| Author | Post |
|---|
Bikenut
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 02:18 pm |
|
PointofView wrote: Bikenut wrote: PointofView wrote: Bikenut wrote:
The talk of liberals taking away freedoms are tiresome on this forum. Does everyone forget the RIGHT trying to impose theocracy on people?
Hmmmm..... this country was founded on Christian principles... hence it would be logical that the country follow those Christian principles.
Once again I will state that I am a student of civics. Making up that the founding fathers were christians does not make it true.
My comments are in red...
My reply to your comments are in green.
Kindly show me where I stated that our founding fathers were "Christians"?
Splitting hairs. Why would diests found a country on principles that they do not share? The implication was more than enough and could not be construed another way. Otherwise it would be the same as saying that Wiccans founded a country on the principles of Islam. Senseless. Incorrect assumption on your part that just because the country was founded on principles that are predominately contained in Christian theology (perhaps because those principles most closely reflect the freedom the founders had in mind?) means the founding fathers must therefore be "Christians".
Implications are not facts. I implied nothing about the founding fathers personal religious beliefs.. I stated that this country was founded upon Christian principles and nothing more than that.
If you are a student of civics then you must know that society interacts through language.. and oftentimes language is used in generalities in order to convey a concept. "Christian principles" is one such generality used to convey a group of principles that most folks understand being contained in the Christian belief system. Hence... the term "Christian principles" is nothing other than a term used to convey the group of principles being discussed.... it isn't automatically a reference to the theology itself.
Am I merely mincing words? No... I am using a commonly understood term to describe a group of commonly understood principles.
Injecting nonsense about Wiccans founding a country based upon the principles of Islam is a straw man argument and has no merit.
|
PointofView
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 03:43 pm |
|
Then what makes these Christian principles if they were written by non Christians? I think that makes them simply principles, and nothing more. So why bring the word christian into it if that is not what you mean?
|
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 04:05 pm |
|
Here in America we have different religious faiths. And the differences are as follows:
Jews don't keep Glatt Kosher, Moslems don't pray five times a day, and Christians don't go to Wednesday Mass. 
Personally I don't care if someone worships the Great Pumpkin (although if they bring it up I will tell them what I think). But if the government (or anyone else for that matter) sends a goon squad to drag me into a house of worship, the goons are gonna get blown off my doorstep in a demonstration of the confluence and symbiosis of the First and Second Amendments
Every time we start talking religion on this forum it ends up sounding like a wreck wherein The Rush Limbaugh show and Alan Colmes got rear-ended by a Billy Graham crusade. Yeesh.
I guess it is unavoidale though, since I and others believe the RTKBA is God-given and others believe it is Government-granted; and these IMO need to be straightened out a bit.
|
Bikenut
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 04:57 pm |
|
PointofView wrote: Then what makes these Christian principles if they were written by non Christians? I think that makes them simply principles, and nothing more. So why bring the word christian into it if that is not what you mean?
The group of principles commonly referred to as "Christian principles" in the language of our day were written by Christians long before the founding fathers decided to use them as guidelines while founding the country. Because they were written by Christians they are referred to as "Christian principles". However, just because those principles are connected by history and by a certain religious belief system it does not mean those principles are owned or belong exclusively to... Christians. It also does not mean that individuals who live their lives in accordance with some, or all, of those principles are Christians... or even believe in God.
And the word "Christian" when used along with "principles" is to define which "principles" are being talked about.... not which religion is being talked about.
Let me try this example...
Liberal principles are understood by folks who hold Liberal beliefs. And understood by non liberal folks to be the beliefs of liberal folks. But without adding the word "Liberal" to qualify which set of principles are being talked about the discussion becomes confusing.
Conservative principles are understood by folks who hold Conservative beliefs. And understood by non conservative folks to be the beliefs of conservative folks. But without adding the word "Conservative" to qualify which set of principles are being talked about the discussion becomes confusing.
|
Gordie
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 641 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 05:02 pm |
|
PointofView, here are some more quotes for you.
Thomas Jefferson
The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383, to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse on June 26, 1822.
The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alberty Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809.
I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others. Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506, to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.
I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.
Benjamin Franklin
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see. Works of Benjamin Franklin, John Bigelow, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), p. 185, to Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790.
The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out and stripped of its lettering and guilding, lies here, food for worms. Yet the work itself shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more beatiful edition, corrected and amended by the Author.31 (FRANKLIN’S EULOGY THAT HE WROTE FOR HIMSELF) Works of the Late Doctor Benjamin Franklin (Dublin: P. Wogan, P. Byrne, J. More, and W. Janes, 1793), p. 149.
