#81
|
||||
|
||||
More so than our current secularism, I support the form of secularism that the founders founded the nation on. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means I get to practice my religion in public, as well as private. I don't have to shut up about it. I can freely vote and elect politicians who share my values and beliefs without fear of "offending" anyone. Conversely, the government cannot tell me what religion I have to be or sponsor any religion. In fact there isn't much government at all. Enough to keep us from harming each other and not enough to do harm to us. Which means that the people would have to be self disciplined, and honor their obligations to each other. Not decide that everyone owes them something. I have not seen in history where this has happened anywhere except for the first 100 years of America. A place where Biblical principals put forth by Puritans and Presbyterians were the overwhelming majority. Not secularists. Everywhere on this earth that I see secularists reign there is tyranny. Yes that includes modern Europe.
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Secularism is neutral towards religion, instead focusing solely on rationalism for its philosophical basis. It isn't anathema to religion but simply a parallel line of thought which people such as the Founding Fathers had no problem reconciling. |
#83
|
||||
|
||||
You are aware that the French Revolution was "Enlightened". The Russian Revolution, Chinese, Cuban... All secularist. If you want to accuse someone of cognitive dissonance, you should look in the mirror. Those secularists sure love them some religion and freedom.
|
#84
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE! M. Sage's I have a dream speech; |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
There are many great things about religions, they provide a great moral structure for families and communities, feed the hungry and heal the sick. That is a wonderful thing. You must also consider that at the end of the day it is just men leading other men, and sometimes for selfish means. Is their a God, a Creator of everything we are, were and will be? I personally believe that. Many others here do not and that is okay with me. Thats one of the reasons I love this country so much and carried a rifle and a ruck for it far from home. I think that the more we learn about the natural world thru science points directly to a grand design, but when men follow other men based on unproven ideals or interpretation of old words on paper I think that it is your God given duty to question the end goal of the philosophy, not just its history. And just a side note, in case you didnt know, the Russian Revolution was heavily funded by Prussian (germany) empire to destabalize the Eastern front during WW1. I think that is pretty "enlightening". Last edited by 11bravo1p; 08-20-2014 at 9:49 PM.. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 |
#87
|
||||
|
||||
so how exactly did we get the land from the Indians?
__________________
best troll thread in calguns history http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=406739 burn the circus down cuz the world is full of clowns |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
That'd be the Age of Enlightenment, but have fun arguing semantics. You don't really seem interested in having an honest discussion at this point, you just keep shifting the topic farther afield when direct questions are asked or rebuttals offered up by anyone who partially disagrees with you. You've gone from accusing others of building strawmen for pointing out the patently obvious topic suggestion of theocracy to making odd assertions on the basis of our governmental structure, then to attacking the Enlightenment's secular philosophy which espouses religious freedom and now you're linking 20th century marxist revolutions to 18th century liberalism? Thread derailment complete, I suppose.
|
#89
|
||||
|
||||
You keep speaking of "Secularism" . Secularism, Secularism. So, I gave you the history of "Secularism". Then you go off on a tangents about how it doesn't mean what it means. You defended a post about Puritans at Plymouth. The founders were Christian and not Secularists but you still argue they were. I said I was against state religion and you again call me a theocrat. You simply have no credibility. You are correct. I have no further interest in arguing with someone who replaces historical facts with ad hominem attacks.
