More founder's and Enlightenment philosopher's quotes, about the bible and Christianity: "I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." ~John Adams "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever." ~Thomas Jefferson " Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." ~Charles Carroll The Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the Gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty. As this religion forbids the plurality of wives, its princes are less confined, less concealed from their subjects, and consequently have more humanity: they are more disposed to be directed by laws, and more capable of perceiving that they cannot do whatever they please. ~Charles baron de Montesquieu To deny the influence.. the POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION that the bible and Christianity had on the founding of the US is revisionist history at its worst.. distorting the facts for a competing agenda of Progressivism.
OF COURSE our founders were affected by their religion. On its very best day, that's what religion would do! And, hopefully, in a positive way. I've never made a suggestion to the contrary. You will note that in addition to that, I've not taken part in "decrying the Christian religion". However, your comments demonstrate how easy it is to fall into the trap of seeing all acts on earth through the lense of religion. You seem to be coming from the point of view that your particular religion is the sole fount of knowledge and morality. I certainly do not agree with THAT conjecture, but my response isn't to attempt to invalidate your religion. Our constitution suggests that we should be looking at government as a SECULAR body. I hope your religion is pushing you in a positive direction. But, don't expect me to be blind to the contributions made by examining nature or to believe your religion is one with natural law.
I'm a little weary if your false accusations and distortions of my posts.. probably better if we don't 'debate' much.. at least for a while.. You don't reply to my points, but go off with canned talking points steeped in anti-christian bias. I have NEVER said anything resembling your (false) accusations. ..maybe some other time...
Too bad Billions of people had to be consigned to hell before the Internet could be invented. Oh well.
??? I didn't accuse you of anything. I suggested that it seems like you take your religion as the sole fount of morality. Am I right? And, I was responding to the repeated harsh and unwarranted accusations from YOU. I don't believe you can even point to anything I said that is "anti-Christian". This started (I think) by me pointing out that the Bible (and Christianity in general) is about man's duty to god, and doesn't project personal human rights. That's not an attack on Christianity. If you think I said something "steeped in anti-Christian bias", point to it and let's talk.
Excellent, topical question. Some background. The Nature of the Godhead was critical in the early church, and 'getting it right' was an essential goal, to establish orthodoxy. An early error was modalism, or the attempt to define God through different 'modes' by which He expressed Himself. Father, Son, and Spirit, the expressions of God, clearly taught by Jesus, were (and are!) confusing and easy to misconstrue. A reaction to modalism was by Arius, a Libyan presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, who presented Christ as 'created', not as eternal God. Athanasius (among others) opposed this teaching, and there was a dispute early on, about the Nature of God, salvation, and authority. Constantine, the emperor at the time, sought unity and reconciliation, more than orthodoxy, and convened a council of church leaders from all over the world (at that time) to settle this dispute. That was where the Nicene Creed originated, and a list of authoritative scriptures, for the final authority of sound doctrine. The canonization process was not an arbitrary choosing of books, but a recognition of books that were in use, tested and accepted as authentic accounts from the disciples and early apostles, and their assistants. Irenaeus quoted from 21 of the current 27 NT books, in the 2nd century. He was a disciple of Polycarp, who knew the apostle John. In 367, Athanasius (now bishop of Alexandria) posted a list of 27 books he felt were authoritative, by authorship and historical usage. This is the same list of the NT canon we have today. Augustine, and others before and after, affirmed the list of canonical books, as have councils and historians since. It was a gradual process, not a stone tablet. And it was a consensus arrived at over centuries of Christian history and practice. The main criteria were these: 1. The texts were written by an apostle, or close associate (Luke, for example). 2. The texts were in use, and had history of acceptance and credibility. Many apocryphal texts were not included in the canon. There was question of their authenticity, and conflict with existing, proven manuscripts. Athanasius, as an interesting side point, was called the 'Dark Dwarf', because he was a dark skinned Egyptian, and short of stature. These endearing terms no doubt contributed to his writing style, which was often heated and polemical. Passion is nothing new, in Christian apologetics.
So you are saying Luke, the man who accompanied Paul (a man who never met Jesus nor heard him preach) wrote the Gospel of Luke?
