Why The Bible Has Never Caught on with Everyone.

Politician Hubert Humphrey said, “In politics, you can’t talk down to people and get their votes.”

I think that explains why state votes against gay marriage have started to fail.  The warning gay marriage would affect straight marriages has never come to pass.

The same principle is seen when Catholic hierarchy warns the faithful they must never use birth control.  People ignore this.  They know better.

The Bible talks down to people.  Instead of just explaining Jesus was someone who could perform miracles, it has him doing them over and over and over again.  There are so many it can make one suspicious.

And, then there is the part where Jesus becomes a god or god like.  The authors could have just had a moment or one explanation of how this came to be.  But, like the miracles, they seem to have thought people would not understand unless played the divine card over and over.

There is Jesus becoming divine when he bounced out of the tomb.  Then, he was made divine by John the Baptist.

That still wasn’t enough.  He was made divine by the virgin birth.  On top of that, he was pre-labeled divine before all of these happened.

This kind of repetition of magical thinking and hyperbole touches the hearts of millions.  But, other millions find it an insult to their rational thinking and reject it.

The entire faith would do well to treat people’s ability to think rationally with more respect.

http://blogs.christianpost.com/retro-christianity/is-the-virgin-birth-doctrine-really-all-that-necessary-14960/

FaceBook, Red River Freethinkers

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to Why The Bible Has Never Caught on with Everyone.

  1. Brad says:

    The Bible relies on people who are stuck in a child-like stage of intellectual development. Some Christians simply ignore the outlandish parts of the Bible and only focus on what makes sense, and some of them will admit that at least parts of it are rubbish. The zealots and fundamentalists are mostly driven by pure emotion, but they too are very selective about what parts of the Bible they take seriously.

    The Republican party plays the same game. They rely on the intellectually challenged and emotionally driven crazies to vote for them.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Brad 2:10 “Some Christians simply ignore the outlandish parts of the Bible and only focus on what makes sense, and some of them will admit that at least parts of it are rubbish.”

      Good summary.

      • Michael Ross says:

        Brad:”The Bible relies on people who are stuck in a child-like stage of intellectual development.”

        Jon: “Good summery”

        Brad and Jon are mature adults and Bible-believing Christians are “in a child-like stage of intellectual development”.

        Now who is talking down to who?

    • Ajax says:

      Says the guy speaking down to people. Ha ha!

    • Stanta says:

      So interesting to be called childlike, just how old are you. The difference between you and me is an imagination, the ability to see the possible. Before I came to Christ I did an awful lot of design work for the supercomputer, microchip and pharmaceutical industry working only from a two year at huge archetectural degree. It was fun finding solutions when people with Phd after their names couldn’t.

      If I had stopped at the samepoint if development you did I wouldn’t have had the imagination and drive I did.

      Developmental psychology considers theaters of 18-25 as the last stage of childhood. When we turn from the “everything is about me” stage to placing the wants and security of others before our own, not all make it past this stage, what I do know us people who have given their life to God and actually live it, they would stop a bullit for you.

  2. entech says:

    Why The Bible Has N ever Caught on with EveryAnyone?

    There you go Jon, thought I would change it to more to my way of thought.
    It should have been a question

  3. Ed says:

    Brad the scholar (2:10) says Christians are stuck in a child- like stage of intellectual development and Rupublicans rely on the intellectually challenged to vote for them….

    So it’s the atheists who are the intellectual leaders of mankind…..and the unemployed living off our welfare system playing video games at home who are the real intellectual voters in society? Great insight Brad.

    Once again the all inclusive, non judgmental, all accepting and arrogant Jon gives you accolades for another post bashing Christians and Republicans. You both repeatedly demonstrate a real hard time accepting this country was founded by Christians with Christian principles. Recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Look at the words on our currency. America is not catering to the self righteous free thinkers that represent 2% of our population. It’s time smart folks like you that can’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance hit the road and leave your food stamps with your intellectual neighbor on your way out.

    • Jeffrey Eide says:

      Hi, Ed!

      Allow me to introduce you to something called skepticism… It allows people to question the beliefs and values around them. It also encourages curiosity rather than complacent ignorance.

      Speaking of ignorance, I feel an obligation to point out that although the country was founded on a European style authoritarian system -correlating to, and not caused by – Christianity, it also started off well with witch burnings and slavery. Of all the founding fathers, only John Jay could be considered to be a Christian, rather than a deist, or atheist, such as Benjamin Franklin.