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
- I never mentioned anything about Puritans at Plymouth, that'd be someone else entirely. - You never gave any history lessons on secularism nor do you seem to have a firm grasp of its limited meaning. Just as you and others correctly pointed out that Christian = / = theocrat, neither does it mean one can't be a secularist. Your faith doesn't define your preference in state government and secular = / = anti-religious. - Nobody called you a theocrat, though you were asked to explain how bringing up theocracy when discussing the guidance of a government by religion was a strawman (an assertion you forwarded). - Asking questions / refuting assertions aren't ad hominem. Having discussions of faith isn't for everyone, you have to maintain a grip on your rationality and know that questions aren't attacks but the cornerstone of greater mutual understanding. You're killing this thread by reacting poorly to direct questions and reviewing historical facts. |
#91
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE! M. Sage's I have a dream speech; |
#92
|
||||
|
||||
Oh, I thought we were talking about American history. What history did you think I was ignoring? I have no problem talking about the history that you would like to talk about, not ignoring, you just haven't made any historic points yet
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE! M. Sage's I have a dream speech; |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Regarding the date of the acceptance of the "New Testament canon" by the early church, I'd like to ask you to consider an early Christian named Polycarp. Polycarp (who lived approx. 70 until approx. 155 A.D. when he was martyred for being a Christian) was taught first-hand by the apostle John (human writer of 5 of the 27 books of the New Testament), which means Polycarp lived within one generation's time of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. All that to say that studying Polycarp's known writings is studying EARLY church history. His known writings document that he accepted (via his quoting from them) 2/3 of the books of the NT canon as Scripture. Those 18 books form the vast majority of the text of the NT canon, and if you add in Irenaeus' (who was taught first-hand by Polycarp) testimony in his known writings you have clear evidence that the overwhelming bulk of the NT canon was accepted by the very EARLY church. The extant writings bear evidence that the very early church considered 23 (and possibly 24, depending on what exactly one passage of Irenaus' writings mean) of the 27 books of the NT canon as part of what we now refer to as the NT canon. It is worth further noting that they may have accepted all 27 books; we simply don't know about the latter few because we don't have references to them in their writings. The entire NT canon is supported by very early extant writings. Just because the 27 books of the NT canon hadn't been bound into one volume (or rather, just because we don't currently have evidence that they were bound together into one volume), does not mean the early church didn't accept and make use of the NT canon very early on. I'll refer you to an interesting table on the page located at this link: http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml. You'll note that the column headings are "church fathers" (horrible and inaccurate term - that's why I put it in quotes) - and that these "church fathers" include both faithful Christians (e.g. Polycarp and Irenaeus) and heretics (e.g. Marcion and Valentinus). What's interesting is that you will note overwhelming support from early Christian writers via their extent writings for the VAST majority of the NT canon; equally interestingly, you'll note VERY LITTLE support for the non-canonical books as Scripture in the known writings of the non-heretical early "church fathers". There's lots more that could be written on the subject, but if you're really interesting in studying the historicity of the Bible, there is a world of good scholarship out there. What's interesting is that, if you embark on such a detailed study, you may note that many modern-day supposed-"scholars" who attempt to discredit the historicity of the Bible like to quote "church fathers" who were heretics, instead of these "scholars" quoting then-contemporaneous, faithful followers of Christ. Unfortunately, many folks fall into believing their assessments, simply because they aren't personally familiar with the quoted folks. It would be similar to this scenario: if you wanted to find study the historicity of the Koran, going and reading the writings of a 7th or 8th century Hindu about the Koran. Such an action wouldn't be prudent, except to note that the Koran did exist. Such an action wouldn't add to the detailed study of the historicity of the Koran, though - but that is basically what many modern "scholars" are now doing in regards to attempting to discredit the historicity of the NT canon. If you really wanted to study the historicity of the Koran, it would be more wise to go and read the writings of an 8th century Muslim. The bottom line is that the validity of the historicity of the Bible is very well established; those that don't accept it generally either haven't studied the subject for themselves or else end up quoting people who's lives and beliefs they're unfamiliar with. Last edited by Not a Cook; 08-21-2014 at 5:11 PM.. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
I'd like to add some interesting historical quotes from some of our nation's "Founding Fathers" regarding the discussion several of you are having about whether this nation should be a theocracy or a nation based on principles of secularism. (As as aside, I'd also like to note that after reviewing this thread I'm not sure everyone here is using the same working definitions for either secularism or theocracy, and that may contribute to some confusion in this definition.)
- "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." quote from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 1798.1 - "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." from The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii. - "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were ... the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system." from a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 28 June 1813. - "Government has no right to hurt a hair on the head of an atheist for his opinions. Let him have a care of his practices." from a letter from John Adams to John Quincy Adams, (16 June 1816). Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 432, Library of Congress. James H. Hutson (ed.), The Founders on Religion: A Book of Quotations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 20 - "While we give praise to God, the Supreme Disposer of all events, for His interposition on our behalf, let us guard against the dangerous error of trusting in, or boasting of, an arm of flesh ... If your cause is just, if your principles are pure, and if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts. "What follows from this? That he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind. "Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country." from a sermon by John Witherspoon (one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence) at Princeton University, "The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men," May 17, 1776. There are many, many more such quotes from the "Founding Fathers" that demonstrate that, although not all the "Founding Fathers" were "men of faith", they firmly intended that this nation should be a republic founded upon biblical principles. That is not to say that they intended this nation only for Christians - far from it! They considered everyone's right to choose and practice their own faith as sacred, but the principles upon which this nation was to be governed were to be Judeo-Christian principles. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
The founding fathers attempted to found a nation based on what I call "Universal Ethics". Some of these are found in the Christian Bible - and some of them are not. ALL of them can be found in non-Biblical sources.
One particular religion's BOOK wasn't - and isn't - of concern. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This is not to say that there are not "ethics" in every religion (and also outside of "religion" altogether), but the religions of the world do not agree on any single, universal set of ethics. If they did, the world just might be a friendlier place, overall. The extant documents left by the Founding Fathers show that the majority of them professed to be Christians, and those that did not, generally wrote and/or spoke that they intended to found this nation upon Christian principles. Remember, the "Founding Fathers" were a relatively highly-educated bunch; they were familiar with many "world religions", yet the record bears that they repeatedly refer to Christianity and Judaism and Judeo-Christian principles whenever they discuss the ideals upon which this nation was founded. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Isn't it historically "interesting" that the European Enlightenment immediately followed the Protestant Reformation, in which reformation the masses were encouraged to search the Scriptures and told that each person was individually responsible for their eternal destiny? As I recall, many, many historians (both Christian and secular) argue that, without the Reformation, their wouldn't have been an Enlightenment. The two may not be so disjointed as your quote above makes them appear. Quote:
"And God spoke all these words, saying: 2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 “You shall have no other gods before Me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. 7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain. 8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. 12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you. 13 “You shall not murder. 14 “You shall not commit adultery. 15 “You shall not steal. 16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” Can you please clarify? What, exactly, about these commandments would be considered unconstitutional? |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Differences between the various brands of Abrahamic monotheisms don't concern me as many of their "morals" can't be confused with ETHICS - and many are meaningless outside the context of their particular BOOK. Of course, they all claim to have invented "everything good", when the truth of the matter is they invented nothing. All so-called "Biblical", or "Islamic", or "Talmudic" ideas - both good and bad - were around for thousands of years before those particular BOOKs were written. The ideas will be around for thousands of years after the same BOOKs are dead and forgotten. Last edited by Zorba; 08-21-2014 at 7:43 PM.. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I mean, REALLY? Some of them are "Universal Ethics" - but many are peculiar only to JCI (AKA "Abrahamic") monotheisms and as such have no place in secular law. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
