American beliefs

[Cerberus]

Mat 5:34
But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all

Who is persecuting you?

Nobody persecutes me, I'm armed to the teeth and I don't yield. Christianity as a whole is under persecution in some form or another.

Matthew pretty much also said to obey every aspect of Jewish law, even that which was fulfilled by the Crucifixion. The word "swear" is used in both Old and New Testaments in at least 60+ verses, 7 times in Matthew alone. Matthew and James are the only ones to state it as something negative. Paul didn't think it was negative, and he was the only other one to use the term in the NT.

 

[poptab]

I affirmed that i would uphold the constitution. They always give the option to swear or affirm.

What's the difference?
Respectfully, Genuinely interested.

 

[Cerberus]

Good point. Slavery is still technically in the constitution.

And still technically forbidden, with a caveat.
ARTICLE XIII.Section 1. Neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime; whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

[poptab]

Nobody persecutes me, I'm armed to the teeth and I don't yield. Christianity as a whole is under persecution in some form or another.

Matthew pretty much also said to obey every aspect of Jewish law, even that which was fulfilled by the Crucifixion. The word "swear" is used in both Old and New Testaments in at least 60+ verses, 7 times in Matthew alone. Matthew and James are the only ones to state it as something negative. Paul didn't think it was negative, and he was the only other one to use the term in the NT.

So Jesus didn't say, "do not swear an oath at all"?

 

[poptab]

James 5:12
Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear--not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple "Yes" or "No." Otherwise you will be condemned.

 

[MisterChester]

And still technically forbidden, with a caveat.
ARTICLE XIII.Section 1. Neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime; whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Thats true, it just depends on what someone means by "as written". Do future amendments count or not? While Slavery is illegal, it is still indirectly mentioned in Article 1

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

sorry about the format looking that way, on mobile.

 

[rambone]

Thats true, it just depends on what someone means by "as written". Do future amendments count or not? While Slavery is illegal, it is still indirectly mentioned in Article 1

sorry about the format looking that way, on mobile.

The constitution wasn't much of an endorsement of slavery. There was a disagreement over how to count the existing slaves when it comes to figuring out congressional districts and the constitution resolved it.

The regions filled with slaves wanted full representation for their slave populations. So, the slavers wanted their slaves to count as FIVE-fifths of a person -- a FULL person! -- so that their states had more Congressmen in the House, and more power. The ANTI-slavers wanted slaves to count as ZERO-fifths of a person, to shrink the representation of the slaver states.

The USA would never have existed if the founders didn't compromise on how to apportion representation for the existing enslaved population.

 

[2A_Tom]

"Surely future generations wouldn't try to take the Bible out of schools.
In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, if we were to remove the Bible from schools, I lament that we could be wasting so much time and money in punishing crime and would be taking so little pains to prevent them."

~Benjamin Rush

Now you do realize that putting forth religious training as a means of crime prevention is ridiculous! We all know that the only way to prevent crime is to ban all guns, knives , forks, spoons, baseball bats...


Natural Law is instinctual, like a spider spinning a web. Romans 1:20 ff. Every man has a conscience that will guide him, but it is easily swayed by our own lusts, what we see, hear and desire. The bible states the three corrupting factors as the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life.

The Bible is eternal. Psalm 119:89 The bible gives a clear standard that no one can live up to. It is a mirror to show us our state of utter need. It condemns everyone in showing each his shortcomings and sins. No one is exempt from its piercing truth. Revelation 21:8 However the end is not the universal condemnation but the ultimate peace and total forgiveness through Jesus Christ our Saviour. Romans 8:1 No christian is allowed to hate or condemn another human being. Romans 2:1 Proclaiming the truth is not hate but love.

Morals are relative. Judges 17:6 If it feels good, do it. the Romans and others placed ugly, deformed, unwanted or weak babies in the wild to die. The US gave tax breaks to intact families to mold America into a strong nation. In Papua New Guinea cannibalism was once the norm. A society sets a moral standard according to the lusts of the people. Even then there is aberrant behavior. At the rate America is going there will come a day when child molesters will soon be protected from hate speech.


ATM, I think I understand what you are saying is that a people that is self governed by the desire to strive to please G-d, need no government at all or a very limited one at most.

Judaism was founded as a theocracy. G-d's law was the restraining factor of their society but their sin caused their downfall time and again. Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Basically they demanded a new constitution in Samuel 8:5 and in Samuel 8:11 samuel told them plainly that they were giving up their liberty. Th people gladly gave up their liberty for security.

Those who do not read history are bound to repeat the same mistakes.

For those of you don't know the Bible you are lacking in your ability to apply His Truth to your reasoning. I have no one in mind so please don't take that as hate speech.

 

[2A_Tom]

What's the difference?
Respectfully, Genuinely interested.

