In the Year of Our Lord?:
At the end of the Constitution, the date is prefaced with “in the year of our Lord." Is this an expression of the fundamental role played by Jesus and Christianity in the Constitution? No, this was just the standard dating convention. It’s no more significant than using BC and AD when writing dates now.
Random note.
If they REALLY gave a crap, they COULD have said CE (Common Era).
BCE and CE are the “politically correct” (I guess you could say) versions of BC and AD.
Well really one of the reasons they wanted to create freedom of religion and install a government that was free from it, is becuase they just came from Europe, which had come times where the Catholic Church basically ran a dictatorship over all of Europe. MOst of the founding fathers wanted to escape this. They may have been Christians themselves, but in no way did they want to give any kind of religion any political power, as this was one of their reasons to coming to America was to escapte the corrupt clutches of the Church in Europe.
--- It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns.
Zucas wrote:
Well really one of the reasons they wanted to create freedom of religion and install a government that was free from it, is becuase they just came from Europe, which had come times where the Catholic Church basically ran a dictatorship over all of Europe. MOst of the founding fathers wanted to escape this. They may have been Christians themselves, but in no way did they want to give any kind of religion any political power, as this was one of their reasons to coming to America was to escapte the corrupt clutches of the Church in Europe.
No, the founding fathers wanted to escape the monarchy that was controlling them. They didn’t want to be a part of the oppressive British Empire. You are mistaking the founding fathers for the pilgrims that arrived in North America over 100 years earlier. Not only that, their quarrel was with the Church of England, not the Roman Catholic Church.
Besides, most of the founding fathers were born in the colonies.
Actually you’re both right in some ways. The Anglican church broke from the Catholic church, but still retained some of the rituals. The Puritans broke from the Anglican church...and one of the reasons is they felt it was too close to Catholicism.
The reason the Puritans emigrated to the colonies was primarily religious. However, I’m sure with the decline, then rise of royalism in England in the 17th century (English Civil War) there would have been some political motivations as well.
Rage is also right that the “founding fathers” lived at a time when the American colonies were breaking away from England. As far as the religious influence...it’s difficult to say. By this time culture in the American colonies was more diverse than in the time of the pilgrims. It’s safe to say that there would have been more denominations represented. As such, I doubt that “breaking from Catholicism” was of as much importance as the politics of the time.
As far as I see, laws w/out religious backing is just making arbitrary rules.
Religion works because it says “The Creator of the universe says that this is how it should be” which is obviously a pretty high authority.
According to atheism, there is no God, so we are just animals. And animals have no real rules or laws. So, a constitution (or government for that matter) is impractical.
--- Not dead that which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons death may die.
- H. P. LovecraftJoin the Order
ChaosSpartan wrote:
As far as I see, laws w/out religious backing is just making arbitrary rules.
Religion works because it says “The Creator of the universe says that this is how it should be” which is obviously a pretty high authority.
According to atheism, there is no God, so we are just animals. And animals have no real rules or laws. So, a constitution (or government for that matter) is impractical.
It’s that kind of ignorance that I fight against. Not only isn’t the Constitution based on Christian principles, but assuming we need a god in order to be good. Are people really so selfish that they think they have to be bribed with salvation or terrorized with damnation in order to be good? Our laws are based on our moral instincts, not religion.
How do I know? Well for one, the bible is the LAST place to look for moral guidance. In the video I posted below, about 7:00 in, it shows why the Bible is one of the worst places to look for moral guidance
That’s right, picking and choosing. You Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible you like and which you don’t like. You can’t do that! If you truly believe the bible is god’s word and you must obey his word to get salvation, then you MUST follow ALL of the rules, not just the ones you like.
And BTW, we are animals. Maybe animals don’t have their own written laws, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have moral instinct. Don’t get confused though, different animals have different moral instincts.
And Chaos, actually if you know anything about animal behaviour, there are usually certain accepted behaviours in any animal community. There’s no “written law” about these behaviours, but there are certain instincts that they follow in order to have a successful, surviving community.
Zucas wrote:
Well really one of the reasons they wanted to create freedom of religion and install a government that was free from it, is becuase they just came from Europe, which had come times where the Catholic Church basically ran a dictatorship over all of Europe. MOst of the founding fathers wanted to escape this. They may have been Christians themselves, but in no way did they want to give any kind of religion any political power, as this was one of their reasons to coming to America was to escapte the corrupt clutches of the Church in Europe.
Mainly to escape the power of the pope and all the roman popery that was controling politics in europe at the time... oh and there was the free trade thing, you know not having to pay england an income tax... whatever happened to that novel idea? (we are taxed without representation on a daily basis) *constitution- no taxation without representation*
The only real problem with atheism is that if you are gonna believe in nothing then you might as well live with reckless abandon instead of by the rules enstated by anyone or anything around you. Granted some things raise a moral issue for just about anyone, but why go with the better choice in those situations? Why not just do what the hell you want when you want to? There won’t be any reprocutions for your actions in the long run, other than earthly condemnation from your peers, so why obey anything moral or immoral for any reason?
