National Day of Pointing Out Biblical Contradictions

[tomndebb]

You know, D K, you like to throw around the “straw man” epithet pretty freely for someone who has repeatedly posted and failed to provide any evidence for the rather silly notion that the U.S. was intended to be set up as a Christian nation.
05-06-2001 01:37 PM

The challenge is to make the U.S. into the Christian country it was intended to be without offending this Amendment. Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment is necessary.

05-06-2001 08:01 PM Red herring regarding abortion. No defense of the outlandish claim that the U.S. was “intended” to be Christian.

05-12-2001 07:36 AM

The reason I raised the abortion issue was to demonstrate the following point:

The Supreme Court’s “interpretation” of the Constitution does not necessarily equal the founders’ original intent.

This point is hard to seriously dispute - I assume this is why you feel the need to push down straw men.
“The greatest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”

*This, of course, ignores that no one has been discussing Supreme Court decisions and we are simply waiting for evidence that the U.S. was “intended” to be Christian. The attached spurious quotation provides nothing more than one man’s personal belief that 39 years previously another man is alleged to have expressed the personal belief that 45 years prior to that an act in which neither man participated was “intended” to establish the country as a Christian nation.
Not very solid evidence there.
05-12-2001 02:42 PM

[quote]
Oh, so now you concede that the Supreme Court’s “pronouncements” don’t necessarily mean anything about “original intent”

Oh, and I don’t really care how old John Quincy Adams was at the time of the revolution - the question is whether what he said was true or not.

For what it’s worth, John Quincy Adams was a law student at the time the Constitution was drafted. So much for your “big lie” about him being 9 years old.

(tiresome spurious quotation snipped)

[quote]

Since the Supreme Court’s rulings have to do with the interpretation of law, attacking various Supreme Court decisions appears to be another straw man to cause us to miss the fact that you have provided no evidence that the U.S. was “intended” to be Christian.

05-12-2001 07:03 PM

I’m perfectly willing to concede that the quote was not said by John Quincy Adams.

You will notice that I never attributed it to him, and didn’t even discuss John Quincy Adams until after another poster attributed the quote to him.

Too bad your “moving target” was yet another straw man.

As far as “original intent” as an approach to Constitutional interpretation goes, it is clear that the courts have rejected this approach on numerous occasions.

Thus, the Supreme Court’s decision on an issue does not necessarily equal the Court’s opinion as to anyone’s original intent.
“forgive them for they do not know what they do.”

It is interesting that you now call “straw man!” when you have already used that tactic, yourself, on two occasions–as you continue to do, here, with you assault on Supreme Court decisions totally unconnected to the point that you have claimed that the U.S. was “intended” to be Christian.

Interesting final quotation, there. I find that people who try to associate with Jesus by quoting Him out of context are frequently found among the believers of the Nine Commandments (of which I do not yet know you are).

[Ben]

*Originally posted by Der Kommissar *
**I’m perfectly willing to concede that the quote was not said by John Quincy Adams.

**

Yes, but somehow the issue of your BEARING FALSE WITNESS has been lost in the shuffle.

Are you a real Christian, or are you just another fundie liar?

**
“forgive them for they do not know what they do.”**

Ah, but you do know what you do. You know full well that you have borne false witness. When will you do the Christian thing? When will you even acknowledge that I have raised this issue?

-Ben

[Der_Kommissar]

I raised the issue of the Constitution in response to this:

“I’m curious though, do you think the government should be officially supporting one or the other of us? Do you think Congress or a state legislature should issue a proclamation saying ‘The Bible Is Filled With Contradictions, So All You Good Citizens Out There Need to Take it With a Big Grain of Salt’?”

Obviously, the issuance of such a proclamation raises Constitutional questions.

Supreme Court decisions are highly relevant to Constitutional questions.
“These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”

Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457

[MEBuckner]

I raised the issue of the Constitution in response to this:

“I’m curious though, do you think the government should be officially supporting one or the other of us? Do you think Congress or a state legislature should issue a proclamation saying ‘The Bible Is Filled With Contradictions, So All You Good Citizens Out There Need to Take it With a Big Grain of Salt’?”

Obviously, the issuance of such a proclamation raises Constitutional questions.

