JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,520
- 2,165
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #141
As much as any evangelical or Pentecostal.Really? Are Mormons really Christians? Really?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As much as any evangelical or Pentecostal.Really? Are Mormons really Christians? Really?
What slam was that?Given that that was an Equal Opportunity Slam, I, for one, am content...Many of our left and our right require the "restating the obvious."Nolo contendere...Add Greco-Roman jurisprudence and philosophy and you will reach goal.The Constitution is, indeed, based, at least in part, on Enlightenment principles, which are, in turn, evolved, developed and somewhat secularized variants of European Judeo-Christian religion, philosophy, morality, ethics, legal codifications and populist teachings and sentiments that have their roots and basis in a Judeo-Christian framework.
We're merely talking about a two-hopper here.... Judeo-Christian Framework > Enlightenment > Constution... with a vast element of Judeo-Christian Framework still recognizable as such, and still recognizable in its roots or basis or point-of-departure... the evolutionary philosophical grandparent to the US Constitution.
A collection of extremely critical foundational works that came into the possession of Christian Europe...
Which nutured and preserved and expanded upon and evolved it into something beyond what it was when Christianity first took those values under its wing...
All of which became part of the umbrella of the European Judeo-Christian Framework, long before the Enlightenment...
Props and credit to Greco-Roman predecessor elements are a 'gimme'... obvious... understood without restating the obvious.
Yours was the slam, which I corrected.
How long before the Right tries this in other states, particularly in the South?Certainly within the law, such an action will spark intense discussion, I think. Whether I agree or not, my left and right sides of the brain are in disagreement at the moment.
Republicans propose declaring Idaho a Christian state - Yahoo News
It has been tried in Illinois and the perps got the unholy shit kicked out of them.How long before the Right tries this in other states, particularly in the South?Certainly within the law, such an action will spark intense discussion, I think. Whether I agree or not, my left and right sides of the brain are in disagreement at the moment.
Republicans propose declaring Idaho a Christian state - Yahoo News
It's Theocracy, folks.
The Constitution is, indeed, based, at least in part, on Enlightenment principles, which are, in turn, evolved, developed and somewhat secularized variants of European Judeo-Christian religion, philosophy, morality, ethics, legal codifications and populist teachings and sentiments that have their roots and basis in a Judeo-Christian framework.The Constitution is based on Judeo Christian ethics.
No it's not, and that's a fucking stupid thing to say. The constitution is based on Enlightenment principles of individual liberty, democratic government, de-establishment of state religion and religious tolerance, and the pursuit of scientific study and development.
We're merely talking about a two-hopper here.... Judeo-Christian Framework > Enlightenment > Constution... with a vast element of Judeo-Christian Framework still recognizable as such, and still recognizable in its roots or basis or point-of-departure... the evolutionary philosophical grandparent to the US Constitution.
The Constitution is based on Judeo Christian ethics.
No it's not, and that's a fucking stupid thing to say. The constitution is based on Enlightenment principles of individual liberty, democratic government, de-establishment of state religion and religious tolerance, and the pursuit of scientific study and development.
So what happened to the founding fathers between the declaration of independence and the Constitution?
Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible in which he omitted all the miracles.The Constitution is based on Judeo Christian ethics.
No it's not, and that's a fucking stupid thing to say. The constitution is based on Enlightenment principles of individual liberty, democratic government, de-establishment of state religion and religious tolerance, and the pursuit of scientific study and development.
So what happened to the founding fathers between the declaration of independence and the Constitution?
You mean the deists?
Hardly. I am merely better than you in objectively identifying the tremendous debt owed by The Enlightenment to its cultural and philosophical roots and heritage.The Constitution is, indeed, based, at least in part, on Enlightenment principles, which are, in turn, evolved, developed and somewhat secularized variants of European Judeo-Christian religion, philosophy, morality, ethics, legal codifications and populist teachings and sentiments that have their roots and basis in a Judeo-Christian framework.The Constitution is based on Judeo Christian ethics.
No it's not, and that's a fucking stupid thing to say. The constitution is based on Enlightenment principles of individual liberty, democratic government, de-establishment of state religion and religious tolerance, and the pursuit of scientific study and development.
We're merely talking about a two-hopper here.... Judeo-Christian Framework > Enlightenment > Constution... with a vast element of Judeo-Christian Framework still recognizable as such, and still recognizable in its roots or basis or point-of-departure... the evolutionary philosophical grandparent to the US Constitution.
You're a fucking idiot...
Who-the-phukk is talking about dogma, miracles and such? I'm talking about the whole enchilada - the entire philosophical and ethical and judicial package....A central pillar of enlightenment thinking was to break away from religious dogma, belief in miracles, and related concepts...
Indeed. What I cited is entirely symmetrical with a shift towards just that....and to be grounded in reason and science...
Indeed. Taking both the temporal and spiritual aspects of Judeo-Christian tradition, jettisoning the unusable, preserving the useful, removing the surviving elements from any particular religious association, repackaging them, and building upon that foundation....Secularized variants of Judeo-Christian religion?...
Again, hardly. I merely understand better than you, how we got to where we are, and have no vested interest in attempting (and failing) to minimize the debt owed by The Enlightenment to its cultural environment and heritage, nor attempting (and failing) to hide the vast array of elements from that heritage that survived that rigorous vetting....You have to be so god damned stupid to think that in the first place I don't know how you ever learned how to speak to utter it.