      Now I am going to answer my own questions for you.

      When was the pledge of allegiance adopted? The Pledge of allegiance was originally written in 1892 WITHOUT mention of a god. It was not adopted until 1942 and the word GOD was added into it in 1944.

      When did the USA adopt the current national motto? The words on our currency was adopted as the official motto in 1956, changed from “e pluribus unum”

      You want to talk about “self righteous”?? Why don’t you try to stop reinforcing your own delusions and learn a little bit about the history of your own country. You can not get a way with the claim that this is a christian nation. The very idea that you do try to insist this renews my passion and distrust for organized religion. Why don’t you try tolerance for once? You might give Christians a better name!

    • Brad says:

      “and the unemployed living off our welfare system playing video games at home who are the real intellectual voters in society”

      Ed,

      Your false stereotypical insult of a majority of Americans may work in the vast Republican wasteland of ND, but it ain’t cutting it nationwide.

      • Henry says:

        “vast Republican wasteland of ND”

        It pisses off liberal, atheist, democrats when an entity managed by someone other than themselves is actually productive (not a wasteland).

  4. Michael Ross says:

    “The entire faith would do well to treat people’s ability to think rationally with more respect.”
    If you cannot rationalize it, it must not be true. Your “Freethinking” has been taken captive by human reason.

    “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways, declares the LORD.
    For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55: 8-9)

  5. Henry says:

    Some loose ideas were spewed all over this blog concerning Ben Franklyn being atheist. I am skeptical of that loose, wild claim. Just to give one clue, here is his epitaph authored by Ben himself:

    “The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out, stripped of its lettering, and guilding, lies here, food for worms. But the work shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more elegant edition, revised and corrected by the Author.”

    Furthermore, this nation was not completely a Christian nation. We did have one atheist, Thomas Pain who brought much scorn upon himself from the other founding fathers. One atheist guy. What to you do? Leave him alone, lest ye root up also the wheat with them.

    • Henry says:

      P.S. Complacent ignorance would allow one to believe the founding fathers were atheists when an examination of the subject would indicate the founders were in a majority Christian. To be sure, there was a Pain, but he was the exception.

      • entech says:

        There is another term that could substitute for Complacent Ignorance, didn’t Henry once talk of seeing things through the Sieve of Scripture. Hard to imagine a more complacent or ignorant approach to the world.

        • Henry says:

          Oh, there is no complacency in that. Daily devotion, regular church at least once per week, and bible studies. All very fulfilling. I’d recommend it for the good atheist.

    • entech says:

      Tom Paine is the only one that was a declared deist, most of the rest probably were. Paine was certainly no friend of organised religion though, that is true:
      That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not.

  6. Brad says:

    Ah, the Christian myths continue.

    For anyone who believes that this country was founded on Christianity, read Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate in 1797, and signed by one of the founding fathers, President John Adams:

    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

    Also, the founders apparently saw fit to protect atheists in terms of running for public office. Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    • Henry says:

      Brad:“Also, the founders apparently saw fit to protect atheists”

      Christians look out for the well-being of atheists on a constant basis. I know of one Catholic that looks after the welfare of prisoners. Look at the Catholic and Protestant run hospitals with nuns running all over the place, caring for the grumbling, complaining atheist with a bad case of gout.

      • Stanta says:

        Heck I know at least 200-300 Christians in general right here in Minnesota who give up full three day weekend several times a year to help in jails and prisons. I have yet to hear of an atheist program doing the same, besides I’m not sure there is a message the atheist can give to the prisoners which will change their ways.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Stan 3:40 What do you suppose the response would be if atheists requested permission to give an atheist program in prisons or jails??

          • Stanta says:

            Jon, what a cop out. Develope a program and propose it. You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.

            If the thoughts of atheist are so much better then Christians it should be a shoe in. I bet trying to get 30 atheists to work together under the conditions we do may be a bit challenging. No outside breaks, prison food, hope they had a shower day the night before, really hope you don’t get the violent offenders again.

          • Stanta says:

            Still copping out.

