Interesting tidbit on Declaration of Independence

[Skinzaholic]

John Adams (#2 President) wrote two letters to his wife Abigail the day after Congress approved the Declaration. The first was short and concise, jubilant that the Declaration had been approved. The second was much longer and more pensive, giving serious consideration to what had been done that day.

Adams cautiuosly noted: "This day will be the most memorable epic in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival."


He went on to add...

"The general principles on which the Fathers acheived independence were the general principles of Christianity."



Interesting foresight...

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Not entirely sure what Christianity has to do with democracy, but, hey, he was there when they wrote it.

[Spence]

Joe, Mr Adams wasn't terribly keen on democracy. President Adams enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts. This legislation permitted him to imprison people who criticized the president. It was grossly unconstitutional, of course, and helped mobilize enough opposition to ensure Adams was a one-term president. His successor was Thomas Jefferson, who, interestingly enough, rejected traditional Christianity in favor of Deism.

Adams was a great patriot and independence leader, but a truly horrible president.

[Skinzaholic]

It is my personal view that TRUE Democray would not even have worked without Christian morals. That is the precise reason why our Democracy is on the decline.

As for Adams and his political views, that is interesting Spence, thanks for the info. I dont have much knowledge on his polictical success/failure... just reading a book about his life and found that quote interesting.

[Skinzaholic]

Actually, upon further reading I found out some information regarding our "Democracy"...


It seems we have grown accustomed to hearing that we are a democracy; but this was never the original intent of our Founders. The form of government they originally intended was not a democracy at all... but a Republic. Our Founders had the opportunity to establish a democracy in America and chose not to. In fact, the Founders made clear that we were not, and were never to become, a democracy:

"Democracies have veer been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. - James Madison - (Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, "The Fedralists on the New Constitution" - 1818)

:Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." - John Adams - ("The Word of John Adams" - Charles Francis Adams - 1815).

"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived." - John Quincy Adams - ("The Jubilee of the Constitution - a speech written in April 1839).


The difference between a democracy and a republic is the source of authority. A pure democracy operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A republic differs in that the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation. A democracy is the rule by majority feeling; a republic is rule by law.

The Founding men also went on to describe IN DETAIL what should be the source of law for the American republic...


"Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion." - Noah Webster - ("History of the United States" - 1832).




The truth is that our modern day version of government and American society is almost OPPOSITE what the original men planned out and envision. Most have no idea this has happened... and that is why it is so important to me.



Comments?

[Spence]

Skinz, we call ourselves a democracy, but a more accurate epithet would be a democratic republic. A democracy in the literal sense of the word--seen most clearly in the New England townships--is probably impossible in a nation our size. The Framers created a republic so that the day-to-day passions of public affairs would be cooled by elected representatives. The Framers never intended to create a New England or Icelandic-style direct democracy. Instead, they created a democratic republic.

[Spence]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
[B]
"Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion." - Noah Webster - ("History of the United States" - 1832).B]

This is NOT what the Framers intended. Had they done so, they would have written as much in the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they wrote a document that declares quite clearly that the United States has no official religion and must never have an official religion.

But even if the democratic principles of the Framers did come from Christianity, what would that mean? How would things be any different than they are now?

[Skinzaholic]

Actually Spence... you are mistaken. Libraries across the country are filled with the opinions of the "Framers" (dont get that one) themselves who would disagree with your translation of their intentions. The Founding Fathers were intending to deviate from what they had seen in their former nations under Monarch rule... that is a government who dictates the how, why, where and when their people worship. Their intentions were to bring the freedom to express yourself during worship to all men.

BUT, many of them clearly stated in several documents that this religion SHOULD be Christianity. (They stopped short of actually documenting it either due to fear of doing just what they were leaving... or else they just assumed everyone understood).

There is a ton of documentation on this, some of which I will try to put here for you.


As for how would things be different... that is the problem. The so-called "modern thinkers" have squeezed Christianity out of our democratic republic, thus causing what we have today. Afterall, if there is no God, then why not do whatever I weant to do? Who will set the laws and standards?

The original men who started our nation had an assumption that those laws and standards would be set by the Bible... unfortunately today we have taken things into our own hands.



So far, little has been shown by anyone to actually REFUTE the facts I have brought on the subject throughout this forum. Usually I just get some uneducated personal opinion against the Bible... that is too easy because if I acknowledge my roots, I might just have to acknowledge what it says...


SHOW me facts that show those men condoned homosexual relationships or freedom to practice ANY religion. (That includes aitheism (the belief there is NO God), New Age (the belief that everything is god), humanism (the belief WE are god), and so on. Seems things really get confusing when we stop and think about it. Can't imagine those boys in 1800 thinking through all of that and coming up with a plan THIS good.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Originally posted by Spence
Joe, Mr Adams wasn't terribly keen on democracy. President Adams enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts. This legislation permitted him to imprison people who criticized the president. It was grossly unconstitutional, of course, and helped mobilize enough opposition to ensure Adams was a one-term president. His successor was Thomas Jefferson, who, interestingly enough, rejected traditional Christianity in favor of Deism.

Adams was a great patriot and independence leader, but a truly horrible president.

I'm not getting into whether or not he was a great President, or how supportive of democracy he was. I'm just not too sure where the basic principles of Christianity are in our government.

And, yes, we're a republic, and while a true democracy would never work now, it'll be interesting to see if that'll be changed in the next fifty years due to technology.

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by JoeDaSchmoe
And, yes, we're a republic, and while a true democracy would never work now, it'll be interesting to see if that'll be changed in the next fifty years due to technology.


Good question... and it will be interesting to see how technology effects how we handle problems... how much power will judges and stuff have in the future... technology is already messing up the Kobe case...

[IowaSkinsFan]

Democracy is the worst form of self government ever created...........except for every other type.

[SkinsKY]

Democracy works when people the people have a basic and common morality and agreed way to live. That's why Alex de Toqueville was surprised to see so few police officers in the US when he visited in the early 1800s. The people had made a conscious decision to adhere to the rules because there is honor in following the rules and respecting others. This respect and consideration for others is found most clearly in the Bible and in Christian document that the most importmant commandment given by Jesus (after complete dedication to God) was to love your neighbor as yourself.

With that in mind, democracy can and did fluorish. There came a point in or history though (I tend to point towards the New Deal) where things began to break down and people were more concerned about what they weren't getting than giving what they had. If people spent as mch of their time being responsible as they did griping about issues, this wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem.

Now before I get off too much. Christian principles are at the base of the Declaration. Take Free Will instance. That is something at the heart of Christianity as well. We have the choice to to go one way or another. If our options were limited, then we wouldn't have complete free will. In the same way, our founders wanted to extend that right as a God-given right to its citizens and could not do so by declaring a state religion or limiting others, or even recommending a certain faith. Whether you are a Christian or not, the principles make sense in creating a healthy society, and the founders knew that.

[SkinsKY]

Oh yeah...GO USA!!!

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Spence
This is NOT what the Framers intended. Had they done so, they would have written as much in the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they wrote a document that declares quite clearly that the United States has no official religion and must never have an official religion.


You have said this before, and I have come to the conclusion that you are misunderstanding it. (or seeing something that was not intended.) That was put in as to not "push" any religion on anyone. The country was founded on God and that's the way the government would make laws etc unoffcially...but if you practiced other religions, that was ok. It was a freedom to practice other religions. Who knew it would have backfired as badly it has today. Without God no country will survive. This has been proven 100% true, yet we (USA) don't have the foresight to see that we're cutting God out, and not learning from what History has taught us.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
It is my personal view that TRUE Democray would not even have worked without Christian morals. That is the precise reason why our Democracy is on the decline.



This is truly the best comment i've seen in a while. We think very much alike skinz. Keep up the good work.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic


The Founding men also went on to describe IN DETAIL what should be the source of law for the American republic...


"Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion." - Noah Webster - ("History of the United States" - 1832).



Am I mistaken, or are you claiming that Noah Webster was a Founding Father, and hence part of the Constitutional Congress? If so, hold the phone, stop the presses and recall all our history books! It sure looks like you are quoting IN DETAIL Mr. Webster as one of the authors of the Constitution in supporting your argument.

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Without God no country will survive. This has been proven 100% true

Ummmm..... How exactly do you figure that one?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Am I mistaken, or are you claiming that Noah Webster was a Founding Father, and hence part of the Constitutional Congress? If so, hold the phone, stop the presses and recall all our history books! It sure looks like you are quoting IN DETAIL Mr. Webster as one of the authors of the Constitution in supporting your argument.

