The Rightful Constitutional Christian Ownership of America

if they ever do think critically they find they have been had - so they do whatever they can to avoid doing so

This is the number one reason for people clinging to their religion- and the fact that is gives them an excuse to never take responsibility for anything they do.

Originally posted by onecraftydude
They want something that cannot be proven or refuted to be taught alongside scientific fact as one and the same.

That Scientific Fact wouldn't be a Theory would it?

You see, I ask questions too.

Ciao

Shane

reply to post by Shane


do you actually know what a scientific theory is??

reply to post by Sailor Sam

Seeing as the founding fathers of the USA were Freemasons, one would hardly call the country "Christian".

I believe most of the Founders were Deists, and a small amount of research will confirm this for anyone who cares to look it up.

Thomas Jefferson on the Christian Religion:

The God of the Old Testament -- the God which Christians worship -- Jefferson pronounces "a being of terrific character -- cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust" (Works Vol. iv., p. 325).

His own opinion respecting the above is expressed in a letter to John Adams, written a short time previous to his death:

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (Works, Vol. iv, p. 365).

"Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Corypheus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus" (Ibid.).

In a letter to James Smith, Jefferson says:

"The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs" (Works, Vol. iv., p. 360).

source

One of the many attacks on our country from the Religious Right is the claim that our country is a Christian Nation...not just that the majority of people are Christians, but that the country itself was founded by Christians, for Christians. However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. Those people who spread this lie are known as Christian Revisionists. They are attempting to rewrite history, in much the same way as holocaust deniers are. The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the bible was true. They were Freethinkers who relied on their reason, not their faith.

If the U.S. was founded on the Christian religion, the Constitution would clearly say so--but it does not. Nowhere does the Constitution say: "The United States is a Christian Nation", or anything even close to that. In fact, the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not even once. Nowhere in the Constitution is religion mentioned, except in exclusionary terms. When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had.

source

Are you in the circle of trust?
The Truth About Religion in America: Deistic Founding Fathers Hated Superstition
The Truth About Religion in America: Deistic Founding Fathers Hated Superstition

The claim that America was founded as a Christian nation — a favorite of Right-wing Christians — is just not true.

Once they begin to circulate, falsehoods—like counterfeit currency—are surprisingly tenacious. It doesn’t matter that there’s no backing for them. The only thing that counts is that people believe they have backing. Then, like bad coins, they turn up again and again.

One counterfeit idea that circulates with frustrating stubbornness is the claim that America was founded as a Christian nation. It’s one of the Christian Right’s mantras and a favorite talking point for televangelists, religious bloggers, born-again authors and lobbyists, and pulpit preachers.

source
Right there is a whole five minutes of research on the subject, and as you see, the results say NO! The Founding Fathers were not Christians, America was not founded on Christian principles, and the Constitution was not based on the Bible. In fact, I believe it was based on the Articles of Confederation, the The Constitution of Virginia, and the The Magna Carta.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull

The first commandment of the ten commandments is a ban on freedom of religion.

The first amendment establishes freedom of religion.

Two things here Titen, (Hello by the way, Longtime since we x'ed paths)

The First Commandment isn't a Ban on Religion. It's a Statement of fact. Though shall have no other god before ME, is not a religion. Religion is the added stuff man associates to mess up the fact.

Second the First Amendment isn't what you suggest, not completely anyhow.

The First Amendment is enacted inorder to ensure the "State" or as was the case in the Homelands, The "Crown" are not the principles which control both the State and the Church. "The Separation of Church and State" is what the First Amendment was to strive to accomplish.

Of Course, we today view this terminology in altered means to suggest that State must banish and/or eliminate all references of GOD, (ie the Ten Commandments being taken from Parks and Courthouses) or "Creationist History" taken from Schools, along with the Lord's Prayer, etc.....

We missed the main point. The Crown and the State said what was, and what wasn't in respects to Worship, which it has no right to do. It does have the ability to support a viewpoint, but can not by edict make that "one" view universal. People died, just because the State or Crown decided they did not follow the States or Crown religious views.

That was the reason the Pilgrims came to this land. It wasn't to mix it up and to have a Feast with the Native American Population. It was to worship as they saw fit, without the State or Crown telling them how to.

I trust you understand why I noted this Titen. The comment you offered is just too important to not be spelled out, because today, we really have lost the intent and embraced something altogether altered from the Original meaning.

There are only a handful of parallels between Biblical laws and American laws and those are usually the common sense ones that nearly all civilizations have (such as outlawing stealing, murdering, etc). Most of the Old Testament laws can no longer be followed because they would get you arrested, and rightfully so.

Personally, I don't understand what it is you are suggesting, specifically to being arrested, and rightfully so. Are you meaning laws of the land imposed by MAN such as Stoning, and such? I can not see how the 10 Commandments would fall under an area where that would be a concern.

