Radorth

Check this out on the "free-thought" web.

Oops, I meant this one also by an atheist (er, an honest one)

"Joel Barlow and the Treaty of Tripoli," by Rob Boston. Church & State, Vol. 50, No. 6 (June 1997), pp. 11-14; Website: <a href="http://www.au.org/c&sjun6.htm" target="_blank">http://www.au.org/c&sjun6.htm</a>


The plot thickens!

Rad

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Yellum Notnef

Radorth,I don`t know what translation you`re looking at,but when I look up 1 Cor 11:18 it clearly states:
"For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. "

This is much different than your version:
"...some divisions are necessary, so that those who are approved among you might become manifest."

Sure you might be able to argue that your version has something to do with free speech,but first you`ll have to tell me where you got it from and explain why it`s so much different than what I`m getting when I look up 1 Cor 11:18.

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Fenton Mulley ]</p>

Radorth

No it isn't. Mine is verse 19. You quoted it above.

Rad

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

Grins Ct

Well shucks, yeah, I guess all those heretical statements finally gave me away, eh?

Rad

Radorth

"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.)"

(Library of Congress. Religion and the Founding of the American Republic. VI. Religion and the Federal Government. <a href="http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html" target="_blank">http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html</a> )

My. State buildings used for regular church services. Tsk. Tsk. The "deists" today would have a fit, no? Apparently since they were "nondiscriminitory and voluntary" Jefferson found no violation of his "wall of separation."

You know, I wasn't sure. But now I'm glad we did this.

Rad

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Yellum Notnef

Well if you look above you`ll see that YOU first listed the quoted verse incorrectly yourself as 1 Cor 11:18.
But it`s still my fault for not noticing even though all the verses were right in front of me.

Well whatever. You still have no case for this one. Here are several different translations of 1 Cor 11:19 :

AMP
"For doubtless there have to be factions or parties among you in order that they who are genuine and of approved fitness may become evident and plainly recognized among you"

NASB
"For there must also be factions among you,so that those who are approved may become evident among you. "

NLT
"But, of course, there must be divisions among you so that those of you who are right will be recognized!"

KJV
"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."

ESV
"for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized."

CEV
"You are bound to argue with each other, but it is easy to see which of you have God's approval."

YLT
"for it behoveth sects also to be among you, that those approved may become manifest among you"

Paul does not "encourage constructive divisions" like you claimed,but instead is giving his reason for the divisions he encountered among the people at church.
And Paul says the reason for the divisions is,of course,to find out who`s "genuine" and has "Gods approval".

I wasn`t aware that free speech in this country is actually a test to see who is genuine and has Gods approval.

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Fenton Mulley ]</p>

Jeremy Pallant

Radorth agreed, several pages ago, that he was arguing that the US Consitution was based upon the principles of people who were Christians rather than Christian principles. He also stated that he should have insisted on a more precise question. I suggested a more precise question, and even started a thread on the subject. Why Radorth elects to ignore it is beyond me.

mfaber

Radorth responds.......

Radorth, I have defended my position. If it is your contention that the NT supports free speech, then it is YOUR obligation to present the argument and NOT my duty to try and ferret out YOUR arguments for you. If there is anyone who expects his homework to be done for him it is you.

You are given to conversations with oxen? Do oxen publish, make speeches, engage in debates? Sound more like a prohibition against animal cruelty to me. Since Fenton Mulley has already commented and posted an appropriate website on this very thing, I don't need to elaborate further.

Thank you, Fenton for the<a href="http://www.ulps.org/ULPS%20Website/Pages/Animalwelfare.html" target="_blank"> WEBSITE</a>

Again Fenton beat me to it by posting the context of this verse which means nothing by itself. How does Paul scolding men for having long hair and raising hell about the divisions among the parishioners of a particular church have to do with free speech?

Again, where is the support for free speech? We all know it's okay to talk about Christianity, but where is there any protection for opposing viewpoints? All one has to do is looks a all the "blasphemy" laws to know just what some Christians think of free speech.

Oh, I see.... The OT isn't "Christian" when it doesn't support your POV (no religious tolerance), but is "Christian" when it supports your POV (the damnation of homosexuality). Reminders of this total lack of "religious tolerance...........

John 14:6 "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Very exclusionary....all other religious paths condemned here

Isaiah 40:5 "He will rule as King of Kings and reign as Lord of Lords, and every knee shall bend and every tongue shall speak in worship before Him" The knee-bending and proclaiming of the Christian way in John 14:6 often "secured" by terror, intimidation, torture, murder and at weapon's point.................

The deity of Christ??? I wasn't aware that this was the subject of the thread. Looks like another Radorth "red herring" to divert attention from the fact that the Bible most definitely doesn't support religious tolerance.

But since you brought it up, Jewish scholars don't consider Christ to be "divine" and don't think he was the Messiah:
<a href="http://www.bamidbar-shel.org/whydont.htm" target="_blank">Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus</a>


Again with the "red herrings"!!! Very well, to answer your irrelevant preaching (with regard to the topic)

• 1. So you admit that if I don't allow "Christ to reign", I will be killed???
• 2.And yes, I do think when I'm dead, that's the end.
• If Christ does come back, then you will have been right and I will have been wrong. HOWEVER, I don't think I have anything to worry about on that score, since the Biblical Jesus never existed (whoever the founder of Christianity was, the fabulous character described in the Bible isn't he!) The Biblical Jesus promised to come during the lifetime of the apostles. He still a no-show. How can one trust someone who is 2000 years late and counting?

