Watched again at high speed. Keeping this as simple as possible: It's pretty clear that the Founders believed in freedom of religion, and the fruits of that belief came in govt edict i.e. the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Even if they all didn't believe in Jesus the way some of us do today, they left us with an amazing govt document that makes it "available" for us to energetically and vibrantly believe in Jesus the way we want to without govt hassle or restriction, and likewise the reverse; left it open for Americans not to believe and even mock and ridicule everything about Jesus the way they want to without govt hassle. In sum, the US Constitution puts its limits on govt, but not religion.
Watched again at high speed. Keeping this as simple as possible: It's pretty clear that the Founders believed in freedom of religion, and the fruits of that belief came in govt edict i.e. the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Even if they all didn't believe in Jesus the way some of us do today, they left us with an amazing govt document that makes it "available" for us to energetically and vibrantly believe in Jesus the way we want to without govt hassle or restriction, and likewise the reverse; left it open for Americans not to believe and even mock and ridicule everything about Jesus the way they want to without govt hassle. In sum, the US Constitution puts its limits on govt, but not religion.
To be clear, I found the video an easy answer to the fundamentalist beliefs that our founding fathers were Christian. Personally, I don't care what they believed I just want the truth on the matter. With me that's where it ends begins and ends
1. Paranoid conspiracy theory level silliness. "They were part of a secret society," then goes on to tell us all about it. Some secret.
2. Not exactly neutral. It's not that these folks were actually evil. They just were deists and not Christian. But that's not enough. Gotta be eeeeeevil.
3. Grateful to see the "founders weren't pushing Christianity" argument coming from CHRISTIANS for a change.
However, it should be clear that Christians were involved in the founding and had some significant influence. Secularism was the compromise, and Oldies is right.
How wonderful to have a constitution that allows Christians to be Christian as they wanna be. It also allows me not to be. Huzzah.
Further exploration of this veers into politics. Let's not.
1. Paranoid conspiracy theory level silliness. "They were part of a secret society," then goes on to tell us all about it. Some secret.
2. Not exactly neutral. It's not that these folks were actually evil. They just were deists and not Christian. But that's not enough. Gotta be eeeeeevil.
3. Grateful to see the "founders weren't pushing Christianity" argument coming from CHRISTIANS for a change.
However, it should be clear that Christians were involved in the founding and had some significant influence. Secularism was the compromise, and Oldies is right.
How wonderful to have a constitution that allows Christians to be Christian as they wanna be. It also allows me not to be. Huzzah.
Further exploration of this veers into politics. Let's not.
The video is definitely biased to a Christian perspective. I kinda glean what I can and keep it pushing. Keep in mind whatever video I post is simply to watch and discuss if need be. I almost never agree 100% with the videos and will call bias with a quickness. Anywho, thanks for tagging along. As I said for me it's more of a eyeopener that our founders had various beliefs and it wasn't all Bible verses and Kumbya. Personally, I fault mainstream Christianity for saying they were Christians in the first place. A fairly brief study proves otherwise, so all the gushy gush that America founded asa Christian nation is false. I would say everyone benefitted from liberty.
Modern archaeology has helped us realize that the Bible is historically accurate even in the smallest of details.
Umm, no, it has not. The absolute BEST you can say is that modern archaeology has confirmed the existence of people and places in the Bible that some have previously questioned.
He cites the example of King David. King David apparently DID exist. We learned this through archaeological discoveries. That's fine. But there is zero evidence that he ruled over a united Israel as described in the Bible.
Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2002). The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and The Origin of Its Sacred Texts. "We still have no hard archaeological evidence—despite the unparalleled biblical description of its grandeur—that Jerusalem was anything more than a modest highland village in the time of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam."
I could go into further detail, but that one line from Destin suffices to make my point that his conclusions, such as they are, are laughable.
Destin goes on to denounce critics who say Belshazar never existed, thus questioning the historicity of the book of Daniel. Destin ignores that no one says Belshazar didn't exist. The criticism was that he was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, as the Bible states (and guess what, he wasn't!) and that he was never king, as the Bible states (and guess what? He wasn't!)
Without turning this into a scholarly treatise, can we agree that sometimes people who point to archaeology overstate the extent to which findings confirm scripture? I will agree that sometimes people point to archaeology and overstate the extent to which archaeology contradicts scripture. (For example, I believe Nazareth existed in Jesus' time, despite allegations to the contrary).