- Don't murder? Most religions agree with that, but not all. For example, Islam teaches it is good to murder Christians and Jews who refuse to become Muslims. Therefore "don't murder" isn't a "Universal Ethic". - Don't lie? Most religions agree with that, but not all. For example, Islam teaches "taqiyya" and under that teaching it is perfectly acceptable for a Muslim to lie to a Christian or Jew (or even his wife). Therefore, "don't lie" isn't a "Universal Ethic". - Don't lust after your neighbor's wife? Most religions agree with that, but not all. For example, Islam allows and even encourages rape of the neighbor's wife, if that neighbor isn't a Muslim (because I suspect someone will claim this isn't true - ref. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Mu...hs-mu-rape.htm and http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2014...pe-female.html for more details). Therefore, "don't lust after your neighbor's wife" isn't a "Universal Ethic". Therefore, "don't murder", "don't lie", and "don't lust after your neighbor's wife" are NOT "Universal Ethics" because the second largest religion in the world teaches differently. There are many other such apparent conflicts between the ethics of the "world religions". These are not minor matters. They most definitely affect ethics. See what I'm getting at here? Either a "Universal Ethic" isn't really universally accepted (note: in regards to each of the cases above, please keep in mind that a significant portion of the world's population is Muslim), or there are very few things that would qualify as a "Universal Ethic" and "Universal Ethics" would consist of very few (if any) ethics at all. Last edited by Not a Cook; 08-21-2014 at 8:57 PM.. |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
brando had written "...most <emphasis mine> of the Ten Commandments would be unconstitutional". Do you believe that a majority of the Ten Commandments are against the U.S. Constitution? If so... let's consider them (I'll used simplified versions to keep this post short): 1. Don't serve other gods 2. Don't have idols 3. Don't take God's name in vain 4. Keep the Sabbath day holy 5. Honor your mother and your father 6. You shall not murder 7. You shall not commit adultery 8. You shall not steal 9. You shall not bear false witness 10. You shall not covet I'd say nos. 5-10 are clearly not in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, correct? That's 60% (or a majority) of the Ten Commandments. Unless you can demonstrate that two of commandments 5-10 are unconstitutional, brando's statement is incorrect. I'd also argue commandments nos. 1-4 aren't in conflict with the Ten Commandments, as they're commandments (in context) given to those following the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In other words, they're "religious" commandments. They weren't given to the whole world... just to those following the God of the Bible. That said, if you are an atheist, or a Shintoist, or a Buddhist, or a Taoist, or whatever, these aren't commandments to you. Given that, how can they be unconstitutional? Now, on the other hand, if the Ten Commandments were imposed on the U.S. population at large, that would be unconstitutional. But they're not, and that scenario is quite a leap from what was being discussed when brando originally made the comment. |
#102
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE! M. Sage's I have a dream speech; |
#103
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
best troll thread in calguns history http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=406739 burn the circus down cuz the world is full of clowns |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a news story that is a perfect example that "Universal Ethics" don't compute: http://www.businessinsider.com/richa...yndrome-2014-8.
A quote from the article: "Scientist Richard Dawkins apologized on Thursday for causing a "feeding frenzy" on Twitter after he said it would be immoral not to abort a fetus with Down's Syndrome." If "the sanctity of life" isn't a "Universal Ethic", what is? Last edited by Not a Cook; 08-21-2014 at 9:18 PM.. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I have no problems with people observing the Decalogue (I don't - "not my union") - but it would be wrong to impose anything but 6,8, and 9 on the general populace. These 3 are "Universal Ethics". Last edited by Zorba; 08-22-2014 at 7:49 AM.. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But I'm not saying living by ethics is easy - its not! Last edited by Zorba; 08-22-2014 at 7:47 AM.. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As for abortion, people's OPINIONS shouldn't be legislated into the law of the land either. Christians seemingly are of the OPINION that life starts at conception. The reality is that no-one truly knows - there only a ton of strongly held OPINIONS on the subject. Thus, this needs to be left to each individual and their God(s). |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Riiiiiiiight. |
#109
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This is why we know there are absolutes Such as murder is wrong. Zorba is trying to say it is alright because some cultures such as in the middle east say it is alright. IF you have no definition other than some sort of "univeralism" who is he to say murder is ethically wrong? In America we have began to legalize assisted murder. Is that some how ethically right?
