Post Reply
Page 100 of 100  •  Prev 1 ... 95 96 97 98 99 100
Switch to Forum Live View Was America Always a Christian Nation?
2 days ago  ::  Aug 03, 2015 - 2:58AM #991
Roymond
Posts: 3,217

Aug 3, 2015 -- 12:31AM, El Cid wrote:


Jul 27, 2015 -- 12:05PM, TPaine wrote:


Jul 27, 2015 -- 12:08AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: You nor SCOTUS have yet to demonstrate there is a RIGHT to marry in the Constitution.


tp: Civil rights don't have to be enumerated. They apply to everyone based on the 14th Amendment.



How do you know that they don't have to be enumerated? If they are not then you can make anything a right and take away rights on a whim. If this is true then our nation would turn into the Soviet Union. Which it may very well be on the way to if people like you continue to ignore the Constitution.




The Constitution says they don't have to be enumerated -- read the Ninth Amendment:  all rights not enumerated are included.  As an example, building on SCOTUS occasional use of the term "freedom of expression" as equal to "freedom of speech", naturists in the country are working to get Oregon's interpretation of freedom of expression enshrined at the federal level.  The argument is simple:  if it's a right in Oregon, and SCOTUS has called it a right, then under the Ninth it's a constitutional right and should be protected as such.


So since marriage has been known as a right, it's in the Constitution.  If privacy has been known as a right, it's in the Constitution.  If self-defense has been known as a right, it's in the Constitution.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 days ago  ::  Aug 03, 2015 - 8:26AM #992
amcolph
Posts: 19,724

Aug 1, 2015 -- 12:38AM, El Cid wrote:


I don't remember ever doing that, I admit I am behind in my responses to your posts, because I want to respond to every relevant post and I only have limited time I can spend on this site. But I never ignore responses to it, though of course my response will not be immediate because I said I am a few weeks behind. And I don't always have time to refer to the exact post or post a link but I never ignore any relevant post.



Then perhaps what we could do is to continue to re-post unanswered questions until we get a response.


The other alternative would be for all of us to leave the thread for two or three weeks until you get 'caught up.'


Somehow, though, I don't think it would help.  There are really only a couple of related issues under discussion here, and if you wanted you could address the issues directly rather than responding to ancient posts.


Take two for example:


That the Declaration of Independence is the enabling ducment of our country.


That "nature's laws" as referred to in it by Jeffereson can only have been derived from the Bible.


Make your best case.


Then perhaps we can consolidate our objections to it.


I admeit it can be confusing to answer a number of people all making more or less the same rebuttle, but your habit of responding to the oldest post first is downright confusing. 
We're all trying to make the same point; respond to that, not the individual poster.


 

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 days ago  ::  Aug 03, 2015 - 8:30AM #993
amcolph
Posts: 19,724

Aug 1, 2015 -- 4:09PM, El Cid wrote:


Jul 25, 2015 -- 8:22AM, amcolph wrote:


Jul 25, 2015 -- 12:47AM, El Cid wrote:



I didn't bring up, Mr. Paine did. But in some ways it is relevant. I am not arguing that my church denomination deserves special consideration or privilege. If you think that, you have not been reading my posts very carefully.




What I have been reading tells me very clearly that you think the nation was founded on it.


Yes, you graciously allow that other sects and religions should be permitted to exist, but the laws of the land should be as your sect derives them from the Bible.




Well that is just the way it is when you live in a thestic nation based on many biblical principles. Every nation has its own way of doing things and its own founding philosophy.




So you admit that what you mean by "theistic nation" is a Calvinist theocracy?

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 days ago  ::  Aug 03, 2015 - 8:33AM #994
amcolph
Posts: 19,724

Aug 1, 2015 -- 12:38AM, El Cid wrote:



Everything I have said is fully compatible with all the major creeds of Christendom.




But it is not exhaustive of them, which is what you are trying to pretend.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 days ago  ::  Aug 03, 2015 - 11:09AM #995
TPaine
Posts: 9,934

Aug 2, 2015 -- 11:55PM, El Cid wrote:


Go back to your post, you didn't say religion, you said belief system, those are ALL belief systems.



All the Atheists and Secular Humanists I know and have talked to about it say it is not a religion or a belief system. They say it is non-belief. I'm not  an Atheist or a Secular Humanist so I can't answer the question from personal knowledge.

"The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of man change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it." -- Thomas Paine: Rights of Man (1791)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 days ago  ::  Aug 03, 2015 - 11:55AM #996
Roymond
Posts: 3,217

Aug 3, 2015 -- 8:33AM, amcolph wrote:


Aug 1, 2015 -- 12:38AM, El Cid wrote:



Everything I have said is fully compatible with all the major creeds of Christendom.




But it is not exhaustive of them, which is what you are trying to pretend.




I'm not sure I buy the notion that it's all compatible, because his main thesis is that it's legitimately Christian to lord it over others using coercion to enforce allegedly biblical laws.  That's not in any of the great Creeds.  At root, it's just papism revisited, replacing the single pope with a vast committee.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 days ago  ::  Aug 03, 2015 - 11:59AM #997
Roymond
Posts: 3,217

Aug 3, 2015 -- 11:09AM, TPaine wrote:


Aug 2, 2015 -- 11:55PM, El Cid wrote:


Go back to your post, you didn't say religion, you said belief system, those are ALL belief systems.



All the Atheists and Secular Humanists I know and have talked to about it swaw it is not a religion or a belief system. They say it is non-belief. I'm not  an Atheist or a Secular Humanist so I can't answer the question from personal knowledge.




