Outshined Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Heh, that quote also shows that they considered Jesus Christ to be the holy author of their religion. :)At least some of them; but not that they considered it to have any sort of favored status when it came to the new government. It was "rejected by a great majority"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 If the founders of our nation had accepted the amendment to the preamble of our Constitution, the preamble would have read:“coercion is a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion”but they left it as:“coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion” (understood to be Jesus Christ)"in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."Or in other words, coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, (Jesus Christ), because everybody should be protected from people who try to coerce other people to worship God as they [those who coerce] choose, instead of worshipping God as we [as individuals] choose.Got it now?No coercion, and Jesus Christ is the holy author of our religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I always "had it", but thanks for asking. And they made sure that all religions were given equal consideration and respect under our Constitution, not just Christians. I gotta tell you, if your aim is to convinve me that the Constitutution was meant to favor Christianity over other faiths, it ain't gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I agree. The founders of our nation ensured equal consideration and respect from coercion, with protection from all those who coerce.But that does not mean they gave equal consideration and respect to what all people might worship in their religion, or that they didn’t worship Jesus Christ, or that the their laws weren't inspired by Jesus Christ.Or in other words, America was founded as a Christian nation, with freedom and liberty to all.I gotta tell you, if your aim is to convinve me that the Constitutution was meant to favor Christianity over other faiths, it ain't gonna happen.No, that is not my goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 But that does not mean they gave equal consideration and respect to what all people might worship in their religion, or that they didn’t worship Jesus Christ, or that the their laws weren't inspired by Jesus Christ.Or in other words, America was founded as a Christian nation, with freedom and liberty to all.If that's how you see it, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't see an inclination to such in their words myself. Oh well.I think we can agree that not all the founding father considered themselves to be Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I think we can agree that not all the founding father considered themselves to be Christian.Perhaps not, but I think they all believed Jesus Christ was of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 The way that I see it if it was against the law what she done and is found guilty than I would rather hang than sit in a cell for the rest of my life, but than if it was self defence then I think she had the right to fight to the death, but it all depends on the laws of the land. B)No, it does NOT depend on the laws of the land The laws of God are higher than the laws of humanity, and if an evil government sanctions a rape party, and criminalizes a woman defending herself, then she still has the right to defend herself. Even the "Law of the Jungle" recognizes that much. WOW. If we're willing to countenance the legal raping of our young women, because a future government may say it's okay, then perhaps it's time to get into our new clothes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 <div class='quotemain'>I think we can agree that not all the founding father considered themselves to be Christian.Perhaps not, but I think they all believed Jesus Christ was of God.Ray, a number of the Founding Fathers did not believe that Jesus Christ was anything more than a Sage. That said, there's a reason why they called "god" by the title "providence". Providence is not Jesus Christ. Providence is whatever deity you may personally favor, if any. That's how GW considered it, and how others did Im sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 I think I’ll ask for some clarification from mzb before jumping down on him for what he was saying.For instance, if a country has a law against a woman killing a man, even if a man is trying to rape a woman, then it would be “just” for those who uphold that law to punish a woman for killing a man, even if a man is trying to rape a woman.Now, if someone doesn’t like that law, or if someone doesn’t think that law is “good”, then they should appeal to higher authorities to try to get that law changed, rather than simply violate the law and then complain that they don’t like the punishment that goes along with violating it.And btw, sometimes we simply have to wait until we can appear before God before we can make all things “good”, because many of the lower authorities simply fail or refuse to see the errors of their way.<div class='quotemain'><div class='quotemain'>I think we can agree that not all the founding father considered themselves to be Christian.Perhaps not, but I think they all believed Jesus Christ was of God.Ray, a number of the Founding Fathers did not believe that Jesus Christ was anything more than a Sage. That said, there's a reason why they called "god" by the title "providence". Providence is not Jesus Christ. Providence is whatever deity you may personally favor, if any. That's how GW considered it, and how others did Im sure.Heh, oh you're sure, are you? I'll give due consideration to your insights. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotle Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 This bears reiterating: WHO FATHERED AMERICA? In recent years, it has become popular for secular humanists, atheists, and other "free thinkers" to claim that the Fathers of our country were not Christians or religious people after all, but at most deists, atheists, or secularists. Some even go so far as to suggest that several were more addicted to French Enlightenment philosophy than they were to Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth! Of the fifty-five men who wrote and signed the U.S. Constitution of 1787, all but three were orthodox members of one of the established Christian communions: approximately twenty-nine Anglicans, sixteen to eighteen Calvinists, two Methodists, two Lutherans, two Roman Catholics, one lapsed Quaker and sometime-Anglican, and one open Deist--Dr. Franklin who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations. (re: Faith of Our Founding Fathers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 This bears reiterating:WHO FATHERED AMERICA?In recent years, it has become popular for secular humanists, atheists, and other "free thinkers" to claim that the Fathers of our country were not Christians or religious people after all, but at most deists, atheists, or secularists. Some even go so far as to suggest that several were more addicted to French Enlightenment philosophy than they were to Christianity.Nothing could be further from the truth! Of the fifty-five men who wrote and signed the U.S. Constitution of 1787, all but three were orthodox members of one of the established Christian communions: approximately twenty-nine Anglicans, sixteen to eighteen Calvinists, two Methodists, two Lutherans, two Roman Catholics, one lapsed Quaker and sometime-Anglican, and one open Deist--Dr. Franklin who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations.(re: Faith of Our Founding Fathers)Merely repeating yourself does not strengthen your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotle Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Merely repeating yourself does not strengthen your position. Yes it does! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Heh, yeah, it does if you do what strengthens you, and you keep doing it all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Heh, good catch, and I totally agree. That repetition strengthens an argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 <div class='quotemain'>Heh, good catch, and I totally agree. That repetition strengthens an argument? Yes, in a sense. But more accurately, it strengthens our "position".For instance, if I keep adding a rock to my pile, my pile will have more rocks, and if having those rocks adds strength to my position, my position would be stronger with more rocks.And btw, if you think Aristotle was adding the same rock to his pile, you should go back and count again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Seeing as I don't agree with Ari's use of her chosen "rocks" or her interpretation thereof, the number matters not to me. I've made my views on the subject known and have seen nothing presented that changes that view. It's a matter that religious fundamentalists and historians have disagreed about for many years, and it won't be solved here. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 It's [the background and philosophies of the people who established the Constitution of America] a matter that religious fundamentalists and historians have disagreed about for many years, and it won't be solved here. B)Just because you haven't seen the light of truth on this issue doesn't mean others can't see the light, and since I can't do more than shine my own light I'm gonna let my little light shine... ...let it shine all the time, let it shine...(and btw, for those who are clueless, that's from a song I still remember singing in a "Protestant" Sunday School. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Just because you haven't seen the light of truth on this issue doesn't mean others can't see the light, and since I can't do more than shine my own light I'm gonna let my little light shine... If the thread is now taking a small-minded turn into "if you don't agree with my opinion, you don't see truth", it's gone about as far as it can intellectually. You have your opinions as everyone else does, and they are no more valid than any other. Have fun with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 <div class='quotemain'>Just because you haven't seen the light of truth on this issue doesn't mean others can't see the light, and since I can't do more than shine my own light I'm gonna let my little light shine... If the thread is now taking a small-minded turn into "if you don't agree with my opinion, you don't see truth", it's gone about as far as it can intellectually. You have your opinions as everyone else does, and they are no more valid than any other. Have fun with it. Is that the same thing you tell someone when they talk about Joseph Smith, or Jesus Christ, or anything else?There is such a thing as truth, Outshined, so not all opinions are equally valid.Anyway, I really didn't intend to say "I'm right and You're wrong". I'm simply trying to say that it doesn't really