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE! M. Sage's I have a dream speech; |
#110
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You're funny. I hope your posts are meant for laughs, because you are truly delivering
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE! M. Sage's I have a dream speech; |
#111
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE! M. Sage's I have a dream speech; |
#112
|
||||
|
||||
I rather live in a nation guided by Bible than not and here's why:
God laws and His word - Never change = Stable and Orderly. Secular - Changeable laws based on human's opinion = Chaos and Unstable. Examples: Federal says marijuana is illegal - States say it's legal. School can take students to get an abortion w/o parents' consent yet they need parents' consent to take tylenol. Killing babies (abortion) in okay but capital punishment is not! Same sex marriage is legal but not polygamy! Etc. etc. etc. etc.
__________________
Hebrews 9:27 "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgement." One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. ~ Ronald Reagan |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
You're providing examples of things changing over time as though this is a bad thing. I'd remind you that over a thousand years of God's laws presided over countries having absolutely nothing to do with our idealized way of life and that this government was brought about through the Enlightenment's secular logic...not religious scripture. Last edited by texan; 08-23-2014 at 8:09 PM.. |
#114
|
||||
|
||||
The Enlightenment was a distinctly Christian en devour. Galileo was a Christian. Yes he had to deal with Rome. So did Martin Luther. Adam Smith the Father of free markets was a Prebyterian. Isaac Newton was a Puritan. So when we point out that the Founders were Christian we also are familiar with the fact that the Enlightenment founders were also quite Christian. It was we Christians that brought Europe out of the dark ages of medieval Roman thought. To pretend that it was non-Christian secularism is to deny historical.fact. Christians drove the Enlightenment and the founding of American liberty by it.
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Also, Barang: Of course God's law changes. Compare the Old Testament with the New Testament. Do you really think Jesus would have supported the evil crap that God the Father did back in the day?
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 Last edited by bigmike82; 08-23-2014 at 8:52 PM.. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Indeed the two philosophies parallel one another throughout our history, witness the many quotes of our Founding Fathers in this very thread. Politically speaking secularism is simply governing through logic and ethics rather than specific religious decree. There is absolutely nothing anti-religious about it. |
#117
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I'm not ignoring anything. God's law did not change from New to Old Testament. God didn't do anything EVIL in the Old Testament. Jesus said, Luke 13:1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” All people have what God did to those unregenerate people in the Old Testament coming to them. In this age as well. I deserve it too. God does not do evil. The question is, if anyone could come up with the Enlightenment then why didn't they? No one in history did except for Christians. For 500 years Augustine's thoughts drove the church. Then Aquinas's thought drove it for then next 500 years. Many tried to change things but the Papacy would not have it. Then Luther and Calvin came. They both said that their ideas were not theirs. They were merely re introducing the the thoughts of Augustine. Thanks to Gutenberg's printing press the ideas of the Reformation overcame Rome's rule on thought and the Renaissance exploded. The ideas of the Enlightenment flourished and guided the ideas of the Founders. Science and mathematics exploded. All new thought lead and guided by Christians. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Look at the kosher standards. Before Jesus, you *had* to keep kosher. Christians are no longer bound by those laws. Quote:
__________________
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 Last edited by bigmike82; 08-23-2014 at 10:49 PM.. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
A nation guided by the Bible
The idea that a morality that can change is "chaotic" is a common point made by the religious.
Really, if our morality didn't evolve, we'd still own slaves and still drown witches, have public executions, etc. A secular morality isn't a completely subjective morality. There are many talks about secular morality that can explain why that's so. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Christ claimed to be one with the Father (ref. John 10:30). They are in perfect agreement with one another. The Scriptures clearly teach that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament. If you claim otherwise, you're incorrect. The first step to accepting the gospel of Christ is for a person to admit that he or she has sinned against God and is deserving of death and destruction. This first step involves sincerely humbling oneself before God and admitting one's unrighteousness and total inability to please God. Until you come to that point, you won't understand the Scriptures and you specifically won't understand how truly gracious and kind God is toward humanity, both in the New Testament AND in the Old Testament. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|