Really

Wyoming, MI

#226 Mar 18, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
So as the master researcher you should know they didn't give a tinker's toot about us then either. They didn't care if the United States was a valid country or not. "Validity" has always hinged on religious continuity.
As usual you missed the point.
Didn't miss the point. As usual, you ignored the point. It didn't agree with your "view" after all.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#227 Mar 18, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
According to the text Jesus was not God and not simply a prophet. Beyond a prophet. Yet not God.
"Before Abraham was, I am". Jesus said that. Since you claim to be such as Bible scholar, explain to the class what Jesus meant by that and why the Jewish leadership wanted to stone him to death for saying it as well as the following:

"If you have seen me, you have seen the Father"
"I and the Father are one"

"I am the way, the truth and the life. Noone comes to the Father but through me"
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#228 Mar 18, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
I If meaning Jesus was God incarnate there is nowhere in the Bible that points to God taking on human form in the body of Jesus.
Really? Your Bible must be missing some pages.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.....The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
John 1: 1-14

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Maryland

#229 Mar 18, 2013
free thinker wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell that to Mr. Wiggley...they seem to think that simply calling yourself a Christian or saying you are one makes you one no matter how much your actions don't line up with your words.
That is not what I said nor is it what I implicated. You expose yourself as needing to lie in order to reinforce and win your impossible arguement. Your version of what a christian is apparently varies beyond your capability to comprehend.
Why don't you try to make it easy for me and define what a christian is? Remember and realize, I'm going to ask other christians to verify your conclusions.

Once done, and you have convinced me that your version is the one and only version of the correct christian, we'll discuss the guarantee from your god-being that following you was the right choice...kinda like Harold Camping or Jim Jones or a host of others.

Good luck...
pipedream

West Bloomfield, MI

#230 Mar 18, 2013
vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Your Bible must be missing some pages.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.....The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
John 1: 1-14
Since you put yourself out there as this wowie wow all righteous Christian (Mr. Right) then why are you such a douchebag in real life? Its not possible to be both is it? Hypocrite much?
SeenItBefore

Three Rivers, MI

#231 Mar 18, 2013
vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
"Before Abraham was, I am". Jesus said that. Since you claim to be such as Bible scholar, explain to the class what Jesus meant by that and why the Jewish leadership wanted to stone him to death for saying it as well as the following:
"If you have seen me, you have seen the Father"
"I and the Father are one"
"I am the way, the truth and the life. Noone comes to the Father but through me"
If you don't want to have anything other than a pithing match over this I have no desire to get into it in any depth.

The Jews wanted to stone Jesus because they believed that's what he was saying. But then again there is much they misunderstood about what he said. Just like they believed when the Messiah came there would be a physical battle and there was not. Jesus didn't start a battle of weapons so he wasn't the Messiah.

To this day the discord between scholars of all nature continues so there is no answer of differing definition everyone is going to agree on.

I am aware of your arguments and could explain them but as I've said before this is one of those subjects that is far too in-depth to get into here. So believe as you need to. It makes no difference to me.

Matthew 10:11  And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
12  And when ye come into an house, salute it.
13  And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14  And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
15  Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Thor

Rockford, MI

#232 Mar 18, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you've got things a little backwards. In the first article it says "During the ceremony of betrothal, the girl's future husband poured perfume on her head and brought her presents and provisions. After the wedding, where the couple would live remained the sole issue."
Who do you think oversaw the ceremony?
Probably a local chieftain or someone appointed by him.

It wasn't religion based.
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Going back a bit, part of the difference is how one defines "marriage." Again, referencing your article it talks about how the future husband and the girls father came to terms regarding payments. She had no say. Was that a marriage or slavery? Again, according to your article if the man died she could not leave the family but now had to marry a brother or other relative.
To me, that sounds like slavery that was given an offical name to make it sound ok.
So lets get some agreement on terms. First one is obviously how do you define marriage?
Not surprised you would resort to the no-true-scotsman fallacy, since your claim that marriage started as a religious contract was completely debunked.
Thor

Rockford, MI

#233 Mar 18, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll just address the last point. If homosexual marriage is ok'd then our society has said that morality is defined either by the government or a majority vote.
Moral relativism hurts everyone; the individual and the group.
Morality is a construct of man. Always has been, always will be.

“Where I came from”

Since: Jan 09

the universe

#234 Mar 19, 2013
I watched a little more of The Bible. Not much there.
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#235 Mar 19, 2013
vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Your Bible must be missing some pages.
Your's too..... Hundreds and perhaps thousands of them!

Biblical scholars have found proof of approximately 500 books written as part of the original bible. The human god-being Constantine cherry picked a mere 80 of them for his bible launching the Catholic Church, and the protestants pruned it down further to fit King Jame's needs.

All current churchs and the bibles they adhere to are the works of man and don't come close to the supposed "whole story" as it was written.

This is the best part of this entire my religion is the most pure one argument. Name any other book missing 80% of its chapters capable of such foolish belief in it.
Barb

Jenison, MI

#236 Mar 19, 2013
Shoeless Eluder wrote:
I watched a little more of The Bible. Not much there.
It was probably too deep for you. Try reading the book.
SeenItBefore

Three Rivers, MI

#237 Mar 19, 2013
Barb wrote:
<quoted text>
It was probably too deep for you. Try reading the book.
First I must reiterate I am a Christian. Though I do disagree with what many doctrines teach.

