July 4, 1776 - July 4, 2011

[TraneWreck]

"Christian" is not biblical. The idea that people living in the eighteenth century could produce anything completely devoid of Christian influence is just absurd. They lived in a society where Christian beliefs pervaded everything.

And yet not a single such belief is codified in our Constitution.

You seem to be defining "Christian belief," as "any belief held by a Christian." This is so obviously ridiculous that it barely needs discussion. Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin were all "Christians" when they made their discoveries.

If you mean something else, you're going to have to do some more explaining.

That they themselves might not have been Christian is not the point. Whatever they did or decided was perforce hugely influenced by the society they lived in. Even nowadays the effects of Christian belief are hugely important even for people who vouchsafe no such belief - and equally, the humanist, secular values of the enlightenment are influential even on people who consider that they gain all their values from their Christian beliefs.

There was no year zero in 1776.

What is "Christianity?" You have a bizarre definition. Your argument would make more sense if you could show me a "Christian belief" in our Constitution.

If you read the personal correspondence of our FOunding Fathers, they discuss Christian dogma. They specifically kept them out of our laws.

Yes, they were influenced by Christianity in the sense that they learned about it, then realized there were better ideas out there.

 

[Complexity]

I saw 'tranewreck' next to the name of one of JudeBrando's threads and started laughing.

 

[Robin]

It makes perfect sense when you consider that he has seemingly lost interest in this thread and is instead posting in his new thread.

He seemingly lost interest in this topic after the post #1. I can't find a single on topic post by him.

 

[TraneWreck]

I saw 'tranewreck' next to the name of one of JudeBrando's threads and started laughing.

That's what I'm here for.

This thread does seem uniquely suited for that stamp.

 

[JudeBrando]

So if you deliberately left Christianity out then why did you decide to solely debate those who mentioned Christianity

Because their repeated point was repeatedly irrelevant to my own. Christianity is not the point. How many times do I have to say it? How many times will you refuse to hear? I don't care or deny that they disagreed about Christianity. That they undeniably were Theists was my point, regardless of whoever felt they need to say that they were not Christian over and over and over.

and ignore the replies to your OP that didn't mention Christianity?

If a post is irrelevant, must I say so?
If a post is relevant, and I agree, disagree or am undecided, must I say so?
Must I respond to every post?
Must I respond to any post?
Can I make whatever points I want to make?
Must I please you?

That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Opinion noted. Again.

 

[Resume]

Can I make whatever points I want to make?
QUOTE]

Yes. When will you start?

 

[JudeBrando]

Can I make whatever points I want to make?

Yes. When will you start?

Ok. I'll start again with you again with this again.

I don't have a bible study group.
1. What would make you think that I would have a bible study group?
2. Is a bible study group a bad thing to you?
3. What was your purpose with that?
I don't have a preacher. Or a rabbi.
4. What would make you say this again?
I do not like Hannity.
5. What the hell are you invoking Hannity for?

6. Resume, what is your point with all this?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

What did they think about women back then, when writing this? I know the word "men" could theoretically mean humans generally, but it didn´t back then, not in a context of political rights.

They didn't think had a say in government, period.

Sure, they thought, all women were created equal, but it wasn't germane to the business at hand.

 

[alfaniner]

JudeBrando is wrong!

 

[Resume]

Ok. I'll start again with you again with this again.

Yes, and my answer again was a question: what are you on about?

 

[JudeBrando]

Yes, and my answer again was a question: what are you on about?

Don't answer again. Even you recognize that your truths in the mirror are not flattering.
Keep sniping at me though, as you must. One of these days you'll surely get me.

 

[Resume]

Don't answer again. Even you recognize that your truths in the mirror are not flattering.
Keep sniping at me though, as you must. One of these days you'll surely get me.

No, you don't get to do that. Would it be possible for you to articulate a clarification for your OP?

 

[westprog]

And yet not a single such belief is codified in our Constitution.

You seem to be defining "Christian belief," as "any belief held by a Christian." This is so obviously ridiculous that it barely needs discussion. Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin were all "Christians" when they made their discoveries.

If you mean something else, you're going to have to do some more explaining.



What is "Christianity?" You have a bizarre definition. Your argument would make more sense if you could show me a "Christian belief" in our Constitution.

If you read the personal correspondence of our FOunding Fathers, they discuss Christian dogma. They specifically kept them out of our laws.

Yes, they were influenced by Christianity

Thank you. That's the bleedin' obvious accepted.

in the sense that they learned about it, then realized there were better ideas out there.

If you think that the history of Western Thought involved people suddenly getting bright ideas out of a clear sky, then you might have a point. But none of the concepts encapsulated in a secular form in the Constitution were dreamed up in a vacuum. To think that would be ahistorical and an absurdity.

The very ideas of personal rights and responsibilities which the US Constitution exemplifies spring from the Christian concept of the individual soul. Whether or not the people who wrote the US Constitution considered themselves Christians is beside the point.

 

[TraneWreck]

If you think that the history of Western Thought involved people suddenly getting bright ideas out of a clear sky, then you might have a point. But none of the concepts encapsulated in a secular form in the Constitution were dreamed up in a vacuum. To think that would be ahistorical and an absurdity.

I don't expect you to have everything I've written memorized, so check over my posts. You'll notice I have been discussing the legacy of Enlightenment philosophy that owes its roots the Western tradition established by the Greeks.

The very ideas of personal rights and responsibilities which the US Constitution exemplifies spring from the Christian concept of the individual soul.