Interesting perspective... and a good point, about 'practicing'...I'm fine with them calling it a Christian state. But then they need to start acting like it and put more into helping the poor and middle clas and much le into doing anything for the wealthy. Then they are practicing what Christianity is purely about
The Constitution is based on Judeo Christian ethics.
No it's not, and that's a fucking stupid thing to say. The constitution is based on Enlightenment principles of individual liberty, democratic government, de-establishment of state religion and religious tolerance, and the pursuit of scientific study and development.
So what happened to the founding fathers between the declaration of independence and the Constitution?
You mean the deists?
Certainly within the law, such an action will spark intense discussion, I think. Whether I agree or not, my left and right sides of the brain are in disagreement at the moment.
Republicans propose declaring Idaho a Christian state - Yahoo News
Yes, many were. Deism isn't atheism, BTW.
They had a lot of influences. To say they were also influenced by John Locke and others is clearly true. But to say they were not influenced by Christian-Judeo is ridiculous.
As I said, the DOI was a reason, they mentioned God.
The Constitution was a rulebook. They weren't looking for the Church to run the government and they said so. This is obvious to anyone who knows history and no one would argue it except someone who doesn't or someone who just wants to engage in a game of no it isn't.
What point are you even making with this? Clearly they did not want a religious government, I did not suggest otherwise. But they weren't anti-religion like the left is today either
Hardly. I am merely better than you in objectively identifying the tremendous debt owed by The Enlightenment to its cultural and philosophical roots and heritage.The Constitution is, indeed, based, at least in part, on Enlightenment principles, which are, in turn, evolved, developed and somewhat secularized variants of European Judeo-Christian religion, philosophy, morality, ethics, legal codifications and populist teachings and sentiments that have their roots and basis in a Judeo-Christian framework.The Constitution is based on Judeo Christian ethics.
No it's not, and that's a fucking stupid thing to say. The constitution is based on Enlightenment principles of individual liberty, democratic government, de-establishment of state religion and religious tolerance, and the pursuit of scientific study and development.
We're merely talking about a two-hopper here.... Judeo-Christian Framework > Enlightenment > Constution... with a vast element of Judeo-Christian Framework still recognizable as such, and still recognizable in its roots or basis or point-of-departure... the evolutionary philosophical grandparent to the US Constitution.
You're a fucking idiot...
Who-the-phukk is talking about dogma, miracles and such? I'm talking about the whole enchilada - the entire philosophical and ethical and judicial package....A central pillar of enlightenment thinking was to break away from religious dogma, belief in miracles, and related concepts...
Indeed. What I cited is entirely symmetrical with a shift towards just that....and to be grounded in reason and science...
Indeed. Taking both the temporal and spiritual aspects of Judeo-Christian tradition, jettisoning the unusable, preserving the useful, removing the surviving elements from any particular religious association, repackaging them, and building upon that foundation....Secularized variants of Judeo-Christian religion?...
Again, hardly. I merely understand better than you, how we got to where we are, and have no vested interest in attempting (and failing) to minimize the debt owed by The Enlightenment to its cultural environment and heritage, nor attempting (and failing) to hide the vast array of elements from that heritage that survived that rigorous vetting....You have to be so god damned stupid to think that in the first place I don't know how you ever learned how to speak to utter it.
You appear to have very little understanding of who you are, in the framework of our common cultural heritage, nor how much of that survives to this day, woven into the very fabric of our modern Western (and American) society - with respect to ethics and morals and our corpus juris and our politics and governance and philosophy and customs and traditions - and you appear to be extremely hostile to any mention of the huge debt we owe to our European Judeo-Christian heritage.
Your bias and hostility in this context constitute a set of blinkers, preventing you from objectively identifying the middle-ground truth in the matter.
Your cross to bear, not mine.
---------
As to your unprovoked attacks ('stupid', 'idiot', 'learned to speak'), well... feel free to shove your insults straight up your backside, when ready... hell, you'll probably enjoy it.
Yes, many were. Deism isn't atheism, BTW.
Where did I say that deism was atheism?
They had a lot of influences. To say they were also influenced by John Locke and others is clearly true. But to say they were not influenced by Christian-Judeo is ridiculous.
No, it's the truth. Absolutely nothing about the constitution, Declaration of Independence, enlightenment era thought, or anything about the founding of our country has anything Judeo-Christian about it at all, beyond the fact that some of the actors happened to be Christians. For you to even make a claim like this is a blatant admission that you don't know or understand the first thing about Christianity or Judaism, or enlightenment thinking.
As I said, the DOI was a reason, they mentioned God.
Whose god? Your god? Sure they weren't talking about another god? Maybe they meant Allah. Perhaps Demeter. You know, I don't actually know for myself....but I've heard rumors that that Jefferson was having a gay love affair with that fellow Odin.
The Constitution was a rulebook. They weren't looking for the Church to run the government and they said so. This is obvious to anyone who knows history and no one would argue it except someone who doesn't or someone who just wants to engage in a game of no it isn't.
.....And that's why you think that the constitution was influenced by Judaism and Christianity? Because they wanted the church to not be an influence? Do you not grasp how absolutely batshit that is?
What point are you even making with this? Clearly they did not want a religious government, I did not suggest otherwise. But they weren't anti-religion like the left is today either
Where did I say anything about being anti-religious? Secularism is not anti-religious. Nor is it anti-religious to refute your asinine claim that the constitution was supposedly baseded on Judeo-Christian ideas. It's simply anti-bullshit.