By the way the mathematical principles for chaos producing a perfectly spherical object from a random explosion have never proved it is possible. It takes more faith to believe in something invisible and incomprehensible than to do whatever you want when you want to. I am not trying to piss any of you off I am just presenting questions and challenging theories.
ChaosSpartan wrote:
As far as I see, laws w/out religious backing is just making arbitrary rules.
Religion works because it says “The Creator of the universe says that this is how it should be” which is obviously a pretty high authority.
According to atheism, there is no God, so we are just animals. And animals have no real rules or laws. So, a constitution (or government for that matter) is impractical.
It’s that kind of ignorance that I fight against. Not only isn’t the Constitution based on Christian principles, but assuming we need a god in order to be good. Are people really so selfish that they think they have to be bribed with salvation or terrorized with damnation in order to be good? Our laws are based on our moral instincts, not religion.
How do I know? Well for one, the bible is the LAST place to look for moral guidance. In the video I posted below, about 7:00 in, it shows why the Bible is one of the worst places to look for moral guidance
That’s right, picking and choosing. You Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible you like and which you don’t like. You can’t do that! If you truly believe the bible is god’s word and you must obey his word to get salvation, then you MUST follow ALL of the rules, not just the ones you like.
And BTW, we are animals. Maybe animals don’t have their own written laws, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have moral instinct. Don’t get confused though, different animals have different moral instincts.
I agree about the picking and choosing, why should any human try to subjugate what an immortal god has decreed? And who are we to say what part of the bible would be factual and which part is just to be used as a guide to just live better and coexist peacefully with our fellow man.
Zucas wrote:
Well really one of the reasons they wanted to create freedom of religion and install a government that was free from it, is becuase they just came from Europe, which had come times where the Catholic Church basically ran a dictatorship over all of Europe. MOst of the founding fathers wanted to escape this. They may have been Christians themselves, but in no way did they want to give any kind of religion any political power, as this was one of their reasons to coming to America was to escapte the corrupt clutches of the Church in Europe.
Mainly to escape the power of the pope and all the roman popery that was controling politics in europe at the time... oh and there was the free trade thing, you know not having to pay england an income tax... whatever happened to that novel idea? (we are taxed without representation on a daily basis) *constitution- no taxation without representation*
Yep. The income tax amendment is not only totally unconstituional but it was never completely ratified at all nor is their a law requiring you to pay it. It’s a complete sham.
But don’t not go paying your income taxes. I acutally asked a lawyer about this and they’d say that you could probably win the case on this with good evidence but aftewards you’d be arrested so don’t do it. But you get my drift.
--- It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns.
ChaosSpartan wrote:
As far as I see, laws w/out religious backing is just making arbitrary rules.
Religion works because it says “The Creator of the universe says that this is how it should be” which is obviously a pretty high authority.
According to atheism, there is no God, so we are just animals. And animals have no real rules or laws. So, a constitution (or government for that matter) is impractical.
It’s that kind of ignorance that I fight against. Not only isn’t the Constitution based on Christian principles, but assuming we need a god in order to be good. Are people really so selfish that they think they have to be bribed with salvation or terrorized with damnation in order to be good? Our laws are based on our moral instincts, not religion.
How do I know? Well for one, the bible is the LAST place to look for moral guidance. In the video I posted below, about 7:00 in, it shows why the Bible is one of the worst places to look for moral guidance
[youtube]8RV46fsmx6E[/youtube]
That’s right, picking and choosing. You Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible you like and which you don’t like. You can’t do that! If you truly believe the bible is god’s word and you must obey his word to get salvation, then you MUST follow ALL of the rules, not just the ones you like.
And BTW, we are animals. Maybe animals don’t have their own written laws, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have moral instinct. Don’t get confused though, different animals have different moral instincts.
great vid ram. made me doubt my beliefs and got me into thinking about religion again. ill post my thoughts on it. not now though. kinda tough to tackle plus im feeling lazy.
so these guys are gonna prove that a book with about 1500 pages is full of inaccuracies in less than 10 minutes. this looks interesting.
well, im not religious and i believe in the bible. so i guess these guys can touch me or bust me.
ok so this guy sitting in front of a fireplace comes in. who is he? a historian? a bible scholar? a professor? it doest say. it doesnt even say his name. how are we supposed to know if he is a professional?
so he says the more we learn about achaeology and history the more we learn that MOST of the stuff in the bible is fiction. ill tell u right now, we have a LOT of archaeological evidence to support the bible. in fact im thinking of making a topic just for that. ill name a few of them here; Rome, Egypt, Israel, Babylom(those are the big ones), and then we have people, king Cyrus, pontius pilate, king david, king nebuchadnezzar, there is a LOT.
the bible doesnt fit in science. why are they numerous scientists who believe in it then?
so were starting with genesis. excellent book. ill tell u, read Genesis and compare it to every other creation account. Genesis wont sound so ridiculous to u, in fact it is even close to scientific. it says plants came first, then water animals next then flying animals then land animals. and if u still believe thats just a guess then its a great guess. remember this was written by someone ages ago before archaeology and carbon dating etc.
ok so the guy in the fireplace, whatever his name is, pretty much answered the first “contradiction”, it just two versions of the same story.