Affirmative = yes
Negative = No

Basically your word is your bond, rather unconventional these days. James 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

 

[MisterChester]

Now you do realize that putting forth religious training as a means of crime prevention is ridiculous! We all know that the only way to prevent crime is to ban all guns, knives , forks, spoons, baseball bats...


Natural Law is instinctual, like a spider spinning a web. Romans 1:20 ff. Every man has a conscience that will guide him, but it is easily swayed by our own lusts, what we see, hear and desire. The bible states the three corrupting factors as the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life.

The Bible is eternal. Psalm 119:89 The bible gives a clear standard that no one can live up to. It is a mirror to show us our state of utter need. It condemns everyone in showing each his shortcomings and sins. No one is exempt from its piercing truth. Revelation 21:8 However the end is not the universal condemnation but the ultimate peace and total forgiveness through Jesus Christ our Saviour. Romans 8:1 No christian is allowed to hate or condemn another human being. Romans 2:1 Proclaiming the truth is not hate but love.

Morals are relative. Judges 17:6 If it feels good, do it. the Romans and others placed ugly, deformed, unwanted or weak babies in the wild to die. The US gave tax breaks to intact families to mold America into a strong nation. In Papua New Guinea cannibalism was once the norm. A society sets a moral standard according to the lusts of the people. Even then there is aberrant behavior. At the rate America is going there will come a day when child molesters will soon be protected from hate speech.


ATM, I think I understand what you are saying is that a people that is self governed by the desire to strive to please G-d, need no government at all or a very limited one at most.

Judaism was founded as a theocracy. G-d's law was the restraining factor of their society but their sin caused their downfall time and again. Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Basically they demanded a new constitution in Samuel 8:5 and in Samuel 8:11 samuel told them plainly that they were giving up their liberty. Th people gladly gave up their liberty for security.

Those who do not read history are bound to repeat the same mistakes.

For those of you don't know the Bible you are lacking in your ability to apply His Truth to your reasoning. I have no one in mind so please don't take that as hate speech.

"If it feels good, do it"?

uh....

 

[deal me in]

Christianity isn't necessary for a moral people and it may well be detrimental. Cultural norms rejecting murder and theft predate Christianity and are common in secular countries. Everyone always focuses on whether Hitler was a Christian or not. That's the wrong focus. The fact is that Germany was chock full of Christians who willingly supported the holocaust or, at the very least, looked the other way. The vast majority of the politicians who have led us away from our self-reliant, liberty loving roots were/are Christians. This isn't meant to condemn Christianity; I freely acknowledge all the good that has been done in the name of Jesus like charity hospitals, soup kitchens, and other charitable acts too numerous to list. Just pointing out that religious affiliation isn't necessarily a good indicator of positive values/morals/behavior.

To me it's understandable that 18th century Americans believed in Christianity. This was pre-Darwin, pre-Einstein, etc. Their knowledge was limited, but even so, Jefferson, Paine and many others were skeptical to say the least. At this point, I think we're better off cherry picking the good qualities from the Bible (treating your fellow man with kindness, etc) and leaving the rest of the baggage behind.

To answer the OP, I agree with Adams that our Constitution was designed to govern a moral people. I would have just left "religious" out. We're an amoral people because we feel entitled to the fruits of other's labor, we feel entitled to global hegemony, we've allowed our government to become hopelessly corrupt, and we feel the need to control the lives of our neighbors through nanny-state laws and regulations. Not because we aren't religious enough.

 

[ATM]

Christianity isn't necessary for a moral people and it may well be detrimental. Cultural norms rejecting murder and theft predate Christianity and are common in secular countries. Everyone always focuses on whether Hitler was a Christian or not. That's the wrong focus. The fact is that Germany was chock full of Christians who willingly supported the holocaust or, at the very least, looked the other way. The vast majority of the politicians who have led us away from our self-reliant, liberty loving roots were/are Christians. This isn't meant to condemn Christianity; I freely acknowledge all the good that has been done in the name of Jesus like charity hospitals, soup kitchens, and other charitable acts too numerous to list. Just pointing out that religious affiliation isn't necessarily a good indicator of positive values/morals/behavior.

To me it's understandable that 18th century Americans believed in Christianity. This was pre-Darwin, pre-Einstein, etc. Their knowledge was limited, but even so, Jefferson, Paine and many others were skeptical to say the least. At this point, I think we're better off cherry picking the good qualities from the Bible (treating your fellow man with kindness, etc) and leaving the rest of the baggage behind.

To answer the OP, I agree with Adams that our Constitution was designed to govern a moral people. I would have just left "religious" out. We're an amoral people because we feel entitled to the fruits of other's labor, we feel entitled to global hegemony, we've allowed our government to become hopelessly corrupt, and we feel the need to control the lives of our neighbors through nanny-state laws and regulations. Not because we aren't religious enough.