It should also be clear, the Judicial System was a alot different. Say an accident occured due to your Oxen trampling your neighbors fields, and when that took place, the Neighbors son was killed, the penalty for this would be a banishment from the area, until the Days of the Judge ended, (He Dies). Then the accused could return home. Just an example thrown out as such, an example.

As for the New Testament Jesus never attempts to set up a new version of the Mosaic law and even defends the Old law to an extent.

100% Correct. The only thing, as far as I have been able to surmise, is Christ came to end the sacrifice, since 2000 some odd years where approaching where NO ONE would be able to be "fit" for heaven. The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, (roughly) and is still awaiting the rebuilding today, which maybe sooner rather than later.

Nice chatting.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Shane

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull

The first commandment of the ten commandments is a ban on freedom of religion.

The first amendment establishes freedom of religion.

Two things here Titen, (Hello by the way, Longtime since we x'ed paths)

The First Commandment isn't a Ban on Religion.

He didnt' say it was a ban on religion - he said it was a ban on FREEDOM of religion.

It's a Statement of fact.

No, it isn't. It does not say "I am the only god", or "there are no other gods than me" - which might be statements of fact (if they were true)

it is an order - a commandment about how to behave - not a fact.

Though shall have no other god before ME, is not a religion. Religion is the added stuff man associates to mess up the fact.

Second the First Amendment isn't what you suggest, not completely anyhow.

It is exactly what he said it is, and you have totally failed to understand what he said.

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
reply to post by Shane

 

How can Jesus be the son of god when the new testament traces his lineage back, through male forefathers only, to at least King David.

A very good question, Sailor Sam, one I would have asked myself. Makes a good point too. If, and a big IF, Jesus was a real man who actually lived, was a human being, just like we all are, and not a God, nor a son of God. Must remember, the whole New Testament was created by a Roman Family, probably at the behest of Emperor Constantine. The book was created to quell the rioting and dissent from the various Christians sects in Rome at the time.

The True Authorship of the New Testament

THE PISO FAMILY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

reply to post by autowrench


That is not true - there are manuscripts around of much of het new testament that date before Constantine.

He certainly must have had a considerable influence on determining what was cannon and what was not, and of course he instituted the Council of Nicea and made sunday the day of worship - but there is no doubt that at least much of the new testament was writen befoer he ruled.

reply to post by Shane


The first commandment is a command, hence the word commandment. The Israelites were not permitted to convert to worshiping other gods and there are numerous places in the old testament where that is made absolutely clear. Also the making of graven images, idols or representations of god(s), was strictly prohibited, a commandment that most modern day churches directly violate with religious art and symbolism.

The first amendment establishes a separation of church and state, meaning that the state, or crown as you refer to, cannot pick a religion an force it on people. More than that the majority cannot force a religion on the minority, meaning that each American can chose whatever God they want without fear of reprisal. Congress, the state, cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion and certainly one citizen is not allowed to prohibit another's free exercise of religion either.

Are you meaning laws of the land imposed by MAN such as Stoning, and such? I can not see how the 10 Commandments would fall under an area where that would be a concern.

There are over 600 laws in the Jewish scriptures Shane, the ten commandments are not the only commandments or laws in place. Immediately after the ten commandments are given in Exodus 20 God's next order of business is to explain to Moses the rules of slavery and how the Israelites are allowed to keep slaves, sell their daughters into slavery, and even beat their slaves.

The point is that many who support the Christian-Nation myth like to pretend that our laws and rights are somehow based in scripture, but this is absolute nonsense if you actually compare the two systems of government. As you say their judicial system is a lot different.

reply to post by Sailor Sam


Luke's Genealogy of Mary traces back to Nathan, which was a son of David.

As you are likely aware, Joseph traces his family through Solomon, which was another, son of David in Matthew.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Shane

 

do you actually know what a scientific theory is??

From this side of the screen, I would offer, the following.

Scientific Theory is an assumption made through observations which lays forth a structured set of findings that lead to a presumed conclusion.

Take the E word for example.

Discoveries have been observed to have occurred, and progression of those discoveries set forth a graph that depicts a series of adaptations that result in changes occuring over time pointing us in the general direction to where we have materials that can be referenced to support the concept that Evolution occurred.

To me, still on this side of the screen, I have little difficulties with Evolution.

But, Evolution as it is today, does not address ALL, of what has occurred.

I believe 100% Creationism is also part of the sequence.

Ciao

Shane

reply to post by Shane


So, no, you do not understand what a theory is in science.

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

- from wiki

Creationism can never be a scientific theory because it has no possibility of ever being "based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

not being able to be a scientific theory does not make creationism true or false - it is just a fact about the nature of creationism.

