Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<"Does that mean, then, that it's okay for the military to expect its soldiers to profess to Christianity?" My position is well known on that. Acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as our Lord causes the Constitution to continue to legally exist.>> Actually, mrkthompsn, I did NOT know that your version of American is hostile to atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and all other non-Christians. So thank you for clarifying here.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn It's not meant to be hostile. It's just compliance to the requirements of the Constitution. I'm not the one who wrote the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
Originally Posted By X-san ***It's just compliance to the requirements of the Constitution.*** Find me one link to just one other person who agrees with you on this one. You're frankly just making stuff up. In fact, the Constitution says exactly the opposite of what you're trying to claim, right in the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." How do you explain your bizarre "year of our lord" theory in the face of that very obvious statement that almost no one could find reason to question (unlike the strangely worded 2nd amendment which is causing controversy to this day).
Originally Posted By X-san Here's something you should read, Mrk. <a href="http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/godlessconst.html" target="_blank">http://www.cincinnatiskeptics....nst.html</a> "Religious leaders sometimes point to the U.S. Constitution as Christian inspired, written by Christian men for governing a Christian nation. This is a mistaken view. The Constitution specifically omits any sort of God, and is an entirely secular document."
Originally Posted By X-san <a href="http://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day09/archive/2007/12/20/romney-s-founders.aspx" target="_blank">http://communities.justicetalk...ers.aspx</a> "It is worth noting that the Declaration of Independence does not invoke Jesus, or Christ, or Our Father, or the Almighty, but the “Laws of Nature,†“Nature’s God,†the “Supreme Judge,†and “Divine Providence,†all phrases that belong to the tradition of deism. The Declaration of Independence is not a Puritan or Calvinist or Methodist or Baptist or Protestant or Catholic or Christian document, but a document of the Enlightenment. It is a statement that deeply and intentionally invokes the language of American deism. It is a document of its own time, and it speaks eloquently about what Americans of that time believed. The Constitution goes even further. It does not invoke the deity at all. Unlike the Puritan documents of the early seventeenth century, it makes no reference whatever to God. It cites as its ultimate source of authority not “the command of God,†but “We the People,†the stated purpose of the Constitution is not to create a government “according to the will of God†but to “secure the Blessings of Liberty.†Significantly, the only reference to religion in the 1789 Constitution expressly prohibits the use of any religious test for public office." Okay, Mrk, I've presented a good deal of evidence that you are wrong. Can you please provide to some links that support your hypothesis?
Originally Posted By imadisneygal If I recall correctly, the crux of his argument is that the documents are dated AD (year of our Lord) and without recognizing that Jesus is the Lord there is no authenticated date of the documents. Or something like that.
Originally Posted By X-san Yeah, I know. But aside from Mrk, I've never heard such a thing. I'm guessing he just made it up. To try and stretch credibility so far that you are trying to say that the date (in commonly written form for the era) is some sort of religious statement, or even more bizarrely actually has anything to do with the validity of the document, is just plain nuts if you ask me. ESPECIALLY considering the fact that the document itself speaks explicitly about NOT allowing the government to have anything to do with any religion in any case!
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn ...that in combination with "and of the independence of the United States the twelfth", each being a combined dependent function of "we subscribe" and "done". "done" is the most vital word. If the word "done" has no truth, then the Constitution is in no legal condition to be formally released to ratification - the document is not formally "done". It cannot be an authentic recognizable document until "done" is true. If there is no recognized "lord" whom is "ours", and if simultaneously there is no recognized condition of independence of the US into its twelfth year, then "done" cannot be true, and there is nothing relevant for "we" to "subscribe" to. X-san: our Lord is Jesus Christ. Nature's God is God. The Divine Providence is God. The Supreme Judge is God. Don't skimp about the truth.
Originally Posted By X-san And, links? ***X-san: our Lord is Jesus Christ. Nature's God is God. The Divine Providence is God. The Supreme Judge is God. Don't skimp about the truth.*** I disagree. You can believe whatever you want, but don't tell me what *I'm* supposed to believe. As for it being "the truth", who knows. You sure don't. None of us do. But you definitely speak as though your beliefs are probable facts, and that makes you sound foolish. So anyway, let's see some links to others who subscribe to your theory. Can you find any (I couldn't, in fact noone on the whole WWW besides Mrk has any interest in discussing anything about how the date in the constitution is phrased, it seems).
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn "ESPECIALLY considering the fact that the document itself speaks explicitly about NOT allowing the government to have anything to do with any religion in any case!" The beginning of the First Amendment does nothing more than stipulate the ~limitation of congress~ (Congress shall pass no law..." The Congress of the Constitution was invented by the Constitution. The Congress of the Confederation disappeared on the first effectivity day of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers established the recognition of Christ and God in the Constitution itself - acts of Congress do not apply, as the First Amendment clearly states. And the First Amendment does not affect this attestment clause of the Constitution "done in Convention..." If it were to negate the meaning of "Lord" and also negate our independence 12 years prior by negating the recognition of "Creator", "Supreme Judge" or "Divine Providence", then the First Amendment would have rendered "done" untruthful, therefore negating the Constitution, therefore negating the First Amendment itself. This apparently did not happen by the sheer presence of the 2nd Amendment - or the 11th. The formal recognition of God and Jesus cannot be removed from the Constitution.