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
10
12
12
Popular Days
Mar 4
22
Feb 24
15
Mar 1
9
Mar 3
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 18 posts
oldiesman 10 posts
chockfull 12 posts
OldSkool 12 posts
Popular Days
Mar 4 2023
22 posts
Feb 24 2023
15 posts
Mar 1 2023
9 posts
Mar 3 2023
9 posts
Popular Posts
Stayed Too Long
I recall VPW saying something to the affect that the bible was not written for unbelievers, agnostics, or god rejectors. Assuming no one is born with a knowledge of god, then somewhere during their de
T-Bone
Give me a little time and I could come up with some correlation Learned behavior is probably the easiest to find similarities with this thread. As the thread title states, religion demands accep
T-Bone
I think you’re right…and oddly enough our cat is or rather was a feral cat. We adopted him 3 years ago. First 3 days I thought he was a mute. Then while I’m cleaning out his litter box he got on a cha
OldSkool
Yw.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Watched again at high speed. Keeping this as simple as possible: It's pretty clear that the Founders believed in freedom of religion, and the fruits of that belief came in govt edict i.e. the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Even if they all didn't believe in Jesus the way some of us do today, they left us with an amazing govt document that makes it "available" for us to energetically and vibrantly believe in Jesus the way we want to without govt hassle or restriction, and likewise the reverse; left it open for Americans not to believe and even mock and ridicule everything about Jesus the way they want to without govt hassle. In sum, the US Constitution puts its limits on govt, but not religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
To be clear, I found the video an easy answer to the fundamentalist beliefs that our founding fathers were Christian. Personally, I don't care what they believed I just want the truth on the matter. With me that's where it ends begins and ends
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm not done, but a few observations:
1. Paranoid conspiracy theory level silliness. "They were part of a secret society," then goes on to tell us all about it. Some secret.
2. Not exactly neutral. It's not that these folks were actually evil. They just were deists and not Christian. But that's not enough. Gotta be eeeeeevil.
3. Grateful to see the "founders weren't pushing Christianity" argument coming from CHRISTIANS for a change.
However, it should be clear that Christians were involved in the founding and had some significant influence. Secularism was the compromise, and Oldies is right.
How wonderful to have a constitution that allows Christians to be Christian as they wanna be. It also allows me not to be. Huzzah.
Further exploration of this veers into politics. Let's not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
The video is definitely biased to a Christian perspective. I kinda glean what I can and keep it pushing. Keep in mind whatever video I post is simply to watch and discuss if need be. I almost never agree 100% with the videos and will call bias with a quickness. Anywho, thanks for tagging along. As I said for me it's more of a eyeopener that our founders had various beliefs and it wasn't all Bible verses and Kumbya. Personally, I fault mainstream Christianity for saying they were Christians in the first place. A fairly brief study proves otherwise, so all the gushy gush that America founded asa Christian nation is false. I would say everyone benefitted from liberty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
agreed
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Because I promised... From the Destin Log:
Umm, no, it has not. The absolute BEST you can say is that modern archaeology has confirmed the existence of people and places in the Bible that some have previously questioned.
He cites the example of King David. King David apparently DID exist. We learned this through archaeological discoveries. That's fine. But there is zero evidence that he ruled over a united Israel as described in the Bible.
Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2002). The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and The Origin of Its Sacred Texts. "We still have no hard archaeological evidence—despite the unparalleled biblical description of its grandeur—that Jerusalem was anything more than a modest highland village in the time of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam."
I could go into further detail, but that one line from Destin suffices to make my point that his conclusions, such as they are, are laughable.
Destin goes on to denounce critics who say Belshazar never existed, thus questioning the historicity of the book of Daniel. Destin ignores that no one says Belshazar didn't exist. The criticism was that he was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, as the Bible states (and guess what, he wasn't!) and that he was never king, as the Bible states (and guess what? He wasn't!)
Without turning this into a scholarly treatise, can we agree that sometimes people who point to archaeology overstate the extent to which findings confirm scripture? I will agree that sometimes people point to archaeology and overstate the extent to which archaeology contradicts scripture. (For example, I believe Nazareth existed in Jesus' time, despite allegations to the contrary).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.