      • entech says:

        I know of one Catholic that looks after the welfare of prisoners.
        Tell me Henry you are a man of all knowledge and I am a foreigner with limited local knowledge, what percentage of the prisoners that Stan (don’t be coy, name names he is rightly proud of the work he does and I personally have the greatest admiration for him, you I think would be more likely to carry the banner for Phelps) looks after are atheist. Depending on who is writing some evangelical source would say more than 20% , some atheist sources say 0.21%, perhaps about the national average would be reasonable maybe 10%. I would happily be corrected by Stan based on his experience, difficult to get stats as so many may be pretend converts for personal benefit.

        Once again Henry tries to sneak under fence that all prisoners are atheists; I suppose he could be right, after all no “real Christian” would break the laws of God or man. :lol:

        • entech says:

          Oh, I forgot to mention my neighbor retired now, ex-Nurse, ex-Christian, she tells me of running around all over the place caring for the complaining, grumbling Christian with a bad case of syphilis.

          • Henry says:

            entech: “bad case of syphilis.”

            She must have nursed in the 19th century when syphilis could not be very well controlled, even considering the recent advent of resistant strains. That makes entech ancient (150+). Otherwise, you have been given some bad info that doesn’t make sense.

            There is a group who gets syphilis recently at high rates. That group is Jon’s sacred cow, so let’s not go there.

          • entech says:

            Actually taking a page from your book, exaggerating and lying.

        • Stanta says:

          Entech, Jon would say the beliefs of prisoners reflects the general population according to surveys. I would guess out of our capacity of 30 inmates maybe 2 have read the Bible a little. Most have never heard of the Trinity, the concept of God’s Grace or of reconciliation. If the are anything they are cultural Christians because of Christmas as they grew up. Most haven’t been in a church since they were big enough to tell mom to f’ off.

          Are they atheists, no I don’t think so, but they aren’t Christians either. They generally would be cinsidered amoral or immoral. The only allegiance they have is to themselves and take what they want from those weaker then themselves Most do share with the atheist that there is no God.

          What is amazing is that in two days they make a huge turn around. You can be skeptical, but to show vulnerability or tears in a jail can be almost a death sentence. They do both. They also start sharing the treats we provide and become determined that they will help and protect each other while in jail and hopefully after they get out. They enter as suspicious individuals and leave the next day as a community.

          We have a couple of new sheriffs who are amazed at how the tension leave the jail for weeks and months after a retreat. Those who we have worked with look forward to each weekend we return.

          Are we helping atheists? We don’t really care, we are helping men. And at no time do we make them promise to become Catholics even though the diocese provides the funding except the money each retreat worker provides for the meals provided by the jail. Add the two days of vacation I need, one to prepare and one to recover because I usually have a migraine brought on by the close spaces and constant noise, and I figure it costs me at least $200 for the weekend. I and most of the workers really could spend that different ways, but not a better way.

          So when the others seek to destroy the Catholic Church as been written here in this particular comment section, I want to ask them if they will pick up the slack?

          • entech says:

            What you do is admirable and it is not likely that there would be other groups with your dedication.

            Henry seems to denigrate as “THE ATHEIST” any one he doesn’t agree with, as you point out it is much more complicated thing than simple labeling, the are as many definitions of atheist as there are people declaring as or being called atheist (bit of exaggeration in the number of definitions but you know what I mean). Perhaps you could extend that argument to the definition of Christian.

            The question remains does all the good counterbalance all the bad, shouldn’t the effort to be to make the good eliminate the bad.

          • Stanta says:

            Entech, don’t both sides have to strive for eliminating the bad. Part of the problem is defining the bad. I offer no excuses for the sex scandals, I wish there were some way to clean it up once and for all. Not that it would makd any difference, the Crusades comes up every time we talk of current persacution of Christians.

            That is different then destroying the Church to do it. How about we keep doing the good, and try to eliminate the bad? Of course that means for you and Jon we have to allow gay marriage, women priests, and change half of our dogma to do it. But anything to to satisfy the atheists.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Stan 1:20 “I offer no excuses for the sex scandals, I wish there were some way to clean it up once and for all.”

            That’s what everyone would wish for. But how? I don’t see how this can be done when many millions turn their money over to a person/group who is basically a dictator. They will not give up one ounce of power until it is actually taken from them. Every Catholic who cares about seeing an end to the scandal should say, “We in the pews must have power over those at the top.”

            If they don’t do this, but just continue to look at the floor, giving their time and money to the dictators in power, they continue to condone what is going on.

