Should God's Law be the Law of the Land?

[Hollie]

Oh absolutely!

The moment that I and ONLY I, get to be the person who decides what GODS LAW SAYS.

Can't I help?

Nope.

ONLY me.

Only I have the ear of GOD.

Only I speak on his behalf.

Its' all about me, dude.

I AM the perfect Randian Believer.

The rest of you guys are merely soulless robots God put here for my amusement.

Solopsism thy name is EGO

I'm going to suggest we give the gawds black and white striped shirts and whistles so they can ref the match separating all those who claim to speak authoritatively on their behalf.

 

[koshergrl]

WHO???? Do you know what specific is? Do you realize that when you speak in vague terms and refuse to provide examples, you look like a buffoon?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Many who believe in the absolute truth of the Christian faith seem to believe that God's Laws should be the law or basis of the law in the US.

What think you?

Who believes that? Give us an example.

Because I maintain that you're full of shit.

I wrote that they "seem to believe".

If I had to, the examples I think of people who fit that description would be:

Jerry Falwell. Pat Robertson. Fundamentalists. Westboro Baptists. Jeremiah on this forum. Many people I've met or who've posted on this forum. Sorry that I can't remember each and every one of them or every instance. I think I've read a few of your post that would suggest you are one of them. Is that why you're reacting so defensively?

 

[pinqy]

Name them. You won't, because you can't. You have no idea what you're spouting.

Th biggest is Chalcedon Foundation, but there are others. Wallbuilders is less explicit but they also want Christian dominance.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Many who believe in the absolute truth of the Christian faith seem to believe that God's Laws should be the law or basis of the law in the US.

What think you?

So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal law of God is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."


Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.

Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?

Thanks.

Have you looked for the answer in the bible?

Why do you want other people to do your work for you? Look it up. It's in there.
Apparently you've only read the naughty bits of the bible. I highly recommend you read the whole thing before jeering.

So would you say that we shouldn't make the "naughty parts" into law?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

WHO???? Do you know what specific is? Do you realize that when you speak in vague terms and refuse to provide examples, you look like a buffoon?

I think you're missing the point of this thread.

 

[Hollie]

So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal law of God is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46


"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."


Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.

Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?

Thanks.

Have you looked for the answer in the bible?

Why do you want other people to do your work for you? Look it up. It's in there.
Apparently you've only read the naughty bits of the bible. I highly recommend you read the whole thing before jeering.

So would you say that we shouldn't make the "naughty parts" into law?

A quick preface. I think the framers of the constitution knew full well the dangers of religious rule within government. Their framework for a nation founded upon secular laws that prohibited religious tests was a leap forward in human social conventions.

Secondly, The "naughty" parts of the bibles are not just "naughty". they're frequently vindictive, hateful and grotesque in their viciousness. I wouldn’t want Yahweh or Jehovah to be used as the model for ethics or morality. Christianity (and most Heaven and Hell religions) use fear as a powerful motivational tool. It works, too.

Also, I’m hoping not to get into the utter and chilling lack of ethics and morality theists happily slather their gods (role models no less) with at this time, but if you'll look at the argument, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc., all state that it is the “moral compass” of their particular Theology that heralds its veracity (ignoring the same or similar " moral compass " of other religions without a second glance).

Of course, the currently configured Abrahamic gods have chosen a painfully inept way to "keep the truth" since there's a glut of holy texts, religions, sects, and beliefs, so many of them contradicting one another. I still chuckle when I realize the religions of the ancient Egyptians are pure to this day-- chiseled in stone, it would be hard for the texts to go through the laughable circus attending the "holy words of Jehovah" or that “other” god?

 

[peach174]

Many who believe in the absolute truth of the Christian faith seem to believe that God's Laws should be the law or basis of the law in the US.

What think you?

We have been under God's law ever since we became a Nation.
God gives us inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness stated in our Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution gives us those very rights based on Gods laws.
Governments do not have the right to take away these basic freedoms, given to us by God away.

We are turning into the very Government that we fought the Revolutionary War over.

 

[Foxfyre]

It seems that those who hate Christianity, who seem to so desperately need to discredit it however they can find to do that, who despise the concepts of the Bible so that they demand that it be misrepresented, who copy and paste dishonest quotations to represent the beliefs of the founders, etc. etc. etc.. . . .