Saying "founding father" does not have to mean constitutional congress, but an influential person in the history of America. Was Webster not such?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by JoeDaSchmoe
Ummmm..... How exactly do you figure that one?

check your history books.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
Saying "founding father" does not have to mean constitutional congress, but an influential person in the history of America. Was Webster not such?

Sure he was, but you were presenting him as someone who knew first hand what was intended in the creation of the Constitution, not an interesed commentator. Hell, I think Mark Twain was an influential person in the History of America, but I'm pretty sure you would not agree with his assesment of the role of God in American Government, or religion in general.

And I disagree, I think that Founding Father is generally accepted to mean a participant in the COnstitutional COngress, or signator of the Constitution.

[NamVet4]

In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed...


It is my opinion that the Founding Fathers, and the Framers of the Constitution did not have a specific religious “credo,” as a basis, in mind when they wrote those words and all that follow to comprise the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Articles of Confederation. They acted in a manner and form derived from their environment and upbringing.

As for their personal religious beliefs, it is documented that Thomas Jefferson created his own Bible, http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible of Christian basis to suit his beliefs; that Thomas Paine was a Deist http://www.constitution.org/tp/agereason.txt and that John Adams, the second U.S. President rejected the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and became a Unitarian. And Benjamin Franklin, often seen as a proponent of the Christian ideal, was a Deist:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...." (Carl Van Doren. Benjamin Franklin. New York: The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.)

So, there are writings to support or refute the concept of the Chrisitan affect upon the men who nurtured our Nation in its infancy.
I consider myself fortunate to live in this time and place, whereby the greatest nation on earth allows me the freedom to write my opinion and belief without fear of reprisal. Whose technology allows me to interact with people through out this nation and world, and whose opinion I can respect and whose beliefs I can debate in a free and open democratic republic.

[dukeuch]

Namvet:

Amen. You have done the work and summarized a position better than I could have if given a month. Thanks, and with your insightful piece, i'll say "yeah, what he said" and excuse myself.

[Skinzaholic]

It is important to not simply chew on the bit without further seeking the truth. Things are not always as they seem...

Here is some info in regards to the quotes by NamVet... taken from an editorial by historian David Barton.


"I notice that your newspaper has an ongoing debate concerning the religious nature of the Founding Fathers. A recent letter claimed that most of the Founding Fathers were deists, and pointed to Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Hamilton, and Madison as proof. After making this charge, the writer acknowledged the "voluminous writings" of the Founders, but it appears that she has not read those writings herself. However, this is no surprise since the U. S. Department of Education claims that only 5 percent of high schools graduates know how to examine primary source documentation.

Interestingly, the claims in this recent letter to the editor are characteristic of similar claims appearing in hundreds of letters to the editor across the nation. The standard assertion is that the Founders were deists. Deists? What is a deist? In dictionaries like Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Century, and others, the terms "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist" appear as synonyms. Therefore, the range of a deist spans from those who believe there is no God, to those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator of the universe, to those who believe there is no way to know if God exists. Do the Founders fit any of these definitions?

None of the notable Founders fit this description. Thomas Paine, in his discourse on "The Study of God," forcefully asserts that it is "the error of schools" to teach sciences without "reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin." He laments that "the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism." Paine not only believed in God, he believed in a reality beyond the visible world.

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress; and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning" built "on Christ, the Corner-Stone." Franklin certainly doesn't fit the definition of a deist.

Nor does George Washington. He was an open promoter of Christianity. For example, in his speech on May 12, 1779, he claimed that what children needed to learn "above all" was the "religion of Jesus Christ," and that to learn this would make them "greater and happier than they already are"; on May 2, 1778, he charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that "To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian"; and when he resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the military on June 8, 1783, he reminded the nation that "without a humble imitation" of "the Divine Author of our blessed religion" we "can never hope to be a happy nation." Washington's own adopted daughter declared of Washington that you might as well question his patriotism as to question his Christianity.

Alexander Hamilton was certainly no deist. For example, Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great: (1) Christianity, and (2) a Constitution formed under Christianity. Only Hamilton's death two months later thwarted his plan of starting a missionary society to promote Christian government. And at the time he did face his death in his duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton met and prayed with the Rev. Mason and Bishop Moore, wherein he reaffirmed to him his readiness to face God should he die, having declared to them "a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ." At that time, he also partook of Holy Communion with Bishop Moore.

The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his "Bible." Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a "Bible," but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth"). What Jefferson did was to take the "red letter" portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government's expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.

James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison's writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In fact, for proof of this, one only need read his letter to Attorney General Bradford wherein Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be "fervent advocates in the cause of Christ." And while Madison did allude to a "wall of separation," contemporary writers frequently refuse to allow Madison to provide his own definition of that "wall." According to Madison, the purpose of that "wall" was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion.

None of the Founders mentioned fit the definition of a deist. And as is typical with those who make this claim, they name only a handful of Founders and then generalize the rest. This in itself is a mistake, for there are over two hundred Founders (fifty-five at the Constitutional Convention, ninety who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fifty-six who signed the Declaration) and any generalization of the Founders as deists is completely inaccurate.

The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon—founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry—founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King—helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin—a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom—also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson—placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights.

Any portrayal of any handful of Founders as deists is inaccurate. (If this group had really wanted some irreligious Founders, they should have chosen Henry Dearborne, Charles Lee, or Ethan Allen). Perhaps critics should spend more time reading the writings of the Founders to discover their religious beliefs for themselves rather than making such sweeping accusations which are so easily disproven."

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=29

[BigCountry]

I may have only taken high school government (I did get an A) so Spence can help me out here with the specific principals of democracy but I don't remember "majority rules, minority rights" in the new testament.

[NamVet4]

Skinz, excellent excerpt! There are valid opinions expressed in your referenced quote. There could be an excellent and possibly long ranging discussion on the semantics and application of the words Deist, Agnostic, Atheist, etc to the Founding Fathers.
I believe that there is an Almighty Creator who has endowed all of us with the understanding of goodness and evil and the rational and free will to guide and select our course in life. I also recognize that our great country was conceived, in no small part, by an abhorrence of religious intolerance. And it was this loathing of religious intolerance, coupled with economic hardships, lack of understanding of the spirit of freedom and self-rule that burned within the hearts and minds of the colonists that gave birth to our Nation. The Founding Fathers, regardless of their own individual religious belief, established a Nation and saw fit to state so, so very eloquently, in these words:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And it was those same Founding Fathers who designed the Great Seal of the United States to include the Latin inscription:
Annuit Coeptis "God has favored our undertaking"

For a final thought I reference the following:

1794
AGE OF REASON
by Thomas Paine
TO MY FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

I Put the following work under your protection. It contains my
opinions upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason.
I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.
Your affectionate friend and fellow-citizen,

THOMAS PAINE

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Sure he was, but you were presenting him as someone who knew first hand what was intended in the creation of the Constitution, not an interesed commentator.

Actually, I wasn't skinzaholic was, I was merely trying to explain the rational.

And I disagree, I think that Founding Father is generally accepted to mean a participant in the COnstitutional COngress, or signator of the Constitution.

I can see it both ways...I've heard it used in both contexts. If you notice I wasn't arguing with you, which is a usual! :D
Just trying to inform you that others do use that phrase in such a manner.

[jsarno]

this is a good debate (namvet and skinzaholic) Keep up the good work.

on a side note...I am in awe of your research skinzaholic. I could not have done what you did. (mainly due to time, partly due to laziness) All I can say is:
RIGHT ON :D

[jsarno]

I would like something explained...if our founding fathers were not influenced by God (vague argument that Namvet is making) why is it in our schools (pledge of allegiance) and on our currency to name a few. (In GOD we trust)

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
I would like something explained...if our founding fathers were not influenced by God (vague argument that Namvet is making) why is it in our schools (pledge of allegiance) and on our currency to name a few. (In GOD we trust)

WHat do you mean by "influenced by God"? Influenced by his teachings or by God himself?

[dukeuch]

Skinz:

Not David Barton again!? His organization's whole purpose is to convince folks that the Constitution and US Gov't by expension should hold to CHristian beliefs. Can't you find someone a little more impartial?

[Skinzaholic]

Let me defend NamVet's argument here...


He isnt saying that the Founding Fathers were not influenced by God directly. He is saying that they chose to form a nation that would not dictate that ALL of it's citizens worship and practice like they do. The very point of Thomas Paine's quote speaks that... It seems the Founding Fathers had been through the fire and wanted nothing to do with a government outlining the religious convictions of its citizens. (Hope I got that right dude).

I have to agree with NamVet here and say hats off to some very good quotes!

The only problem I have with all of this is that what NamVet is spelling out is NOT how most liberals and agenda groups view and understand our history.

Religious freedom to the Founding Fathers could not possibly have been viewed as deep as it is now. The immense scope of personal religious preference is much grander then it ever was back then (ie the world is smaller). I think that has alot to play in the current moral decline of our nation.

The men who drafted our first government "assumed" that they were governing a people who held certain rights and morals in high esteem. This was a group of people from a society high in intellect and standard of living. That is the major flaw of any democratic republic... assuming the others with a voice all speak from the same foundation. I don't believe ANY of those men could have forseen the abuse and twisting of their words that we see today. (How would they have reacted to the man in California poposing that using "God" in our pledge to the flag is unconstitutionl?) That is the point I always want to make.

The men who signed the Decloration of Independence all held to the belief that the Bible was the source of their moral decisions... and that is precisely what led them to draft the equality of all men... tolerance of other points of view... and all of the other great staples of our nation.

BUT... as the winds of change blow... and tolerance seeps in... soon we find the foundations of thought have changed... what was viewed as wrong before isnt viewed as wrong anymore. This is the problem...


...and nothing short of a revolution can change it back again.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic

Religious freedom to the Founding Fathers could not possibly have been viewed as deep as it is now. The immense scope of personal religious preference is much grander then it ever was back then (ie the world is smaller). I think that has alot to play in the current moral decline of our nation.

The men who drafted our first government "assumed" that they were governing a people who held certain rights and morals in high esteem. This was a group of people from a society high in intellect and standard of living. That is the major flaw of any democratic republic... assuming the others with a voice all speak from the same foundation.

...and nothing short of a revolution can change it back again.

Gosh, Skinz, when you say "The immense scope of personal religious preference is much grander than it ever was back then...I think that has a lot to play in the current moral decline of our nation" it appears that you are saying, linked with your assertion that the Founding Fathers were Christian, like you are blaming the moral decline in our society to non-Christians. Are you?

Very few would hold that the Constitution was a static document. the widely recognized genius of the drafter's is that it CAN accomodate changes in society, morals, beliefs, etc. within a framework that protects the inalianable rights of the prople. That it must return to the original thoughts, beliefs, etc. of a bunch of (landowner, slave holders, free men, etc.) guys reacting to the reality of the 1700's, rather than today is preposterous.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Influenced by his teachings or by God himself?

YES

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
YES

I was hoping you'd indicate which. Do you mean both?

[Keino]

Im sorry I got into this so late. It should be pointed out that many of the Framers of the Consitutition ie. Founding Fathers practiced Freemasonry, which is NOT Christianity.
I'd also like to point out that the moral foundations of this country are far from Solid. From Slavery to the Genocide (Both in the name of furthering Christianity I might add) of the indegenous people here, this country has always had shaky moral ground, so to imply the decline in morality in this country is tied to the Free Practice of Religons that aren't christian is grossly misleading........

[Spence]

I'm still trying to figure out the point of all this. I don't see how the religious views of our Republic's early leaders matter.

I would also like to know more about this "moral decline" America is supposedly experiencing. This phrase is often used by people with a particular agenda. What is meant by "moral decline" specifically? And what is the specific evidence for this "moral decline"? And what does any of that have to do with whether or not Thomas Jefferson was a deist or a right-wing fundamentalist Protestant?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
I was hoping you'd indicate which. Do you mean both?

YES

you can't have one without the other.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Keino
Im sorry I got into this so late. It should be pointed out that many of the Framers of the Consitutition ie. Founding Fathers practiced Freemasonry, which is NOT Christianity.

That is not ringing a bell. What is that?
(sounds like guy who go around building walkways or something for free...hehe)

I'd also like to point out that the moral foundations of this country are far from Solid.

You could not be more wrong. The moral Foundation is solid, it's the practices that are not.

From Slavery to the Genocide (Both in the name of furthering Christianity I might add)

These comments anger me because you are implying that Christianity condones slavery / genocide. the bible is clear!!! Christianity has a devine foundation, but it is human since it is practiced by humans. There have been hundreds of thousands of people saying things are done in the name of God or whatever, but have no clue what they are talking about. I sincerely hope it wa not your intent to put down the bible.

of the indegenous people here, this country has always had shaky moral ground, so to imply the decline in morality in this country is tied to the Free Practice of Religons that aren't christian is grossly misleading........

there is no implication, the moral decline comes from the rising amounts of GODLESS people. It's no surprise that crime rates are up, and trustworthiness is at an all time low with the massive absences of attendance at church. Is that an opinion? Absolutely. But a very informed opinion.

[jsarno]

The sadest thing I've seen about these newer generations is that whenever something goes wrong it's God's fault, and they are quick to say so. But when things go well, it's thier own doing. God created Love and mercy and understanding don't forget. And he NEVER ONCE said life would be easy or fair either.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno


These comments anger me because you are implying that Christianity condones slavery / genocide. the bible is clear!!! Christianity has a devine foundation, but it is human since it is practiced by humans. There have been hundreds of thousands of people saying things are done in the name of God or whatever, but have no clue what they are talking about. I sincerely hope it wa not your intent to put down the bible.

[b]

there is no implication, the moral decline comes from the rising amounts of GODLESS people. It's no surprise that crime rates are up, and trustworthiness is at an all time low with the massive absences of attendance at church. Is that an opinion? Absolutely. But a very informed opinion.

Two observations:

Earlier you ansered a question of mine by saying people are both influenced by God's teachings (presumably trhough the Bible) and by Him directly, "you can't have one without the other" I believe you said.

SO, how is it that when people are influenced by God directly, that he has no hand in the terrible things people do? I am not saying he does, as a matter of fact, I think that IF there is a godd, he has nothing to do with our actions. But you simply cannot have it both ways, that God created everything, including humans, influences everything, but has nothing to do with (some)men's evil nature and actions.

Second, there are a lot less buffalo in the country than when our government was created, maybe that's the source of declining values. Fewer native americans, too (heck, the Christians, and all other "Americans" needed some place to live, for cryin' out loud, and those damn Redskins were just using up the best land.).

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
The sadest thing I've seen about these newer generations is that whenever something goes wrong it's God's fault, and they are quick to say so. But when things go well, it's thier own doing. God created Love and mercy and understanding don't forget. And he NEVER ONCE said life would be easy or fair either.

Are you kidding? If anything, it is the other way around. In football, it's always "God enabled me" or "Given God's gift, i was able too". I feel like saying: No dude, YOU did it. Becuase your parents passed on good genes, your mom/dad practiced with you when you were young, you worked your butt off in the weight room...

And when it comes to tragedy, or illness, it's always "Thank God we found the cure" or "Because of God's graces Billy is still with us today". It's NEVER "Why did God create this terrible disease" or "Why did God cause that mine to cave in"? Anytime He IS blamed, the standard response is "God works in mysterious ways".

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Two observations:

Earlier you ansered a question of mine by saying people are both influenced by God's teachings (presumably trhough the Bible) and by Him directly, "you can't have one without the other" I believe you said.

I did not say directly, If I answered a question that you said "directly" then Imust have missed that for I do not believe he can take over our bodies and direct us. We are influenced indirectly...and that's a HUGE difference.

SO, how is it that when people are influenced by God directly, that he has no hand in the terrible things people do?
We are given free will, we choose to be influenced by God or influenced by satan. Neither MAKES us do anything...we make that choice.
I have answered this before about "God's hand in terrible things". Humans are the sole people that engage or allow terrible things to happen. It's far from God's hands. Could he stop it...ABSOLUTELY...will he? NOPE. He gave us the free will, that was a promise and he won't break that.

I am not saying he does, as a matter of fact, I think that IF there is a godd, he has nothing to do with our actions. But you simply cannot have it both ways, that God created everything, including humans, influences everything, but has nothing to do with (some)men's evil nature and actions.
I'm not asking for it both ways...you are assuming. I WHOLE HEARTEDLY believe that God does not have a direct hand in our actions. He lets US choose. I choose to follow Him, others do not, and that's their choice that they will have to explain come judgement day.

