Bible Party of the USA

@Drnaline,

Drnaline;26638 wrote:

Who says it was founded "on" Christians, it was founded "by" Christians. I think you have the two confused?

My point was that the Founding Fathers knew, from Europe, how government
corrupts religion and vice versa. They had recent history as an example of
what they shouldn't do.

1 Reply

@Volunteer,

Volunteer;26704 wrote:

OK, then I understand why some of your answers are nonsense. If you are an atheist and believe you are a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ, you are seriously deluded.

I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools, had a religious education.

At some point, a lot of it didn't make sense to me. The philosophy of Jesus
about how to interact with others did.

Deluded, I may be, but I feel that I treat others with respect... or try to, anyway.

1 Reply

@Volunteer,

Volunteer;26705 wrote:

I agree with you about politicians in both parties being corrupt. That is why there is a need for this party.

Okay, but I believe it is the power that leads to corruption (in some cases...
some of them seem to come pre-corrupted according to things that are coming
out, now).

What would be best is if everyday people, not "professional leaders," did
short, representative stints of public service. That's what the Founding Fathers
had in mind, not the political industry that has cemented itself in place, now,
and works more in its own interests than any of ours or the country as a
whole.

A man's "faith" was once useful as a barometer of how he conducted his
life... but that was when normal people did public service at the behest of
their neighbors. Now, people who want to be in public office know they
have to portray themselves as religious men or they won't stand a chance of
getting a lot of votes. That's a form of corruption, isn't it?

1 Reply

@oleo,

oleo;26810 wrote:

Okay, but I believe it is the power that leads to corruption (in some cases...
some of them seem to come pre-corrupted according to things that are coming
out, now).

What would be best is if everyday people, not "professional leaders," did
short, representative stints of public service. That's what the Founding Fathers
had in mind, not the political industry that has cemented itself in place, now,
and works more in its own interests than any of ours or the country as a
whole.

A man's "faith" was once useful as a barometer of how he conducted his
life... but that was when normal people did public service at the behest of
their neighbors. Now, people who want to be in public office know they
have to portray themselves as religious men or they won't stand a chance of
getting a lot of votes. That's a form of corruption, isn't it?

Yes, if they do not believe as they profess.

However, a party composed of people who's first allegiance is to God and His Word, if the party verifies and enforces adherence to their promise, would eliminate that kind of corruption in members and representatives of the party.

0 Replies

@oleo,

oleo;26809 wrote:

I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools, had a religious education.

At some point, a lot of it didn't make sense to me. The philosophy of Jesus
about how to interact with others did.

Deluded, I may be, but I feel that I treat others with respect... or try to, anyway.

Pino will jump on me for this. Religion is what happens when people organize around a set of beliefs and rituals not in the Bible. The Bible makes sense. Religious education indoctrinates you into the belief system and rituals of that religion. If you were raised in a church in one of the major denominations, many things they taught were un-biblical. Therefore those practices and beliefs would not make sense when viewed in the context of the Bible, and vice versa.

If you actually read the Bible and eliminate the religious teaching you've been given from your assessment of the Word, you may get a different perspective. If Jesus Christ's teaching made sense to you, then the rest should make sense to you also.

0 Replies

@Volunteer,

The Treaty of Tripoli

US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

3 Replies

@Arterion,

Arterion;27032 wrote:

The Treaty of Tripoli

US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

Try this one:

[DOCID:198805tx_xxx-2]
From the Government Manual Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Page 5-21]

[[Page 5]]

The Constitution of the United States

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America?..

