tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post4923669535565878675..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: Antithetical Compromise?D. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-31952482255038516852009-08-05T16:07:46.504-04:002009-08-05T16:07:46.504-04:00Those men, who were Christian, indeed put God firs...<i>Those men, who were Christian, indeed put God first and formed a nation of Christian principles and formed a government that did not force our religion on folks.</i> <br /><br />Take your meds, Dan, and try honesty <i>just once</i>, will you?<br /><br /><i>Some</i> of the "founding fathers" were [professing] Christians, some were not. There may even have been a majority of professing Christians amongst them, but it is a dubious claim indeed to suggest that many of them would meet your standard of True Christian™.<br /><br />They did <i>not</i> put god first, but rather they put the principles of democracy first, and they put liberty first. Indeed, Article 11 of the treaty in question <i>explicitly states</i> that even if they <i>did</i> put god first, <i>it wasn't the Christian god</i>.<br /><br />Redefining "religion," altering the meaning of "Christian nation" as used by modern Christians, and pointing to the term "government," as though any of these things help you, is a lost cause. This supposed "Secular America Thesis" aside, the claim is not that America was founded on Atheism, or Secularism, but that is was intentionally and explicitly founded <i>not</i> as a "Christian nation," but as a <i>diverse</i> nation of people with varied backgrounds -- including varied philosophies and/or religions.<br /><br />Anyway, just what do you think the "founding fathers" <i>founded</i>, anyway?<br /><br />--<br />Stan<br /><br /><br />P.S. -- I like how this Bowen fellow unwittingly refers to the founding of the U.S. government as an "institution of coercion." Although he means to say that governments are used to coerce citizens, this stands in stark contrast to the very type of government the "founding fathers" envisioned and penned. Also, "institutions of coercion" would necessarily be <i>based</i> on coercion -- America, conversely, was <i>inspired</i> through the recognition of coercion.Stan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-23109198468940978392009-08-05T02:44:43.048-04:002009-08-05T02:44:43.048-04:00Mr. Bowen,
First, welcome.
Second, I want to tha...Mr. Bowen,<br /><br />First, welcome.<br /><br />Second, I want to thank you so very much for your article called <a href="http://hubpages.com/hub/Tempest-in-a-Treaty-Does-the-Treaty-of-Tripoli-Support-a-Secular-America" rel="nofollow">Tempest in a Treaty: Does the Treaty of Tripoli Support a Secular America?</a><br /><br />I sure wish I did more homework on George Mason's quotes on religion. Nice! I missed that entirely.<br /><br />And why didn't I see that <i><b>Article XI refers to the “government” of the United States, not the “nation.”</b></i> <br /><br />I thought it was a compromise to their faith but I may have been way off. Those men, who were Christian, indeed put God first and formed a nation of Christian principles and formed a government that did not force our religion on folks. Hopefully, people will understand more that hearts are not changed by imposing Christianity but by the Grace of God. Our Founding Fathers knew this, the brilliant men they were. I cannot wait to shake George Mason's hand for his work. <br /><br />Well anyway, thanks again for setting the record strait. <br /><br />Blessings.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-7424493326491824872009-08-04T22:00:31.406-04:002009-08-04T22:00:31.406-04:00Article XI is worn out from overuse by those veste...Article XI is worn out from overuse by those vested in America as an atheist nation. The reason is is that it is one of the very few pieces of evidence going for them. <br /><br />I have recently placed an article on hubpages that argues that the Treaty of Tripoli does not support the secular America thesis, with or without Article XI. You can see it at <br /><br />http://hubpages.com/_wrb2009/hub/Tempest-in-a-Treaty-Does-the-Treaty-of-Tripoli-Support-a-Secular-America<br /><br />Thanks for the good information.William R. Bowenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12263451823688176002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-90689669879983249522009-07-28T08:58:50.709-04:002009-07-28T08:58:50.709-04:00Dan, if you look at the what Christian virtues and...Dan, if you look at the what Christian virtues and principles were in the first century and what they are now, you'd see that they have been evolving to keep up with our culture. Your Christian apologists make a living trying to come up with excuses and do clever spin doctoring, in order to make it appear that you guys had it right all along.<br /><br />Dan, your Christian principles are not the same as they were over 200 years ago. Stop ignoring the facts.<br /><br />~Atomic ChimpAtomic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402712957793905056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-36052553710052090652009-07-28T08:19:06.259-04:002009-07-28T08:19:06.259-04:00Dan, You seem to only see my mentioning of religio...Dan, You seem to only see my mentioning of religions and ignored that my comment clearly applied to non-religious sources. You seem to be stuck on the idea that anything you support must have been inspired by religion, Christianity in particular.