Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radorth · 12-10-2002, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Then we get the Age of Enlightenment, in which the supernaturalism and authoritarianism that characterizes Christianity were called into question, and then suddenly Democracy starts springing up?

Locke, Bacon, the Quakers (first charismatics), Hooker.

Rad

hezekiah jones · 12-10-2002, 08:10 PM

x2:

I can immediately think of one "Christian principle," one that is fairly central to the Bill of Rights. I wonder if Radorth knows what it is. Among all his ludicrous handwaving, he's never mentioned it once, which is suprising, because one passing reference to it would make his point better than the entire sum total of irrelevant hypertext he's produced to date.

Radorth · 12-10-2002, 08:17 PM

Quote:

So what are those principles???

I listed at least four so far. If you don't like those, ask John Adams and son.

Look, even if the founders intended the Constitution to read like a secular, legal document, we have no reason at all to think they intended a secular society in the sense so many skeptics interpret it. Anybody wanna discuss that question? It is probably my mistake to respond to a thread with such a narrow focus, because it gives skeptics and excuse to avoid major practical issues.

Jefferson curses Christianity, then says he hopes the pure doctrines of the "Benevolent Institutor" are spread everywhere. Washington says virtually the same thing. They would turn over in their graves to hear some of you talk, and I think, would have serious doubts about the future of a country where the Supreme Court has to say it's OK to pray together in school, or a private club cannot insist on belief in God.

That is not what they meant by separation, at all.

Rad

hezekiah jones · 12-10-2002, 08:22 PM

I listed at least four so far.

No you didn't. You've got Adams mumbling about "general principles." To which portions of the founding documents do they relate?

Look, even if the founders intended the Constitution to read like a secular, legal document ...

It does, and it is.

... we have no reason at all to think they intended a secular society in the sense so many skeptics interpret it.

Strawman. What are you talking about now?

Anybody wanna discuss that question?

Not until you address the original question.

hezekiah jones · 12-10-2002, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mfaber:
You have summed Radorth's position concisely ...

I was honestly hoping I hadn't, but it looks like maybe I was right. Now he's trying to change the subject.

hezekiah jones · 12-10-2002, 08:29 PM

They would turn over in their graves to hear some of you talk, and I think, would have serious doubts about the future of a country where the Supreme Court has to say it's OK to pray together in school ...

What prayer would you like to propose?

... or a private club cannot insist on belief in God.

To what case are you referring? When did the Supreme Court say a private club cannot insist on belief in God?

Put up or shut up, Radorth.

Radorth · 12-10-2002, 08:38 PM

Quote:

You seem to think that every reference to religion or Jesus is Christian, but this is absurd.

No I don't think he was a Christian. I don't think Wells was a Christian. I have simply said they were smart enough and honest enough not to blur distinctions and to call a spade a spade.

Quote:

Many of the moral principles you are calling Christian predated Jesus.

Jefferson wasn't very impressed with the former collection. Given his disgust with the actions of "Christians" he had every reason to find plagarism in Jesus' wisdom, but apparently found it unique. 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. A far more striking example of plagarism IMO is that of Muhammed liberally stealing from the Bible what fit his agenda.

Rad

Buffman · 12-10-2002, 08:44 PM

I have been unable to make a link to the following:

<a href="http://www.rutherford.org/articles/oldspeak-calthomas.asp" target="_blank">http://www.rutherford.org/articles/oldspeak-calthomas.asp</a>

I can not even make a link to Rutherford at the moment. And why would I wish to make this link? Well, because conservative, nationally syndicated, columnist and evangelical Christian Cal Thomas was interviewed by John W. Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute in October.

Thomas was queried on his views about the claim that America was founded on Christianity. Thomas bluntly replied, "It wasn't." The rest of the interview contained additional strait forward talk by a knowledgeable and devout Christian.

I suggest that Radorth attempt to convince Mr. Thomas that Mr. Thomas's views are in error. These views are identical to the ones being presented here, though from a reverse perspective. Mr. Thomas appears to be very much in favor of church-state separation because he fears the corrupting influence of the government on religion rather than religion's corruption of government.

Radorth · 12-10-2002, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Now he's trying to change the subject.

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

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

Rad

Radorth · 12-10-2002, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Mr. Thomas appears to be very much in favor of church-state separation because he fears the corrupting influence of the government on religion rather than religion's corruption of government.

That is the primary reason I support separation, and why the 18th century Christians supported it, although I do not support any states atheist discrimination laws such as were mentioned above. I have also said the Constitution is the ideal document for preserving the right to interpret ad preach the Gospel as freely as we do.

I see no reason to refute mr Thomas if I'm already doing so. This seems merely an argument from authority anyway, Buffman.

Rad

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

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-10-2002, 08:10 PM	#72
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	x2: I can immediately think of one "Christian principle," one that is fairly central to the Bill of Rights. I wonder if Radorth knows what it is. Among all his ludicrous handwaving, he's never mentioned it once, which is suprising, because one passing reference to it would make his point better than the entire sum total of irrelevant hypertext he's produced to date.

12-10-2002, 08:22 PM	#74
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	I listed at least four so far. No you didn't. You've got Adams mumbling about "general principles." To which portions of the founding documents do they relate? Look, even if the founders intended the Constitution to read like a secular, legal document ... It does, and it is. ... we have no reason at all to think they intended a secular society in the sense so many skeptics interpret it. Strawman. What are you talking about now? Anybody wanna discuss that question? Not until you address the original question.

12-10-2002, 08:29 PM	#76
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	They would turn over in their graves to hear some of you talk, and I think, would have serious doubts about the future of a country where the Supreme Court has to say it's OK to pray together in school ... What prayer would you like to propose? ... or a private club cannot insist on belief in God. To what case are you referring? When did the Supreme Court say a private club cannot insist on belief in God? Put up or shut up, Radorth.

12-10-2002, 08:44 PM	#78
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	I have been unable to make a link to the following: <a href="http://www.rutherford.org/articles/oldspeak-calthomas.asp" target="_blank">http://www.rutherford.org/articles/oldspeak-calthomas.asp</a> I can not even make a link to Rutherford at the moment. And why would I wish to make this link? Well, because conservative, nationally syndicated, columnist and evangelical Christian Cal Thomas was interviewed by John W. Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute in October. Thomas was queried on his views about the claim that America was founded on Christianity. Thomas bluntly replied, "It wasn't." The rest of the interview contained additional strait forward talk by a knowledgeable and devout Christian. I suggest that Radorth attempt to convince Mr. Thomas that Mr. Thomas's views are in error. These views are identical to the ones being presented here, though from a reverse perspective. Mr. Thomas appears to be very much in favor of church-state separation because he fears the corrupting influence of the government on religion rather than religion's corruption of government.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.