These will not understand any concept of God other than in a negative way. Nor can they understand a group of bright, intelligent, well educated men, almost all who were devoutly religious, who understood a concept of God given rights and who devised a government that would not be allowed to trample on them even as all of God's law cannot realistically be identified and listed by mere mortals.

And they knew that only a mostly religious and moral people would make that government work. We are incapable of the intelligence to override God's law without consequence.

In my belief, wisdom is understanding that the rules and regulations mankind devises to regulate its societies and God's law are two entirely separate things. And we ignore and/or dismiss both at our peril.

 

[Hollie]

Many who believe in the absolute truth of the Christian faith seem to believe that God's Laws should be the law or basis of the law in the US.

What think you?

We have been under God's law ever since we became a Nation.
God gives us inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness stated in our Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution gives us those very rights based on Gods laws.
Governments do not have the right to take away these basic freedoms, given to us by God away.

We are turning into the very Government that we fought the Revolutionary War over.

A couple of corrections are necessary. The wording of the constitution specifically excluded mention of any god(s). It’s a bit of a stretch to conclude that we are under god’s law when the founding documents of this nation exclude any subordination to the Christian god(s).

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It is in fact a treasonous document from the perspective of the British. It has already been argued and long admitted that the concept of men's religious beliefs, Deistic beliefs and no religious beliefs were part and parcel of the founding of the country. However, the wording is clearly meant to encompass numerous beliefs, extant at the time, to cover the general consensus of beliefs. Hence, deistic terms like "Creator" and "Nature's God", "divine Providence" and the quite evident lack of reference to Jesus and Yahweh (despite robust debate to include them). The closest reference is to a "Supreme Judge", but of course that could be Amun Ra, couldn't it?

It's a given that all things men do spring from their beliefs, which may be varied and complex, but what is asserted by Christians is that the Nation was founded exclusively under Judeo-Christian beliefs, and that is a patently false. At the outset, neither liberty, pursuit of happiness, democracy, or republicanism has anything to do with Judeo-Christianity, both of which would instill theocracies (and as such are by definition dictatorships), but instead these were the hallmarks of the "pagan" belief systems of the Greeks and the Romans.

The DoI is a stirring document, its importance is acknowledged, but it is not the legal basis for the nation nor how the nation functions or what its limits are. That is, has been, and always will be the Constitution, and all arguments regarding what the nation is permitted to do is contained within that document (with a nod to expansion vis a vis constitutional amendments).

 

[Sunshine]

Many who believe in the absolute truth of the Christian faith seem to believe that God's Laws should be the law or basis of the law in the US.

What think you?

We have been under God's law ever since we became a Nation.
God gives us inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness stated in our Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution gives us those very rights based on Gods laws.
Governments do not have the right to take away these basic freedoms, given to us by God away.

We are turning into the very Government that we fought the Revolutionary War over.

A couple of corrections are necessary. The wording of the constitution specifically excluded mention of any god(s). It’s a bit of a stretch to conclude that we are under god’s law when the founding documents of this nation exclude any subordination to the Christian god(s).

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It is in fact a treasonous document from the perspective of the British. It has already been argued and long admitted that the concept of men's religious beliefs, Deistic beliefs and no religious beliefs were part and parcel of the founding of the country. However, the wording is clearly meant to encompass numerous beliefs, extant at the time, to cover the general consensus of beliefs. Hence, deistic terms like "Creator" and "Nature's God", "divine Providence" and the quite evident lack of reference to Jesus and Yahweh (despite robust debate to include them). The closest reference is to a "Supreme Judge", but of course that could be Amun Ra, couldn't it?

It's a given that all things men do spring from their beliefs, which may be varied and complex, but what is asserted by Christians is that the Nation was founded exclusively under Judeo-Christian beliefs, and that is a patently false. At the outset, neither liberty, pursuit of happiness, democracy, or republicanism has anything to do with Judeo-Christianity, both of which would instill theocracies (and as such are by definition dictatorships), but instead these were the hallmarks of the "pagan" belief systems of the Greeks and the Romans.

The DoI is a stirring document, its importance is acknowledged, but it is not the legal basis for the nation nor how the nation functions or what its limits are. That is, has been, and always will be the Constitution, and all arguments regarding what the nation is permitted to do is contained within that document (with a nod to expansion vis a vis constitutional amendments).