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article VII

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

Go Washington--Presidt

and deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire John Langdon
Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King

Connecticut Wm Saml
Johnson
Roger Sherman

New York Alexander Hamilton
New Jersey Wil: Livingston
David Brearley.
Wm Paterson.
Jona: Dayton

Pennsylvania \1\ B Franklin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Spelled with one ``n'' on the original document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Mifflin
Robt Morris
Geo. Clymer
Thos FitzSimons
Jared Ingersoll

[[Page 13]]
James Wilson
Gouv Morris

Delaware Geo: Read
Gunning Bedford jun
John Dickinson
Richard Bassett
Jaco: Broom

Maryland James McHenry
Dan of St Thos
Jenifer
Danl Carroll

Virginia John Blair--
James Madison Jr.

North Carolina Wm Blount
Richd Dobbs Spaight.
Hu Williamson

South Carolina J. Rutledge
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
Pierce Butler.

Georgia William Few
Abr Baldwin

0 Replies

@Arterion,

Arterion;27032 wrote:

The Treaty of Tripoli

US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

Maybe you should look at more than one document. As I have said before, the treaty you use as an example was a political expediency of the men in office in government at the time.

Or, try this from the Library of Congress:

Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89 (Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, Library of Congress Exhibition)

Here is an excerpt:

IV. Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89
The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."

Go to the link and read on if you dare.

0 Replies

@Volunteer,

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006472.jpg

0 Replies

@Arterion,

Arterion;27032 wrote:

The Treaty of Tripoli

US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

Do you understand the difference between being founded "on Christanity" and "by Christians?" Are of the opinion that "on" an "by" are exactly the same meaning?

0 Replies

@Volunteer,

I guess Arterion has no rebutal?

0 Replies

@Volunteer,

Re-reading 'Romans' for the 200th time. Truthfully, I suspect Paul was gay. His guilt-complex is so intense, and his obsessive condemnation of homosexuality, measured against his frequently expressed 'need' for his young, male companions, suggests to me the man was a homosexual with an overwhelming sense of self-disgust. His doctrine of salvation by faith alone gave him the relief he needed so desperately. His protege, Martin Luther, imitated him and pushed his theological concepts to distant frontiers, many decades later, for many of the same reasons.

NOTICE: I still cherish the work of Paul, and have nothing against homosexuals.

1 Reply

@Pinochet73,

Pinochet73;27704 wrote:

Re-reading 'Romans' for the 200th time. Truthfully, I suspect Paul was gay. His guilt-complex is so intense, and his obsessive condemnation of homosexuality, measured against his frequently expressed 'need' for his young, male companions, suggests to me the man was a homosexual with an overwhelming sense of self-disgust. His doctrine of salvation by faith alone gave him the relief he needed so desperately. His protege, Martin Luther, imitated him and pushed his theological concepts to distant frontiers, many decades later, for many of the same reasons.

NOTICE: I still cherish the work of Paul, and have nothing against homosexuals.

Pino, If/when you get to heaven, Paul and Martin will have some choice words for you.

1 Reply

@Volunteer,

Volunteer;27912 wrote:

Pino, If/when you get to heaven, Paul and Martin will have some choice words for you.

Why? There's nothing wrong with homosexuality. Don't you suspect God had some harsh words for Martin Luther, given his toxic anti-Semitism?:headbang:

0 Replies

@Volunteer,

I get so sick and tired of so-called self righteous types, who think that "The Bible" is the end all and be all, and should be taken, colon, comma and period, verbatim, without informed consent or using one's common sense or ability to reason.
Dr. Ron Smothermon, author of "Winning through Enlightenment" ( one of my favorite books), writes about sex, " The human has definite physical form. There are two standard varieties. One comes equipped with a long (sometimes) organ called a penis. The other variety comes equipped with a potential space in which to put the long (sometimes) organ. People who like to do this are called "heterosexual". What they like to do is fill the space and create friction with their organs. However, prior to all of this there usually occurs an elaborate courting game with certain formulated ( by the culture) behavior. Sometimes survival and love are rolled into the act and the whole thing is called "marriage". Sometimes, survival alone is rolled into the act and it is called "prostitution". Sometimes love alone is rolled into the act and it is called an "affair". Occasionally, the act produces new individuals. This may or may not be desired by the participants. Killing the individual before birth is called an "abortion". There are other people who like to relate sexually with individuals with the same body type as theirs. These people are known as "homosexuals" or "gays". Except for body configuration, and the substitution of certain orifices, the issues and the activities are exactly the same, except the creation of new individuals, and the issues that brings up do not apply.
....you think certain forms (of sex) ( and almost always those forms are different than yours) are "bad" or "wrong". You also have judgements that other forms (almost always yours) are "good" or "right".
Now for the real truth about sex. There is no right or wrong about it. Your belief systems are only your belief systems, not truth. You remember "truth".
That's the guy who stands on his own merits, without support from your beliefs. More make-wrongs occur in the area of sexuality than any other area, except race.
The body is as clear a statement of Context as exists in the physical world. The sexual aspect of the body is as clear a statement of the Self as there is in the physical world. It is sort of a cosmic joke that it appears to consist of just so much plumbing. Sex can work for you at the level of satisfaction for which there are no words, if you treat it as a physical manifestation of Self.
And sex can really not work at all, if you treat it as what it appears to be: just so much plumbing. There is a lot of baggage and a lot of "stuff" to unload
about sex before it will work perfectly in your life. I suggest you start unloading and become enlightened."

I suggest that those who are so concerned with how other people have sex, are miffed and frustrated because sex isn't working in their own lives...so much so, they feel compelled to use 2 or 3, maybe even 4 antiquated verses in The Bible, to make others feel as miserable as they do, about sex not working in their own lives.

6 Replies

@Volunteer,

Heterosexual = Normal
Homosexual = Abnormal
It's the law of nature. And 99.9 percent of species also see it that way.

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Drnaline;27961 wrote:

Heterosexual = Normal
Homosexual = Abnormal
It's the law of nature. And 99.9 percent of species also see it that way.

That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Opinions are not truth...you don't need opinions for truth...truth stands alone, independent of your opinions.
And you're 99.9 % wrong....you have no statistics to back up what you have said. And "odd" that you would label humanity "species"....very cold and removed...and also very 'telling'.

1 Reply

@aaronssongs,

aaronssongs;27969 wrote:

That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Opinions are not truth...you don't need opinions for truth...truth stands alone, independent of your opinions.
And you're 99.9 % wrong....you have no statistics to back up what you have said. And "odd" that you would label humanity "species"....very cold and removed...and also very 'telling'.

It's the opinion of science. Do you have information to the contrary?

Quote:

That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

How do you guys procreat? Are your unions not one generation? How do you carry on your bloodline? almost one hundred percent of all species use sex to procreat There are very few example otherwise as we know in nature. How many example's can you come up with to the contrary, not many. In most people's opinion this is a fact of nature. We did not design it this way.

Quote:

Opinions are not truth...

Then it should be easy for you to prove me wrong?

Quote:

you don't need opinions for truth...truth stands alone, independent of your opinions.
Quote:
very cold and removed...and also very 'telling'.
And also the truth.

If we took a poll of members on this forum, at what percentage would you require to believe this is truth?

Quote:

And you're 99.9 % wrong....

Out of the millions of species on earth how many example would you need to prove my statement false? I bet you can't come with ten?

Quote:

you have no statistics to back up what you have said.

Look around you, you have a cat? Bet there hetero, how bout a dog, same. Goat? You bet. Spiders, your guessed it, hetero! The list goes on and on and on. How long is your list?

Quote:

And "odd" that you would label humanity "species"

Boy you've been away way to long. If we are not a species, what would you call us? Were not homosapiens?

0 Replies

@Volunteer,

Your questions and the manner in which they are presented don't warrant a dignified response. You're a close-minded, limited individual...obviously incapable or unwilling to think outside of your little box...so God bless.

0 Replies

@Volunteer,

God bless you too.

0 Replies

Bible Party of the USA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know