22 Aug 06
Originally posted by frogstompI'm with you, brotha: I don't trust the governments of man as far as I can throw them. There will come a government, however, that can be trusted. Christ will be its King, and I will enthusiastically support the same.
the same type of tyranny of government that dictated what Christ was, for political purposes?
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1marauderGee, with one fell swoop, you change the view of all the framers (predominately Bible-believing) through the words of two unbelievers. The illogical views of Jefferson and the rabid atheism of Paine did not encompass the thinking of the group.
Obviously you have never read Locke. The argument that "might makes right" is the "natural state" of Man, is a Hobbesian one, rejected by Locke and then rejected by the Framers (who were heavily influenced by Locke and later Social Contract theorists). The difference between these views in summed up here:
4(a). Hobbesian Pre-Social Man:
In uncivil ...[text shortened]... is a rejection of the idea of Man having an inherently sinful or depraved nature.
While the ACLU embraces Paine as a brother, they would have crucified Jefferson, let alone the rest of those biblically-informed radicals. Jefferson was simply the bridge between Paine and the Christian world-view prevalent in their day.
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDoes your problem stem from your inability to recognize that the book you get your idea of an earthy kingdom from was put together by men for the purpose of having a single state religion?
I'm with you, brotha: I don't trust the governments of man as far as I can throw them. There will come a government, however, that can be trusted. Christ will be its King, and I will enthusiastically support the same.
The bible , as compiled, is nothing more than the Roman Empire's attempt to control the populace.
22 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBegging to differ with you about Paine being an atheist, He was a Deist, like George Washington.
Gee, with one fell swoop, you change the view of all the framers (predominately Bible-believing) through the words of two unbelievers. The illogical views of Jefferson and the rabid atheism of Paine did not encompass the thinking of the group.
While the ACLU embraces Paine as a brother, they would have crucified Jefferson, let alone the rest of those b ...[text shortened]... fferson was simply the bridge between Paine and the Christian world-view prevalent in their day.
edit : thought you might need a definition here:
Deism is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941, as: "[From Latin Deus, God.Deity] The doctrine or creed of a Deist." And Deist is defined in the same dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason."
edit two : oops there's that word "nature" again
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by frogstompGreat conspiracy theory: maybe you and Dan Brown can get together and work on the screenplay. The "Roman Empire," having ruled with a galvanized fist for such a long period of time, seizes upon a psychological angle provided by the emergence of Christianity and inculcates its citizenry with the tenets of faith for the purpose of... crowd control?
Does your problem stem from your inability to recognize that the book you get your idea of an earthy kingdom from was put together by men for the purpose of having a single state religion?
The bible , as compiled, is nothing more than the Roman Empire's attempt to control the populace.
Too bad nothing within the text of the Scripture supports any of the administrative means or ends of the "Roman Empire," over and above any other government instituted among men. Also, too bad there exists such abundant evidence of enimity and suppression by various rulers of Rome against Christianity in general and certain specific Christians. Otherwise, it'd make a hell of a story.
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFurther thoughts on your views of Locke, relative to revelation. Not only did Locke see revelation as a necessary ingredient within the true religion of the Israelites, he obviously held a belief that the essence of truth needed to be revealed in the time of Christ:
Gee, with one fell swoop, you change the view of all the framers (predominately Bible-believing) through the words of two unbelievers. The illogical views of Jefferson and the rabid atheism of Paine did not encompass the thinking of the group.
While the ACLU embraces Paine as a brother, they would have crucified Jefferson, let alone the rest of those b ...[text shortened]... fferson was simply the bridge between Paine and the Christian world-view prevalent in their day.
"But such a body of Ethics, proved to be the law of nature, from principles of reason, and reaching all the duties of life, I think nobody will say the world had before Our Saviour's time."
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by frogstompTechnically speaking, you are correct. However, Paine's severely restricted view of God (related to revelation), leaves us with something much less than God and more like a fuzzy catch-all: ill-defined, vague, obscure and--- ultimately--- totally unnecessary.
Begging to differ with you about Paine being an atheist, He was a Deist, like George Washington.
edit : thought you might need a definition here:
Deism is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941, as: "[From Latin Deus, God.Deity] The doctrine or creed of a Deist." And Deist is defined in the same dictionary as: "One who believes in ...[text shortened]... e light of nature and reason."
edit two : oops there's that word "nature" again
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd as god must be, non-human.
Technically speaking, you are correct. However, Paine's severely restricted view of God (related to revelation), leaves us with something much less than God and more like a fuzzy catch-all: ill-defined, vague, obscure and--- ultimately--- totally unnecessary.
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHA true story , the only conspiracy is the one of revisionist Christians.
Great conspiracy theory: maybe you and Dan Brown can get together and work on the screenplay. The "Roman Empire," having ruled with a galvanized fist for such a long period of time, seizes upon a psychological angle provided by the emergence of Christianity and inculcates its citizenry with the tenets of faith for the purpose of... crowd control?
Too b ...[text shortened]... ianity in general and certain specific Christians. Otherwise, it'd make a hell of a story.
22 Aug 06
Some further thoughts on Paine and his views of revelation. Here's a guy who rejects written revelation, but nonetheless opts to 'reveal' (via the written word) the supposed 'truth,' to the ignorant masses--- courtesy of his "Age of Reason."
Unfortunately, his self-instructed wisdom somehow overlooked a glaring problem with his world-view: sin and evil. Oh well, nobody's perfect, right? Right?
Among many other problems with his views, there is the slight weakness of relying on limited (albeit developing) human understanding:
"Secondly — That the Creation we behold is the real and ever-existing word of God, in which we cannot be deceived. It proclaims his power, it demonstrates his wisdom, it manifests his goodness and beneficence."
Quotes like that make one wonder how ol' Tommy would have twisted occurences within nature such as typhoons and torandoes into manifestations of God's "goodness and beneficence."
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHold Tommy had his own ideas about god, the only thing I really have in common with him is the idea of god that came out out the old testament came from man and not from god.
Some further thoughts on Paine and his views of revelation. Here's a guy who rejects written revelation, but nonetheless opts to 'reveal' (via the written word) the supposed 'truth,' to the ignorant masses--- courtesy of his "Age of Reason."
Unfortunately, his self-instructed wisdom somehow overlooked a glaring problem with his world-view: sin and evil ...[text shortened]... as typhoons and torandoes into manifestations of God's "goodness and beneficence."
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by frogstompAnd you wonder why people kill each other over who has the correct view of that sham god?
What gall you christians have , thinking you know what god is, isn't it strange that the god in your bible acts exactly like any violent ancient king did?
And you wonder why people kill each other over who has the correct view of that sham god?
I do not wonder why people kill each other over the correct view of God any more than I wonder why people kill one another over who got the last beer. Man can be quite stupid at times, imbalanced and irrational as is imaginable... doesn't mean God has anything to do with it.
22 Aug 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat's exactly my point, man wrote that book to justify his killing of people in the name of that sham-god.
[b]And you wonder why people kill each other over who has the correct view of that sham god?
I do not wonder why people kill each other over the correct view of God any more than I wonder why people kill one another over who got the last beer. Man can be quite stupid at times, imbalanced and irrational as is imaginable... doesn't mean God has anything to do with it.[/b]
God had nothing to do with it !!!!!