That is the historical view. Is that surprising? Luke 1:1Many have undertaken to compose an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Luke's motivation is apologetic, to know the certainty, of the gospel message. His account is a compilation, from a researcher and historian, not an eyewitness, himself. Acts is also, traditionally and evidentiary, presumed written by Luke.
BTW, the dispute over Arianism is ongoing. Many offshoots, and sects have left the orthodox fold, and have used the old heresy of Arianism to launch from. Islam Mormonism Jehovah's Witnesses ..are 3 commonly known Christian offshoots that deny the Deity and unique, eternal Godhead of Christ. They have added to, and changed, the historical, orthodox teachings that Jesus, the apostles, and the early church fathers defended.
What Ad Hom and what distortions of your claims ? You keep claiming this but then fail to justify your claim. You are upset because your claims are false and were proven so. Rather than correct your perspective you would rather life in denial and maintain your perspective. As such you try to avoid the information that you can not deal with - information that conflicts with your claims - and demonize the messenger instead. This is the truth - not falsehood. Ad Hom = false logic - the truth is not false logic.
Ad hominem = 'to the man', instead of 'to the topic.' Neither logic nor truth are addressed. Ad hom is one of many logical fallacies.
Running around claiming "Ad Hom" is not proof of claim. Give one example me using Ad Hom = attacking the person as an argument against the claim - rather than attacking the claim.
That is not ad hom. That is stating what you are doing. Saying "you are avoiding the argument" is not Ad hom. Failing to address the argument by substituting personal attack is Ad Hom. I did not substitute personal attack for an argument against your claim. What I did was refute your claim - and the falsehoods within. Rather than show that my claims were false - or that the things that I claimed were falsehoods were in fact not - you ignored my arguments and complained about me calling out your falsehoods. Calling out false claims - followed by showing how these claims are false is not AD Hom. Ad Hom is you calling me a name caller as an excuse for an argument.
[ His compilation is in error. There was no worldwide census during the time of Caesar Augustus. Romans had traveling tax collectors to record people and property. Face it. The story was contrived to make a man from Nazareth appear to have been born in Bethlehem thus creating a story that could be said to conform to the OT.
Funny that you 'know!' this, without any evidence.. No, this is just a theory, from anti-christian bigots, and has NO scholarly, archaeological, or historical evidence. Prove it. Show me the 'evidence!' for this. It is speculative theorizing, based on inference and opinion. Unless you can provide solid evidence, your opinions are just hostile smears, upon a competing worldview.
What discussion ? Running to the playground - in a fit of denial, name calling, and strawman fallacy - to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial is hardly a kind of discussion to be thankful for so I will not return the thanks.
Lord, what a book, what lessons! What a book is the Holy Scripture, what miracle, what power are given to man with it! Like a carven image of the world, and of man, and of human characters, and everything is named and set forth unto ages of ages. Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov (p. 292). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Dostoevsky explores the basis of morality. Hang in there usfan!
People like you will never accept any evidence. You have your Bible and circular logic. Here is evidence. Read it and read the footnoted references and get back to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
I think Polycarp was born the year that Paul died. I think Irenaeus heard Polycarp speak before Polycarp was martyred in 156ad. So, Irenaeus must have been born earlier than that for it to have been a legit claim. I think the first council of Nicea was in 325. So unless I've made a mistake here, I'm pretty sure Irenaeus (if it's the same Irenaeus) wasn't present at the council. People didn't live beyond 150 at that time. Polycarp would have brought an Eastern Orthodox point of view, I would guess. It might be noted that there are many who believe Polycarp assembled and published the New Testament. I think there is a more interesting point here, though. The split between Judaism and Christianity took place over a long period of time between the late second century to the 4th century. It did NOT happen as a single bolt of lightning. While it's easy to point to Constantine, I think the development of Christianity is more interesting than that. It would seem Constantine's council put a stamp of approval on one branch of what had transpired over the last 300 hundred years, with Constantine's objective being to reduce conflict that resulted from this development and split from Judaism.
Really. People like me... So someone like you thinks an internet debate is posting a wiki link and running off... I don't debate links. If you have a point to make, make it. If you want to source the information, good.
