July 4, 1776 - July 4, 2011

[westprog]

I don't have to imagine it because I have just completed reading the online version of it.

And yes, that is pretty pricy for a pamphlet. I imagine they fill it out with introductions, prefaces, end notes etc.

By the way the Jefferson Bible is something of a misnomer, it only really covers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

It reminds me of school when they showed us "Easy Rider" with all the drug references removed.

A short and very confusing film.

How do you work out that? Why does the fact that he had a view of Jesus that is very different from the one espoused by Christianity imply that Christianity must have influenced a political document he has written?

Because while Jefferson disagreed with Christianity about metaphysical issues, he agreed with the teachings of Christ when it came to how people should actually behave. Now, you might say that explicitly agreeing with somebody's teachings doesn't imply any kind of influence is involved, but I would respectfully disagree.

I never said it was. In fact I have already set out how some of the concepts were arrived at - democracy, separation of powers etc.

In fact I have studied quite quite a lot of the underpinnings of the document in the jurisprudence and political philosophy that preceded it through the years.

Can you point at some specific part of the US Constitution and point out some specifically Christian influence in the way it was arrived at?

The very essence of the rights of the citizen is a concept that springs from many centuries of ideas from people who would have identified themselves as Christian.

 

[westprog]

You've repeated this a number of times. It has nothing to do with anything. No one is arguing that the Constitution magically sprung from the Earth.

Obviously a philosophical legacy led to the ideas for the Constitution. Those ideas, however, were not developed through a study of the Bible or the development of Church doctrine (what most people mean when they say "Christian Theories"). It was developed specifically from Enlightenment thinkers who intentionally set aside religious notions when establishing their social contract.

I didn't say Bible studies, theology, metaphysics or any of the restricted variations. If we look at the work of Christian philosophers over hundreds of years, they deal with how government should work.

 

[TraneWreck]

I didn't say Bible studies, theology, metaphysics or any of the restricted variations. If we look at the work of Christian philosophers over hundreds of years, they deal with how government should work.

This discussion will continue to be worthless so long as you completely avoid explaining what you mean by "Christian theory" and "influence." Once again you seem to be arguing that anything developed by someone who was Christian (and even more bizarrely, someone like Jefferson who clearly wasn't a Christian but grew up in a society where everyone was a Christian by birth) is a "Christian theory."

All of you arguments depend entirely on sloppy deployment of these concepts.

Are the symbols we use for numbers (1,2,3,4...) a "Muslim discovery?" Were they developed because of the Qu'ran, or were they developed through mathematical investigation by people who happened to also believe in Islam?

 

[TraneWreck]

The very essence of the rights of the citizen is a concept that springs from many centuries of ideas from people who would have identified themselves as Christian.

Those ideas sprang from the minds of thinkers who were revolting against the rights-squashing religious governments in Europe.

Most of the philosophers who worked on those concepts were forced to censure their writing, produce material that supported Church doctrine and many of them fled to less religiously extreme countries to work free of that domination.

It's odd for "Christians" to take credit for ideas their Church and followers tried to destroy when they were developed.

 

[tsig]

Because while Jefferson disagreed with Christianity about metaphysical issues, he agreed with the teachings of Christ when it came to how people should actually behave. Now, you might say that explicitly agreeing with somebody's teachings doesn't imply any kind of influence is involved, but I would respectfully disagree.



The very essence of the rights of the citizen is a concept that springs from many centuries of ideas from people who would have identified themselves as Christian.

How do you get rights of a citizen from the divine right of kings?

 

[tsig]

This discussion will continue to be worthless so long as you completely avoid explaining what you mean by "Christian theory" and "influence." Once again you seem to be arguing that anything developed by someone who was Christian (and even more bizarrely, someone like Jefferson who clearly wasn't a Christian but grew up in a society where everyone was a Christian by birth) is a "Christian theory."

All of you arguments depend entirely on sloppy deployment of these concepts.

Are the symbols we use for numbers (1,2,3,4...) a "Muslim discovery?" Were they developed because of the Qu'ran, or were they developed through mathematical investigation by people who happened to also believe in Islam?

They stole them from the Indians.

Arabic numerals or Hindu numerals[1][2] or Hindu-Arabic numerals[2][3] are the ten digits (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). They are descended from the Hindu-Arabic numeral system developed by Indian mathematicians, in which a sequence of numerals such as "975" is read as a whole number.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals

 

[JudeBrando]

My mistake, then.

Correct.

What percentage of the 'founding fathers' were theists?

I don't know of any that weren't, but perhaps some were. Were any at all known atheist?

What does it matter whether any, some, most, or all of them were theists?

It is simply an observation of fact.

The separation of Church and state ran directly contrary to the prevailing European political ideas.

The concept of vesting political power in the people, not a royal ruling by God's will or the Church itself, is a notion that has no presence in Christian thought on any level and contradicts what they major churches say.

They said they were a Christian nation and people making a secular government and then made it as they did.

 

[Complexity]

Correct.

Don't get cocky - I was being sarcastic.

I don't know of any that weren't, but perhaps some were. Were any at all known atheist?

Don't have a clue - you haven't listed who you think the 'founding fathers' were. First things first.


It is simply an observation of fact.[/quote]


It isn't nice to Lie for Jesus. You are not telling the truth.

 

[westprog]

Those ideas sprang from the minds of thinkers who were revolting against the rights-squashing religious governments in Europe.

Most of the philosophers who worked on those concepts were forced to censure their writing, produce material that supported Church doctrine and many of them fled to less religiously extreme countries to work free of that domination.

It's odd for "Christians" to take credit for ideas their Church and followers tried to destroy when they were developed.

If those thinkers were self-identified as Christian, and formed their ideas on that basis, then the fact that they were in conflict with other Christians is neither here nor there. The history of Christianity is of conflict between opposing Christian views.

 

[Robin]

The very essence of the rights of the citizen is a concept that springs from many centuries of ideas from people who would have identified themselves as Christian.

You are still going with the:

X is a Christian
X has idea A
Therefore A is an idea influenced by Christianity​

theory.

But can we really find nowhere in Greek or Roman culture where the idea of a right of a citizen occurs? Didn't some Greek states give their citizens the right to vote?

Didn't certain rights and responsibility go with the various levels of Roman citizenship?

 

[Robin]

Now, you might say that explicitly agreeing with somebody's teachings doesn't imply any kind of influence is involved, but I would respectfully disagree.

Now you might say that explicitly and strongly disagreeing with the fundamental principles of a religion implies being influenced by that religion, but I would respectfully disagree.

 

[Robin]

I wonder if you would argue that the idea of a senate is influenced by the Roman pantheon, or that democracy was influenced by the Greek pantheon?

 

[DC]

The Declaration of Independence.

What a magnificent document. I just read it for the first time in years. Read it again yourself.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence


That was then. This is now. Surely, we are so much smarter now. Surely, most here are vastly superior both morally and intellectually to those dead white men, right?
How could such brilliant men that crafted such a brilliant document to the world be so stupid as to believe so firmly in God?

"Nature's God.. created.. endowed by their Creator.. appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.. with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence..."

That's quite an emphasis on God in the founding document from the fathers of the nation.

Do you object to this? Would you favor a vote or document which declared a national renouncing of any faith in or reliance on God?

Would you consider their faith in God, even if you personally disagree, a good thing or a bad thing?

Do you believe that expunging their faith from the nation, as much as reasonably possible, would make for a better nation?

Are Americans better now than they were then?

yes indeed

 

[SezMe]

The leading figure in writing the Constitution was Thomas Jefferson.

This is incorrect. Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written. Its principal author was James Madison.

 

[TraneWreck]

If those thinkers were self-identified as Christian, and formed their ideas on that basis,

Again, this makes no sense. What do you mean, "on that basis?" Nothing important has come from studying the Bible, in fact, that's a pretty safe way to make sure your theories will fail to meet the tribunal of experience.

Newton self-identified as a Christian, he formed his ideas through the scientific method. Is gravity a "Christian discovery?" The concept makes little sense, and you seem dedicated to remaining as vague as possible. I think it's likely you realize how absurd your positions is and simply continue to respond with poorly formed concepts in the hope that this will trick people into thinking you have a point.

then the fact that they were in conflict with other Christians is neither here nor there. The history of Christianity is of conflict between opposing Christian views.

No, it's also the history of persecuting, torturing, and subjugating people with views that contradict the absurd story of reality contained in that old book of fairy tales Christians exalt.