No they don't. This is 100% false. Those ideas of rights and responsibilites don't emerge from the barbaric rules of the celestial dictatorship.

Let's observe the personal rights contained in the Constition. Find a Biblical source for any of these:

1) Freedom of Speech?
2) Freedom of Religion (seems to contradict the BIble--no god before me...)
3) Freedom of the Press.
4) Right to bear arms.
5) Right to refuse to quarter troops.
6) Right against unreasonable search and seizure, requirement of government to provide a warrant.
7) Right against self-incrimination, due process of law.
8) Right to trial by jury.
9) Right against cruel and unusual punishment (note that the barbarism of Christian governments was what made this necessary).

I can show how most of those came directly from John Locke. I can even show you the very early Greek roots of those concepts. The Bible is completely devoid of such a legacy.

I'll further remind you that the individual soul was a creation of the Greeks. It entered the Bible very late, via Paul, who was Greek.

Whether or not the people who wrote the US Constitution considered themselves Christians is beside the point.

I agree, what matters is what actions they took. They chose to create a document without a single identifiable idea from the Bible.

 

[westprog]

I don't expect you to have everything I've written memorized, so check over my posts. You'll notice I have been discussing the legacy of Enlightenment philosophy that owes its roots the Western tradition established by the Greeks.



No they don't. This is 100% false. Those ideas of rights and responsibilites don't emerge from the barbaric rules of the celestial dictatorship.

Let's observe the personal rights contained in the Constition. Find a Biblical source for any of these:

1) Freedom of Speech?
2) Freedom of Religion (seems to contradict the BIble--no god before me...)
3) Freedom of the Press.
4) Right to bear arms.
5) Right to refuse to quarter troops.
6) Right against unreasonable search and seizure, requirement of government to provide a warrant.
7) Right against self-incrimination, due process of law.
8) Right to trial by jury.
9) Right against cruel and unusual punishment (note that the barbarism of Christian governments was what made this necessary).

I can show how most of those came directly from John Locke. I can even show you the very early Greek roots of those concepts. The Bible is completely devoid of such a legacy.

I'll further remind you that the individual soul was a creation of the Greeks. It entered the Bible very late, via Paul, who was Greek.



I agree, what matters is what actions they took. They chose to create a document without a single identifiable idea from the Bible.

And again, reference to the Bible when the original claim was about Christianity. How can you refer to the Greeks as if Greek philosophy hadn't been accepted wholesale by the Church in the Middle Ages?

It shows how destructive fundamentalism is. The actual history of Christianity is discarded for a barren literalism.

 

[westprog]

I'll further remind you that the individual soul was a creation of the Greeks. It entered the Bible very late, via Paul, who was Greek.

And this contradicts my point how? I never said that Christianity wasn't influenced by many other things. The continuity of Western Thought is what I've been alluding to.

 

[TraneWreck]

And this contradicts my point how? I never said that Christianity wasn't influenced by many other things. The continuity of Western Thought is what I've been alluding to.

But the very thing you cited as evidence for the Bible influencing the Constitution (and even so, that was stretching the concept of influence well beyond reason), was actually the development of the people who really were responsible for the intellectual legacy that led to the Constitution.

Greek philosophy laid the roots of social, political, and ethical reasoning that allowed the Enlightenment to develop. The Constitution is a document of Enlightenment reasoning.

The superstition contained in teh Bible and the subsequent nonsense developed through religion is intentionally absent.

 

[TraneWreck]

And again, reference to the Bible when the original claim was about Christianity. How can you refer to the Greeks as if Greek philosophy hadn't been accepted wholesale by the Church in the Middle Ages?

I hope you're joking. THe Renaissance was basically started by the reintroduction of Greek culture to Europe after the Dark Ages. The Greek texts were kept in Churches, but the weren't translated. Aquinas was the first European to seriously deal with Aristotle and he was forced to rewrite a great deal of his work to hide that influence.

But go ahead, find me the Christian ideas that support those individual rights. All you're doing is engaging in some weak stretching of the word "Christian" to mean something so broad that it loses any explanatory value.

Copernicus discovered that the sun was the center of the Earth despite the best efforst of Christianity. Likewise, the Constitution evinces philosophies and concepts that were directly contradictory to the express teaching of the major Christian churches.

It shows how destructive fundamentalism is. The actual history of Christianity is discarded for a barren literalism.

Except you're just making crap up. Or you're using "Greek" to mean something entirely different than the set of artists and thinkers that are typically meant.

 

[Complexity]

That they undeniably were Theists was my point, regardless of whoever felt they need to say that they were not Christian over and over and over.

So you maintain that every single one of the 'founding fathers' was a theist.

I don't believe it.

Please provide evidence for your assertion.

Start with an explicit list of who the 'founding fathers' were. I'll be curious as to which criteria you use to include someone in that list and, especially, who you choose to exclude from that list.

We'll get into the evidence for each person in your list once you compile and present the list.

ETA: Feel free to present, in addition to the list, the criteria that you followed for inclusion in and exclusion from the list.

 

[JudeBrando]

No, you don't get to do that. Would it be possible for you to articulate a clarification for your OP?

Like I said, you didn't answer again. Such tough questions too troubling? And no thank you, even though you asked so very nicely... I will not bother re-stating simply so you can search for yet another gnat to parse attack in vain.

So you maintain that every single one of the 'founding fathers' was a theist.

No.
Why did you add your "every single one" and claim it is my maintenance?
Not "every single one," as if that matters, and as if I care if one or some weren't.