(April 4, 2013 at 11:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Why what? Why they had those moments of lucidity that our more modern protestants seem to lack, or why they tried to distance the new government from any particular religion?

Well yeah, both. I mean they had the future of a new country in the palm of their hands. Why not shape it the way you feel is right, which would most likely stem from your beliefs i.e. Christianity.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

It wasn't just a fluke either, we have a reliable habit of distancing ourselves.

Quote:I wonder why...

Oh I dunno, maybe they remember this.



Or perhaps this really stuck with them.



The Romans thought of themselves as highly religious, and attributed their success as a world power to their collective piety (pietas) in maintaining good relations with the gods.
ROME: The priesthoods of public religion were held by members of the elite classes. There was no principle analogous to "separation of church and state" in ancient Rome. During the Roman Republic (509 BC–27 BC), the same men who were elected public officials might also serve as augurs and pontiffs.

I would humbly suggest, that if anything like that was on their minds it would be the CoE.

^^ doesn't do abbreviations

(April 4, 2013 at 6:06 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: So I'm supposed to waste 18 minutes of my life watching derivative videos just because you're too lazy to put things in your own words.

Hah. Yikes. I'm too lazy to write it. You're too lazy to listen to it. One of those requires much less effort, but still it's apparently much too much to ask. You're just not curious enough to challenge your dogmas. Not many people are, and I didn't expect you would be. But I thought I'd offer it up, just in case.

Kind of weird though, to argue about a topic and not be willing to look at evidence put forth on the matter. Guess I can make a note that you're part of the stubborn "sky is green" crowd. Come to think of it, I'm glad I didn't write down 18 minutes of accessible video to try and support my case.

Concerning the founders, it's a bit of a moot discussion to ponder their thoughts on the matter. Starting with the obvious, they're dead and their opinions not presented/published in their lifetime will never be known, so why bother projecting? Additionally, they justified slavery (and many owned some themselves) and giving black people 3/5 a vote. Assuming you could know their thoughts, they're still humans, and fallible. I may as well stroll into a frat house and ask their opinion on morality. Or better yet (obvious dig), the Bible.

(April 5, 2013 at 7:05 am)Golbez Wrote: You're just not curious enough to challenge your dogmas...Guess I can make a note that you're part of the stubborn "sky is green" crowd.

Sorry you feel that way, because that shoe doesn't fit me. My preference is to discuss things with people that make ideas their own as a result of long reflection and express them in their own words.

Hah. Oh well. Apologies for mischaracterizing you then. But I'm still not typing out a transcript to fit how you learn about things. If ever you change your mind, it really is an excellent series, and does a much better job than I could do anyway. You could be having the exact discussion you want, just with the author of that series, who could do a much better job relating to you, who's had the longest reflection and the greatest expression.

Or not. Because he's not typing it to you here. Shame though, because he's really put together a comprehensive critique of the one flawed book you put so much faith into. So forgive me if I can't help but think "green sky."

(April 5, 2013 at 4:25 am)missluckie26 Wrote: ^^ doesn't do abbreviations

Church of England. One of the reasons that we find the current that we find in our founding documents (and literature from the same men outside those documents) is that religious persecution (amusingly in this time period of christians - by christians - you see they were not - and did not view themselves- as a monolithic bloc with a common faith...in fact, quite the opposite...even in our government, godamned papists! - exclaimed the protestants.), religious wars - sponsored by the state religion (both in england, france, and other countries as well) were a very real and very recent experience - heavy on the minds of those forming our (then) new nation. There was no need to refer to the crusades or some christian eating lions (on this note I agree with Min..it's a shame there aren't more of these lions around today...and we ought to invest in some).

(April 5, 2013 at 1:40 pm)Golbez Wrote: ... just with the author of that series, who could do a much better job relating to you, who's had the longest reflection and the greatest expression....he's really put together a comprehensive critique of the one flawed book you put so much faith into.

Okay, so I watched the videos while eating lunch. The narrator has indeed put great thought into the Bible. What struck me was this. He was the type of Christian that held fast to a belief in a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. He carried this approach over into his critique of the same. He admits as much at 9:00 of the first video. I do not understand why he narrowed his dismissal of the Scriptures on a purely wooden approach to the Bible.