          • entech says:

            Stan all we need to do to start is just admit that somethings are wrong and need changing, from there we can work out what, when and how. Not that we can have any say in your fundamental beliefs just our joint place in the world we share.

            Obviously we would not agree on all things, if both looked hard together improvements would surely eventuate.

            Crusades and other things in the past happened, they don’t happen now. Part of healing is to accept it and move on.

          • Stanta says:

            My I use the except it and move one later? Because that, the Inquestion and witch burning is bound to be thrown in my face again. Quite likely by you.

        • Henry says:

          entech error: “Once again Henry tries to sneak under fence that all prisoners are atheists;”

          This error I previously put aside considering it minor, but we will have to discuss it as the discussion on this continues and seems to be growing legs. The above alleged claim was not made.

          • entech says:

            OK, I accept that I (deliberately?) misinterpreted what you intended, you blame The Atheist for so much.

            Probably think your losing sleep tonight is an atheistic and godless plot.

          • Stanta says:

            Whine whine whine Entech, wish that all the rules pertained to both sides of the debate. Jon especially and you frequently state that Chistianity is the blackest thing to happen in the history of Man, then get bum hurt when someone uses atheists as an example of Catholic hospitals excepting ALL people, not just Catholic Christians.

            What friggen crotchety old man, looking for a fight. My dad was doing that when dementia set in, giving the nurses and doctors hell. My brother asked him if he wanted to be remembered as that nice Mr Jones in room 445 when he died or as the mean old a$$hole at the end of the hall?

            When believers fight fire with fire and use the same tactics the atheists do why are WE on the wrong?

          • entech says:

            Stan 1:33 I think you will find most of that is a reaction to Henry.

          • Stanta says:

            No I am not off base. We have two sets of rules concerning civility here and the Antis run the show.

            I hope the fourth wall, the people who come to observe and learn see this.

    • Henry says:

      Brad: “of the Treaty of Tripoli”

      The atheist pulls out the languange of a little known treaty, the exception, and says it is all about them. I think the language in the Treaty of Tripoli is rather smart and coy, playing to the ears of the Moslem. The play worked well. …wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

      • Brad says:

        First, I’m not an atheist. Like most of the founders, I am a Deist. I believe in God, but I am extremely skeptical and suspicious of most organized religion, and my skepticism is based purely on the undeniable facts of organized religion.

        Second, the Treaty of Tripoli was approved by some of the founders, most notably the 2nd president of the U.S. If, like you suggest, that the U.S. was founded on Christian principles, then I very highly doubt that our founders would have approved a treaty with Muslims that said the exact opposite.

        • Henry says:

          The founders were correct. The US was not founded on the “Christian religion”. Christian principles, yes. The founders were very astute, playing well to the ear of the Moslem.

          • Stanta says:

            Nice play, bravo bravo!

          • Brad says:

            Go ahead and parse the words anyway you like. At the end of the day, the U.S. was not founded on the Christian religion or its principles. If it were, the Constitution would be radically different than what it is. There would be no 1st Amendment, and there would be no Article VI, paragraph 3.

            A government based on Christian principles would, by definition, be a theocracy.

          • Henry says:

            Brad: “Go ahead and parse”

            Brad, I am only simply reading the quoted words you supplied, while you are reading words into the quote.

          • Stanta says:

            Brad, both sides parse words here, because words have meaning. If it get to rough……

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        Henry 1:51 “The atheist pulss out the language of a little known treaty, the exception…”

        “The exception”??? The exception to what? It is not an exception. You need to own up the facts. It is an official document, written by a President, passed by Congress, which says the U. S. government is not Christian.

        • Henry says:

          Jon: “The exception to what?”

          To my knowledge, no other “official document” says the United States government is not “founded on the Christian religion”. Therefore, the exception.

          Jon, you really need to own up to the facts and quit relying on the babble you hear at your monthly atheist Sunday church meetings.

          • Brad says:

            This is way too funny. So according to that logic, any declaration or law must appear more than once to be valid?

          • Brad says:

            If someone can provide another document which explicitly states that the U.S. government is, in every sense, founded on the Christian religion, then and only then will the original declaration be proven null and void. Until then, I am taking Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli to be written proof of the views of the founders.

          • Henry says:

            Brad: “any declaration or law must appear more than once”

            That claim was not made. You are in error, again.