sure theres no possible way that noah had 10 billion different species in his ark. but its possible that he had some species and when he released them they sorta changed, not evolution but like how asian people changed when they migrated to america(chinese, eskimo, native american). its also possible that God created more animals after the flood.
so then the big guy with the beard, penn or teller says that noahs flood was actually just a smaller flood that happened near noahs place, and that archaeologist know this. sounds reasonable but hes not an archaeologist. he was able to get that dude with no name sitting in front of the fireplace to say ridiculous things about the bible but not an archaeologist. now i admit i havent checked if this is true or not but u shouldnt believe these guys wothout doing so either, so if u believe this guy and have checked the facts, please present it to us so we may examine it.oh yeah, he says he has evidence but declined to show it.
now were at noah and the red sea. he starts off by saying thousands of jews were supposedly in egypt but we cant find evidence of that. thats not surprising because empires, kingdoms, in the ancient times dont like to record their defeats. they dont wanna be remembered as losers. thats why we cant find any evidence of jewish slaves in egypt. unlike the ancient kingdoms back then israel was different because it recorded its defeats in the bible, even people in the bible recorded their own faults, from moses to david to peter, these people were years apart but they are all honest. this shows u how honest bible writers are.
no evidence of moses? they said the same thing about pontius pilate and the assyrian king sargon II. and keep in mind moses is far older than pontius and sargon. also its not ok if the bible lacks evidence but its perfectly fine if evolution, spontaneous generation and the big bang lacks evidence? thats not fair. lack of evidence doesnt mean something isnt true it just means we cant find proof.
no archaeological evidence that the israelites were wandering in the wilderness? well, thats not surprising, wanderers dont build permanent houses. and why would the kingdoms around them write about them. theyre just a bunch of foreigners.
so then this old dude shows up, white hair, no name, probably calls himself a christian and he says bible miracles didnt happen that way at all. now there a growing number of “christians” who dont believe in bible miracles at all. i dont share this belief, i believe a 100% that the israelite crossed the red sea, that a great flood occured, that jesus walked on water, etc. k, i dont buy this “reed sea” thing.
now were on jesus christ. first off never did jesus say he was gonna changed the world or heal all people. this just goes to show u how much he knows when it comes to the bible.
so the dude in front of the fireplace, no name once again, or title, we dont know his job, says that there were multiple jesus’s. sounds just as interesting as that “striking similarities between jesus and horus thing”, that dervdev789 disproved(message #64, btw thnx derv). this guy without a job title or even a name says it as if it were fact, im not about to believe him. now i admit i havent checked tha facts, wait let me copy and paste this for a sec
“now i admit i havent checked if this is true or not but u shouldnt believe these guys wothout doing so either, so if u believe this guy and have checked the facts, please present it to us so we may examine it."
once again they did not provide evidence to support this.
if u ask me this “appolonius” guy sounds a lot like jesus. maybe their the same. maybe people just ripped off jesus' story and changed his name. would u really believe that the most influencial man in history is fiction?
now were in the ten commandments part. i dont care if they remove that ten commandments monument out of that building. but i dont see why anyone would want to remove it. i do think they were making a big deal out of it.
so the big guy with the beard says “popular sure doesnt mean right”. and i AGREE.
now the nameless dude shows us this bible verse about stoning disobedient children. guy didnt name the book, chapter and verse. guess i just have to google it. deuteronomy 21:21. so its true thats what it says but let me show u deuteronomy 21:18:
“18"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will (L)not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them,"
its not “disobedient” children. its stubborn and rebellious. this does sound harsh but we dont know how many children were stoned to death. maybe there were none. maybe they were so scared of dying none of them were stubborn or rebellious. put urself in the kids place, if u knew the punishment would u be stubborn or rebellious? not likely.
so finally i know the nameless dude’s name. dr. myer. anyways, picking and choosing. so these guys criticize picking and choosing but they do it theirselves. thats about as clever as calling someone who just called u “stupid”, “stupid”. they pick and choose verses but dont examine them. the bible is one of those books to be “chewed and digested” so to speak. not tasted or swallowed whole. im not gonna go through all the verses they mentioned, cuz im tired, examine them for urselves. theres more than meets the eye.
they did a pretty good job at making the bible look bad, ill give em that. i can feel their hatred. calling it damned and bullshit. how come these guys arent very polite? they give atheists a bad name. if the bible is bullshit, whos the bullshitter? God? no atheists dont believe in him. a whole lot of people? why would they lie to us? why would all those bible writers go through all that trouble to write something that isn’t true? were they really just stupid? why has the bible survived for so long? its a miracle it has survived. the bible, though the most widely printed and distributed book, is ironicaly the most widely misunderstood.
“free your mind”
yeah, i like that one.
“the damned bible is full o shet! free your mind!”
no. that one just sounds stupid.
some more things to say. “the bible is the last place to look for moral guidance”. have these guys ever paid attention to the positive messages of the bible? or do they just purposely ignore it?
--- "i aint the cat yall saw yesterday, at least i mean by tomorrow i wont be anyway. whole new ball game, whole new day..." — QUASIMOTO
First Last ]
»
Religion
» American founded on Christian principles?
