Does Jesus or the Cross offend you?

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2591
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Does Jesus or the Cross offend you?

Many people when talking to Christians or confronting Christian topics try to pull the "offended" card in hopes to make everything all better.  I don't believe there are many of those people on here, but I came across an article that I feel makes good points on the topic just the same;

 

http://www.crosswalk.com/spirituallife/1414727/


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: These days, it is

Quote:
These days, it is the secularists who seem to be most intent on pushing a proposed right never to be offended by confrontation with the Christian Gospel, Christian witness, or Christian speech and symbolism. This motivation lies behind the incessant effort to remove all symbols, representations, references, and images related to Christianity from the public square.

False. That is not the reasoning behind it. We want symbols removed from schools, court rooms, etc, because we are NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY. We are not supposed to be religious at all. We are simply supposed to allow people to practice their own religions without undue government intervention.

When I attend a function at a state university, and there is a prayer to Jesus that I'm expected to participate in, I am left with a choice: Ostracize myself or pretend to agree. If you invite me to a prayer meeting at your house, I can just decline the invitation, but if I want an education, I have to go to school. If the schools are allowed to promote a religion, that's not offensive to me -- it's discriminatory.

Consider this: I've been called for jury duty three times in my life. I've been struck all three times after expressing my atheism. Granted, I didn't particularly want to do jury duty, but that's not the point. I am not allowed to participate because of my lack of Christianity. Posting the ten commandments is not offensive to me -- it promotes and encourages discrimination against me.

Consider the recent congressional resolution elevating Christian holidays. They could have simply said, "We support all holidays, all religions, and non-believers alike." Instead, they chose to go with the majority. That is not offensive -- it's discrimination.

Quote:
The very existence of a large cross, placed on government property as a memorial, outside San Diego, California, has become a major issue in the courts, and now in Congress. Those pressing for the removal of the cross claim that they are offended by the fact that they are forced to see this Christian symbol from time to time.

I'll shut up about the large cross if we include an equally large and prominent symbol of every other world religion -- and an equally large and prominent atheist "A." You see how it works? It's not about promoting religion. It's about preferential treatment for any religion and discrimination against the non-religious.

Quote:
We should note carefully that this notion of offendedness is highly emotive in character.

And it's also a strawman. This isn't about being offended. I'm not offended when people pray before meals. I'm discriminated against when the government forces me to either act Christian or be part of the disenfranchised minority.

Quote:
In other words, those who now claim to be offended are generally speaking of an emotional state that has resulted from some real or perceived insult to their belief system or from contact with someone else's belief system

Again. Horseshit.

We don't claim to be offended. We claim to be discriminated against.

Quote:
In this sense, being offended does not necessarily involve any real harm but points instead to the fact that the mere presence of such an argument, image, or symbol evokes an emotional response of offendedness.

Real Harm:

 

Transformation from Secular to Religious Government

Under the Bush administration, our country is experiencing a major transformation from a secular to a religious government. The President's faith-based initiative is central to this transformation and raises serious questions about church-state separation. "Slouching toward theocracy. President Bush's faith-based initiative is doing better than you think," by Bill Berkowitz, 2/6/04 provides an overview of this transformation.

In his State of the Union address, Bush renewed a call for Congress to make permanent his faith-based proposals that would allow religious organizations to compete for more government contracts and grants without a strict separation between their religious activities and social service programs.

On February 4, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives voted for provisions in a social services bill that allow religiously based job discrimination in publicly funded programs run by churches.

 

Remember -- churches pay no taxes. Isn't that what you call an unfair business advantage??? Real harm

 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been following Bush's Faith-Based Initiative since he assumed the office of President. They have filed lawsuits, and their magazine, Church and State, has many important, in-depth articles.

From Americans United, August 17, 2004:

A new study of the "faith-based" initiative raises troubling questions about the Bush administration's disregard for constitutional and civil rights protections, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The report issued today by the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy lists the many executive actions President George W. Bush has taken to fund a wide range of religion-based social services. The sweeping changes in federal policy, the report indicates, have come without congressional authorization.

Philadelphia Church That Endorsed Bush Gets $1 Million 'Faith-Based' Grant
Wednesday June 23, 2004

"The Rev. Lusk endorsed candidate Bush, and wound up getting a $1-million faith-based grant from the Bush administration," [Barry] Lynn said. "Now there's a heavenly payoff."

Real Harm.

 

The Texas Republican Party Platform, 2002:

"Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to dispel the mythof separation of church and state."

Christian Coalition: Speakers at the Road To Victory rally sponsored by Christian Coalition just before the 2002 elections,

"seemed to compete with each other to say the worst things they could about this concept." Coalition founder Pat Robertson who described church-state separation as "a lie" and "a distortion foisted on us over the past few years by left- wingers." Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore termed separation "a fable" and insisted that the phrase "has so warped our society it's unbelievable." Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) upped the ante, calling concerns about church and state "the phoniest argument there is."

But the award for the most vicious attack goes to Joyce Meyer, the TV preacher who cosponsored the Coalition's national meeting. Meyer lambasted the constitutional concept as "really a deception from "Satan."

David Barton and the "Myth" of Church-State Separation, Beliefnet (a web site of faith and spirituality)

As a "Christian" nation activist, David Barton, Vice Chair of the Republican Party, was once considered so extreme he was not taken seriously. Now he is listed by Time magazine as one of the nation's 25 most influential evangelicals.

He was also featured on the front page of The New York Times Week in Review, February 27, 2005: Putting God Back Into American History.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia

On January 12, 2003, Supreme Court Justice Scalia speaking at an event called Religious Freedom Day, publicly attacked the separation of church and state signaling the problems this important principle would have under a Supreme Court with a Scalia majority.

 Um... Supreme Court Justice attacking separation of Church and State?  I'd say there's some real damage being done.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
I got as far as the giant

I got as far as the giant flaming strawman in the middle of the first page of that article and stopped reading. Atheists don't protest the use of religious symbols in public places because we are offended by them. We protest because their presence implies our participation and support for the religion so represented, which is not why we pay our taxes. Would you consider it real harm if the government announced it was funding a task force to promote atheism across the country? Would you feel this was a fair and legitimate use of your tax dollars? If no, would that be because you are "offended" by atheism?

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3601
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: I got as

Tilberian wrote:
I got as far as the giant flaming strawman in the middle of the first page of that article and stopped reading. Atheists don't protest the use of religious symbols in public places because we are offended by them. We protest because their presence implies our participation and support for the religion so represented, which is not why we pay our taxes. Would you consider it real harm if the government announced it was funding a task force to promote atheism across the country? Would you feel this was a fair and legitimate use of your tax dollars? If no, would that be because you are "offended" by atheism?

I agree with your post 100%.  It comes down to a matter of the supremacy of a single viewpoint as opposed to fairness based upon impartiality. I like your "shoe on the other foot" example as it illustrates this point perfectly.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13506
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The new scapegoat for

The new scapegoat for Christians failure to maintain their religious monopoly on what it means to be an American is secularism.

HERE IS WHAT THEY WONT TELL YOU!

A Christian can be a secularist. A Jew or Muslim or atheist can be a secularist. A secularist is merely a person who recoginizes that religion and politics DONT MIX!

Any moron with half a brian can look at the division in the middle east between Sunnis and Shiites to know that when you bring up labels and discard common law, someone will get fucked.

The same sectarin violence existed between the Catholics and Protestants in Irland.

A human is a human is a human. We are all going to beleive what we beleive dispite what others tell us. We CAN use the the common goal of appeal without force and include bitching about the other without killing each other.

Utopias dont exist, and only a fool will set themselves up to be king of the hill with force, rather than the voluntary appeal of fact. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote:

Tilberian wrote:
I got as far as the giant flaming strawman in the middle of the first page of that article and stopped reading. Atheists don't protest the use of religious symbols in public places because we are offended by them.

Right.  My objection is using public monies to put religious symbols on public property.  What you do with your own property is your business.

I do, however, find the symbolism of the cross offensive. When I was a kid in fundy school, I went through a phase where I drew pictures of Christ and the two thieves being crucified on the cross. It was a really violent picture with blood and everything. At school I was encouraged. My parents encouraged me, too.

My brother, in a rare moment of lucidity, called it disgusting. I figured he must be wrong because everyone else liked it. Smiling Logical fallacy: argument from popularity.

When my nephew was about 7 or 8, he used to go around saying his favorite color was red because it reminded him of Jesus' blood. That was SO not okay with me. It was all I could do to keep my mouth shut. Most of the time I had to go into another room.

I hope he outgrows his fundy upbringing. He isn't planning on college and that concerns me because I don't think he ever learned how to think for himself. Sad College would at least force him to see how other people live and think.

So yeah, I do find the cross offensive. It's the most popular necklace symbol, isn't it? People might as well wear little guillotines around their necks. It's the same damn thing. On the other hand, I respect the right of others to wear a cross or a guillotine or whatever the hell they want. As long as it's private, I won't get in your face. I am teaching myself to keep arguments about religion in the public sphere. It's been hard to bite my tongue at times. Smiling

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   Yeah , hey lets put an

   Yeah , hey lets put an electric chair symbol in the public square.

Xians are sick sick sick ..... and f  ing sick

Seperate religion from the market place .... Stop being tolerant of witchcraft tax free peddlers ....

Holy Water ?


Evolved Morality
Evolved Morality's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-10-31
User is offlineOffline
hamby love the post

 i really  do think they need to keep out of the school system and any goverment  arena


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
I am offended by the

I am offended by the cross,, the funny little jewish hat and the headscarf. These are symbols of mental slavery. To display your intellectual limitations with pride sickens me.

When I see a woman in a burqa I am even more offended. They are allowing themselves to be defined completely by their primitive faith. All you can see about them is that they are Muslim. I have the same reaction to Jesus fish displayed on the back of someone's car. The first and only thing the driver wants those behind him to know is his delusions.

I'm offended when businesses display their religion prominently. Here in Perth we have a chain of bed stores that displays the Jesus fish on their logo. The implication is that being a christian makes them more worthy of people's business.

I'm also offended by churches, temples and mosques. These are places where ignorance is worshiped and children are brainwashed.

 

I do not demand that people remove their crosses, yarmulka or headscarf. I do not go around tearing Jesus fish off cars or lobbying for a ban on burqas. I do not call for all places of worship to be demolished. Why? because no matter how offended I am I have no right to stop other people from offending me. I bleieve in free expression no matter how stupid the idea being expressed is. I will however do my best to boycott businesses that make a point of their faith. That is my right as a consumer.

 

When it comes to religious symbols on public property or paid for with public funds, then I do have a right to demand their removal. It is no longer individuals expressing personal faith. It's the country claiming a national faith. I will not be labelled with the primitive dogma of others.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2591
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
discrimination, not offense

[/quote=caposkia]

As I had guessed, most people on this site don't find it an offense, however, I have learned a lot from the responses given. Very interesting.

 

Hambydammit wrote:

False. That is not the reasoning behind it. We want symbols removed from schools, court rooms, etc, because we are NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY. We are not supposed to be religious at all. We are simply supposed to allow people to practice their own religions without undue government intervention.

Woah! huh???? Who told you we're NOT a Christian country? Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Did you know that "Laus Deo" (Praise be to God) is written at the very top of the Washington monument? Did you know you are required to be a Christian to even run for president??? Try telling the founders of this country we're not a Christian nation.

Now you may want to believe it, but I'm sorry, it's just not the case. We are a Christian Nation. Our laws and statutes were based on Christian teachings. For a refresher on the DOI, please check out; http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

Imediately, right at the beginning you'll notice such phrases as; "...God entitled them" and "...endowed by their Creator" and yes God and Creator are capitalized siginifying they are in fact referencing to the Christian God. No other religion would capitalize God be it that they all have a name they use for their higher power, and creator may be a description others may use, but they wouldn't consider it a significance to capitolize.

Hambydammit wrote:

When I attend a function at a state university, and there is a prayer to Jesus that I'm expected to participate in, I am left with a choice: Ostracize myself or pretend to agree. If you invite me to a prayer meeting at your house, I can just decline the invitation, but if I want an education, I have to go to school. If the schools are allowed to promote a religion, that's not offensive to me -- it's discriminatory.

uh... expected to participate in??? who told you you were expected to pray? or even believe for that matter??? Anyone who tells you that does not understand what it means to be a Christian.

I have no problem with anyone expressing any religious beliefs in public places. I have a problem when people say certain beliefs do not belong. Yes, this would include an athiestic point of view. Everyone has a right to believe what they want in this country. However, they need to respect the foundations of this country and respect anyone with opposing beliefs.

People also need an open mind. Someone mentioned in this blog that people will believe what they want and no one can change their mind.. not an exact quote, but it was along those lines. Unfortunately, that's very true. I see it as stubborness. You really have to question what you believe if you aren't even willing to listen to an opposing factor. I'm here because I'm willing to accept any opposition with open ears and an open mind. I'm still a believer because no oppositional views have in my understanding, successfully refuted my views.

Hambydammit wrote:

Consider this: I've been called for jury duty three times in my life. I've been struck all three times after expressing my atheism. Granted, I didn't particularly want to do jury duty, but that's not the point. I am not allowed to participate because of my lack of Christianity. Posting the ten commandments is not offensive to me -- it promotes and encourages discrimination against me.

...and you said this is NOT a Christian nation???

Part of the basis of laws and statutes dating back to the founding years of this country put into place a requirement of Christianity to ensure no descrimination against the accused. It was understood at the time that if you were a Christian, you were absolutely going to look at any issue with an open mind and a clear conscience. These would be the requirements of being a Christian. Judge Not, ya know?

as we all know, unfortunately, through the history of this country, people claiming to be Christian did not view issues with open minds or clear consciences... just look at the Salem Witch Trials.

I know the response to this too. A perfect example of why religion should not be invovled... etc.... well, if these people convicting people of being witches were true Christians, none would have been killed. It's just not the teaching of the New Testiment! Whether you believe it or not, you can't deny that.

Hambydammit wrote:

I'll shut up about the large cross if we include an equally large and prominent symbol of every other world religion -- and an equally large and prominent atheist "A." You see how it works? It's not about promoting religion. It's about preferential treatment for any religion and discrimination against the non-religious.

are you saying we should start putting A's on top of churches and Islamic symbols on jewish synagogs??? uh... just fyi. If Athiests had a church or any property for that matter in a public place, they'd have every right to not only display an A, but to not display anything they didn't want displayed.

of course they'd get friction from some morons out there, but they're just dispensationalists. They have no concept of tolerance.

Hambydammit wrote:

Remember -- churches pay no taxes. Isn't that what you call an unfair business advantage??? Real harm

well, churches pay no "property tax". Because they are a non-profit organization. Just like any other non-profit organization, they get tax breaks. br..hem... and uh... any church that is profiting I must say is NOT Christian.

As far as sparation of Church and state, that is quite a topic and a misunderstanding by both sides if I do say so myself. I'd have to do some research before I comment on that more, but to sum it up, the declaration of seperation was never meant to keep God out of the Government.

 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1203
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Woah! huh???? Who told you we're NOT a Christian country?

Noone had to. It's obvious to anyone with accurate knowledge of our country's founding.

caposkia wrote:

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

Yes. There's no jesus in there. Anywhere.

caposkia wrote:

Did you know that "Laus Deo" (Praise be to God) is written at the very top of the Washington monument?

Did you know "Qui curat" (Who gives a fuck) is written on my brain right now?

caposkia wrote:

Did you know you are required to be a Christian to even run for president???

I didn't. Could you show me in the rule book?

caposkia wrote:

Try telling the founders of this country we're not a Christian nation.

No need. They would tell you themselves.

caposkia wrote:

Now you may want to believe it, but I'm sorry, it's just not the case. We are a Christian Nation.

We are not. The original settlers came here to get away from a christian nation.

 

caposkia wrote:
Our laws and statutes were based on Christian teachings. For a refresher on the DOI, please check out; http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

Some of the founders were christian, some were deists. Read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography for an explicit disavowal of christianity. The separation of church & state was made very clear.

caposkia wrote:

Imediately, right at the beginning you'll notice such phrases as; "...God entitled them" and "...endowed by their Creator" and yes God and Creator are capitalized siginifying they are in fact referencing to the Christian God. No other religion would capitalize God be it that they all have a name they use for their higher power, and creator may be a description others may use, but they wouldn't consider it a significance to capitolize.

That's nonsense. You need to get out more.

Look at an original draft of the Declaration. Every damn noun is capitalized. People wrote like that back then. Or will you contend it was just the christians?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I could respond in detail,

I could respond in detail, but I already wasted ten minutes of my life reading that last bit of tripe.  I'll sum it up with your own words.

Quote:
but to sum it up, the declaration of seperation was never meant to keep God out of the Government.

 Wow.  Just... wow.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: Woah!

caposkia wrote:

Woah! huh???? Who told you we're NOT a Christian country? Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Did you know that "Laus Deo" (Praise be to God) is written at the very top of the Washington monument? Did you know you are required to be a Christian to even run for president??? Try telling the founders of this country we're not a Christian nation.

Now you may want to believe it, but I'm sorry, it's just not the case. We are a Christian Nation. Our laws and statutes were based on Christian teachings. For a refresher on the DOI, please check out; http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

Imediately, right at the beginning you'll notice such phrases as; "...God entitled them" and "...endowed by their Creator" and yes God and Creator are capitalized siginifying they are in fact referencing to the Christian God. No other religion would capitalize God be it that they all have a name they use for their higher power, and creator may be a description others may use, but they wouldn't consider it a significance to capitolize.

Your argument is easily defeated, as the United States was founded via the creation of the Constituion, not the Declaration of Independence.

The United States is in no way a Christian nation. Our laws are clearly not based on Christian laws (how many of the ten commandments are laws? maybe three, depending on how strictly you adhere to them). Your statement that the President has to be a Christian is completely inaccurate. The requirements are laid out in the Constitution, a document you might be interested in reading before making claims about the nature and functioning of the U.S. government.


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: Did you

caposkia wrote:
Did you know you are required to be a Christian to even run for president???

Really? I thought the only requirements were to be

  1. a natural-born citizen
  2. 35 years old or older
  3. at least 14 cumulative years of residency within the several States

I must've missed the part that says you gotta be Christian to be the president. Maybe they changed the part that says no religious test shall be required to hold any office of public trust under the United States.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
While the founding fathers

While the founding fathers likely had to placate a significant christian population just as we do today, this doesn't mean they embraced christianity themselves or thought it was best for our nation.

caposkia wrote:

Quote:
Try telling the founders of this country we're not a Christian nation.

Tell them yourself:  (A small sample) 

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, bigotry, and persecution". 

In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.  "

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."  

 All of these from President James Madison... and:

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. " – Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

 "The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." 

"Question with boldness even the existance of God, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear"

Thomas Jefferson.  

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion....." Treaty of Tripoly(Barbary Treaty) Artical 11. Signed without dissent by both houses of congress and signed into LAW  by President John Adams, June 10th 1797. 

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

John Adams 

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."  Thomas Paine  From - The Age of Reason

Quote:
 well, churches pay no "property tax". Because they are a non-profit organization. Just like any other non-profit organization, they get tax breaks. br..hem... and uh... any church that is profiting I must say is NOT Christian.

All No True Scotsman fallacies aside...

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. " Thomas Paine

Some things never change.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   YEAH  ,

   YEAH  , bump

Jefferson , Paine , even Jesus/Buddha too !

Read it ALL again,

the bibles too

Go Jesus !  and thanks, good lesson, sorry you were misquoted , as was prophisized,

The most Amazing story of all time, YET

I like the part , I am one with the father

ME TOO ,  we are one  


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13506
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I could

Hambydammit wrote:

I could respond in detail, but I already wasted ten minutes of my life reading that last bit of tripe. I'll sum it up with your own words.

Quote:
but to sum it up, the declaration of seperation was never meant to keep God out of the Government.

Wow. Just... wow.

 

The Constitution allows all good standing citizens to run for or to be appointed to hold offices regardless of their religion "no religious test". But what this guy doesnt understand is that common law, according to the Constitution was never ment to be monopolized by on religion nor were our common law was intended to be ripped out of any holy book. 

It was never the founders intent for Christianity to be sole interperter or owner of the Constitution. Freedom of religion is garunteed by the Constitution but how Christians get to "Jesus owned government" out of that is absurd.

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" Artical 11, Barbary Treaty signed without dissent by both houses of Congress and signed into law June 10th 1797 by President John Adams.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Personally, I'm bothered by

Personally, I'm bothered by crosses since they are torture devices. The Romans used them for incredibly painful executions. I think that any group that uses a torture device as their symbol while claiming to be about peace and love is up to something.

-Triften 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2591
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: Noone

zarathustra wrote:

Noone had to. It's obvious to anyone with accurate knowledge of our country's founding.

really... have you read the Bible?   

zarathustra wrote:

Yes. There's no jesus in there. Anywhere.

who said anything about Jesus being in there?

zarathustra wrote:

Did you know "Qui curat" (Who gives a fuck) is written on my brain right now?

If you really don't, then why are we talking???  If you didn't care, then you wouln't talk to me, and you have every right not to.

zarathustra wrote:

I didn't. Could you show me in the rule book?

ya know, I could be wrong on that... I guess I should say that there is yet to be a president elected for these United States that did not have a Christian background...

zarathustra wrote:

No need. They would tell you themselves.

ok... like who?  the signers of the Constitution for example maybe... let's see.

Abraham Baldwin...  uh... nope, he was a Christian

John Dickinson - From his will: "To my Creator I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity."   hmmm... he could be an athiest..er... nah

Gunning Bedford - Funeral oration on the death of Washington: "Now to the triune God, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be ascribed all honor and dominion, forevermore."  nope... also known as a Christian

James Wilson - "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority for that law which is divine...far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other." - from The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804)  hmm. starting to see a pattern...

I will remind everyone that these are the actual signers of the Constitution... the document that has no reference or indication of God or Jesus Christ in it...

Jacob Broom - Writing to his son: "Don't forget to be a Christian. I have said much to you on this head and I hope an indelible impression is made. "

Roger Sherman (signer of all 4 of our founding documents). When asked by his church, White Haven Congregational, to help revise the wording of their creed: "I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. That the Scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him."

Alexander Hamilton - Proposed formation of the Christian Constitutional Society to spread Christian government around the world. After the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he stated: "For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." - from Diffine, D.P., One Nation Under God - How Close a Separation?

Rufus King - Selected as manager of the American Bible Society. In a speech made before the Senate at the time Missouri was petitioning for statehood, he said: "I hold that all laws or compacts imposing any such condition [as involuntary servitude] upon any human being are absolutely void because contrary to the law of nature, which is the law of God."

John Langdon - Vice President of the American Bible Society

caposkia wrote:

James McHenry - President of the first Bible Society in Baltimore. In soliciting funds for distribution of Bibles, he wrote: "...Consider also, the rich do not possess aught more precious than their Bible, and that the poor cnnot be presented by the rich with anything of greater value."

BEN FRANKLIN... SOMEONE MENTIONED HE WAS NOT CHRISTIAN OR AGAINST IT OR SOMETHING.  I GUESS THIS IS WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN SOMEONE'S MISQUOTED.

Benjamin Franklin - "It is the duty of mankind on all suitable occasions to acknowledge their dependence on the Divine Being... [that] Almighty God would mercifully interpose and still the rage of war among the nations... [and that] He would take this province under His protection, confound the designs and defeat the attempts of its enemies, and unite our hearts and strengthen our hands in every undertaking that may be for the public good, and for our defense and security in this time of dangers."

sounds to me like he believes....  

The list goes on people... if you want to see the rest, check;

http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2007/10/our-founders-were-they-christian.html

zarathustra wrote:

Now you may want to believe it, but I'm sorry, it's just not the case. We are a Christian Nation.

We are not. The original settlers came here to get away from a christian nation.

sounds it from what I pasted above...

zarathustra wrote:

 

Some of the founders were christian, some were deists. Read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography for an explicit disavowal of christianity. The separation of church & state was made very clear.

do you have a link to that btw?

zarathustra wrote:

That's nonsense. You need to get out more.

Look at an original draft of the Declaration. Every damn noun is capitalized. People wrote like that back then. Or will you contend it was just the christians?

Ok, so "every damn noun is capitalized." doesn't change the words that are there however.  

Man you sound pissy... and who needs to get out more???

relax.  If you're not here to debate, then don't be here. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2591
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: Personally,

triften wrote:

Personally, I'm bothered by crosses since they are torture devices. The Romans used them for incredibly painful executions. I think that any group that uses a torture device as their symbol while claiming to be about peace and love is up to something.

-Triften

those crosses were the worst kind of punishment of it's time.  They were in fact incredibly painful and a very terrible and embarrassing way to die.  

Think of it this way.  How would you feel if you were destined to hang on one of those torture devices... but then someone came along and took your place on it.  Would you not be forever greatful?  Would you not use that as a symbol of Love that someone had for you????

and before anyone can cynically respond, this is what Christians believe.  Believe it or not, if that's how you view it, it is quite the sacrifice.   


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2591
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: I got as

Tilberian wrote:
I got as far as the giant flaming strawman in the middle of the first page of that article and stopped reading. Atheists don't protest the use of religious symbols in public places because we are offended by them. We protest because their presence implies our participation and support for the religion so represented, which is not why we pay our taxes. Would you consider it real harm if the government announced it was funding a task force to promote atheism across the country? Would you feel this was a fair and legitimate use of your tax dollars? If no, would that be because you are "offended" by atheism?

so are you saying our tax dollars pay for the sale of Chrisitianity?  if so, sorry to burst your bubble, but that's simply not true... even if there was some of it going towards promoting Christianity (which I truely believe it's not), there are far worse things this government is secretly spending our money on than a following.  Ask them why our debt is so large.. I'm sure the answer won't be Christians take it all... 


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
The Declaration of

The Declaration of Independence was written long before the attempt to create a government. It expresses the opinion of some ungoverned people. It doesn't express governmental principles, nor was it intended to do so. It has no legal weight.

The inscription atop the Washington Monument has no legal weight.

Christianity isn't required to run for president. I don't know where you got that idea. Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution says nobody can be forced to accept a religion to be eligible for federal employment and the 14th amendment makes it binding on state governments.

You said, "Try telling the founders of this country we're not a Christian nation." Thomas Jefferson—the person who actually penned the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence—believed Christianity was a form of Platonic demon worship. Why do you think Thomas Jefferson made his own Jefferson Bible with Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul's ideas removed? He thought Jesus was a wise and ethical mortal and thought that everything surrounding Jesus was bullshit.

I don't know where you get the idea that our laws are based on Christian teachings. What laws? The only laws you could mention are laws that practically every government, before and after both testaments of the Bible, has had in place.

You said, "I have no problem with anyone expressing any religious beliefs in public places. I have a problem when people say certain beliefs do not belong. Yes, this would include an athiestic point of view. Everyone has a right to believe what they want in this country. However, they need to respect the foundations of this country and respect anyone with opposing beliefs." Nobody said certain beliefs don't belong. Please avoid creating strawperson arguments. They are saying public property is government property and the government is supposed to be neutral. The government should not allow religious or irreligious displays on public property because it connotes endorsement and thus non-neutrality. When someone tries to bypass government neutrality and places a cross on public property, the cross must be removed to bring government back to its state of neutrality.

You said, "Part of the basis of laws and statutes dating back to the founding years of this country put into place a requirement of Christianity to ensure no discrimination against the accused." That's absurd. You just argued, "To avoid discrimination against people they practiced discrimination against people."

Later you misrepresented Hambydammit's argument. "Are you saying we should start putting A's on top of churches and Islamic symbols on Jewish synagogues?" That's not what he was saying at all. That's private property. He was talking about public property, i.e. government property. He said that government should maintain neutrality on religious matters. "It's about preferential treatment [with the connotation of government endorsement] for any religion and discrimination against the non-religious." I find it difficult to believe you misinterpreted his statement so badly.

You said, "Have you read the Bible?" Yes, I have read the Bible and recently I've been reading the Hebrew and Greek itself. It's a cool set of texts but it's ultimately unimpressive.

You said, "I guess I should say that there is yet to be a president elected for these United States that did not have a Christian background." That has no bearing on whether the government is Christian. The only claim that would support is, "Christian citizens are bigoted toward non-Christians."

You then proceeded to name a bunch of the founding fathers who you claim were Christian. They might be Christian but that doesn't matter. It does nothing to prove the government was founded as a Christian government. Many Christians at the time supported the separation of church and state because it would prevent certain sects from gaining federal power to persecute other sects. The separation of church and state was designed to protect everyone. Your argument fails because you can't infer that certain religious beliefs of the founding fathers entail an official government stance on religious matters.

I would also like to know how you've managed to ignore Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli: "[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." That statement was published in newspapers throughout the country and there was no outcry from the public about it being false. It was read out loud on the senate floor and there was no protest about it. It was then signed into law by the people who heard it read out loud. The statement is clear evidence of a non-Christian foundation of government and it has legal weight, unlike all of the anecdotal evidences you put forward for the opposite conclusion.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: so are you

caposkia wrote:

so are you saying our tax dollars pay for the sale of Chrisitianity? if so, sorry to burst your bubble, but that's simply not true... even if there was some of it going towards promoting Christianity (which I truely believe it's not), there are far worse things this government is secretly spending our money on than a following. Ask them why our debt is so large.. I'm sure the answer won't be Christians take it all...

Are you aware that churches don't pay tax? Do you have any idea how much money governments are giving up by not collecting tax from churches, given the number of them and the valuable property they own? This alone amounts to a massive annual subsidy for religion.

You have noticed, I hope, that the words "In God We Trust" appears on money and on many government crests hanging in many tax-funded places. Now ask yourself this question: how much money would Macdonalds pay to have the golden arches similarly displayed? Before you try to lowball that figure, reflect on the amount of money that corporations pay to have their logos appear at the Olympics or on NASCAR cars. Then remember that by buying this space, the corporation would be associated with the biggest, baddest brand of all, the USA, and be prominently displayed to every demographic in every market in the country. I'd say the space would be worth billions, easily. But, right now, the government gives it away to religion free.

Those are just two examples. There are dozens of others.

Your last point about the debt is assinine and beside the point. I never said the government gives all its money to religion, I just said that it subsidizes religion.  

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


daretoknow
Superfan
daretoknow's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-12-09
User is offlineOffline
You know what else bothers

You know what else bothers me about the post? That damn "No true scottsman fallacy". How can you assume that you, of all people, got christianity right? Better yet you have found that christianity was the one true religion out of 20000 or so existing religions and an infinite number of other possible religions. It is such a cop out. Anyone who has ever done anything in the name of christianity that makes your belief look bad is passed off as "No true christian". Maybe they actually interpreted it the way it was supposed to be read. The killing of witches is in the bible for instance. If there has ever been a book that contradicts itself in terms of morality, it's gotta be the bible.

I don't know if you have noticed, but history is unkind to those countries that embraced theocracy. It's right up there with rogue statism and communism. You may think that you want no seperation of church and state, but I would bet my life that you will be sorry if it happenes in your lifetime. Well, you may not be sorry, but anyone who doesn't prescribe to your faith will. This is mere speculation on my part, but history is a good indicator. Just look at how much worse it is since Bush has been in office. You can say that the problems weren't religious it is just his views on foreign policy, but his views come from his interpretation of the bible. Who are you to say he is wrong?

 

Thats cute.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
You are misrepresenting

You are misrepresenting people's views. Just because Ben Franklin uses the term 'Almighty' does not make him a Christian. He and several other founding fathers were deists.

caposkia wrote:
triften wrote:

Personally, I'm bothered by crosses since they are torture devices. The Romans used them for incredibly painful executions. I think that any group that uses a torture device as their symbol while claiming to be about peace and love is up to something.

-Triften

those crosses were the worst kind of punishment of it's time. They were in fact incredibly painful and a very terrible and embarrassing way to die.

Think of it this way. How would you feel if you were destined to hang on one of those torture devices... but then someone came along and took your place on it. Would you not be forever greatful? Would you not use that as a symbol of Love that someone had for you????

and before anyone can cynically respond, this is what Christians believe. Believe it or not, if that's how you view it, it is quite the sacrifice.

So what did Jesus sacrifice again? What did he lose?

-Triften


Bulldog
Superfan
Bulldog's picture
Posts: 333
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
Hey, caposkia.  Is English

Hey, caposkia.  Is English your second language?  If it isn't you need to get your ass back to grade school.

I'm gonna hazard a guess that you have never read any of the founding documents of this nation, nor have you any appreciable knowledge of its history.  I have read all of the founding documents more than once.  Your arguments are not even specious they are outright lies!  However, I suspect you might actually believe them to be true because you likely heard them from any of several bastions of intelligence like Pat Robertson or possibly from your fundy preacher.

You might be interested in knowing that we have had several presidents who were actual atheists. OMG!  Now, what was that about xtian belief being a requirement to be president? What the hell are you smoking? I want some.

Laus deo at the top of the Washington Monument means nothing other than someone ignored their legal responsibilities when approving the final design.  Read the letters and writings of Jefferson, Madison, Paine and other Founding Fathers and you will clearly see (assuming you can open your eyes to reason) that they not only founded this nation as a secular nation but disdained christianity as a religion.  Many of the Founding Fathers were extremely critical of subsequent congresses when they started mixing mythology with government.  That, to any reasonable person, means they founded this nation as secular, not xtian! Think, man, think!  Don't simply parrot some drivel you heard in church! "Good" xtians will lie in a heartbeat to turn this country into their idea of paradise.

You also might want to bone up on some basic legal principals before you start making shit up.  Our laws (federal at least) are made up from basic principles that have been in existence far longer than xtianity.  xtians stole them from the pagans, along with most of the stories in the bible, and called them god's word.  As far as local laws are concerned, just because some xtian assholes on a local school board manage to ramrod "In god We Trust" posters down everone's throat and have them placed in all the school rooms in the district, does not in any way mean this is a xtian nation.

Oh, and I love how the mind of a xtian works.  When witch hunts were popular xtian murderers were good xtians doing god's work, when witch hunts were no longer favored xtian murderers only called themselve xtians but weren't really xtians.  The only difference between then and now is now you guys have backed off stripping women of their clothes to examine them for signs of witchcraft while you secretly get your nut off, and turning them into firewood afterward.  A hundred years from now some equally insufferable ass will be declaring that you weren't really a xtian because of the way you pray.  Give me a break!

What you need to do is get your head out of your preacher's ass and start thinking for yourself, if that's possible at this stage in your life.  Half the crap you came up would be laughable if it wasn't so sad and dangerous.  It's ingorant people like you in the government now who are tearing this country down in an attempt to throw out the constitution and turn it into a theocracy. 

Read some history.  Never, ever has there been a government mixed with religion that did not almost immediately become evil ( a concept I believe in as a construct of man, not spirits).  In every instance power is abused, human rights suffer or are eliminated, murder by the state is rampant, etc., etc., and all in the name of god.  If you want to remain ignorant and believe in myths go ahead, I really don't care what you do.  Just keep your assinine mythology out of government!

"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1203
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:
zarathustra wrote:

Quote:
Woah! huh???? Who told you we're NOT a Christian country?

Noone had to. It's obvious to anyone with accurate knowledge of our country's founding.

really... have you read the Bible?

Yes, I have….really. Why would you ask that here? Did I miss some passage in the bible which states that America is a christian country?
caposkia wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

Yes. There's no jesus in there. Anywhere.

who said anything about Jesus being in there?
When Hambydammit said "we are NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY", you responded with "Who told you we're NOT a Christian country? Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? ", as if to say that reading the DOI would affirm that we are in fact a Xian country. So in effect, you said jesus was in there. Please try to maintain a short-term memory.

caposkia wrote:


zarathustra wrote:

Did you know "Qui curat" (Who gives a fuck) is written on my brain right now?

If you really don't, then why are we talking??? If you didn't care, then you wouln't talk to me, and you have every right not to.

I don’t care that it says Laus Deo at the top of the Monument. I care that you think America is a Xian nation, and that you base this on an inscription at the top of a piece of stone. That’s why I’m talking to you.
caposkia wrote:

ya know, I could be wrong on that [Did you know you are required to be a Christian to even run for president]... I guess I should say that there is yet to be a president elected for these United States that did not have a Christian background…

You COULD be wrong on that? You GUESS you should say?
Hey, I’m an atheist with a “Xian background”. Can I count on your vote, son?
I guess I could also point out that there is yet to be a president elected that was not white or male. Those are part of the requirements too, yes?
caposkia wrote:

the signers of the Constitution for example maybe... let's see.
Abraham Baldwin,Roger Sherman,John Langdon

So we are a congregationalist Nation.
caposkia wrote:
John Dickinson,Rufus King

Wait…make that an episscopalian Nation.

caposkia wrote:

Gunning Bedford,James Wilson, James McHenry

Er…presbyterian Nation?
caposkia wrote:
hmm. starting to see a pattern…I will remind everyone that these are the actual signers of the Constitution... the document that has no reference or indication of God or Jesus Christ in it…

hmm…would that pattern indicate that some signers of a secular constitution happened to be Xian? Let’s continue:
caposkia wrote:
Jacob Broom
Okay…lutheran Nation. Final answer?

caposkia wrote:

Alexander Hamilton

Fine. You’ve convinced me. We are a Huguenot nation.

caposkia wrote:

BEN FRANKLIN... SOMEONE MENTIONED HE WAS NOT CHRISTIAN OR AGAINST IT OR SOMETHING. I GUESS THIS IS WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN SOMEONE'S MISQUOTED.
[a Franklin quote with mention of “almighty god”, but no jesus or xianity]
sounds to me like he believes....


Since you apparently lack the rigor to actually research Franklin‘s autobiography (despite my pointing you towards it), I will charitably provide it:
Quote:
But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns several points as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of the Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of the sermons which had been preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them. For the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to be much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.

Sounds to me, like he read a xian refutation of deism, and found the arguments so weak, he became a deist instead. What was that about misquoting again?

caposkia wrote:

Ok, so "every damn noun is capitalized." doesn't change the words that are there however.

Wow, you’re right. Capitalization doesn’t change the words that are there. Good job.
However, to return to the issue (how’s that short-term memory coming along?), I was responding to your “claim”:
Quote:
God[sic] and Creator[sic] are capitalized siginifying they are in fact referencing to the christian god
It’s weak enough that you should assert that capitalizing “creator/god” necessarily indicates xianity. That you should selectively observe the capitalization of these words to make your weak assertion, is treacherous.

caposkia wrote:
Man you sound pissy

Can you blame me? You’re profaning my secular nation with your Xian demagoguery.
caposkia wrote:
If you're not here to debate, then don't be here.

You silly little xians with your unintended irony!

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2591
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox wrote: The

Visual_Paradox wrote:
The Declaration of Independence was written long before the attempt to create a government. It expresses the opinion of some ungoverned people. It doesn't express governmental principles, nor was it intended to do so. It has no legal weight.

uh... right!  it was just a Declaration of Independence from England.

Visual_Paradox wrote:

The inscription atop the Washington Monument has no legal weight.

ok

Visual_Paradox wrote:



Christianity isn't required to run for president. I don't know where you got that idea. Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution says nobody can be forced to accept a religion to be eligible for federal employment and the 14th amendment makes it binding on state governments.

I later corrected myself.  It's what I get for responding to quickly... Someone told me there were out right athiests who were elected as President.  Could you list their names please?  Just because I didn't know this.

Visual_Paradox wrote:

You said, "Try telling the founders of this country we're not a Christian nation." Thomas Jefferson—the person who actually penned the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence—believed Christianity was a form of Platonic demon worship. Why do you think Thomas Jefferson made his own Jefferson Bible with Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul's ideas removed? He thought Jesus was a wise and ethical mortal and thought that everything surrounding Jesus was bullshit.

if he thought Christianity was a form of "Platonic Demon Worship", then why would he make a Bible with Christian writings in it?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all about Jesus.  They are the core Gosple.  They still talked not only about Jesus specifically, but "everything surrounding Jesus" as well.  

Visual_Paradox wrote:

I don't know where you get the idea that our laws are based on Christian teachings. What laws? The only laws you could mention are laws that practically every government, before and after both testaments of the Bible, has had in place.

The minds of the lawmakers of course is where it came.  As I pointed out in the Constitution, it was also so for the written laws beyond the constitution.  Most I"ll say because I can't specifically reference every name.  Most lawmakers at the foundations of our country were Christian.  Thus basing their bias off of what they know from Christianity.  No Christian truely following would write a law into the books that went against God.

Visual_Paradox wrote:

You said, "I have no problem with anyone expressing any religious beliefs in public places. I have a problem when people say certain beliefs do not belong. Yes, this would include an athiestic point of view. Everyone has a right to believe what they want in this country. However, they need to respect the foundations of this country and respect anyone with opposing beliefs." Nobody said certain beliefs don't belong. Please avoid creating strawperson arguments. They are saying public property is government property and the government is supposed to be neutral. The government should not allow religious or irreligious displays on public property because it connotes endorsement and thus non-neutrality. When someone tries to bypass government neutrality and places a cross on public property, the cross must be removed to bring government back to its state of neutrality.

I never said certain beliefs don't belong?  Is that what you were saying?  Sorry if that's how I came across.

You're right, people need to respect the foundations of this country.  Which I think is the issue at hand here.  One key we have to get by is the fact that there is nothing written saying this is a Christian nation... yea, I agree.  However, there is nothing written that says this is not a Christian nation.  We need to move beyond looking for specific reasons to say this is or is not a Christian nation and actually start looking at details.

Visual_Paradox wrote:

You said, "Part of the basis of laws and statutes dating back to the founding years of this country put into place a requirement of Christianity to ensure no discrimination against the accused." That's absurd. You just argued, "To avoid discrimination against people they practiced discrimination against people."

at the time, it was to make sure there was no demonic or otherwise influence.  It was understood for a Christian to be completely honest.  I would, even today, be understood that demonic influence would try to hurt the innocent.  

Research the Salem Witch Trials.  It's a good example of what happens when people who claim to follow don't take into account the possibility that someone might be following their God.  It's more than just saying your Christian or not.  They all claimed to be Christian, and yet... many innocent people were burned.  

Visual_Paradox wrote:

 

Later you misrepresented Hambydammit's argument. "Are you saying we should start putting A's on top of churches and Islamic symbols on Jewish synagogues?" That's not what he was saying at all. That's private property. He was talking about public property, i.e. government property. He said that government should maintain neutrality on religious matters. "It's about preferential treatment [with the connotation of government endorsement] for any religion and discrimination against the non-religious." I find it difficult to believe you misinterpreted his statement so badly.

just clarification. that's all.  It's not about symbols on government property either.  The spearation of Church and state was to protect people from laws being made that were going to discriminate one way or the other. e.g.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." 

- this being from Jefferson, it's basically saying you can't make a law that would benifit a particular religion, and also, can't make a law that would stop free exercise of any religion."  

A side note, all non-proft organizations get tax breaks.  Churches don't have a means of receipts like most others to get their tax breaks, thus the law was put in place, no property tax.  All purchases or otherwise are still taxable.

Visual_Paradox wrote:



You said, "I guess I should say that there is yet to be a president elected for these United States that did not have a Christian background." That has no bearing on whether the government is Christian. The only claim that would support is, "Christian citizens are bigoted toward non-Christians."

The mindset of the lawmakers and founders is where that comes from.  You can say this site was built on Atheistic foundations.  You could not claim neutrality in that aspect, there is also no way I could claim this site to be Christian based.  Why?  The mindset of the founders!

Visual_Paradox wrote:

You then proceeded to name a bunch of the founding fathers who you claim were Christian. They might be Christian but that doesn't matter. It does nothing to prove the government was founded as a Christian government. Many Christians at the time supported the separation of church and state because it would prevent certain sects from gaining federal power to persecute other sects. The separation of church and state was designed to protect everyone. Your argument fails because you can't infer that certain religious beliefs of the founding fathers entail an official government stance on religious matters.

exactly.  It was to protect people, not restrict people.  It still doesnt' change the basic mindset.  My argument not only supports what you just claimed, it still holds water.

Visual_Paradox wrote:

I would also like to know how you've managed to ignore Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli: "[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." That statement was published in newspapers throughout the country and there was no outcry from the public about it being false. It was read out loud on the senate floor and there was no protest about it. It was then signed into law by the people who heard it read out loud. The statement is clear evidence of a non-Christian foundation of government and it has legal weight, unlike all of the anecdotal evidences you put forward for the opposite conclusion.

I'll have to read up on that treaty.  I'm not familiar with it.

 

For others.  Understand that I never said "I had the right way".  Someone likes putting words in my mouth.  I am on here to not only express what i know, but to learn more.  I have told others who have talked to me on other posts I have formed that I'm here to learn.  If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, better yet, I'm willing to become an Atheist! IF I see enough evidence to prove there is no God.  That has yet to happen.  

This post is obviously not about that, so lets' not make it about that.  This was just to clarify my stance here.  I'm not here to say I'm the only one that has it right.  I'm here to discuss and learn. I hope you're all here to do the same.

 BTW, the person who listed off the different religions of the people who signed the Constitution... sorry to say, their all Christian based religions.  Doesn't matter which it is, they're still Christian.  You can't lable a country on religion either, it's a following only.  We call other countries Islamic, not suni, Sheit or anything else.  Same deal


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

Visual_Paradox wrote:



You said, "Try telling the founders of this country we're not a Christian nation." Thomas Jefferson—the person who actually penned the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence—believed Christianity was a form of Platonic demon worship. Why do you think Thomas Jefferson made his own Jefferson Bible with Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul's ideas removed? He thought Jesus was a wise and ethical mortal and thought that everything surrounding Jesus was bullshit.





if he thought Christianity was a form of "Platonic Demon Worship", then why would he make a Bible with Christian writings in it?



Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all about Jesus. They are the core Gosple. They still talked not only about Jesus specifically, but "everything surrounding Jesus" as well.

Jefferson's Bible has no reference to Jesus' miracles or his resurrection. When you take out the things that lead people to think that Jesus was the son of God, can it really be considered a Christian document?

To Jefferson, Jesus was simply a good Deist teacher. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: For

caposkia wrote:

For others.  Understand that I never said "I had the right way".  Someone likes putting words in my mouth.  I am on here to not only express what i know, but to learn more.  I have told others who have talked to me on other posts I have formed that I'm here to learn.  If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, better yet, I'm willing to become an Atheist! IF I see enough evidence to prove there is no God.  That has yet to happen.

 

 Atheism isn't (and doesn't require)  a proof of no god.  It's simply a rejection of the hypothesis "there is a god" based on insufficient evidence.  

If someone accuses a person of a crime in court, but brings no proof at all to back this assertion, the judge would throw out the case. (or rule for the defense)  We've just evaluated the claims and found them to be baseless.

 

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2591
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Matthew,

jcgadfly wrote:


Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all about Jesus. They are the core Gosple. They still talked not only about Jesus specifically, but "everything surrounding Jesus" as well.

Jefferson's Bible has no reference to Jesus' miracles or his resurrection. When you take out the things that lead people to think that Jesus was the son of God, can it really be considered a Christian document?

To Jefferson, Jesus was simply a good Deist teacher.

I have an honest question.  How can one write a "Bible" with the Biblical books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and have no reference to any of Jesus' miracles or his resurrection?  In all honesty, you'd only be able to quote from the books sparingly and not actually have the books themselves there.  

To answer your question as well.  To have anything promoting the teachings of Jesus CHRIST and suggesting them to be something to follow, then yes, it is a Christian document.  the word Christian literally means "follower of Christ" or in longer terms, one who would follow the teachings of Jesus.  

If Jefferson had the aforementioned books in his Bible, regardless whether he took out the "mericle work" it would still hold the teachings of Jesus be it that's what those 4 books were about. 

p.s. Jesus taught through his miricles.   


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2591
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:

stuntgibbon wrote:

Atheism isn't (and doesn't require) a proof of no god. It's simply a rejection of the hypothesis "there is a god" based on insufficient evidence.

If someone accuses a person of a crime in court, but brings no proof at all to back this assertion, the judge would throw out the case. (or rule for the defense) We've just evaluated the claims and found them to be baseless.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent you or your views.  It comes down to many non-believers coming to me claiming little proof of this or no proof of that.  Therefore I came to the conclusion it was proof they were looking for.  

This would also explain when I offered for people to look for God using scientific methodology, there were no takers.  

I guess my stance would then have to be the exact opposite of what you represented as an Atheist.   That being the rejection of the basis that "there is no God" based on insufficient evidence.  Plus, personal experience as well, but that doesn't go far on forums unless people are willing to try it for themselves. 

 

 


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:
Visual_Paradox wrote:
The Declaration of Independence was written long before the attempt to create a government. It expresses the opinion of some ungoverned people. It doesn't express governmental principles, nor was it intended to do so. It has no legal weight.
uh... right! it was just a Declaration of Independence from England.


It's a great historical document, certainly, but it was written before there were any plans on how to structure and run a separate government. It's merely a polite "f*** you" letter. No inference about the policies of the government can be made from it.

caposkia wrote:
Visual_Paradox wrote:
Christianity isn't required to run for president. I don't know where you got that idea. Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution says nobody can be forced to accept a religion to be eligible for federal employment and the 14th amendment makes it binding on state governments.
I later corrected myself. It's what I get for responding to quickly... Someone told me there were out right athiests who were elected as President. Could you list their names please? Just because I didn't know this.


Abraham Lincoln was either a Deist or an Atheist. Those closest to him thought he was an atheist. I haven't seen much support for the claim that he was a Deist—I think the claim mainly stems from thinking he wasn't a Christian during the Enlightenment Period, ergo Deism, which isn't very convincing. Without his own words on the matter, it's hard to say with certainty but the evidence I've seen points toward the conclusion that he was an atheist.

caposkia wrote:
Visual_Paradox wrote:
You said, "Try telling the founders of this country we're not a Christian nation." Thomas Jefferson—the person who actually penned the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence—believed Christianity was a form of Platonic demon worship. Why do you think Thomas Jefferson made his own Jefferson Bible with Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul's ideas removed? He thought Jesus was a wise and ethical mortal and thought that everything surrounding Jesus was bullshit.
if he thought Christianity was a form of "Platonic Demon Worship", then why would he make a Bible with Christian writings in it?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all about Jesus. They are the core Gosple. They still talked not only about Jesus specifically, but "everything surrounding Jesus" as well.


January 1, 1789, Jefferson wrote Richard Price saying: "I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism [note: in this time period atheism was synonymous with wickedness, being used to mean godlessness or infidelity, rather than a theological position about the origin of things] and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshiped by many who think themselves Christians."

Sometime in 1810, Jefferson wrote Samuel Kercheval saying: "[A] short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State; that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ."

October 12, 1813, Jefferson wrote John Adams saying: "We must reduce our volume [The Jefferson Bible] to the simple evangelists, select even from the very words of Jesus, paring off the amphiboligisms [double-speak] into which they have been led by forgetting often or not understanding what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."

July 5, 1814, Jefferson wrote John Adams saying: "The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ leveled to every understanding, and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticism of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power and pre-eminence."

August 15, 1820, Jefferson wrote John Adams saying: "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence."

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist who believed the creator of the world was a material being. You can infer from this that he considered the spiritual aspects of the Bible to be nonsense. That eliminates the virgin birth, resurrection, casting out demons, and so on. He thought Jesus was essentially a wise mortal. He thought Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul were fairly unintelligent, often fumbling in trying to understand the simply dicta that Jesus expressed to them. He thought that the spiritual notions in the gospels and epistles were Platonic additions. He thought the Christian priesthood added even more Platonic mysticism (i.e. nonsense) and adulterated Jesus' teachings in an effort to filch wealth, power, and preeminence to themselves. So, in essence, his creation of the Jefferson Bible consisted of finding and removing as much bullshit as he possibly could while leaving the ethical ideas intact.

caposkia wrote:
Visual_Paradox wrote:
I don't know where you get the idea that our laws are based on Christian teachings. What laws? The only laws you could mention are laws that practically every government, before and after both testaments of the Bible, has had in place.
The minds of the lawmakers of course is where it came. As I pointed out in the Constitution, it was also so for the written laws beyond the constitution. Most I"ll say because I can't specifically reference every name. Most lawmakers at the foundations of our country were Christian. Thus basing their bias off of what they know from Christianity. No Christian truely following would write a law into the books that went against God.


I didn't ask you to specifically reference every law. I just want you to demonstrate a small collection of laws still enforced today that were founded on the teachings of the Bible and I want you to demonstrate the causitive link between the Bible and those laws. That the laws came from people who accepted Christianity doesn't establish that Christianity itself was the foundation for the laws because the laws could've been thought up in a secular manner. You need to provide some of the laws you have in mind and provide evidence that its foundation was not secular but actually Christian. As I said, most of the laws I've heard claimed by Christian Foundationalists (for lack of a better term) were in place before Christianity even existed. You didn't provide anything here that could be analyzed—you basically repeated your claim without substantiating it.

caposkia wrote:
Visual_Paradox wrote:
You said, "I have no problem with anyone expressing any religious beliefs in public places. I have a problem when people say certain beliefs do not belong. Yes, this would include an athiestic point of view. Everyone has a right to believe what they want in this country. However, they need to respect the foundations of this country and respect anyone with opposing beliefs." Nobody said certain beliefs don't belong. Please avoid creating strawperson arguments. They are saying public property is government property and the government is supposed to be neutral. The government should not allow religious or irreligious displays on public property because it connotes endorsement and thus non-neutrality. When someone tries to bypass government neutrality and places a cross on public property, the cross must be removed to bring government back to its state of neutrality.
I never said certain beliefs don't belong? Is that what you were saying? Sorry if that's how I came across.

You're right, people need to respect the foundations of this country. Which I think is the issue at hand here. One key we have to get by is the fact that there is nothing written saying this is a Christian nation... yea, I agree. However, there is nothing written that says this is not a Christian nation. We need to move beyond looking for specific reasons to say this is or is not a Christian nation and actually start looking at details.


In your first paragraph in the quote above, I don't know what you're trying to say. I think there might've been a communication breakdown where I said "certain beliefs," by which I meant beliefs that had been singled out. I basically said, "nobody argued that specific beliefs should be singled out for inclusion or exclusion, people are arguing that the government should maintain neutrality."

Anyhow, the Treaty of Tripoli does say that the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. That's basically amounts to saying "this is not a Christian nation." You said that you want to start looking at details but I'm curious as to what you mean by this, as you don't provide the details. You also didn't provide the details about what laws were founded on Christian teachings.

caposkia wrote:
Visual_Paradox wrote:
You said, "Part of the basis of laws and statutes dating back to the founding years of this country put into place a requirement of Christianity to ensure no discrimination against the accused." That's absurd. You just argued, "To avoid discrimination against people they practiced discrimination against people."
at the time, it was to make sure there was no demonic or otherwise influence. It was understood for a Christian to be completely honest. I would, even today, be understood that demonic influence would try to hurt the innocent.

Research the Salem Witch Trials. It's a good example of what happens when people who claim to follow don't take into account the possibility that someone might be following their God. It's more than just saying your Christian or not. They all claimed to be Christian, and yet... many innocent people were burned.


I fail to see the relevance of your reply. Are you trying to rebut my statement? Are you trying to clarify it? What are you doing? What did you hope to accomplish in that bit of your response?

caposkia wrote:
Visual_Paradox wrote:
Later you misrepresented Hambydammit's argument. "Are you saying we should start putting A's on top of churches and Islamic symbols on Jewish synagogues?" That's not what he was saying at all. That's private property. He was talking about public property, i.e. government property. He said that government should maintain neutrality on religious matters. "It's about preferential treatment [with the connotation of government endorsement] for any religion and discrimination against the non-religious." I find it difficult to believe you misinterpreted his statement so badly.
just clarification. that's all. It's not about symbols on government property either. The spearation of Church and state was to protect people from laws being made that were going to discriminate one way or the other. e.g.

 Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

  this being from Jefferson, it's basically saying you can't make a law that would benifit a particular religion, and also, can't make a law that would stop free exercise of any religion."

A side note, all non-proft organizations get tax breaks. Churches don't have a means of receipts like most others to get their tax breaks, thus the law was put in place, no property tax. All purchases or otherwise are still taxable.


It also includes laws that would benefit religion over irreligion. The entire point of the "wall of separation between Church & State" was to keep religion—especially Christianity, if you'll remember Jefferson's opinions about it—from interfering with politics. That should tell that you that this is not a Christian Nation, as the federal government was specifically structured to keep the government separated from Christianity. At the time Christianity and many state governments were still cobbled together and people would persecute those that moved into or through the state that didn't affirm the creeds upheld by the state. By the time the 14th amendment was made to the Constitution, Christianity was then separated from state governments. All of the official state churches were dismantled and all of the laws based on Christianity that did not have secular reasons for existing were essentially erased from the legal system.

caposkia wrote:
Visual_Paradox wrote:
You said, "I guess I should say that there is yet to be a president elected for these United States that did not have a Christian background." That has no bearing on whether the government is Christian. The only claim that would support is, "Christian citizens are bigoted toward non-Christians."
The mindset of the lawmakers and founders is where that comes from. You can say this site was built on Atheistic foundations. You could not claim neutrality in that aspect, there is also no way I could claim this site to be Christian based. Why? The mindset of the founders!


This website has had statements in the logo that said theism is a mind disorder. There's clear evidence this website is based on atheism (or, more precisely, antitheism). The same cannot be said of government and of Christianity. You are employing a false analogy.

caposkia wrote:
Visual_Paradox wrote:
You then proceeded to name a bunch of the founding fathers who you claim were Christian. They might be Christian but that doesn't matter. It does nothing to prove the government was founded as a Christian government. Many Christians at the time supported the separation of church and state because it would prevent certain sects from gaining federal power to persecute other sects. The separation of church and state was designed to protect everyone. Your argument fails because you can't infer that certain religious beliefs of the founding fathers entail an official government stance on religious matters.
exactly. It was to protect people, not restrict people. It still doesnt' change the basic mindset. My argument not only supports what you just claimed, it still holds water.


Your argument didn't hold water and I don't know why you insist that it does. You cannot infer that because Christianity exists in one portion of their brain that therefore any laws produced by their brain must stem from that Christianity portion. You merely assumed a conclusion, which was a non-sequitur because it doesn't logically follow from the premises of your argument.

caposkia wrote:
If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, better yet, I'm willing to become an Atheist! IF I see enough evidence to prove there is no God. That has yet to happen.


Atheism is the state of being without a belief in god. That does not necessarily mean that an atheist believes there is no god. The position that there isn't a god (positive atheism or strong atheism) is a minority position among atheists. Some atheists think the word "god" has no meaning and that believing "god" exists or does not exist is like believing "uggablav" exists or does not exist. Some atheists are mere skeptics that have seen no good reason to say theism is the correct position.

jcgadfly wrote:
To Jefferson, Jesus was simply a good Deist teacher.


I'm not sure if you're saying that Jefferson thought Jesus was a good teacher for Deists or that Jesus was himself a Deist. I'm not aware of Jefferson ever saying that he thought Jesus was a Deist.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Quote:

caposkia wrote:

Quote:
guess I should say that there is yet to be a president elected for these United States that did not have a Christian background...

I guess you should say that there is yet to be a president elected for these United States that was not forced to say they had a xtian background.

Where's your love for the No True Scotsman Fallacy now ?  You don't know that any of them were xtian do you ?  All you know for sure is that most were forced to say they were xtian at at least one point in their lives, maybe even attend church, to please the populace and have any hope of getting elected. Oh, and also...

"There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt inspiration of all the books of the Old and New testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries in Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself, it is punished by boring through the tongue with a hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most states, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all blasphemers of any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating the divine authority of those books."

Ethan Allen - January 23, 1825

How reprehensible is it that the sheer hegemony of a cruel and exclusionary belief system would be used as a weapon to try and prove it's veracity ?

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that has ever existed?"

Our 2nd President John Adams..  Dec. 27, 1816

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

Quote:

p.s. Jesus taught through his miricles.

 

"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed, miracles ceased; but in those parts, that are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue".

Ethan Allen.  

Quote:
If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, better yet, I'm willing to become an Atheist! IF I see enough evidence to prove there is no God.  That has yet to happen.  

What has yet to happen is for you to see your  own lack of logic here.

I spend ZERO time trying to look for evidence that Xenu/Thor/Horus does not exist because my logic tells me (correctly I might add) that the believers/manufacturers  of Xenu/Thor/Horus, having the positive claim, hold the responibility for showing me his existence and not the other way around.

It is absolutely no different for your god.

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:


Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all about Jesus. They are the core Gosple. They still talked not only about Jesus specifically, but "everything surrounding Jesus" as well.

Jefferson's Bible has no reference to Jesus' miracles or his resurrection. When you take out the things that lead people to think that Jesus was the son of God, can it really be considered a Christian document?

To Jefferson, Jesus was simply a good Deist teacher.

I have an honest question.  How can one write a "Bible" with the Biblical books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and have no reference to any of Jesus' miracles or his resurrection?  In all honesty, you'd only be able to quote from the books sparingly and not actually have the books themselves there.  

To answer your question as well.  To have anything promoting the teachings of Jesus CHRIST and suggesting them to be something to follow, then yes, it is a Christian document.  the word Christian literally means "follower of Christ" or in longer terms, one who would follow the teachings of Jesus.  

If Jefferson had the aforementioned books in his Bible, regardless whether he took out the "mericle work" it would still hold the teachings of Jesus be it that's what those 4 books were about. 

p.s. Jesus taught through his miricles.   

 Precisely - Jefferson heavily redacted those books and only kept the ethical teachings and parables. No miracles at all. It showed Jesus' betrayal, death and burial - no resurrection. No angelic heralds at his birth, no angels moving the stone at his tomb.

Jefferson thought Jesus was a Deistic teacher. In a syllabus on Jesus, he writes, "1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of His attributes and government."

I'd tell you more but it's clear you haven't read what you're giving opinions on. Fortunately, copies abound on the Internet. 

Here's one: http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: I'm sorry,

caposkia wrote:

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent you or your views. It comes down to many non-believers coming to me claiming little proof of this or no proof of that. Therefore I came to the conclusion it was proof they were looking for.

This would also explain when I offered for people to look for God using scientific methodology, there were no takers.

I guess my stance would then have to be the exact opposite of what you represented as an Atheist. That being the rejection of the basis that "there is no God" based on insufficient evidence. Plus, personal experience as well, but that doesn't go far on forums unless people are willing to try it for themselves.

 What you've outlined is what's typically referred to as the "strong atheist" claim.  Strong atheism doesn't stop at "I do not believe in deities,"  and also claims "There is no god."    Many of us (probably most) don't take that hardline claim.   We're somewhere between "jury's out" and "probablity of the god claim seems extremely low."

Person A: "Hey have you heard of this Christianity?  If we subscribe, we can erase our sins and we can live forever!"

Person B:  "That sounds interesting, how do you know it's true?"

Person A: "It says so right in their book."

Person B: "How do you know the book is true?"

Person A: "It says so right in their book!"

Person B: "Ooooookay."

 

Think about all the stuff in the bible you have to account for before we can start to believe you.  You don't know who exactly wrote any of it or when.  You don't know if you have the original text in tact (in fact, you probably know you do not.)  You've seen many of its "scientific" claims about the world turn out to be incorrect.   To name a few, the "origin" story doesn't line up with the evidence.  There's no evidence of the worldwide flood, or the giant boat.  In modern day, people that claim that magic exists cannot prove so.  (there's quite a bit of that in the bible.)    

Not even Christians can figure out what it means, otherwise why are there thousands of splinter sects?  If it answers all the questions, why such a disagreement?

 How long have people been praying for cancer to go away?  If your god can do anything, why not phone down an extra bible chapter that outlines how we could go about curing it?   We could all have a look, test it out, and maybe you'd be on to something, no?

So no, we cannot produce complete evidence for "no god."  However, there is quite a bit of it for man just making it up.  This seems like the more likely story for now.

 

What would you like for me to "try" myself as you put?   


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Nice teaching

  Nice teaching jcgadfly

Wish all knew Jefferson and his gang better.

Why were our founding fathers so wise and now we have dumb asses running our gov and a TV with evangelists ? ..... Corperations are why and it's their main stream media. The rich controllers like keeping the public stupid ....

, time for a revolution I'd say ....


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:
caposkia wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:


Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all about Jesus. They are the core Gosple. They still talked not only about Jesus specifically, but "everything surrounding Jesus" as well.

Jefferson's Bible has no reference to Jesus' miracles or his resurrection. When you take out the things that lead people to think that Jesus was the son of God, can it really be considered a Christian document?

To Jefferson, Jesus was simply a good Deist teacher.

I have an honest question.  How can one write a "Bible" with the Biblical books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and have no reference to any of Jesus' miracles or his resurrection?  In all honesty, you'd only be able to quote from the books sparingly and not actually have the books themselves there.  

To answer your question as well.  To have anything promoting the teachings of Jesus CHRIST and suggesting them to be something to follow, then yes, it is a Christian document.  the word Christian literally means "follower of Christ" or in longer terms, one who would follow the teachings of Jesus.  

If Jefferson had the aforementioned books in his Bible, regardless whether he took out the "mericle work" it would still hold the teachings of Jesus be it that's what those 4 books were about. 

p.s. Jesus taught through his miricles.   

 Precisely - Jefferson heavily redacted those books and only kept the ethical teachings and parables. No miracles at all. It showed Jesus' betrayal, death and burial - no resurrection. No angelic heralds at his birth, no angels moving the stone at his tomb.

Jefferson thought Jesus was a Deistic teacher. In a syllabus on Jesus, he writes, "1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of His attributes and government."

I'd tell you more but it's clear you haven't read what you're giving opinions on. Fortunately, copies abound on the Internet. 

Here's one: http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

Be careful in interpreting the words deism and theism in this time period because they were interchangably used. The word "Deism" in the Jefferson quote you provided should be interpreted as meaning the same thing as modern-day "theism."

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox

Visual_Paradox wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
caposkia wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:


Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all about Jesus. They are the core Gosple. They still talked not only about Jesus specifically, but "everything surrounding Jesus" as well.

Jefferson's Bible has no reference to Jesus' miracles or his resurrection. When you take out the things that lead people to think that Jesus was the son of God, can it really be considered a Christian document?

To Jefferson, Jesus was simply a good Deist teacher.

I have an honest question. How can one write a "Bible" with the Biblical books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and have no reference to any of Jesus' miracles or his resurrection? In all honesty, you'd only be able to quote from the books sparingly and not actually have the books themselves there.

To answer your question as well. To have anything promoting the teachings of Jesus CHRIST and suggesting them to be something to follow, then yes, it is a Christian document. the word Christian literally means "follower of Christ" or in longer terms, one who would follow the teachings of Jesus.

If Jefferson had the aforementioned books in his Bible, regardless whether he took out the "mericle work" it would still hold the teachings of Jesus be it that's what those 4 books were about.

p.s. Jesus taught through his miricles.

Precisely - Jefferson heavily redacted those books and only kept the ethical teachings and parables. No miracles at all. It showed Jesus' betrayal, death and burial - no resurrection. No angelic heralds at his birth, no angels moving the stone at his tomb.

Jefferson thought Jesus was a Deistic teacher. In a syllabus on Jesus, he writes, "1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of His attributes and government."

I'd tell you more but it's clear you haven't read what you're giving opinions on. Fortunately, copies abound on the Internet.

Here's one: http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

Be careful in interpreting the words deism and theism in this time period because they were interchangably used. The word "Deism" in the Jefferson quote you provided should be interpreted as meaning the same thing as modern-day "theism."

Thanks.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least for Jefferson to consider the "Deism of the Jews" (theism) as something that needed to be corrected and that Jesus was following the deism that had a God that made the world and left it alone.

I was just disputing caposkia's insisting that Jeffersin didn't think of Jesus as a Deistic teacher. 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: If I'm

caposkia wrote:

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, better yet, I'm willing to become an Atheist! IF I see enough evidence to prove there is no God. That has yet to happen.

I'll be more than willing to show you evidence to that effect as long as we're working with the commonly understood definitions of God, evidence and proof. But we should start another thread if we're going to do so. Let me know if you are interested and I'll set it up. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: If I'm

caposkia wrote:

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, better yet, I'm willing to become an Atheist! IF I see enough evidence to prove there is no God. That has yet to happen.

I have never laughed so hard before.  It hurts.  It hurts so much!

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2591
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox wrote:  

Visual_Paradox wrote:
  So, in essence, his creation of the Jefferson Bible consisted of finding and removing as much bullshit as he possibly could while leaving the ethical ideas intact.

 

ok, so take away everything but the teaching... eh... works for me.  Still based on a Christian understanding.

Visual_Paradox wrote:


I didn't ask you to specifically reference every law. I just want you to demonstrate a small collection of laws still enforced today that were founded on the teachings of the Bible and I want you to demonstrate the causitive link between the Bible and those laws.

Ok, and I'm guessing me referencing to Biblical instruction and comparing to United States law won't be good enough for evidence of a Christian basis, so what exactly are you looking for???

Visual_Paradox wrote:




Anyhow, the Treaty of Tripoli does say that the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. That's basically amounts to saying "this is not a Christian nation." You said that you want to start looking at details but I'm curious as to what you mean by this, as you don't provide the details. You also didn't provide the details about what laws were founded on Christian teachings.

the "Christian Religion" and the Christian God and belief system are 2 completely different things.  There is Christiandom, which is what you are probably most familiar with, then there is the following.  The ones who know God and follow him not by what some church or "wolf in sheeps clothing"  pastor says to believe, but by true understanding, research, and relationship. 

Visual_Paradox wrote:


Research the Salem Witch Trials. It's a good example of what happens when people who claim to follow don't take into account the possibility that someone might be following their God. It's more than just saying your Christian or not. They all claimed to be Christian, and yet... many innocent people were burned.