          • Henry says:

            Brad: “I am taking Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli to be written proof “

            By all means, insert the context of “principles” into the Tripoli law and replace the word “religion” with it. Then you can have it your way, and apply your personally modified, treaty law to all law on our books today. That is genius.

          • Brad says:

            Again, you are parsing words.

            Please explain the difference between “Christian religion” and “Christian principles”. It would seem to me that “principles” are generally agreed upon ideas directly from the “religion”, but please enlighten me as to how the founders believed that the U.S. government was absolutely founded on Christian principles (as you suggest), but absolutely not the Christian religion (as it is written in the treaty).

          • Henry says:

            macro vs. micro

            Not all of the Christian religion is inserted into the our nation’s founding. However, Christian principles (shared or unique) were embodied into our nation’s founding.

            The founders were correct. Brad is in error.

          • Brad says:

            In the treaty it says “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”.

            The part where it says “not, in any sense” is about as explicit as it gets. “Not, in any sense” covers everything, including “principles” or “vague notions”, or anything else remotely associated with Christianity.

            Now, if you want to suggest that the founders were just playing word games with the Muslims and trying to fool them, then let’s see some documented evidence of it.

          • Henry says:

            Brad, we will have to disagree.

            Here are some references that would provide you the proper context. Enjoy:

            See, for example, Report of the Committee of Claims, to Whom was Referred, on the Twentieth Instant the Petition of William Eaton (Washington, DC: A&G Way, 1804), pp. 6-34, “Statement Supported by Document Accompanying the Petition of William Eaton, presented the 20th of February, 1804,” Documents Respecting the Application of Hamet Caramalli, Ex-Bashaw of Tripoli (Washington, DC: Dwane & Son), pp. 53-54, letter from Secretary of State to James Cathcart, April 9, 1803, Documents Respecting the Application of Hamet Caramalli, Ex-Bashaw of Tripoli (Washington, DC: Dwane & Son), pp. 54-55, letter from the Secretary of State to Tobias Lear, June 6, 1804, Documents Respecting the Application of Hamet Caramalli, Ex-Bashaw of Tripoli (Washington, DC: Dwane & Son), pp. 71- 72, letter from Tobias Lear to James Madison, Secretary of State, July 5, 1805, Documents Respecting the Application of Hamet Caramalli, Ex-Bashaw of Tripoli (Washington, DC: Dwane & Son), pp. 80-81, letter from Tobias Lear to James Madison, July 5, 1805. All of these mention specific amounts paid to the Barbary powers for ransoms, as well as the numbers of ships and other supplies that was sent.

            Morocco: see Articles 10, 11, 17, and 24; Algiers: See Treaty of 1795, Article 17, and Treaty of 1815, Article 17; Tripoli: See Treaty of 1796, Article 11, and Treaty of 1805, Article 14; Tunis: See forward to Treaty.

            Acts Passed at the First Session of the Fifth Congress of the United States of America (Philadelphia: William Ross, 1797), pp. 43-44.

            John Jay, Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p. 491, Address to the Annual Meeting of the American Bible Society, May 8, 1823.

            John Quincy Adams,An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 17.

            John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. IX, p. 121, in a speech to both houses of Congress, November 23, 1797.

            Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 339.

            Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s Speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry and In Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young. Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1844), p. 52.

            John Adams, Works, Vol. VIII, p. 407, to Thomas Jefferson on July 3, 1786.

            John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.

            Charles Prentiss, The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton: Several Years an Officer in the United States’ Army Consul at the Regency of Tunis on the Coast of Barbary, and Commander of the Christian and Other Forces that Marched from Egypt Through the Desert of Barca, in 1805, and Conquered the City of Derne, Which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between the United States and the Regency of Tripoli (Brookfield: Merriam & Company, 1813), pp. 92-93, from General Eaton to Timothy Pickering, June 15, 1799.

      • entech says:

        As I remember my history of the Barbary Coast Pirates, when Jefferson asked by what right they were committing piracy against the newly formed American Republic he was informed that it was a religious right against infidels and that as an independent he was no longer under the protection of the British Crown. Being smart Jefferson sent his newly formed navy and marines to put an end to it and show that he did not need protection, smart in neglecting to tell congress about the decision until it was too late for a recall. Anyway having totally thrashed the caliphate why would he feel the need to be “playing to the ears of the Moslem”.

