|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 01/06/2005 : 20:57:56 [Permalink]
|
I didn't know Thomas Paine was a Diest before reading R.Wreck's link, and neither did you.
Agreed, Wendy. I am learning knew new things from this thread. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2005 : 21:19:54 [Permalink]
|
"Soon after I had published the pamphlet COMMON SENSE, in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion. The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited, by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priest-craft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more." Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2005 : 21:32:30 [Permalink]
|
"BUT some perhaps will say--Are we to have no word of God --no revelation? I answer yes. There is a Word of God; there is a revelation.
THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." Thomas Paine, the Age of REason
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2005 : 21:34:26 [Permalink]
|
| "Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of the creation. Do we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible Whole is governed. Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abundance with which he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful. In fine, do we want to know what God is? Search not the book called the scripture, which any human hand might make, but the scripture called the Creation." Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2005 : 21:38:24 [Permalink]
|
| "First, Canst thou by searching find out God? Yes. Because, in the first place, I know I did not make myself, and yet I have existence; and by searching into the nature of other things, I find that no other thing could make itself; and yet millions of other things exist; therefore it is, that I know, by positive conclusion resulting from this search, that there is a power superior to all those things, and that power is God." Thomas Paine, THe Age of Reason |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2005 : 22:12:20 [Permalink]
|
| "And now I speak of thanking God, I desire with all humility to acknowledge that I owe the mentioned happiness of my past life to His kind providence, which lead me to the means I used and gave them success. My belief of this induces me to hope, though I must not presume, that the same goodness will still be exercised toward me, in continuing that happiness, or enabling me to bear a fatal reverse, which I may experience as others have done: the complexion of my future fortune being known to Him only in whose power it is to bless to us even our afflictions." Any guesses as to who this mystery writer is? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2005 : 22:31:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Actually, according to my interpretation and Madison's, the first amendment does not do harm to any religion, but only prohibits the making of laws which could promote one sect over another or be detrimental to any. In effect, it prevents the so called "establishment" - the act of establishing, a particular religious organization (establishment). Now allowing for the celebration of a religious holiday loved by so many in America is not promoting a particular religious establishment. Christianity is not a "religious establishment", but a religion. Now Lutheran or Catholic is a particular religious establishment within the Christian religion.
You're certifiable, Doomar. To deny the fact that promoting "Christianity" as a whole is the equivalent of promoting Catholicism, Lutheranism, Penacostalism (etc.) all at once is simply a farce. Because it promotes all of those sects over all sects of Hinduism, Judaism, Odenism, etc.quote:
The act of prayer is not something particular to one religious sect, but all religions.
This is simply not true. Atheists who have faith that there is no god do not pray.quote:
Even a prayer considered to be Christian in nature is not some sort of violation, but part of the common religious practice of all sects and, therefore, not sectarian or particular to "a religious establishment".
Baloney. Hindus do not make Christian prayers.quote:
Those that pray in Congress, are sectarian, but by allowing many sects to participate over time, no particular sect is lifted above the other. Even in Thomas Jefferson's college, prayer was promoted and various ministers of different sects participated on a regular basis.
This utterly fails to answer the simple question I asked, Doomar. But you've got a knack for not answering simple questions, and instead spouting irrelevancies, don't you? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2005 : 22:33:44 [Permalink]
|
"That few in public affairs act from a meer view of the good of their country, whatever they may pretend; and, tho' their actings bring real good to their country, yet men primarily considered that their own and their country's interest was united, and did not act from a principle of benevolence."
"That fewer still, in public affairs, act with a view to the good of mankind." Who said this? Any guesses?
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2005 : 22:37:01 [Permalink]
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the unauthorized revised 1st Amendment version ("Congress shall make no law establishing religion...") is in conflict with the 2nd clause and therefore clearly not the original meaning and intent of the learned writers of the 1st amendment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right. So what? You're still wrong about what the real First Amendment means
Perhaps you can enlighten us when you're able. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2005 : 22:38:32 [Permalink]
|
And now I see that Doomar is being a Paine in the ass.And here, without anger or resentment I bid you farewell. Sincerely wishing, that as men and Christians, ye may always fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America.