Yeah, it sure would. Almost as many Constitutional questions as the issuance of a proclamation for a National Day of (Christian [Protestant]) Prayer.

Hmmm…*As far as Congress goes (I assume we’re talking U.S. here) there’s a “constitutional” problem:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion . . . .”

The challenge is to make the U.S. into the Atheistic country it was intended to be without offending this Amendment. Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment is necessary.*

Or, gee, I guess we could just leave well enough alone; and Congress could stay the hell out of issuing proclamations for Days of Prayer or Days of Bible-Bashing or Days of Making Hecatombs of Oxen to the Olympian Gods.

Supreme Court decisions are highly relevant to Constitutional questions.
“These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”

Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457

So, which is it? “The Supreme Court’s ‘interpretation’ of the Constitution does not necessarily equal the founders’ original intent.” Or “Supreme Court decisions are highly relevant to Constitutional questions.” In the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court held that black people have “no rights which any white man was bound to respect.” Fortunately, we decided the Supreme Court was wrong about that one. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court upheld segregation; later, it reversed itself. If the Supreme Court ever upheld the idea that the U.S. is a “Christian nation”, it has long since reversed itself, as all the recent church-state cases indicate. In other words, the Founding Fathers didn’t want the U.S. to be a Christian nation, the Supreme Court now wouldn’t rule that it is, but at some point during the 19th Century the Supreme Court may have ruled that way.

Can you cite anything at all from the Constitution which indicates that the authors of that document were trying to found a Christian nation? One word even?

[Ben]

*Originally posted by Ben *
**Ah, but you do know what you do. You know full well that you have borne false witness. When will you do the Christian thing? When will you even acknowledge that I have raised this issue?
**

I guess that would be never.

Der Kommissar, do you really think you can go around bearing false witness and still get into heaven? I mean, it’s really remarkable to me that you can make a false accusation at someone and not retract it once you know it’s false.

It’s not surprising, though, because that’s what all you fundies do. You talk on and on about Jesus, but none of it’s real. WWJD? Obviously he wouldn’t lie about people, but who cares? It’s not like any of you really take Christianity seriously. And if you don’t, why should we? Why should we bow to Jesus when you yourself treat his death on the cross and his teachings as a big joke?

-Ben

[glee]

Der Kommissar,

you never answered my questions:

• when you say America was intended to be a Christian country, did you mean Protestant or Catholic?

• given that the War of Independence was fought against the country which had then (and still has) Protestant Christianity as its State religion, weren’t the Founding Fathers rather ‘careless’ not to simply carry that religion into their Constitution?

• Leviticus 20 verse 10:
  ‘And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that commit adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.’
  Don’t you find it hard to read that passage ‘with an open mind and an honest heart’, and not want to lobby Congress for an additional death penalty offence?

---

If a thing isn’t worth doing, it isn’t worth doing well.

[Der_Kommissar]

The Constitution doesn’t mention so-called “abortion” does it?

[Arcegetrix]

Der Kommissar,

No one is asking you about abortion. Stop dodging and evading. If you would like to discuss abortion, open another thread. Meanwhile, there are a variety of specific questions for you posted above by glee, Ben, and arisu. Are you ever going to answer them?

Are you aware that ignoring other peoples points is a very, very, very bad way to convince anyone? If you were actually a Christian, you would be doing a severe disservice to Christianity by making its practioners look like lying, slanderous fools.

But as Ben has adequately pointed out, unless you can apologize for bearing false witness, you couldn’t possibly be a true Christian – since you are breaking basic rules of the faith.

You may have begun to notice (if you are capable) that people on this board will not take your ridicuous assertions at face value unless you can back them up. Try to put up or shut up. And while we’re on the subject, why are your posts so short and non-responsive? Having difficulty typing? Forget how to write?

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Der Kommissar *
**The Constitution doesn’t mention so-called “abortion” does it?

**

It doesn’t mention the so-called “internet” either. What’s your point?

What the hell do you mean by “so-called”? That IS what the procedure is called, is it not?

[oldscratch]

I think he’s refering to “abortion” (with quotes ) not abortion. Like refering to california “wine”. so yes, I’m pretty sure that the constitution does not mention so called “abortion”. It’s been a while since I’ve read it though. I could be wrong.