Second, there are a lot less buffalo in the country than when our government was created, maybe that's the source of declining values. Fewer native americans, too (heck, the Christians, and all other "Americans" needed some place to live, for cryin' out loud, and those damn Redskins were just using up the best land.).

First off, DAMN and REDSKINS should NEVER be used together. 1- because of the obvious blasphemy towards our beloved team, and 2- the massive slap in the face to those of indian heritage. (don't forget the word Redskins is already a "bad word" with the indian heritage as savagely)
I was labeled a racist earlier on this site by making reference to Serena Williams as having boobs like those of national geographic DESPITE the fact I am half African American. (lunacy i know) I don't appreciate your racism against the Indian heritage. (I'm sure it was not intended that way, but I have grown more sympathetic towards the Indian heritage since my mother in law has Indian blood.
Now, to address your comment, going a little off the wall huh? This is just one of MANY thngs you have said with no direct relation to the comments / subject at hand.
What do Buffalo have to do with God or the relationship with the decline with moral behavior. God is known throughout the world as creating peace and love etc, are buffalo? So how can you make such a comparison?
My opinion that the lack of Godliness to the moral decline in America may not be 100% correct, I said it was opinion, but there is NO OTHER better explanation at all.
Had you said "bad Parenting", I could go with that one since parents teach morality. But Buffalo???? Come on, i expect better arguments from you!

[dukeuch]

JS:

I choose to allow neither God nor Satan to influence me, and I think I do pretty well in treating others with respect and "doing the right thing".

Sarcasm, that's all. My point is that you saying that church attendance is in decline, and moral values are declining (in your opinion) so it is proved that the decline in the first is the cause of the decline in the second. That is a specious argument. I offered the example of the buffalo population is declining, and moral values are decling, so it must be that the decline in buffalo population is the cause. Again, sarcasm. It relates to the soundness of your argument's structure.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Are you kidding? If anything, it is the other way around. In football, it's always "God enabled me" or "Given God's gift, i was able too". I feel like saying: No dude, YOU did it. Becuase your parents passed on good genes, your mom/dad practiced with you when you were young, you worked your butt off in the weight room...

That's right that GUY / PARENTS DID do it. It was all about the genes / practice etc. Do you really think God cares if you're a star football player in high school?
When those people say that, it's more or less to give thanks to God, and to get His word out.
Some do it out of PC ness.

And when it comes to tragedy, or illness, it's always "Thank God we found the cure" or "Because of God's graces Billy is still with us today". It's NEVER "Why did God create this terrible disease" or "Why did God cause that mine to cave in"? Anytime He IS blamed, the standard response is "God works in mysterious ways".

You have no clue do you. What are the stages of dealing with problems??? (1- denial ...blah, blah, blah.) People blame God first "how could this happen to such a good person."? Drug dealers mothers come on the TV, he's such a could person, how could this happen etc.
Saying THANK GOD is a common phrase. Some say thank Goodness. It has NOTHING to do with Thanking God (other than a VERY small few) The ones that do thank God thank Him in Prayer or so "or prayers worked".
I don't know what rock you've been living under, but I've had a nickle for every time I've heard or heard about someone saying "how could such a loving God create Cancer" or (insert disease) I'd rival Bill Gates.
There are alot of comments / phrases we humans make, the intents are not always what they appear. I'm sre you don't have to think hard to come up with a few.
Like i said before, God does not have a direct hand in our lives. So not only does he not cure the disease, but he doesn't cause that mine to collapse. He did give us the brain power to come up with the cure, and the ingrediants on earth, but that's as far as He goes. There is a reason these cures come up...because we've spend millions maybe billions of dollars of research for Doctors to come up with one.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
JS:

I choose to allow neither God nor Satan to influence me, and I think I do pretty well in treating others with respect and "doing the right thing".

I'm glad you do that, we need more like that. But let me ask you...do you think that "doing the RIGHT thing" just came out of no where? Who do you think informed the world of what is right and wrong??? Think it just came out of the air?
At this point it has been handed down from generation to generation, but don't forget where it ultimately came from (kept alive with the STILL best selling book in the world...THE BIBLE)

It relates to the soundness of your argument's structure.

Then you clearly don't know how to argue since that comment (buffalo) was not in direct relation to mine. I expained already why, I figured you would listen, apparently I was incorrect.
I know you can't come up with a better arguement, otherwise you would have already. After all, my opinion is just that, but based from fact.
At this point it does not appear you are willing to listen or learn, that is your choice, just as it will be ,mine to not respond if you do not show a willingness to listen at the least.

[dukeuch]

JS:

I disagree that your opinion is based on fact, you offer few, if any, facts to back it up. It is a fact that Bush says the Iraqi's have WMD, but that fact does not prove they actually do.

Your opinions, especially those relating to religion, the bible, etc. are based on faith, which is all well and good, but not to be confused with fact.

We've gotten into this argument before. Your belief in your faith is fine, but it is NOT fact just becuase you call it fact, or you truly believe in the tenents of your religion.

[jsarno]

you could argue that the sky isn't blue by saying that the light reflecting off the ozone layer etc gives an illusion of a blue sky, but that doesn't make it any less blue. I whole heartedly stand firm that someone made us, there is a God. This is not an opinion to me, but FACT. Until someone can prove otherwise (can't / won't happen) it's common sense and FACT that a God exists.
We clearly have differing opinions, and I wish you the best of luck with yours, but I don't think this discussion can go forward any longer.

[Spence]

All the problems in this country are caused by "godless people"? I've got two brothers and one sister. They're all atheists. I can't think of a single problem for America those three people have caused. They all volunteer for charities and give money to such causes. They all obey the laws--none has ever been arrested for anything. They all pay their taxes and say "thank you," "you're welcome" and "please."

Meanwhile, the prisons are full of "believers." I turn on the TV and see some preacher halfwit and his huge-haired wife telling little old ladies that the path to salvation lies in sending their Social Security checks in to their "ministry." And I won't soon forget Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson telling me that homosexuals, feminists, and pro-choice activists are responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks.

I certainly won't forget that one.

And just for the record, the Bible was used by racists to justify slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, even lynchings. That's a fact and anyone with even a passing familiarity with American history knows it.

Is that Christ's fault? Nope, I don't blame the Man Upstairs or His Son. I blame a bunch of Bible-thumping "Christians" who thought they had a right to tell everyone what to think and what to do because they were/are so sure their interpretation of God was the only interpretation of God.

Those are the people who remind me of Osama Bin Laden and his murder squads. All the ranting about "God commands you to..." and "God gives me the right to..." and so on and so on and so on.

I'd fight a war to make sure no religious fanatics from the Middle East can tell me what to think and what to do. And I'd fight a war to make sure no religious fanatics in America can do it either.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
you could argue that the sky isn't blue by saying that the light reflecting off the ozone layer etc gives an illusion of a blue sky, but that doesn't make it any less blue. I whole heartedly stand firm that someone made us, there is a God. This is not an opinion to me, but FACT. Until someone can prove otherwise (can't / won't happen) it's common sense and FACT that a God exists.
We clearly have differing opinions, and I wish you the best of luck with yours, but I don't think this discussion can go forward any longer.

I agree wholeheartedly that we simply will never agree on this. Religious beliefs are deeply held, and I am not criticizing you for holding them. On the other hand, I do not think they should be foisted on others, particularly in matters of government and laws. I think the key is that the existence of God (and, skeptical as I am, I do not say such is impossible, just that I need proof besides "look around us") is a fact to YOU. That does not necessarily make it a fact to everyone.

I just find your arguments so obtuse. How would one, in the context of your argument, argue that it is not blue because of the scientific explanation you give? How does that in any way mimic an argument I have made, if that is what you are trying to do? Most people would acknowledge that the sky is blue, (I can see that, so it is a fact) and here is the reason why. It's not an illusion because there is an explanation for why it is blue.

Anyway, I am not trying to rag on your beliefs, just from anyone trying to force them on me (through govt) or criticising that I do not hold them too.

[dukeuch]

JS:

SOrry, but last observation: Asking to prove that something does not exist is a difficult and strange test for proving it does exist. However, given the actions of our current administration, and your support for their actions, it all looks clearer now. They can't prove links between Hussien and Bin Laden, or WMDs, so their test seems to be (and your faith in rumors indicates you agree) that they might exist, and until someone proves otherwise, it is a fact. Thank God (oooops) our criminal system does not work in this fashion (at least not usually, and until the Patriot Act) becuase I would have a hell of a time proving if I had to prove that I did NOT do anything someone accused me of becuase of a rumor.

