Protestantism

» pink101 - Jesus

In response to Jesus posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Pink, I know I'm younger than you are, but I'm wise enough not to get drawn into a listing game with you.
.
ho ho ho.
.
Come on, now, Brian--this doesn't have to be a game.
.
As you know, I like to read. And, you probably have figured out by some of the books I quote that my favorite area of study is sociology--the study of human beings and the groups to which we belong.
.
I'm now reading an intriguing book that deals, somewhat, with games. It's http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Conflict-...
.
You might find it interesting as well.
.
Maybe we can agree that we are here for the purposes of learning something of value rather than thinking that we are here to take each other down in some game?
.
Suppose I was the person that said no one comes close to living the life that Jesus exemplified and that you were the one who asked me to list some of the characteristics that made my claim true. Would you think it could be seen as a game in that case?
.
Not only do people come close to living the life exemplified by Jesus; but, there is a comment we've all heard that some one is a "real Christian".
.
Have you ever heard it said of anyone you know?
.
We are exhorted to see Jesus as our example, are we not?
.
And, depending on how we understand the idea of sin, Jesus was a sinner. I'm sure most orthodox Jews could prove that one to you.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Logic Breakdown

In response to Logic Breakdown posted by BrianTubbs:
.
homosexuals...same-sex marriages or civil unions... Or polygamy
.
Why should these lifestyles (involving ~consenting~ adults) concern the federal government? Why must these be federal ~political/legislative~ issues?
.
Yet I believe ALL the state constitutions recognized God or Christianity.
.
God, yes. They refer to God by a variety of names:
Almighty God (the most common)
Providence of God,
Supreme Ruler of Universe,
Divine Goodness,
the Creator,
Divine Guidance,
Supreme Ruler,
Supreme Being,
Sovereign Ruler of the Universe,
Great Legislator of the Universe
Sovereign Ruler of Nations,
Author of Existence...
.
(Note: most of these names were commonly used by Deists then - and now.)
.
The word "Christian" is used in the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights, XVI (not its constitution). Even so, it identifies God as 'the Creator'. It reads, in part: "...Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator... can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other.."
.
None of the fifty state constitutions use the name 'Jesus' or 'Christ' as a name for God.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Washington & Chaplains

In response to Washington & Chaplains posted by BrianTubbs:
.
That problem would be....
The TRUTH!
.
Are you implying that I misquoted the article I linked, or falsified what Washington wrote to Hancock? I did not say, nor insinuate, that Washington opposed military chaplancy. He'd have been a fool to do so, IMO.
.
"The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."
--From General George Washington, July 9, 1776
.
Most of the soldiers were Christian, weren't they? Mostly puritans and Quakers? General Washington was identifying with his troops.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - One Thing

.
One thing we should take into consideration when we talk about Christianity in Colonial America is the fact that there was a Bible in almost every home.
.
Children were taught to read using the Bible. What other books were there that were so available to everyone?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Chaplaincy Today

I hope we're all agreed (but I'm not holding my breath) that the military chaplaincy is a GOOD thing. If we truly are to embrace the First Amendment - which guarantees to every American the "free exercise of religion" - then chaplains are provided to guarantee the free exercise rights of our soldiers.

This has been made clear to me, in my training, as I'm obligated to insure that all the soldiers under my care have access to the religious services and provisions that they need. This is as it should be.

» Brian Tubbs - Massachusetts Constitution

In response to Logic Breakdown posted by Migisi:

Migisi, you're just wrong. Many of the early state constitutions do express a stated preference for Christ or Christianity. I will provide some examples....

The Massachusetts 1780 Constitution stated that the "legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily." (Article III)

*Note the adjective "Protestant"

Later, the consitution says: "And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law."

*Note the term "Christian"

And check out this little section from Chapter II, Section I, Article II pertaining to the governor...

"Art. II. The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; and unless he shall, at the same time, be seized, in his own right, of a freehold, within the commonwealth, of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion."

*Did you catch that? The governor has to declare himself a what....?

A Deist, you say. WRONG ANSWER!

The correct response is.....CHRISTIAN!

And then, there's Chapter IV, Article I...

"Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

"I, A.B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected."

*Hmmmm....you gotta love the Deists that wrote this Constitution, don't ya?

Oh wait, I think that would be.....

JOHN ADAMS!

Yup, John Adams was the primary author of the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution.

Some Deist he was. Yeah, I see Deism written all over this baby. Sure do.

» Brian Tubbs - How about Pennsylvania?

Surely, the great state of Pennsylvania - home of the Deist Ben Franklin - would do better....right?

Well, the 1776 Pennsylvania state constitution required this oath for its state legislators:

"I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration."

Hmmmmm. Doesn't sound like a Deist oath to me. Does it sound like a Deist one to you?

» Brian Tubbs - Let's try North Carolina

Let's bring the South in on this. What did the big state of North Carolina have to say in terms of Deism? Well, its original constitution had THIS to say...

"That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State."

Well now. That sounds rather exclusive, doesn't it? But, hey, who am I to tell a bunch of free-thinking Deists that they are imposing a particular faith system on people, right?

» Brian Tubbs - I'm tired

I could keep going, but I'm tired. I'm getting over a bad cold and flu bug, and want to go to bed.

The point is, Migisi and whoever else is reading this, the early leaders of the various states in the USA were NOT Deists. If they were, they were rather POOR Deists, don't ya think?

Now, for the record, I am in favor of what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison pulled off in Virginia, with the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom - which began to turn the tide away from these types of state-established denominations and religious oaths. I'm with Jefferson on that, but...

The secular Left wants to keep the pendulum swinging to the OTHER extreme - that of removing God and monotheism in general from the public square. I'm NOT going that far. In fact, I believe the pendulum needs to swing back to where Washington, Jefferson, and most of the Founders were in agreement...

A general acknowledgment of God as the Creator and the Dispenser of our Unalienable Rights. And an encouragement of the public to live according to Judeo-Christian morals.

The hope being that the people would police their own conduct, so government could stay small and out of their business. BUT...

If the people become morally corrupt, then anarchy (first) and tyranny (afterward) are the result.

That was their warning. We should heed it, and reaffirm our Judeo-Christian foundations.

» redback - Addressing a tangent

In response to Addressing a tangent posted by BrianTubbs:

I think it's a reasonable task to 'appoint' good role models to any endeavour, including Christianity

That's what you jumped on. It's a REASONABLE thing. People should look up to those with the greater wisdom or higher sense of values. OK...you don't think it's needed if I read you right. Maybe Christ was the first role model and if it's your instruction he's the only one everyone NEEDS in 2008, well that's your belief. Churches and religious mentors are redundant, maybe. But I speculate coz I don't know why you found issue with my post....or you didn't.

(and maybe it's not, but if it is...)

Why is your first possibility an argument? But if you are and if you're not...seeks what type of response from me? I don't talk your language.

I'm sure Americans have some possibly valid or obscure reason for dissecting whether or not Washington was a Christian...and I'm sure you may have no idea why people outside the USA wonder why the USA does it. If I'm going off on a tangent to how you think, well I know no other way. ABC

Is it to "affirm their faith..." a possibility YOU suggested...not me...or is it a need to pigeon hole everybody into categories the pigeonholed person is then expected to live up to? Being a declared heathen or a deist or Budhhist in the Presidential elections doesn't impact on the voter?

Maybe it's only about the public's political tolerance to the true or alleged religious views of its President. After all, I read no examples in response to my earlier posts.

-- posted by redback