Post Reply
Page 47 of 47  •  Prev 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47
Switch to Forum Live View Was America Always a Christian Nation?
1 day ago  ::  Mar 29, 2015 - 1:42AM #461
Roymond
Posts: 2,149

Mar 29, 2015 -- 12:58AM, El Cid wrote:


Mar 27, 2015 -- 2:47AM, Roymond wrote:


And they are NOT "conservative Christians", they are reactionary Christians, descendants of the radical Reformation and not the conservative part, spiritual heirs of Zwingli, a preacher who believed that the Gospel could be spread by war. 



Evidence?




Their fruit is sufficient evidence:  that they want to use the coeercive power of government to require people to conform to outward behavior they think is proper.


I've looked, but I don't find where Jesus ever said, "Go therefore and pass laws in My name, coercing people into behavior you prefer".  It's just not there.


Mar 29, 2015 -- 12:58AM, El Cid wrote:


roy: Conservative Christians know that our only weapon is the Word of God, not the power of government -- because the moment we try to use the power of coercion, we make Christ a policeman, not a Savior.



Who said anything about converting people by coercion or using the government to convert people? That is not what I said and neither do most conservative christians. 




No one did -- you're making that up.


Fundamentalist Christians have these notions of what a "righteous nation" is supposed to be.  But the Law, or law in general, has never made a nation righteous.  Besides that, Amwrica isn't GOd's chosen nation anyway, which is an underlying theme of all the "pass laws to force people to be righteous!" foolishness.


Mar 29, 2015 -- 12:58AM, El Cid wrote:


roy: Again, they did NOT found the country on biblical anything.  The Declaration of Independence is an enlightenment document, not a biblical one -- they did not appeal to the God of the Bible, but to Nature's God, a very deist individual who doesn't get involved much at all.  Just look at the crew who wrote it -- deists all!



No, as I demonstrated above He is much too involved with humans to be the deist god. And if you read that phrase carefully "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" Jefferson is referring to the "Laws of Nature's God" what laws could he be referring to other than the laws of God revealed in the Bible? The Deist god has never revealed any laws. And actually most of the founders were Christians. 50 out of 55 of the signers of the DOI and the Constitution were Christians.




The affiliations of the signers is irrelevant.


And no deity anywhere had ever revealed any laws of nature.  That makes the reference to "Nature's God" a reference to a deist figure -- it certainly isn't the God of the Bible; for the God of the Bible there ARE no "laws of nature", there's only His action.  The very concept of the "Laws of Nature" is contrary to scripture.  Further, nothing he says there as being required by Nature's God has much to do with the Bible; it has everything to do with humanistic concepts of human beings as the source of authority in government and individuals sovereign over their own lives.


Mar 29, 2015 -- 12:58AM, El Cid wrote:


roy: The Constitution owes more to the Iriquois nation than to the Bible, and more yet to Roman and Greek ideas. 




Actually that story about the Iroquois has been shown to be a myth. And yes they did incorporate some ideas from the Romans and Greeks but studies have shown the text most often referenced by the founders' writings was the bible.




No, it hasn't.  No, the Consitution didn't get its structure from the Haudenosaunee, but it was well known to colonial leaders that the Six Nations had a form of government siuch as they were proposing, and not only had it, but that it worked, and worked well across as large a stretch of North America as the colonists themselves inhabited.  It was thus an example to show them that they had reason to believe that their ideas would actually work.


As for the Bible, it has no notion of representative government, or of federalism, or of voting, of of separation of powers, or checks and balances -- all of which the Haudenosaunee had, and the colonial leaders knew they had.


Again, what is referenced by the founders writings is irrelevant -- what is relevant is what is in the Consitution, and that owes just about zilch to the Bible.  Indeed, not just the Consitution but the Declaration can be seen as very much opposed to biblical teaching --the very notion at the core of the Declaration is that men are in charge of their own lives and therefore have every right to overthrow the established powers if they judge it necessary.  That is totally contrary to what we see in Paul,  who says to submit.  The Constitution relies on the same concept, that human beings are sovereign individuals in charge not only of themselves but of their government, with no notion present that government's authority comes from God in the least.


So, yes -- the Constitution owes more to the Iroquois than to the Bible.


And the Declaration is an Enlightenment document resting solidly on humanism.

Quick Reply
Cancel
20 hours ago  ::  Mar 29, 2015 - 10:20AM #462
amcolph
Posts: 19,068

Mar 29, 2015 -- 1:07AM, El Cid wrote:


amc: But I wouldn't count on that if I were you.  Many of us regard what you imagine to be "our founding judeo-christian principles" as unAmerican as well as unChristian and won't stand for them to be imposed on us.