<br /><br />You're missing my point Dan. Though we have legal documents from our early history, put in place by our founding fathers that in plain text point out we're not a Christian nation, you claim your proof is the principles this nation was based on. What you still haven't done is show that any principles that apply are exclusively Christian. There are other religions, and also many different cultures, groups, movements, philosophies etc share those principle you've vaguely claiming so far. <br /><br />Dan at that time our nation was founded, the different Christian sects would not be able to agree on a definition of what were the Christian principle. Our founding fathers were smart enough to remover the religion from the government secular principles. <br /><br />Since most of the colonist came to the new world in order to escape the religious tyranny of England, to claim they came here to form another Christian based theocracy is foolish. Dan, it is you who should "Come back to reality". <br /><br />Word is Bond!<br />~Atomic ChimpAtomic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402712957793905056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-77184386790784447172009-07-27T19:13:50.610-04:002009-07-27T19:13:50.610-04:00After all, if this is a "christian nation&quo...<i>After all, if this is a "christian nation" why did the founding fathers not bloody <b>say</b> that in any of their documents?</i> <br /><br />Because it isn't, and they actually said <i>otherwise</i> -- explicitly -- in this country's infancy, which is obviously the subject of this thread, and which Dan refuses to accept, despite a "plain reading of the text."<br /><br />Hypocrite.<br /><br />--<br />StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-63239878605729467842009-07-27T17:21:31.999-04:002009-07-27T17:21:31.999-04:00Dan +†+ said...
Nice, this Duane Blake said the ...<b>Dan +†+ said...</b> <br /><br /><i>Nice, this Duane Blake said the same thing. Nice Job. <br /><br />Religion is indeed a cornerstone of liberty.</i><br /> <br />Complete bull. Read about the xian-ruled middle ages. Or about how the religious John Calvin ruled Geneva. Or the myraid "freedoms" that slaves had under your "christian" founding fathers when the states were first formed.<br /><br />It was only when people started to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta" rel="nofollow">stand up</a> to those tyrants that the concept of liberty began to take root, and it was more to do with it being <b>despite</b> religion than because of it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_haught/holy.html" rel="nofollow">Some examples</a>, and not just christian and islam, either.<br /><br />After all, if this is a "christian nation" why did the founding fathers not bloody <b>say</b> that in any of their documents?Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-59606838803711069352009-07-27T14:39:29.425-04:002009-07-27T14:39:29.425-04:00Chimp,
There are many other religions, groups, an...Chimp,<br /><br /><i>There are many other religions, groups, and people at that time that could be defined as virtuous.</i> <br /><br />You would be absolutely in denial to believe that any other religion dominated our Founding Fathers times, other then Christianity. I am sure you understand that they were not Muslim also. Come back to reality and reason with logic as to what religion was dominate in those days and what religion influenced most.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-64123466210151931682009-07-26T16:51:51.573-04:002009-07-26T16:51:51.573-04:00Dan, your definition of Christan principles is aga...Dan, your definition of Christan principles is again too vague. There are many other religions, groups, and people at that time that could be defined as virtuous. By you definition, we could claim that one of many other groups principles is what this nation is what this nation was based on. Buddhism for example, which predate Christianity. <br /><br />Please give me example that other religions, groups or individuals do not promote. <br /><br />Word is Bond!<br />~Atomic ChimpAtomic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402712957793905056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-42828509640715115442009-07-25T23:11:08.866-04:002009-07-25T23:11:08.866-04:00Nice, this Duane Blake said the same thing. Nice J...Nice, this <a href="http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_12911331" rel="nofollow">Duane Blake</a> said the same thing. Nice Job. <br /><br />Religion is indeed a cornerstone of liberty.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-91981813083116686142009-07-24T19:34:48.842-04:002009-07-24T19:34:48.842-04:00Chimp,
