US Constitution based on Christian Laws

[achilles12604]

In another thread Whirlwind wrote the following:

We are founded on Judaic/Christian values....not Islam.

This of course took the original thread off course and as such, I am starting a new topic here to investigate this claim.

The Constitution of the United States

Whirlwind, as you made the claim, I shall allow you to provide examples. If you do not provide examples sometime today (Assuming you are on later today), I will delve into this in the near future myself as I LOVE learning new things.

[perfessor]

Christianty is special Chris. As you seem to request verification of that, I offer....

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.

Riiiiight... Good day to you, sir.

Or ma'am, as the case may be.

Whirlwind, if your intent is to make people roll their eyes and scoff at your imagined "wisdom", then keep on with the argument-by-scripture plan. But since you have already acknowledged that many of us see no value in such arguments, I do wonder why you persist in that strategy.

In any case, the topic for this thread is whether the US Constitution is based on Christian laws - not, I must point out, whether the authors were Christian or not.

Vague passing references to "nature's god" and such, do not constitute an encoding of Christian theology in our laws. Neither do laws against theft, murder, or perjury - yes they are in the ten commandments, but they are in the laws of every functioning society that has ever existed, pre or post Moses.

If you want to make your case, tell me which "Christian" laws we are talking about anyway. Please.

[whirlwind]

Christianty is special Chris. As you seem to request verification of that, I offer....

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.

Riiiiight... Good day to you, sir.

Or ma'am, as the case may be.

Whirlwind, if your intent is to make people roll their eyes and scoff at your imagined "wisdom", then keep on with the argument-by-scripture plan. But since you have already acknowledged that many of us see no value in such arguments, I do wonder why you persist in that strategy.

Rolling eyes doesn't bother me so I stick with my "argument-by-scripture plan." That way "my wisdom" doesn't come into question...

[center]Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt[/center]

I try my best to remain silent and allow Him to speak.

Mark 13:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

In any case, the topic for this thread is whether the US Constitution is based on Christian laws - not, I must point out, whether the authors were Christian or not.

Vague passing references to "nature's god" and such, do not constitute an encoding of Christian theology in our laws. Neither do laws against theft, murder, or perjury - yes they are in the ten commandments, but they are in the laws of every functioning society that has ever existed, pre or post Moses.

If you want to make your case, tell me which "Christian" laws we are talking about anyway. Please.

I disagree that other societies functioned under laws such as those contained in the Ten Commandments. However, I'm not trying to make a case....just an observation.

[chris_brown207]

Christianty is special Chris. As you seem to request verification of that, I offer....

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.

Riiiiight... Good day to you, sir.

Or ma'am, as the case may be.

Whirlwind, if your intent is to make people roll their eyes and scoff at your imagined "wisdom", then keep on with the argument-by-scripture plan. But since you have already acknowledged that many of us see no value in such arguments, I do wonder why you persist in that strategy.

Rolling eyes doesn't bother me so I stick with my "argument-by-scripture plan." That way "my wisdom" doesn't come into question...

[center]Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt[/center]

I try my best to remain silent and allow Him to speak.

Mark 13:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

In any case, the topic for this thread is whether the US Constitution is based on Christian laws - not, I must point out, whether the authors were Christian or not.

Vague passing references to "nature's god" and such, do not constitute an encoding of Christian theology in our laws. Neither do laws against theft, murder, or perjury - yes they are in the ten commandments, but they are in the laws of every functioning society that has ever existed, pre or post Moses.

If you want to make your case, tell me which "Christian" laws we are talking about anyway. Please.

I disagree that other societies functioned under laws such as those contained in the Ten Commandments. However, I'm not trying to make a case....just an observation.

Please review debate rules 4,5... and please stick to responses that have to do with the topic, and are substantive. Posting scripture "just because" is a violation of the debate rules.

[whirlwind]

Christianty is special Chris. As you seem to request verification of that, I offer....

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.

Riiiiight... Good day to you, sir.

Or ma'am, as the case may be.

Whirlwind, if your intent is to make people roll their eyes and scoff at your imagined "wisdom", then keep on with the argument-by-scripture plan. But since you have already acknowledged that many of us see no value in such arguments, I do wonder why you persist in that strategy.

Rolling eyes doesn't bother me so I stick with my "argument-by-scripture plan." That way "my wisdom" doesn't come into question...

[center]Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt[/center]

I try my best to remain silent and allow Him to speak.

Mark 13:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

In any case, the topic for this thread is whether the US Constitution is based on Christian laws - not, I must point out, whether the authors were Christian or not.

