[REBOOT]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

Quote

Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/TomJeff.gif
Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

Quote

Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus.

....and this was 200 years ago... sigh..

[Taphophilia]

The US at the time of the founding father's wasn't even all that religious. Science and reason was the norm of the day. It wasn't until the 1830's that The Great Awakening started that forever changed the US, Christianity, and on to the World. This is when Evangelical Christianity swept the nation and Darby's Dispensationalism was introduced ultimately caught on.

I am still reading about this so I'm not sure how it started

Taph

[Agent Ytnok]

One of the errors in logic made by the fundies is to confuse a "Christian nation" with a "nation of Christians". All of their evidence consists of the fact that many, probably most, of the Founders professed one version of Christianity or another. They further point to rhetorical flourishes that reference God or Creator in some form, e.g. "endowed by their Creator" and "A.D." on the constitution.
It is illogical, however, to then conclude that our nation was founded on Christian principles. Proof of that argument would have to come in the form of finding, in particular, which Christian principles were incorporated into the Constitution. The answer of course is, none, at least not specific principles. One could argue that the idea in Christianity that all are equal before god became translated into all are equal before government, but even this is a stretch and certainly doesn't qualify us as a Christian nation. I do think its fair to concede that we are a nation of Christians, i.e. most of our citizens profess Christianity as their religion, but there is no argument to show that we are a Christian nation.

[REBOOT]

Agent Ytnok, on Apr 19 2006, 04:39 PM, said:

I do think its fair to concede that we are a nation of Christians, i.e. most of our citizens profess Christianity as their religion, but there is no argument to show that we are a Christian nation.

... and fundier than modern Europe to boot !!!
Why bother exploring if the colonists evolve into fundies :Doh:
http://www.sjtent.com/EF/shoppingcart/images/smallimages/80661.jpg

Lets build an ark and go back !!!

Attached File(s)

•  ark.jpg (30.68K)
  Number of downloads: 37

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

I fail to see how it makes a bit a difference, freedom is granted by the Constitution and it only takes the ones who feel trodden upon to make a stand-if they ever feel like uniting that is.

[Ouroboros]

I do think that most of the founders were Christians, and some of them were far from it. But I do think that they intentionally tried to build a country that was not based on religious ideas. They wanted a secular and separate government. So even if they were religious, they didn't make the constitution based on their religion. They could have been muslims, pagans, hindus or whatever, it would not have made any difference.

[Taphophilia]

Sending King George III a "Declaration of Independance" was high treason and considered a greivous sin against God.

[Ouroboros]

Well, there you go. The Declaration was a sin against God, so it can't have been a Christian act.

[Varokhar]

Any act of rebellion against established government is a sinful act, according to the Babble. Therefore, the Founders couldn't have been all that Xian, since they advocated sedition.

I wish I had the Babble verses handy that fordib rebellion against established authority, but I do recall them. I'd love to see a fundy try to justify that.

[Ouroboros]

Varokhar, on Apr 19 2006, 04:44 PM, said:

I wish I had the Babble verses handy that fordib rebellion against established authority, but I do recall them. I'd love to see a fundy try to justify that.

This one?

Quote

Ro 13:1
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Does it include Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Did Bush sin against God when he declared war in Iraq?

[Varokhar]

Thanks, Han. And yes, I wonder that, too. According to that verse, every act of war is therefore a sin, since it defies the established authority of the land.

More proof of how Xians just do not read their own holy books.

[Ouroboros]

Varokhar, on Apr 19 2006, 04:57 PM, said:

Thanks, Han. And yes, I wonder that, too. According to that verse, every act of war is therefore a sin, since it defies the established authority of the land.

More proof of how Xians just do not read their own holy books.

I think, as an atheist, and just by doing some light research now and then, you and I are probably still reading more than 99% of the Christians! I have met way too many Christians that haven't read the whole Bible yet. I've (like I've said many times before on this site, and the same goes for a majority of the members here) read the whole Bible several times over. And for some, that was the cause of their deconversion! The Bible is the most dangerous book for Christians, not Harry Potter or secular literature, but their own Woolly Babble, that's why they don't read it. And that's why it was translated to Latin for such a long time, because the Church didn't want the parishioners to actually know what it said.

[Taphophilia]

King George III was not only the King of England, he was the head of the Church of England, like a pope.

Taph

[AtheistMommy]

HanSolo, on Apr 19 2006, 06:59 PM, said:

Well, there you go. The Declaration was a sin against God, so it can't have been a Christian act.

:lmao: Yup! And this is exactly the point I bring up every time I hear this crap. I read a blog that said we have had no presidents that were not Christian. What kind of BS! I had to reply.

Quote

Ro 13:1
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Does this include Jesus? According to the bible he was pretty much an activist.

[Ouroboros]

AtheistMommy, on Apr 19 2006, 05:17 PM, said:

Does this include Jesus? According to the bible he was pretty much an activist.

That reminds me...

