posted on April 1, 2004 06:09:22 PM newreamond - Want to answer my question if they prayed to a different God?
Certainly they did. They defined god wholly different than you do, and how each other defined god. You seem to think that when someone called themselves a "christian" it always means the same thing, or when someone refers to god, it always means the same thing. It is as if you see the word "house" and everyone conjures up the same image of a house in their heads.
Even Jefferson....so he rebelled and wouldn't sign the book....big deal....he was attending Church. Was it to worship satin? Witches? Etc?
I beleive he attended just for appearances.
When I speak of Christians...I'm speaking to our past Presidents only.
Jefferson was a past president.
After 9-11 is when the polls were taken about how many profess to be Christians.
They could profess to being superman, that doesn't mean they can fly. This "profession" is superfluous to the question of whether one actually believes and practices christian orthodoxy.
The Jews believe in the same BIBLE that you mock...so do the Catholics if you put them in a catagory other than Christian. Yes, there is a difference in all the Christian faiths....to some degree....but not on believing in God. The SAME GOD that even the Jews believe in.
They may use the same word "god" but it is naive and unsupported to say that it is refering to the same entity in all biblical based religions. In fact, once each sect starts giving definition to their god through a critical analysis of orthodox beliefs, the fault lines begin to open. To say that the only difference between a jew and a christian is Jesus is not true. There are many other differences in how they define god.
A jew would laugh at the prospect of the trinity, yet you claim they worship the same god, when infact they don't. One has a singular god and the christian has the trinity. You can't get much more different.
Has Jefferson been quoted as saying he honored a different God by attending his Church?
That he honored a different god is evidenced by his writings. Going to church actually evidences nothing.
posted on April 1, 2004 06:30:11 PM new
reamond - I'm through discussing whether or not our past presidents have all believed in the same God.....because I believe they did/still do, you believe they haven't. No amount of discussion is going to change anyones mind.
To me, belief in God isn't the same as practicing the same religious doctrine. My point is they didn't believe in different Gods. They shared the same God even though they 'bought' or 'didn't buy' different statements in the Bible, or the fact that some believe in the New Testiment and some don't. They still believe in the same God.
I agree religious practices have changed from the way they were. Many things are less restrictive than they used to be. But those who believe in God, in their own individual 'faiths' are still all believers to the same God. Yes, Christians and other denominations have included the resurrection of Jesus Christ in their belief system....the Son of God. Still the same God.
posted on April 1, 2004 07:07:53 PM newreamond - I'm through discussing whether or not our past presidents have all believed in the same God.....because I believe they did/still do, you believe they haven't. No amount of discussion is going to change anyones mind.
So providing quotes from Thomas Jefferson showing that the god he believed in was vastly different is just "discussion" ? I don't just "believe it" I have provided evidence to support it.
To me, belief in God isn't the same as practicing the same religious doctrine. My point is they didn't believe in different Gods. They shared the same God even though they 'bought' or 'didn't buy' different statements in the Bible, or the fact that some believe in the New Testiment and some don't. They still believe in the same God.
Unfortunately your position is not accepted by christianity.
I agree religious practices have changed from the way they were. Many things are less restrictive than they used to be. But those who believe in God, in their own individual 'faiths' are still all believers to the same God. Yes, Christians and other denominations have included the resurrection of Jesus Christ in their belief system....the Son of God. Still the same God.
There is a difference between practices and basic beliefs. It is a practice of some christian sects to go to church on Saturday, this does not present a basic difference in christian beliefs. Howevewr, you seem now to posit that "god" Zeus, Thor, are all the same.
But when you have a past president say that he rejects the divinity of Jesus and still says he is a christian, and then you assert that he must believe in the same god as all bible based religions, I can only say that your result is unsupported. The god Jefferson and the men of his time contemplated is not the same one of today. The Deists beleived that god was like a clock maker- he made everything and then left it to its own devices. That belief is irreconsilible with present day beliefs.
To say that they all refer to the same god is conjecture and refuted by the evidence.
It may make you feel good thinking that they were all in accord about the nature of god, but they were not.
In any event, it is clear that we were not a "christian" nation then and we're not one now.
posted on April 1, 2004 07:14:08 PM new
According to YOU....Thomas Jefferson said, "I am a Christian". He did not say he was an atheist.
Unlike you, I believe it's not my place to decided who is wrong in their belief or their faith. If he called himself a Christian....it's too bad you can't go back and argue with him about that.
posted on April 1, 2004 07:29:56 PM new
Jefferson said he was a christian and then went on to say that he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. But he gave new definition to his own brand of theism.
It has nothing to do with my "place". But could you inform us of one christian sect that calls itself christian and denies the divinity of Jesus as Jefferson did ?
I didn't set down christian orthodoxy, the christians and their bible did.
All I have pointed out is that many who call themselves christian do not actually believe the christian orthodoxy.
If you want to apply the "do your own thing, let it all hang out" position to who is a christian, that's fine. But it is not in accord with christianity.
I didn't set up the orthodoxy, the christians did.
posted on April 1, 2004 07:53:24 PM new
I'm saying that if Thomas Jefferson refers to HIMSELF as Christian and attended Church....then he believed he was practicing his faith in the way he understood it to be - as we all do.
And it's not for another [me] to decide who's doing it the 'right/correct' way and who's not. Either by comparing it to how it was then or how it is now. That call will be made by our 'creator' when the time comes.
And since you don't believe in God....it's no skin off your back what anyone believes....nor how they practice their faith. But it sure appears very important for you to let all Christians know they're doing it all wrong. Going to take a lot to convince 75-86% of American's YOU, an atheist, have the only correct vision of their faith.
posted on April 1, 2004 07:58:54 PM new
And now we interrupt for a goofy question:
"christian orthodoxy"
Reamond, you keep using that term. What exactly do you mean? Definition or link, please.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on April 1, 2004 08:15:48 PM new
Orthodox means : Holding the commonly accepted or established faith; correct or sound in doctrine.
And since you don't believe in God....it's no skin off your back what anyone believes....nor how they practice their faith. But it sure appears very important for you to let all Christians know they're doing it all wrong. Going to take a lot to convince 75-86% of American's YOU, an atheist, have the only correct vision of their faith.
Again, christian orthodoxy has nothing to do with me. I didn't create the christian orthodoxy.
But it is skin off my back when I hear out and out lies that we are a "christian" nation or "I'm a christian" and they don't even know what it entails to be a christian.
I don't have to convince any of them of anything. Again, you seem to think that I determine what the christian orthodoxy is.
You can blame the messenger all you want, but it doesn't detract from the soundness of my assertion.
posted on April 1, 2004 08:21:45 PM new
Reamond, since you said you are an athiest, may I ask some questions?
Since (I guess) athiest don't believe in anything, they (I guess) believe in the 'big bang' and no Creator, no God etc, why do they have an orginization?
The reason I ask, is why bother? If an athiest doesn't believe in 'higher' anything... then why gather and such? Why have an elaborate website?
Does it bother you that when you pass on you'll just be fodder for worms (unless your cremated of course) That there is nothing more than this life on earth?
I've truley been curious to ask an athiest these things.... but not sure if its offensive or what....
I went to the athiest website, and this is what they say:
-----------------------------------------
Some of us are bogging down in a debate over whether the promotion of secular humanism should involve "bashing" religion, or whether we should only focus on presenting humanism in a positive light. The answer is that both are necessary components of the secular humanist message, depending on the individual circumstances of each encounter, each audience, and each forum
------------------------------------------
So in a sense athiest are trying to 'convert' people that are 'religious' to be 'humanists'. So when you say ChristianCoffee, for example is preaching, then you are also? I don't know, I don't understand the whole thing. If you believe in essesentially 'nothing', then why bother being an 'orginization'?
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 1, 2004 08:27:05 PM new
Orthodox means : Holding the commonly accepted or established faith; correct or sound in doctrine.
...and...
99% of christians when they critically analyse their beliefs are neo-pagans. The christian orthodoxy flies right out the window when they realize what it entails.
Apparently, according to you there is almost NO ONE who believes in the Christian Orthodoxy, so isn't that an oxymoron?
Or maybe you don't really understand that 99% at all?
And I agree with NearTheSea... You're clearly trying to convert other people. Why do you care?
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on April 1, 2004 08:43:46 PM newSince (I guess) athiest don't believe in anything, they (I guess) believe in the 'big bang' and no Creator, no God etc, why do they have an orginization?
To pursue common interests, just like any other organization. To fight lies like we are a christian nation and that there is such a thing as "creation science".
The reason I ask, is why bother? If an athiest doesn't believe in 'higher' anything... then why gather and such? Why have an elaborate website?
How does it follow that if someone is an atheist they have no reason to gather or have an "elaborate" web site ?
Does it bother you that when you pass on you'll just be fodder for worms (unless your cremated of course) That there is nothing more than this life on earth?
If you are a christian, you body is fodder for worms too, unless you are claiming that christian bodies don't rot and worms/insects won't eat them. Whether it "bothers" me or not has no bearing on life after death. There is no evidence that there is life after death and therefore no reason to spend my life lying about it to satisfy some psychological void or to deceive others. But atheists also desire fellowship with people and also believe that you don't need god(s) to be a moral and good person. We don't need god or religious reward dogma as an excuse to care about our fellow man or do the proper thing. In fact religion appears to us as a primitive and obsolete social control unnecessary for the modern enlightened human.
So in a sense athiest are trying to 'convert' people that are 'religious' to be 'humanists'. So when you say ChristianCoffee, for example is preaching, then you are also? I don't know, I don't understand the whole thing. If you believe in essesentially 'nothing', then why bother being an 'orginization'?
Preaching is an emotional appeal based on faith. Advocating atheism is a rational appeal based on reason. I not sure why you think atheists believe in "nothing". Atheists don't believe in god(s). Atheists believe airplanes can fly, that some drugs fight infections, etc.,
This does not mean that an atheist would deny there is a god(s) if there were testable/falsifiable and repeatable evidence of "god". But in the whole recorded history of man there never has been. Faith by its very nature can not be testable/falsifiable and repeatable.
posted on April 1, 2004 09:03:29 PM new
Reamond, of course 'Christians' that are dead, also rot, and decay and are worm fodder, I was getting at the 'what is after death' part. Nothing mystical in the physical body dying, I guess I was talking about the soul, of which you don't believe.
I'm sorry, really. But when I read the websites on the 'how to show Christians they are wrong, and how we are humanists' that sure sounds like preaching. As you or other athiest accuse Christians of doing. Of course they or you do not call it preaching, your just showing us the 'right way'.
To show that our nation is not a Christian Nation is your cause, is this the only cause you have being an athiest?
And of course, sorry, athiest have every right to gather. I guess its a fellowship thing, like Christians and Jews do.
Would it make you and other athiest happier if you could convince Christians and Jews and others, to become humanists, or athiests? Would you feel you have accomplished something then?
I am only asking, because I've always been curious.
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 1, 2004 09:11:56 PM newTo show that our nation is not a Christian Nation is your cause, is this the only cause you have being an athiest?
Whether I "show" that or not is unimportant. What has really energized the atheist movement to become more proactive is the activities of the fundementalists in trying to interject religion into politics and governemnt.
Would it make you and other athiest happier if you could convince Christians and Jews and others, to become humanists, or athiests? Would you feel you have accomplished something then?
Not personally. However, I would prefer to convince people of all religions that it is in their best interests to leave religion out of government. The religions have far more to lose by appending themselves to government than atheists do. They are heading down the path of government sponsered religious political popularity contests, which sounds great at first, but sooner or later one religion with take the power and the rest will regret it for a long time to come.
posted on April 1, 2004 09:27:05 PM newApparently, according to you there is almost NO ONE who believes in the Christian Orthodoxy, so isn't that an oxymoron?
Read the entire definition-- it says the commonly "accepted" or "established" faith. The percentage has no bearing on the accepted or established faith. Christian orthodoxy is not a democracy, that is unless you wish to reject the bible.
Or maybe you don't really understand that 99% at all?
I understand it perfectly. 99% are not in accord with the established and accepted faith.
And I agree with NearTheSea... You're clearly trying to convert other people. Why do you care?
Let's assume arguendo that I am trying to convert people. Why do christians do it ? Do you get to heaven if you convert people ? Is more better? The only reason I could see trying to convert people is for political power. But it appears that reason and common sense is all we need for political power. We are perhaps the smallest minority in America, yet our ideas writ large throughout our government.
The atheist position "fits" uniquely with individual freedom and the American Constitution. At its core christianity does not.
We're winning not because we are a majority, but because we are right.
So we actually don't need to convert people, but everyone is welcome.
posted on April 1, 2004 09:52:50 PM new
thanks for the answers Reamond.
I don't agree with you, of course
Christians do not try to convert, so they will have some sort of place in heaven.
You seem like at one time you *may* have been 'Christian' so you should know some verse that goes something like; spread the Word. I do not know off hand the scripture.
If ChristianCoffee comes back, I'm sure he could explain that better.
But I do know for fact; Christians do not try to 'convert' to get to heaven, as they are already 'have a place there, once they accept Christ as their saviour'.
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 2, 2004 07:04:00 AM new
"The atheist position "fits" uniquely with individual freedom and the American Constitution. At its core christianity does not. "
You've got a point or two there, I'll agree. America isn't perfect
But I'm all for seperation of Church and State. I certainly was concerned back when Pat Robertson was going to run for president. Wouldn't want anyone TOO religious in charge. If Bush were too religious, he'd have turned the other cheek after 9/11. If seperation of church & state APPEAR to benefit the atheists, then good for you. But I think it benefits everyone.
"We're winning not because we are a majority, but because we are right. "
Who said you were winning?
Once in a while you'll win a court battle over those same Seperation Issues. "Under God" doesn't belong in the classroom, neither does the 10 Commandments belong in a courtroom. In these Constitutional questions, you ARE right. But not in the big picture.
But I don't think you are winning.
Look at the continuing success of the movie for an indicator (GASP! We're back On-Topic!) for that. Right now, the church is facing a much-deserved backlash over pedophilia. It'll turn around.
People know the truth in their hearts and they will turn around.
You aren't winning. You only got a few technical points.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on April 2, 2004 08:47:25 AM new
"Winning" was a poor choice of words. Perhaps better would be to say that our ideals of secular government are well represented in the United States, far more so than our minority status would indicate.
Look at the continuing success of the movie for an indicator (GASP! We're back On-Topic!) for that.
If such is the case, then what does the success of the movies Titanic and ET indicate ? What does the fact that the Jesus movie ranks below 17 other movies for revenue ?
That's what I've said all along, this film's success or failure have nothing to do with whether there is a god or that christianity is is a "powerful" force in our culture.
The way Gibson manipulated the press and still is, I see the film's popularity as akin to people slowing down to see a car accident. I remember them doing the same publicity bits about the movie The Exorcist -- which probably caused more conversions than The Passion -- with news reports about what happened to people while watching the movies and the rumors about the making of the film, etc.
That's why I referred to Gibson flim flam B. T. Barnum barking of the film. The popularity has nothing to do with the "power" of the film's message, but rather the car accident publicity the film received and still does.
I think the latest flim flam publicity is viewers dying or passing out while watching the film and others confessing crimes after seeing the film.
Next will be miracle cures due to the film.
This type of flim flam BT Barnum stuff has all been done before for films and everything else.
posted on April 2, 2004 11:32:24 AM new
taken from The Federalist - today.
In the halls of justice on the right, on the heels of last week's Supreme Court arguments from professional atheism activist Michael Newdow to strike down the religious liberty of schoolchildren to pledge allegiance to our republic "under God," Newdow lost another of his God-erasure attempts. U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy dismissed Newdow's suit to prevent congressional chaplains from offering prayers and being paid for their services.
"The government is saying there is a God," when schoolchildren recite the Pledge, Newdow whined. Really? Aren't the children who are free to recite the words, or not, the ones saying there is a God?
Moreover, our entire system of government is predicated on the belief that God the Creator endowed humans formed in His image with rights that governments must defer to and support. Newdow can only argue from a rights-based conception of human nature, because our Founding documents rely on this view of human beings as God-endowed creatures.
Citing the unanimous congressional vote adding the words "under God" to the pledge in 1954, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist remarked, "That doesn't sound divisive."
I agree with Rehnquist on this. At this time no one is forced to say the pledge at all nor are they forced to say the words "Under God" if they don't wish to. So, imo, no change is necessary.....and I'm hopeful the USSC rules against Newdow.
posted on April 2, 2004 04:02:12 PM new
Newdow may lose the case(s), but it won't be because children are free not to recite the pledge.
This same argument was used in the school prayer cases and the USSC rejected it.
If they rule against Newdow it will probably be based on the Pledge not being a prayer and the reference being only incidental. But that would be an interesting revelation to the religious right- god being only incidental.
But yet again your examples of "god" in our founding fathers ruminations does not support christianity. That god they referred could be "nature", a Deist entity, Thor or Zeus. Jesus is never mentioned.
We can only hope that the USSC will do the right thing and keep our government from endorsing religion.
posted on April 9, 2004 06:46:35 PM new
This will most likely be my last post on this matter, since reamond seems to be getting stranger and stranger with his "facts". I would like to pose some questions for him, if he is able to answer in fact (facts that he can no doubt back up with releases from the Onion):
Where do we come from, reamond?
Why are we here?
If there is no God, then why do we have absolutes?
Where is your evidence for dismissing Creation?
Why is the theory of evolution preached in public, government-funded schools, but not Creation?
Where is your evidence, other then the fact you dismiss anything that has faith to it, in discrediting Jesus' claims?
And lastly, why would you care at all, since your beliefs in nothing have no real basis anyway?
See, you must have remarkable FAITH to believe the way that you do.
All for now. If there are coherent replies, I will respond.
posted on April 10, 2004 09:06:05 AM new
CristianCoffee, those were good questions, as 'evolution' can't be proved to an absolute fact, they have the 'missing link' (I keep telling everyone its my brother, but they don't believe me )
you asked: Where do we come from, reamond?
If he comes back and say that aliens planted us here, I got a whole list of 'woo woo' sites for him
(Some people DO believe that, starting with the Annankai(sp?) or the Summerians, one them)
Happy Easter!
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on April 10, 2004 10:35:25 AM new
Happy Easter to you and yours as well, NTS.
I have heard most of the arguments about us being "seeded" here. The next logical step to ask would be where did these "seeding aliens" come from, and if they are so benevolent, why do they not help out? Why is it when et's are spotted, they are usually doing things that bring fear to the populace?
As I have stated before, reamond has supplied no facts disputing anything I have posted in this thread. I eagerly await his return here, just to see what other kind of mumbo-jumbo he comes up with. His statements would be amusing if they were not so derogitory towards Christianity.
posted on April 10, 2004 11:10:07 AM newThis will most likely be my last post on this matter, since reamond seems to be getting stranger and stranger with his "facts".
It would be your last post because you can not answer any of my questions and are getting your ears boxed in the argement, and making yourself and your religion look foolish.
Where do we come from, reamond?
All testable evidence points to our evolution. On the molecular level our elemental make-up is that of the stars.
But I would add that just because science has yet to address an issue or has yet to provide an absolute answer, it does not validate fairy tales and mythology. But fairy tales and mythology do tend to dwell where science has yet to shed the full thrust of its light, it is the only place they can survive.
Why are we here?
That is a philosophical question that science can not answer. But yet again, the absence of a scientific explanation does not in any way validate fairy tales and mythology.
If there is no God, then why do we have absolutes?
Are you talking about moral absolutes or physical absolutes ?
Where is your evidence for dismissing Creation?
No evidence is needed. Creation is dismissed because it has no scientific evidence. If we lower standards to Creationism, then any other half baked and unsupported notion could masquerade as science.
One of the main strenghts of science is that when a theory has evidence produced that shows it is wrong, science excepts that it is wrong. With religious mythology, no matter how much evidence shows that the mythology is wrong, the faithful will not accept it.
Why is the theory of evolution preached in public, government-funded schools, but not Creation?
Because evolution is not a religion, it is a science.
Where is your evidence, other then the fact you dismiss anything that has faith to it, in discrediting Jesus' claims?
I dismiss his claims for the same reasons I dismiss all unfounded claims. But we should note here that most the claims are not from Jesus' mouth. There is no testable manner in which to corroberate these claims. Do you think Jesus was the first man that people claimed was a god or performed miracles ? Whoops, I need to go feed my invisible Armadillo and pray to Daffy Duck !!!
And lastly, why would you care at all, since your beliefs in nothing have no real basis anyway?
Because we can not allow religion to infect our government or science. It did so for centuries and was an unmitigated disaster of human suffering in the name of their "god(s)".
See, you must have remarkable FAITH to believe the way that you do.
In fact, just the opposite is true. Myology and its religion needs faith. That is all it rests on.
But will you now answer the questions I asked a while back ?
If your god is all knowing and all powerful, how can you have free will ?
If your god created and controls everything, then he must allow evil to exist, and he created evil, and is in fact the author of evil.
If your god knows all, the begining and end, then why pray ? The outcome has already been decided if your god knows the begining and end.
posted on April 10, 2004 11:23:38 AM new
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship." --Patrick Henry
Re-elect President Bush!!
edited to add:
"O most glorious God ... Direct my thoughts, words and work, wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the Lamb, and purge my heart by thy Holy Spirit.... Daily frame me more and more into the likeness of thy Son Jesus Christ.... Thou gavest thy Son to die for me, and hast given me assurance of salvation...." --George Washington
"And if we now cast our eyes over the nations of the earth, we shall find that, instead of possessing the pure religion of the Gospel, they may be divided either into infidels, who deny the truth; or politicians who make religion a stalking horse for their ambition; or professors, who walk in the trammels of orthodoxy, and are more attentive to traditions and ordinances of men than to the oracles of truth." --Samuel Adams
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 10, 2004 11:29 AM ]
posted on April 10, 2004 11:36:47 AM new
For ChristianCoffee, paws4God and all other believers....this is from the Special Easter Edition of The Federalist. [this is just part of it]
How is Easter related to the predicament of current events?
In this: Our Founding Fathers, in large part, were Christians or steeped in a political philosophy rooted in the Christian view of human nature. They believed, as The Federalist seeks to echo, that each individual human is a morally choosing being, and that the only governments capable of enduring long are crafted around honoring that moral human nature by ensuring liberty.
We believe the strengths and successes of our nation have grown out of dedication to principles rooted in this view of human worth -- from the Easter message, if you will. Our collective failures have grown from its neglect. We further believe that our nation is admired and emulated across the globe, and sometimes envied and despised, because these principles ring true ... indeed, because they are true.
Our troops are mirroring the sacrifice of Jesus, in risking -- and even laying down -- their lives for the sake of our freedoms. In our conflict with Jihadistan, on the Iraqi war front and elsewhere, we pit lives dedicated to rescue and sacrifice against lives squandered to commit murder. This illustrates the source of the Jihadis' hostility toward us -- that their hatred is for those Founding principles still guiding the lives of Americans.
But we are still at war, rescuing precious Iraqi lives, protecting the lives of our countrymen, and preserving our nation's liberties. We believe the precariousness of our national security parallels our nation's tilt away from acknowledging the Original Founder of our freedom.
We pray this Easter that our adversaries -- and those of our countrymen who have wandered astray -- will choose life through the Source of all that is good and right -- the Risen Lord.
As always, it is an honor and privilege to serve you as editor and publisher of The Federalist. We are humbled to count you among our Patriot readers. On behalf of our National Advisory Committee and staff, thank you and God bless you and your family!
posted on April 10, 2004 12:11:30 PM new
Thanks linda, your post helps to prove that the supporters of the President's war are just kidding when they say it's not about religion.
Praying that our adversaries, as well as..." our countrymen who have wandered astray -- will choose life through the Source of all that is good and right -- the Risen Lord."
posted on April 10, 2004 12:58:55 PM new
So you find one quote from Patrick Henry and that predicated your claim that we were founded by "christians". Even if you could show that ALL founders claimed they were christians, it would still be the case that the christian religion they practiced was far different from that practiced today. To deny this flies in the face of miles of evidence. You need only look to the early part of the last century to see differences in christianity. It is not the same today, yesterday or tomorrow. It has changed greatly here in the US over the last 200 years, as it has changed dramically over the last 2000 years.
In this: Our Founding Fathers, in large part, were Christians or steeped in a political philosophy rooted in the Christian view of human nature. They believed, as The Federalist seeks to echo, that each individual human is a morally choosing being, and that the only governments capable of enduring long are crafted around honoring that moral human nature by ensuring liberty.
Looks like we have a few problems here in the first statement.
Look closely at the first sentence. The writer struggles severely to say that the founders were christian or even to what extent they were chriatians. Part of the reason why they shy away from any definitive statement about the "christian" founders is because as evidenced by the "christian" founders writings and actions they did not hold the same beliefs about god, Jesus, or christianity, that the modern fundementalist Taliban christians believe.
Furthermore, christian mythology believes that man is fallen and needs redemption - he is amoral or immoral and a sinner from birth. Me thinks the fdederalists are proponents of some religion other than christianity. Imagine a government based on "moral" christians. It would be unbearable.
Perhaps the new federalist christian religion is based on conservative precepts of "group think" and regimentation of the faithful masses. You can be called an individual as long as you think like us.
This topic is 10 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new
Either by comparing it to how it was then or how it is now. That call will be made by our 'creator' when the time comes.
)