[Keino]

Jsarno -
I want to be perfectly clear. I am not saying that Christianity condones the things I mentioned as moral faults of Early Americans. What I am saying however, is that a justification for Slavery was to Christianize a "heathen People". The slave master had a Gun or Whip in one hand and a Bible in the other. The same goes for the Indegenous Americans.

As far as freemasonry goes, Im sure in your town there is a Masonic Temple. I would suggest a google search to find out more, and read up on what christian scholars say about freemasonry.....

I respect christianity, don't get me wrong, but is it the only divinely inspired religion? Does one have to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior to have a solid moral foundation? Jesus himself was a jew. Judaism, Islam and Christianity all begin with the same Patriarch....Abraham and his covenant with God. How can you call a practitioner of one fo these religions Godless? They believe as you do that there is One God. So again, I contend that to say that the Moral Decline in America is tied to the free practice of Religion is Grossly misleading.......

Finally Id like to address your comment that "The moral Foundation is solid, it's the practices that are not." How do you seperate the Morality from the actions? Isn't the way we act an expression of our Moral Foundation?

One last thing, I don't recall calling you a racist for making the Serena Williams Comment, but only that the comment offended me. I went on to say why the comment offended me. I would've expected someone with a Black Woman(either Mom, Grandma, Aunt SISTER etc) in their lives to understand how the comments could be taken the wrong way, but that is neither here nor there at this point. Just so you know at least One Black Woman PM'd and thanked me for standing up........
I think Deuchu's use of the word Redskin was more for Satirical purposes than to offend anyone...........I believe he was acknowledging the perjorative use of the word back in the day.

[Spence]

In DC the Masonic Temple is on 16th Street, near Dupont Circle. It's about half a block from where my girlfriend lives. It's a huge, impressive-looking building.

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Keino

I respect christianity, don't get me wrong, but is it the only divinely inspired religion? Does one have to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior to have a solid moral foundation? Jesus himself was a jew. Judaism, Islam and Christianity all begin with the same Patriarch....Abraham and his covenant with God. How can you call a practitioner of one fo these religions Godless? They believe as you do that there is One God.



Just wanted to bring some correction on one of your comments Keino...

"is it the only divinely inspired religion?"
- according to 2 Peter 1:21... "for no prophecy came about by the will of man... but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (This is in reference to the Bible being from God and not man... and since it also says that there is only one God and that the scriptures are finished... nothing added... we can understand that there is only one divinely inspired religion).


"Does one have to accept JC to have a solid moral foundation?"
- Ephesians 4:17-18 - "Therefore I testify... that you walk not as non-believers walk, in the vanity of their minds... having the understanding darkened, being alienated from God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts."


"They believe , as you do, that there is one God."
- Actually this is incorrect... the followers of Judiasm do not believe Jesus was God... but actually a good teacher. Jesus said in John 14:6 "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me."
- Islam calls Allah God... and yet in the Koran he is described as having "no children". Yet the God of Christianity clearly has a Son (Jesus)... therefore NOT the same god.


I point this out not to further this argument (discussion) but to ensure facts are correct. If you dont believe you need Jesus to get to the only God, then your only choice is to say that Jesus was a liar...

If you dont believe what the Bible says is true then your foundation is different then mine... thus that is why I leave the conversation when it gets this far.

[Spence]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
If you dont believe you need Jesus to get to the only God, then your only choice is to say that Jesus was a liar...
Not true. You could believe Jesus honestly believed Himself to be the Son of God, but was mistaken. I believe Jesus was either the Son of God or made an honest mistake. I cannot believe for a moment that he lied. No one would die on the Cross as He did for a lie.

Either way, it does not affect the tenets of Christianity for me. Divine or not, the lessons of Christ are words to live by. If tomorrow someone proved Jesus was not the Son of God, it would not diminish my reverence for his teachings a bit.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Spence
All the problems in this country are caused by "godless people"? I've got two brothers and one sister. They're all atheists. I can't think of a single problem for America those three people have caused. They all volunteer for charities and give money to such causes. They all obey the laws--none has ever been arrested for anything. They all pay their taxes and say "thank you," "you're welcome" and "please."

Good for them!
Did I say EVERY SINGLE GODLESS PERSON???? The people who commit acts that cause Jail time and such (or possible jail time) ARE INDEED GODLESS PEOPLE! Gd does not promote killing or stealing or raping or anything of the sort.

Meanwhile, the prisons are full of "believers." I turn on the TV and see some preacher halfwit and his huge-haired wife telling little old ladies that the path to salvation lies in sending their Social Security checks in to their "ministry." And I won't soon forget Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson telling me that homosexuals, feminists, and pro-choice activists are responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks.

#1- half know if they "claim God as salvation" they could get pardoned, or out on good behavior MUCH earlier.
#2- you are assuming everyone that says the word "GOD" or "CHRISTIAN" actually follows the bible, and lives by it...cause I GUAR-RON-DANG-TEE you that the reason they are in prison is not from Christianly acts...some times you just have to use your head to sort these things out Spence.
And those "televangelists" well, I'll try not to judge, but let's just say I've never sent them a penny, nor will I.
If I say I'm Spence's twin, does that make it so? If I say I follow the Q'uran, does that make it so? It's a lifestyle choice, not a word, or group of words. I would expect you to know the difference. Someone can CLAIM millions of things, and in the real world we dismiss it, but when it comes to God, people say "oh he's doing that on behalf of God". That's simply not true.

And just for the record, the Bible was used by racists to justify slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, even lynchings. That's a fact and anyone with even a passing familiarity with American history knows it.

have you read the bible??? Seriously...have you read it??? TELL ME ANYWHERE THAT CONDONES IT!!!!! You can't...so don't sit there and tell me something that you are ignorant of. I can kill someone and say God told me to, does that mean he did? OBVIOUSLY NOT. The bible tells you so. Any half witted bible reader person would tell you those people justifiying slavery etc were not following God or the bible. Such verses as "treat your neighbor as thyself", and "everyone is equal in the eyes of the Lord" are just a few of many that are crystal CLEAR! So why do people still associate these loser morons with the Bible like it's the bible's fault or something?
Maybe it's just easier to blame God or something. Who knows.

Is that Christ's fault? Nope, I don't blame the Man Upstairs or His Son. I blame a bunch of Bible-thumping "Christians" who thought they had a right to tell everyone what to think and what to do because they were/are so sure their interpretation of God was the only interpretation of God.

I can't agree with you enough here. We think alike when it comes to that. Those are the people that give religion / God / Jesus a bad name, and it's sad. If you noticed I never once said you (or anyone on this site) was going to hell. I don't tell you how to live, I merely point in the direction of the bible, it's up to you to follow or not...it's your choice. Doesn't make me a difference on judgment day, He's not going to make me responsible for ANYONE but myself.

Those are the people who remind me of Osama Bin Laden and his murder squads. All the ranting about "God commands you to..." and "God gives me the right to..." and so on and so on and so on.

Again, totally agree.
But just to be sure you understand they aren't actually speaking on behalf of God right?

I'd fight a war to make sure no religious fanatics from the Middle East can tell me what to think and what to do. And I'd fight a war to make sure no religious fanatics in America can do it either.

hopefully it will never fully come to that, but trust me, I'd be right beside you.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
JS:

SOrry, but last observation: Asking to prove that something does not exist is a difficult and strange test for proving it does exist. However, given the actions of our current administration, and your support for their actions, it all looks clearer now. They can't prove links between Hussien and Bin Laden, or WMDs, so their test seems to be (and your faith in rumors indicates you agree) that they might exist, and until someone proves otherwise, it is a fact. Thank God (oooops) our criminal system does not work in this fashion (at least not usually, and until the Patriot Act) becuase I would have a hell of a time proving if I had to prove that I did NOT do anything someone accused me of becuase of a rumor.

Again...WAY OFF BASE on your analogy (you make common use of that)
If there was nothing there in the first place, then there was nothing there. However, the earth that you walk on, the air you breathe had to be made by SOMETHING right?
Everything in this world has a beginning and an end, that's common sense. So where did we all come from in the beginning of time. The only possible scenario would be an almighty being. Someone of a devine nature. This is why I say "disprove Him". Cause His wonders are all around you and you can't explain why if there s no God.