Atheism is definitely a belief, but it's hardly a system.  Secular Humanism is a belief with a very rudimentary system.  Deism is a belief with perhaps somewhat more of a system.  But none are anywhere near on par with any theism.

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 day ago  ::  Aug 03, 2015 - 12:35PM #998
TPaine
Posts: 9,934

Aug 3, 2015 -- 12:10AM, El Cid wrote:


Yes, but he did believe in the moral laws of the OT and NT that is why in the DOI he refers to the "Laws of Nature and [the Laws] of Nature's God." What other laws could he be referring to? First he refers to the laws of nature, then refers to a second set of laws of Nature's God, even though he didn't believe in the miracles of the bible he did believe that the moral laws referred to in the bible were the moral  laws of nature's God. BTW Jefferson considered himself a christian, he wrote to Benjamin Rush "I am a real Christian...sincerely attached to His doctrines, in preference to all others." He also wrote "no system of morality would work for the common man or woman without the sanction of divine authority stampt upon it." While I am not saying that he was an actual Christian, this plainly implies that he beieved in the moral law of the biblical God.



There's nothing new in the moral code in the Jewish or Christian Bible. The New Testament (180 CE) is based on the Old Testament (Tanakh) (1200-450 BCE) which is based on the Hittite Laws (ca. 1650–1100 BCE) which are based on the Code of Hammurabi (1760 BCE) which is based on the Codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BCE) which is based on the Laws of Eshnunna (1930 BCE) which are based on the Laws of Eshnunna (1930 BCE) which are based on the Code of Ur-Nammu (2050 BCE) which is based on the Cuneiform law (2,350-1,400 BCE) which is based on the Code of Urukagina (2360 BCE), which is based on the Maat (2,510-2370 BCE).

Deism was not actually a formal religion, but rather was a label used loosely to describe certain religious views. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word deist was used negatively during Jefferson's lifetime. The label was often applied to freethinkers like Jefferson as a slander rather than as a precise description. Thus the deist label is not highly specific. Deists were characterized by a belief in God as a creator and "believed only those Christian doctrines that could meet the test of reason." Deists did not believe in miracles, revealed religion, the authority of the clergy, or the divinity of Jesus. Like Jefferson they "regarded ethics, not faith, as the essence of religion."


"Nature's God" was clearly the God of deism in all important ways. That Jefferson included God in the "Declaration of Independence" is very significant because it helped lay the foundation for a civil religion in America. Paul Johnson addressed the civil religion begun by the founders in his article, "The Almost-Chosen People,"saying that the United States was unique because all religious beliefs were respected. People were more concerned with "moral conduct rather than dogma." So Jefferson helped create a society in which different religions could coexist peacefully because of the emphasis on morality over specific belief. Link


"The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of man change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it." -- Thomas Paine: Rights of Man (1791)
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 day ago  ::  Aug 03, 2015 - 2:51PM #999
TPaine
Posts: 9,934

Aug 3, 2015 -- 12:31AM, El Cid wrote:


Good for you. But I didn't say all adopted children would have these problems, I said some, and the situation is compounded with surrogacy, which is being used more and more by gays to get children.



Children are far better off being adopted than living with a mother who either doesn't want them or is unable to care for them. LGBT couples who have the means tho support children have as much right to adopt children as straight couples and can be just as good parents.


Aug 3, 2015 -- 12:31AM, El Cid wrote:

There are very few conservative Christians in France, these protests were huge. And polls taken showed a majority of French citizens against it. So the overwhelming majority now against it are secular humanists not conservative Christians.



I'm sure a lot of Christians in France would disagree with you about whether or not they are conservative, but that's not your decision to make. There are a lot of homophones and bigots in every country. I doubt that France is any different. I know there are lot of neo-facists in France that are trying to take over the government. An example of that is the National Front party whose political ideology is French nationalism, National conservatism, Social conservatism, Right-wing populism, Anti-immigration, Anti-globalism, Protectionism, Souverainism, and Euroscepticism. They also want to make France a Christian nation.


Aug 3, 2015 -- 12:31AM, El Cid wrote:

How do you know that they don't have to be enumerated? If they are not then you can make anything a right and take away rights on a whim. If this is true then our nation would turn into the Soviet Union. Which it may very well be on the way to if people like you continue to ignore the Constitution.



That is a ridiculous claim. Civil rights laws are in-numerated in federal and state codes. The Constitution as Amended is the basis of those laws, but it doesn't address everyone of them. The 14th Amendment covers them all. Its people like you that are ignoring the Constitution. Religious intolerance is heading us toward a Spanish Inquisition type theocracy.


Aug 3, 2015 -- 12:31AM, El Cid wrote:

Nevetheless, prior to that nearly all states were officially Christian and most of the founding fathers had no problem with it.



Jefferson and Madison had a problem with it. Jefferson wrote the Bill for Religious Freedom to end the existence of an official church in Virginia, and Madison got it passed by the Virginia General Assembly while Jefferson was in Europe as the United States Minister to France. The bill read in part:

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.[/quote]


Aug 3, 2015 -- 12:31AM, El Cid wrote:

No, it is obvious by reading the Treaty that the Muslims DID believe that the US was a Christian nation. Read Article 6. The US was trying to appease the Muslims that we would not depose their government and impose Christianity on them. And anyway I agree with the Treaty, I am not arguing that American is officially a Christian nation.




If they were so interested in proving they were not a Christian nation to the Muslims, why did they leave Article 11 out of the Arabic translation of the treaty?


"The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of man change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it." -- Thomas Paine: Rights of Man (1791)
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 100 of 100  •  Prev 1 ... 95 96 97 98 99 100
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook