So the principals that the defining text of christianity could not agree on were "improved" by some in the following centuries and THAT is what we call christian principals? Sorry....can't buy that tomfoolery. Whatever you call it, that isn't a christian principal.
US founded on "Christian Principles"?
- Thread starter skeptical
- Start date
-
- Tags
- christianity constitution law
RobRoy
Not A Mormon
Hmm . . . well, let me ask you this: What is it you're trying to prove, or disprove, within my statements?
I didn't say improved. I provided a reasonable and generally accepted, albeit simplified, path by which Christian Principals were developed.
It may be tomfoolery, but that's what happened. <shrug>
So what are you objecting to here? Surely, it can't be the history and development of Christianity. Now that would be tomfoolery.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Let's just use a name that "simplified" christian principals (I'm gonna pick a name from a hat, not necessarily accurate). The defining text of christianity could not agree on it's own principals so along comes Constantine who "simplifies" the principals thus resolving the contradiction. Now anytime you follow the principal set forth by Constantine although you call them christian they aren't. So how can you (or anyone) claim the USA was founded on christian principals? BTW, care to name the christians that were founders of the USA?Hmm . . . well, let me ask you this: What is it you're trying to prove, or disprove, within my statements?
I didn't say improved. I provided a reasonable and generally accepted, albeit simplified, path by which Christian Principals were developed.
It may be tomfoolery, but that's what happened. <shrug>
So what are you objecting to here? Surely, it can't be the history and development of Christianity. Now that would be tomfoolery.
That's not what I say. That's what Christians say.
Yes, really. I am not religious at all.
But you apparently aren't very observant. You missed the question underneath the picture.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
wouldn't it be a "rogue" Christian rather than a rouge Christian using Claus' account (to tell me I was wrong to say that Jesus was his own dad.)? 
Maybe the christian ws wearing makeupwouldn't it be a "rogue" Christian rather than a rouge Christian using Claus' account (to tell me I was wrong to say that Jesus was his own dad.)?
RobRoy
Not A Mormon
Why not? I'll pull another name out of a hat: St. Thomas Aquinas. If the general Christian community agrees on the worth of the Summa Theologica, and references that work in defining their own actions, beliefs, principles, etc. then those are considered Christian Principles.
Religion, any religion, is a set of generally agreed upon (arbitrary) definitions of conduct. Some "inspired" authors were accepted into the canon, and their explanations taken at value. Others were not, and their explanations were rejected.
In this case, because we have a clear line of sight from Founding Fathers through their inspirations, through to Christian Principles. Those weren't their only inspirations, but, as the commercial says, "it's in there!"
Let me reverse the question: Why are you opposed to the concept that the US might have been founded on Christian Principles?
Sure thing, I believe this is the complete list of the 55 delegates who signed the U.S. Constitution and their Christian religious affiliation:
Daniel Carroll, Maryland, Catholic
Thomas Fitzsimons, Pennsylvania, Catholic
Roger Sherman, Connecticut, Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham, Massachusetts, Congregationalist
John Langdon, New Hampshire, Congregationalist
Nicholas Gilman, New Hampshire, Congregationalist
Abraham Baldwin, Georgia, Episcopalian
William Samuel Johnson, Connecticut, Presbyterian
James Madison Jr., Virginia, Episcopalian
George Read, Delaware, Episcopalian
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Maryland, Episcopalian
David Brearly, New Jersey, Episcopalian
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr., North Carolina, Episcopalian
Robert Morris, Pennsylvania, Episcopalian
Gouverneur Morris, Pennsylvania, Episcopalian
John Rutledge, South Carolina, Episcopalian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, South Carolina, Episcopalian
Charles Pinckney, South Carolina, Episcopalian
Pierce Butler, South Carolina, Episcopalian
George Washington, Virginia, Episcopalian
Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania, Episcopalian
William Blount, North Carolina, Presbyterian
James Wilson, Pennsylvania, Presbyteran
Rufus King, Massachusetts, Congregationalist
Jacob Broom, Delaware, Lutheran
William Few, Georgia, Methodist
Richard Bassett, Delaware, Methodist
Gunning Bedford Jr., Delaware, Presbyterian
James McHenry, Maryland, Presbyterian
William Livingston, New Jersey, Presbyterian
William Paterson, New Jersey, Presbyterian
Hugh Williamson, North Carolina, Presbyterian
Jared Ingersoll, Pennsylvania, Presbyterian
Alexander Hamilton, New York, Episcopalian
Jonathan Dayton, New Jersey, Episcopalian
John Blair, Virginia, Episcopalian
John Dickinson, Delaware, Episcopalian
George Clymer, Pennsylvania, Episcopalian
Thomas Mifflin, Pennsylvania, Lutheran
Would you like the list of those who signed the Declaration of Independence or the Articles of Confederation?
Last edited:
You can pull any name out you want but that doesn't change the fact that they are going above what the defining text of christianity did. You can call yourself an Aquinist if you want.
Ok. I'll even agree but if the views are from outside the defining text of christianity then the religion is not christianity but some idiotic cult.
Really? Then explain this thread. Just becuse you want something doesn't make it true but you can believe it all you want. Just don't think you can push your cultish beliefs down anyone else's throat.
Did I say I was adverse? If the defining text of christianity had clearly definable principals and we see those clearly definable principals as part of the founding of the USA, that woud be fine but it isn't what we see nor were the men that founded the USA as stupid as you cultish people seem to think. The only mistake they made was not outlawing religion and religious idiots.
Thanks but does that mean since I once went to St. Marks in NYC I am a catholic. I didn't ask you for a list of affiliations, I asked you who were christians or am I to understand that you feel anyone who goes to church is a christian and if that is so, please tell us the bare minimum requirement to be a christian. Was David Koresh a christian? How about David Berkowitz (whom I did meet in St. Marks the day before he shot Stacy Moskowitz).
Nope. If I did I would ask.
Last edited:
RobRoy
Not A Mormon
So anyone who doesn't reference the Bible only is not a Christian?
Ok. I'll even agree but if the views are from outside the defining text of christianity then the religion is not christianity but some idiotic cult.[/quote]
Wow, that's a rather broad generalization about . . . well every religion ever. So if I read a book by the current Dhali Llama, I'm not longer a Buddhist, but part of some "idiotic cult"? Sorry, that doesn't follow.
ROFL! My friend, you are leaping to a conclusion that is false in every way imaginable. The fact that I support a certain contention does not necessarily make me a religious affiliate. I have no "cultish beliefs" and I certainly wouldn't want to shove them "push" them "down anyone else's throat". But thanks for playing!
Well, again, I'm not what you clearly think I am, so I'll let those insults slide. I've reviewed the evidence and the arguments and it is my belief that, for good or bad, there are certainly Christian Principles in the make up of the foundations of the United States. <shrug>
This is probably true, but then I think they were thinking more along the lines of tolerance along a number of lines. I could be wrong though!
I made no correlation between your university studies and your religion, nor anyone elses. This is a straw man argument.
Ahhh, I see where you're trying to go with this. In that case, no, I can't say for certain what was in each man's mind or heart, where his particular beliefs actually lay outside of his specific actions, or if he actually considered himself to be a Christian.
I can only provide the evidence that each of these men claimed a religious affiliation, and from what I understand, each of them considered himself to be a God-fearing man, and generally speaking a Christian man. I can only offer the evidence to that point.
Last edited:
No, I didn't.
Now that you know that I am not religious, do you acknowledge that I meant Christians, and not myself?
wouldn't it be a "rogue" Christian rather than a rouge Christian using Claus' account (to tell me I was wrong to say that Jesus was his own dad.)?
Like it or not, blame whoever you want. You are wrong.
That is neither what I said nor is it a topic that makes any bit of difference in this discussion. Now if you want he definition found in the bible then I can tell you.
I thought we were talking about christian principals. If you want to talk buddist or something else, start a different thread.
If you aren't a catholic you are playing 'devil's advocate' and that fact makes little difference in what i said. But I kindly ask you to cut your holier than thou bs "Thanks for playing" or forget responding to me again. Simple enough to understand?
Actually you are but apparently you don't know what I think...that is good
Glad that the education is better now, Could you imagine the walking stupid if everyone believed like you?
Thanks for your admission that you aren't the final authority.
Ahh...first you admit that your not the final authority then comes the but.....sorry, not falling for it. Find another guy to sell your bs to.
BTW, St. Marks in Brooklyn is a catholic church. What made you think I brought up a university?
Last edited:
Wel your non answer of it tells me you did
Never said you meant yourself. I said you SAID it and I ill say you said it again and again if you want.
You mean you never said it? Do you think admitting what you said is a weakness?
Wel your non answer of it tells me you did
Never said you meant yourself. I said you SAID it and I ill say you said it again and again if you want.
You mean you never said it? Do you think admitting what you said is a weakness?
Do you have a point with all this rubbish?
Do you admit saying what I quoted you as writing. If you can't do the simple task of admitting what you wrote (nothing about meaning), there is absolutly no point in my (or any rational person) wasting time responding to you.
First of all, you're a long way from showing that the scriptural passages to which you've alluded necessarily indicate a disagreement between Paul and Jesus. Second, even assuming for the sake of argument that the supposed disagreement existed, would it even be relevant to this discussion unless the particular principle(s) in question happened to be among the principles alleged to have been incorporated into the Founders' political philosophy?
The ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky exhibit points of disagreement. That doesn't mean it's unsound to assert that a given country was founded on Communist principles, however.
Go ahead and believe whatever fantasy you want but as soon as i finish writing this I will never have to be subject to your bs again.