, not to be interpreted from a book.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Not really all men. Only white men who owned land, etc
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Men, not women.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Endowed by their creator. No mention of God of judeo-christian. No mention of Jesus. For example, Aristotle talked about a Creator but he did not believe in God nor Jesus.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Life is not an inalienable right. It has been taken away from many for a long time. At the time of the declaration, capital punishment/slavery/etc was widely used, so it was not even true in that time.
See how taking things out of context serves no purpose?. What is written down in a sentence on paper does not always reflect what is the objective reality. These were slave owning/raping, native american killing, sexist, prideful men who advocated a violent overthrow of government. If I showed you a group of people like that now, I highly doubt you would dare call them "Christian".
-
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Again, do those terms belong exclusively to Christianity?
-
In the Spirit of July 4th:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Self-evident, as in not from a Bible or a preacher. Evident by nature, not to be interpreted from a book.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Not really all men. Only white men who owned land, etc
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Men, not women.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Endowed by their creator. No mention of God of judeo-christian. No mention of Jesus. For example, Aristotle talked about a Creator but he did not believe in God nor Jesus.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Life is not an inalienable right. It has been taken away from many for a long time. At the time of the declaration, capital punishment/slavery/etc was widely used, so it was not even true in that time.
See how taking things out of context serves no purpose?. What is written down in a sentence on paper does not always reflect what is the objective reality. These were slave owning/raping, native american killing, sexist, prideful men who advocated a violent overthrow of government. If I showed you a group of people like that now, I highly doubt you would dare call them "Christian".
I thought you were done with this thread:
Loco, I'm done with this thread.
Obsessed much?
-
Again, do those terms belong exclusively to Christianity?
Yes, in this case!
Mottoes of the American Revolution:
"Don’t Tread on Me"
"Join or Die"
"Liberty or Death"
"NO KING BUT KING JESUS!"
-
Good article.
(CNN) -- As America celebrates its birthday on July 4, the timeless words of Thomas Jefferson will surely be invoked to remind us of our founding ideals -- that "All men are created equal" and are "endowed by their Creator" with the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These phrases, a cherished part of our history, have rightly been called "American Scripture."
But Jefferson penned another phrase, arguably his most famous after those from the Declaration of Independence. These far more contentious words -- "a wall of separation between church and state" -- lie at the heart of the ongoing debate between those who see America as a "Christian Nation" and those who see it as a secular republic, a debate that is hotter than a Washington Fourth of July.
It is true these words do not appear in any early national document. What may be Jefferson's second most-quoted phrase is found instead in a letter he sent to a Baptist association in Danbury, Connecticut.
While president in 1802, Jefferson wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State ... "
Tattoos and freedom
The framers ... understood the long history of sectarian bloodshed in Europe that brought many pilgrims to America.
--Kenneth C. Davis
RELATED TOPICS
* First Amendment Rights
* U.S. Constitution
* Thomas Jefferson
* Religious Freedom and Discrimination
* Christianity
The idea was not Jefferson's. Other 17th- and 18th-century Enlightenment writers had used a variant of it. Earlier still, religious dissident Roger Williams had written in a 1644 letter of a "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world."
Williams, who founded Rhode Island with a colonial charter that included religious freedom, knew intolerance firsthand. He and other religious dissenters, including Anne Hutchinson, had been banished from neighboring Massachusetts, the "shining city on a hill" where Catholics, Quakers and Baptists were banned under penalty of death.
As president, Jefferson was voicing an idea that was fundamental to his view of religion and government, expressed most significantly in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which he drafted in 1777.
Revised by James Madison and passed by Virginia's legislature in January 1786, the bill stated: "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened (sic) in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief ..."
It was this simple -- government could not dictate how to pray, or that you cannot pray, or that you must pray.
Jefferson regarded this law so highly that he had his authorship of the statute made part of his epitaph, along with writing the Declaration and founding the University of Virginia. (Being president wasn't worth a mention.)
Why do Jefferson's "other words" matter today?
First, because knowing history matters -- it can safeguard us from repeating our mistakes and help us value our rights, won at great cost. Yet we are sorely lacking in knowledge about our past, as shown by a recent National Assessment of Educational Progress.
But more to the point, we are witnessing an aggressively promoted version of our history and heritage in which America is called a "Christian Nation."
This "Sunday School" version of our past has gained currency among conservative television commentators, school boards that have rewritten state textbooks and several GOP presidential candidates, some of whom trekked to Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition conference in early June 2011.
No one can argue, as "Christian Nation" proponents correctly state, that the Founding Fathers were not Christian, although some notably doubted Christ's divinity.
More precisely, the founders were, with very few exceptions, mainstream Protestants. Many of them were Episcopalians, the American offshoot of the official Church of England. The status of America's Catholics, both legally and socially, in the colonies and early Republic, was clearly second-class. Other Christian sects, including Baptists, Quakers and Mormons, faced official resistance, discrimination and worse for decades.
But the founders, and more specifically the framers of the Constitution, included men who had fought a war for independence -- the very war celebrated on the "Glorious Fourth" -- against a country in which church and state were essentially one.
They understood the long history of sectarian bloodshed in Europe that brought many pilgrims to America. They knew the dangers of merging government, which was designed to protect individual rights, with religion, which as Jefferson argued, was a matter of individual conscience.
And that is why the U.S. Constitution reads as it does.
The supreme law of the land, written in the summer of 1787, includes no references to religion -- including in the presidential oath of office -- until the conclusion of Article VI, after all that dull stuff about debts and treaties: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (There is a pro forma "Year of the Lord" reference in the date at the Constitution's conclusion.)
Original intent? "No religious Test" seems pretty clear cut.
The primacy of a secular state was solidified when the First Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. According to Purdue history professor Frank Lambert, that "introduced the radical notion that the state had no voice concerning matters of conscience."
Beyond that, the first House of Representatives, while debating the First Amendment, specifically rejected a Senate proposal calling for the establishment of Christianity as an official religion. As Lambert concludes, "There would be no Church of the United States. Nor would America represent itself as a Christian Republic."
The actions of the first presidents, founders of the first rank, confirmed this "original intent:"
-- In 1790, President George Washington wrote to America's first synagogue, in Rhode Island, that "all possess alike liberty of conscience" and that "toleration" was an "inherent national gift," not the government's to dole out or take away
-- In 1797, with President John Adams in office, the Senate unanimously approved one of America's earliest foreign treaties, which emphatically stated (Article 11): "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, -- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims) ..."
-- In 1802, Jefferson added his famous "wall of separation," implicit in the Constitution until he so described it (and cited in several Supreme Court decisions since).
These are, to borrow an admittedly loaded phrase, "inconvenient truths" to those who proclaim that America is a "Christian Nation."
The Constitution and the views of these Founding Fathers trump all arguments about references to God in presidential speeches (permitted under the First Amendment), on money (not introduced until the Civil War), the Pledge of Allegiance ("under God" added in 1954) and in the national motto "In God We Trust" (adopted by law in 1956).
And those contentious monuments to the Ten Commandments found around the country and occasionally challenged in court? Many of them were installed as a publicity stunt for Cecile B. DeMille's 1956 Hollywood spectacle, "The Ten Commandments."
So who are you going to believe? Thomas Jefferson or Hollywood? On second thought: Don't answer.
-
I see El Profeta (aka loco) is laying the smack down again. :) http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=242510.0
-
At 8:30 PM (Eastern time), on CSPAN 2 there is a book tv talk featuring John Fea, John Ragosta (law professor at UVA), and Barbara Clark Smith. The topic is "The Founding Fathers and Religion". I watched 45 minutes of it earlier today.
http://www.amazon.com/Was-America-Founded-Christian-Nation/dp/0664235042/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309796480&sr=8-1
John Fea is a historian. A direct quote from him in the talk is "Make no mistake, the founding fathers were not Christian". He also says they were not deists. He and Ragosta also make the point that the "in the year of our lord" from the Constitution was added by a clerk after all the delegates had left the building.
http://www.amazon.com/Wellspring-Liberty-Virginias-Dissenters-Revolution/dp/0195388062/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309796656&sr=1-1
John Ragosta is a professor of law at UVA. He talks about how Thomas Jefferson convinced many states (Such as Vermont) to adopt the separation of church and state like Virginia. He also talks about how baptists were persecuted before the war and after the war did not want government protection for being solely a baptist. One person he quotes says that he is a baptist because he believed in God, and if he expects any favoritism via government for being a baptist, then that is idolatry. He also talks about how they advocated freedom of religion for all religions, including hindus, etc.
http://www.amazon.com/Freedoms-We-Lost-Resistance-Revolutionary/dp/1595581804/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309796870&sr=1-1
Barbara Clark Smith didn't talk much during what I watched. I missed her intro because she was the first to speak. So I can't really sum up any of her points.
-
At 8:30 PM (Eastern time), on CSPAN 2 there is a book tv talk featuring John Fea, John Ragosta (law professor at UVA), and Barbara Clark Smith. The topic is "The Founding Fathers and Religion". I watched 45 minutes of it earlier today.
http://www.amazon.com/Was-America-Founded-Christian-Nation/dp/0664235042/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309796480&sr=8-1
John Fea is a historian. A direct quote from him in the talk is "Make no mistake, the founding fathers were not Christian". He also says they were not deists. He and Ragosta also make the point that the "in the year of our lord" from the Constitution was added by a clerk after all the delegates had left the building.
http://www.amazon.com/Wellspring-Liberty-Virginias-Dissenters-Revolution/dp/0195388062/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309796656&sr=1-1
John Ragosta is a professor of law at UVA. He talks about how Thomas Jefferson convinced many states (Such as Vermont) to adopt the separation of church and state like Virginia. He also talks about how baptists were persecuted before the war and after the war did not want government protection for being solely a baptist. One person he quotes says that he is a baptist because he believed in God, and if he expects any favoritism via government for being a baptist, then that is idolatry. He also talks about how they advocated freedom of religion for all religions, including hindus, etc.
http://www.amazon.com/Freedoms-We-Lost-Resistance-Revolutionary/dp/1595581804/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309796870&sr=1-1
Barbara Clark Smith didn't talk much during what I watched. I missed her intro because she was the first to speak. So I can't really sum up any of her points.
I thought you were done with this thread:
Loco, I'm done with this thread.
Obsessed much?
-
many of the founding fathers were deists
John Adams and John Jay may have been Christians
"Make no mistake, the founding fathers were not Christian". He also says they were not deists.
???
-
I see El Profeta (aka loco) is laying the smack down again. :) http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=242510.0
you have a skewed via of reality.
-
;D
Romans 12:2
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.
I don't remember ever reading that one ??? Can you please post the scripture?
Honestly......Im not quite sure if thats a verse/scripture from the bible or from some Christian song. But like i said........SPERM=$$$$$$$$.......Reproduction.......More people more money. " Every sperm is sacred". Ya, thats government talk right there. Sperm=$$$$$$ WE ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A SS # and MONEY too the goverment. Man, im glad i have schizotypal personality.
-
many of the founding fathers were deists
John Adams and John Jay may have been Christians
"Make no mistake, the founding fathers were not Christian". He also says they were not deists.
???
-
???
many of the founding fathers may have been deists. However, mr magoo may know more about the subject then me. Not sure where his phrases were taken from, but are they in context? what does the rest of the sentence say, i hope its not cherry picked.
-
???
In regards to 1st quote: Necrosis's statement is what most knowledgeable people automatically agree on.
In regards to 2nd quote: I said that John Adams and John Jay may have been christians, just going by what I know. But others of course know more. I personally have more evidence for the others I mentioned than I do for Adams and Jay.
In regards to 3rd quote: The last quote is what the guy in the Book TV talk on CSPAN 2 said. Did you bother to watch it? His comment about them not being deists went against the common thought of the crowd. He said it without any evidence and then said he would return to that statement during the Q&A, but I didn't see him return to it during the Q&A. He may have but I missed it. But he did make it a point to say they were not christians.
-
In regards to 1st quote: Necrosis's statement is what most knowledgeable people automatically agree on.
In regards to 2nd quote: I said that John Adams and John Jay may have been christians, just going by what I know. But others of course know more. I personally have more evidence for the others I mentioned than I do for Adams and Jay.
In regards to 3rd quote: The last quote is what the guy in the Book TV talk on CSPAN 2 said. Did you bother to watch it? His comment about them not being deists went against the common thought of the crowd. He said it without any evidence and then said he would return to that statement during the Q&A, but I didn't see him return to it during the Q&A. He may have but I missed it. But he did make it a point to say they were not christians.
Necrosis said that many of founding fathers were deist.
Mr. Magoo said that two of founding fathers may have been Christians.
Then Mr. Magoo quotes a historian who said that the founding fathers were neither Christians nor Deists.
Either Necrosis and Mr. Magoo are wrong, or the historian is wrong. They can't both be right.
-
Necrosis said that many of founding fathers were deist.
Mr. Magoo said that two of founding fathers may have been Christians.
Then Mr. Magoo quotes a historian who said that the founding fathers were neither Christians nor Deists.
Either Necrosis and Mr. Magoo are wrong, or the historian is wrong. They can't both be right.
Perhaps it's not a matter of wrong or right, but that the subject itself is not clear cut and there are many opinions on it.
-
Perhaps it's not a matter of wrong or right, but that the subject itself is not clear cut and there are many opinions on it.
Then "fundies and repubs" are not wrong when they say that the founding fathers were Christians.
-
Then I'm not wrong when I say that the founding fathers were Christians.