matter what some religious fundamentalists and historians have said once a person knows the truth, and all that any of us can do while knowing the truth is to share the things that we know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Is that the same thing you tell someone when they talk about Joseph Smith, or Jesus Christ, or anything else? Absolutely. If someone tells me they don't believe JS was a prophet, I never say "just because you can't see the light of truth..." How obnoxious would that be? I understand that not everyone will agree with me, and approach it accordingly.There is such a thing as truth, Outshined, so not all opinions are equally valid.In this case, they certainly are. I can provide just as much proof for either side of this issue. Taking one particular side does not make it "the truth" as opposed to the other. If there was conclusive evidence for the stance you've chosen I'd agree with you, but it just is not there; in fact there is plenty for the other side as well. For every quote you dig up of a founding father making a religious statement, someone can provide one of that person decrying religion in government (or just condemning religion altogether). I believe we've referred to that as "quote tag" here. B) Taking the stance that one's own opinions are "truth" that others have just "failed to see" is not a tenable one.(Talk about a thread going nowhere...)<div class='quotemain'>Merely repeating yourself does not strengthen your position. Yes it does! By the way, to address this; repetition does not "strengthen your position" in a debate. Perhaps it strengthens your conviction or attitude toward your position, but it does nothing to strengthen the actual position you're arguing at all. In fact, to the opponent it makes your position weaker, as it appears you have run out of a convincing argument and must resort to repeating yourself just to have something to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Let me put it this way. When I see something, and I then describe what I see to someone else, I think I can honestly and fairly state when someone else doesn’t see what I have described as evidence of what I have seen, because I have actually seen it and I can tell when someone else doesn’t see it, based upon their understanding of my descriptions. And even if I never can manage to adequately describe what I have seen to someone else, I still know I have seen what I have seen, even when that someone else states that “[some people] have been arguing about this for many years, and it won’t be solved here” Or in other words, I was telling you that I still see what I see, despite what you and others have to say about it, while also making it known that you don’t see what I see, just as you admitted that you don’t see it. And btw, I also think it was “wrong” for you to say that Aristotle and I don’t see what we see, especially when you openly admit the fact that you truly and simply don’t see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 When I talk to Jewish or Islamic friends I don't tell them that they just "can't see the truth" like I can... I understand that some see things and interpret them differently, that doesn't make one blind and the other right. I at least recognize that fact.One man's "truth" is another man's "opinion," especially in a case like this one. And btw, I also think it was "wrong" for you to say that Aristotle and I don't see what we see, especially when you openly admit the fact that you truly and simply don't see it. When did I tell you that you "don't see" something you claim to? I've told you several times that I know what your opinions are on the subject, and that I do not agree with them. I see what you refer to, but simply do not agree with your conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dror Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 This bears reiterating:WHO FATHERED AMERICA?In recent years, it has become popular for secular humanists, atheists, and other "free thinkers" to claim that the Fathers of our country were not Christians or religious people after all, but at most deists, atheists, or secularists. Some even go so far as to suggest that several were more addicted to French Enlightenment philosophy than they were to Christianity.Nothing could be further from the truth! Of the fifty-five men who wrote and signed the U.S. Constitution of 1787, all but three were orthodox members of one of the established Christian communions: approximately twenty-nine Anglicans, sixteen to eighteen Calvinists, two Methodists, two Lutherans, two Roman Catholics, one lapsed Quaker and sometime-Anglican, and one open Deist--Dr. Franklin who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations.(re: Faith of Our Founding Fathers)Between the two of them, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were probably, uh, "active" enough to have fathered America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotle Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 That repetition strengthens an argument? The truth will set you free. ;-)And btw, I also think it was “wrong” for you to say that Aristotle and I don’t see what we see, especially when you openly admit the fact that you truly and simply don’t see it.Thanks Ray...it's good to see that others believe as I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 The truth will set you free. Repetition of opinion does not equal "truth;" it equals opinion repeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts