To troll fundamentalist christians...

Waiting for Oblivion
Waiting for Oblivion's picture
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-10-22
User is offlineOffline
To troll fundamentalist christians...

I wrote this:

"Can a Christians be a real American?

Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Yahweh/Christ.
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by Yahweh except christianity.
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is the son, father and the holy spirit.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to christianity forbids him to make friends with non christians.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the his reverent, local priest, Pope etc. (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of secularism and destruction of freedom (Satan)
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed kill his wive if she isn't a virgin when married, sell his daughter to slavery, marry her to her rapist if raped, kill his children if they disobey him etc.
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on secular principles and he believes that secularism is evil
Philosophically - no. Because Christianity, Yahweh, and the bible do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and christianity cannot co-exist. Every Christian government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because Yahweh is a genocidal maniac who, either on its own or through his chosen leaders (Moses for example), commits barbaric acts of genocide.

Therefore after much study and deliberation.... perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL CHRISTIANS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" christians and good Americans."
 


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Never mind that his

Never mind that his allegiance to God will never in fact conflict with his patriotism. Also never mind that the same argument applies to anyone with moral integrity.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10554
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:
Never mind that his allegiance to God will never in fact conflict with his patriotism.

Impossible.

Presuppositionalist wrote:
Also never mind that the same argument applies to anyone with moral integrity.

No, just christians and other theists who believe in absolute morality.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I wonder if this

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Never mind that his allegiance to God will never in fact conflict with his patriotism.

 

would apply in nazi germany. Praps Presup is saying that if his faith conflicted with his patriotism then anyone of moral integrity would be similarly conflicted.

I'd like to point out that despite maintaining the bible is true, even the literalists are only literal about the bits that works for them. I think most modern christians when push comes to shove would prove themselves far more moral than the bible is.

The bible reflected the moral standard of a couple thousand years ago. Great chunks of it are unthinkable now. Apparently morality evolves....

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Theologically - no.

Quote:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Yahweh/Christ.

Indeed my allegiance is to Christ, the same Christ who admonished that we must "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."


Quote:
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by Yahweh except christianity.

And your source for this is...?


Quote:
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is the son, father and the holy spirit.

See Theologically.


Quote:
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to christianity forbids him to make friends with non christians.

I'm to live the Gospel and carry the Good News to all nations.  How can I do this without associating with non-Christians?


Quote:
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the his reverent, local priest, Pope etc. (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of secularism and destruction of freedom (Satan)

I submit to the teachings of the Church established by Jesus Christ willingly.  I strive to live those teachings in my daily life.  I do not seek the esablishment of any kind of theocracy, I know no people who truly do since theocracy usually tend to run amok.  In fact, it is with the advent of Christianity that the separation of religion and State begins.  Certainly there have been conflicts over boundaries, but on the whole such discussions, at least in the Christian West, are a thing of the past.


Quote:
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed kill his wive if she isn't a virgin when married, sell his daughter to slavery, marry her to her rapist if raped, kill his children if they disobey him etc.

Never done any of these. 


Quote:
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on secular principles and he believes that secularism is evil

In the strictest sense of the word, secularism is simply the here and now, and as such it cannot be evil, it just is.  Furthermore, the Constitution of the United States is a political document and the classic understanding of politics is that of free persons deliberating the question "How ought we to order our life together?"  The word ought signals that politics in its nature is a moral enterprise.  As a free person, I am compelled to bring to that discussion, that enterprise that which I believe.


Quote:
Philosophically - no. Because Christianity, Yahweh, and the bible do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and christianity cannot co-exist. Every Christian government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Again, I wholeheartedly disagree, especially with respect to the United States.  The Declaration of Independence, the actual foundational document of the nation, explicitly declares that "all Men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights...".  Such thought is derived from a host of Christian thinkers from Augustine  and Aquinas to Robert Bellarmine and John Locke.

I know of no "Christian" governments.

Quote:
Spiritually - no. Because Yahweh is a genocidal maniac who, either on its own or through his chosen leaders (Moses for example), commits barbaric acts of genocide.

Any more genocidal than Man himself?

Quote:
Therefore after much study and deliberation.... perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL CHRISTIANS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" christians and good Americans."

 

Perhaps, then, we should be suspicious of the author of the following:

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

His name is George Washington.

I suggest you get back to the books and study some more.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3616
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus

totus_tuus wrote:


 



 

Perhaps, then, we should be suspicious of the author of the following:

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

His name is George Washington.

 

  George Washington, first president of the United States and life long owner of more than 300 slaves ?

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 )


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3284
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Perhaps,

totus_tuus wrote:

Perhaps, then, we should be suspicious of the author of the following:

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

His name is George Washington.

I suggest you get back to the books and study some more.

ok.

The Treaty of Tripoli, 1796 wrote:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

unlike your george washington quote, this is an actual state document.

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
What the hell is a real

What the hell is a real American?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

totus_tuus wrote:


 

 


 


 

Perhaps, then, we should be suspicious of the author of the following:

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

His name is George Washington.

 

  George Washington, first president of the United States and life long owner of more than 300 slaves ?

Yeah.  He also grew hemp and distilled whiskey.  What of it?

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:totus_tuus

iwbiek wrote:

totus_tuus wrote:

Perhaps, then, we should be suspicious of the author of the following:

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

His name is George Washington.

I suggest you get back to the books and study some more.

ok.

The Treaty of Tripoli, 1796 wrote:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

unlike your george washington quote, this is an actual state document.

 

OK.  The discussion was not whether the United States was a "Christian" nation (a position I don not hold, by the way).  The discussion was whether or not Christians as individuals could be patriotic.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:What the

butterbattle wrote:

What the hell is a real American?

I'm not quite sure I know.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I never liked the No True

I never liked the No True Scotsman semantics arguments.

 

 

 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2376
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Try????

butterbattle wrote:

What the hell is a real American?

 

 

            Amerigo Vespucci, is the only real American  I know of from history.  He was an explorer but nothing special compared to his contemporarys; yet he still managed to get his name attached to two continents.  His only real talent seems to be early 16th century PR work otherwise we'd be North Columbia and South Columbia.  Hells bells even Ferdinand & Isabella had more rights to the naming honor then Amerigo.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:O

iwbiek wrote:

totus_tuus wrote:

Perhaps, then, we should be suspicious of the author of the following:

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

His name is George Washington.

I suggest you get back to the books and study some more.

ok.

The Treaty of Tripoli, 1796 wrote:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

unlike your george washington quote, this is an actual state document.

 

 

 

HOW DARE YOU CHALLENGE MY REVISIONIST HISTORY! THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION! CHRISTIAN NATION! USA #1!

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
lol

lol Smiling


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:butterbattle

Jeffrick wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

What the hell is a real American?

 

 

            Amerigo Vespucci, is the only real American  I know of from history.  He was an explorer but nothing special compared to his contemporarys; yet he still managed to get his name attached to two continents.  His only real talent seems to be early 16th century PR work otherwise we'd be North Columbia and South Columbia.  Hells bells even Ferdinand & Isabella had more rights to the naming honor then Amerigo.

 

He was Italian.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat, I'm familiar with

ClockCat, I'm familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli.  I never contended that the United States was a "Christian nation".  That it was founded by men with firm theistic, if not Christian, backgrounds is undeniable. 

THE foundational document of the United States is the Declaration of Independence, however, not the Treaty of Tripoli.  The Declaration acknowledges "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God ", that Men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", and invokes the "the protection of divine Providence".  Sounds kinda theistic to me. 

Of course, I've never heard of a nation making statements in treaty form strictly out of expediency.

Now, may we return to the discussion of whether Christians as individuals can be good citizens?

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3616
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: Yeah. 

totus_tuus wrote:


 Yeah.  He also grew hemp and distilled whiskey.  What of it?

    Growing hemp and distilling whiskey do not involve violating basic human rights.  So, in your religious world view totally depriving people of their freedom in order to exploit them is as morally inoffensive as distilling whiskey ?

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 )


Zombie Jesus
Zombie Jesus's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2010-01-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus

totus_tuus wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

What the hell is a real American?

I'm not quite sure I know.

*sigh* If anyone knows what makes an American a so called "true American" please let me know, though I don't see how that will change anything.

 

All forms of tampering with human beings, getting at them, shaping them against their will to your own pattern, all thought control and conditioning is, therefore, a denial of that in men which makes them men and their values ultimate.
Isaiah Berlin


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Jeffrick

Ciarin wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

What the hell is a real American?

Amerigo Vespucci, is the only real American

He was Italian.

Actually, the Waldseemueller Map of 1507 (that the library of Congress recently purchased for 10 mn. dollars) is the earliest point in time when we know that America was given a name. Many scholars consider this to be because of the name Richard Ameryck (who sailed from Bristol, England to "Newfoundland" on an official mission in 1497) rather than Amerigo Vespucci (even though his name is mentioned in the map - because if the naming was after Italian tradition, it would now be the United States of Vespuccia).

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Growing hemp and

Quote:
Growing hemp and distilling whiskey do not involve violating basic human rights.  So, in your religious world view totally depriving people of their freedom in order to exploit them is as morally inoffensive as distilling whiskey ?

Not at all.  I just fail to see what the ownership of slaves has to do with the subject under discussion, specifically, "Does Christianity interfere with one's ability to be a loyal citizen?". 

Ownership of slaves is, indeed, a stain on the character of George Washington, as it was a stain on the character of the would be paladin of Church-State separation, Thomas Jefferson, along with quite a few others among the Founding Fathers.  It does not, however, invalidate the totality of their thoughts on the question of How we ought to order our life together.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


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

totus_tuus wrote:
ClockCat, I'm familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli.  I never contended that the United States was a "Christian nation".  That it was founded by men with firm theistic, if not Christian, backgrounds is undeniable. 

THE foundational document of the United States is the Declaration of Independence, however, not the Treaty of Tripoli.  The Declaration acknowledges "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God ", that Men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", and invokes the "the protection of divine Providence".  Sounds kinda theistic to me. 

Of course, I've never heard of a nation making statements in treaty form strictly out of expediency.

The foundational document of the United States is the Constitution (so named because it constitutes the foundation of the government), not the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence can be useful in interpreting history, and for this reason it is used in courts of law to get a better understanding of the past, but it has no more legal weight than, say, Thomas Jefferson's private letters to his friends. If you tried to use the Declaration of Independence as having intrinsic legal weight, like it were a statute or treaty still in force, then the judge would probably tell you to shut up and to stop wasting the court's time. The Declaration of Independence is not, and never was, a legal instrument in the United States.

Also, Thomas Jefferson was an anti-clerical Deist. He revered Jesus Christ, but only as a mortal man who taught a good system of morals. He thought that the disciples of Jesus were idiots who couldn't understand even the simplest of statements, meaning that their reports (i.e., the New Testament Gospels) were full of double-speak and nonsense. He thought that preachers and other so-called holy men perverted the teachings of Jesus even more by inserting Platonism and other things into the mix in order to gather wealth and power to themselves. He thought of the Old Testament god as a non-existent demon, and he thought that Christianity, as organized in its churches, was a form of demon worship. He did not believe in immaterial souls, spirits, essences, or anything like that. He was a thorough-going materialist. He thought that a material being created the universe to be self-sufficient, and that the being did not answer prayers, save souls, condemn people, give revelations, teach ethics, instill faith, like faith, or anything else. Basically, he believed in an unmoved mover, but he wouldn't have any metaphysical disagreement with the atheists on this website about absolutely anything else. In fact, the only reason he thought there was a god at all was because he thought the design argument was a good one. If he lived today and heard today's counter-arguments (evolutionary theory, nebular theory, big bang theory, and quantum theory wrapped together), then he probably would have been a thorough-going atheist. I just wanted to say this because many people want to think of Thomas Jefferson as a theist — as a believer in a personal and immaterial god who considers faith a good thing, as someone who would be one of their "brethren" if he were alive today — and that just isn't true.

Also, Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence, and he was very clear in insisting that our government should not take positions on theological matters. He was the one who coined the phrase "separation of church and state" and he abided by it so thoroughly that he refused to even recite a Thanksgiving Prayer because it blurred the line between church and state. He intended this country to be much more secular than it is today, and the same goes for Madison, who was the principle author of the U.S. Constitution and who shared the same views as Jefferson on matters of religion and its relation with government.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10554
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Quote:Religiously -

Quote:
Quote:Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by Yahweh except christianity.

And your source for this is...?

Never read the ten commandments eh?

"I'm to live the Gospel and carry the Good News to all nations.  How can I do this without associating with non-Christians?"

Big difference between association and friendliness, in case you didn't know.

"Any more genocidal than Man himself?"

Very much so. If he existed, he was killing off species at least 3 billion years before man existed, and takes responsibility for every act of man as well.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The foundational

Quote:
The foundational document of the United States is the Constitution (so named because it constitutes the foundation of the government), not the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence can be useful in interpreting history, and for this reason it is used in courts of law to get a better understanding of the past, but it has no more legal weight than, say, Thomas Jefferson's private letters to his friends. If you tried to use the Declaration of Independence as having intrinsic legal weight, like it were a statute or treaty still in force, then the judge would probably tell you to shut up and to stop wasting the court's time. The Declaration of Independence is not, and never was, a legal instrument in the United States.

It is true that the Declaration is not a legal instrument.  It is, nonetheless, the document that establishes the United States as a nation seperate from Great Britain.  Hence the words:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

There is a difference between the nation and the government.  The United States existed from 1776, yet there was no paper government until the Articles of Confederation until 1781.  The Constitution itself superseded the Articles in 1789.  The Declaration establishes the nation, the Articles of Confederation, and then the Constitution establish the government.

Quote:
Also, Thomas Jefferson was an anti-clerical Deist. He revered Jesus Christ, but only as a mortal man who taught a good system of morals. He thought that the disciples of Jesus were idiots who couldn't understand even the simplest of statements, meaning that their reports (i.e., the New Testament Gospels) were full of double-speak and nonsense. He thought that preachers and other so-called holy men perverted the teachings of Jesus even more by inserting Platonism and other things into the mix in order to gather wealth and power to themselves. He thought of the Old Testament god as a non-existent demon, and he thought that Christianity, as organized in its churches, was a form of demon worship. He did not believe in immaterial souls, spirits, essences, or anything like that. He was a thorough-going materialist. He thought that a material being created the universe to be self-sufficient, and that the being did not answer prayers, save souls, condemn people, give revelations, teach ethics, instill faith, like faith, or anything else. Basically, he believed in an unmoved mover, but he wouldn't have any metaphysical disagreement with the atheists on this website about absolutely anything else. In fact, the only reason he thought there was a god at all was because he thought the design argument was a good one. If he lived today and heard today's counter-arguments (evolutionary theory, nebular theory, big bang theory, and quantum theory wrapped together), then he probably would have been a thorough-going atheist. I just wanted to say this because many people want to think of Thomas Jefferson as a theist — as a believer in a personal and immaterial god who considers faith a good thing, as someone who would be one of their "brethren" if he were alive today — and that just isn't true.

Jefferson, to put it mildly, was quite eccentric, epecially in his religious views.  It seems to me, however that he embraced the Chirstian worldview common among his contemporaries.  For example, theis excerpt from his Second Inaugural Address:

"...the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the neccessaries and comforts of life, who has covered our infancy with his providence and our riper years with his wisdom and power."

That's not the description of an absent God, but is a God who is active in His Creation.  It's not the God of a deist.

Quote:
Also, Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence, and he was very clear in insisting that our government should not take positions on theological matters. He was the one who coined the phrase "separation of church and state" and he abided by it so thoroughly that he refused to even recite a Thanksgiving Prayer because it blurred the line between church and state. He intended this country to be much more secular than it is today, and the same goes for Madison, who was the principle author of the U.S. Constitution and who shared the same views as Jefferson on matters of religion and its relation with government.

If we are to disregard the Declaration because it is not a legal instrument (even though it is a resolution of the Congress, passed unanimously), then we certainly cannot consider the private correspondence of the President from which the phrase "separation of church and state" is extracted.  But we will, because we wish to consider Jefferson, the whole man, don't we?

Interestingly enough, the same Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" saw fit to attend Sunday services that were held in the chamber of the House of Representatives.  So much for your demon worship. 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Never read the ten

Quote:
Never read the ten commandments eh?

I have.  Which of the ten says that only Christianity is accepted?  I missed that one.

Quote:
"I'm to live the Gospel and carry the Good News to all nations.  How can I do this without associating with non-Christians?"

Big difference between association and friendliness, in case you didn't know.

As a matter of fact, a couple of  my kids have chosen religions which fail to match mine.  I still love them, we still talk, we're still friends.  My best cigar and bourbon buddy is an agnostic-atheist.  Among my friends I count pantheists, Mormons, Muslims, and deists.  Sorry I used the word "associate" rather than friend.

Quote:

"Any more genocidal than Man himself?"