The Christianity vs Science discussion is going on in another thread if you'd care to join in: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...g-uncivil-behavior-new-religious-threads.html

And the founders' definition of religion was believing and attempting to live by Judeo-Christian principles which they considered universal and self-evident, not affiliation with any specific sect or movement.

You might want to go double-check your assumptions about some of the skepticism you claim and the motives for some of the theories of Darwin being so prominently pushed. I could probably cite plenty of refutations if you can find anything worth using as support for your claims.

The government changed because the people changed and a people who abandon their guiding principles will tend to be ruled by the worst among them.

Science is simply not equipped to provide such guiding principles, ethics and morals as Americans had always followed. The ruling class arose to fill the void.

 

[deal me in]

The Christianity vs Science discussion is going on in another thread if you'd care to join in: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...g-uncivil-behavior-new-religious-threads.html

And the founders' definition of religion was believing and attempting to live by Judeo-Christian principles which they considered universal and self-evident, not affiliation with any specific sect or movement.

You might want to go double-check your assumptions about some of the skepticism you claim and the motives for some of the theories of Darwin being so prominently pushed. I could probably cite plenty of refutations if you can find anything worth using as support for your claims.

The government changed because the people changed and a people who abandon their guiding principles will tend to be ruled by the worst among them.

Science is simply not equipped to provide such guiding principles, ethics and morals as Americans had always followed. The ruling class arose to fill the void.

People haven't changed. The few seized more and more power just like they ways have. I guess we're not supposed to really get into arguing the merits of science vs religion, so maybe some other place and time.

 

[Lowe0]

Science is simply not equipped to provide such guiding principles, ethics and morals as Americans had always followed. The ruling class arose to fill the void.

Ruling out science as a source of morals doesn't leave religion as the only alternative. Contrary to the popular hash tag, atheists can have morals.

 

[ATM]

People haven't changed. The few seized more and more power just like they ways have. I guess we're not supposed to really get into arguing the merits of science vs religion, so maybe some other place and time.

The people did change or they wouldn't have allowed or needed rulers to seize more power. That's exactly what the Revolution entailed.

And arguing merits is fine in that other thread but would steer this one more off-topic.

 

[ATM]

Ruling out science as a source of morals doesn't leave religion as the only alternative. Contrary to the popular hash tag, atheists can have morals.

So you disagree with the founders, what they believed and staked this nation's system of governance upon. Most modern Americans seem to.

 

[deal me in]

Science is absolutely a source of morals. Racism is an example. Years ago, it was believed that racial differences accounted for the large disparities between cultures. Over the last century science has taught us the race itself had very little to do with those dispIties. Now, in the 21st century, thanks to science, it's very difficult for an educated man to be a racist.

 

[ATM]

Science is absolutely a source of morals. Racism is an example. Years ago, it was believed that racial differences accounted for the large disparities between cultures. Over the last century science has taught us the race itself had very little to do with those dispIties. Now, in the 21st century, thanks to science, it's very difficult for an educated man to be a racist.

Ha! Science produced the incorrect conclusions to begin with, it is only now beginning to return to the universal moral that all men are created equal.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yeah, I do agree, protected classes would be unnecessary if there was true equality of the law. Unfortunately it's never, ever been that way, and that's why the protected class was born. But my question is, is the protected class the will of equality and balance in a nation that has many skeletons in its inequality closet? If we never had slavery, entitled every adult to vote, saw men and women as equals, saw heterosexuals and homosexuals as equals, pretty much see all humans as equals and entitled to all the same rights from the very beginning, do you think the protected class would have ever come into fruition?

Sure. As long as somebody wants to assert that men are EXACTLY like women, instead of equal in the eyes of the law; as long as somebody wants to assert that THEIR freedoms trump someone else's freedoms there will be a push for "protected" classes of people. It wouldn't matter materially if people pushed for "protected classes" as long as courts refused to honor them.

 

[GIJEW]

Perhaps you don't conceive what the Constitution was or is. It created a limited federal government to serve the states, not this nationalized leviathan to rule us all.

If our modern society requires this centralized nanny cartel to rule us and the rest of the world as subjects, shouldn't we at least give it a new document by which it may legitimately function?

We didn't need or want any such beast when it was originally formed. We had just defended ourselves from a smaller version of it at the time.

A constitutional convention could be "playing with fire". Just think of who would have input into what the new one might look like. I'm betting it would turn out being a lot like that new document that legitimizes our central nanny state, that you spoke of. To me the point of John Adams statement in your original post, is that you can't legislate morality.
The notion of religion being essential to a moral civil society, is of course, that right and wrong aren't defined by people, and therefore aren't relative. The problem is that religious principles get filtered through people's perception of them. isis is a current 'worst case' example of that. Again, people are at the core of the problem and you can't enforce morality with legislation--not "us" and not even God!
I'm for sticking with trying to get the fed.gov to abide by the constitution we've got rather than change it