hezekiah jones

Why not, if you aren't even bothering to read my posts, and think Adams doesn't know what he's talking about either.

How do Adams' "general principles" (whatever they are) relate to the text of the Constitution, and, specifically, what portions of the Constitution? Have you even bothered to read the title of this thread?

Gee, if I'm "lying through my teeth" I guess John Adams did same, eh?

Did I say you were "lying through your teeth"? No, I did not. So I guess that means I didn't say John Adams was "lying through his teeth" either, eh?

One thing I have proven is that there would be no Constitution without the writings, preaching, voting and activities of innumerable Christians who get lousy press here.

Get real. You've "proven" no such thing. Preaching? What on earth are you jabbering about now? And which of these people get "lousy press" here? I've never seen anyone around here besmirching any of the framers. I've seen plenty of quotations being used for varying purposes, but as for "lousy press," I have no idea what you're talking about.

If anything, the framers are lauded for creating a document free and clear from the sectarian poison they abhorred, despite their personal religious views.

What I haven't seen is you making a single reference to the text of the Constitution and indicating which "Christian principle" is underlying it. I know of one, which I've alluded to twice - three times now. How come you don't know what it is? I'm not going to tell you. Do some homework.

And when did the Supreme Court say a private club cannot insist on belief in God? Cite please.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiah jones ]</p>

Radorth

I see, so Jefferson believed in a creator who endowed unalienable rights to people, but saw nothing in Jesus' teachings about this "vague creator" or what rights those might be, or how to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Is that correct?

I don't suppose Locke did either, in spite of so many references to the Bible.

It's a great marvel how men like John Jay and Sam Adams slipped into your mindset as soon as they walked into the convention room, eh? And what a marvel Franklin was calling on "the father of lights" when they got stuck, even though some "vague creator" had nothing to say about what went in it, knew nothing about human nature or what might be the best practical human government for this age. His motion wasn't passed, but they all went to church a few days later and their problems miraculously disappeared.

Rad

hezekiah jones

Is there any chance you could address just one susbstantive question or point, with reference to an actual authoritative document, rather than babbling on about miraculous problem-solving that may just as well have been visited upon John Jay and Ben Franklin by the immortal grace of Allah or Osiris or Zeus? Because this is getting real foolish in a hurry.

Radorth

Other issues were raised already. Too late to ask pedantic and rhetorical questions.

Besides who cares what it says if it wouldn't even exist except through the grace of God? Who cares what it says if the hand of God was everywhere Washington said it was, making it happen? How do you know YOU would even exist or enjoy the blessings of liberty without God's help? Now THAT you will never prove false, which means you are just living off the fat of God's grace, which the founders no doubt appreciated.

Also, I'm beginning to think the topic question was formulated knowing that more important questions could simply be avoided. I should probably start a new, more meaningful thread in the near future.

Rad

hezekiah jones

Too late to ask pedantic and rhetorical questions.

Oh, okay. I guess we missed the boat.

Besides who cares what it says if it wouldn't even exist except through the grace of God?

Uh huh.

Who cares what it says if the hand of God was everywhere Washington said it was, making it happen?

Mm hmmm.

How do you know YOU would even exist or enjoy the blessings of liberty without God's help?

Uh huh. Uh ... er ... *snore*
(Wake me up when Radorth posts the cites to the two Supreme Court cases he referenced above, willya?)

Now THAT you will never prove false, which means you are just living off the fat of God's grace, which the founders no doubt appreciated.

zzzzzzzzzzz

Also, I'm beginning to think the topic question was formulated knowing that more important questions could simply be avoided.

Uh ... you claimed you could answer it. But you're right. You "simply avoided" it.

I should probably start a new, more meaningful thread in the near future.

Too bad. I can answer the question that started the thread, direct from the Bill of Rights, and direct from the Gospel of Matthew. Meanwhile ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Psycho Economist

True. But until challenged in Federal court and overturned... and nothing says the court has to uphold Torasco, either... those laws are still on the books. Enforcable. In some states (Kentucky, for one, I think) an atheist can't even testify in court.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Psycho Economist ]</p>

Buffman

Jefferson wasn't very impressed with the former collection.

Exactly what collection was that? The Vedas and Upanishads, the philosophies and wisdom of Confucius, translated into English and printed in Europe? Did Jefferson have reading access to all the religious beliefs/philosophies found at the following URLs?

<a href="http://www.world-mysteries.com/awr_2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.world-mysteries.com/awr_2.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.world-mysteries.com/awr_3.htm" target="_blank">http://www.world-mysteries.com/awr_3.htm</a>

Given his disgust with the actions of "Christians" he had every reason to find plagarism in Jesus' wisdom, ...

Is that the alleged wisdom "attributed" to Jesus by the mortal writers (propagandists/ancient spin doctors) of the texts that were selected to be included in the NT? (Texts for which the actual authors and authenticity still remain in considerable dispute? Texts that vary in number depending on whether one is an Orthodox/Gnostic/Catholic/Protestant Christian...and have absolutely nothing to do with the U.S.Constitution?)

...but apparently found it unique.

Is it possible that those early Americans that could read and write, and who could afford to purchase books, owned more than one copy of the Judeo-Christian Bible...and could afford to cut one to pieces? If you had only one copy of a book, I doubt that you would cut it up. Additionally, no one questions that Christianity was the prevailing faith belief within the estimated 10-20% of the population that are known to have been attending church in those years. Nor does anyone doubt that nearly 100% of the population held some form of belief in the supernatural origins of the universe, this planet, and all that lived upon it. It wasn't until around 1859, that the scientific Theory of Evolution entered our lexicon and challenged the biblical Genesis myths.