        • Henry says:

          entech: “why would he feel the need”

          Previous history of never-ending wars with the Moslem. Not as tidy as you presented.

          • entech says:

            As I recall this was the first foray of the American armed forces into Muslim or any foreign soil. So what history are you talking of.

          • Henry says:

            As astute historians, they were well aware of the quagmire of the crusade campaigns.

          • Stanta says:

            It took another 180 years before we had to deal with Muslims again, and until that time any previous wars were between them Europe.

          • entech says:

            You are talking about expansionism by all sides hundreds of years earlier, can’t really blame one side or the other. And as America always says they have no expansionists ideas, and should not have been influenced by the Roman, Byzantine, Turkic and Arab fighting.

          • entech says:

            Stan. a few years less than that, a large part of the first world war was dedicated to ending the Ottoman Empire. America took part in that towards the end.

          • Stanta says:

            Show me troops on Ottoman territory Entech, meaningful numbers too. And was at Christian/Muslim or was it because the Ottomans sided with Germany? If they hadn’t allied with the Germans would they have even been in the war.

            Pretty simplistic history, The War to End All Wars was started by the US four years before it joined in order to kill Muslims.

          • entech says:

            I did say towards the end, yes America did not join in until 1917.

            After I can do nothing but grovel and apologise, the US was not involved in anyway I can see. We were allies in so much I made an unwarranted extrapolation.

          • Stanta says:

            Besides the Ottoman Empire was sideshow, it wasn’t described as the sick man of Europe for no reason. It only joined the Axis to try to get its people distracted with nationalism instead of tribalism which dominated the region.

    • Michael Ross says:

      Yes Brad, we all know what the Treaty of Tripoli has to say, thanks to Jon and his war against the 10 Commandments. But how about two treaties that sandwiched that treaty known as the Trinitarian treaties of 1783 and 1822. They both begin with the words: “In the name of the most holy and indivisible Trinity.” Only Christianity teaches a Trinitarian view of God. If the Treaty of Tripoli makes Christianity null and void (which it does not), the Trinitarian treaty of 1822 reestablishes it.

      http://americanvision.org/1576/did-george-bush-lie-about-america-being-founded-on-christian-principles/

      • Brad says:

        I never said the Treaty of Tripoli makes Christianity null and void, because that’s not what it says. It says “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

        All I have done is simply quote what it says. Christianity is practiced freely here in the U.S. (as well it should), but it is not the foundation upon which the government was formed. As I said before, if it was it would be by definition a theocracy.

      • Jeffrey Eide says:

        If you believe that the treaty of 1783 is about declaring a belief, then you are either very thick or purposely trying to deceive.

        1783 was a peace treaty that the members of the United States delegation would be foolish to walk away from because they quibbled over the semantics it. By the way, it is formally called the Paris Peace treaty.

        I can not find any mention of a treaty in 1822, but I did find mention of it in this book on google books called “Liars for Jesus: the religious right’s alternate version of american history.

        You see this is exactly the crap I am talking about, you whole heartedly embrace anything that agrees with your point of view.

        Just try for once, to be intellectually honest and check your own sources. Every time I get to point out these inadequacies, you make the Christ movement a little less legitimate.

        • Michael Ross says:

          “1783 was a peace treaty that the members of the United States delegation would be foolish to walk away from because they quibbled over the semantics it.”

          You may well be correct on this point but the importance of wording could also apply to the Treaty of Tripoli in that the Muslim people feared a Crusade-like invasion based on the strong Christian ethos of the colonies and early U.S. The treaty’s wording was to insure Tripoli and all the Barbary states that the U.S. would not impose the Christian faith on Muslims by force.
          Jeffrey, I am trying to be intellectually honest. Honest. I’m just not the great intellectual that you are.

          • Henry says:

            Mike, JE likes to throw out that accusation, but he falls flat in meeting his own standards. I am sure you are not concerned about yourself. I am not.

          • Jeffrey Eide says:

            Mr. Ross, I have to apologize somewhat, I am used to dealing with Henry. I appreciate your desire to be honest about these things, and I will personally look over the Treaty of Tripoli when I get a moment. It should not be the defining document, but is obviously it does represent the views of Adams and Jefferson. To say that America is a Christian nation is silly, but it is certainly not an atheist one. Secularism defends the beliefs and rights of all.