You might want to take another look, specifically for :

"Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven".

If you are going to quote something or declare that something doesn't exist in a document, you should at least make the effort to read it first.

 

[Sunshine]

It seems that those who hate Christianity, who seem to so desperately need to discredit it however they can find to do that, who despise the concepts of the Bible so that they demand that it be misrepresented, who copy and paste dishonest quotations to represent the beliefs of the founders, etc. etc. etc.. . . .

These will not understand any concept of God other than in a negative way. Nor can they understand a group of bright, intelligent, well educated men, almost all who were devoutly religious, who understood a concept of God given rights and who devised a government that would not be allowed to trample on them even as all of God's law cannot realistically be identified and listed by mere mortals.

And they knew that only a mostly religious and moral people would make that government work. We are incapable of the intelligence to override God's law without consequence.

In my belief, wisdom is understanding that the rules and regulations mankind devises to regulate its societies and God's law are two entirely separate things. And we ignore and/or dismiss both at our peril.

Excellent post, Foxy.

 

[Hollie]

We have been under God's law ever since we became a Nation.
God gives us inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness stated in our Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution gives us those very rights based on Gods laws.
Governments do not have the right to take away these basic freedoms, given to us by God away.

We are turning into the very Government that we fought the Revolutionary War over.

A couple of corrections are necessary. The wording of the constitution specifically excluded mention of any god(s). It’s a bit of a stretch to conclude that we are under god’s law when the founding documents of this nation exclude any subordination to the Christian god(s).

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It is in fact a treasonous document from the perspective of the British. It has already been argued and long admitted that the concept of men's religious beliefs, Deistic beliefs and no religious beliefs were part and parcel of the founding of the country. However, the wording is clearly meant to encompass numerous beliefs, extant at the time, to cover the general consensus of beliefs. Hence, deistic terms like "Creator" and "Nature's God", "divine Providence" and the quite evident lack of reference to Jesus and Yahweh (despite robust debate to include them). The closest reference is to a "Supreme Judge", but of course that could be Amun Ra, couldn't it?

It's a given that all things men do spring from their beliefs, which may be varied and complex, but what is asserted by Christians is that the Nation was founded exclusively under Judeo-Christian beliefs, and that is a patently false. At the outset, neither liberty, pursuit of happiness, democracy, or republicanism has anything to do with Judeo-Christianity, both of which would instill theocracies (and as such are by definition dictatorships), but instead these were the hallmarks of the "pagan" belief systems of the Greeks and the Romans.

The DoI is a stirring document, its importance is acknowledged, but it is not the legal basis for the nation nor how the nation functions or what its limits are. That is, has been, and always will be the Constitution, and all arguments regarding what the nation is permitted to do is contained within that document (with a nod to expansion vis a vis constitutional amendments).

You might want to take another look, specifically for :

"Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven".

This has been addressed numerous times and is a ridiculous statement. Your "quote" is nothing more than a closing salutation, typical for the time period.

To reiterate, show us a single reference to a specific gawd anywhere in the wording of the constitution. The fact is, you cannot.

 

[Sunshine]

A couple of corrections are necessary. The wording of the constitution specifically excluded mention of any god(s). It’s a bit of a stretch to conclude that we are under god’s law when the founding documents of this nation exclude any subordination to the Christian god(s).

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It is in fact a treasonous document from the perspective of the British. It has already been argued and long admitted that the concept of men's religious beliefs, Deistic beliefs and no religious beliefs were part and parcel of the founding of the country. However, the wording is clearly meant to encompass numerous beliefs, extant at the time, to cover the general consensus of beliefs. Hence, deistic terms like "Creator" and "Nature's God", "divine Providence" and the quite evident lack of reference to Jesus and Yahweh (despite robust debate to include them). The closest reference is to a "Supreme Judge", but of course that could be Amun Ra, couldn't it?

It's a given that all things men do spring from their beliefs, which may be varied and complex, but what is asserted by Christians is that the Nation was founded exclusively under Judeo-Christian beliefs, and that is a patently false. At the outset, neither liberty, pursuit of happiness, democracy, or republicanism has anything to do with Judeo-Christianity, both of which would instill theocracies (and as such are by definition dictatorships), but instead these were the hallmarks of the "pagan" belief systems of the Greeks and the Romans.