We keep hearing the "nothing unique there" mantra, but when you compare the quality and quantity of metaphors and sayings from Jesus lips, (not to mention his works and example) one can see why Jefferson saw the rest of history's sages as wanna-be's.

What work's of this so-called Jesus? The "miracles?" That's what Jefferson eliminated.---The above statement also assumes that Jefferson knew all there was to know about every "sage" that had existed prior to the so-called one in the NT. How absurd!

A far more striking example of plagarism IMO is that of Muhammed liberally stealing from the Bible what fit his agenda.

Apparently the Christians stole nothing from the Jews...other than the first 39 books of their supernatural, monotheistic, mythology...which the Jews had stolen/plagiarized from those multitheistic societies that had come before them. An interesting read, that has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution, is:

"Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis" by Robert Graves & Raphael Patai, Greenwich House (Crown Pub.), New York, 1963 (Re-issued in 1983)

I am atill awaiting the specific biblical passages that were used to create the U.S Constitution...and how that would make the Constitution a Christian religious creation.

Buffman

It's a great marvel how men like John Jay and Sam Adams slipped into your mindset as soon as they walked into the convention room, eh?

And exactly what "convention room" did John Jay and Samuel Adams walk into, may I ask? Certainly not the Constitutional Convention. They weren't delegates. (What are you talking about?)

And what a marvel Franklin was calling on "the father of lights" when they got stuck, even though some "vague creator" had nothing to say about what went in it, knew nothing about human nature or what might be the best practical human government for this age. His motion wasn't passed, but they all went to church a few days later and their problems miraculously disappeared.

Don't you rather suspect that they had gone to church before the 81 year old Franklin, suffering from serious infirmities and the heat of a June 28th day, desired that the delegates get on with the business at hand. (You never did offer any reason why the ordained minister delegates never volunteered to say Christian prayers at any time during the entire convention.) ---The Convention stood adjourned on the 3rd and 4th of July. Would you be so kind and enlighten me on where they "all went to church a few days later;" and if "their problems miraculously disappeared," why did it take them until the 17th of September to solve problems that, according to you, no longer existed?

H.J.

(Are you beginning to see why I wear his denigrating remarks about me with a smile? Fortunately, many of his statements cause me to do the kind of research I enjoy whether my findings support or undermine his claims. However, he has a perfectly valid bitch whenever I apply one of my interpretatation to one of his scenarios when it doesn't agree with his conditioned beliefs. Obviously only his interpretation can be right because his supernatural God(s) delivered it to him personally.)

Buffman

And just because I paid for these two photocopied pages, I am going to post this again for "all" to read who may have missed it before.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;&gt;

I sent the following request for assistance to Yale University:

At the beginning of the War of 1812, Timothy Dwight is quoted as having said the following before a gathering of students at the Yale College chapel, "The nation has offended Providence. We formed our Constitution without any acknowledgement of God; without any recognition of His mercies to us, as a people, of His government, or even of His existence. The [Constitutional] Convention, by which it was formed, never asked even once, His direction, or His blessings, upon their labours. Thus we commenced our national existence under the present system, without God."

Could you please provide an original source reference to this quoted statement. Thank you.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;

From their response, I compiled the info immediately below with the additional comment.

The quote is from "A discourse in two parts : delivered July 23, 1812, on the public fast, in the chapel of Yale College / by Timothy Dwight..." ( I also note that he is Timothy Dwight, D.D.L.L.D., President of that Seminary; Published at the request of the students, and others; New Haven; Published by Howe and Deforest; Sold also by A.T. Goodrich and Co. No, 124, Broadway, New-York; Printed by J.Seymour, 49, John-street, New-York)
.................................................. .................................................
(Here is the full paragraph taken from my photocopy of the two pages sent to me by Yale University.)

"The second of these reasons is, the sinful character of our nation. Notwithstanding the prevalence of Religion, which I have described, the irreligion, and the wickedness, of our land are such, as to furnish a most painful and melancholy prospect to a serious mind. We formed our Constitution without any acknowledgement of GOD; without any recognition of his mercies to us, as a people, of his government, or even of his existence. The Convention, by which it was formed, never asked, even once, his direction, or his blessing upon their labours. Thus we commenced our national existence under the present system, without GOD. I wish I could say, that a disposition to render him the reverence, due to his great Name, and the gratitude, demanded by his innumerable mercies, had been more public, visible, uniform, and fervent."

(Obviously Dwight was wrong about the "never asked, even once" remark. Franklin asked.)

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

(Although the quote found on page 105 of "The Godless Constitution" [by Kramnick & Moore] does not track word-for-word, it would be a stretch to claim that the authors made an intentional effort to misquote Dwight. However, I did not notice any evidence that "his" was capitalized as the authors elected to do in their quote. Perhaps the original printer of the Discourse was a non-believer.)

(Now enjoy the opening of his next paragraph):

"At the same time I have no hesitation to say, that the eagerness, with which public offices are hunted for, and the sacrifices of principle and conscience, which, as we have but too much reason to believe, are made, in order to acquire them, constitute a great and dreadful sin; and are a deep brand upon the moral character of our country...."

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Though certainly not proof, one must wonder why one of the leading Christian moralist teachers of the day would be so outraged at the Constitution if it were based on anything in the Judeo-Christian Bible/dogma.

ybnormal

Though certainly not proof, one must wonder why one of the leading Christian moralist teachers of the day would be so outraged at the Constitution if it were based on anything in the Judeo-Christian Bible/dogma.

I am forced to disagree that this isn't proof. I find it most excellent, certainly using the standard of proof set by the lone Constitutional skeptic on this thread, who has clearly established himself as a most excellent David Barton apprentice. Congratulations to both Buffman and Radorth. Everyone is good at something.