LOL! Yeah, you are... the sentence is a broad brush and states all were christians when the evidence is clear not all were. Now to what extent some where Christian or Deists, or Theists, well that is arguable.
-
LOL! Yeah, you are... the sentence is a broad brush and states all were christians when the evidence is clear not all were. Now to what extent some where Christian or Deists, or Theists, well that is arguable.
Then the historian that Mr. Magoo quoted is wrong for saying:
"Make no mistake, the founding fathers were not Christian". He also says they were not deists."
-
Necrosis said that many of founding fathers were deist.
Mr. Magoo said that two of founding fathers may have been Christians.
Then Mr. Magoo quotes a historian who said that the founding fathers were neither Christians nor Deists.
Either Necrosis and Mr. Magoo are wrong, or the historian is wrong. They can't both be right.
let's see if I can explain this where you will understand it. I granted you Adams and Jay for the sake of argument because I personally did not have enough evidence to disprove those two. In terms of religion, I know the least about Adams and Jay. That's why I said they may have been Christians. That means that Either A) They were Christian B) They were not Christians or C) One was christian while the other was not. That is completely compatible if it turns out that Adams and Jay were not Christians. Therefore, my statement and the historian's statement are compatible.
The only incompatible statements are Necrosis and the historian in saying the founding fathers were deists. I already said that when the guy on Book TV made that statement, he was obviously expecting a backlash for making a claim like that. That is why he said he would address it in the Q&A. However, he did not give any evidence in what I watched. So I cannot back up his claim, I can only quote him. So I personally do not know who was a deist and who was not. If you want to decide the question who was a deist and who was not, then I suggest reading the historian's book and examining his evidence. I hope you're not making the obvious mistake of saying "if they were not deist, then they were Christians."
However, you are overlooking one statement that is not in dispute. And that is neither the historian, the UVA law professor, Necrosis, Alan Dershowitz, any professor I have talked this over with, or me, along with many many others who I have referenced in this thread, accept the claim that "the founding fathers were christian". Your point that "the founding fathers were christian" is not supported without cherry picking sentences out of context and ignoring the whole picture.
-
let's see if I can explain this where you will understand it. I granted you Adams and Jay for the sake of argument because I personally did not have enough evidence to disprove those two. In terms of religion, I know the least about Adams and Jay. That's why I said they may have been Christians. That means that Either A) They were Christian B) They were not Christians or C) One was christian while the other was not. That is completely compatible if it turns out that Adams and Jay were not Christians. Therefore, my statement and the historian's statement are compatible.
False!
Now you are changing your story because you have quoted a historian who contradicts both you and Necrosis.
I thought you were done with this thread.
-
If the question is; Were all the founding fathers Christian?
The answer is no.
-
If the question is; Were all the founding fathers Christian?
The answer is no.
That is not the question.
-
False!
Now you are changing your story because you have quoted a historian who contradicts both you and Necrosis.
I thought you were done with this thread.
What part is false? ???
Do I really have to explain the usage of the phrase "may have been"?
-
What part is false? ???
Do I really have to explain the usage of the phrase "may have been"?
You are really going to tell us now that you know that none of the founding fathers were Christian, and why? Because this historian you posted about said so? With no explanation and no evidence presented? Yeah, right! ::)
I thought you were done with this thread.
-
You are really going to tell us now that you know that none of the founding fathers were Christian, and why? Because this historian you posted about said so? With no explanation and no evidence presented? Yeah, right! ::)
I thought you were done with this thread.
So I guess you aren't going to point out what part I was inconsistent.
You're trying to steer this discussion in a different direction. I am not going to tell you now that I know that none of the founding fathers were christian. I said Adams and Jay may have been (which Loco, means they may have not been too). I don't know about Adams and Jay. I said none of the evidence of the lives of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, or George Washington point to a certain conclusion that they were Christian. The evidence of their lives and actions points to the conclusion that they were not christian.
I have given you....6 books I think in this thread, a youtube lecture, and a program on CSPAN featuring 3 authors who discuss this very topic, among these include a Harvard law professor, one is a UVA law professor, another professor at UVA, and one is a historian. None of these take up your position that "the founding fathers were christian." They take up the point that the founding fathers were not christian.
On the other hand, you have given a few cherry picked quotes out of letters that mention "creator" "prayer", etc with not one mention of Jesus, and you pasted an article written by a preacher. And you are going to claim that the statement "The founding fathers were Christian" is equally valid as "the founding fathers were not christian". That, my friend, is nothing short of comical.
-
So I guess you aren't going to point out what part I was inconsistent.
You're trying to steer this discussion in a different direction. I am not going to tell you now that I know that none of the founding fathers were christian. I said Adams and Jay may have been (which Loco, means they may have not been too). I don't know about Adams and Jay. I said none of the evidence of the lives of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, or George Washington point to a certain conclusion that they were Christian. The evidence of their lives and actions points to the conclusion that they were not christian.
I have given you....6 books I think in this thread, a youtube lecture, and a program on CSPAN featuring 3 authors who discuss this very topic, among these include a Harvard law professor, one is a UVA law professor, another professor at UVA, and one is a historian. None of these take up your position that "the founding fathers were christian." They take up the point that the founding fathers were not christian.
On the other hand, you have given a few cherry picked quotes out of letters that mention "creator" "prayer", etc with not one mention of Jesus, and you pasted an article written by a preacher. And you are going to claim that the statement "The founding fathers were Christian" is equally valid as "the founding fathers were not christian". That, my friend, is nothing short of comical.
Is this, which you posted, true or false?
"Make no mistake, the founding fathers were not Christian". He also says they were not deists."
-
Is this, which you posted, true or false?
"Make no mistake, the founding fathers were not Christian". He also says they were not deists."
Those sentences are both quotes by the historian from Book TV. I can't say for certain which is true or false, I can only say which way the evidence points.
The evidence points to the conclusion that the First sentence is true. I don't know about the evidence regarding the Second sentence. I suggest you read his book if you want to understand his point and evidence in saying the founding fathers were not deists.
Help any?
-
Those sentences are both quotes by the historian from Book TV. I can't say for certain which is true or false, I can only say which way the evidence points.
The evidence points to the conclusion that the First sentence is true. I don't know about the evidence regarding the Second sentence. I suggest you read his book if you want to understand his point and evidence in saying the founding fathers were not deists.
Help any?
So you agree with this historian that none of the founding fathers were Christian. You said that he presented no evidence to back up his claim.
-
So you agree with this historian that none of the founding fathers were Christian. You said that he presented no evidence to back up his claim.
I think you're trying to get me twisted, but I'll play along. If, by agreeing, you mean that I 100% know it's true that the founding fathers were not christian, then no. If, by agreeing, you mean that I think the evidence presented points to a very strong probability of the conclusion being drawn that the founding fathers were not christian, then yes.
I said the historian presented no evidence for the statement that the founding fathers were not deists. In regard to "Were the founding fathers deists or not?" I again suggest you read his book and examine his evidence presented in his book. I personally have no evidence to back up or refute the claim "the founding fathers were not deists." Therefore I will withold judgement.
-
I think you're trying to get me twisted, but I'll play along. If, by agreeing, you mean that I 100% know it's true that the founding fathers were not christian, then no. If, by agreeing, you mean that I think the evidence presented points to a very strong probability of the conclusion being drawn that the founding fathers were not christian, then yes.
I said the historian presented no evidence for the statement that the founding fathers were not deists. In regard to "Were the founding fathers deists or not?" I again suggest you read his book and examine his evidence presented in his book. I personally have no evidence to back up or refute the claim "the founding fathers were not deists." Therefore I will withold judgement.
Where is this evidence that none of the founding fathers were Christian?
-
you have given a few cherry picked quotes out of letters that mention "creator" "prayer", etc with not one mention of Jesus, and you pasted an article written by a preacher.
;D
-
you have given a few cherry picked quotes out of letters that mention "creator" "prayer", etc with not one mention of Jesus, and you pasted an article written by a preacher.
;D
Is that so? ;)
George Washington
General Orders, (July 9, 1776) George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 3g Varick Transcripts
"The Hon. Continental Congress having been pleased to allow a Chaplain to each Regiment, with the pay of Thirty-three Dollars and one third pr month -- The Colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure Chaplains accordingly; persons of good Characters and exemplary lives -- To see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises. The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger -- The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."
General Orders (May 2, 1778); published in Writings of George Washington (1932), Vol.XI, pp. 342-343
"The Commander in Chief directs that divine Service be performed every Sunday at 11 oClock in those Brigades to which there are Chaplains; those which have none to attend the places of worship nearest to them. It is expected that Officers of all Ranks will by their attendence set an Example to their men. While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion. To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian. The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labours with complete Success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude and Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good."
Speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs (May 12, 1779); published in The Writings of George Washington (1932), Vol.XV, p. 55
"My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it."
John Adams
Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1812
"The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion."
Diary, 26 July 1796:
"The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity."
Thomas Jefferson
April 21, 1803 letter to Doctor Benjamin Rush
"To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence"
Note: Thomas Jefferson loved Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospels so much that he took the time and effort to write a compilation of his favorite parts of the Gospels, which was published after his death and came to be known as The Jefferson Bible.
Benjamin Franklin
1790 letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale University
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see"
John Jay
1797 letter to clergyman Jedidiah Morse
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
"It is to be regretted, but so I believe the fact to be, that except the Bible there is not a true history in the world. Whatever may be the virtue, discernment, and industry of the writers, I am persuaded that truth and error (though in different degrees) will imperceptibly become and remain mixed and blended until they shall be separated forever by the great and last refining fire."
-
Doh! :)
-
you have a skewed via of reality.
Nah. Just reading an entertaining thread. El Profeta knows his stuff. :)
-
why do i hear fundies and repubs continue to say that america was founded on christianity, that this is a christian nation? do they not know the constitution or are they willingly lying and ignorant?
I think what folks should say is that the structure of government is founded on christian scripture. The judicial, legislative and executive branches follow the same outline of that found in scripture:
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us." Isaiah 33:22
-
I think what folks should say is that the structure of government is founded on christian scripture. The judicial, legislative and executive branches follow the same outline of that found in scripture:
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us." Isaiah 33:22
Great post, Man of Steel!
The Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches of the US government right there in a single verse of the Bible. Not like we didn't already know the founding fathers read the Bible. ;D
-
I think what folks should say is that the structure of government is founded on christian scripture. The judicial, legislative and executive branches follow the same outline of that found in scripture:
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us." Isaiah 33:22
So there werent any lawgivers or judges or kings at the time that was written in the bible? ???
There is also a bit of difference between "king" and "executive branch". At least enough difference to acknowledge when making a comparison like that. Also in that verse the Lord is in charge of all 3, that is not the same in our government. We counteract ambition with ambition, etc. The different functions of government have appeared in numerous texts all throughout history.
-
So there werent any lawgivers or judges or kings at the time that was written in the bible? ???
There is also a bit of difference between "king" and "executive branch". At least enough difference to acknowledge when making a comparison like that. Also in that verse the Lord is in charge of all 3, that is not the same in our government. We counteract ambition with ambition, etc. The different functions of government have appeared in numerous texts all throughout history.
Yes, there were judges and kings at the time the bible was written.
Yes, there is a difference between a king and an executive branch, and both represent leadership.
Yes, the Lord is in charge of all 3 and everything else. Since man can't be God we strive to follow the plan God laid out as best we're able in accordance with God's will.
Yes, the different functions of government have appeared in numerous texts all throughout history. The US is simply rooted in Christianity and the scriptural structure outlined therein.
-
Yes, there were judges and kings at the time the bible was written.
Yes, there is a difference between a king and an executive branch, and both represent leadership.
Yes, the Lord is in charge of all 3 and everything else. Since man can't be God we strive to follow the plan God laid out as best we're able according to God's will.
Yes, the different functions of government have appeared in numerous texts all throughout history. The US is simply rooted in Christianity and the scriptural structure outlined therein.
whoa whoa whoa. You were doing good up to that last point. Let us examine the country then. Blacks could be owned and beaten/raped at free will. Native Americans could be killed and raped at free will. Women had no rights. The founders violently overthrew the government. So in what way was the US simply rooted in Christianity?
By the way, it's an inside joke among political theorists when discussing Tocqueville, his section that says how great equality was in America when he wrote Democracy in America. Christianity prides itself on equality correct? (we are all sinners, we all need Jesus. The first shall be last, the last shall be first. It's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than rich man to get into heaven, etc etc). The US is rooted deeply in inequality.
-
I think you're trying to get me twisted, but I'll play along. If, by agreeing, you mean that I 100% know it's true that the founding fathers were not christian, then no. If, by agreeing, you mean that I think the evidence presented points to a very strong probability of the conclusion being drawn that the founding fathers were not christian, then yes.
I said the historian presented no evidence for the statement that the founding fathers were not deists. In regard to "Were the founding fathers deists or not?" I again suggest you read his book and examine his evidence presented in his book. I personally have no evidence to back up or refute the claim "the founding fathers were not deists." Therefore I will withold judgement.
Where is this evidence that none of the founding fathers were Christian?
-
Where is this evidence that none of the founding fathers were Christian?
You bold the word "none". So i'm going to focus on that word. You did not ask "where is the evidence that most/some/any/etc of the founding fathers were not christian".
The historian in the Book TV talk said "make no mistake, the founding fathers were not christian". I'm going to assume that he talks more about it in his book, which one again, if you want evidence to back up the author's point he made in a discussion about his book...I suggest you read his book.
