Radorth

That is correct, as I deduced myself from some reflections last night. I should have insisted on a different thread title before attempting to wade across the Amazon.

Blatantly false. Were the purges of Mao based on Marx' principles? You call people Christians who would believe Hitler's twisted interpretations of Jesus' intention toward Jews? I'm sick of this lazy argument, and especially after pointing out a hundred times what real free-thinkers thought of Jesus' teachings. But I understand- if you can't call anyone a Christian you like, your world-view crumbles and you would have to make painful concessions.

Rad

Autonemesis

No, but he wasn't a Marxist, so this isn't surprising.

Yes, just like some contemporary American Christians believe the KKK's twisted interpretations of Jesus' intentions toward blacks.

That's because it is effective, and you have no rebuttal.

A Christian is identified by a professed belief in the teachings of Jesus, including that Jesus is the savior of mankind. What other definition should we use, that would exclude Nazis, Klansmen, Torquemada and the crusaders, but not Fallwell or Billy Graham or Strom Thurmond or Radorth?

Jeremy Pallant

You're missing the point, Radorth. Marx didn't advocate mass slaughter (that I know of). However one who might have called himself a Marxist did. Just because a Marxist holds certain principles does not mean that Marx himself did. Likewise just because a Christian holds certain principles does not mean that those principles are Christian.

Does that make it clearer?

Now, given that we are in apparent agreement that the thread title is a source of confustion. How about this question?

"How does the US Constitution find its origin in the Bible?"

Certainly that's a claim I've heard some Christians make.

Jamie_L

Radorth:

If I accept for a moment that God exists and he WANTS this nation the way it is, and he arranged events to craft it the way it is:

That still doesn't mean that the nation's ideals are reflections of principles laid out in the Bible.

I have seen virtually nothing in the Bible that supports the notion of personal liberty and limited government that is at the heart of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Admittedly, I'm no Bibilical scholar, so if you are aware of such support in the Bible, please direct me to it and I'll retract my statement.

Again, it seems to me that the OT instructs people to basically abandon personal freedoms and submit to the will of god-appointed rulers. The NT appears to instruct people to accept their fates and suffer in this world and await reward in the next. Personal freedom seems to be of little if any concern, and government, be it oppressive or liberating, is largely to be ignored.

So, it seems to me that Christianity, as laid out in the Bible, has little to influence people towards U.S.-style democracy. Thus, the influence must have come from elsewhere. Even if it came from God, it comes with a different message than that of Christianity itself.

Jamie

MrDarwin

Jamie, I agree with your overall point, except that the Bible makes clear that many laws to which people must submit come directly from God, at least in the OT (e.g., see Leviticus and Dueteronomy).

But I still can't find any inkling of the concept of a republican form of government--that is, government by elected representatives, which is one of the most fundamental concepts of the government of the United States, both at the federal and at the state level--anywhere in the Bible.

MrDarwin

Well, good for you, after an unambiguous thread title and several explicit attempts by various participants to clarify what this discussion was about.

But rather than insisting on a different title, maybe you should have paid more attention to what the discussion was actually about? I give you a "C-" for effort and an "F" for reading comprehension.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Radorth

"They that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." Not possible without the Constitutional safeguards.

"They that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

"Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature."

Neither is possible without Constitutional safeguards.

And so we can see why God would have, as Washington said over and over, helped so much in the Revolution. I agree with Buffman's point above to some extent, that we did not seek God's guidance to the extent we might have, and yet he helped greatly anyway.

It is laughably ironic that while skeptics might well claim to have won a victory of some sort in this particular battle with myself and John Adams, they are still losing the war. The intent of the founders for our present society is a much larger issue, as is whether we would even have a Constitution without the favor of Providence.

The other great irony is that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether the Constitution is entirely based on Christian principles or not, if God is merely using it as a means to insure the purity of the Gospel, and its spread. The likely result is that skeptics may one day wish their "secular" Constitution had put a greater damper on religious freedom.

Rad

Mageth

The other great irony is that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether the Constitution is entirely based on Christian principles or not, if God is merely using it as a means to insure the purity of the Gospel, and its spread.

This is especially ironic in that the percentage of Americans who would classify themselves as "christians" is without doubt lower today than it was in 1789. Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam are increasing in percentage in the U.S. while xianity's percentage is shrinking. So maybe Krishna, Buddha or Allah is really the one behind the constitution.

From <a href="http://www.zondervanchurchsource.com/product.asp?ISBN=0310227844" target="_blank">here</a> (note, a Christian source):

Radorth

Perhaps an overstatement if you count every little detail to be worked out. However Franklin had wisely realized what an impasse they were at, and saw crippling personal animosity and frustration develpoing. While skeptics like to point out that his motion for prayer was not adopted, later events shed much light on how they resolved their differences. At the very least, Franklin's plea was affecting, for Jonathon Dayton reports that on July 2,

"We assembled again; and...every unfriendly feeling had been expelled, and a spirit of concilliation had been cultivated."

Perhaps the Jesus and Paul's teachings about "mutual submission" which Hooker considered vital, had suddenly come to mind?

We don't hear about Edmund Randolph's motion the "a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on the 4th of July" and that is exactly what the convention did.

BTW, after Franklin's plea, Washington's face lit up according to Dayton:

"The Doctor say down and I never did I behold a countenance so dignified and deighted as was that of Washington at the close of the address..."

Care to inform us exactly when Congress started opening sessions with prayer Buffman?

If you ever stop making those snooty little remarks, based apparently on your ability to locate original documents in databases, we'll get along fine. Skeptics who make ignorant gaffs here are treated with kid gloves by you, and your arrogant remarks are conspicuously absent in your posts to the David Barton's of atheism. At least I don't go around claiming I'm a careful scholar and free-thinker, and parroting websites.

And where the hell is Daggah now? He has several new "liars" to call out.

Rad

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Mageth

And so we can see why God would have, as Washington said over and over, helped so much in the Revolution. I agree with Buffman's point above to some extent, that we did not seek God's guidance to the extent we might have, and yet he helped greatly anyway.

How? Can you give specific examples conclusively demonstrating how god helped in the revolution?