NationStates Jolt Archive

Just having more fun shattering that myth,and this time I use the bible to prove those dummies wrong.

I call to the stand, witness number one, 1 Samuel 15:23.

So tell me, verse 23 of 1 Samuel 15, what is rebellion, like that of the founding fathers of America against the British Crown, considered?

For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. Because thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

No further questions.

Next witness; Jesus of Nazareth.

Swear Him in....

I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me..uh...Myself.

Thank you Jesus for taking time to come testify here today. Now, do you know why the founding fathers wanted to break away from the British Empire?

I do believe it had something to do with them being angry over taxation without representation

That is mostly correct Jesus! Now, how do you, the son of God, feel about that?

Well, I say that you should give to the government what is the government's. So, paying your taxes.

I see, so you are saying that the those founding fathers should have just sucked it up and given their tax money to the British?

That's what I said.

Thank you Jesus. You may step down.

For my final witness, I call Paul of Tarsus.

Mr. Paul, what do you about the fact of rebelling against authority?

Well, I believe that God has put all those in authority, there for a reason, and therefore we should obey their laws, unless they go against the law of God.

I see. So that means that the forefathers then had no reason to rebel, if they indeed were trying to be Christian and create a Christian based nation, correct?

Correct.

Thanks, you may step down.

Now, for my closing statement, I wish to summarize all of this. There is a big lie in America, and some people refuse to accept it. America is not, in any sense, founded on Christian principles, just as law states. We know that. Now, by biblical standards, used only to prove to those Christians that believe that lie, America's founders were not Christians, because they were rebellious, which is against the word of God.

I rest my case.



Thoughts?

And yes, I am bored :p

if you are going to "use the Bible" you should probably "use the Bible" instead of making up stuff.....yeah.

like Jesus did say that stuff (mostly) but you should like uh....yeah, not just say he did, but like use the Bible and stuff.

if you are going to "use the Bible" you should probably "use the Bible" instead of making up stuff.....yeah.

like Jesus did say that stuff (mostly) but you should like uh....yeah, not just say he did, but like use the Bible and stuff.

Well the sources for Jesus would be Luke 20:22-26(render unto caesar what is caesar's) And for Paul, it would be Romans chapter 13.

Well the sources for Jesus would be Luke 20:22-26(render unto caesar what is caesar's) And for Paul, it would be Romans chapter 13.

yeah, I know, I'm just saying (you wanted debate yes?)

yeah, I know, I'm just saying (you wanted debate yes?)

If there is any debate to be had.I don't think that anyone on here is crazy enough to disagree. Just providing it as an extra punch to the face of those silly fundies out there :)

And yes, I am bored :p
Bority produces wondrous things. My favourite was the part where JC, a person too busy for this trivia, replies that this was indeed what he said. Resisting an urge to ask if questioner is hard of hearing.

I've seen National Treasure and so I know that the US was founded by a secret cabal of Free Masons...though the Illuminati might have had something to do with it. *nod*

The Bible isn't the only thing that defines the Christian religion. To believe so is to have a Protestant bias.

A specific culture and tradition is also associated with Christianity.

Now, for my closing statement, I wish to summarize all of this. There is a big lie in America, and some people refuse to accept it. America is not, in any sense, founded on Christian principles, just as law states. We know that. Now, by biblical standards, used only to prove to those Christians that believe that lie, America's founders were not Christians, because they were rebellious, which is against the word of God.

I rest my case.


I am not a Christian because I am a sinner. :rolleyes:

The Bible isn't the only thing that defines the Christian religion. To believe so is to have a Protestant bias.


And as we all know, the Founding Fathers were fanatically Catholic. :)

I believe Jesus didn't like to speak in absolutes. I mean, in a way Jesus was the ultimate rebel in his time.

I believe Jesus didn't like to speak in absolutes. I mean, in a way Jesus was the ultimate rebel in his time.