I guess the simplest way in defining Chris...Chimp,<br /><br />I guess the simplest way in defining Christian principles is a striving to live life virtuously.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-35895343385097399052009-07-23T18:14:33.543-04:002009-07-23T18:14:33.543-04:00Dan you said, "..Principles based on the Bibl...Dan you said, <b>"..Principles based on the Bible."</b><br /><br />Thats rather vague. I've seen many groups and individuals claim that what they do is based on biblical principles, but I'm sure you would not agree with their interpretation. <br /><br />Since I'm sure you would not agree with some of the horrible things I see promoted in the bible, please give me exact examples. If there are too many for you to list, just provide the core and most important principles.<br /><br />As for not mentioning the source of the quote, since it does not directly pertain to the point being discussed, but instead to hopefully curb your addiction to quote mining, I thought it was not necessary. But for your satisfaction, here is one of the resource I used:<br /><br />Right To Recover <br />by Yvonne Perry<br />Nightengale Press<br />October 2007<br />ISBN-13: 9781933449418<br /><br />Word is bond!<br />~Atomic ChimpAtomic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402712957793905056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-76500015796183382932009-07-23T17:53:46.659-04:002009-07-23T17:53:46.659-04:00Since Dan is so fond of quoting influential Americ...Since Dan is so fond of quoting influential American figures, here's some <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html" rel="nofollow">Jefferson</a>, in a letter to Rush:<br /><br /><i>And in confiding [my views on Christianity] to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies.</i> <br /><br />Here, Jefferson paused to glare menacingly at Dan...<br /><br /><i>I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public, because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience which the laws have so justly proscribed.</i> <br /><br />This second portion is, quite simply, beautiful prose, and it fits in perfectly with Froggie's statement regarding the lone two "commandments" which are part of U.S. law -- the third, traditionally the ninth commandment, is only against the law when one is under oath.<br /><br />In <a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/jeff1080.htm" rel="nofollow">another letter to Rush</a> (which preceded the letter quoted above), Jefferson wrote the following:<br /><br /><i>I have a view of the subject [of Christianity] which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the </i>genus irritabile vatum<i> who are all in arms against me.</i> <br /><br />[Note: the Latin phrase translates roughly as "the irritable species of poets," and is a reference to Horace.]<br /><br />[Ed. Note: the use of this phrase seems clearly aimed toward the <i>non</i>-rational Christians, and the clergy who are referenced later in the letter.]<br /><br />Here, again, then, Jefferson paused to glare menacingly at Dan...<br /><br /><i>The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to [the clergy's] hopes [of establishing a particular form of Christianity throughout the U.S.], & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.</i> <br /><br />[Note: "god" was not capitalized in the handwritten letter.]<br /><br />[Ed. Note: the "tyranny over the mind of man" clearly references the imposition of religion of any kind.]<br /><br /><br />So, Dan, you can pretty clearly see that the very authors of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were <i>not</i> friendly toward your sort of Christianity, and instead stood in stark opposition to recognizing any particular religion as being the basis of American principles. Indeed, in Jefferson's own words, he describes himself as a "Christian," but in this he means the <i>original</i> sense of the term -- a follower of Jesus "Christ." He liked very much what Jesus had to say, but he did not attribute to him any divinity whatsoever.<br /><br />If nothing else, then, these texts -- the letters, as well as the Treaty of Tripoli -- show that the "founding fathers" of the United States were nothing close to the fundamentalist Christians Dan would make them sound like. Even those who <i>were</i> Christians, or at least called themselves Christians, were at best the "rational Christians" Jefferson describes -- not the irrational blowhards Dan fairly worships.<br /><br />--<br />StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-24701566073397668772009-07-23T16:53:41.647-04:002009-07-23T16:53:41.647-04:00Article VI of the Constitution:
"...all exec...Article VI of the Constitution:<br /><br />"...all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."<br /><br />Also, seven of the ten commandments cannot be made laws because they would be unconstitutional- dictating conscience.<br /><br />When only three of your ten major religious tenets made it as valid laws, it sure doesn't seem like we are founded on Christian prinipals.Froggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12972110380349786742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-15791004017109568392009-07-23T16:07:26.566-04:002009-07-23T16:07:26.566-04:00...it will not only survive the wreck of these sys......it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]<br /><br />Benjamin Rush<br />(Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-60414720238018354852009-07-23T16:04:33.365-04:002009-07-23T16:04:33.365-04:00Chimp,
Nice quote without a source.