Sometimes, after reluctance to accept new developments becomes so comically retarded that even the elderly virgins running the Vatican realize how silly they're being, one Church or the other will concede that, you know, maybe the Earth does revolve around the sun. But just because they accept an idea 500 years after it was developed (spending the intervening centuries brutalizing anyone that evinced the now *********** obvious notion), that doesn't mean it was a "Christian theory" or "developed through Christianity" or whatever you're trying to argue.

 

[TraneWreck]

I don't know of any that weren't, but perhaps some were. Were any at all known atheist?

This is just a-historic confusion. Again, there really weren't any atheists at that point. When Galileo and the other Renaissance scientists began to learn more about the universe we were situated in, there was a sort of atheism that sprung up based on the idea that the Bible contained such a pathetic description of not only space, but of our planet, that they felt it couldn't have been written by God.

But that was a rejection of theism. Even the brightest minds did not have a realistic explanation of how things came to be, so the sort of scientific atheism that has become increasingly popular after Darwin just didn't exist back then. "Deism" was essentially the atheism of its day. It was an express rejection of the mystic nonsense contained in the "holy books."

It is simply an observation of fact.

The position of Enlightenment philosophers like Locke involved the thought experiment of building a social contract as though there was no god. Kant, some years later, explicitly laid down this theory, but the prevailing attitude of the cutting edge thinkers was that belief in God was a useless guide in figuring out the most just way to construct our laws (this notion, of course, is implied in the work of Plato and Aristotle, but they weren't burdened by centuries of Christian gibberish).

And, of course, America is not a Christian nation. That is said explicitly in the Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by John Adams and a substantial number of original signees to the Constitution.

Even if that treaty never existed, though, a basic reading of the Federalist papers, other discussions concerning the basis of the Constitution, and the Constitution, itself, which is wholly devoid of anything recognizeably Christian, save the date, inexorably leads to that conclusion.

 

[westprog]

Now you might say that explicitly and strongly disagreeing with the fundamental principles of a religion implies being influenced by that religion, but I would respectfully disagree.

Then you shouldn't. If Jefferson thought that Jesus' teachings were important, then he was undoubtedly influenced by that. It doesn't matter what he thought about other aspects of Christianity.

It's quite possible to be influenced by Marxism, say, or Montessori, or Dick Fosbury's high jump technique, without necessarily subscribing to everything they say. That's the difference between being influenced and being a disciple. I didn't say that the writers of the Constitution were only influenced by Christianity, or that all aspects of Christianity were equally important to them. I also didn't assert that Christian thought is just one homogenous thing, based on the Bible, which seems to be a tenet of fundamentalist atheism.

 

[westprog]

Again, this makes no sense. What do you mean, "on that basis?" Nothing important has come from studying the Bible, in fact, that's a pretty safe way to make sure your theories will fail to meet the tribunal of experience.

Since Jefferson did think it was worth while studying the Bible, clearly you disagree with him.

Newton self-identified as a Christian, he formed his ideas through the scientific method. Is gravity a "Christian discovery?" The concept makes little sense, and you seem dedicated to remaining as vague as possible. I think it's likely you realize how absurd your positions is and simply continue to respond with poorly formed concepts in the hope that this will trick people into thinking you have a point.

I am well able to distinguish between hard science and human behaviour and law. Trying to cause confusion between the two doesn't mean that you can just dismiss my arguments.

No, it's also the history of persecuting, torturing, and subjugating people with views that contradict the absurd story of reality contained in that old book of fairy tales Christians exalt.

Sometimes, after reluctance to accept new developments becomes so comically retarded that even the elderly virgins running the Vatican realize how silly they're being, one Church or the other will concede that, you know, maybe the Earth does revolve around the sun. But just because they accept an idea 500 years after it was developed (spending the intervening centuries brutalizing anyone that evinced the now *********** obvious notion), that doesn't mean it was a "Christian theory" or "developed through Christianity" or whatever you're trying to argue.

 

[westprog]

This is incorrect. Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written. Its principal author was James Madison.

I beg your pardon, that's of course true, though in fact, any constitution that is eventually adopted is as much the product of the people who choose it as the person who actually writes it down.

 

[tsig]

I beg your pardon, that's of course true, though in fact, any constitution that is eventually adopted is as much the product of the people who choose it as the person who actually writes it down.

You're wrong but you're still right. It's a characteristic of believers to always be right no matter the facts.