Wow. So Tommy Jefferson was a commie pinko…
That’s what all of them do; the Bible is contradictory and a fair amount of the practices demanded in it are barbaric or self-destructive and would get you imprisoned or killed if you actually tried to carry them out.
Jefferson was a politician, not a minister or a theologian. I would not engage a dentist to remove my gall bladder.
Thank you, Joe McCarthy.
**dougie_monty ** you are really unaware that the founding fathers had to go against the very biblical idea of god appointing our kings. No wonder many were not as keen to put that kind of god as the basis of our laws.
Take a look at Article VII of the Constitution (the original document from 1787).
This one?
[QUOTE=America's Founding Documents | National Archives]
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
[/QUOTE]
“The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”
So?
You are kind of stuck with doing that.
For example, the old testament, in the laws part, says An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
Jesus says turn the other cheek and let he who is without sin cast the first stone
These are more than slightly at odds with each other, so you really do have to choose. Either you select the definitive edict, or you apply the one that fits the situation at hand (upon whatever basis you happen to be using).
One way or the other, you have to pick and choose. And there is no deficit of conflict. IIUC, there is a fair bit of counseling celibacy in Paul’s various letters, as compared to the Song of Solomon, which advocates sexual celebration.
It was far easier around the time the bible was written, because no one had their own copy. There was one in the church in town, that the deacon just might let you peruse, but mostly people relied on the religious leaders to do the picking-and-choosing (and loophole finding).
No, man - looook at it! Really looook!
I think he is referring to the very end:
“Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”
But no sooner that concession to politics (really dougie_monty, your point about them doing the political thing goes both ways) was made immediately the point of who is driving this was:
“and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.”
The idea that the Bible is the be-all and end-all of Christianity is post-Gutenberg development. Before that the community of believers was emphasized more. And biblical literalism is a US fundamentalist invention anyway. While certain Christian thinkers espoused the Bible’s literal truth, they made it clear that literal could mean in a spiritual, historic or moral sense. (Also others.)
I won’t believe a woman is a Fundamentalist until she camps out back during her periods. Ditto for folks wearing mixed fabrics, etc. Jesus followed the rules explicitly. It was that damned St Paul the Marketer who made up the whole thing about how we don’t have to follow the Law anymore to make it easier to sell Christianity to the goyim.
Is this one of those 3-d picture things? I never could see those!
Yes, GIGOBuster. Your second paragraph is correct. That’s what I meant.
Jesus told the apostles that he was the fulfillment of the Law. I think this was mentioned in Romans 10:4; I’m not sure that’s the correct verse…
Ask Peter, who saw the vision of the un-kosher animals and heard a voice commanding him to eat; this, of course, an allegory for the Christian congregation, all Jewish up to that time, to begin reaching out to gentiles.
Not entirely accurate (as usual) - Paul sent this letter to the Romans, “explaining” that Christ was the fulfillment of the law - so, this is a follower already picking and choosing and teaching “others” that its ok to pick and choose.
Convenient, that.
So, the rules/laws of GOD - its ok to change those to get more followers?
Damn, why didn’t God think of that himself and just fix the law to begin with?
Or are you saying that God just changes his mind about what it really means to be “faithful” ?
You’re hanging your hat on “in the yeah of our lord” ?