Originally Posted By X-san ***The Founding Fathers established the recognition of Christ and God in the Constitution itself*** Where? In the date? This is just ridiculous. I feel like my brain cells are dying faster by the second. Look, Mrk, if you REALLY believe this, then please explain why they were so vague as to just leave a CLUE up in the corner of the page, rather than simply write about how this was all about Jesus our Lord and that's what this whole shebang is based on? Why wouldn't they do that, if you really believe that was their intention?
Originally Posted By X-san ***The formal recognition of God and Jesus cannot be removed from the Constitution.*** It cannot be removed because it isn't there. You are making stuff you. It's amusing (a little..not really though), but totally ridiculous.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn "As for it being "the truth", who knows. You sure don't. None of us do." What is the reason Jesus came to the earth? Let's see. It's in the testimony of John, Chapter 18. Jesus was brought to trial in front of Pilate. In the court of law, Pilate accused Jesus of falsely being a king. Jesus approach the witness stand and spoke against himself "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, ~TO TESTIFY TO THE TRUTH~. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." So I do know the truth - and so do you. "So anyway, let's see some links to others who subscribe to your theory. Can you find any (I couldn't, in fact noone on the whole WWW besides Mrk has any interest in discussing anything about how the date in the constitution is phrased, it seems" That doesn't mean I am not correct. My argument is fully logical, and legal. The Constitution is a document. It all has to do with the document authentication and release process. Thus is the reason I am writing a book on the subject. I'm half-way done on page 165.
Originally Posted By X-san ***What is the reason Jesus came to the earth? Let's see. It's in the testimony of John, Chapter 18. Jesus was brought to trial in front of Pilate. In the court of law, Pilate accused Jesus of falsely being a king. Jesus approach the witness stand and spoke against himself "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, ~TO TESTIFY TO THE TRUTH~. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." So I do know the truth - and so do you.*** What if I say the authors of the bible were liars? Or delusional? Or mistaken? Just because the bible says so means nothing to me.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn The "we subscribe" clause is dependent upon the truth of the word "done". Done = The condition of a system or object, having entered into an authentic state of completeness, marked by a singular and instantaneous event. The singular and instantaneous event was doubly marked by the month and day of September 17, the singular event Jesus Christ 1787 years prior, as well as the singular event of independence of the United States of American into its twelfth year. The truth of Jesus and the truth of American independence makes the state of completeness authentic. Therefore the condition of the Constitution can truthfully and authentically be recognized as done - the document is worth of recognition into the ratification process.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn It doesn't matter what you think. The fact of the universe is the the Bible is true. Our founding fathers attest to these truths. Jesus is true, and God is true. So many times, Jesus begins his statements with "I tell you the truth..."
Originally Posted By mele <<"I tell you the truth...">> Big deal...so does the homeless guy who lives by the freeway on-ramp by my house.
Originally Posted By ecdc On many threads, reasonable, moderate people have rightly objected to words and phrases like delusional, fairy tale, or imaginary friend to describe religious belief. I would posit that there's a double-standard that exists in our culture regarding religious belief. When someone calls religion delusional or compares God to Santa Claus, they are being insensitive or deliberately provocative, the argument goes. Yet mrkthompsn has done precisely the same thing. Claiming that Christianity just is or that the Bible is the truth of the universe is no less confrontational or insensitive to other religious believers. It's entirely one thing to employ bizarre, tortured logic in regards to the Constitution; at least people can argue the point and show just how flawed and off-base the reasoning (and historically inaccurate, mind you) is. But making these kinds of authoritative statements are really not that different than saying religion is delusional. So while calling religion delusional is insensitive, saying nonsense like this is often lauded as speaking truth to power, or testifying, or being bold, or standing up for beliefs. While this is often seen as something to be admired, the reverse is considered un-PC and insensitive, and even simple-minded (oh the irony!) for not exploring the depth of religion. Once again, our society seems to privilege belief over non-belief. And once again claiming these kinds of things without analysis or evidence is pointless. mrkthompsn's posts are no different than if I were to say Cap'n Crunch is the savior of the universe and you need to buy his cereal. Anyone can say anything; you ought to be able to actually back it up.
Originally Posted By X-san Look, Pal. I've had just about enough of that. Fruit Brute is the Supreme Lord and if you don't take back that blasphemous endorsement of Cap'n Crunch (who doesn't exist, BY THE WAY!), we're gonna have a problem Mister. )