The DoI is a stirring document, its importance is acknowledged, but it is not the legal basis for the nation nor how the nation functions or what its limits are. That is, has been, and always will be the Constitution, and all arguments regarding what the nation is permitted to do is contained within that document (with a nod to expansion vis a vis constitutional amendments).

You might want to take another look, specifically for :

"Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven".

This has been addressed numerous times and is a ridiculous statement. Your "quote" is nothing more than a closing salutation, typical for the time period.

To reiterate, show us a single reference to a specific gawd anywhere in the wording of the constitution. The fact is, you cannot.

You stated emphatically that God is not mentioned in the Constitution.

The wording of the constitution specifically excluded mention of any god(s).

I showed you that it is. Now, if you don't want to be shown to be an idiot don't post like one.

 

[Hollie]

You might want to take another look, specifically for :

This has been addressed numerous times and is a ridiculous statement. Your "quote" is nothing more than a closing salutation, typical for the time period.

To reiterate, show us a single reference to a specific gawd anywhere in the wording of the constitution. The fact is, you cannot.

You stated emphatically that God is not mentioned in the Constitution. I showed you that it is. Now, if you don't want to be shown to be an idiot don't post like one.

Where is god mentioned in the constitution?

If you're angry about your gawds having no mention in the wording of the constitution, you will need to learn to live with that.

 

[t_polkow]

It seems that those who hate Christianity, who seem to so desperately need to discredit it however they can find to do that, who despise the concepts of the Bible so that they demand that it be misrepresented, who copy and paste dishonest quotations to represent the beliefs of the founders, etc. etc. etc.. . . .

These will not understand any concept of God other than in a negative way. Nor can they understand a group of bright, intelligent, well educated men, almost all who were devoutly religious, who understood a concept of God given rights and who devised a government that would not be allowed to trample on them even as all of God's law cannot realistically be identified and listed by mere mortals.

And they knew that only a mostly religious and moral people would make that government work. We are incapable of the intelligence to override God's law without consequence.

In my belief, wisdom is understanding that the rules and regulations mankind devises to regulate its societies and God's law are two entirely separate things. And we ignore and/or dismiss both at our peril.

The seemingly infinite imagination have, over the
ages, created approximately 10,000 different gods. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are
three major religions today, and all three of them spun off of just one of those 10,000
gods, the "Abrahamic" god. Now, just Christianity alone has 30,000 different, recognized,
organized sects, aka Baptist, Catholic, etc, and every single one of them is sure they are
right about their God, and not just right about their sect's position on Christianity, but
also sure about Christianity's position on Judaism, and Islam. Every Muslim is as sure their
sect is right, and every Jew is sure their sect is right. Well, why should I believe
any one of them more than the rest of them? There simply has been absolutely no more
evidence of Jesus' divinity, than there has been for divinity of Thor.

 

[Foxfyre]

You might want to take another look, specifically for :

This has been addressed numerous times and is a ridiculous statement. Your "quote" is nothing more than a closing salutation, typical for the time period.

To reiterate, show us a single reference to a specific gawd anywhere in the wording of the constitution. The fact is, you cannot.

You stated emphatically that God is not mentioned in the Constitution.

The wording of the constitution specifically excluded mention of any god(s).

I showed you that it is. Now, if you don't want to be shown to be an idiot don't post like one.

Also the 'blessings of liberty' in the Preamble were a compromise to avoid giving any religious authority license to use the Constitution to impose religious doctrine on anybody as well as protect religion from any coercion by the federal government. But it clearly referred to the wording of the Declaration of Independence that they, to a man, saw as the justification and purpose of the U.S. Constitution:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Further, almost all preambles to state constitutions begin with gratitude expressed to God for their liberties, and the very few who word it some other way manage to work that into to the body of the Constitution.

We cannot exclude that reverence for God and that understanding of rights given by God as being the core foundation of what this country was intended to be. And any who would take that understanding of God out of the equation are those who pave the way for us to return to bondage under government authority that will assign us the rights that we may have and can just as easily take them away.