Back in Sweden, when I grew up, there were socialist Christians that claimed Jesus was the first socialist!!! You ever heard that here? I wonder if McCarthy would like to hear that Jesus was a commie! :HaHa:

[Taphophilia]

HanSolo, on Apr 19 2006, 08:09 PM, said:

Varokhar, on Apr 19 2006, 04:57 PM, said:

Thanks, Han. And yes, I wonder that, too. According to that verse, every act of war is therefore a sin, since it defies the established authority of the land.

More proof of how Xians just do not read their own holy books.

I think, as an atheist, and just by doing some light research now and then, you and I are probably still reading more than 99% of the Christians! I have met way too many Christians that haven't read the whole Bible yet. I've (like I've said many times before on this site, and the same goes for a majority of the members here) read the whole Bible several times over. And for some, that was the cause of their deconversion! The Bible is the most dangerous book for Christians, not Harry Potter or secular literature, but their own Woolly Babble, that's why they don't read it. And that's why it was translated to Latin for such a long time, because the Church didn't want the parishioners to actually know what it said.

I don't know too many Christians who have read more than a few passages, that there pastor tells them to read.
I think a lot of the problem is, isn't that they don't want to read it. Most Christians have a problem understanding a lot of it. Especially, when most Christians read the KJV. Language has changed a lot in 400 years.

[Ouroboros]

Taphophilia, on Apr 19 2006, 05:22 PM, said:

I don't know too many Christians who have read more than a few passages, that there pastor tells them to read.
I think a lot of the problem is, isn't that they don't want to read it. Most Christians have a problem understanding a lot of it. Especially, when most Christians read the KJV. Language has changed a lot in 400 years.

That's why the KVJ1611 movement just makes it worse. If they at least got a NIV or something and tried to read some of it.


When I was Christian, I had 10-15 different translations, and read consistently in several of them. Just because I knew the translations couldn't do justice to the original text or meaning. And I read it in different languages too (poorly, but I tried, which should give me a little star in my book. :) )

[Taphophilia]

HanSolo, on Apr 19 2006, 08:24 PM, said:

Taphophilia, on Apr 19 2006, 05:22 PM, said:

I don't know too many Christians who have read more than a few passages, that there pastor tells them to read.
I think a lot of the problem is, isn't that they don't want to read it. Most Christians have a problem understanding a lot of it. Especially, when most Christians read the KJV. Language has changed a lot in 400 years.

That's why the KVJ1611 movement just makes it worse. If they at least got a NIV or something and tried to read some of it.


When I was Christian, I had 10-15 different translations, and read consistently in several of them. Just because I knew the translations couldn't do justice to the original text or meaning. And I read it in different languages too (poorly, but I tried, which should give me a little star in my book. :) )

Whoa! I am impressed Hans! I read the KJV, and later I found some writings by Queen Elizabeth I on line. I could understand the text, because I understood 17th century English. (I went to Christian schools and I was required to read it.)

I think reading the Bible for a Christian is like reading a computer manual and not knowing what a computer is. It's not going to be interpreted the way it was meant. A person who doesn't understand the myths in which the ideas of the Bible were derived isn't going to understand it.

[Varokhar]

Tell me about it, Han. I've read at least as much of the Babble as a non-Xian seeking fallacies in it as I did as a Xian seeking to find things to justify my beliefs. I won't be surprised if, in time, I end up having read more of the Babble then most Xians. I know I've read it more than any family member I can think of.

[Ouroboros]

Taphophilia, on Apr 19 2006, 05:45 PM, said:

I think reading the Bible for a Christian is like reading a computer manual and not knowing what a computer is. It's not going to be interpreted the way it was meant. A person who doesn't understand the myths in which the ideas of the Bible were derived isn't going to understand it.

Yeah. When I was Christian, I was one that actually thought it was important to know the Bible. I used to think of it this way:

Imagine your in a car, rolling down a hill, going for a cliff.

You don't know how to drive the car, and you don't know how to stop it or steer.

There is a book on the seat that will explain it to you.

You refuse to read, but you claim you will avoid the cliff.

That's the Christian of today. They claim to be Christian and know what's going on and have it under control. But the truth is that if (hypothetically) that God exists and Jesus is the only way to salvation, why the fucking hell (sorry, we Swedes have bad language skills), again why the fucking hell doesn't a Christian take their faith more serious and read the one and only book that God himself supposedly wrote for them to read???

What the fuck is up with them? It's as simple as learning to poor a glass of water when I'm thirsty, but the idiot heads of Christians (not all, but most of them), don't even bother to learn how to get the glass out!

When I meet Christians that have not read the Bible, I immediately assume they are completely ignorant of what they claim to believe in. They truly don't know what Christianity is.

I can claim to be a Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon, Jewish and Pagan, all at the same time, and right now, without ever reading any of the literature, because according to Christians, you don't have to. You only need to claim it, then ignore to retrieve the knowledge.

Maybe I should put that on my sigline, "I'm just as much a Christian-Muslim-Hindu-Jewish-Pagan, as you Christians are Christians. Because I don't care to read the holy books either."