            Thanks Michael

          • Henry says:

            JE: “I am used to dealing with Henry.”

            Timeframe of two-three weeks and he is used to dealing with me? A youngin’ or else he agrees with and likes my easy-going nature. I believe it is the former. His relative experience timeframe is short. Things that are short seem long to him.

          • entech says:

            Not at all, it takes a very short time to realise what a sneaky, sophisticate you are – as i have said you should have been an attorney, victory trumps truth any time in your world.

      • BGC says:

        Where do you get the idea that only Christianity has a trinity? Are you aware that Wicca has one? There is the most important one, the goddess. Other religions have their trinity too. Oh, you may want to check into the dates of your christian holidays. They were changed to get more people to leave their pagan ways and join the church. If Christmas is celebrated on the 25th of December because it is the date Jesus was born. Then why do we not celebrate Easter on the date he rose from the dead? Instead it’s date is determined by when the full moons occur.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          BGC 2:23 Thank you for the first time post. I agree the concept of “trinity” is not all that unusual. I don’t know how the Wiccan one came into being. The Christian one seemed to have a lot of politics in it.

        • Henry says:

          BC: “They were changed to get more people to leave their pagan ways and join the church. If Christmas is celebrated on the 25th of December because it is the date Jesus was born. Then why do we not celebrate Easter on the date he rose from the dead?”

          I suspect the date of Christmas and easter is not about you.

          • entech says:

            I suspect that the dates are not about Yeshua either.

          • Henry says:

            You are probably right. The dates appear to be more about tradition and at times strange, inaccurate calendars than about Christ. The events however are about Christ.

          • entech says:

            Prove it :)
            Nothing about the date of birth in the scriptures or early writings.
            Easter = passover: but before after gospels give different times and the two don’t often match anyway. If you have decided to remove Christianity from Judaism why is the exact date not calculated once and for all and used every year?

          • Henry says:

            entech: “Nothing about the date of birth in the scriptures or early writings.”

            There is a piece in there. It was apparently too subtle for you to detect. The knowledge of the course of Abia for Zacharias (when he would be away at the temple) in conjunction with the “leaping” of John The Baptist in Elizabeth’s womb when in the presence of Jesus in Mary’s womb. One can arrive at a date knowing the human gestation time.

            entech: “why is the exact date not calculated”

            The atheist/agnostic more interested in setting the date than observing the significance of the actual event. Typical. The irony is that the dates that can be derived from the bible they overlook in their apparent date-setting zealousness. I like to make hay when the sun shines and observe the event at the appointed time even if the date is not exact.

          • BGC says:

            Henry, You are very astute. No, those holidays certainly are not about me. They aren’t about any human. And I wouldn’t claim to me anything more than human. I’m not a christian anymore. The churches I learned from were preaching the bible as being all truthful and not open to human interpretation. I’m sure that you, being the good christian you are, believe that also. That would lead one to believe that you also follow it’s teachings to the letter. You wouldn’t dream of eating “unclean” meat. Pork is a big no-no. The book says not to eat the meat from a “cloven hoof” animal. Funny thing is, the book doesn’t actually say pig. So if you don’t get to put in your beliefs, you also can’t eat lamb. Before you take your next bite of deer, you might want to take a look at the feet on that beast too. Of course we have changed the way meat is handled now. But we can’t change what is written. It says don’t do something and the good believers shouldn’t do that thing. That’s what they call a sin… scary…

          • entech says:

            Henry, haven’t you realised yet, are you so blinded by your veil of scripture? The Atheist doesn’t find any significance in those dates only an amazement at the import placed on them, on events that have a supernatural significance that they don’t recognise.

          • Henry says:

            entech: “The Atheist doesn’t find any significance in those dates”

            You are dithering on them. They must hold some significance for you.

          • Henry says:

            Goodnight all. The daylight saving thieves take an hour of sleep away from me tonight. Time to go to bed.

          • Henry says:

            BC, thanks for the response. You have some misunderstandings of the clean OT animals. You also have a misunderstanding of what the NT Christian observes. Too late for adequate response. Sorry. Maybe Stan or someone else can assist you. Good night.

          • Stanta says:

            BGC, we have debated the pork thing to death here. Simple version, I am a gentile, my ancestors worshipped Odin and Thor, according to the first conference of Jerusalem in Acts I am not required to follow the dietary laws of the Jews or be circumcised.