PS- So are you really dropping to your knees and thanking God??? But earlier you said that EVERYONE SAYS it, therefore EVERYONE believes etc. Thanks for proving my point, even if it was in a sarcastic, God thumping manner.

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Spence
Not true. You could believe Jesus honestly believed Himself to be the Son of God, but was mistaken. I believe Jesus was either the Son of God or made an honest mistake. I cannot believe for a moment that he lied. No one would die on the Cross as He did for a lie.

Either way, it does not affect the tenets of Christianity for me. Divine or not, the lessons of Christ are words to live by. If tomorrow someone proved Jesus was not the Son of God, it would not diminish my reverence for his teachings a bit.


I salute you Spence! It is good to see you actually saying something well thought out! I am not into slamming people for their beliefs and stuff like that... as long assomeone uses their brain and gives something a chance... I feel they have taken a better step hen the masses who have no idea what Jesus stood for... yet dismiss him due to what everyone else does.

I think one thingto look at though is the many many many times Jesus asserted who He was. He had every opportnity to prevent his execution by simply recanting that one fact... that He was indeed God in the flesh. But, he refused to do so. Cant see that as an honest mistake... (that would make Him sincerely deluded and a lunatic).


Either way... to say that His lessons are words to live by, divine or not... and yet also believe that he was a crazy man who basically was put to death due to His insane personal beliefs is a dicotomy. If He was crazy enough to make one comment that is untrue... how can we trust ANYTHING ese He said? Isnt everything else bred from that same deluded mind?


Also, the very "tenets of Christanity" state that Jesus was the Son of God... and is the only way to get to God (and thus heaven). So... is it really possible to pick and choose one statement and not the other? Is the "a la carte" mentality a wise one?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Keino
Jsarno -
I want to be perfectly clear. I am not saying that Christianity condones the things I mentioned as moral faults of Early Americans. What I am saying however, is that a justification for Slavery was to Christianize a "heathen People". The slave master had a Gun or Whip in one hand and a Bible in the other. The same goes for the Indegenous Americans.

It's truly a shame that was done...I understand it was done, but if I was a betting man, I would bet God is not / will not be very pleased with that at all.

As far as freemasonry goes, Im sure in your town there is a Masonic Temple. I would suggest a google search to find out more, and read up on what christian scholars say about freemasonry.....

If I find time I will do that.

I respect christianity, don't get me wrong, but is it the only divinely inspired religion? Does one have to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior to have a solid moral foundation? Jesus himself was a jew. Judaism, Islam and Christianity all begin with the same Patriarch....Abraham and his covenant with God. How can you call a practitioner of one fo these religions Godless? They believe as you do that there is One God. So again, I contend that to say that the Moral Decline in America is tied to the free practice of Religion is Grossly misleading.......

I would direct you back to skinzaholic's comment. Does this mean that I fully agree with him, not completely. Since I do not know what "God's Grace" is, I'm not sure if he will not blame the Jews for not following Jesus. Only He knows. I do follow the bible to the best of my ability, but I try not to comment on things only God Himself can only answer.
To answer one of the questions Does one have to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior to have a solid moral foundation? No, I don't believe so. You can have a good moral foundation from good parenting, or a number of things, but it did all start with God, we're just WAAAAY down the line.

Finally Id like to address your comment that "The moral Foundation is solid, it's the practices that are not." How do you seperate the Morality from the actions? Isn't the way we act an expression of our Moral Foundation?

To see our moral foundation, you need look no further than the laws our founding fathers put in place. That is America's foundation, because while people come and go, the law stays the same. (granted not in all cases)

One last thing, I don't recall calling you a racist for making the Serena Williams Comment, but only that the comment offended me. I went on to say why the comment offended me. I would've expected someone with a Black Woman(either Mom, Grandma, Aunt SISTER etc) in their lives to understand how the comments could be taken the wrong way, but that is neither here nor there at this point. Just so you know at least One Black Woman PM'd and thanked me for standing up........
I think Deuchu's use of the word Redskin was more for Satirical purposes than to offend anyone...........I believe he was acknowledging the perjorative use of the word back in the day.

I have already apologized, and I think most people realize, especially the ones that realize I'm of African American decent, that it was not meant to be offensive.
It's sad when people come to their own conclusions that have no idea what is actually going on, but I should know better since it takes place more frequently on the internet than any other place.

[Spence]

SKINZ, I don't think Jesus was crazy if He was mistaken in his belief that He was the Son of God. We're used to thinking of such people as crazy because in our time they are in asylums or wandering the streets or forming suicidal cults. I don't pretend to know for certain if Jesus was the Son of God. Either He was or He was not, but I don't know the answer for sure. I know what I want to think, but I try not to let my wishes dictate my beliefs. [Never easy for a Redskins fan, as you well know!] All I can tell is that from His words and actions, Jesus certainly behaved as if He thought Himself to be the Son of God. That convinces me He was not a liar. His ideas, so revolutionary and so wise, prove to me He was not mad. I've thought about such things in the past, but have long since satisfied myself that Jesus spoke only what He believed to be the truth. That's all I can ask of anyone, even the Son of God.

Imagine if Jesus had said: "Look, guys, I'm not the Son of God. I'm just a guy who has some ideas about how people should treat one another. So here is what I think..."

That would horrify a lot of people. Not me. It wouldn't change my opinion of Him one bit. A great man is a great man, divine or not. I don't challenge the divinity of Christ because I don't know any better. I stick to what I know. What I think is that if God sent anyone, it would have been Jesus. But if He was not the Son of God, does that make his words any less true or important? To some, perhaps. Not to me.

[Spence]

Originally posted by jsarno
have you read the bible??? Seriously...have you read it??? TELL ME ANYWHERE THAT CONDONES IT!!!!! You can't...so don't sit there and tell me something that you are ignorant of.
Yes, I have read the Bible. Quite a bit, in fact. Here are some examples:

“Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" (1 Peter 2:18). "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ" (Ephesians 6:5).
TRANSLATION: A slave must completely obey and fear his master, even if his master is cruel and unjust.

"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids” (Leviticus 25:44).
TRANSLATION: The Israelites may enslave the heathen tribes around them.

“If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever” (Exodus 21:2-6).
TRANSLATION: Male Hebrew slaves go free after six years.

“And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money” (Exodus 21:20-21).
TRANSLATION: Killing your slave outright is punishable, but if you beat your slave and he survives several days before dying, you should not be punished.

“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:7-10).
TRANSLATION: It is permissible to sell one's daughter into slavery.

“Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever" (Leviticus 25:44-46).
TRANSLATION: Those who are not Israelites are to be enslaved by the Israelites.

“Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God” (Colossians 3:22; see also Ephesians 6:5-6). and “Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things” (Titus 2:9-10).
TRANSLATION: Jesus does not like slaves who are rude and dishonest.

There you go.

[Keino]

Im not sure I understand what You are getting at Skinz.

Your argument seems to be that Judaism and Islam were not inspired by God, yet both pre-date christianity AND Both acknowledge Abraham as the Patriarch who made the First covenant with God. You then point to the New Testament which Im sure you realize is not acknowledged by Judaism. Again, are you saying Jesus is the sole Source for divine Inspiration? How is it then an Illiterate man (mohammad) can write the Quran (which rhymes like an old epic poem when read in Arabic), or Moses was able to part the Red Sea. Surely these people had never heard of Jesus of Nazareth. Also I would encourage you to check out the Term Nazarite, found in Genesis........

What I don't get about Christians and the way the religion is practiced is how one of the 10 Commandments is violated every week yet claim to be using the bible as their guide. What do I mean?
The One commandment that goes into the most detail talks about remembering the Sabbath and keeping it Holy, yet when the So-Called Holy Roman Empire declared itself authority on all religious matters moved the Sabbath to Sunday (the 1st day of the week, not 7th), to make the transisiton from paganism to Christianity smooth. Before Constantine accepted Christianity, the weekly Sunday gathering was to pay homage to the Sun God.

Furthermore, Jesus' only demonstrationn of anger that I recall was when there were merchants and Gamblers in the temple on the Sabbath day, yet Modern Churches almost always have Bingo games (for Money ) and the like. Or what about the Rules on what is acceptable to eat (ie Swine & Shellfish) found in both Deuteronomy and Kings? Do those rules now get tossed out the window? Isn't bowing to a cross the same as worshiping an Idol? A cross by the way a means of Capital Punishment by the Roman Empire.