Admittedly, ...Chimp,<br /><br />Nice quote without a source.<br /><br />Admittedly, I thought Adams was a Christian at the time of the post and have since realized that possibly may not be the case. Although, only our Creator can know with certainty. I cannot view the fruit of these men so, through the historians presuppositions, we can merely speculate. <br /><br />I found another book that may be interesting. "The Founding Fathers and Deism" by David Barton.<br /><br />Someone did recommended a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Americas-God-Country-Encyclopedia-Quotations/dp/1880563053" rel="nofollow">good book</a> that sheds light on the situation.<br /><br />As far as the "Christian principles" question...Principles based on the Bible.<br /><br />Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, put it this way:<br /><br />By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-62975589910622022872009-07-23T08:28:46.448-04:002009-07-23T08:28:46.448-04:00Hey Dan, Since you seem to like to cite qutoes by ...Hey Dan, Since you seem to like to cite qutoes by Adams, heres one I think you'll enjoy!<br /><br /><b>"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and the whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."</b><br /><br />Though it still has no bearing on whether or not we live in a Christina nation, I thought it would help you let go of trying to spin doctor the treaty of tripoli with unrelated quotes.<br /><br />Word is Bond!<br />~Atomic ChimpAtomic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402712957793905056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-22708995679871519272009-07-23T08:08:04.821-04:002009-07-23T08:08:04.821-04:00Dan, I'm still waiting for you to define for m...Dan, I'm still waiting for you to define for me what these, "Christian principles" are, and which ones you believe they base our nation on.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />~Atomic ChimpAtomic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402712957793905056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-30233474910214201232009-07-22T23:24:51.335-04:002009-07-22T23:24:51.335-04:00Rufus,
The squeaky wheel indeed gets some grease....Rufus,<br /><br />The squeaky wheel indeed gets some grease.<br /><br />What did Jesus say about taxes? Hmm, I know he paid his taxes (Matthew 17:24-27)<br /><br />Plus we all remember and understand what He said to the Pharisees that were trying to trick Him in Mark 12:13-17 and Luke 20:20-26.Paul also makes it clear in Romans 13:1-7.<br /><br />Why do you ask?D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-38915994721922877022009-07-22T22:14:02.204-04:002009-07-22T22:14:02.204-04:00Dan:
You didn't answer on the other thread; w...Dan:<br /><br />You didn't answer on the other thread; what did Jesus say about taxes?TJHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10570384567898770658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-6465428242220669122009-07-22T18:56:44.423-04:002009-07-22T18:56:44.423-04:00But I am afraid that you didn't read the entir...<i>But I am afraid that you didn't read the entire link that you linked to. He held the same belief that I am making here.</i> <br /><br />You just don't get it, do you? I linked to the source for the entire Adams quote, which is appropriate considering his quote is under discussion. I presented the quote in [virtually] its entirety, including a direct link to the actual entirety, so that my statements could be verified.<br /><br />What I did <i>not</i> do, which you <i>constantly</i> do, is to search for and link to a site which supported my position. Rather, I located a site which provided the entire quote in question, so that it could be discussed appropriately, rather than via the plagiarized quote-mine you performed (yes, it was plagiarism -- you didn't just quote Adams, but the author of the article itself, and you did so without attribution). I did not seek out, and obviously did not find, an article that explicitly agrees with my position -- though such an article could no doubt be located. I don't care what the guy's conclusions are, as I'm not basing my argument off of his. I'm pointing to the relevant text, and that is all.<br /><br />You should consider taking a course on how to properly conduct research, since you're clearly incapable of doing it honestly.<br /><br /><i>We were founded on Christian principles and for Athiests </i>[sic]<i>, like yourself, to say anything to the contrary is being dishonest.</i> <br /><br />No, no, and no. As the Treaty of Tripoli <i>explicitly states</i>, the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. What does a "plain reading of the text" tell you, Dan?<br /><br />As I showed, though, Adams' use of "Christian principles" is equivalent to the use of one's "Christian name" -- it's not a reference to Christianity <i>per se</i>, but an unfortunate slang reference to a set of principles viewed as not being "savage" or "heathen."