It is my belief that God is still in his heaven and the supreme law of the land whether or not the people believe that or understand that or appreciate that. And we ignore it at our peril.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have been under God's law ever since we became a Nation.
God gives us inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness stated in our Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution gives us those very rights based on Gods laws.
Governments do not have the right to take away these basic freedoms, given to us by God away.

We are turning into the very Government that we fought the Revolutionary War over.

A couple of corrections are necessary. The wording of the constitution specifically excluded mention of any god(s). It’s a bit of a stretch to conclude that we are under god’s law when the founding documents of this nation exclude any subordination to the Christian god(s).

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It is in fact a treasonous document from the perspective of the British. It has already been argued and long admitted that the concept of men's religious beliefs, Deistic beliefs and no religious beliefs were part and parcel of the founding of the country. However, the wording is clearly meant to encompass numerous beliefs, extant at the time, to cover the general consensus of beliefs. Hence, deistic terms like "Creator" and "Nature's God", "divine Providence" and the quite evident lack of reference to Jesus and Yahweh (despite robust debate to include them). The closest reference is to a "Supreme Judge", but of course that could be Amun Ra, couldn't it?

It's a given that all things men do spring from their beliefs, which may be varied and complex, but what is asserted by Christians is that the Nation was founded exclusively under Judeo-Christian beliefs, and that is a patently false. At the outset, neither liberty, pursuit of happiness, democracy, or republicanism has anything to do with Judeo-Christianity, both of which would instill theocracies (and as such are by definition dictatorships), but instead these were the hallmarks of the "pagan" belief systems of the Greeks and the Romans.

The DoI is a stirring document, its importance is acknowledged, but it is not the legal basis for the nation nor how the nation functions or what its limits are. That is, has been, and always will be the Constitution, and all arguments regarding what the nation is permitted to do is contained within that document (with a nod to expansion vis a vis constitutional amendments).

You might want to take another look, specifically for :

"Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven".

If you are going to quote something or declare that something doesn't exist in a document, you should at least make the effort to read it first.

That is the legal attestation required by law for purposes of date and filing of the Constitution. As such, it has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"And they knew that only a mostly religious and moral people would make that government work. We are incapable of the intelligence to override God's law without consequence"

...and this, Foxfyre, is why you encounter so many athiests who "hate" christianity. You folks seem to think that you have some kind of franchise on morality, which, of course, means that those of us who do not believe as you do are not moral. It is statements like that that make our skin crawl. It also creates devisiveness and anger. I have, in my life, seen just as much immorality within the Christain world as I have seen out of the Christain world. And, if one starts looking carefully at televangelists and Catholic priests, one can understandably come to the conclusion that there is more immorality in the Christain world. There certainly is more hypocracy.

 

[Hollie]

This has been addressed numerous times and is a ridiculous statement. Your "quote" is nothing more than a closing salutation, typical for the time period.

To reiterate, show us a single reference to a specific gawd anywhere in the wording of the constitution. The fact is, you cannot.

You stated emphatically that God is not mentioned in the Constitution.



I showed you that it is. Now, if you don't want to be shown to be an idiot don't post like one.

Also the 'blessings of liberty' in the Preamble were a compromise to avoid giving any religious authority license to use the Constitution to impose religious doctrine on anybody as well as protect religion from any coercion by the federal government. But it clearly referred to the wording of the Declaration of Independence that they, to a man, saw as the justification and purpose of the U.S. Constitution:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Further, almost all preambles to state constitutions begin with gratitude expressed to God for their liberties, and the very few who word it some other way manage to work that into to the body of the Constitution.

We cannot exclude that reverence for God and that understanding of rights given by God as being the core foundation of what this country was intended to be. And any who would take that understanding of God out of the equation are those who pave the way for us to return to bondage under government authority that will assign us the rights that we may have and can just as easily take them away.

It is my belief that God is still in his heaven and the supreme law of the land whether or not the people believe that or understand that or appreciate that. And we ignore it at our peril.

Still no mention of the Christian god.


"And any who would take that understanding of God out of the equation are those who pave the way for us to return to bondage under government authority that will assign us the rights that we may have and can just as easily take them away".

You're hoping to re-write and re-define the clear intent of the FF's. They knew that religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards themselves and poorly disposed towards competitive belief systems. We don't have to assume their intent -- even if they were Christians (and some of 'em were), the intent is clear: the state is precluded from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Hence, the First Amendment.