Didn't Jesus say he didn't come to change his father's laws, that there are 2 real commandments...to love god with all your heart mind and soul with the 2nd being like unto it...Love your neighbor as yourself?

These unresolved Contradictions are why I don't accept Christianity the Religion. Not to mention Popes Blessing War planes bombing Ethiopia and Christian Churches Supporting the Slave trade and encouraging the slaughter of Millions of people. I think jsarno said it best.....these things (Like religion) are of Man, not of God.

For the record, I believe in the Divinity of Jesus, I have read the Bible a few times (And still refer to it), but none of that means that my belief system should be imposed on anyone esle. The Founding Fathers were very clear on this point in the Consitution with the Establishment clause.

[jsarno]

Spence,
Galatians 5:1 - For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Maybe the problem is you don't UNDERSTAND it. Therefore, I am willing to help you.
All your quotes are outdated. I can show you reference to people with strange eating habits that are outdated as well. This is a common problem, but I am glad you have read it (assuming you have and not just typed words into a google bible search or something). Each one of those quotes (some were taken out of context, and I think one was directed at humans towards God...we are considered servants and He is the master you know) were taken in some form out of context. I apologize that I do not have the time to explain right now, I will try later. Not all even mean "SLAVERY".
But to make a blanket statement, Jesus put an end to all slavery with his death.
Please remember that alot of phrases from old bibles do not reflect EXACTLY how we use them today. For instance Masters and servants.

I just reread this and see a part that was important was accidentally deleted, so I am editing. Hopefully you haven't already commented on this.
a lot of laws and regulations were made regarding slavery and how to treat them since slavery was a form of currency, some of the quotes you have made were to those. That is what I speak of when I say "outdated".

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Spence
SKINZ, I don't think Jesus was crazy if He was mistaken in his belief that He was the Son of God. We're used to thinking of such people as crazy because in our time they are in asylums or wandering the streets or forming suicidal cults. I don't pretend to know for certain if Jesus was the Son of God. Either He was or He was not, but I don't know the answer for sure. I know what I want to think, but I try not to let my wishes dictate my beliefs. [Never easy for a Redskins fan, as you well know!] All I can tell is that from His words and actions, Jesus certainly behaved as if He thought Himself to be the Son of God. That convinces me He was not a liar. His ideas, so revolutionary and so wise, prove to me He was not mad. I've thought about such things in the past, but have long since satisfied myself that Jesus spoke only what He believed to be the truth. That's all I can ask of anyone, even the Son of God.

Imagine if Jesus had said: "Look, guys, I'm not the Son of God. I'm just a guy who has some ideas about how people should treat one another. So here is what I think..."

That would horrify a lot of people. Not me. It wouldn't change my opinion of Him one bit. A great man is a great man, divine or not. I don't challenge the divinity of Christ because I don't know any better. I stick to what I know. What I think is that if God sent anyone, it would have been Jesus. But if He was not the Son of God, does that make his words any less true or important? To some, perhaps. Not to me.



Once again Spence... well said and well written. A point of view that is thought through and strong. Cant say I agree with your assessment of the sort of man worthy to take life advice from... but I still respect your well-put beliefs.

You had better stop it or else I may have to be nice to you!:D

[Spence]

Originally posted by Keino
Im not sure I understand what You are getting at Skinz.

Your argument seems to be that Judaism and Islam were not inspired by God, yet both pre-date christianity

Judaism predates Christianity. The conception of Islam is generally recognized to be dated at 632 A.D., when the Prophet Mohammed had his vision. Christianity, then, is about 600 years older than Islam.

Other than that, I agree with just about everything you've posted, KEINO.

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Keino
Im not sure I understand what You are getting at Skinz.

Your argument seems to be that Judaism and Islam were not inspired by God, yet both pre-date christianity AND Both acknowledge Abraham as the Patriarch who made the First covenant with God. You then point to the New Testament which Im sure you realize is not acknowledged by Judaism. Again, are you saying Jesus is the sole Source for divine Inspiration? How is it then an Illiterate man (mohammad) can write the Quran (which rhymes like an old epic poem when read in Arabic), or Moses was able to part the Red Sea. Surely these people had never heard of Jesus of Nazareth. Also I would encourage you to check out the Term Nazarite, found in Genesis........

What I don't get about Christians and the way the religion is practiced is how one of the 10 Commandments is violated every week yet claim to be using the bible as their guide. What do I mean?
The One commandment that goes into the most detail talks about remembering the Sabbath and keeping it Holy, yet when the So-Called Holy Roman Empire declared itself authority on all religious matters moved the Sabbath to Sunday (the 1st day of the week, not 7th), to make the transisiton from paganism to Christianity smooth. Before Constantine accepted Christianity, the weekly Sunday gathering was to pay homage to the Sun God.

Furthermore, Jesus' only demonstrationn of anger that I recall was when there were merchants and Gamblers in the temple on the Sabbath day, yet Modern Churches almost always have Bingo games (for Money ) and the like. Or what about the Rules on what is acceptable to eat (ie Swine & Shellfish) found in both Deuteronomy and Kings? Do those rules now get tossed out the window? Isn't bowing to a cross the same as worshiping an Idol? A cross by the way a means of Capital Punishment by the Roman Empire.

Didn't Jesus say he didn't come to change his father's laws, that there are 2 real commandments...to love god with all your heart mind and soul with the 2nd being like unto it...Love your neighbor as yourself?

These unresolved Contradictions are why I don't accept Christianity the Religion. Not to mention Popes Blessing War planes bombing Ethiopia and Christian Churches Supporting the Slave trade and encouraging the slaughter of Millions of people. I think jsarno said it best.....these things (Like religion) are of Man, not of God.

For the record, I believe in the Divinity of Jesus, I have read the Bible a few times (And still refer to it), but none of that means that my belief system should be imposed on anyone esle. The Founding Fathers were very clear on this point in the Consitution with the Establishment clause.



I must say I agree with most of what you just said Keino! I have done substantial research into the history of the Church, (Constantine and that sort of thing)... I think I need to make one thing very clear...

I am not into RELIGION... but into a RELATIONSHIP. I have been a Pastor for 8 years now and have not seen 1 person helped in their lives by RELIGION. (In fact Ive seen many hurt by it). RELIGION is rules and regs made by man. RELIGION is knowing about God... but a RELATIONSHIP knows God personally! That is what Jesus is all about... and that is what I am all about as well.

The very term "Christian" means "Christ-like"... or "one who is part of"... such as Corinthian was one part of Corinth... Cesearean was one who was part of Ceasar (like a soldier in his army)... American, Russian, Indian, etc etc.

I wont give some misguided religious person the power over my life that many people give them... by using their misguided representation of Jesus to form my personal opinion of what He stood for. That is why Im not into arguing religion or trying to slap some religious label on other people.

I talk about Jesus... who He was... what He stood for... what He taught and said... If I follow that then Im good... otherwise I get into religion and start trying to hurt others and make my point loudly.

That is it for me... Jesus and the Redskins... everything else is a waste of my time.


Furthermore, Jesus did show anger a few more times besides the cleansing of the temple... he always responded angrily to the religious folks (the Pharisees, Saduccees, etc).


I appreciate your response my friend... and totally respect your position. I could go further into details about the difference between Mohammad and Jesus... but I guess I can save that for later.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Keino
These unresolved Contradictions are why I don't accept Christianity the Religion. Not to mention Popes Blessing War planes bombing Ethiopia and Christian Churches Supporting the Slave trade and encouraging the slaughter of Millions of people. I think jsarno said it best.....these things (Like religion) are of Man, not of God.