Long hair, undermining authority, hanging with the outcasts...prime suspect for an FBI file :)

And as we all know, the Founding Fathers were fanatically Catholic. :)

Nor were they fanatically Protestant. None of them, and neither did most 18th century Christians whether Catholic or Protestant, accepted that the Bible formed the exclusive basis for Christian civilization.

And as we all know, the Founding Fathers were fanatically Catholic. :)

Weren't they Moslems? :eek:

A specific culture and tradition is also associated with Christianity.

yes one that follows a certain book and teachings...

Long hair, undermining authority, hanging with the outcasts...prime suspect for an FBI file :)

of Middle Eastern origin...

"The Divine Right of Kings" was the basis for continued oppression... A concept that the colonial Americans did not generally believe in... Most of them were deists... not "Christians"... Though, even as a "Christian"; I myself do not buy the "Divine Right of Kings" doctrines either...

SNIP

depends on the edition you read, the King James edition involves serving your Lord

depends on the edition you read, the King James edition involves serving your Lord

Right. Serve the Lord aka God. Not some king in Europe. Just the big guy in the sky.

Right. Serve the Lord aka God. Not some king in Europe. Just the big guy in the sky.

no Lord as in the guy who owns all your land, why on Earth would a God be given such a title?

no Lord as in the guy who owns all your land, why on Earth would a God be given such a title?

:confused:

God is very commonly referred to as the lord.

:confused:

God is very commonly referred to as the lord.
Po-tay-to
Po-tah-to

Just having more fun shattering that myth,and this time I use the bible to prove those dummies wrong.

I call to the stand, witness number one, 1 Samuel 15:23.

So tell me, verse 23 of 1 Samuel 15, what is rebellion, like that of the founding fathers of America against the British Crown, considered?



No further questions.

Next witness; Jesus of Nazareth.

Swear Him in....



Thank you Jesus for taking time to come testify here today. Now, do you know why the founding fathers wanted to break away from the British Empire?



That is mostly correct Jesus! Now, how do you, the son of God, feel about that?



I see, so you are saying that the those founding fathers should have just sucked it up and given their tax money to the British?



Thank you Jesus. You may step down.

For my final witness, I call Paul of Tarsus.

Mr. Paul, what do you about the fact of rebelling against authority?



I see. So that means that the forefathers then had no reason to rebel, if they indeed were trying to be Christian and create a Christian based nation, correct?



Thanks, you may step down.

Now, for my closing statement, I wish to summarize all of this. There is a big lie in America, and some people refuse to accept it. America is not, in any sense, founded on Christian principles, just as law states. We know that. Now, by biblical standards, used only to prove to those Christians that believe that lie, America's founders were not Christians, because they were rebellious, which is against the word of God.

I rest my case.



Thoughts?
not christian? perhaps by your standards of christianity?
I don't think the founders would consider modern christians to be christian either. lol

depends on the edition you read, the King James edition involves serving your Lord

Serving it with a side of guacamole dip. Transubstantiation, mmmm. *hiccough*

Thoughts?

You're funny.

You're funny.

...and hawt!
*fans self*

Thoughts?

I believe the founding fathers being found guilty they struck a plea bargain with him(Jesus). Of course it wasn't to take place until the twentieth century. The deal was to put "In God we trust" on our coins and currency.

I believe the founding fathers being found guilty they struck a plea bargain with him(Jesus). Of course it wasn't to take place until the twentieth century. The deal was to put "In God we trust" on our coins and currency.

Wasn't this the "christian conspiracy" thread idea or something?

Nor were they fanatically Protestant. None of them, and neither did most 18th century Christians whether Catholic or Protestant, accepted that the Bible formed the exclusive basis for Christian civilization.

Perhaps they accepted that the Bible didn't provide the exclusive basis for Western civilization.

Wasn't this the "christian conspiracy" thread idea or something?

Sure, why not...... ;)

Perhaps they accepted that the Bible didn't provide the exclusive basis for Western civilization.

The first cut is the deepest.

America should adopt eastern orthodox christianity. Just like Russia. Then America will be better country.