The Bible is not a work to be taken solely on it's surface. For instance; one can read the Bible and take it to be a morality if we don't like that group of people over there because they don't believe as we do we can just kill them and God will be on our side for it. Killing some or a group of people that don't believe as we do is not what those teachings are about.

It is always best to learn the teachings of the Bible with others that have a far better insight than we ourselves have unless one is of a spiritual nature and willing to look deeper into what the words themselves seem to be saying.

I fully understand how "unbelievers" come to the conclusions they do. Because I can not get into their heads; I think many discard the Bible for their own reasons of morality of, for an example such as I gave above, how can it be moral to just kill someone else because they don't believe as I/we do.

Even the Bible points out that faith is the belief in what is not seen.
SeenItBefore

Three Rivers, MI

#238 Mar 19, 2013
I should clarify: I'm not saying "unbelievers" don't fully have a concept of their disbelief and are just misunderstanding. I am saying I understand how the Bible can be easily misunderstood.
free thinker

Farmington, MI

#239 Mar 19, 2013
pipedream wrote:
why are you such a douchebag in real life?
We've all been wondering the same thing about you.

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Maryland

#240 Mar 19, 2013
Barb wrote:
<quoted text>
It was probably too deep for you. Try reading the book.
Please...do you want yet another division/cult/sect of christianity to be born because someone read that book and found yet another intrepetation?
Sheeesh, isn't 38,000+ divisions enough?

“Where I came from”

Since: Jan 09

the universe

#241 Mar 19, 2013
free thinker wrote:
<quoted text>
So they're fallible humans just like the rest of us. Big deal.
I don't recall reading anywhere that being Christian means you're suddenly infallible and perfect.
And who are you to say that God can't and doesn't talk to people? You think God is incapable of that?
I was talking about them and all of the things they say that god has told them its all BS. And why these people?

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#242 Mar 19, 2013
Shoeless Eluder wrote:
I watched a little more of The Bible. Not much there.
Did you notice how the devil in the movie looks just like Obama?
Is that just a strange coincidence? Or what?
At first, I thought,.....ahhhh just a movie, it's all fiction.
But then when I saw the Obama / devil scene, I'm thinking that this is actual video that was shot live.

“Where I came from”

Since: Jan 09

the universe

#243 Mar 20, 2013
I have decided that after watching a few religious(christian programs) over the last few days that these people are no less terrorists than any muslim radical. They want to show us where we have strayed and if we don't bow to there version of god then we are useless infidels who must be eliminated. Confess repent and be saved, from what I ask, from what?
Oneal

Three Rivers, MI

#244 Mar 20, 2013
Shoeless Eluder wrote:
I have decided that after watching a few religious(christian programs) over the last few days that these people are no less terrorists than any muslim radical. They want to show us where we have strayed and if we don't bow to there version of god then we are useless infidels who must be eliminated. Confess repent and be saved, from what I ask, from what?
What Christian is trying to eliminate you, and how?

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#245 Mar 20, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
My point for the Treaty of Tripoli, be that 1797 or 1805, is the fear mongering of being taken over by Islam is centuries long.
And your saying the future of this country looking dim was not for the threat of Islam sure didn't read that way;
"You may be right. We could go the way of ancient Rome where anything goes. Or like Europe, Islam could eventually take over.
Either way the future of the country is pretty dim."
It surely read like the fear of Islamic take over was part and parcel to the dim future projection.
And though Article XI in the English version of the Treaty of Tripoli wasn't in the Arabic version is irrelevant. That it was in the English version that the Senate ratified and President Adams signed and made the law of the land is relevant.
I happen to agree with;
According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,
"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."
As Islamic countries have always been Theocracies.
I strongly believe governments of countries and/or states should be non-theocratic and leave the theism to the people's private lives. As the people should run their private lives with respect for others living theirs. This is where separate but equal has a place.
But, the nuances of such "public" interactions with respect to others theistic viewpoints is far too intricate to be getting into on a venue such as this one.
Oh, and I disagree with your take on the Crusades. That was all about European Christians being out to secure "the holly land" for Christianity.
And the Islamic leaders were pissed off at the United States for being behind in their tribute and the subsequent war that led to the Treaty of 1805.
I don’t recall “fear” coming into this, especially since in either the Rome or Islam future, I, my kids and my grandkids will be long dead. There are multiple other scenarios that are much more likely than Islam taking over, none of which present a bright and rosy future.

If the article in question wasn’t in the Arabic version than what was the real purpose? It’s stated purpose was to “allay the fears of the Muslim state” but if it wasn’t in their treaty then they never saw it. How would it allay their fears if they didn’t know about it?

As you pointed out, it was the law of the land. For 8 years and then was rescinded by Jefferson. The idea has never been affirmed again.

If by “I strongly believe governments of countries and/or states should be non-theocratic” you mean that governments should not be turned over to the local religious leaders to run I agree. If you mean that governments should operate as atheistic bodies without consideration to religion, then I strongly disagree.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
East Grand Rapids Mugshots and Criminal Arrest ... 51 min Alexander 1
Local News Women (Apr '09) Tue Casual Observer 2,720
Crooked Hillary's Tax Return Challenge To Donald Mon RushFan666 49
Does anyone know why the Chez Ami Bowling alley... (Sep '14) Sep 24 Jody 3
Why do people act ghetto? I am talking about al... (Dec '12) Sep 24 Not ghetto at all 43
News The BUZZ: SSI has 'Bullish' Outlook for RV Sector Sep 24 Batch 37 Pain Is ... 5
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) Sep 23 Pandaluv63 1,109

Grand Rapids Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grand Rapids Mortgages