I'm going to try not to Catholic thump, but you said we bow to the cross (not a common practice in all Christian religions) and something I do not partake of. But I understand they do it as to honor Jesus and his death on the cross for our salvations and freedom from the chains of sin. I will say that I do fully believe that a bow to Mary is worshipping a false idol since she has no devine powers or of any significance other than the womb to which Jesus was bore. A lot of Catholics ignore the verses about Jesus brothers as well. Long story really.
I have a massive problem with popes etc. To me he's just another guy. If God wanted us to bow to a pope or some sort of guy in "higher authority" he would have told me so in the bible. This is not to say that Catholics are going to hell. I believe their heart to be in the right place, and that just may be how we will be judged. Only God knows.
If we just keep the thoughts that God / Jesus is pure without fault, we can see many holes in many religions. This is not to say that each of those religions are wrong. I believe most to have an honest base. (except Muhammad and his teachings) And they try to strive for Jesus like behavior, but man has created MANY "traditions"in religion that have no devine base. I just hope we won't be judged too harshly on it, after all we are but human.
Some churches refuse to allow people with shorts or mini skirts into worship with them, which to me is a clear misguidence. The "Sinner in rags" verse is a prime example of everyone shall be allowed to worship no matter what color or race or clothing preference. I still get looks when I wear sandals, my comment is: Jesus wore sandals, and it's over 100 degrees here everyday for 3-6 months. Does this mean those misguided souls are going to hell? No, they are doing what they believe to be right, in other words, their heart was in the right place however misguided it may be. I understand that, and forgive them of that. This is why I am not as anal as to hold to old christian "traditions", but do sometimes partake of them.
Bottom line is, being a "good" person by itself is not good enough. No matter what you sin, and if you do not repent and be baptised and believe you can not live in heaven for eternity. Is this to say that those whom do not get baptised will not go to heaven???? I don't know what God's grace involves. He might just have this handbook out here to try to guide us, but allow all good doers in. Or he may follow the letter of the law. He IS mercy, so I have no idea. But I'm not going to tempt fate by ignoring His word.
(sorry, kind of went on a rant there)

[Spence]

JSARNO, I'm a church-goer. I understand some of the more fundamentalist Protestant sects don't think much of us Episcopalians, but we use the good old King James Bible and I've read it many times.

In answer to your wondering, I did paste those Bible quotes in, but I didn't get them from the Internet. About 20 months ago I wrote a paper on moral contradictions within the Bible. I just grabbed those quotes from the paper I wrote.

I think you've misunderstood me. I have not stated that I believe the New Testament endorses slavery, though the Old Testament surely does. [The Bible is often filled with passages which seem to contradict each other. It may have been inspired by God, but you can tell it was written by a bunch of different men.] Nor do I believe that slavery is a Christian institution. However, it is a fact that Christianity was used [or misused, if you prefer] to justify slavery and segregation, as well as a host of other sins. That does not mean Christianity is responsible for those sins, but people who called themselves Christian were responsible. Were those people being good Christians? I think you and I would agree they were not, but that was not always the case. For example, pogroms that murdered thousands of Jews in Europe would strike both of us as profoundly un-Christian. However, the mainstream leaders of Christian churches have often endorsed and even demanded such atrocities.

The point is not that people such as myself question the decency of Christianity or Christ Himself. We question the decency of many people who call themselves Christians. That's why we don't like people such as Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson telling us what to do. Churches [and mosques and synagogues and temples] may be inspired by God [or gods], but on Earth they are governed by men and women. As long as that is the case, I reserve the right to tell these mortal men and women to butt the hell out of my business and let me live my life as I see fit.

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Spence
As long as that is the case, I reserve the right to tell these mortal men and women to butt the hell out of my business and let me live my life as I see fit.


EXACTLY! (MY Libertarian buddy!):)

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Spence
About 20 months ago I wrote a paper on moral contradictions within the Bible.

Tom, I would love to hear some of those...

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
[B]
I am not into RELIGION... but into a RELATIONSHIP. I have been a Pastor for 8 years now and have not seen 1 person helped in their lives by RELIGION. (In fact Ive seen many hurt by it). RELIGION is rules and regs made by man. RELIGION is knowing about God... but a RELATIONSHIP knows God personally! That is what Jesus is all about... and that is what I am all about as well.[B]

You know, this is exactly what I've been trying to say but can't seem to find the right words. What you summed up in about 6 sentences has been taking me about 1000 sentences. That is very insightful, thank you.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Spence
In answer to your wondering, I did paste those Bible quotes in, but I didn't get them from the Internet. About 20 months ago I wrote a paper on moral contradictions within the Bible. I just grabbed those quotes from the paper I wrote.

I'd like to hear some if you ever have time to paste it here.

I think you've misunderstood me.

I think you are right...I apologize for the misunderstanding. (I might have been lumping you in with others as well, this tends to happen when I am here and doing work at the same time...things mesh)

I have not stated that I believe the New Testament endorses slavery, though the Old Testament surely does.
I'm glad you pointed that out, I was racking my brain trying to come up with a convincing and detailed subject to help you understand. I see you already do.

[The Bible is often filled with passages which seem to contradict each other.

I've heard this before, I actually don't think it's true, and here's why. Since I started studying the bible back in 91, I came across a lot of (what I thought) contradictions as well, but after more years of reading, I realized it all had worked itself out and it was understood. The bible is an extremely complex book and tough to comprehend, while I respect your stance, I do not agree about the conradictions.

It may have been inspired by God, but you can tell it was written by a bunch of different men.]

absolutely, in fact in some cases it tellsyou who was even writing it.

Nor do I believe that slavery is a Christian institution. However, it is a fact that Christianity was used [or misused, if you prefer] to justify slavery and segregation, as well as a host of other sins. That does not mean Christianity is responsible for those sins, but people who called themselves Christian were responsible. Were those people being good Christians? I think you and I would agree they were not, but that was not always the case. For example, pogroms that murdered thousands of Jews in Europe would strike both of us as profoundly un-Christian. However, the mainstream leaders of Christian churches have often endorsed and even demanded such atrocities.

My main beef is that I do not want to be lumped in that group. It's quite offensive, and I was under the impression you were saying it was a Christian habit etc. I apologize again, I grossly misunderstood you. I hear the same arguments over and over again, and yours was presented in the same wrapper, I just didn't listen enough to the middle. My sincere apologies. We see eye to eye on this last comment.

The point is not that people such as myself question the decency of Christianity or Christ Himself. We question the decency of many people who call themselves Christians.
Is this not also what I was saying?

That's why we don't like people such as Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson telling us what to do. Churches [and mosques and synagogues and temples] may be inspired by God [or gods], but on Earth they are governed by men and women. As long as that is the case, I reserve the right to tell these mortal men and women to butt the hell out of my business and let me live my life as I see fit.

I agree. I think we were both misunderstanding each other to some point. You seem to have very similar views to myself.
Please remember that some people do feel it is there duty to inform you of Jesus and His teachings, i feel this way as well, but all I want to do is plant a seed. It's up to the respective person to water that seed. Those ones that try tocram it down your throat are sickening.
I once had mormans come to my house 5 times in 7 days. (same guys) It wasn't until I was woke up and pissed off that the door bell rang AGAIN, that I told them where to go. They didn't like the idea that I was a Christian, and kept bugging me (like that was going to change my mind). The last thing they said was "Who is your God", and I said with a dead serious face "Joe Thiesman, now leave me alone" and slammed the door. That was the last I saw of them.

[Keino]

I need to clarify my statement regarding Islam....By the way Great discussion.

What I meant is that Islam as a religion didn't start until after 600 AD, but most Muslims will tell you that their first Patriarch was Abraham and their religion starts with the union of Hagar and Abrahamam and their son Ishmael who was sent West to the Arabian Peninsula due to the jealousy of Sarai..........

[jsarno]

someone way back said (can't remember who) something to the effect of "are Jews going to heaven?".
For some strange reason that was on my mind last night, and I think I have a personal hang up on the Jews since they believe Jesus to be just another man.
I have trouble beleiving a group of individuals that KILLED CHRIST himself would be welcome into heaven when they didn't even realize the error of their ways. (still don't) Pilot working under Caesar (romans) was going to pardon Jesus, but the Jews carried out the execution (which was part of God's grand scheme anyway).
I find this interesting since the Jews are upset about how they are portrayed in the upcoming Mel Gibson film where Gibson plays Christ. If they truly believed Him to be another person, then they were correct by executing Him for false impersonation. So what is their fuss about?
They either believe 1- He was the son of God and they killed Him, or 2- He was an impersonator, and justly put to death. Hard to understand why this is even an argument.
(so I guess I really have problems with 2 religions, islam and judism)
My biggest beef (and there are several) with Islam is the condoning of homosexuality with their life after death. You are allowed 72 virgins of EITHER sex after you die. I have a massive hang up with it. Plus the english translation (which we all know did not translate well) seems to be written by a child and makes no sense. Very strange things in there that don't add up. If it was truly from a devine spirit, it would be able to be translated to ALL!
I guess another big hang up is of Muhammad who was clearly not devine with his documented sins etc. To me Muhammad was just another David Kouresh (but at least Muhammad did good during his time on earth).
At least the Bible is so well written, that even if it was false, the man who orchastrated it must of been the most intellegent writer of all time.