Miracles

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by mrnoodle
So, we have decided as a society that whoring is generally unsavory, bad for the client, bad for the whore, bad for the populace at large.

What's this we shit paleface?

In all seriousness, I have trouble taking moral and ethical advice from a group of people who have absolutely no way of proving that they have the one true answer, even though they all claim that they do. Especially when that group can't get on the same page as far as something as simple as homosexuality. To wit:

Romans:
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Or, to quote Sam Kinnison, paraphrasing the Pope, "Suck a dick, lose the kingdom, romans 1."

And now we have the sanctioning of a gay priest.

Time to get on the same page together before you come to me trying to get me on that page.

[wolf]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
And now we have the sanctioning of a gay priest.

The Catholic Church has been doing it for years. The Episcopals are just catching up (as usual).

[mrnoodle]

Originally posted by Undertoad

That's funny - I get frustrated when people tell me that my beliefs will result in suffering eternal torment. But sniggering...! Oh dear, that must be really rough for you! I can hear you getting all tense and uneasy from here! However do you cope?

Xtians who complain about judgementalism: You haven't got a clue until 20 fifth-graders come up to you one-by-one to tell you you're going to hell.

Heh. Glad to see my vibe-reading skills are still working.

If I couldn't cope with people sniggering, do you think I'd deliberately invite it in an open forum? Your knee is jerking a little, I think. Anyway, if you think Christians are bad about judging non-Christians, you should see us let loose on each other. But if you want me to think we have a monopoly on the judgement thing, you're going to have to keep trying. One street preacher can incite a full-on riot of self-righteous atheists. We, on the other hand, require a full gay pride parade to get worked up. (ducks)

Actually, I would think being militant gay is similar to being a militant Christian in some respects. You always have to wonder if you're safe to let someone know, but once you get over your fear, you're shoving it in peoples faces all the time.

And we can't wave to each other in the liquor store, so they actually have it easier.
edited to fix a misleading pronoun.

[mrnoodle]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
If you run into those people, ignore them. But please try not to ignore people who don't share your faith, and therefore don't want to be bound by the aspects of morality that are justified only by your faith. Just as the US government doesn't require all food to be Kosher, it should not support the religious strictures against homosexuality (to mention one current event). People within a religion can subject themselves to that religion's rules, but the religion must not attempt to force it's rules on others.

It should be noted again that I don't care who diddles whom, and don't think government services, housing etc. should be denied to citizens based on whom they diddle. [/disclaimer]
Religion is an integral part of each individual (in some cases, the lack of religion is that person's religion). You can't separate it from the rest of your life, like it's a hobby. Well for some people it is. Like TV preachers.
At any rate, when you have a nation of people with religious beliefs of one flavor or another, those beliefs are going to play a role in public policy. I side with the people who think that "separation of church and state" was intended to prevent the govt. from setting up a state religion. All of our laws either have roots in the judeo-christian ethic, or are mirrored by similar concepts from that ethic, whether or not they were implemented with a religious intent. The notion of an American government that is completely devoid of any religious influence is a myth. In fact, a pure democracy would be impossible to attain. Religion are us, we is religion.

[russotto]

I postulate a God who is so certain he's created a universe with no evidence of his existence, that he sends to eternal damnation anyone who believes in him despite this.

So much for Pascal's Wager.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by mrnoodle
At any rate, when you have a nation of people with religious beliefs of one flavor or another, those beliefs are going to play a role in public policy. I side with the people who think that "separation of church and state" was intended to prevent the govt. from setting up a state religion. All of our laws either have roots in the judeo-christian ethic, or are mirrored by similar concepts from that ethic, whether or not they were implemented with a religious intent.

This is absolutely untrue. Is far as I can tell, only the vice laws and certain aspects of common law have any judeo-christian influence. The vast majority of our laws couldn't have been conceived of centuries ago, much less millennia. And actually, most of the laws that do coincide with judeo-christian values are pretty common to most human civilizations. Also remember, Christianity originally had a problem with interest-bearing loans, which is the foundation of the US economy. (This is why Jews got the "shylock" stereotype. Not being Christian, they were allowed to make interest-bearing loans, and disallowed from just about everything else)

The notion of an American government that is completely devoid of any religious influence is a myth. In fact, a pure democracy would be impossible to attain. Religion are us, we is religion.

A pure democracy is exactly equivalent to pure communism - a horror. Living in a land of majority rules, with no protection for minority rights and opinions would be the death of progress.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by mrnoodle

It should be noted again that I don't care who diddles whom, and don't think government services, housing etc. should be denied to citizens based on whom they diddle. [/disclaimer]
Religion is an integral part of each individual (in some cases, the lack of religion is that person's religion). You can't separate it from the rest of your life, like it's a hobby. Well for some people it is. Like TV preachers.
At any rate, when you have a nation of people with religious beliefs of one flavor or another, those beliefs are going to play a role in public policy. I side with the people who think that "separation of church and state" was intended to prevent the govt. from setting up a state religion. All of our laws either have roots in the judeo-christian ethic, or are mirrored by similar concepts from that ethic, whether or not they were implemented with a religious intent. The notion of an American government that is completely devoid of any religious influence is a myth. In fact, a pure democracy would be impossible to attain. Religion are us, we is religion.

You've been drinking haven't you. There's no other explanation for that post, except possibly trolling for your own amusement.

[Troubleshooter]

All of our laws either have roots in the judeo-christian ethic, or are mirrored by similar concepts from that ethic, whether or not they were implemented with a religious intent.

Um, Mr. Noodle sir?

~~~

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

~~~

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

~~~

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

[mrnoodle]

Well, Bruce, I wasn't trolling, but I did expect some resistance. It's become quite chic (again) to deny any biblical connection to America's founding documents. I need some time to get my research together, but I hope to be able to defend myself with documentation in the next day or so.

I thought I was done writing research papers but I can't throw the bait in the water and not fight the fish, I suppose.

I do have some Jeffersonian material handy, though. Both sides of the religion debate want Jefferson to be "theirs" and skew his quotes/letters, etc. to fit their bias. Jefferson himself seemed to be two-faced on the issue, claiming one thing in public and another in private writings. That's politics, I suppose. But he did claim to be a Christian, albeit not in the traditional sense. Sort of a semi-Deist Christian with Humanist/Unitarianism leanings, if that's even possible. He believed in God and believed in an afterlife, but denied the deity of Christ. He cherry-picked his personal faith out of the Biblical texts he liked best, while ignoring the rest, and compiled them into what is popularly known as the Jefferson Bible. Here's a couple of widely-quoted passages from letters he wrote in the early 1800's:

"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they (the clergy) have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." -- letter to Moses Robinson, 1801

Jefferson waxes eloquent on his compilation, what we term the Jefferson Bible: "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its Author never said nor saw." -- to Charles Thompson, 1816

To say that Jefferson did not draw on his Biblical influences when drafting what was to become the founding document of a fledgling nation is absurd.

A good Jefferson source

I gotta get some sleep if I'm going to be in the library tomorrow.....

[xoxoxoBruce]

Sort of a semi-Deist Christian with Humanist/Unitarianism leanings, if that's even possible. He believed in God and believed in an afterlife, but denied the deity of Christ.

I think you'll find Franklin and a number of the original rabble rousers share the same views. They were thinkers and "cherry picked" their beliefs, religious and secular from everywhere, as they were wealthy, educated and traveled.

[Happy Monkey]

I won't discourage any quotes from Jefferson (or anyone else), but I would be more impressed with examples of legal concepts that originate with the Bible. I don't think that many people would argue that Jesus didn't have any good ideas, and obviously the Bible's presence would be felt in any document from the era. But very little of the law is based on it.

But I'm willing to look at examples.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
I won't discourage any quotes from Jefferson (or anyone else), but I would be more impressed with examples of legal concepts that originate with the Bible. I don't think that many people would argue that Jesus didn't have any good ideas, and obviously the Bible's presence would be felt in any document from the era. But very little of the law is based on it.

But I'm willing to look at examples.

A good tack to take. I'd be curious to see any laws that are rooted in Leviticus...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

20:8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.

20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Man I miss that old time religion. Not...

[lumberjim]

20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

or they shall all go unto the howard stern show and tell us all about it that there be no wickedness among us that we would have otherwise been unaware of.

[OnyxCougar]

[Christian Hat]
If God MADE you believe in him, that, in and of itself, completely invalidates free will. That is the one major thing I disagree with. Because if he MADE you believe in him, you have no choice, you HAVE to believe in him.

Now, I do understand your point that if you believe in him, you still have the option to worship him, as belief does not equal worship. But...If you believe in him, and, in the believing, believe the tenets of the bible (His document that has yet to be disproven)***, then wouldn't you, therefore, worship unless you were truly stupid?

So, since you would worship him if he were to reveal his existance to you, that, in effect, does remove your free will.

Elspode is of the opinion that Christians use the concepts of "redemption" and "forgiveness" to excuse hypocrisy and plain out "doing wrong".

Some Christians do, but I don't think very much of them. IMO, that is just a bullshit hypocritical excuse, used by people who want to get away with stupid shit that they knew was wrong in the first place, and did anyway.

I think that Good Christians(tm) use the most integral portion of the equation of forgiveness, and that is "repentance". Not the Catholic Version, but the Jesus version. I mean, you gotta be really sorry and WORK HARD on changing your habits and thoughts that are wrong (in the Christian sense), not just give lip service and say the cachisms over and over.

I think it was in Peter it says you have to have REASONS for your faith, not just follow on blind faith.***
[/Christian Hat]

***Instead of going into this here, please see www.answersingenesis.org, I'm not going to defend the bible here, they do it far better than I ever could.

[mrnoodle]

I suppose since the point is to find Biblical roots for American founding documents, all I should need is a Bible and copies of the documents.
First, lets get the Leviticus thing out of the way. Further on in the same book:
"Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things. For all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you." -- Lev. 18:24-28
Simple cause and effect. If you want your race to survive, don't engage in (all the things listed in the preceding verses). And while the sexual laws were punishable by death, in the same book, banishment was listed as an alternate punishment. Lev. 18:29
What is it about the sex thing that gets people so uptight, anyway? Troubleshooter, why didn't you mock the following:
(gonna steal your format)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
20:9 When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest.

20:10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the Lord your God.

20:11-12 Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another. Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

20:13 Do not defraud your neighbor or rob him. Do not hold back the wages of a hired man overnight.

20:14 Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord.

etc. etc......dueling Bible verses is getting tiresome, It's your right to detest Christianity and biblical truth, but constantly trying to minimize it to some kind of anti-sex document is not just erroneous, but childish.

By the way, that's kind of the point of Jesus. His death made the law a guideline for our lives rather than a list of acts that were literally punishable, as they were in the fledgling days of Israel.

Romans 3:19-20 - "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law, rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."

Getting back on track...Happy Monkey, here's a few examples that have a direct parallel. There is no way of proving or disproving individual verses' contribution to founding documents, but the themes are the same:

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

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28


"No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." - U.S Constitution, Art. III, Section 3, Paragraph 1

"On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness." - Deut. 17:6


"..but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." - U.S Constitution, Art. III, Section 3, Paragraph 2

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." - Deut. 24:16

Edited to add that Blackstone depended heavily on scripture as well, and he was a favorite of the FFs