Vague passing references to "nature's god" and such, do not constitute an encoding of Christian theology in our laws. Neither do laws against theft, murder, or perjury - yes they are in the ten commandments, but they are in the laws of every functioning society that has ever existed, pre or post Moses.

If you want to make your case, tell me which "Christian" laws we are talking about anyway. Please.

I disagree that other societies functioned under laws such as those contained in the Ten Commandments. However, I'm not trying to make a case....just an observation.

Please review debate rules 4,5... and please stick to responses that have to do with the topic, and are substantive. Posting scripture "just because" is a violation of the debate rules.

Please understand...I didn't post scripture "just because." The question was asked...."But since you have already acknowledged that many of us see no value in such arguments, I do wonder why you persist in that strategy." My answer was contained in the verse I quoted. It is, "for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost."

[Slopeshoulder]

Actually, the Constitution is more of an Enlightenment document, tying us more to the French than the British, who, after all, kept their monarchy. They sent us the statue of Liberty because of common Enlightenment bonds. Jeffereson was attacked by the religiose backwoods proto-republicans as that "Frenchman on the Potomac", and is incidentally downgraded by the churchified Texas schoolbook revisionists. This is probably due to his Separation Clause, which they would like us to forget.

Bingo! Award the cookie.
My wife told me yesterday that the California fundies are now trying to change the state constitution to make judges elected, not appointed and approved via the elected legislature. They overtly want only right wing christianist judges. This is unamerican and unconstitutional, but one step closer to their dream of a theocracy. Damn you to hell pat robertson.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 42:

Rolling eyes Rolling Eyes doesn't bother me so I stick with my "argument-by-scripture plan." That way "my wisdom" doesn't come into question...

One's wisdom is likely to be questioned when they use circular logic to present their arguments.

Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt

Yet you speak.

I try my best to remain silent and allow Him to speak.

What evidence can you present to show it's "Him" speaking, and not you?

Why has God stolen your username?

Mark 13:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak...

Do you not think before you speak?

...neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

Please provide some means to confirm you speak truth regarding:

1- Holy Ghost exists
2- Holy Ghost speaks
3- Holy Ghost can compromise others and use them to do its speaking

I disagree that other societies functioned under laws such as those contained in the Ten Commandments. However, I'm not trying to make a case....just an observation.

I'd agree there likely were societies - tribes perhaps - that didn't follow all of the Ten Commandments, though evidence here is spotty at best, and relies on my amateur understanding of the issue.

[whirlwind]

From Post 42:

Rolling eyes Rolling Eyes doesn't bother me so I stick with my "argument-by-scripture plan." That way "my wisdom" doesn't come into question...

One's wisdom is likely to be questioned when they use circular logic to present their arguments.

True...but it doesn't bother me. I'm one of His " peculiar people."

Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt

Yet you speak.

I write His Words whenever possible. His Words, not mine, hold truth, knowledge and wisdom.

I try my best to remain silent and allow Him to speak.

What evidence can you present to show it's "Him" speaking, and not you?

Why has God stolen your username?

Actually, the name Whirlwind is His....

Job 38:1-4 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou Me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Mark 13:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak...

Do you not think before you speak?

I usually do but where the above applies is when answering queries about Him.

...neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

Please provide some means to confirm you speak truth regarding:

1- Holy Ghost exists
2- Holy Ghost speaks
3- Holy Ghost can compromise others and use them to do its speaking

I can provide verification from His written Word. I'll gather the verses later today.

I disagree that other societies functioned under laws such as those contained in the Ten Commandments. However, I'm not trying to make a case....just an observation.

I'd agree there likely were societies - tribes perhaps - that didn't follow all of the Ten Commandments, though evidence here is spotty at best, and relies on my amateur understanding of the issue.

Your "amateur understanding" probably surpasses mine.

[ChaosBorders]

Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt

Yet you speak.

Not anymore he doesn't. I did try to warn him...twice.

[Goat]

Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt

Yet you speak.

Not anymore he doesn't. I did try to warn him...twice.

There are some things that are like train wrecks in slow motion. You can see it coming, and yet there is nothing you can do to prevent it.

[Slopeshoulder]

Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt

Yet you speak.

Not anymore he doesn't. I did try to warn him...twice.

There are some things that are like train wrecks in slow motion. You can see it coming, and yet there is nothing you can do to prevent it.

I wonder what took so long. Gettin' rid of whirlwind was like a full time job for several of us. Did anyone think s/he would listen and reform?
Just think though: s/he is spewing vile nonsense elsewhere, probably where the folks are more gullable. I'm afraid Whirlwind has decades of damage-doing still to do.