Since you focused on the word "none", I feel like you are about to do the traditional fallacy of appealing to ignorance. Of course you know this is when someone says "Since you cannot prove for certain "Not-X" then it is equally valid for me to say "X". The "X" in this case = the founding fathers were christian. I feel that you are about to say "since you cannot prove for certain that the founding fathers were not christian, then my point equally stands that they were christian." This of course is wrong. Place any statement you want to in place of "X" in the above scenario and see that it doesn't work. For example, make X= Ben Franklin was an alien. It is impossible to prove that Ben Franklin was not an alien. This does not mean that ben franklin was an alien. The evidence points to a certain conclusion on both instances. The evidence points to a conclusion that the founding fathers (I don't personally know about Adams or Jay) were not christian. This evidence has been presented in this thread via 7 books authored by people such as Harvard Law professor, UVA law professor, another professor from UVA, a historian, etc.
Anything else?
-
The historian in the Book TV talk said "make no mistake, the founding fathers were not christian". I'm going to assume that he talks more about it in his book, which one again, if you want evidence to back up the author's point he made in a discussion about his book...I suggest you read his book.
So you are going to "assume" that this author, who contradicts both you an Necrosis, presents evidence of his claim in his book that none of the founding fathers were Christian, a book which you have not read, and you are telling me to go read it if I want evidence? Nice! ::)
-
many of the founding fathers were deists
John Adams and John Jay may have been Christians
"Make no mistake, the founding fathers were not Christian". He also says they were not deists.
many of the founding fathers may have been deists. However, mr magoo may know more about the subject then me.
I granted you Adams and Jay for the sake of argument because I personally did not have enough evidence to disprove those two. In terms of religion, I know the least about Adams and Jay.
No offense to Mr. Magoo and Necrosis, but it is evident that you two don't know what you are talking about here, and you are making claims with no evidence to back them up, simply repeating another person's ignorant claims without looking into it first!
-
Alexis de Tocqueville (29 July 1805, Paris – 16 April 1859, Cannes) was a French political thinker and historian best known for his Democracy in America (appearing in two volumes: 1835 and 1840) and The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856). In both of these works, he explored the effects of the rising equality of social conditions on the individual and the state in western societies. Democracy in America (1835), his major work, published after his travels in the United States, is today considered an early work of sociology and political science.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), pp. 331, 332, 335, 336-7, 337, respectively.
"Moreover, almost all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same. In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.
There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and their debasement, while in America one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world fulfills all the outward duties of religion with fervor.
Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country."
-
So you are going to "assume" that this author, who contradicts both you an Necrosis, presents evidence of his claim in his book that none of the founding fathers were Christian, a book which you have not read, and you are telling me to go read it if I want evidence? Nice! ::)
Put your big boy thinking cap on. I'm going to assume that an author who made a point when discussing his book, provides more evidence for that point in his book. That is not a far fetch assumption Loco. Also, the author never did contradict me. He only contradicted Necrosis point about the founding father being deists. I said Adams and Jay may have been Christian. This loco, as any grown man knows, is interchangeable with "could have been". That means my point was that they could have been, could not have been, or 1 could have been while the other was not. I simply do not have enough info to back up either one. If you want to read evidence for the author's 2 claims of 1) None of the founding fathers were christian and 2) The founding fathers were not deists. Go read his book. Also, as I already stated, I only watched 45 minutes of the Book TV talk. He may have provided more evidence for those two claims within those talks. So if you want the evidence from the author to back up the author's points, either A) Watch the Book TV talk or B) Read his book which I provided the link for. How is this hard to understand? ???
-
No offense to Mr. Magoo and Necrosis, but it is evident that you two don't know what you are talking about here, and you are making claims with no evidence to back them up, simply repeating another person's ignorant claims without looking into it first!
I've already addressed this "issue", which isn't even a real issue. I think you think the "make no mistake, the founding fathers were not christian" is my quote. It is not. It is the author's quote. Keeping that in mind, look back over the sentences. You're a big boy, the phrase "may have been" is the same as "could have been". This does not mean for certain they were or were not. Keeping that in mind look back over the sentences. The only two sentences that are not compatible are Necrosis "the founding fathers were deists" and the Book TV's speaker "the founding fathers were not deists." Those are the only two sentences that contradict one another. I, personally, can't say whether Necrosis or the Author is right. I have heard more scholars agree with Necrosis, and in what I watched of the Book TV presentation, the historian did not back up the claim "the founding fathers were not deists." Therefore I cannot say for certain which one is right. Again, the only incompatible sentences are "the founding fathers were deist" and "the founding fathers were not deists."
And you think we have not looked into this subject? I have provided far more evidence by more qualified sources than you have. 7 books, 3 academic professors, one historian, a youtube lecture, a cspan discussion, etc.
-
Alexis de Tocqueville (29 July 1805, Paris – 16 April 1859, Cannes) was a French political thinker and historian best known for his Democracy in America (appearing in two volumes: 1835 and 1840) and The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856). In both of these works, he explored the effects of the rising equality of social conditions on the individual and the state in western societies. Democracy in America (1835), his major work, published after his travels in the United States, is today considered an early work of sociology and political science.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), pp. 331, 332, 335, 336-7, 337, respectively.
"Moreover, almost all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same. In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.
There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and their debasement, while in America one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world fulfills all the outward duties of religion with fervor.
Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country."
I know who Tocqueville is. I have that book and have read it and took a seminar with a Tocqueville scholar who has written several books on Tocqueville. I've already mentioned before that his batting average is not perfect. He thought there was astounding equality in America in the 1830s. This is obviously false. He thought that women had equal rights (Separate spheres), and I doubt anyone would agree with this. Even IF (and this is a big IF) we agree with him in regards to religion, that only means that in 1830s America, there were a lot of Christians in the areas he visited. This does not mean either 1) The founding fathers were without a doubt Christian or 2) The country's founding was based on scripture.
-
I've already addressed this "issue", which isn't even a real issue. I think you think the "make no mistake, the founding fathers were not christian" is my quote. It is not. It is the author's quote. Keeping that in mind, look back over the sentences. You're a big boy, the phrase "may have been" is the same as "could have been". This does not mean for certain they were or were not. Keeping that in mind look back over the sentences. The only two sentences that are not compatible are Necrosis "the founding fathers were deists" and the Book TV's speaker "the founding fathers were not deists." Those are the only two sentences that contradict one another. I, personally, can't say whether Necrosis or the Author is right. I have heard more scholars agree with Necrosis, and in what I watched of the Book TV presentation, the historian did not back up the claim "the founding fathers were not deists." Therefore I cannot say for certain which one is right. Again, the only incompatible sentences are "the founding fathers were deist" and "the founding fathers were not deists."
And you think we have not looked into this subject? I have provided far more evidence by more qualified sources than you have. 7 books, 3 academic professors, one historian, a youtube lecture, a cspan discussion, etc.
I thought you were done with this thread:
Loco, I'm done with this thread.
Obsessed much?
LOL...you've provided zero evidence for your claims.
-
I thought you were done with this thread:
Obsessed much?
LOL...you've provided zero evidence for your claims.
Throughout this thread I have pointed towards 7 books, a harvard law professor, a UVA law professor, a history professor at UVA, another Historian. I have posted a youtube lecture which discusses this. I have given you a heads up on a CSPAN talk which discusses this. I have pointed to the works and life of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin which sheds light on this discussion. I have picked apart the declaration and the constitution. I have referenced a seminar I took with a Tocqueville scholar. Necrosis posted a CNN article. I have taken more classes with political theorists who graduated from MIT and Oxford along with other fine schools who have talked about this, which I of course can't "prove", in the same sense of the others so I have left out citing them.
You have provided a few cherry picked lines out of letters that don't even prove your point. You have pasted an article by a preacher. You have jumped off the path and pointed to several non-founding events to try to prove your point. You have made logical errors (appeal to ignorance). You don't know the difference between "may have been" and "were". And you keep repeating "I thought you was done with this thread, obsessed much?" because I don't think you have anything else.
and I have provided zero-evidence? Haha.
-
Throughout this thread I have pointed towards 7 books, a harvard law professor, a UVA law professor, a history professor at UVA, another Historian. I have posted a youtube lecture which discusses this. I have given you a heads up on a CSPAN talk which discusses this. I have pointed to the works and life of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin which sheds light on this discussion. I have picked apart the declaration and the constitution. I have referenced a seminar I took with a Tocqueville scholar. Necrosis posted a CNN article. I have taken more classes with political theorists who graduated from MIT and Oxford along with other fine schools who have talked about this, which I of course can't "prove", in the same sense of the others so I have left out citing them.
You have provided a few cherry picked lines out of letters that don't even prove your point. You have pasted an article by a preacher. You have jumped off the path and pointed to several non-founding events to try to prove your point. You have made logical errors (appeal to ignorance). And you keep repeating "I thought you was done with this thread, obsessed much?" because I don't think you have anything else.
and I have provided zero-evidence? Haha.
So are you done with this thread or not? I guess your word means nothing, does it?
Telling me to go read a book, which you yourself have not even read, is not providing evidence of anything. All you have done is quote a historian who contradicts both you and Necrosis.
-
So are you done with this thread or not? I guess your word means nothing, does it?
Telling me to go read a book, which you yourself haven't' even read, is not providing evidence of anything. All you have done is quote a historian who contradicts both you and Necrosis.
Your first line is pointless, so I'll ignore that.
If I provided quotes from those books with citations, would that be any different than pointing to the book as a whole? ??? If you want to check up my sources, you would still have to get the book to read it. If I did provide quotes from those 7 books, that could easily be cherry picking. So to get a picture of the whole context and examine all evidence, of course it is better to read the whole book. I hope you also remember that I have provided more evidence than just 7 book titles.
And the historian did not contradict me. The historian contradicted Necrosis. If you want to keep on saying how the historian contradicted me, then please show it. You do know what "may have been" means right? ???
-
Your first line is pointless, so I'll ignore that.
If I provided quotes from those books with citations, would that be any different than pointing to the book as a whole? ??? If you want to check up my sources, you would still have to get the book to read it. If I did provide quotes from those 7 books, that could easily be cherry picking. So to get a picture of the whole context and examine all evidence, of course it is better to read the whole book. I hope you also remember that I have provided more evidence than just 7 book titles.
And the historian did not contradict me. The historian contradicted Necrosis. If you want to keep on saying how the historian contradicted me, then please show it. You do know what "may have been" means right? ???
Why is it pointless? You told me three days ago that you were done with this thread. You also lied when you claimed that I said the US is a Christian nation, you lied when you said that I claimed all of the founding fathers were Christian and you lied when you said that I posted quotes from the founding fathers that mention only prayer and a creator, but nothing related to Jesus.
-
why do i hear fundies and repubs continue to say that america was founded on christianity, that this is a christian nation? do they not know the constitution or are they willingly lying and ignorant?
Harvard University and Yale University were originally established to train Christian ministers.
Harvard University
"Harvard College was established in 1636 by vote of the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and was named for its first benefactor, John Harvard of Charlestown, a young minister who, upon his death in 1638, left his library and half his estate to the new institution. Harvard's first scholarship fund was created in 1643 with a gift from Ann Radcliffe, Lady Mowlson.
During its early years, the College offered a classic academic course based on the English university model but consistent with the prevailing Puritan philosophy of the first colonists. Although many of its early graduates became ministers in Puritan congregations throughout New England, the College was never formally affiliated with a specific religious denomination. An early brochure, published in 1643, justified the College's existence: "To advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches."
http://www.news.harvard.edu/guide/content/history-harvard-university
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University#Colonial
Yale University
Yale’s roots can be traced back to the 1640s, when colonial clergymen led an effort to establish a college in New Haven to preserve the tradition of European liberal education in the New World. This vision was fulfilled in 1701, when the charter was granted for a school “wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences [and] through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Publick employment both in Church and Civil State.”
http://www.yale.edu/about/history.html
-
Why is it pointless? You told me three days ago that you were done with this thread. You also lied when you claimed that I said the US is a Christian nation, you lied when you said that I claimed all of the founding fathers were Christian and you lied when you said that I posted quotes from the founding fathers that mention only prayer and a creator, but nothing related to Jesus.
I didn't lie, I was done with this thread at that time. Then Beach Bum came on here and said he agreed with you, so I thought obviously I was missing something. So I came back. But I still don't see what I'm missing. That takes care of your first two sentences.
When I said that you said the US is a christian nation, I meant in terms of being founded upon Christianity. That was the definition I was using for "christian nation". You was using "christian nation" to mean a theocracy. I did not lie then, just different operating definitions which you never picked up on. That takes care of the first part of your second sentence.
You did say that all the founding fathers were Christian. You said it in a reply to PIP, and you said it in the thread that Beach Bum posted a link to, and you said it again recently in this thread. You have not admitted that any founding fathers were not christian. When I started to prove you wrong, you started to say "i don't know for sure if they were", then you said you were only showing why people believe they were christian (which of course takes your own perspective out of the discussion). That takes care of the second part of your second sentence.
And your quotes do not mention Jesus. The only ones that mention Jesus was the Revolutionary motto and the Adams and Jay quotes I think (which you will remember that for sake of argument I granted you Adams and Jay for reasons already stated, so their quotes do not matter for this purpose.) That takes part of the last part of the second sentence.
Anything else?
-
Harvard University and Yale University were originally established to train Christian ministers.
