DATELINE - Rise of Evangelism in America

and in israel, god's word is law.in america, the peoples' word is law.how are those compatible?

---

אָרַח

So Jonah is not a book of the Bible now, eh?You just cannot seem to get your head around the fact that God choosing Israel does not negate the reality of all men being created in the image of God.You also seem incapable of understanding that the equality concept relates to rights and the law. It was not some communist concept of equality where all birthrights were removed. Sure, they advocated the removal of titles and royalty, but they still believed in passing lands, goods, wealth, etc,...down to their kids, and that this was one's right as well.So their idea of equality is not equality of birthright in this world, equality of talent, equality of outcomes, or anything like that.They were talking of equal rights under the law, and so does the Bible. All Israelites were subject to the same Law.

Because in America, the people's word is not law when it comes to individual rights. The Declaration which we were discussing is quite clear. Rights are not granted by the people, but by God. The people have the right then to enact a government to insure those God-given rights. That is the point.Morever, it's not even direct rule by the people, but through their elected representatives. But even then, the people have rights as individuals which the state cannot tamper with, or is not suppossed to.

Or he believed it politically expedient to be seen as expressing gratitude.

i'm saying that jonah is a relatively late book and does not represent, by and large, the concepts of the old testament. there are a few books that are off the standard. jonah is one. job is another.the idea of taking jewish beliefs outward is actually pretty darned foriegn to the bible. how many verse do you want me to find about why foriegn influence is bad? the verse i posted before, about killing all of those 7 nations?here's WHY:

quote:

---

Deu 7:4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

---

lest they have some influence on israel. see that? foriegn nations are so dangerous that not only should you avoid them, but you should KILL them. look at what happened with jezebel. advocating slavery? commanding genocide? how are those compatible with equality? no, the levites were subject to different standards as the priests. wanna keep trying? how about you show me where the bible talks about RIGHTS at all?

---

אָרַח

Well i guess you didn't read my link then, washington used religion for unities sake
as my link points out, people tended to read thier own beliefs into what he believed, Like you seem to be doing..He was far from what you seem to think he is, since christianity was popular i wouldn't think he would talk about an unpopular one and alienate his people, would you?

I figured you would throw out the Levites and priests, but they were still subject to the Law, but they had a different function in soceity. They still had to obey the Ten Commandments for instance.As far as subjugating other nations, it's apples and oranges. God didn't tell them to take them in, but to remove them from the land due to their wickedness. There's no sense that non-jews are not created in the image of God, and in fact, Genesis traces all men back to the same roots.Some nations are abhorred due to their actions, not because they are subhuman or something like that.

sigh.in america, people make the law. we create government, and elect representives to be our voice in the law-making process.in england, the king made the law.in ancient israel, GOD made the law.the rights being granted by god is all well and good -- but that is not a biblical tradition. the biblical tradition is one of god's law, not rights -- areas the law cannot touch. and anyhow, the whole idea of natural rights was suggested by john locke. the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is borrowed from locke's "life, liberty, and property."the pseudo-religious language probably came from the same place. locke greatly influenced the deists that followed after him, including jefferson. that's why it refers to god rather ambiguously, but still refers to god.

---

אָרַח

I am not reading anything into his statements more than the statements themselves. I am not even claiming he was a Christian. His application of religion to the State in terms of expressing gratitude towards God, and stating God rules among the affairs of men, particularly nations, is what he says.I've added, nor read, nothing into his statements. Nada.I suggest you actually read what the man said and deal with that.

Locke didn't originate or think of "natural law" all on his own, did he? Where did the concept come from?Do you know?Do you think that perhaps Locke being an educated man had read a little of St Thomas Aquinas?This message has been edited by randman, 11-15-2005 03:08 AM

yes, but the other 11 tribes didn't have to obey the levite code. no. let's make no bones about this. god said "kill 'em all." i'm just bringing it up to demonstrate that jonah is not a standard book of the bible, but that the major philosophy is in contradiction with most jewish traditions. ancient israel is typically isolationist -- the reigns of kings are even judged on this in the book of kings. hey randman, your father was a bastard.you don't see how that's insulting? i'm sure the ammonites would have, and i'm sure the arabs do today. that might be true, except for the bit about the edomites. you don't think esau's a derogatory picture for the father of a nation? i mean, they practically called him a caveman -- or would have had they the word.

---

אָרַח

It's still apples and oranges and not germane to the discussion. The people that declared all men are equal did so in an act of rebellion where they proceeded to kill British soldiers.

shall we keep doing this? st. thomas aquinas didn't think of it on his own, did he? where did the concept of natural law come from?i bet you get the wrong answer on this.

---

אָרַח

you don't know american history either?they wrote the declaration first. then the british sent soldiers. some kid threw a snowball, and the soldiers opened fire. they killed british soldier because they were being shot at ---- they wanted freedom intellectually. the british came with guns. they didn't kill the british because they were inferior, or because they'd taint their culture and heritage.

---

אָרַח

Maybe. I guess you think Aristotle is wrong, and maybe you are right, but that's my answer.