            Tell your atheist comparative religion instructor that one doesn’t fly. And neither do most of your cut and paste objections.

        • Stanta says:

          Would a government document from the early 19th century be using Wiccan? Some times common sense has to come into play.

          • BGC says:

            I doubt those documents would be wiccan in any way. Wiccan faith is a more personal faith. They do not want to push anyone into believing anything that isn’t right for them. Most of them would avoid politics. The reason I brought up wiccan is to say there are other faiths that also have a trinity. Many other faiths. And yes, I’m probably mistaken about the un-clean meat. I had a poor education in my youth. The daily religion classes I had a my catholic school would ruin most any reasoning mind.

          • Stanta says:

            There is self study, gives you a wider range of material.

  7. Michael Ross says:

    “Christianity is practiced freely here in the U.S. (as well it should), ”

    So the 10 Commandments monument should stay at city hall. Thanks Brad, glad to hear you are on our side.

    • Jeffrey Eide says:

      Having a monument on public property does not enhance your ability to practice your religion. It is also true that removing it does not impede your ability to worship. By having it there, it only encourages the religious right to proclaim that this is a christian society/people/nation. It disrespects all those who do not follow the ten commandments, which is a significant portion of the population.

      Stop trying to make sides and try to see that secularism is protecting Christians where they are the minority, like in Turkey, and it protects minorities here as well from the majority belief.

      • Michael Ross says:

        The great majority of Fargoans want the monument left where it is. All these years (since 1960 I believe) it has not been a problem.
        Now a few atheists led by Jon and his Freethinkers are stirring up opposition to what the majority want.

        ” Having a monument on public property does not enhance your ability to practice your religion. It is also true that removing it does not impede your ability to worship.”

        Nor does having it there impede your freedom not to worship and you ability to practice your faithlessness.

        I have taken a small survey of Muslims who are new citizens of America and have not found one that is offended by the 10 Commandments or expects the city to take down the monument to suit them.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Michael 1:19 The great majority of Fargoans want the monument left where it is.”

          We don’t actually know this is true or not. But, it doesn’t matter what the majority think about it. What matters is whether or not it violates the Constitution. In cases where the courts have ordered removal, I’ve never heard a court refer to what the majority thinks about the monument. Surel you woud agree court decisions to end prayer in schools and segregation would not have been supported by the majority at the time either.

        • entech says:

          Not surprised that Muslims are not offended, they love Moses and his trip up the hill:
          “And We ordained laws for him in the tablets in all matters, both commanding and explaining all things, (and said): ‘Take and hold these with firmness, and enjoin thy people to hold fast by the best in the precepts: soon shall I show you the homes of the wicked,- (How they lie desolate).’” (Quran 7:145)

  8. Wolfy32 says:

    Wow, there’s a lot of holes in that article. It makes some very broad generalizations about the bible! Wowsers. Very propaganda like. I have my own issues with the bible, but the broad generalizations made in this article are completely and utterly false, written by someone who hasn’t studied it at all..

    First off. Jesus never is described as doing the same miracle the same way. One time he spits on some dirt and rub the dirt and spit on someone’s eye, or the next time he may simply say “Hey your faith has healed you.” The article makes it sound like he was a miracle machine that all he did was miracles. If that’s the case, why did he walk everywhere? Why did he not fly or teleport? Why isn’t he described as being in two places at the same time.. Or throwing fireballs? The miracles he did do, were limited, and were rarely duplicated. The even fewer that may have been duplicated, were done completely differently. But, those could be counted on less than one hand.

    Yes, he was made divine, If I remember right this was due to Jewish influences. Jews required extensive proof through lineage of a messiah or prophet. My understanding is that in Jewish religion, there is an acceptance that Christ existed as a prophet, but not as the messiah.

    So, the divinity of Christ may not be as important as we make it. If I remember right, didn’t Elijah leave this world the same way Christ did? He left in a ray of light? (in laymens terms.)

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Wolfy32 6:02 “Yes, he was made divine, it I remember right this was due to Jewish influences.”

      He was made divine in several different ways different times. There is disagreement about which of these was the real McCoy. As to the miracles, yes he did different kinds. My point was they were all miracles, over and over again. That’s what makes the whole deal seem a big exaggerated hoax to me.

      It’s OK with me if people choose to believe they really happens. There is just no evidence outside the Bible they did.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>