|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: DATELINE - Rise of Evangelism in America | |||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
All men being equal does not mean all cultures are equal. I don't know where you get that idea from but it's the exact opposite of what the sentiments are that founded this nation, specifically nations and cultures that don't recognize the equal rights of all men are not considered equal.
Duh? Lay down the multi-cultural peace pipe for once and read the documents, and pay attention to the whole Bible. The fact God told Israel to wipe out the idolatrous nations does not change that God created men in his image, nor does it change the fact Jesus says preach the gospel to all men.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You know any atheists that thank God, who "rules among the nations", for providentially blessing them with good fortune?
I don't see where Washington thanked God - at least not in that text you quoted. He talks about thanking the deity, but he never actually does it. The references to a deity are all very abstract. It is just the kind of thing that an atheist can say about a deity as abstraction, but without making any actual committment to the existence of such a deity. I'm not claiming that Washington was an atheist. Perhaps he was as religious as you claim. But there is no evidence of that in the speech you quoted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Just so I know, explain to me how a Deist sees God, how a Christian sees God and how a Jewish Believer sees God. (In general)
This message has been edited by Charismaniac, 11-14-2005 11:58 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Maybe you can't read good. Does the following suggest an "abstract God" to you?
it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow- citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; The same God that "rules the universe" also "presides over the councils of men" and is in fact an "Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men". I mean come on guys. Arguing Washington and this speech is not overly religious is like claiming Billy Graham is not a preacher.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Why don't you take a stab at it? In the context of this discussion, it doesn't matter how or why Washington was very religious and primarily talked about God in his first inaugural address. He could have been a Hindu but he still was very religious, and he believed that God ruled "in the affairs of men."
Christians and Jews believe that also, and so he has a Christian and Jewish perspective of God there. Deists believed that God takes no note of the affairs of men, but that the principles he set up govern things. Washington may believe that principles God sets up rule, as do Christians and Jews, but he makes a point to claim God rules in the affairs of men and caused good fortune to occur to establish the US.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
All men being equal does not mean all cultures are equal. sigh. ok, if you can't see how the associative property works here, i'll try again. especially since you don't seem to understand what an eponymous ancestor is. i won't even quote you a verse on this. but go read genesis 25. would you say that esau and jacob were created equally? or would you say prefence was given to one brother? in fact, preferring the younger brother is something of a biblical tradition. or hadn't you noticed that?
Lay down the multi-cultural peace pipe for once and read the documents, and pay attention to the whole Bible. yes, you too. don't ignore the entire torah because you don't like the implications. and don't for a second pretend that you don't understand that the foundation of modern christian is that we all deserve death.
God created men in his image, nor does it change the fact Jesus says preach the gospel to all men. and that is not the same as saying all men are equal, or have the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. you're trying to make the philosophy fit, but it doesn't. the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are patently un-biblical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The fact some men are more evil than others, and some men more righteous is irrevalent to the concept of equality talked about in the Bible and the Declaration. Washington is not saying all men are absolutely equal, nor is anyone. Men have differences, and men are not equal in behaviour.
But men are equal in the sense of all granted certain rights by virtue of being created in the image of God. That doesn't mean all men as sinners don't deserve death, and indeed all men die. Indeed, if you look at the Torah, no man is above the Law, right? All men are equal before it with the same responsibilities to God basically, and all men are equal before the Cross. You are confusing separate issues. This message has been edited by randman, 11-15-2005 02:12 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
One more note on the Law. The Torah depicts all men as subject individually and nations corporately to the Law. That's the same thing the Declaration was stating, that all men are equal in the sense of equal before the law with the same basic rights.
Do you not see that? The equality mentioned has nothing to do with claiming cultures are equal, or that men are equal in deeds or character, but refers to equality before the law, which is an ancient biblical concept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
no, no, no.
But men are equal in the sense of all granted certain rights by virtue of being created in the image of God. this is a logical jump. it's not present in the bible. some have birthrights, some don't. some children are born special, as kings, or as the founders of bastard nations. the perspect of the first few dozen books of the bible is that there is one true line of descent from god, and all others are inferior. it's pretty easy to see if you read the bible -- the bible is essentially about what makes the hebrews special. don't believe me? where is every other nation's covenant? where is their promise? why is israel "god's chosen people?"
That doesn't mean all men as sinners don't deserve death, and indeed all men die. the declaration of independence says all men deserve LIFE. the bible says all men deserve DEATH. that's a pretty big and essential difference, wouldn't you say?
Indeed, if you look at the Torah, no man is above the Law, right? no. the law is given to one set of people, not everyone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
One more note on the Law. The Torah depicts all men as subject individually and nations corporately to the Law. That's the same thing the Declaration was stating, that all men are equal in the sense of equal before the law with the same basic rights. Do you not see that? that's the definition of law, rand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
some have birthrights, some don't. some children are born special, as kings, or as the founders of bastard nations. That's the same with the Declaration (American) concept of equality. The founders were not saying all men were borne with equal possessions, equal talents, or equal destinies even. They were talking of equal rights granted by God, equality under the law, and so does the Torah. The reason the idolaters face the wrath of God is due to their behaviour, not that they were not created in the image of God. Genesis states God created man in His image, not just the Jews, and the New Testament reiterates that principle. As far as God's chosen people, they are given a covenant. That's also similar to the founders and Washington's beliefs that they were special and chosen as well to pioneer the concepts of freedom and equality in rights in this new nation. It's not different, but very similar. And the Law and the Prophers are not just about making the Jews feel special. Did not God send Jonah to the Ninevites? And when they repented, God forgave them right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
In some nations, the kings word is law. So it's not the definition of all law, and that's what the revolution claimed to be about. They were saying the king was violating the rights given to them by God, trying to subject them to a status where all were not equal under the law, and where they corporately had no representation. Remember no taxation without representation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
randman writes: (quoted text not repeated - see Message 49). Does the following suggest an "abstract God" to you? Yes it seems abstract. If I were to talk of "the one who repeatedly denies what the fossil evidence shows" and if I never mentioned the name "randman", then I would be talking about you in the abstract. Maybe "in the abstract" isn't quite the right way of describing it. It would be a reference by vague allusion, and would give me plausible deniability as to whether the reference was to randman. Politicians and lawyers are expert in that form of expression.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
That's the same with the Declaration (American) concept of equality. The founders were not saying all men were borne with equal possessions, equal talents, or equal destinies even. They were talking of equal rights granted by God, equality under the law, and so does the Torah. birth-rights and rights granted by god. the destiny to become king is a birthright. royalty and democracy are not the same concepts. ever.
The reason the idolaters face the wrath of God is due to their behaviour, not that they were not created in the image of God. being born out of incest is being created in god's image now? that wasn't the model god set up, was it?
That's also similar to the founders and Washington's beliefs that they were special and chosen as well to pioneer the concepts of freedom and equality in rights in this new nation. what?
And the Law and the Prophers are not just about making the Jews feel special. they are fundamentally the history of the jewish people. is that a hard concept to understand?
Did not God send Jonah to the Ninevites? And when they repented, God forgave them right? now, that's a bit of quotemining. how many other books of the old testament deal with a culture outside of israel and judah? it's that and genesis, and genesis is largely scornful and mocking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Whatever, it's obvious he was talking about the "Almighty" or God. If you want to claim "God" is a general term not specific to Christianity, once again, I say so what?
That doesn't change the fact as president he believed it was his duty to express gratitude towards God.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024