James Madison
A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (New York: R. Worthington, 1884), Vol. I, pp. 5-6, to William Bradford on November 9, 1772.
I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. The Papers of James Madison, William T. Hutchinson, editor (Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1962), Vol. I, p. 96, to William Bradford on September 25, 1773.
John Adams
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. 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. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation. Letter from John Adams to Benjamin Rush, from Quincy, Massachusetts, dated December 21, 1809, from the original in our possession.
Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. X, p. 254, to Thomas Jefferson on April 19, 1817.
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity. John Adams, Works, Vol. III, p. 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796.
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be! John Adams, Works, Vol. II, pp. 6-7, diary entry for February 22, 1756.
I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world. John Adams, Works, Vol. X, p. 85, to Thomas Jefferson on December 25, 1813.
Thomas Paine
It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.
When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue or a highly finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only, and thereby separated the study of them form the Being who is the author of them. . . .
The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of the creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence. They labor with studied ingenuity to ascribe everything they behold to innate properties of matter; and jump over all the rest, by saying that matter is eternal. Thomas Paine on "The Study of God"
Delivered in Paris on January 16, 1797, in a
Discourse to the Society of Theophilanthropists
Normally, I don't bring religion into debates here, but when someone else introduces the subject, I have to reply. You have implied that anyone of faith is somehow lesser than you intellectually since your first post. If you want to discuss religion, fine, but be ready for a response. You accuse people of faith of circular reasoning, I say that it is the atheist who uses circular reasoning to dismiss any evidence of God.
Please keep to the topic of guns and gun rights while on this forum. If you want to discuss religion, go to the proper forum or PM me.
|
Gator5713
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 06:03 pm |
|
PointOfView:
First I would like to say 'Welcome to OCDO'; I sincerely hope that you will become a valuable contributor to these fine forums!
While I disagree with you on many points (and strongly on many as well I'm sure) I respect your right to your opinions; and am VERY pleased to see someone from 'the other side' who can put their opinions forth with reason and discussion as opposed to pure emotion (and often ignorant loathing of reason in general)!
I welcome any healthy and logical debate based in reason and fact! I am sure that you and I will have many good discussions, and although they will likely become at lest somewhat 'heated' you seem to be the type that can keep from getting 'over warm' during such 'verbal' conflict!
Oh! This SHOULD have been first... Thank you for your service!
Also, I believe you mentioned that your current 'home' is San Antonio? I am not too far from there, and would also enjoy sharing a cup o' joe if our paths happen to cross!
|
PointofView
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 06:29 am |
|
Gordie wrote: Normally, I don't bring religion into debates here, but when someone else introduces the subject, I have to reply. You have implied that anyone of faith is somehow lesser than you intellectually since your first post. If you want to discuss religion, fine, but be ready for a response. You accuse people of faith of circular reasoning, I say that it is the atheist who uses circular reasoning to dismiss any evidence of God.
Please keep to the topic of guns and gun rights while on this forum. If you want to discuss religion, go to the proper forum or PM me.
Well I think this comes back into gun rights and let me explain how.
Christianity teaches passive non-resistance to evil. "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6. 27-28).
Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (Matthew 5.39-41)
These are traits of obediance and have nothing to do with values. Had this been followed by the founders I suppose we would not have the RTKOBA as it would be against what is referred to as a Christian value.
The Bill of Rights empower us to stand up for ourselves against the evils of man. This is not 'Christian Values' and therefore without continuing quote wars.
I want my family and my two boys to stand up for themselves and OpenCarry.Org believes in not turning the other cheek as does the Constitution / Bill of Rights / Declaration of Independence.
OpenCarry.Org supports these documents and individuals right to not be a passive bystander to wrongdoing. I think it goes without saying that Christianity and the 2nd Amendment do not match up. So for all purposes of this forum and government as a whole religion must be kept seperate, yet the far right often supports the second amendment and religious obedience at the same time, which turns into a theocracy which is why I referenced it in my OP.
This country was founded on religious freedom and was stated in the Declaration of Independence which could be viewed as an outline for this Democracy. The whole Christian Values piece is not relevant to this nation in the legal sense.
|
PointofView
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 06:34 am |
|
Gator5713 wrote: Also, I believe you mentioned that your current 'home' is San Antonio? I am not too far from there, and would also enjoy sharing a cup o' joe if our paths happen to cross!
Well whenever 'the man' gets me a ticket home I would be glad to meet up and shoot the breeze. I miss my Ducati and need to make purposeful trips to find an excuse to ride it a bit. I suppose meeting strangers with guns seems somehow more safe than meeting folks from facebook. How crazy is that if you think about it? The people who carry weapons come off substantially more moral than random strangers. I just blew my own hair back on that one.
|
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 03:29 pm |
|
The country was founded on ideas and of The civilized people who lived here before them and right next to them. Funny how U.S. history loves to leave these things out. Iroquois had a functioning confederacy, and an oral "constitution" long before, the colonies did. Many parts of it almost identical to our own constitution.