Harvard University
"Harvard College was established in 1636
Yale University
Yale’s roots can be traced back to the 1640s, when colonial clergymen led an effort to establish a college in New Haven to preserve the tradition of European liberal education in the New World. This vision was fulfilled in 1701,
Look at those dates. Notice they were long before the country was founded. Our country being founded did not depend on the original purpose of Harvard and Yale. Wasn't that back when they only allowed rich white males? Very christian behavior ::)
-
I didn't lie, I was done with this thread at that time. Then Beach Bum came on here and said he agreed with you, so I thought obviously I was missing something. So I came back. But I still don't see what I'm missing. That takes care of your first two sentences.
When I said that you said the US is a christian nation, I meant in terms of being founded upon Christianity. That was the definition I was using for "christian nation". You was using "christian nation" to mean a theocracy. I did not lie then, just different operating definitions which you never picked up on. That takes care of the first part of your second sentence.
You did say that all the founding fathers were Christian. You said it in a reply to PIP, and you said it in the thread that Beach Bum posted a link to, and you said it again recently in this thread. You have not admitted that any founding fathers were not christian. When I started to prove you wrong, you started to say "i don't know for sure if they were", then you said you were only showing why people believe they were christian (which of course takes your own perspective out of the discussion). That takes care of the second part of your second sentence.
And your quotes do not mention Jesus. The only ones that mention Jesus was the Revolutionary motto and the Adams and Jay quotes I think (which you will remember that for sake of argument I granted you Adams and Jay for reasons already stated, so their quotes do not matter for this purpose.) That takes part of the last part of the second sentence.
Anything else?
Just out of curiosity, when did I say that allthe founding fathers were Christian. Please quote me. Use the quote link on the forum.
And as for your claim that my founding father quotes mention only prayer and creation in general:
George Washington
General Orders, (July 9, 1776) George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 3g Varick Transcripts
"The Hon. Continental Congress having been pleased to allow a Chaplain to each Regiment, with the pay of Thirty-three Dollars and one third pr month -- The Colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure Chaplains accordingly; persons of good Characters and exemplary lives -- To see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises. The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger -- The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."
General Orders (May 2, 1778); published in Writings of George Washington (1932), Vol.XI, pp. 342-343
"The Commander in Chief directs that divine Service be performed every Sunday at 11 oClock in those Brigades to which there are Chaplains; those which have none to attend the places of worship nearest to them. It is expected that Officers of all Ranks will by their attendence set an Example to their men. While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion. To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian. The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labours with complete Success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude and Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good."
Speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs (May 12, 1779); published in The Writings of George Washington (1932), Vol.XV, p. 55
"My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it."
John Adams
Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1812
"The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion."
Diary, 26 July 1796:
"The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity."
Thomas Jefferson
April 21, 1803 letter to Doctor Benjamin Rush
"To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence"
Note: Thomas Jefferson loved Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospels so much that he took the time and effort to write a compilation of his favorite parts of the Gospels, which was published after his death and came to be known as The Jefferson Bible.
Benjamin Franklin
1790 letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale University
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see"
John Jay
1797 letter to clergyman Jedidiah Morse
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
"It is to be regretted, but so I believe the fact to be, that except the Bible there is not a true history in the world. Whatever may be the virtue, discernment, and industry of the writers, I am persuaded that truth and error (though in different degrees) will imperceptibly become and remain mixed and blended until they shall be separated forever by the great and last refining fire."
-
John Quincy Adams
Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives, July 4, 1821
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected, in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
-
Just out of curiosity, when did I say that allthe founding fathers were Christian. Please quote me. Use the quote link on the forum.
This is becoming really too easy.
Then "fundies and repubs" are not wrong when they say that the founding fathers were Christians.
Hey, nobody wants a theocracy and neither did the Founding Fathers. That's not what we are saying here. We're just saying that the Founding Fathers were Christians and that the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
All I'm saying is that the Founding Fathers were Christians and that they founded the United States of America upon Judeo-Christian principles.
No, I'm not speculating. Like it or not, the Founding Fathers were Christians and they founded the United States of America upon Judeo-Christian principles. It's history and it's a fact.
You never said "some" "most" "part of", etc. As stated in your quotes, your sentences mean "all".
-
This is becoming really too easy.
You never said "some" "most" "part of", etc. As stated in your quotes, your sentences mean "all".
If this is valid,
"Make no mistake, the founding fathers were not Christian". He also says they were not deists.
then this is valid as well.
Then "fundies and repubs" are not wrong when they say that the founding fathers were Christians.
And why are you so concerned that Beach Bum doesn't believe your claims that you have put so much time and effort into this thread after you assured me three days ago that you were done with it?
-
If this is valid,
then this is valid as well.
No it is not. Grab your logic textbook, turn to the section on common logical fallacies, and read the section on Appeal to Ignorance. I discussed this in my previous post but I guess you didn't read and/or understand. Keep in mind too that I never said it WAS valid. It is a quote, not an argument.
Since you focused on the word "none", I feel like you are about to do the traditional fallacy of appealing to ignorance. Of course you know this is when someone says "Since you cannot prove for certain "Not-X" then it is equally valid for me to say "X". The "X" in this case = the founding fathers were christian. I feel that you are about to say "since you cannot prove for certain that the founding fathers were not christian, then my point equally stands that they were christian." This of course is wrong. Place any statement you want to in place of "X" in the above scenario and see that it doesn't work. For example, make X= Ben Franklin was an alien. It is impossible to prove that Ben Franklin was not an alien. This does not mean that ben franklin was an alien. The evidence points to a certain conclusion on both instances. The evidence points to a conclusion that the founding fathers (I don't personally know about Adams or Jay) were not christian. This evidence has been presented in this thread via 7 books authored by people such as Harvard Law professor, UVA law professor, another professor from UVA, a historian, etc.
-
No it is not. Grab your logic textbook, turn to the section on common logical fallacies, and read the section on Appeal to Ignorance. I discussed this in my previous post but I guess you didn't read and/or understand. Keep in mind too that I never said it WAS valid. It is a quote, not an argument.
Yes, it is!
So why are you so concerned that Beach Bum doesn't believe your claims that you have put so much time and effort into this thread after you assured me three days ago that you were done with it?
-
Yes, it is!
So why are you so concerned that Beach Bum doesn't believe your claims that you have put so much time and effort into this thread after you assured me three days ago that you were done with it?
This is not an argument. ::) But to simply put this objection away, I never said it was valid. It is his quote, not my argument. I answered this already in your post asking if I agreed with him in that specific quote, remember? If you want to discuss logic and probability, He should have said "the evidence points to the conclusion that with a strong probability the founding fathers were not christian." Simple as that. If you have an issue with his quote, take it up by reading his book. His quote has nothing to do with me personally.
I'm concerned that Beach bum doesn't believe my claims because he seems like a fairly intelligent person. But I don't see how any intelligent person can agree with the statements that you are making.
Oh by the way, validity has nothing to do with truth.
-
I'm concerned that Beach bum doesn't believe my claims because he seems like a fairly intelligent person. But I don't see how any intelligent person can agree with the statements that you are making.
I am letting the founding fathers' words speak for themselves.
George Washington
General Orders, (July 9, 1776) George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 3g Varick Transcripts
"The Hon. Continental Congress having been pleased to allow a Chaplain to each Regiment, with the pay of Thirty-three Dollars and one third pr month -- The Colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure Chaplains accordingly; persons of good Characters and exemplary lives -- To see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises. The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger -- The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."
General Orders (May 2, 1778); published in Writings of George Washington (1932), Vol.XI, pp. 342-343
"The Commander in Chief directs that divine Service be performed every Sunday at 11 oClock in those Brigades to which there are Chaplains; those which have none to attend the places of worship nearest to them. It is expected that Officers of all Ranks will by their attendence set an Example to their men. While we are zealously performing the duties of good Citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of Religion. To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian. The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labours with complete Success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude and Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good."
Speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs (May 12, 1779); published in The Writings of George Washington (1932), Vol.XV, p. 55
"My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it."
John Adams
Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1812
"The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion."
Diary, 26 July 1796:
"The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity."
Thomas Jefferson
April 21, 1803 letter to Doctor Benjamin Rush
"To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence"
Letter to William Canby on September 18, 1813
"Of all the systems of morality, ancient and modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus."
Letter to William Short on October 31, 1819
"But the greatest of all the reformers of the depraved religion of His own country, was Jesus of Nazareth."
Note: Thomas Jefferson loved Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospels so much that he took the time and effort to write a compilation of his favorite parts of the Gospels, which was published after his death and came to be known as The Jefferson Bible.
Benjamin Franklin
1790 letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale University
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see"
Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1749), p. 22.
"History will also afford the frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion, from its usefulness to the public; the advantage of a religious character among private persons; the mischiefs of superstition, &c. and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
John Jay
1797 letter to clergyman Jedidiah Morse
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
"It is to be regretted, but so I believe the fact to be, that except the Bible there is not a true history in the world. Whatever may be the virtue, discernment, and industry of the writers, I am persuaded that truth and error (though in different degrees) will imperceptibly become and remain mixed and blended until they shall be separated forever by the great and last refining fire."
John Quincy Adams
Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives, July 4, 1821
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected, in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
-
I am letting the founding fathers' words speak for themselves.
That is where I think you are wrong. You are only picking apart certain words from certain letters. I think we should look at their lives as a whole, including actions, words, other written works, what historians/authors/professors/etc say about it, etc. Re-posting the same letters does not prove your point.
Washington was famous for changing his tone depending on who he was speaking to. Unless you admire Peter for denying Jesus, I doubt you would say that is a christian characteristic. It is also important to note that many of Washington letters posted online are fake. The Washington author I cited discusses this. So we must keep that in mind.
I granted you John Adams and John Jay.
Thomas Jefferson did not take his favorite parts of the Bible and make them into a separate bible. He took the parts of the Bible that he considered worthwhile, and none of this was doctrinal belief. If we take that at face value from a contemporary christian standpoint, it is A) Blasphemy B) Taking away and/or adding to the Bible (Which Revelation forbids). Then we look at his other life actions, such as founding a university centered around a library instead of a church (This was a major deal in that day). And look at the chaos surrounding the election of 1800. Everybody was calling Jefferson a nonbeliever. It was common knowledge in that day. Then look at him owning slaves and having affairs with his slaves. Don't let this fool you, this is a spit in the face of the teachings of Christ, right?
Next is Ben Franklin. Look at his autobiography which I think speaks volumes. The only part he talks about religion is how he hated church because it was boring. He talked about what gave him success in life. Was it the blessings of Jesus? No, it was hard work and determination. Then he talks about him trying to overcome his character defaults. Did he pray and ask for guidance by the holy spirit to give him strength? No he tried solving it on his own. From a contemporary christian standpoint, this is pride at it's highest. Then look at his behavior in France, etc etc.
The above addresses whether the founding fathers were Christian. If you want to take apart sentences and bold words to make claims, I could easily do the same for Bertrand Russell. He had a life verse from Exodus and he said everyone should have christian love, he complimented the teachings of Jesus, etc. Does this make him a Christan? Of course not, we have to look at his whole life, and then we see he was an agnostic.
You have not yet listed the principles from Christianity that this country was founded upon. If you want to keep making that point, please begin a list entitled "The Principles of Christianity that the United States was founded upon are as follows:" and list them one by one.
-
whoa whoa whoa. You were doing good up to that last point. Let us examine the country then. Blacks could be owned and beaten/raped at free will. Native Americans could be killed and raped at free will. Women had no rights. The founders violently overthrew the government. So in what way was the US simply rooted in Christianity?
By the way, it's an inside joke among political theorists when discussing Tocqueville, his section that says how great equality was in America when he wrote Democracy in America. Christianity prides itself on equality correct? (we are all sinners, we all need Jesus. The first shall be last, the last shall be first. It's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than rich man to get into heaven, etc etc). The US is rooted deeply in inequality.
Yeah I would agree there's a great deal of inequality in US even according to today's standards. Sinful men and women that claim to be representatives of Christ have alongside their nonbelieving counterparts (in pursuit of establishing gov't) committed many horrific sins. Rape, murder and inequality flies in the face of Christ's teaching. Sad how quickly people can fall head first into their sinful ways yet claim Christ. It's a shame and a terrible witness, but also a testament to how deeply we need Christ and how easily corrupted we all are when we take our eyes off of him. As you mentioned, we even read of Christ's own disciples arguing amongst each other about who is the greatest among them. Right there within Christ's circle of faithful men are lines of inequality drawn the moment Christ is not in front of them guiding their paths. How weak we all are, how quickly we all forget. I agree, men and women have strayed drastically off the path of righteousness, but that doesn't mean their initial intent wasn't rooted in Christ.
-
That is where I think you are wrong. You are only picking apart certain words from certain letters. I think we should look at their lives as a whole, including actions, words, other written works, what historians/authors/professors/etc say about it, etc. Re-posting the same letters does not prove your point.
Washington was famous for changing his tone depending on who he was speaking to. Unless you admire Peter for denying Jesus, I doubt you would say that is a christian characteristic. It is also important to note that many of Washington letters posted online are fake. The Washington author I cited discusses this. So we must keep that in mind.
I granted you John Adams and John Jay.
Thomas Jefferson did not take his favorite parts of the Bible and make them into a separate bible. He took the parts of the Bible that he considered worthwhile, and none of this was doctrinal belief. If we take that at face value from a contemporary christian standpoint, it is A) Blasphemy B) Taking away and/or adding to the Bible (Which Revelation forbids). Then we look at his other life actions, such as founding a university centered around a library instead of a church (This was a major deal in that day). And look at the chaos surrounding the election of 1800. Everybody was calling Jefferson a nonbeliever. It was common knowledge in that day. Then look at him owning slaves and having affairs with his slaves. Don't let this fool you, this is a spit in the face of the teachings of Christ, right?