America should adopt eastern orthodox christianity. Just like Russia. Then America will be better country.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/USA-Saratoga-Orthodox_Church_of_Saint_Nicholas-Belfry-2.jpg/450px-USA-Saratoga-Orthodox_Church_of_Saint_Nicholas-Belfry-2.jpg
and
http://www.alaskanplaygroundvacations.com/pictures/Kenai-Russian-Church-Back21.jpg
Slept there.

Thank you, but I prefer to refer to actual American documentation

I believe all here are familiar with Article 14 of the Treaty of Tripoli yes?

Thank you, but I prefer to refer to actual American documentation

I believe all here are familiar with Article 14 of the Treaty of Tripoli yes?

Yes!
*dances weasel dance*
Signed, sealed, delivered ... I'm yours!

I've seen National Treasure and so I know that the US was founded by a secret cabal of Free Masons...though the Illuminati might have had something to do with it. *nod*

Ah, the U.S.A.-Masonic-Illuminati conspiracy again. Yes, I remember this one. Please, we all know that the Illuminati was just the democratically elected officiating council of the Masonic Lodges, a bunch of guys that essentially amounted to the literate group in that day.

As for the original argument, let's try this:

Jesus first ridiculed those trying to trap him, then soundly beat them even though he had already spoke about the inappropriateness of how they formed the question. He asked for a coin suitable for paying Roman taxes, and receiving a form of legal tender, asked them to identify the person on it. About this time, it would have been Tiberius that was emperor, but he was using the name Caesar, and Rome still recognized older coins going around in circulation. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the face on the coin was Caesar, though not necessarily Caesar Augustus, just one of the Caesars.

Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's." This is regarded as one of the essential statements about Christianity advocating a separation of Church and State. That being done, let's look at the political connotations.

Paying the Roman taxes was a bone of contention, though the intelligent observer would find little reason for it to be so. The Roman government did not touch many of the Jewish practices, and at the time, they had a strong economy. Roman coins were of mostly uniform weight (there was always the forgery fringe), exchangeable throughout the empire, and came in various values to allow for more exact trading. They were, in essence, good money. And their presence was part of a good economy that had relatively low levels of corruption.

That being said, was the United States founded on Christianity? Yes.

Why? As a nation that adopted a Constitutional guarantee that Church and State would occupy separate spheres, it adopted a major tenet of Christianity as part of the national framework. Over in Britain, the monarch was, and still is, getting appointed as the head of the church at the coronation.

As for the remarks about necessitating obedience to authority, still, that can only be carried out until one cannot render unto God what is God's. Could the colonists have waited? Sure. Could they have paid the taxes? Economically, absolutely, at least for a little while more. I don't deny that. But they, and by they I mean the formerly wealthy class that lost a lot of their possessions during the war, decided that they had had enough.

And yes, those remarks about government for the people, of the people, and by the people do seem to contradict St. Paul. But the message of St. Paul does not override a moral argument made by Jesus (who, according to those Christian folks, is some sort of supreme being and all-wise teacher) about weighing the obligations of morality against those of society. Jesus's remark was essentially a prohibition against unnecessary violence and opposition to the government, but still permitted action that was immoral. As long as the government that taxed you was making economic policies that helped people (this is before that whole bank collapse thing in 33 AD that mostly hit the wealthy), then you kind of owed it to them to pay the taxes. Still, while Jesus did make friends with the tax collectors, he told them to do their job honestly, which is an argument for a reasonable tax rate. A rate of taxation that would be expected to come from representation.

And all of that ignores the differences in socio-economic structure of the time of the Roman Empire, the establishment of the United States, and the current United States, which alters the whole damn argument. :)

That being said, was the United States founded on Christianity? Yes.Uh, no.

Why? As a nation that adopted a Constitutional guarantee that Church and State would occupy separate spheres, it adopted a major tenet of Christianity as part of the national framework. Over in Britain, the monarch was, and still is, getting appointed as the head of the church at the coronation.