— Thomas Paine, Common Sense Bolding and underlining mine. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2005 : 22:41:36 [Permalink]
|
Besides which, to nationalize Christmas is to show respect for Christianity over, say, Hinduism. The 1st Amendment, by your definition or mine, prohibits that. As it also prohibits "moments of prayer" in public schools, as not all religions share prayer modalities. from Dave
True, Dave, but in not showing respect to a particular sect of Christianity, the interpretation of the 1st Amendment by Madison is not violated. When you presume that "an establishment of religion" means "a religion", then you have eliminated the need for the word "establishment", which is exactly as some presume to do "congress shall make no law respecting a religion", which it clearly does not say. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2005 : 22:50:26 [Permalink]
|
Dave says, Indeed. But how you get from there to
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, promotion in general of religious acts, such as prayer or reading scriptures does not constitute any violation of the first clause...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is completely beyond my understanding. To make a law which says that there shall be a public reading of scripture to begin each school day non-sectarian, you would be required to read a bit from every different sect. The school day would be over before it could begin.
The Bible is a book of both Jewish origin and Christian origin. It is used by every sect that calls itself Christian, but with various interpretations. By eliminating the interpretations from the reading, no sect is promoted over the other. Even the Muslims esteem the book called the Bible and it is mentioned in their book.
The Bible was used in most classrooms in our early history and learning to read it was considered extremely important. Is a particular sect promoted in it's reading? I think not. It is a historical, a religious, and a legal set of books. To think that by merely reading them you are becoming a "Christian" is proved to the contrary by your own testimony. Since when is there harm in reading or even discussing ideas openly? It's the secret discussions that I'm worried about. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 01/06/2005 23:04:29 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2005 : 23:02:02 [Permalink]
|
Dave replies to Doomar: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The act of prayer is not something particular to one religious sect, but all religions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is simply not true. Atheists who have faith that there is no god do not pray.
Pray: to make a fervent request
In the sense of making a request from a Deity, atheists do not pray, but make fervent requests, as is one definition, I think they qualify. Are you trying to say that atheism is now some type of religion?
WHen you say "atheists who have faith that there is no god..." are you admitting that it takes faith to believe in what cannot be proven? I detect a shift in reasoning here.
Question: is prayer not part of protected free speech? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2005 : 23:11:11 [Permalink]
|
So it is irrelevant that Jefferson's college had various ministers lead devotions for the students? Actually, by example, it clearly illustrates what, by words alone, is misconstrued.
Now, as to the Hindus..Is there any Hindu congressman that I am unaware of that is not represented? I would rather that our schools and public places were totally open to religious discussion and practice, than be closed to any. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2005 : 23:12:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Perhaps you can enlighten us when you're able.
Well, my reading is straightforward:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... To me this means:Congress shall make no law promoting or denigrating any religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion... To you, it appears to mean something much more complex:Congress shall make no law showing respect to a particular sect of Christianity or to the detriment of all sects of Christianity, or prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity without regard to any disrespect shown to any particular sect of Christianity or to any other religion... You claim that your (apparent) interpretation is the one originally intended, yet it has been rejected by the courts since 1878 or so. And one of the precedent-setting SCOTUS cases regarding prayer in the schools was brought by Unitarians who felt that it was their sole right to teach their children about their religion.
So, why don't you defend your interpretation with direct quotes about it, instead of spewing deist (not Christian) quotes from an Englishman from some two years prior to the writing of the Constitution?quote:
To think that by merely reading them you are becoming a "Christian" is proved to the contrary by your own testimony.
Lies. I never claimed that reading the Bible would convert anyone. Reading the Bible is perfectly acceptable in a comparative religion class. It is not acceptable when the government is implying that it is the "truth."quote:
Since when is there harm in reading or even discussing ideas openly?
When discussing such ideas is mandated by the government. That's when.quote:
It's the secret discussions that I'm worried about.
Which ones are those? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