Next is Ben Franklin. Look at his autobiography which I think speaks volumes. The only part he talks about religion is how he hated church because it was boring. He talked about what gave him success in life. Was it the blessings of Jesus? No, it was hard work and determination. Then he talks about him trying to overcome his character defaults. Did he pray and ask for guidance by the holy spirit to give him strength? No he tried solving it on his own. From a contemporary christian standpoint, this is pride at it's highest. Then look at his behavior in France, etc etc.
The above addresses whether the founding fathers were Christian. If you want to take apart sentences and bold words to make claims, I could easily do the same for Bertrand Russell. He had a life verse from Exodus and he said everyone should have christian love, he complimented the teachings of Jesus, etc. Does this make him a Christan? Of course not, we have to look at his whole life, and then we see he was an agnostic.
You have not yet listed the principles from Christianity that this country was founded upon. If you want to keep making that point, please begin a list entitled "The Principles of Christianity that the United States was founded upon are as follows:" and list them one by one.
The George Washington quotes that I posted are not fake and can easily be verified. I have found quotes from the founding fathers on Christianity and Jesus that are "unconfirmed." I have refrained from posting those.
I never said that Thomas Jefferson took "his favorite parts of the Bible and make them into a separate bible." I said that Thomas Jefferson took his favorite parts from the Gospels. That is only four books out of the entire Bible. Jefferson did not mean for his book to be a Bible. That is why he titled his work "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." It was meant as a tool to evangelize the Indians. He did not change or add anything.
The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels, Together with a Comparison of His Doctrines with Those of Others [Paperback]
Thomas Jefferson (Author)
"1902. In 1803, while overwhelmed with other business, Mr. Jefferson cut from the evangelists such passages as he believed would best present the ethical teaching of Jesus, and arranged them, on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. He called it The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, extracted from the account of his life and doctrines, as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; being an abridgment of the New Testament for the use of the Indians, unembarrassed with matters of fact or faith beyond the level of their comprehension."
http://www.amazon.com/Nazareth-Extracted-Textually-Comparison-Doctrines/dp/141790576X
That is not "Blasphemy" and it is not "Taking away and/or adding to the Bible." Far from it. It is actually following Jesus' command for Christians to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20
I will let Benjamin Franklin's own words speak for themselves. You bring up a great point about Peter denying Jesus. The actions of a Christian do not always line up with the teachings of Jesus Christ. It does not follow that Peter was not a Christian because he denied Christ, because he cut another man's ear off with a sword, etc. The same applies to other Christians.
-
Yeah I would agree there's a great deal of inequality in US even according to today's standards. Sinful men and women that claim to be representatives of Christ have alongside their nonbelieving counterparts (in pursuit of establishing gov't) committed many horrific sins. Rape, murder and inequality flies in the face of Christ's teaching. Sad how quickly people can fall head first into their sinful ways yet claim Christ. It's a shame and a terrible witness, but also a testament to how deeply we need Christ and how easily corrupted we all are when we take our eyes off of him. As you mentioned, we even read of Christ's own disciples arguing amongst each other about who is the greatest among them. Right there within Christ's circle of faithful men are lines of inequality drawn the moment Christ is not in front of them guiding their paths. How weak we all are, how quickly we all forget. I agree, men and women have strayed drastically off the path of righteousness, but that doesn't mean their initial intent wasn't rooted in Christ.
you think very little of yourself and humans. We are flawed creatures, you cant even describe perfection because it loses duality which we require to describe something. Christ made many comments that i would consider immoral, i dont think he is the greatest moral teacher and i also dont think his advice was unique.
-
you think very little of yourself and humans. We are flawed creatures, you cant even describe perfection because it loses duality which we require to describe something. Christ made many comments that i would consider immoral, i dont think he is the greatest moral teacher and i also dont think his advice was unique.
I'm just a normal man....wife, kid, house, job. Most importantly though I'm a believer in Christ.
Christ is that perfection and the basis for the comparative.....the divine bar so to speak.
It's fine that you have an opinion as you've been granted to ability to choose. I am curious as to which aspects of Christ's teaching or example would you classify as immoral?
-
I'm just a normal man....wife, kid, house, job. Most importantly though I'm a believer in Christ.
Christ is that perfection and the basis for the comparative.....the divine bar so to speak.
It's fine that you have an opinion as you've been granted to ability to choose. I am curious as to which aspects of Christ's teaching or example would you classify as immoral?
there are a bunch, love thy neighbor is immoral if taken literally. The one unforgivable sin is denying christ as your saviour is completely immoral. turn the other cheek.
these absolutes are immoral.
-
How is a literal interpretation of loving your neighbor immoral? I can only see that being the case if you confuse love with lust, but genuine love towards another person.....well....I just don't see it.
Let's take your next idea concerning the immorality of salvation through Christ. Next I want you to think of the wealthiest home in your area. Then consider going to that home and driving your car through the flowerbeds, peeing in the pool, pooping on the lawn, slapping the owner's children in the face, breaking a few windows, posting signs around the neighborhood about how much you hate the owners and then finishing everything off with setting some bushes on fire and writing graffitti on the side of the house. Then knock on the door and ask the owner's if you can move in free of charge. What do you think their reaction would be? I'd assume they'd deny you entrance because they don't know you, because you destroyed portions of their property and because you disrespected them individually. Most likely the owners would never forgive you, but Christ will. He'll forgive every sin you've committed as he's already paid the price for your sins on the cross. All we have to do is realize that Christ did die for us, that we recognize that he is the risen Lord and that we accept him as our savior. Do this and the keys to his kingdom are yours regardless of what you may have done to his creation or how you disrespected him. Choose to deny a relationship with Christ, deny the free gift of salvation, deny his payment for your sins and you simply can't be forgiven. His perfect, loving sacrifice washed clean our sin and by acknowledging and accepting what he's done for you you are forgiven. The only cheek to turn is your own.
"In the end there will be only two kinds of people: Those that look and God and say, 'Thy will be done,' and those that God looks at and says, 'Thy will be done.' " C.S. Lewis
-
there are a bunch, love thy neighbor is immoral if taken literally. The one unforgivable sin is denying christ as your saviour is completely immoral. turn the other cheek.
these absolutes are immoral.
Denying Christ as your savior is not "the unforgivable sin."
People will not go to hell because they rejected Jesus. People will go to hell to pay for their own many sins. Jesus Christ, by his own words, is the only way out and the only way to salvation.
-
How is a literal interpretation of loving your neighbor immoral? I can only see that being the case if you confuse love with lust, but genuine love towards another person.....well....I just don't see it.
Let's take your next idea concerning the immorality of salvation through Christ. Next I want you to think of the wealthiest home in your area. Then consider going to that home and driving your car through the flowerbeds, peeing in the pool, pooping on the lawn, slapping the owner's children in the face, breaking a few windows, posting signs around the neighborhood about how much you hate the owners and then finishing everything off with setting some bushes on fire and writing graffitti on the side of the house. Then knock on the door and ask the owner's if you can move in free of charge. What do you think their reaction would be? I'd assume they'd deny you entrance because they don't know you, because you destroyed portions of their property and because you disrespected them individually. Most likely the owners would never forgive you, but Christ will. He'll forgive every sin you've committed as he's already paid the price for your sins on the cross. All we have to do is realize that Christ did die for us, that we recognize that he is the risen Lord and that we accept him as our savior. Do this and the keys to his kingdom are yours regardless of what you may have done to his creation or how you disrespected him. Choose to deny a relationship with Christ, deny the free gift of salvation, deny his payment for your sins and you simply can't be forgiven. His perfect, loving sacrifice washed clean our sin and by acknowledging and accepting what he's done for you you are forgiven. The only cheek to turn is your own.
"In the end there will be only two kinds of people: Those that look and God and say, 'Thy will be done,' and those that God looks at and says, 'Thy will be done.' " C.S. Lewis
so if hitler lived next door, or was neighbor you should love him? it dilutes love and is a slap in the face to love and the morals of such. I don't blindly love people because not all are deserving of love.
-
How is a literal interpretation of loving your neighbor immoral? I can only see that being the case if you confuse love with lust, but genuine love towards another person.....well....I just don't see it.
Let's take your next idea concerning the immorality of salvation through Christ. Next I want you to think of the wealthiest home in your area. Then consider going to that home and driving your car through the flowerbeds, peeing in the pool, pooping on the lawn, slapping the owner's children in the face, breaking a few windows, posting signs around the neighborhood about how much you hate the owners and then finishing everything off with setting some bushes on fire and writing graffitti on the side of the house. Then knock on the door and ask the owner's if you can move in free of charge. What do you think their reaction would be? I'd assume they'd deny you entrance because they don't know you, because you destroyed portions of their property and because you disrespected them individually. Most likely the owners would never forgive you, but Christ will. He'll forgive every sin you've committed as he's already paid the price for your sins on the cross. All we have to do is realize that Christ did die for us, that we recognize that he is the risen Lord and that we accept him as our savior. Do this and the keys to his kingdom are yours regardless of what you may have done to his creation or how you disrespected him. Choose to deny a relationship with Christ, deny the free gift of salvation, deny his payment for your sins and you simply can't be forgiven. His perfect, loving sacrifice washed clean our sin and by acknowledging and accepting what he's done for you you are forgiven. The only cheek to turn is your own.
"In the end there will be only two kinds of people: Those that look and God and say, 'Thy will be done,' and those that God looks at and says, 'Thy will be done.' " C.S. Lewis
so what about all those who lived before christ? you want me to believe god being all knowing set up this game where innocent people would be sent to hell before christ, he sits there waiting all the while knowing what will happen. Then he decides the best way to correct his flawed creation (he knows what will happen mind you) is to kill everything in the flood, oh shit i got off track, is to send himself back to earth to be tortured and sacrificed by said creation.This then redeems man kind on a condition of worship and servitude. His method of sacrifice is the most immoral path to choose, there are an infinite number of ways that are better, less violent and more moral to "wash clean our sin"
your story doesn't appeal to logic and i dont see how its any better then all the other religions, you believe as you do because of the place you live.
-
so what about all those who lived before christ? you want me to believe god being all knowing set up this game where innocent people would be sent to hell before christ, he sits there waiting all the while knowing what will happen. Then he decides the best way to correct his flawed creation (he knows what will happen mind you) is to kill everything in the flood, oh shit i got off track, is to send himself back to earth to be tortured and sacrificed by said creation.This then redeems man kind on a condition of worship and servitude. His method of sacrifice is the most immoral path to choose, there are an infinite number of ways that are better, less violent and more moral to "wash clean our sin"
your story doesn't appeal to logic and i dont see how its any better then all the other religions, you believe as you do because of the place you live.
All those believers in God from the Old Testament or old covenant period were also saved by their relationship with God. During those times regular periods of sacrifice (blood atonement via animal sacrifice) and sin offerings were given to cleanse one of sin. God made the decision to send Christ to live on earth and become the perfect sacrifice for the cleansing of all mankinds sins if we choose to accept him as savior - this is the new covenant in the New Testament. Those believers from the OT didn't die in vain spending eternity separated from God....they are absolutely with God in his heavenly kingdom, but today those that simply recognize Christ's sacrifice and accept him as Lord are saved from death and forgiven of their sin without the requirement of further OT sacrifice....Christ made the perfect, divine sacrifice that provides redemption for all. The acts of sacrifice and blood atonement (both OT animal sacrifice and NT divine sacrifice) simply show how serious sin is to God and that sin must be paid for....Christ paid the price for all. The Lord God is absolutely worthy of worship and praise. With respect, you deny God so you also deny his blessings in all its differing forms; therefore, you find no value or understanding in worship, cleansing of sin, etc.....hopefully your perspective will change in time. God wants us to love him with everything in us.....just like he loves us with everything in him.
I believe the way I do because of the influences in my life and the wonderful works God has performed in my life. I thank God that I live in the United States and have the freedom to worship as I choose. I thank God for the blessing of Christian parents and other Christian family/friends that helped shape my walk. Where I live is a blessing, but not the reason for my faith. The folks next door grew up in the same areas I did and have no system of belief whatsoever yet some other folks from South America (and other countries)that lived in my community as a kid were devout believers before moving to the states. Christianity developed out of the nation of Israel. Abraham ("the friend of God") had a son named Isaac who had a son named Jacob who also had a personal relationship with God. God chose to rename Jacob with the name Israel. Israel had 12 sons that formed the 12 tribes of the nation of Israel in the OT. This lead to the formal nations we find in the NT and the introduction of Christ that birthed Christianity in the NT (very summarized history mind you). Christ's disciples and apostles then lead the missionary cause spreading the gospel to surrounding nations.....Paul really led the way in this earliest form of missionary work. My story may not appeal to your sense of logic and you may not see how it's any better than all other religions and that's fine. Just remember that tomorrow isn't promised to us.
-
so if hitler lived next door, or was neighbor you should love him? it dilutes love and is a slap in the face to love and the morals of such. I don't blindly love people because not all are deserving of love.
Yes we should do our best to love Hitler, Osama bin Laden, OJ Simpson, the guy that gave you the finger in traffic, the woman that turned you down when you asked her out, etc...again, our limited capacity for love also shows how great God's love and grace is and how desperately we need him in our lives. On our own we don't love each other sufficiently and we certainly aren't worthy of God's love and grace as all we've done is disrespect him and his creation; still, he loves us. God's love for someone like OJ Simpson is infinitely greater than the love I have for my wife and daughter....that's amazing.