As for the remarks about necessitating obedience to authority, still, that can only be carried out until one cannot render unto God what is God's. Could the colonists have waited? Sure. Could they have paid the taxes? Economically, absolutely, at least for a little while more. I don't deny that. But they, and by they I mean the formerly wealthy class that lost a lot of their possessions during the war, decided that they had had enough.

And yes, those remarks about government for the people, of the people, and by the people do seem to contradict St. Paul. But the message of St. Paul does not override a moral argument made by Jesus (who, according to those Christian folks, is some sort of supreme being and all-wise teacher) about weighing the obligations of morality against those of society. Jesus's remark was essentially a prohibition against unnecessary violence and opposition to the government, but still permitted action that was immoral. As long as the government that taxed you was making economic policies that helped people (this is before that whole bank collapse thing in 33 AD that mostly hit the wealthy), then you kind of owed it to them to pay the taxes. Still, while Jesus did make friends with the tax collectors, he told them to do their job honestly, which is an argument for a reasonable tax rate. A rate of taxation that would be expected to come from representation.

And all of that ignores the differences in socio-economic structure of the time of the Roman Empire, the establishment of the United States, and the current United States, which alters the whole damn argument. :)You make two significant points here for consideration, but they still don't qualify the ideas espoused as exclusively "christian".
I suppose an argument will be made to discern the difference between "christianity" and "religion" at some point.

Uh, no.
You make two significant points here for consideration, but they still don't qualify the ideas espoused as exclusively "christian".
I suppose an argument will be made to discern the difference between "christianity" and "religion" at some point.

Not exclusively Christian? When was that part of the deal? Nowhere in the OP does it argue against exclusively Christian ideals. It's Christian ideals, even if it's not exclusively Christian that matters.

For God's sakes, please, don't go changing the rules on me! Sheesh. What chance do I have when the rules of the debate are being changed? Society doesn't operate if the rules are always shifting without proper notification.

Somebody get me a Scotch.

The OP wishes to have his arguments taken seriously? Then he should use direct quotes instead of glib and supercilious paraphrases into law & Order-speak.

You do your side no favors by using mockery to argue your case.

Not exclusively Christian? When was that part of the deal? Nowhere in the OP does it argue against exclusively Christian ideals. It's Christian ideals, even if it's not exclusively Christian that matters.Erm .... uh, okay. Kinda like a bunch of the holidays. :)

For God's sakes, please, don't go changing the rules on me! Sheesh. What chance do I have when the rules of the debate are being changed? Society doesn't operate if the rules are always shifting without proper notification.Sorry! Admittedly, that's my usual muster anyway. Much to the chagrin of people who might consider (bafflingly) to take me seriously.


Somebody get me a Scotch.http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/uploads/piper.jpg

You do your side no favors by using mockery to argue your case.

But ... but what if my side is made up pretty consistently and exclusively OF mockery?
:(

Paraphrased evidence.

1 Samuel 15:23

"For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. Because thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah, he hath also rejected thee from being king."

Why did the colonies rebel?
"I do believe it had something to do with them being angry over taxation without representation"

What was Jesus's position on taxes?
"Well, I say that you should give to the government what is the government's. So, paying your taxes."

Paul's views on authority
"Well, I believe that God has put all those in authority, there for a reason, and therefore we should obey their laws, unless they go against the law of God."

First off, rebellion is resisting unlawful authority. Resisting unlawful authority is not rebellion. There are instances in the Old Testament of people resisting unlawful authority, even people commanded by God to do so. Check out Gideon in Judges and Jeroboam in 1 Kings.

Second, the colonies did not rebel solely on paying taxes. If they had, I would have agreed with you. For example, the Declaration of Independence mentions things like suspending the right to a trial by jury. This is just one way, of many that are mentioned, whereby the British crown and parliament were reducing the colonies to, well, colonies. They were being increasing subjected to a tyrannical government that did not care about justice, only filling their coffers and staying power.