Very much so. If he existed, he was killing off species at least 3 billion years before man existed, and takes responsibility for every act of man as well.

He doesn't control our actions, but this would spin off into a discussion of free will, and we all know where that goes.

And all those poor trilobytes and dinosaurs. 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3284
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: (even

totus_tuus wrote:

 

(even though it is a resolution of the Congress, passed unanimously)

 

 

ok, but you yourself said that there was no "paper" government until the articles of confederation, so obviously this makes no difference.  and you know as well as i do that many of the signatures on the declaration weren't even collected until after the revolutionary war was won.  it was a piece of propaganda that most colonists at the time of the revolution were probably unaware of.

regardless of how religious the founding fathers and their documents were or weren't, none of them are binding today.  what is binding is the constitution, and the constitution is an areligious, secular document.  period.  even if washington had said, "the US is a premillenial, free will baptist nation created by jesus christ for white people alone," as long as it didn't make it into the constitution, it would mean dick.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10554
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I have.  Which of the ten

"I have.  Which of the ten says that only Christianity is accepted?  I missed that one."

You mean you missed the first 3 to 5 of them.

"Sorry I used the word "associate" rather than friend."

No harm done. All the same, a religion which invalidates every position but its own necessarily conflicts with every other position capable of being held, and increases tension significantly; increasing not friendly behaviour by a disgustingly large factor.

"He doesn't control our actions,"

Yes he does, if he exists. He made everything knowing the consequences. That makes him the sole and reigning responsible factor for everything that does, did, and will exist. Period.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:ok, but you

iwbiek wrote:
ok, but you yourself said that there was no "paper" government until the articles of confederation, so obviously this makes no difference.

What, then, were the giuding priciples under which the provisonal government operated?

Quote:
and you know as well as i do that many of the signatures on the declaration weren't even collected until after the revolutionary war was won.

No, I don't know that.  All signatures were affixed to the Declaration by August 2, 1776.

Quote:
it was a piece of propaganda that most colonists at the time of the revolution were probably unaware of.

At least 150 copies were printed overnight and available on July 5, although the list of those who signed was not published until January 1777.  Public readings were held beginning on July 8, to the Army on July 9.  Publication inspired anti-British demonstrations in numerous cities. 

Be careful, sloppy history can lead to erroneous conclusions.

Quote:
regardless of how religious the founding fathers and their documents were or weren't, none of them are binding today.

Not so.  It was the Declaration's assertion of human rights attaching to all men which drove many, including Abraham Lincoln, to their opposition to slavery.  Lincoln's famous assertion that the "new nation" was "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" reflects the view held by many that the Constitution must be read through the lens of the Declaration; that the Declaration sets the moral tone of the Government which is executed via the Constitution.

While not binding in a strictly legal sense, disregarding the Declaration when reading the Consititution is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Relegating the Declaration to the status of merely an interesting footnote has dangerous implications for the conduct of the government.

Quote:
what is binding is the constitution, and the constitution is an areligious, secular document.  period.  even if washington had said, "the US is a premillenial, free will baptist nation created by jesus christ for white people alone," as long as it didn't make it into the constitution, it would mean dick.

Then any discussion of the separation of Church and State is a moot discussion since the phrase is not constitutional, but derives from a private letter of Thomas Jefferson.  This leaves us with only the non-establishment clause to argue about.

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You mean you missed

Quote:
You mean you missed the first 3 to 5 of them.

I never saw the word "Vhristianity in any of the commandments, let alone the first 3 to 5.  Like all laws, obedience is a matter of choice, because I accept teh commandments as the Law, thay are binding on me.  Others do not.

Quote:
No harm done. All the same, a religion which invalidates every position but its own necessarily conflicts with every other position capable of being held, and increases tension significantly; increasing not friendly behaviour by a disgustingly large factor.

Perhaps.  But not very position other than my own is invalid, not fully true perhaps, but nonetheless not invalid.  I'm called upon to love my neighbor, not to befriend him (although I'm a pretty outgoing guy and tend to make friends easily).

Quote:
Yes he does, if he exists. He made everything knowing the consequences. That makes him the sole and reigning responsible factor for everything that does, did, and will exist. Period.

No.  We're free to make choices within the parameters established by the laws of His Creation.  Simply knowing the outcome of a situation prior to it occuring doesn't render one the agent of its accomplishment.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II