-
All those believers in God from the Old Testament or old covenant period were also saved by their relationship with God. During those times regular periods of sacrifice (blood atonement via animal sacrifice) and sin offerings were given to cleanse one of sin. God made the decision to send Christ to live on earth and become the perfect sacrifice for the cleansing of all mankinds sins if we choose to accept him as savior - this is the new covenant in the New Testament. Those believers from the OT didn't die in vain spending eternity separated from God....they are absolutely with God in his heavenly kingdom, but today those that simply recognize Christ's sacrifice and accept him as Lord are saved from death and forgiven of their sin without the requirement of further OT sacrifice....Christ made the perfect, divine sacrifice that provides redemption for all. The acts of sacrifice and blood atonement (both OT animal sacrifice and NT divine sacrifice) simply show how serious sin is to God and that sin must be paid for....Christ paid the price for all. The Lord God is absolutely worthy of worship and praise. With respect, you deny God so you also deny his blessings in all its differing forms; therefore, you find no value or understanding in worship, cleansing of sin, etc.....hopefully your perspective will change in time. God wants us to love him with everything in us.....just like he loves us with everything in him.
I believe the way I do because of the influences in my life and the wonderful works God has performed in my life. I thank God that I live in the United States and have the freedom to worship as I choose. I thank God for the blessing of Christian parents and other Christian family/friends that helped shape my walk. Where I live is a blessing, but not the reason for my faith. The folks next door grew up in the same areas I did and have no system of belief whatsoever yet some other folks from South America (and other countries)that lived in my community as a kid were devout believers before moving to the states. Christianity developed out of the nation of Israel. Abraham ("the friend of God") had a son named Isaac who had a son named Jacob who also had a personal relationship with God. God chose to rename Jacob with the name Israel. Israel had 12 sons that formed the 12 tribes of the nation of Israel in the OT. This lead to the formal nations we find in the NT and the introduction of Christ that birthed Christianity in the NT (very summarized history mind you). Christ's disciples and apostles then lead the missionary cause spreading the gospel to surrounding nations.....Paul really led the way in this earliest form of missionary work. My story may not appeal to your sense of logic and you may not see how it's any better than all other religions and that's fine. Just remember that tomorrow isn't promised to us.
seriously? animal sacrifice for atonement? what does that even do? seriously i rape and murder and then murder and innocent animal and that somehow gives one forgiveness? this is the most hideous logic ive ever seen. Your god is not something i admire.
Isnt it strange how groups like scientology are ridiculed now only because of the period of time they choose to develop there religion. Its not a stretch and logical to assume that the monotheistic relgions developed similarly with none offering anything over the other in terms of truth as they are all foreign to logic and morality.
-
Yes we should do our best to love Hitler, Osama bin Laden, OJ Simpson, the guy that gave you the finger in traffic, the woman that turned you down when you asked her out, etc...again, our limited capacity for love also shows how great God's love and grace is and how desperately we need him in our lives. On our own we don't love each other sufficiently and we certainly aren't worthy of God's love and grace as all we've done is disrespect him and his creation; still, he loves us. God's love for someone like OJ Simpson is infinitely greater than the love I have for my wife and daughter....that's amazing.
no we shouldn't it is immoral. I would not love someone who murdered my family, raped my daughter and ruined my life, they do not deserve my love. Unconditional love makes it meaningless, your love of hitler is a slap in the face to all those that died in the holocaust, its actually shameful that because of your beliefs you agree with immoral propositions. Loving people who do not deserve it dilutes love and makes the one emergent phenomenon in my opinion void.
turning the other cheek also is immoral in all situations, there are no moral absolutes. If you always turn the other cheek people will do horrible atrocities, it is moral to stand for life, righteousness and truth and to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
-
seriously? animal sacrifice for atonement? what does that even do? seriously i rape and murder and then murder and innocent animal and that somehow gives one forgiveness? this is the most hideous logic ive ever seen. Your god is not something i admire.
Isnt it strange how groups like scientology are ridiculed now only because of the period of time they choose to develop there religion. Its not a stretch and logical to assume that the monotheistic relgions developed similarly with none offering anything over the other in terms of truth as they are all foreign to logic and morality.
seriously? animal sacrifice for atonement? what does that even do? seriously i rape and murder and then murder and innocent animal and that somehow gives one forgiveness? this is the most hideous logic ive ever seen. Your god is not something i admire.
Isnt it strange how groups like scientology are ridiculed now only because of the period of time they choose to develop there religion. Its not a stretch and logical to assume that the monotheistic relgions developed similarly with none offering anything over the other in terms of truth as they are all foreign to logic and morality.
Well, I think I should clarify a bit. The act of animal sacrifice in and of itself didn't cleanse us of the sin, but was more of a temporary covering for sin until Christ came and died for sins past, present and future. The shedding of a lamb's blood in the OT served as covering until the divine lamb who is worthy died for all. Yes they took the lives of cute sheep, goats and innocent bulls. That's fine if you don't admire or love God. I'm just giving a general taste of scripture. You have a genuine problem with God then take it up with him openly and honestly. Open your heart to him and see if he responds or not.
-
no we shouldn't it is immoral. I would not love someone who murdered my family, raped my daughter and ruined my life, they do not deserve my love. Unconditional love makes it meaningless, your love of hitler is a slap in the face to all those that died in the holocaust, its actually shameful that because of your beliefs you agree with immoral propositions. Loving people who do not deserve it dilutes love and makes the one emergent phenomenon in my opinion void.
turning the other cheek also is immoral in all situations, there are no moral absolutes. If you always turn the other cheek people will do horrible atrocities, it is moral to stand for life, righteousness and truth and to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
AHAHAAAHAHAHAHAH!!! "your love of hitler"
-
AHAHAAAHAHAHAHAH!!! "your love of hitler"
well do you love hitler or not? do you love kim jong ill?
why the hell would sacrificing innocent animals absolve a human of wrong doings in the eyes of god. Its sounds more like a tribal, nomadic, bronze age belief then anything a perfect, all-knowing being would do,doesn't it? i mean i assume god is smarter then me, and logic only goes one way such that no amount of ill logic can make something rational. Therefore if i cannot rationally justify this belief then it makes sense to conclude a more logical being cannot make it rational either. If i plotted logic on a graph once we arrive at 0 or no logic, you cannot increase the value by going to -1. This is what you would have me believe. Sacrificing animals for human wrong doings makes no sense, how could it? the animal had nothing to do with me raping another, how does it paying the ultimate sacrifice absolve me? very immoral to say the least and completely irrational.
you must realize faith is irrational right? its a belief without evidence which is the definition of irrational.
-
well do you love hitler or not? do you love kim jong ill?
why the hell would sacrificing innocent animals absolve a human of wrong doings in the eyes of god. Its sounds more like a tribal, nomadic, bronze age belief then anything a perfect, all-knowing being would do,doesn't it? i mean i assume god is smarter then me, and logic only goes one way such that no amount of ill logic can make something rational. Therefore if i cannot rationally justify this belief then it makes sense to conclude a more logical being cannot make it rational either. If i plotted logic on a graph once we arrive at 0 or no logic, you cannot increase the value by going to -1. This is what you would have me believe. Sacrificing animals for human wrong doings makes no sense, how could it? the animal had nothing to do with me raping another, how does it paying the ultimate sacrifice absolve me? very immoral to say the least and completely irrational.
you must realize faith is irrational right? its a belief without evidence which is the definition of irrational.
You can start another thread with this link to continue the discussion if you want, but I think you are starting to hint around this logic problem. I found the following article interesting (about the logic and Problem of Evil)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/
I might start another thread for this logic problem when I have more time.
-
well do you love hitler or not? do you love kim jong ill?
why the hell would sacrificing innocent animals absolve a human of wrong doings in the eyes of god. Its sounds more like a tribal, nomadic, bronze age belief then anything a perfect, all-knowing being would do,doesn't it? i mean i assume god is smarter then me, and logic only goes one way such that no amount of ill logic can make something rational. Therefore if i cannot rationally justify this belief then it makes sense to conclude a more logical being cannot make it rational either. If i plotted logic on a graph once we arrive at 0 or no logic, you cannot increase the value by going to -1. This is what you would have me believe. Sacrificing animals for human wrong doings makes no sense, how could it? the animal had nothing to do with me raping another, how does it paying the ultimate sacrifice absolve me? very immoral to say the least and completely irrational.
you must realize faith is irrational right? its a belief without evidence which is the definition of irrational.
Do we really have to break down the varying forms of love and define and categorize them? I don't think we need those extremes, but atheists and agnostics are often in the business of definition. That said, do I treat others that I'm not close to (both tyrants and non-tryrants) with the same amount of love and compassion I show my close family and friends? No. Will I do my best to treat others the way I would like to be treated in accordance with God's will? Yes. Will I pray for a tyrant's soul? Yes. Will I show love and compassion in such a way that supports a tyrant's evil cause? No. Do I support the punishment of their crimes? Yes. Do I wish them dead? No. Do I wish them reconciled with Christ? Yes. Love, compassion and forgiveness aren't any easy business. I deal with folks on this site all the time that ridicule and insult me from sun up to sun down and I do my very best not to return insults. I just absorb them or let them roll off. I have no expectation that their ridicule or insults will stop, but I'll do my best to express the love of Christ to both those that hate me, those that love me and those that terrorize the world. My wish for others that don't believe is that they can come to know the love of Christ....regardless of how poorly they've treated me.
Now plotting the rationality of God on a graph.....well....I have nothing to add on that one.
-
Do we really have to break down the varying forms of love and define and categorize them? I don't think we need those extremes, but atheists and agnostics are often in the business of definition. That said, do I treat others that I'm not close to (both tyrants and non-tryrants) with the same amount of love and compassion I show my close family and friends? No. Will I do my best to treat others the way I would like to be treated in accordance with God's will? Yes. Will I pray for a tyrant's soul? Yes. Will I show love and compassion in such a way that supports a tyrant's evil cause? No. Do I support the punishment of their crimes? Yes. Do I wish them dead? No. Do I wish them reconciled with Christ? Yes. Love, compassion and forgiveness aren't any easy business. I deal with folks on this site all the time that ridicule and insult me from sun up to sun down and I do my very best not to return insults. I just absorb them or let them roll off. I have no expectation that their ridicule or insults will stop, but I'll do my best to express the love of Christ to both those that hate me, those that love me and those that terrorize the world. My wish for others that don't believe is that they can come to know the love of Christ....regardless of how poorly they've treated me.
Now plotting the rationality of God on a graph.....well....I have nothing to add on that one.
i to have compassion, but it has limits. Why does hitler deserve any compassion? i cant think of a logical reason why he should receive any?
your method of allowing those to ridicule you and not responding is the same thing the jews did and it lead to atrocity and misery for them. It is not always best to turn the other cheek and respond with love. God doesn't even agree with you, or jesus. He resorted to killing everyone in a worldwide flood hardly turning the other cheek and showing love. He punishes people, hardly turning the other cheek, nor is he always expressing love, in fact ordering the death of another is the opposite of love. Unless of course god has a different form of love that we can't comprehend, if that is the case what is the point.
non-violent protest is needed in many cases as gandhi did. Hardly turning the other cheek, instead he fought back in a moral manner and produced results much better then if he sat silently and expressed love.
-
i to have compassion, but it has limits. Why does hitler deserve any compassion? i cant think of a logical reason why he should receive any?
your method of allowing those to ridicule you and not responding is the same thing the jews did and it lead to atrocity and misery for them. It is not always best to turn the other cheek and respond with love. God doesn't even agree with you, or jesus. He resorted to killing everyone in a worldwide flood hardly turning the other cheek and showing love. He punishes people, hardly turning the other cheek, nor is he always expressing love, in fact ordering the death of another is the opposite of love. Unless of course god has a different form of love that we can't comprehend, if that is the case what is the point.
non-violent protest is needed in many cases as gandhi did. Hardly turning the other cheek, instead he fought back in a moral manner and produced results much better then if he sat silently and expressed love.
Ummmm, didn't God give them 120 years or so to repent, before the Flood hit?
When did "turning the other cheek" translate into letting sin go perpetually unpunished?
"Ordering the death is the opposite of love"? I beg to differ, unless you count love as letting people oppress and brutalize Israel for centuries on end (ala the Amalekites) without consequence.
-
Ummmm, didn't God give them 120 years or so to repent, before the Flood hit?
When did "turning the other cheek" translate into letting sin go perpetually unpunished?
"Ordering the death is the opposite of love"? I beg to differ, unless you count love as letting people oppress and brutalize Israel for centuries on end (ala the Amalekites) without consequence.
Oh so everyone deserved to die? its logical that many "sinned" in a manner that is so mundane it wouldnt even be required by law to fine them, yet he decided to kill them all? If you feel that is moral then you are a horrendous person, i cant put it any other way to be honest. Children who were 2 had no idea about 120 years to repent, nor wtf they had to repent for, yet they died, please, take your hate speech somewhere else.
turning the other cheek means exactly what i stated, you cant ask people to turn the other cheek if slapped when you have god killing people for mundane sins.
god could have easily stopped the oppression and brutalization. Also, your skewed view that children should pay for the sins of their parents is incredibly arcane. There was no reason to kill amlekite children just as much as there is to kill osama bin ladens children.
religion has your mind warped to the point of justifying genocide and child murder.
