1. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    14 Jan '13 19:38
    Just curious as to have Christains view these? Are these from God or man and do you put these above God's laws and commands?
  2. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    14 Jan '13 20:164 edits
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Just curious as to have Christains view these? Are these from God or man and do you put these above God's laws and commands?
    What's also interesting is how so many pretend not to understand that the purpose of constitutional amendments is to make changes to the existing Constitution. Instead they try to pretend that the Constitution was written in stone and was never meant to be changed. That they do this with the 2nd AMENDMENT makes it all the more ridiculous. How do they think it became a part of the Constitution in the first place?

    This alone should let everyone know how clouded their thinking is.

    As to more directly addressing your post, you might as well face the fact that the Bible can and has been used to "justify" just about anything - slavery, death penalty, war, etc.
  3. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    14 Jan '13 20:45
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Just curious as to have Christains view these? Are these from God or man and do you put these above God's laws and commands?
    You want Christian views so I will answer that way. Based on what I was taught in Catholic grammar school (assuming you count the RCC as Christian), constitutions including their amendments are man's word; the Bible is God's Word, and under certain circumstances, God assures that the pope is speaking infallibly when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church (This is a very small subset of all the things the Pope says.) But papal infallibility does not make the Pope's pronouncements "God's Word."

    A constitutional provision may happen to match one of these church sources, but that does not make it "from God."

    It is not a question of putting one above the other, if both sources are consistent with each other in defining their sphere of application.

    As you may know depending on your age, there was a lot of concern about JFK's being Catholic when he was running for president.

    At

    http://catholicism.about.com/od/history/p/Address-Of-Sen-John-F-Kennedy-To-The-Greater-Houston-Ministerial-Association.htm

    you will find the full speech, which this is a part of:

    "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

    I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

    For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew—or a Quaker—or a Unitarian—or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim—but tomorrow it may be you—until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril"
  4. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    14 Jan '13 20:45
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    What's also interesting is how so many pretend not to understand that the purpose of constitutional amendments is to make changes to the existing Constitution. Instead they try to pretend that the Constitution was written in stone and was never meant to be changed. That they do this with the 2nd [b]AMENDMENT makes it all the more ridiculous. How do th ...[text shortened]... le can and has been used to "justify" just about anything - slavery, death penalty, war, etc.[/b]
    I agree. It seems as the world changes on so many levels these ammendments would have to be changed and updated to protect the people they were4 designed for.
    And yes they do use the Bible to justify what they feel would help their causes. The Bible was not written to be used for our selfish advantages but for the eventual outcome of mans good.
  5. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    14 Jan '13 20:47
    Originally posted by JS357
    You want Christian views so I will answer that way. Based on what I was taught in Catholic grammar school (assuming you count the RCC as Christian), constitutions including their amendments are man's word; the Bible is God's Word, and under certain circumstances, God assures that the pope is speaking infallibly when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or mo ...[text shortened]... whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril"
    Thanks for your insight.
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52617
    14 Jan '13 21:39
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Just curious as to have Christains view these? Are these from God or man and do you put these above God's laws and commands?
    What are admmendments? Is that a word?
  7. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    14 Jan '13 21:53
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    What are admmendments? Is that a word?
    Lol. Not tha way iz spellez it. Give me a break as iz iz from the south. 🙂
  8. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    14 Jan '13 22:00
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Thanks for your insight.
    Sometimes, it seems to me, the NT is treated like the amendments to the OT.
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    14 Jan '13 23:41
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    What's also interesting is how so many pretend not to understand that the purpose of constitutional amendments is to make changes to the existing Constitution. Instead they try to pretend that the Constitution was written in stone and was never meant to be changed. That they do this with the 2nd [b]AMENDMENT makes it all the more ridiculous. How do th ...[text shortened]... le can and has been used to "justify" just about anything - slavery, death penalty, war, etc.[/b]
    At the time the constitution was written the writers had all used their guns in gaining independence and no one then questioned the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. It was a given. However, in time, just like today, those rights were questioned and so the 2nd amendment became necessary. 😏
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    14 Jan '13 23:491 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    Sometimes, it seems to me, the NT is treated like the amendments to the OT.
    You could look at it in that way for some amendments, like the 2nd. However, Christ came to fulfill the law, not to change it. Whereas, not all the amendments to the constitution was for the purpose of fulfillment and clarification. 😏
  11. Standard memberKepler
    Demon Duck
    of Doom!
    Joined
    20 Aug '06
    Moves
    20099
    15 Jan '13 00:25
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Lol. Not tha way iz spellez it. Give me a break as iz iz from the south. 🙂
    Oi be vrum the south but us don't 'ave amendments or even a constitution down yere. Us might 'ave a constitutional after church of a Sunday if us iz of the god bothering persuasion.
  12. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    15 Jan '13 00:29
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    At the time the constitution was written the writers had all used their guns in gaining independence and no one then questioned the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. It was a given. However, in time, just like today, those rights were questioned and so the 2nd amendment became necessary. 😏
    Out of curiousity, what part of the following didn't you understand?
    What's also interesting is how so many pretend not to understand that the purpose of constitutional amendments is to make changes to the existing Constitution. Instead they try to pretend that the Constitution was written in stone and was never meant to be changed. That they do this with the 2nd AMENDMENT makes it all the more ridiculous. How do they think it became a part of the Constitution in the first place?
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    15 Jan '13 00:51
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Lol. Not tha way iz spellez it. Give me a break as iz iz from the south. 🙂
    I thought you were living in California.
  14. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    15 Jan '13 01:09
    Originally posted by galveston75
    I agree. It seems as the world changes on so many levels these ammendments would have to be changed and updated to protect the people they were4 designed for.
    And yes they do use the Bible to justify what they feel would help their causes. The Bible was not written to be used for our selfish advantages but for the eventual outcome of mans good.
    And yes they do use the Bible to justify what they feel would help their causes. The Bible was not written to be used for our selfish advantages but for the eventual outcome of mans good.

    Unfortunately it lends itself to just that because it is so widely open to interpretation. Despite protests to the contrary, people are left with having to pick and choose which parts to accept and which parts to reject. If Christians were primarily interested in the "outcome of man's good", the would reject all except for what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth. His teachings lay a sound moral foundation and are reasonably coherent (unlike the Bible as a whole).
  15. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    15 Jan '13 01:242 edits
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    [b]And yes they do use the Bible to justify what they feel would help their causes. The Bible was not written to be used for our selfish advantages but for the eventual outcome of mans good.

    Unfortunately it lends itself to just that because it is so widely open to interpretation. Despite protests to the contrary, people are left with having to pic hings lay a sound moral foundation and are reasonably coherent (unlike the Bible as a whole).[/b]
    But in reality the Bible is not open to inerpretation even though that happens and this is why there are hundreds of millions of interpretations.
    God had the Bible written in such a way for a certian reason. Do you not think that he could have it written so every human could easliy understand it? Of course he could have. But he didn't and that was for a very direct reason as I've explained before.
    Just think on this for a bit. If you were this being that we call God and you wanted to correct the worlds problems as he promisses in writing in this Bible and only would let the humans that really deserve this blessing in the future, why not make the things he said in the Bible they way he did? The format that is there is hard to understand on many issues but yet it's easy on others. The easy things most people can see when reading it and hopefully that will make them interested and want more and for the right motives. We see many that are not in it for the right motives but only for monitary gain or to have ones follow them just as Jesus said would happen.
    But if one is truly wanting to know more for the right motives, then God will let them understand these deeper issues correctly instead of people adding their own interpretations to it that are not correct.
    It makes no sence for God to have the Bible written in a confusing way without a reason.
Back to Top