The question is NOT about your support for the ERA. Thirty-five states ratified this amendment and if the vast majority of Americans are Christians, then it follows that most of the supporters in these ratifying states were Christians. HOWEVER, please remember that it was a well-financed champaign of misinformation mounted by fundamentalist Christians (Ex. Phylis Schafley, Falwell, Ralph Reed, Dobson and Co.) that finally defeated this amendment. The fact is that the Christians that ultimately counted (the ones with power, money, motivation---the fundamentalists) controlled the situation. My point stands, the Bible has been used from the getgo to club women into submission and to intimidate lawmakers from making headway in remedying the situation.

I can think of a lot of Christians who would view you as heretic and as lacking in humility for asserting that you know that what God wants ("sees us as perfect equals") as opposed to being a TRUE Christian (taking the Biblical view a la Genesis, Paul)

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: mfaber ]</p>

mfaber

The above is an example<a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#tuquoque" target="_blank"> of the famous "you too" (tu quoque) fallacy.</a> It occurs if you argue that an action is acceptable because your opponent has performed it. Radorth seems to be arguing that because Indians mistreated women (depends on the tribe, in many of them women had rights as opposed to the lack of them given to Christian women), it somehow excuses Christian abuses. I thought Christianity was supposed to be "superior", Radorth. All this says to me is that it isn't any worse than other doctrines from other cultures (if we take your evalutation of Indian treatment of women at face value). In that case, Christianity has nothing better to offer, so I am quite comfortable with dismissing it.....

What s/he said^^^^!!!! Thank you, Mageth!!!


They did NOT insert Christianity in the Constitution, so why would they complain about something they had no intention of doing? It is no surprise we don't have any such "complaints"!

It's a very important technicality...it's called the law of the land (for now.... I fully expect a full scale assault on undoing the laws by Shrubya, Aschroft and the conservative Reflublicans)

We don't claim anything. The fact that the Bible opposes personal liberty, religious tolerance, freedom of speech, the rights of women, minorities is very plain. It was you that said the Bible supported these principles, wasn't it? I keep forgetting, we have to deal with what Radorth thinks the Bible OUGHT to have said as opposed to what it REALLY says and how it has been applied throughout history.

Radorth, "creator" is a very generic term. It doesn't say "endowed by Jesus" or "endowed by Jehovah" (any name indicating that the identity of the "creator" is the Christian version of same). Jefferson and Franklin were deists which means they believed in a Creator (not necessarily the Christian version as attested to by Jefferson) and an afterlife. No one here has ever denied this. What we do deny is that "creator" necessarily refers to the Christian Jesus/Jehovah version, something that you and the Religious Reich spin doctors desperately want everyone to believe. The DoI does NOT mention Christianity, Radorth, get over it!
[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: mfaber ]

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: mfaber ]</p>

Cthulhu

So you concede the point that the principles embodied in the Constitution do not have their antecedent in the Bible? If you do, then why do you continue to try by throwing out scriptural references?

And what other kind of fact is there than an objective one?

You've done nothing of the kind.

As already pointed out by others on this thread, principles held by Christians and Christian principles are not the same. Unless you can find Biblical support for it, it isn't a Christian principle. Therefore, your statement is false.

Then you or Adams need to give me the specific Biblical support of these nebulous principles you keep spouting off about.

This thread has a clearly stated topic. Every one of your "opening statements" is completely irrelevant to that topic. Your attempts to derail that topic are clear, but I for one am still waiting for an answer to the original question.

2 or three? You mean even you don't know which ones are the principles?

Glad to see we have something in common.

An argument that is not only unfactual and fallacious, but that could be used equally well to "justify" the enslavement of Africans.

Thank you for showing your true colors, Radorth.

You can't find much to contradict the principles embodied in the Constitution, but you can't find anything to support them either, is that it? Is this another variation of the old, "Well, I can't prove god exists, but you can't disprove he exists: therefore, he exists."

And your response to mfaber's list of Biblical scriptures which are antithetical to Constitutional principles is, "Most of them are in the Old Testament, so it don't count."

I didn't realize that the OT was no longer considered part of the Bible.

Well, live and learn.


So because Jesus (in your view) didn't necessarily hinder free speech, that constitutes Biblical support of said freedom?

That's truly amazing, Radorth. What an ingenious argument.

The point is ignored because it is irrelevant to the topic.

A technicality? It's called facts, Radorth, something you clearly have no use for.

This statement is factually incorrect on both counts.

Irrelevant to the topic. The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, and the term 'creator' is not necessarily synonomous with the Christian God. It does nothing for your "case".

*sigh*

So, in summary, when you have actually attempted to deal with the topic of this thread (which so far is quite rare), you have supplied a bunch of scriptures that have been taken completely out of context and have no bearing on the issues being discussed.

So which is it: do the scriptures not exist, or is it that you just can't find them?

It seems to me that if Jebus and Papa Yahweh were really supportive of democratic principles, they could have been far more clear and unambiguous on the matter in their holy book. After all, being omniscient, they would have known that their words would be used as a tool of repression for a long, long time to come. But who am I to question the will of god?

Let's cut to the chase, m'kay Rad? Do you or do you not wish to continue to argue that the Constitution is based on Christian Principles? If not, what is the point of continuing this thread?
If you want to discuss the religious affiliation of the founders, or some other point from your assorted ramblings, then I suggest you start a new thread.