 
Which judeo-christian principles do you not like? The right to life, property, freedom of conscience, punishing theives, murderers, discouraging adultery?




 None of those is uniquely "judeo-christian" and in any case they are unobjectionable.


I was thinking more of the "judeo-christian values" promoted by Fundamentalists such as yourself:


For example, that unregulated corporate capitalism is the only economic system acceptable to God; that union membership, workplace safety legislation, environmental regulation, child labor laws and the minimum wage are contrary to God's will.  And, of course, a prurient obsession with disgusting, perverted and inaccurate ideas about human sexuality.




This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 hours ago  ::  Mar 30, 2015 - 12:00AM #463
El Cid
Posts: 1,978

Mar 27, 2015 -- 9:48AM, amcolph wrote:


Mar 27, 2015 -- 12:12AM, El Cid wrote:


ec; No, but it cheapens marriage and makes it bascially meaningless and hurts the survival of our nation as the studies above have shown.


amc: No, it doesn't do any of those things except in the fevered brains of the sexually perverted.



Fraid so, if it can mean two people of the same sex it can mean anything. Why not you and your computer. your dog, your sister, your mother, your TV, etc? There is no real objective reason to restrict it to two people once you throw out biology and God and just go by emotion. And also see the scientific studies showing how homosexuality causes problems for societies and individuals that I posted earlier.



ec: And the homosexual behavior hurts those engaging in it as shown by many studies. Not to mention it will probably put us under the judgement of God.


amc: We're probably already under the judgement of God for harboring Calvinists. ;)



Funny, but the US as we know it would probably not exist if not for Calvinists. ;-)


ec: Fraid not, read the DOI and compare it to documents of the French Republic which actually WAS founded as a secular nation.  If it was a secular nation we would have changed the dating system like the French did. Even the Constitution says "Year of Our Lord"  which Lord do you think they were referring to?


amc: ROFLMAO!  That's your justification for wanting to turn this country into a Dominionist utopia???  How the Document was dated?




I never said I wanted to turn this country into a Dominionist utopia. Of course, that is not the only piece of evidence that this was not founded as a secular nation, but if the founders had been serious about doing so they would have done exactly as the French did and changed the dating system. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 hours ago  ::  Mar 30, 2015 - 12:10AM #464
Roymond
Posts: 2,149

Mar 30, 2015 -- 12:00AM, El Cid wrote:


Mar 27, 2015 -- 9:48AM, amcolph wrote:


Mar 27, 2015 -- 12:12AM, El Cid wrote:


ec; No, but it cheapens marriage and makes it bascially meaningless and hurts the survival of our nation as the studies above have shown.


amc: No, it doesn't do any of those things except in the fevered brains of the sexually perverted.



Fraid so, if it can mean two people of the same sex it can mean anything. Why not you and your computer. your dog, your sister, your mother, your TV, etc? There is no real objective reason to restrict it to two people once you throw out biology and God and just go by emotion. And also see the scientific studies showing how homosexuality causes problems for societies and individuals that I posted earlier.





Don't pretend to be that stupid -- we're talking about consenting human beings.  That "argument" is pre-school idiocy spat out to stir emotion -- it has no rational content.


Mar 30, 2015 -- 12:00AM, El Cid wrote:


amc: ROFLMAO!  That's your justification for wanting to turn this country into a Dominionist utopia???  How the Document was dated?




I never said I wanted to turn this country into a Dominionist utopia. Of course, that is not the only piece of evidence that this was not founded as a secular nation, but if the founders had been serious about doing so they would have done exactly as the French did and changed the dating system. 




You really think we're so shallow and ignorant as to buy that pretense at thinking?


If you turned that in as a piece of writing in my college remedial reading comprehension and writing class, I'd assign you a five-thousand word paper on the differences between the American Revolution and the French Revolution based not on anyone's personal writings but on the discourses concerning the form of the proposed nation -- because it's plain you don't understand them.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 hours ago  ::  Mar 30, 2015 - 12:11AM #465
Roymond
Posts: 2,149

Mar 29, 2015 -- 10:20AM, amcolph wrote:


Mar 29, 2015 -- 1:07AM, El Cid wrote:


amc: But I wouldn't count on that if I were you.  Many of us regard what you imagine to be "our founding judeo-christian principles" as unAmerican as well as unChristian and won't stand for them to be imposed on us.


 
Which judeo-christian principles do you not like? The right to life, property, freedom of conscience, punishing theives, murderers, discouraging adultery?