-
Oh so everyone deserved to die? its logical that many "sinned" in a manner that is so mundane it wouldnt even be required by law to fine them, yet he decided to kill them all? If you feel that is moral then you are a horrendous person, i cant put it any other way to be honest. Children who were 2 had no idea about 120 years to repent, nor wtf they had to repent for, yet they died, please, take your hate speech somewhere else.
turning the other cheek means exactly what i stated, you cant ask people to turn the other cheek if slapped when you have god killing people for mundane sins.
god could have easily stopped the oppression and brutalization. Also, your skewed view that children should pay for the sins of their parents is incredibly arcane. There was no reason to kill amlekite children just as much as there is to kill osama bin ladens children.
religion has your mind warped to the point of justifying genocide and child murder.
The Amalekites had hundreds of years to repent and they did not. Generation after generation of children grew to adults who were fully accountable for their actions and feel prey to the depravity of the generations before them. God stepped in and said enough. And yes the unaccountable 2 year olds lives were ended, but what about the fate of their souls? Their parents choose to rebel and defy God at every point in their lives. God is a god of second, third, fourth, fifth.....chances, but after generations lived and died and refused God's grace they chose to then spend an eternity without him. The 2 year olds you speak of can't make that choice and aren't accountable for their actions, but like generations before them they would've done exactly what their parents and their parent's parent and their parent's parent's parents did......separate themselves from God. God recognized the hopelessness in these people and the idolotrous, depravity they repeatedly chose. That said, he ended their unrepentant ways. The Amalakite children of that last generation, the unaccountable 2 year olds, God showed them mercy and grace because upon their deaths they entered paradise while those before them (accountable adults) remain separate from God (as they chose to be) for all eternity. If you don't believe all you see is death, if you do believe you see mercy, grace and love.
-
Oh so everyone deserved to die? its logical that many "sinned" in a manner that is so mundane it wouldnt even be required by law to fine them, yet he decided to kill them all? If you feel that is moral then you are a horrendous person, i cant put it any other way to be honest. Children who were 2 had no idea about 120 years to repent, nor wtf they had to repent for, yet they died, please, take your hate speech somewhere else.
turning the other cheek means exactly what i stated, you cant ask people to turn the other cheek if slapped when you have god killing people for mundane sins.
god could have easily stopped the oppression and brutalization. Also, your skewed view that children should pay for the sins of their parents is incredibly arcane. There was no reason to kill amlekite children just as much as there is to kill osama bin ladens children.
religion has your mind warped to the point of justifying genocide and child murder.
Apparently, you need to bone up on your ancient history. Why do you think the Amalekites kept assaulting Israel for three centuries?
Answer: Those kiddies grew up and picked up where their parents left off. They weren't exactly Boy Scouts. Israel turned the other cheek for over 300 YEARS!! But, when you have an enemy, hell-bent on wiping you out, there is no compromise. Either you destroy them, or they destroy you.
Speaking of Bin Laden (notwithstanding that most of his children are grown), many of these tikes in the Middle East are taught to hate Jews, virtually fresh out of the womb. Heck, they have kids' shows (equivalent to Sesame Street and Barney, here in the US) in which puppets and Big-Bird-style animal characters sing songs to kids, about how the blood of Jews should flow in the streets and how blessed a day it will as they get killed.
But, of course, Israel's supposed to just lay back and take it, because poor ol' Necrosis is going to get his feelings hurt, should God pass judgment on their oppressors. And, we can't have that, now can we? ::)
NEWS FLASH!!! Children pay for the mistakes/sins of their parents. That's as true today as it was back then. When Japan hit us at Pearl Harbor, we hit back. And when the A-bomb got dropped, there was no segregation between the adults and the kids.
The point, of course, is simple. Sometimes in life, when you screw up, YOU AREN'T THE ONLY ONE THAT PAYS THE PRICE FOR IT.
If you're a father and you commit certain crimes, your whole family may suffer for it.
If you're a crooked businessman, all your employees may end up out of work, because of your nefarious actions.
And, if you're a king, your foolish decisions can bring death on your subjects.
The more authority you have, the more your behavior and actions can bless or curse those under you, pure and simple.
-
Apparently, you need to bone up on your ancient history. Why do you think the Amalekites kept assaulting Israel for three centuries?
Answer: Those kiddies grew up and picked up where their parents left off. They weren't exactly Boy Scouts. Israel turned the other cheek for over 300 YEARS!! But, when you have an enemy, hell-bent on wiping you out, there is no compromise. Either you destroy them, or they destroy you.
Speaking of Bin Laden (notwithstanding that most of his children are grown), many of these tikes in the Middle East are taught to hate Jews, virtually fresh out of the womb. Heck, they have kids' shows (equivalent to Sesame Street and Barney, here in the US) in which puppets and Big-Bird-style animal characters sing songs to kids, about how the blood of Jews should flow in the streets and how blessed a day it will as they get killed.
But, of course, Israel's supposed to just lay back and take it, because poor ol' Necrosis is going to get his feelings hurt, should God pass judgment on their oppressors. And, we can't have that, now can we? ::)
NEWS FLASH!!! Children pay for the mistakes/sins of their parents. That's as true today as it was back then. When Japan hit us at Pearl Harbor, we hit back. And when the A-bomb got dropped, there was no segregation between the adults and the kids.
The point, of course, is simple. Sometimes in life, when you screw up, YOU AREN'T THE ONLY ONE THAT PAYS THE PRICE FOR IT.
If you're a father and you commit certain crimes, your whole family may suffer for it.
If you're a crooked businessman, all your employees may end up out of work, because of your nefarious actions.
And, if you're a king, your foolish decisions can bring death on your subjects.
The more authority you have, the more your behavior and actions can bless or curse those under you, pure and simple.
you dont kill innocent children, if you killed the parents you would raise the kids to have morals. Kids dont inherit disdain for other races, assumptions etc of their parents. Killing children is never right because you think they might commit crimes later on, so much for innocent before proven guilty, you would rather give them the verdict of death then the benefit of the doubt.
The pearl harbor comment is ridiculous, we didnt intend to kill the children as god ordered. I disagree with the usage of nuclear weapons it was wrong as was killing the kids in the bible. Two wrongs dont make a right, if you are using other incidinces of genocide to infanticide to prove your point you will fail. I would assume the world agrees with me since there have been no other nuclear attacks to date with numerous opportunities to use them.
kids dont inherit sin, just like osamas kids are not guilty of destroying the towers, how you can make that logical jump is beyond me.
I have no problem with defending and attacking tyrants, however, its not black and white like you would like me to believe. I agree if a peaceful resolution could not be met, violence may be needed, i dont see how mass genocide is necessary. When we fight wars now and win we dont go and kill all that are left of the enemy, we dont slay the children it's immoral. The fact that god created the two factions, set the actions in motion, then ordered the death of one of his creations is also immoral. You also make the assumption that all kids will grow up and do as they were told as kids, that indoctrination works everytime, this is just not true.
How can't you see this? how many more examples do you need? You just keep changing the subject.
Answer the question.
what of the babies who died in the flood? were they given ample time to repent? what about those whose only sins were adultery? did they deserve to die as well?
-
you dont kill innocent children, if you killed the parents you would raise the kids to have morals. Kids dont inherit disdain for other races, assumptions etc of their parents. Killing children is never right because you think they might commit crimes later on, so much for innocent before proven guilty, you would rather give them the verdict of death then the benefit of the doubt.
The pearl harbor comment is ridiculous, we didnt intend to kill the children as god ordered. I disagree with the usage of nuclear weapons it was wrong as was killing the kids in the bible. Two wrongs dont make a right, if you are using other incidinces of genocide to infanticide to prove your point you will fail. I would assume the world agrees with me since there have been no other nuclear attacks to date with numerous opportunities to use them.
kids dont inherit sin, just like osamas kids are not guilty of destroying the towers, how you can make that logical jump is beyond me.
I have no problem with defending and attacking tyrants, however, its not black and white like you would like me to believe. I agree if a peaceful resolution could not be met, violence may be needed, i dont see how mass genocide is necessary. When we fight wars now and win we dont go and kill all that are left of the enemy, we dont slay the children it's immoral. The fact that god created the two factions, set the actions in motion, then ordered the death of one of his creations is also immoral. You also make the assumption that all kids will grow up and do as they were told as kids, that indoctrination works everytime, this is just not true.
How can't you see this? how many more examples do you need? You just keep changing the subject.
Answer the question.
what of the babies who died in the flood? were they given ample time to repent? what about those whose only sins were adultery? did they deserve to die as well?
The babies and other unaccountables have no reason to repent and were taken to God's eternal kingdom upon their death.....another aspect of love and mercy.
Man places no penalty on adultery because man loves adulterous behavior. God doesn't see it that way.....adultery is sin and the wages of sin is death. The picture outlined in scripture is that the world (prior to the flood) was corrupted by violence and steeped in sin. Not part of the world, the whole world. Only Noah and his family were deemed righteous and worthy to continue on.
-
The babies and other unaccountables have no reason to repent and were taken to God's eternal kingdom upon their death.....another aspect of love and mercy.
Man places no penalty on adultery because man loves adulterous behavior. God doesn't see it that way.....adultery is sin and the wages of sin is death. The picture outlined in scripture is that the world (prior to the flood) was corrupted by violence and steeped in sin. Not part of the world, the whole world. Only Noah and his family were deemed righteous and worthy to continue on.
give me a break, death for adultery? some form of forgiveness there.
Do the children not have to accept christ as there lord and saviour?
-
give me a break, death for adultery? some form of forgiveness there.
Do the children not have to accept christ as there lord and saviour?
Death for sin. Life is but a vapor my friend. It ends not with the close of human existance on earth. Forgiveness is available to all though Christ. Our lives today are but preparation for eternity. We know how truly serious God treats sin and we must respond and act accordingly. Still, he gives us the choice to life however and determine how we will spend eternity.
If children are not accountable for the difference between right and wrong, they can't be held accountable for a making a choice for salvation. None are more precious to God than the children and unaccountable children aren't banished to an eternity without God because they weren't saved like their accountable elders.
Luke 17:2
"It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. "
-
you dont kill innocent children, if you killed the parents you would raise the kids to have morals. Kids dont inherit disdain for other races, assumptions etc of their parents. Killing children is never right because you think they might commit crimes later on, so much for innocent before proven guilty, you would rather give them the verdict of death then the benefit of the doubt.
The pearl harbor comment is ridiculous, we didnt intend to kill the children as god ordered. I disagree with the usage of nuclear weapons it was wrong as was killing the kids in the bible. Two wrongs dont make a right, if you are using other incidinces of genocide to infanticide to prove your point you will fail. I would assume the world agrees with me since there have been no other nuclear attacks to date with numerous opportunities to use them.
kids dont inherit sin, just like osamas kids are not guilty of destroying the towers, how you can make that logical jump is beyond me.
I have no problem with defending and attacking tyrants, however, its not black and white like you would like me to believe. I agree if a peaceful resolution could not be met, violence may be needed, i dont see how mass genocide is necessary. When we fight wars now and win we dont go and kill all that are left of the enemy, we dont slay the children it's immoral. The fact that god created the two factions, set the actions in motion, then ordered the death of one of his creations is also immoral. You also make the assumption that all kids will grow up and do as they were told as kids, that indoctrination works everytime, this is just not true.
How can't you see this? how many more examples do you need? You just keep changing the subject.
Answer the question.
what of the babies who died in the flood? were they given ample time to repent? what about those whose only sins were adultery? did they deserve to die as well?
I answered your question. Their parents are responsible for them. And, when adults commit certain sins, their families may suffer the consequences for their actions.
I've used this analogy in the past. If you do something stupid to lose your job and you can't pay your rent/mortgage, you AND YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY will be out on the street. Your landlord/the bank isn't going to just evict you and leave your wife and kids there. ALL OF YOU got to go.
Look at the corruption at Enron. Was their CEO the only one to get whacked? NO!! Thousands of employees lost their jobs, pensions, and savings. The crooked action of the boss adversely affected the workers.
Again, that's what so terrible about sin and sinful behavior. Sometimes, the transgressor ain't the only one that suffered. And as Man of Steel mentioned, per the second Commandment, just as God blesses from generation to generation, He also PUNISHES from generation to generation.
-
why do i hear fundies and repubs continue to say that america was founded on christianity, that this is a christian nation? do they not know the constitution or are they willingly lying and ignorant?
I would it rather be a nation founded on Christian and religious principles than aethist, marxist, souless, techocratic crap.
I am not religious, but I much rather live in a nabe of social cons vs commie libs
-
I answered your question. Their parents are responsible for them. And, when adults commit certain sins, their families may suffer the consequences for their actions.
I've used this analogy in the past. If you do something stupid to lose your job and you can't pay your rent/mortgage, you AND YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY will be out on the street. Your landlord/the bank isn't going to just evict you and leave your wife and kids there. ALL OF YOU got to go.
Look at the corruption at Enron. Was their CEO the only one to get whacked? NO!! Thousands of employees lost their jobs, pensions, and savings. The crooked action of the boss adversely affected the workers.
Again, that's what so terrible about sin and sinful behavior. Sometimes, the transgressor ain't the only one that suffered. And as Man of Steel mentioned, per the second Commandment, just as God blesses from generation to generation, He also PUNISHES from generation to generation.
Just because something is a certain way in reality, doesnt mean it should be that way.
-
I answered your question. Their parents are responsible for them. And, when adults commit certain sins, their families may suffer the consequences for their actions.
I've used this analogy in the past. If you do something stupid to lose your job and you can't pay your rent/mortgage, you AND YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY will be out on the street. Your landlord/the bank isn't going to just evict you and leave your wife and kids there. ALL OF YOU got to go.
Look at the corruption at Enron. Was their CEO the only one to get whacked? NO!! Thousands of employees lost their jobs, pensions, and savings. The crooked action of the boss adversely affected the workers.
Again, that's what so terrible about sin and sinful behavior. Sometimes, the transgressor ain't the only one that suffered. And as Man of Steel mentioned, per the second Commandment, just as God blesses from generation to generation, He also PUNISHES from generation to generation.
your analogy is flawed because those actions are extensions on family. If you killed the father the consequence that trickles down is the child not having a father, that is the repercussion not murder the child as well. Its two disparaging acts where as the your analogy is one action.
you condone the murder of children i don't
-
your analogy is flawed because those actions are extensions on family. If you killed the father the consequence that trickles down is the child not having a father, that is the repercussion not murder the child as well. Its two disparaging acts where as the your analogy is one action.
you condone the murder of children i don't
I recognize that such happens in war and in judgment against evil people.
The analogy isn't flawed. The point remains the same. There are consequences for wicked behavior that are NOT JUST METED on the transgressor.
In the analogy about your house, you did something wrong, which had a FINANCIAL consequence. That consequence fell on you and your entire family.
Same goes for the Enron examply, only a much larger scale: A financial punishment, felt by employees and the employer.
In the most extreme cases of war and/or judgment on sinful people, the ultimate consequence is DEATH. That is not limited to the perpretrators of those evil deeds.
-
I recognize that such happens in war and in judgment against evil people.
The analogy isn't flawed. The point remains the same. There are consequences for wicked behavior that are NOT JUST METED on the transgressor.
In the analogy about your house, you did something wrong, which had a FINANCIAL consequence. That consequence fell on you and your entire family.
Same goes for the Enron examply, only a much larger scale: A financial punishment, felt by employees and the employer.
In the most extreme cases of war and/or judgment on sinful people, the ultimate consequence is DEATH. That is not limited to the perpretrators of those evil deeds.
no the murder analogy would be akin to the father losing his job then going and starving his kid. Killing the parents would committed the crime much like firing the father would have consequences related to the initial action on the child. Thus in the biblical example the child would be fatherless from the action of killing the parents/father, just like the kid would have less money,security because of the lost job. However, the above example goes further and has the kid killed, it is not a epiphenomenon of the fathers murder like job loss is, thus the analogy is flawed. There is no reason to kill the kid. Again if the parents evslaved isareal etc it would be akin to the father performing poor at work and being fired it was his action not the childs, they went out of the way to kill the kids, they are punishing the kids for there parents mistakes, where as the boss who gets fired has no intention on hurting that persons kids.
i cant explain it two hundred different ways. You have two distinct actions in one case and only one in the other.
-
no the murder analogy would be akin to the father losing his job then going and starving his kid. Killing the parents would committed the crime much like firing the father would have consequences related to the initial action on the child. Thus in the biblical example the child would be fatherless from the action of killing the parents/father, just like the kid would have less money,security because of the lost job. However, the above example goes further and has the kid killed, it is not a epiphenomenon of the fathers murder like job loss is, thus the analogy is flawed. There is no reason to kill the kid. Again if the parents evslaved isareal etc it would be akin to the father performing poor at work and being fired it was his action not the childs, they went out of the way to kill the kids, they are punishing the kids for there parents mistakes, where as the boss who gets fired has no intention on hurting that persons kids.
i cant explain it two hundred different ways. You have two distinct actions in one case and only one in the other.
Once again, you're confusing the two scenarios. One, involves financial punishment; the other involves capital punishment (death).
The point you keep missing is that in BOTH scenarios, the adverse effects ARE NOT JUST LIMITED to the transgressor.
Dad loses his job by doing something dumb; he is financially impacted; so is his wife and his kids (not just him).
Enron CEO involved himself in corruption; he goes down; his employees (from the managers to the janitors) lose their jobs, too.
And, in the extreme case of warfare, you have women and children dying for the misgivings of their male leaders and kings. It happens across the board.
-
Once again, you're confusing the two scenarios. One, involves financial punishment; the other involves capital punishment (death).
The point you keep missing is that in BOTH scenarios, the adverse effects ARE NOT JUST LIMITED to the transgressor.
Dad loses his job by doing something dumb; he is financially impacted; so is his wife and his kids (not just him).
Enron CEO involved himself in corruption; he goes down; his employees (from the managers to the janitors) lose their jobs, too.
And, in the extreme case of warfare, you have women and children dying for the misgivings of their male leaders and kings. It happens across the board.
read my post again, i clearly stated several times in a couple posts about the adverse effects of the dads job loss on the kid. I can't even respond to your post because you are ignoring my points and bringing up the same refuted argument over and over.
-
read my post again, i clearly stated several times in a couple posts about the adverse effects of the dads job loss on the kid. I can't even respond to your post because you are ignoring my points and bringing up the same refuted argument over and over.
WRONG!! You keep confusing the issue.
As I said from the start, when adults commit certain sins, their families may suffer the consequences for their actions.
That DOES NOT TRANSLATE into the same consequence for different actions, ONLY that the consequence for a particular actions go beyond the guilty party.
-
WRONG!! You keep confusing the issue.
As I said from the start, when adults commit certain sins, their families may suffer the consequences for their actions.
That DOES NOT TRANSLATE into the same consequence for different actions, ONLY that the consequence for a particular actions go beyond the guilty party.
you're right everything including infanticide is black and white. ::)
-
you're right everything including infanticide is black and white. ::)
I'm sometimes a bit dense and often times ignorant LOL, that said I'm not sure how you concluded that "everything including infanticide is black and white" from the statement "when adults commit certain sins, their families may suffer the consequences for their actions." Are you equating "certain sins" with "infanticide"?
Can you elaborate a bit? These discussions often include generalizations and exclude the all important context.
-
I'm sometimes a bit dense and often times ignorant LOL, that said I'm not sure how you concluded that "everything including infanticide is black and white" from the statement "when adults commit certain sins, their families may suffer the consequences for their actions." Are you equating "certain sins" with "infanticide"?
Can you elaborate a bit? These discussions often include generalizations and exclude the all important context.
He's referring to the Flood, the judgment of God on the Amalekites, and things of that nature. His outrage is because men, women, and children were destroyed in those instances.
-
He's referring to the Flood, the judgment of God on the Amalekites, and things of that nature. His outrage is because men, women, and children were destroyed in those instances.
Oh, here's my post from above:
The Amalekites had hundreds of years to repent and they did not. Generation after generation of children grew to adults who were fully accountable for their actions and feel prey to the depravity of the generations before them. God stepped in and said enough. And yes the unaccountable 2 year olds lives were ended, but what about the fate of their souls? Their parents choose to rebel and defy God at every point in their lives. God is a god of second, third, fourth, fifth.....chances, but after generations lived and died and refused God's grace they chose to then spend an eternity without him. The 2 year olds you speak of can't make that choice and aren't accountable for their actions, but like generations before them they would've done exactly what their parents and their parent's parent and their parent's parent's parents did......separate themselves from God. God recognized the hopelessness in these people and the idolotrous, depravity they repeatedly chose. That said, he ended their unrepentant ways. The Amalakite children of that last generation, the unaccountable 2 year olds, God showed them mercy and grace because upon their deaths they entered paradise while those before them (accountable adults) remain separate from God (as they chose to be) for all eternity. If you don't believe all you see is death, if you do believe you see mercy, grace and love.
-
I would it rather be a nation founded on Christian and religious principles than aethist, marxist, souless, techocratic crap.
I am not religious, but I much rather live in a nabe of social cons vs commie libs
So you enjoy being told you can't buy liquor on Sundays at a package store, or in a restuarant before noon. That marijuana is evil, women shouldn't have the right to an abortion, you can't drink legally until 21.... personally, i like more personal liberties than that
-
So you enjoy being told you can't buy liquor on Sundays at a package store, or in a restuarant before noon. That marijuana is evil, women shouldn't have the right to an abortion, you can't drink legally until 21.... personally, i like more personal liberties than that
In reference to the marijuana being evil piece, we you aware that the number one smuggled drug between the US and Mexico is marijuana? Despit marijuana being sold very cheaply the current side effects of use are a relaxed/mellow attitude, "the munchies" and the monthly death of approximately 1,000 mexicans caught up either directly or indirectly in the current drug war in Mexico?
Galations 5:19-24
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, heresies, 21 envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they which practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof.
"Sorcery" in the Hebrew tranlsated in Greek as "pharmakeia" then translated into english:
1)the use or the administering of drugs
2)poisoning
3)sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it
-
In reference to the marijuana being evil piece, we you aware that the number one smuggled drug between the US and Mexico is marijuana? Despit marijuana being sold very cheaply the current side effects of use are a relaxed/mellow attitude, "the munchies" and the monthly death of approximately 1,000 mexicans caught up either directly or indirectly in the current drug war in Mexico?
Taking your monthly death count at face value, I think your attempt at blaming marijuana for those deaths falls short of reality. I would posit that decriminalizing and controlling to some extent all drugs might lead to the end of those 1,000 deaths per month. As it is now, there is no reason to believe continueing what we are doing will reduce the numbers.
Galations 5:19-24
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, heresies, 21 envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they which practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof.
"Sorcery" in the Hebrew tranlsated in Greek as "pharmakeia" then translated into english:
1)the use or the administering of drugs
2)poisoning
3)sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it
Not seeing your point with the last part..
-
It's not my attempt, it's unfortunately what's happening. This is just one source: http://www.theage.com.au/world/15000-die-in-drug-war-20110113-19prq.html (http://www.theage.com.au/world/15000-die-in-drug-war-20110113-19prq.html)
Sure you could decriminalize it and make it available at your local Walmart, but I'd rather not have my kids go to daycare and know the daycare teachers watching my children can freely get lit before their shift, during lunch or their breaks. I'd rather not have a bus driver smokin a bowl during his break between routes. I'd rather not have my doctor blazing a fatty before he takes out my appendix.
The last part I include because others have said the bible includes nothing about drug use in it.
-
It's not my attempt, it's unfortunately what's happening. This is just one source: http://www.theage.com.au/world/15000-die-in-drug-war-20110113-19prq.html (http://www.theage.com.au/world/15000-die-in-drug-war-20110113-19prq.html)
Sure you could decriminalize it and make it available at your local Walmart, but I'd rather not have my kids go to daycare and know the daycare teachers watching my children can freely get lit before their shift, during lunch or their breaks. I'd rather not have a bus driver smokin a bowl during his break between routes. I'd rather not have my doctor blazing a fatty before he takes out my appendix.
The last part I include because others have said the bible includes nothing about drug use in it.
I think the reality is, 1. Your teachers can do it now if they want to and 2. Even if decriminalized, there would be controls placed on it just as there are for alcohol now. You can't show up at your job drunk now can you? Criminalize the behavior, not the drug just like alchohol.
-
I think the reality is, 1. Your teachers can do it now if they want to and 2. Even if decriminalized, there would be controls placed on it just as there are for alcohol now. You can't show up at your job drunk now can you? Criminalize the behavior, not the drug just like alchohol.
Wait, wait....so marijuana needs controls like alcohol? I thought it was harmless....just relaxes you and gives you the munchies and less addicting than cigarettes which can be smoked in designated areas in schools, hospitals, daycares, etc.......
-
Wait, wait....so marijuana needs controls like alcohol? I thought it was harmless....just relaxes you and gives you the munchies and less addicting than cigarettes which can be smoked in designated areas in schools, hospitals, daycares, etc.......
Vicodin isn't always harmless, alcohol isnt always harmless, aspirin or tylenol isn't always harmless. They can be abused just like illegal drugs can. That the government has ruled cigarettes and alcohol "legal" and pot illegal doesn't make sense. If you are stoned and impaired and drive, it should be illegal just like it is for booze. If you work at a day care you can't come to work stoned just like you can't come to work drunk.
Just my personal opinion, but I think we are barking up the wrong tree thinking keeping these drugs illegal and throwing billions a year at trying to stop them from entering our country is the answer.
-
Vicodin isn't always harmless, alcohol isnt always harmless, aspirin or tylenol isn't always harmless. They can be abused just like drugs can. That the government has ruled cigarettes and alcohol "legal" and pot illegal doesn't make sense. If you are stoned and impaired and drive, it should be illegal just like it is for booze. If you work at a day care you can't come to work stoned just like you can't come to work drunk.
Just my personal opinion, but I think we are barking up the wrong tree thinking keeping these drugs illegal and throwing billions a year at trying to stop them from entering our country.
You're right, I don't know why we legalized alcohol and tobacco use either....doesn't seem like the right thing to do.
Vicodin, alcohol, aspirin and tylenol are also drugs....fyi.
-
You're right, I don't know why we legalized alcohol and tobacco use either....doesn't seem like the right thing to do.
Vicodin, alcohol, aspirin and tylenol are also drugs....fyi.
Because we couldn't stop people from getting them (at least alcohol) and violent crime was on the rise because of it......wait....sound familiar?
And yes, they are drugs, legal controlled drugs verses illegal uncontrolled drugs
-
Because we couldn't stop people from getting them (at least alcohol) and violent crime was on the rise because of it......wait....sound familiar?
And yes, they are drugs, legal controlled drugs verses illegal uncontrolled drugs
Sounds pretty damn similar to me.
Drug laws are absolutely ridiculous.