It is paradoxical that creationists want the idea to be accepted as a science - they understand the power of science and want to have their religious explaination given the same weight and kudos, and yet they insist on rejecting the science that contradicts it.

It is gross hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

He didnt' say it was a ban on religion - he said it was a ban on FREEDOM of religion.

You again? Hmmmm Well my friend, (if I may) I will play.

"You shall have no other gods before me".

GOD, instructing through Moses, the 1st Commandment.

Strange as this may sound, pick a god. Anyone of those you would wish. Research what that god has to say about who he/she/it maybe, and you will find a FATHER, which in most cases this god will be in defiance of.

Now, this isn't the case, carte blanche, since it maybe argued in some cases, such as that found in the Mithra Sect, we maybe talking about the same GOD now being discussed giving Moses the 1st Commandment. Abraham did come from UR, which is really close to the Origin of that Deity.

But Ba'al, Marduk, Adonis, Apollo, Isis, Ishtar (who happens to hold the Flaming Torch in New York as a representation) to name a few, all have background. In many cases they are altered in name according to the next group worshiping them, but nothing has truly changed.

They are basically all, the Fallen, in definition opted by myself. They are basically all, Alien Beings, in definition opted by others. They are still, all the Sons of GOD, nevertheless.

True, they came here, they took the daughters of man, they created hybrid offspring, some of whom, still are here.
True they set up Sects around the globe and acted as gods requesting this or that to be done in their glory.
True they gave mankind teachings, which in all honesty, we could have done without, but that cat's out of the bag.
True, simple man believes these must be gods or goddesses since they are far superior to simple man.

I get what Titen meant. I know what Titen noted.

What you miss in this 1st Commandment is, there are no other gods before HIM. He is their Father.

It is exactly what he said it is, and you have totally failed to understand what he said.

I argue, that's not the case.

It is to ensure the Liberty of one's self to Worship as he/she sees fit, without having the Government telling he/she how. That is the freedom of religion it was addressing.

It also has given carte blanche to ALL to worship as they may see fit and to find similar security in knowing they also can worship freely. And rightfully so, which is Titen's point.

Just because one may have a presumption on a Thought, such as this, there are other intentions that must be remembered as well.

Why was "this" so important to enshrine in the First Amendment? I already noted that.
What other benefits have arisen from "this" taking place? Titen noted that.

So, don't be so hasty to presume I haven't a clue as to what Titen or anyone is offering my friend. We are all entitled to express our views and thoughts freely and in most cases, we encourage this inorder to ensure we can learn, discuss and debate. That's what separates most of us from the Apes or Chickens as the case may be.

Ciao

Shane

reply to post by Shane


How about you adress the opint, instead of making rambling nonsensical excursions.

You said that the commandment to have no other gods before him was not a ban on religion.

but no-one said it was a ban on religion. It was said that it was a ban on FREEDOM of religion - ie you cannot freely worship whoever/whatever you want, because you have to folow this commandment.

it's not esoteric, it's not complicated - it's there simple and easy to see....unless you don't want to?? Hmm..????

reply to post by autowrench


Another fine friend of the Past. How's life?

Well, you have suggested....

The book was created to quell the rioting and dissent from the various Christians sects in Rome at the time.

I do not think the main teachings are as you have offered or suggest.

Certainly Matthew and Mark are distinctly Christ specific dealing with mainly his last three years. Luke also touches upon that, but the majority of the New Testament is Paul and his Scribe, Luke. (Yes, the same Luke).

There are some smaller texts that have been included, and may infact be as you suggest, but I think the Main Premise brought forth in the "construction" of Christ's Church directly, come from one source, which is Paul.

I don't think these where "created" to quell. They where already there. Remember, Paul was a Prisoner of Rome, and bound by it's laws.

Emperor Constantine wasn't "of Rome" and came much later in a time frame.

Just saying, not argueing.

I also will agree with you in one sense.

There was much deviation occurring within the Churches though.

Paul's teaches the Thessalonians about Christ's return and when it will occur.

Paul then has to send another letter to them, because they are already being led astray by falsehoods.

Even by the time when John, the Revelator, scribes the letters to the Seven Churches, it is clear, the church lost it's way, with the two exceptions, (at that time) being the Church of Smyrna and the Church of Philadelphia, which unlike the others, TAUGHT WHO THE CAINITE IS. (My paraphrase to make it short).

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Shane

 

So, no, you do not understand what a theory is in science.

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

- from wiki

Creationism can never be a scientific theory because it has no possibility of ever being "based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

not being able to be a scientific theory does not make creationism true or false - it is just a fact about the nature of creationism.

It is paradoxical that creationists want the idea to be accepted as a science - they understand the power of science and want to have their religious explaination given the same weight and kudos, and yet they insist on rejecting the science that contradicts it.