<br /><br />What's more, is that the explicit statement in the Treaty details exactly what I'm saying -- that the Christian <i>religion</i> was not the basis of our government. If you insist that the principles were "Christian," fine. We'll disagree still, but it's largely moot, as only a small subset of the tenets of your religion are included in those principles anyway, and many of the principles -- especially the ones we today espouse -- are undeniably <i>anti</i>-Christian.<br /><br />If you continue to insist that the U.S. was founded on "Christian principles," then you are guilty of bending the term "Christian" to suit your needs out of convenience, and that is dishonest. The fact remains that the U.S. -- a unanimous Senate, with the blessing of the Executive branch -- explicitly stated that it was not founded on the Christian religion, and that even while Adams may have considered himself a Christian, he explicitly acknowledged the inclusion of various denominations of Christianity, as well as various non-Christian religions and/or philosophies, as being pivotal in the formation and defense of the fledgling democracy.<br /><br />--<br />StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-71165970748512727612009-07-22T15:37:46.570-04:002009-07-22T15:37:46.570-04:00Dan said,"I just viewed that most of the Foun...Dan said,<b>"I just viewed that most of the Founding Fathers believed in Christ; set up our entire governmental system of liberty based on the Christian principles;...</b><br /><br />Most doesn't cut it Dan. You even mention that Jefferson was a deist in this post. I believe you have denied this before but I'm too lazy to dig through you comments to verify this.<br /><br />You go from most of them being Christians to our entire system being based on Christian values. So those who weren't just said, 'the hell with it I guess we have to be a Christian nation.'?<br /><br />I doubt that since several of our founding fathers often spoke about Christianity in a bad light. Some are some of those who spoke most strongly about the principles of this nation.<br /><br />Dan, please define for me what, "Christian principles" are and which ones you believe they base our nation on.<br /><br />~Atomic ChimpAtomic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402712957793905056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-14724381666725870302009-07-22T15:30:15.959-04:002009-07-22T15:30:15.959-04:00Dan said, "Like in a contract we have to unde...Dan said, "Like in a contract we have to understand the intent not just the letters." <br /><br />well, first of all you did not show the true intent of his words that have no direct connection to the document you are speaking of. <br /><br />Second of all, one persons opinion does not reflect that of all of those involved in the process when a treaty is passed through the senate. <br /><br />I think the text is very clear anyway. If you are assuming that it didn't really mean that we are not a Christian nation, then you only confirm PVB's point that the US government and all those people you claim are true Christians were lying.<br /><br />~Atomic ChimpAtomic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402712957793905056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-90149501710097987782009-07-22T13:55:06.114-04:002009-07-22T13:55:06.114-04:00Pvb,
I perfectly understand what you said and I a...Pvb,<br /><br />I perfectly understand what you said and I am sorry for avoiding the original question. You're right.<br /><br />I just viewed that most of the Founding Fathers believed in Christ; set up our entire governmental system of liberty based on the Christian principles; and compromised themselves with a treaty with the devil. They didn't lie, per se, but they failed to push the Biblical Antithesis of God. <br /><br />Maybe we can relate to Peter denying Christ he certainly lied and said he didn't know Christ but it was for pure self preservation. And the pain and guilt he felt for doing so was called repentance (Matthew 26:75). Do Christians lie? Certainly. Did they intentionally lie to be deceitful and evil? No. Was it out of self preservation? Possibly so. Was it wrong to do so? A resounding YES.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-56039641589960429072009-07-22T13:42:51.451-04:002009-07-22T13:42:51.451-04:00Chimp,
I just want to mention that the trivial mu...Chimp,<br /><br /><i>I just want to mention that the trivial mumblings of a politician have no bearing on a legal document.</i> <br /><br />I completely disagree. Like in a contract we have to understand the intent not just the letters. Contracts have been voided by the misuse of the intent of said contract even though it was legally followed. <br /><br />The feelings, mindset, and <i>intent</i> of the Founding Fathers is very relevant to this subject. Did they feel this to be a Nation of Christian Principles or not? I say Yes most did.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.com