Third, Paul stated that people should obey the government because it was "God's minister for good." (Romans 13:4) Suppose then that a government stopped being a minister for good. Suppose it acted in a way to work against the public good rather than for it. Would that authority then become unlawful? Would it not become a Christian's duty to oppose that unlawful authority because it is a Christian's duty to oppose evil?

This was the sort of argument (I don't know the exact details) that the colonists used to justify their actions. This does not prove that America was founded as a Christian nation. However, it does show that the argument in the OP does not hold.

...
Second, the colonies did not rebel solely on paying taxes. If they had, I would have agreed with you. For example, the Declaration of Independence mentions things like suspending the right to a trial by jury. This is just one way, of many that are mentioned, whereby the British crown and parliament were reducing the colonies to, well, colonies. They were being increasing subjected to a tyrannical government that did not care about justice, only filling their coffers and staying power...


Alphabetical list of the Signers of Declaration of Independence, by Religion

Christians
Samuel Adams – Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett – Congregationalist
Carter Braxton – Episcopalian
Charles Carroll - Roman Catholic
Samuel Chase – Episcopalian
Abraham Clark – Presbyterian
William Floyd – Presbyterian
Elbridge Gerry – Episcopalian
Button Gwinnett – Episcopalian
Lyman Hall – Congregationalist
John Hancock – Congregationalist
Benjamin Harrison – Presbyterian? (Grandson/President was Presbyterian)
John Hart – Presbyterian
William Hooper – Episcopalian
Stephen Hopkins – Quaker
Francis Hopkinson – Episcopalian
Samuel Huntington – Congregationalist/Calvinist?
Francis Lightfoot Lee - said, that he had embraced the religion of the gospel
Richard Henry Lee – Presbyterian
Francis Lewis – Episcopalian
Phillip Livingston – Presbyterian
Thomas Lynch Jr. – Catholic
Thomas McKean – Presbyterian
Robert Morris – Episcopalian
John Morton – Protestant
William Paca – Episcopalian
Robert Treat Paine – Congregationalist
John Penn – Episcopalian
George Read – Episcopalian
Caesar Rodney – Episcopalian
George Ross – Episcopalian
Benjamin Rush – Presbyterian
Edward Rutledge – Anglican
Roger Sherman – Congregationalist
James Smith – Protestant (Presbyterian?)
Richard Stockton – (A Christian, but I don’t know what kind, his last will and testimony said: “First, I bequeath my soule into the hands of Almight God and my body to be buried at the discretion of my executors hereby named, in hopes through the merrits of Jesus Christ to obtain a joyfull resurrection.”
Thomas Stone – Episcopalian
George Taylor - Protestant (Scots-Irish Presbyterian?)
Matthew Thornton - Protestant (Presbyterian?)
William Whipple – Congregationalist
John Witherspoon – Presbyterian minister
Oliver Wolcott – Congregationalist


Deists/Unitarians
John Adams – Unitarian (favored strong religion in the populace)
Benjamin Franklin - believed in God and prayer in public life, Deist
Thomas Jefferson – Deist
James Wilson – Began as a Episcopalian then Presbyterian then Deist


Other/Non-religious/Unknown/unsure (I've put my guesses next to them in some cases)
George Clymer – Quaker, Episcopalian (born Quaker Mom, Episcopalian Dad, never joined anything that I know of, not a rogue though)
William Ellery – Congregationalist, not a member of any church, not a rogue
Joseph Hewes – raised Quaker, became Episcopalian?, buried with Mason honors.
Thomas Heyward, Jr. – unknown
Arthur Middleton – unknown
Lewis Morris – unknown
Thomas Nelson, Jr. – unknown
George Walton – Anglican (probably not a regular church-goer of any kind, rogue it seems)

That's the best I could do on short notice... if anyone can make corrections please make your case (with links or sources). IF anyone can help fill in the Other/Non-religious/Unknown (with links or sources) group for me I will modify the list, thanks :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1 Samuel 15:23
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. Because thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

I used to have a pet teraphim - but its shell went soft and then it died.