It is gross hypocrisy.

And I would add not part of the Natural World.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Yeah, I think I cleared that up with the Gaul!.

I wasn't saying you where wrong, just offering some additional considerations, which you duly note as well.

As for those laws, again, what "We" have for a Judicial System in Canada is Black and White to what was in the Days of Israel's march/wander to nationhood.

And there are many of those laws, we find unexceptable today, YES. Stoning was just my "pick out of my head" example for my question. I just didn't see how your comment applied to the Ten Commandments.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
reply to post by Shane

 

How can Jesus be the son of god when the new testament traces his lineage back, through male forefathers only, to at least King David.

A very good question, Sailor Sam, one I would have asked myself. Makes a good point too. If, and a big IF, Jesus was a real man who actually lived, was a human being, just like we all are, and not a God, nor a son of God. Must remember, the whole New Testament was created by a Roman Family, probably at the behest of Emperor Constantine. The book was created to quell the rioting and dissent from the various Christians sects in Rome at the time.

The True Authorship of the New Testament

THE PISO FAMILY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Now if your a Mormon like Mittens God in his physical form came down from planet Kolob and had sex with Mary ... I wonder Baptists and other Christians can even think about voting for Romney ?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


We are moving from Friend to Buddy. That's Devolution.

Your example of verbatim from Wiki is a fine one.

I got no argument with it at all. Maybe I should have also Cut and Pasted, but you asked me, and that's how I express it.

It is paradoxical that creationists want the idea to be accepted as a science - they understand the power of science and want to have their religious explaination given the same weight and kudos, and yet they insist on rejecting the science that contradicts it.

Listen. I don't have a clue as to where YOU get your information from, and who has "told" you what to think, but there is NOTHING that Science offers today, that is a Contradiction to the Bible. I do not reject Science. I have no need to. Science, and since we delved into it, as it is applied within the "Theory of Evolution" is not contrary to anything offered scripturally.

Show me where you get this concept from. I'll show you a man, with a dogma, doctrine and theology that needs to be protected inorder to save or maintain his certain Sect or Cult from reality.

There are some errors in Biblical Translations, which is why I will always utilize the King James 1611 Version. It alone has a specific and simple tool that provides the reader an opportunity to trace back into the Original Texts and allows an understanding of how the 1611 was constructed.

Much like this Thread, a Masonic King James has his name all over the Bible, but we have the chance to see those alterations by studying the Original Texts and the Original Meanings of Verses we find today. No where does it say, Man was Created 6000 Years ago. No where does it say this earth is 8000 Years old, to pick a figure. No where does it say the Adam was the First Man on the Planet.

But yes, the Masonic King James 1611 Bible expresses these, with, (in my own opinion) INTENT. Why is up to you to decide. Maybe that is why your so confused now?

How about you adress the opint, instead of making rambling nonsensical excursions.

You said that the commandment to have no other gods before him was not a ban on religion.

My "rambling nonsensical excursions" are the point. Sorry to be discussing something obviously beyond your comprehension level. I was expecting, or it was my theory anyways , you had some grasp on the area inwhich you are commenting in. Conspiracy in Religion.

Buddy, That's the Conspiracy.

And yes, I said that.

Much like the 1st Amendment, I have my own set of guidelines. My is a Separation of GOD and religion. They are not the same thing.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Shane
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

It is paradoxical that creationists want the idea to be accepted as a science - they understand the power of science and want to have their religious explaination given the same weight and kudos, and yet they insist on rejecting the science that contradicts it.

Listen. I don't have a clue as to where YOU get your information from, and who has "told" you what to think, but there is NOTHING that Science offers today, that is a Contradiction to the Bible. I do not reject Science. I have no need to. Science, and since we delved into it, as it is applied within the "Theory of Evolution" is not contrary to anything offered scripturally.

Read the quote again - I was refering to creationists.

Science does quite specifically contradict the account of the universe, world and life beign created in 7 days.

[quoet]Show me where you get this concept from. I'll show you a man, with a dogma, doctrine and theology that needs to be protected inorder to save or maintain his certain Sect or Cult from reality.

Biblical literalism
Young earth creationism

How about you adress the opint, instead of making rambling nonsensical excursions.

You said that the commandment to have no other gods before him was not a ban on religion.

My "rambling nonsensical excursions" are the point. Sorry to be discussing something obviously beyond your comprehension level. I was expecting, or it was my theory anyways

, you had some grasp on the area inwhich you are commenting in. Conspiracy in Religion.

Buddy, That's the Conspiracy.

And yes, I said that.

Much like the 1st Amendment, I have my own set of guidelines. My is a Separation of GOD and religion. They are not the same thing.

so yet again you refuse or cannot address the issue that the 1st commandment represents a ban on freedom from religion.