[Arcegetrix]

*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**Interesting final quotation, there. I find that people who try to associate with Jesus by quoting Him out of context are frequently found among the believers of the Nine Commandments (of which I do not yet know you are). **

tomndebb, I like your posts, and your comments on this thread in particular are very good. But I must admit confusion regarding your comment re: “believers of the Nine Commandments.” What does it mean to be a “believer ofthe Nine Commandments?” Did I miss something? Am I dense?

Please, combat my ignorance! What did you mean!

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Arcegetrix *
What does it mean to be a "believer of the Nine Commandments?"

I think Tom means those so-called “Christians” who believe in only some and not all of the Ten Commandments but won’t admit it. The one Commandment they seem to ignore (or outright disobey) the most is, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.” IOW, don’t make false accusations.

[MEBuckner]

The Constitution doesn’t mention so-called “abortion” does it?

The Constitution doesn’t mention this being a “Christian country”, which you yourself admit:

As far as Congress goes (I assume we’re talking U.S. here) there’s a “constitutional” problem:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion . . . .”

The challenge is to make the U.S. into the Christian country it was intended to be without offending this Amendment. Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment is necessary.

So tell us, then–WHO “INTENDED” FOR THIS TO BE A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY? And what evidence do you have to show any such intent in the founding of the United States?

[Ben]

*Originally posted by Der Kommissar *
**The Constitution doesn’t mention so-called “abortion” does it?

**

No, but there’s this thing called the Nith Amendment.

Tell us honestly: have you read the Constitution?
-Ben

[tomndebb]

Arcegetrix, Jab1 nailed it. While I have a number of theological disagreements with Fundamentalist Christians, I have found a very many good people among their number who strive toward holiness. I am, therefore, utterly contemptuous of those “fundies” who insist on posting the Ten Commandments in schools or attempting to claim that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments, all the while believing that they are not required to follow the one that states we should “Not bear false witness.”

Whether it is Kent Hovind being compelled to publicly withdraw an error that he has claimed against evolutionary science–and then including the same error in his next publication–or Jerry Falwell selling the video tape that claimed that Bill Clinton was ordering people murdered, a certain small group of people affiliated with Christian Fundamentalism seem quite happy to believe that defeating their enemies is more important than following God’s Law to refrain from Bearing false witness against one’s neighbor.

[Arcegetrix]

tomndebb, jab1 thanks for the answer. I’ve learned something new today! Yay!

[Monty]

*Originally posted by Arcegetrix *
And while we’re on the subject, why are your posts so short and non-responsive? Having difficulty typing? Forget how to write?

Arcegetrix,

Of course DK’s posts are short and nonresponsive. Can you imagine how difficult it is for him to type given that he can only see the keyboard for the very short interval when his sphincter has dilated?

[Arcegetrix]

Monty,

With your help (and an assist from DK)I have finally realized the three ingredients for reading biblical contradictions:

I. An open heart
II. An honest mind
III. A dilated sprincter

So that put’s DK at what, one for three right?

[Arcegetrix]

You know, I just noticed that right now (9:15am central time) the two current posts re: DK are my last ad hominem attack in this thread, and manhattan’s post in DK’s anal sex thread about how DK bending over and realizing that it will only hurt for a minute.

Is there some kind of a prize for encouraging two different kind of anal-style insults simultaneously on this thread? Bonus points if one of them is from a moderator?

DK just seems to bring out a certain kind of emotion in rational people. In fact, I’m starting to think that… he’s working for the other side!

-Arcegetrix, who really needs to lay of the PIT for a while, considering that he is a callow newbie & all

[jab1]

*Originally posted by MEBuckner *
So tell us, then–WHO “INTENDED” FOR THIS TO BE A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY?

Why, God, [heavenly choir] of course! Everyone KNOWS this country could not have been founded without divine intervention! And do you think God [heavenly choir] would have assisted in the founding of this country if He had not intended it to be a Christian country?

**And what evidence do you have to show any such intent in the founding of the United States? **

Only a faithless disbeliever would require evidence for the existence of the Almighty’s [heavenly choir] Divine Plan [sup]TM[/sup]. D.K. 's faith tells him these things are true!