I fail to see the relevance of your reply. Are you trying to rebut my statement? Are you trying to clarify it? What are you doing? What did you hope to accomplish in that bit of your response?

The point I'm trying to get at is if this conversation is going to get anywhere, we have to look beyond what people said about themselves and actually look at their actions and intentions.  Don't get me wrong, looking at Jefferson's Bible is a good start, but it does seem we're still stuck on labling a specific view and not looking at the bigger picture. 

Visual_Paradox wrote:
By the time the 14th amendment was made to the Constitution, Christianity was then separated from state governments. All of the official state churches were dismantled and all of the laws based on Christianity that did not have secular reasons for existing were essentially erased from the legal system.

Speaking of details, which laws would those be? 

Visual_Paradox wrote:

This website has had statements in the logo that said theism is a mind disorder. There's clear evidence this website is based on atheism (or, more precisely, antitheism). The same cannot be said of government and of Christianity. You are employing a false analogy.

There is clear evidence to me and many others out there as well that this country was basesd on the Christian God.  e.g.

This country has a label on all their currency that claims; "In God we trust"  We also claim to be "One nation under God" in our Pledge.  So the fact that this site has any antitheistic statements in its logo is irrelevent to it being Atheistic if in fact you can still claim this country is not founded on Christianity.  

Visual_Paradox wrote:

Your argument didn't hold water and I don't know why you insist that it does. You cannot infer that because Christianity exists in one portion of their brain that therefore any laws produced by their brain must stem from that Christianity portion. You merely assumed a conclusion, which was a non-sequitur because it doesn't logically follow from the premises of your argument.

The point you're missing is that there is no middle of the road.  If you're a Christ follower, you're a Christ follower.  Otherwise, you're completely and utterly NOT!  You can't walk the fenceline and say, 'well, I'm a Christian... but who cares, let's just make laws that make us happy.'  Either they were Christians, or they weren't.  If they were Christians, logically, their basis for law making had to abide by their understanding of what would be right in God's eyes thus making the basis of their lawmaking, Christian. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2591
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: If I'm

Tilberian wrote:

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, better yet, I'm willing to become an Atheist! IF I see enough evidence to prove there is no God. That has yet to happen.

 

I'll be more than willing to show you evidence to that effect as long as we're working with the commonly understood definitions of God, evidence and proof. But we should start another thread if we're going to do so. Let me know if you are interested and I'll set it up.

I am in fact interested... however, I do wonder what the "commonly understood definitions of God" are be it that the public understanding of Christianity is drastically flawed.   


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia wrote:

 

Caposkia wrote:
There is clear evidence to me and many others out there as well that this country was basesd on the Christian God.  e.g.

This country has a label on all their currency that claims; "In God we trust"  We also claim to be "One nation under God" in our Pledge.  So the fact that this site has any antitheistic statements in its logo is irrelevent to it being Atheistic if in fact you can still claim this country is not founded on Christianity.

The original Pledge of Allegiance didn't include the phrase "under god." It was added a decade after its official adoption. The phrase "in god we trust" wasn't added to the currency until the Civil War, and didn't become a national motto until the middle of the twentieth century. The former was petitioned by the Knights of Columbus, referring to phrasing used in later drafts of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. This places the earliest such phrase almost a century after the founding of the nation. Note that such pious displays became prominent during a bloody internal conflict, and again under the duress of impending nuclear war.

"It's nicely ironic that the pledge's "under God" (1954) and our currency's "In God We Trust" (1955) were duly blessed by President Eisenhower: "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future...." In 1952 a fellow West Pointer teased Eisenhower that he would, if elected president, have to start going to church for the first time since childhood. "The only way they'll ever get me into a church will be feet first," Ike said grimly." --Gore Vidal, Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2591
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle wrote:   "In

AmericanIdle wrote:

 

"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed, miracles ceased; but in those parts, that are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue".

Ethan Allen.

...and in those parts of the world where science and learning have prevailed, the teaching and learning of God has been pushed aside, so of course miracles ceased.  It has nothing to do with intelligence.  Also, if you're claiming no miracles happen in the United States, you should do some research.  or wait... I guess we could claim the United States to be barbarous and ignorant.  I'm sure few would disagree.   

AmericanIdle wrote:

What has yet to happen is for you to see your own lack of logic here. 

I spend ZERO time trying to look for evidence that Xenu/Thor/Horus does not exist because my logic tells me (correctly I might add) that the believers/manufacturers of Xenu/Thor/Horus, having the positive claim, hold the responibility for showing me his existence and not the other way around.

It is absolutely no different for your god.

cool.  So therefore my logic tells me (correctly I might add) that my God is real and so I must tell everyone of his love for them and the fact that Jesus died so they may live.  

I've also learned that personal logic holds water like a sieve and that we must not stick to our own understanding.  

be it that you take ZERO time looking for evidence, what exactly would you be looking for believers to show you?   


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2591
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
magilum

magilum wrote:

 

Caposkia wrote:
There is clear evidence to me and many others out there as well that this country was basesd on the Christian God. e.g.

This country has a label on all their currency that claims; "In God we trust" We also claim to be "One nation under God" in our Pledge. So the fact that this site has any antitheistic statements in its logo is irrelevent to it being Atheistic if in fact you can still claim this country is not founded on Christianity.

The original Pledge of Allegiance didn't include the phrase "under god." It was added a decade after its official adoption. The phrase "in god we trust" wasn't added to the currency until the Civil War, and didn't become a national motto until the middle of the twentieth century. The former was petitioned by the Knights of Columbus, referring to phrasing used in later drafts of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. This places the earliest such phrase almost a century after the founding of the nation. Note that such pious displays became prominent during a bloody internal conflict, and again under the duress of impending nuclear war.

"It's nicely ironic that the pledge's "under God" (1954) and our currency's "In God We Trust" (1955) were duly blessed by President Eisenhower: "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future...." In 1952 a fellow West Pointer teased Eisenhower that he would, if elected president, have to start going to church for the first time since childhood. "The only way they'll ever get me into a church will be feet first," Ike said grimly." --Gore Vidal, Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia

 

 

The Mayflower Compact

(November 1620)

 

 

 

 IN The Name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, & c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. In WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth and of Scotland, the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620

John Carver

Edward Tilley

Degory Priest

William Bradford

John Tilley

Thomas Williams

Edward Winslow

Francis Cooke

Gilbert Winslow

William Brewster

Thomas Rogers

Edmund Margeson

Issac Allerton

Thomas Tinker

Peter Browne

Myles Standish

John Rigdale

Richard Britteridge

John Alden

Edward Fuller

Georoe Soule

Samuel Fuller

John Turner

Richard Clarke

Christopher Martin

Francis Eaton

Richard Gardiner

William Mullins

James Chilton

John Allerton

William White

John Crackston

Thomas English

Richard Warren

John Billington

Edward Dotey

John Howland

Moses Fletcher

Edward Leister

Stephen Hopkins

John Goodman

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia wrote: ...and in

Caposkia wrote:
...and in those parts of the world where science and learning have prevailed, the teaching and learning of God has been pushed aside, so of course miracles ceased.

This is an ad hoc. It's like saying, "Of course you can't see the Jolly Green Giant! He disappears when strangers visit." It's also circular. "If you believe Santa Clause exists, you'll see that Santa Clause exists," because you've eliminated the contingency and the possibility that he couldn't, negating the very idea and value of evidence.

Caposkia wrote:
It has nothing to do with intelligence.  Also, if you're claiming no miracles happen in the United States, you should do some research.

Why don't you post some research? I haven't had an Caposkia lulz in a while.

Caposkia wrote:
or wait... I guess we could claim the United States to be barbarous and ignorant.  I'm sure few would disagree.

Depends on the state, and what country we're comparing ourselves to.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: magilum

caposkia wrote:
magilum wrote:
 

Caposkia wrote:
There is clear evidence to me and many others out there as well that this country was basesd on the Christian God. e.g.

This country has a label on all their currency that claims; "In God we trust" We also claim to be "One nation under God" in our Pledge. So the fact that this site has any antitheistic statements in its logo is irrelevent to it being Atheistic if in fact you can still claim this country is not founded on Christianity.

The original Pledge of Allegiance didn't include the phrase "under god." It was added a decade after its official adoption. The phrase "in god we trust" wasn't added to the currency until the Civil War, and didn't become a national motto until the middle of the twentieth century. The former was petitioned by the Knights of Columbus, referring to phrasing used in later drafts of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. This places the earliest such phrase almost a century after the founding of the nation. Note that such pious displays became prominent during a bloody internal conflict, and again under the duress of impending nuclear war.

"It's nicely ironic that the pledge's "under God" (1954) and our currency's "In God We Trust" (1955) were duly blessed by President Eisenhower: "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future...." In 1952 a fellow West Pointer teased Eisenhower that he would, if elected president, have to start going to church for the first time since childhood. "The only way they'll ever get me into a church will be feet first," Ike said grimly." --Gore Vidal, Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia

The Mayflower Compact

(November 1620)[...]

I seem to recall something happening between the establishment of the British Colonies and the Civil War. Gosh, it's on the tip of my tongue.


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
not offended

, like most atheists, am not offended by religious symbols. If it makes someone feel better putting a cross on a public highway when someone dies after an accident who am I to say they can't. The problem I see is the inconsistency in the treatment of all beliefs. If nativity scenes can be put up in the public square, then a satanist should have the same right as a christian. However, the christian would end up being upset that a non-godly display was allowed to be shown in public. Case in point, it was just recently the government allowed soldiers to be buried in a national cemetary under a tombstone with a wiccan symbol.

Getting back to the topic, I don't believe most atheists are offended in the strictest meaning of the word. Falling back on the offended arguement is just lazy. There are so many other and much better ways to discount claims from theists. I especially love thumping on Young Earth Creationists, they are some serious whack jobs. I am only offended if I have to sit through some fundy prayer when my tax dollars are paying for it.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: [the

caposkia wrote:

[the Mayflower Compact]

The Mayflower Compact is even further removed from the United States founding and government than the Declaration of Independence is.

 

You might be interested in knowing what the founding fathers (i.e. the people who actually created the government we live in today) thought:

 

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

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

 

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyrrany; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people." (emphasis added)

-James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance" 1875