 None of those is uniquely "judeo-christian" and in any case they are unobjectionable.


I was thinking more of the "judeo-christian values" promoted by Fundamentalists such as yourself:


For example, that unregulated corporate capitalism is the only economic system acceptable to God; that union membership, workplace safety legislation, environmental regulation, child labor laws and the minimum wage are contrary to God's will.  And, of course, a prurient obsession with disgusting, perverted and inaccurate ideas about human sexuality.




I've never understood why fundamentalists think God gave us license to trample and defile His Creation.  I suppose it has to do with the crappy choice of the word "dominion" in the opening of Genesis as a translation for what is in context a matter of stewardsip.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 hours ago  ::  Mar 30, 2015 - 12:21AM #466
El Cid
Posts: 1,978

Mar 27, 2015 -- 5:54PM, Roymond wrote:


Mar 27, 2015 -- 9:33AM, amcolph wrote:


Mar 27, 2015 -- 12:21AM, El Cid wrote:


You seem to be implying that you would exteriminate using weapons conservative Christians that wanted to bring the country back to our founding judeo-christian principles.




If necessary, yes. It depends on how you go about it. One of your correligionists who frequented the US Politics board used to brag that it would be easy because "Liberals don't own guns."


But I wouldn't count on that if I were you.  Many of us regard what you imagine to be "our founding judeo-christian principles" as unAmerican as well as unChristian and won't stand for them to be imposed on us.




I know a fair number of liberals who own guns.  But besides that, there are a lot of conservatives who actually are conservatives and don't want any religious laws, because they understand that the moment that door is opened, there are no limits.


Besides, the membership of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership isn't going to stand by and let anyone make this country a theocracy.


Actually, there are people who study future trends and list this as one scenario in which the US has another civil war, except this time it would be theocracy fans v civilized folk.  (And yes, I mean to say clearly that fans of theocracy on any level are NOT civilized folk.)




Before political correctness, did you know they determined whether a country was civilized by how much the society operated according to Judeo-Christian principles?

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 hours ago  ::  Mar 30, 2015 - 12:24AM #467
El Cid
Posts: 1,978

Mar 30, 2015 -- 12:21AM, El Cid wrote:


Mar 27, 2015 -- 5:54PM, Roymond wrote:


Mar 27, 2015 -- 9:33AM, amcolph wrote:


Mar 27, 2015 -- 12:21AM, El Cid wrote:


You seem to be implying that you would exteriminate using weapons conservative Christians that wanted to bring the country back to our founding judeo-christian principles.




If necessary, yes. It depends on how you go about it. One of your correligionists who frequented the US Politics board used to brag that it would be easy because "Liberals don't own guns."


But I wouldn't count on that if I were you.  Many of us regard what you imagine to be "our founding judeo-christian principles" as unAmerican as well as unChristian and won't stand for them to be imposed on us.




I know a fair number of liberals who own guns.  But besides that, there are a lot of conservatives who actually are conservatives and don't want any religious laws, because they understand that the moment that door is opened, there are no limits.


Besides, the membership of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership isn't going to stand by and let anyone make this country a theocracy.


Actually, there are people who study future trends and list this as one scenario in which the US has another civil war, except this time it would be theocracy fans v civilized folk.  (And yes, I mean to say clearly that fans of theocracy on any level are NOT civilized folk.)




Before political correctness, did you know they determined whether a country was civilized by how much the society operated according to Judeo-Christian principles? BTW, conservative christians are not trying to restore the old hebrew theocracy which I think is what you fear.





Quick Reply
Cancel
6 hours ago  ::  Mar 30, 2015 - 12:32AM #468
El Cid
Posts: 1,978

Mar 28, 2015 -- 9:20PM, amcolph wrote:


Mar 28, 2015 -- 8:02PM, El Cid wrote:



ec: How is God's law tyrannical?



amc: What is God's law?



Well for a country like the US you would use principles derived from His moral laws which are primarily concentrated in the ten commandments and the moral teachings of Christ, but they are also located in other parts of the bible.




amc: Who is to decide that?




Voters who are sympathetic with restoring our judeo-christian heritage.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 hours ago  ::  Mar 30, 2015 - 12:45AM #469
Roymond
Posts: 2,149

Mar 30, 2015 -- 12:21AM, El Cid wrote:


Before political correctness, did you know they determined whether a country was civilized by how much the society operated according to Judeo-Christian principles?




I've read works by such bigots, yes.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 47 of 47  •  Prev 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook