lpetrich

Radorth reminds me of an anecdote from Gore Vidal's Reflections upon a Sinking Ship. GV had once been in Egypt in the late 1960's to interview some officials there, and he stopped off to visit the construction of the Aswan Dam.

Some Russian advisers were helping, and one of them gave GV a guided tour of the construction. GV asked repeatedly how many Russians were there, but his guide told him "We will tell you everything you want to know. Everything is open." Etc. But not what GV was asking about.

Radorth

You wouldn't. I could just say "the answers are in the NT. Do your homework," however these come to mind.

"You shall not muzzle the ox which treads out the corn."

"...some divisions are necessary, so that those who are approved among you might become manifest."
(1 Cor 11:18)

"And they called and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered 'Whether its right to listen to you more than God, you judge, for we cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard.'" (Acts 4)

All OT except one. Ask one of those Jewish scholars you like to quote when cnvenient to your argument agains the deity of Christ.

This is in a parable but yes, if you refuse to allow Christ to reign over you at some point, you will be slain apparently. Oh well, you'll be dead when your body dies anyway right? So why worry? The question is, if you saw Christ come back, would you let him rule or not?

(more)

Radorth

Oops there's this one from the NT
Yes that's true, but he also said "he who is not against us is for us." And please note that none fo the framers except perhaps Paine were against Jesus himself, while a surprising number were against the "Papists" So apparently they were either hypocrites, or nothing in their constitution can be construed to eliminate verbal persecution. And since Jesus advocates no violent persecution in this world, you have absolutely no case.

Rad

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

Mageth

Yes that's true, but he also said "he who is not against us is for us."

To clarify, here's the passage:

Mark 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not; for there is no one who shall do a miracle in my name, and be able soon [after] to speak ill of me; 40 for he who is not against us is for us.

So those "not against us" are those doing miracles in his name, apparently. Not people in other religions, if that's what you were meaning.

Radorth

As for women's rights, I am a supporter of the ERA and disagree with 2 or 3 of Paul's statements. In his defense he takes pains to salute women. The Quakers (first charismatics, heh) led the way in regards to recovering the spirit of the NT in this regard, and while the policy of Oberlin College may be extraordinary, it is perfectly in line with "God is no respecter of persons."

I personally cannot find much to contradict my assertion that God sees us all as perfect equals and having the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Using quotes from John Knox in 1558 and passing them off as "Biblical" is pretty sad, and it's not like non-Christians have much of a record to stand on. How did the Indians treat their women, or even each other?

I can make a good argument they'd still be persecuting and enslaving each other, and raping each other's women but for the civilizing influence of Christians.

Oh wait. We were only 17% Christian back then, right? So apparently slavery, oppression of women and Indians was approved mostly by non-Christians. No wonder the Methodists and Quakers were being ignored.

"He takes the wise in their own craftiness" is perhaps the most applicable scripture here.

Rad

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

Yellum Notnef

What the hell does this have to do with freedom of speech? You`re really reaching into the bottom of the bucket now unless you believe that freedom of speech involves talking oxen.

It`s one of the "NON talking" <a href="http://www.ulps.org/ULPS%20Website/Pages/Animalwelfare.html" target="_blank">animal laws</a> from Deuteronomy.

"Deuteronomy 25:4 reads, "you shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the corn". This prohibition was extended to include all animals employed in labour. It is sheer cruelty to excite an animal's desire for food and then prevent the satisfaction of that desire."

You are such a tool.

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

Radorth

I guess Ipetrich is too lazy to read about and comment on the Tripoli assertion (or much else) on which the atheist case leans so heavily, so he simply presents personal judgements to entertain the choir.

Some of you folks look tired.

Rad

Mageth

How did the Indians treat their women, or even each other?

Not that bad, in most cases. Better than the white Christians treated them, that's for sure.

I can make a good argument they'd still be persecuting and enslaving each other, and raping each other's women but for the civilizing influence of Christians.

You mean the christians that persecuted, enslaved, and raped them, wiping out, what, 95%+ of their population, and moved most that remained onto reservations?

Mageth

Some of you folks look tired.

Tired out from laughing at some of the "arguments" you've been posting.

Toto

Can you see my eyes crossing as I slog through 10 pages of this stuff?

On the Treaty of Tripoli - what does it matter what the Arabic says? The US Congress voted on the English version.

So to sum up - the case that the US has a godless Constitution looks solid. It may have been written by Christians, but they did not write a Christian document, did not find inspiration in the Bible or Christian history.

It has been said that you can find anything in the Bible, but you can't find freedom of speech.

Radorth's only objection is that these secularists put up with a certain amount of ceremonial religiosity - chaplains in Congress, public prayer, etc., so these should still be okay. Perhaps Rad or someone else would like to defend that very narrow proposition.