Hmmm was the albany conference a coincidence?
Side note indigenous folks never were unarmed it kept their leaders in line, something that influenced 2a too, maybe?
|
Gordie
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 641 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 03:13 am |
|
PointofView wrote: Gordie wrote: Normally, I don't bring religion into debates here, but when someone else introduces the subject, I have to reply. You have implied that anyone of faith is somehow lesser than you intellectually since your first post. If you want to discuss religion, fine, but be ready for a response. You accuse people of faith of circular reasoning, I say that it is the atheist who uses circular reasoning to dismiss any evidence of God.
Please keep to the topic of guns and gun rights while on this forum. If you want to discuss religion, go to the proper forum or PM me.
Well I think this comes back into gun rights and let me explain how.
Christianity teaches passive non-resistance to evil.
Not entirely true. Jesus only instructed passive resistance when it was necessary to complete God's will. In the examples given by you, Jesus was teaching on the value of the "Golden Rule" and the value of not holding on to bitterness. You must read the whole chapter to see the statements in context.
To have made this statement you obviously have never read the accounts of Jesus clearing the Temple of the money changers.
Found in John 2
14And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables.
15And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables;
16and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a place of business."
"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6. 27-28).
In this verse He is teaching that it is better for your enemies to change and become righteous people than to perish in evil. I agree, it would be better if all evil doers would just behave properly instead of having to be dealt with as criminals and/or aggressors.
Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (Matthew 5.39-41)
This is a teaching in response to an insult which does not threaten your life or inflict long term injury.
Sproul comments: "What's interesting in the expression is that Jesus specifically mentions the right side of the face [Matthew 5:39]....If I hit you on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I did it with the back of my right hand....To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way challenges to duels in the days of King Arthur were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek of your opponent."
The principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-42 would thus seem to be that Christians should not retaliate when insulted or slandered (see also Romans 12:17-21). Such insults do not threaten a Christian's personal safety. The question of rendering insult for insult, however, is a far cry from defending oneself against a mugger or a rapist.
He also said;
Luke 22: 36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
The Bible clearly teaches that self defense and defense of the innocent is not only accepted, but to be encouraged. The only exception to this is if being persecuted for His sake, the reward for being a martyr is very great. Attack by common criminals is a legitimate reason to resist by any means necessary.
These are traits of obediance and have nothing to do with values. Had this been followed by the founders I suppose we would not have the RTKOBA as it would be against what is referred to as a Christian value.
The Bill of Rights empower us to stand up for ourselves against the evils of man. This is not 'Christian Values' and therefore without continuing quote wars.
These statements are simply not true. The founders believed that these rights were given to us not by some document written by man, but by God. If you read the writings of the founders and the Declaration of Independence, as well as the Constitution, this becomes evident.
I want my family and my two boys to stand up for themselves and OpenCarry.Org believes in not turning the other cheek as does the Constitution / Bill of Rights / Declaration of Independence.
I agree, I want the same things for my family.
OpenCarry.Org supports these documents and individuals right to not be a passive bystander to wrongdoing.
As do I.
I think it goes without saying that Christianity and the 2nd Amendment do not match up. So for all purposes of this forum and government as a whole religion must be kept seperate, yet the far right often supports the second amendment and religious obedience at the same time, which turns into a theocracy which is why I referenced it in my OP. This country was founded on religious freedom and was stated in the Declaration of Independence which could be viewed as an outline for this Democracy. The whole Christian Values piece is not relevant to this nation in the legal sense.
I disagree. I think that you are either mistaken or intentionally misrepresenting what the Bible actually says.
Are you saying that this forum is anti-religion/anti-God? Considering that the founders believed that our rights (including the right to self defense) were God given, this could cause a problem.
You claim that you believe that religion and government should be kept separate, yet you refer to the Declaration of Independence, which is it, do you believe that they should be separate or not?
The Declaration of Independence refers directly to God.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Where in our founding documents (the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution) is there written a "separation of church and state"?
|
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 03:58 am |
|
| Sheesh, this has happened on how many threads?? Christians, "Deists" (whatever they are) "agnostics" and "atheists" chasing each other round the same tree. Sooner or later you guys are going to turn into butter, just like in the old (and VERY politically incorrect) children's story. Guess I'll go make some pancakes and wait.....
|
Current time is 10:04 am | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
|
|
