Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests New Pope Elected!

Wow. That was one long read. As for the Pope, not much will be different. As was stated, there's a strategy for perhaps a more liberal Pope in the near future, I think.
And there is obviously a concern over religion in the country with the amount of replies about it, and appropriately so - 2 Tim 3:4,5

Originally posted by DanMyers:

---

Come on guys, too much religious debate. You believe in something, fine...So why argue with others? Believe what you want, and practice what you want, there is absoloutely no reason religions should collide like this. After all, your choice in religion is just that, your choice in religion, and someone elses choice is their own, I like front wheel drive cars, some people don't, do I go around attempting to change their opinion? No, because they couldn't change mine, and that's fine. Basically all I'm saying is, step back, take a moment to cool off, and respect everyone else for their opinions as much as you respect people who share yours.

---

I'm sure any of the apostle's preferred not to hold back what they had to say about Christ to the Jews and Gentiles. Liking a FWD has no bearing on your life whereas discussing this would.

Originally posted by Corbett:

---

You would not have to do any of that. You would just have to believe in your heart. Not just say you believe. God will know your true intentions, no matter how hard you try to hide them. He will know what you are thinking on the inside. He is not like a man you can manipulate, He is God. All knowing!

---

If you told your fiance you loved her, yet never bought her flowers, spent time/money on her, really showed you loved her, would you be able to say you demonstrate a thourough love for her? -Jam 2:17,18,21,22

Oh... the Puritains were great at being persecuters in England as well... does the name Oliver Cromwell ring a bell?

The Bible was a book commonly used to teach reading because it was a widely available common text in a day when books were scarce and a common one more so. However, when the McGuffey's Readers were created and used by 1800's students, they had a generous dose of Biblical teaching.

I do not believe that students are being forced to learn non-Christian religions. They are being taught about the religions used by other peoples around the world and different times in history to learn about those peoples as a culture. I see the same with the UNC reading. In an area where many in our country are making Islamics out to be Satanists, they are looking at college (which is supposed to broaden the minds and the experience of the students) as an opportunity to teach the students some things about it. I see it as a cultural study, not a religious study.

Religion is a Humanity discipline after all, like Languages and Literatures.

I have as many issues with the hypersensitivity of many about the display of seasonal religious artifacts, but I do agree with not allowing the continued permanent installation of religious artifacts in government structures.

As far as the Founding Fathers stuff goes, keep in mind the following:

- There's no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence

- The Constitution does not mention God AT ALL

- The Declaration of Independence mentions God three times - the first as "the laws of nature and nature's God," the second as "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." It also mentions "Divine Providence," which could be considered a reference to God.

- The 85 essays of the Federalist Papers only mention God twice, both by the same author (Hamilton), both in the "God only knows" sense

- "In God we Trust" didn't appear on coins until after the Civil War

- "Under God" wasn't part of the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954

- Ben Franklin was a deist

- Tom Paine was also a deist, although he was frequently labeled an atheist due to his criticisms of most religions

- Thomas Jefferson proclaimed himself a Christian, but he dismissed the foundation of the religion (virgin birth, the miracles, etc.) as "the fable." Jefferson simply admired the moral teachings of Jesus; he didn't buy into the mystical portion of the religion. Today that would pretty much make him an outcast in most Christian churches. Jefferson went on to found the University of Virginia, at which he banned the teaching of theology.

- Washington and Madison were basically agnostic; Washington spoke of God in non-denominational terms such as "Great Author" and "Almighty Being." Madison wrote of the negative actions individuals have taken in the name of Christianity.

The Founding Fathers all seem to have had their own concepts of the existence of a God. But to say they were all Christians, especially in the sense we consider Christianity today, is false.

Finally, I'd point out the Treaty of Barbary, ratified unanimously in 1797, which contained the phrase: As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. Of course this was not the point of the Treaty, but does anyone think phrasing like this would have any chance of being accepted today?

Nothing you've mentioned here counters the fact that US can trace much of it's founding heritage back to Christian ideals, premises and concepts. I did not say all of the Founders were Christian; I said most laid claim to that label. Some were Deists, which is markedly different than Christianity.

I was hoping that the Treaty of Barbary would come up, because this is the most popular one that gets used in arguments like this. For a refutation, go no further than Yale's own School of Law:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/barmenu.htm

Check out the piece that points you to the section called "Note Regarding the Barlow Translation". I've included it here, but feel free to confirm things yourself.


NOTE REGARDING THE Barlow TRANSLATION

The translation first printed is that of Barlow as written in the original treaty book, including not only the twelve articles of the treaty proper, but also the receipt and the note mentioned, according to the Barlow translation, in Article 10. The signature of Barlow is copied as it occurs, but not his initials, which are on every page of the fourteen which is not signed. The Humphreys approval or confirmation follows the translation; but the other writings, in English and Spanish, in the original treaty book, are not printed with the translation but only in these notes.

It is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.

As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point

So your post confirms that the bible is a collection of contradictory information that no person could or should actually follow for guidance.