Member since Sep 15, 2015

Custom Lists

  • Zip.



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “UPDATE: Weinstein makes new demand of the Air Force Academy


You may feel them to be childish, but History and Archeology record them as being anything but. Beyond internal historical sources and evidence within the documents comprising both the New and Old Testaments of the Bible, there are extra Biblical sources (sources outside the Bible at the same time periods which are considered genuine), as well as archeological evidence for the main points in the scriptures: That God did miracles through Prophets in Israel; That Jesus did miraculous deeds; and confirm many aspects in regards to internal evidence such as people, places, times, and details.

So, I hardly think that anyone in academics surrounding issues such as textual criticism, papyrology, ancient history, and/or archeology dealing with ancient periods of the mid-east, would join you in your idea that either Jesus, the founding of Christianity based on the ideal of Jesus' divine nature and his resurrection from the dead, or for that matter, Israel's history as a people, are to be dismissed as childish.

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by CommentUser on 09/21/2015 at 4:59 PM

Re: “UPDATE: Weinstein makes new demand of the Air Force Academy

Mr. K--

"This issue" is a fundamental issue of religious expression. The "all agree" portion was, again, a historical context. It referred to the founders agreement, most of them ardent Christians, although of different denominations. It refers to Natural Historical contexts. It does not refer to what people agree with today. The agreement had to do with Christian orthodoxy from the scriptures, which were adhered to as recognized from the teachings of Jesus and from the Bible - not distortions of that teaching.

Also, on the issue of the Pilgrims, again I can find no historical basis for what you say (that the Pilgrims persecuted those they did not agree with - Persecution meaning: taking their life, their liberty under natural law and the scriptures [which is the historical basis for liberty as acknowledged by our Founding Fathers, or their property). There was a point among puritans in Mass to use law to establish official church status, but this was opposed by others such as Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist Church in America, who lived among the Pilgrims for a time, in his letter to John Cotton: The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.

In fact, it was this letter that Jefferson referred to in his now famous, but misquoted (or quoted out of context) and misunderstood, letter to the Danbury Baptists. This is the letter which Jefferson used the wall of separation phrase. He used this phrase, which was a common allusion in Baptist circles to Roger Williams analogy. Williams stated that the Church as the type, and the Jewish followers of God as the anti-type, were the garden. That God had walled in the garden from the wild animal of State. If the people repented from sin, God would build up the wall. If the people continued in sin against God, the wall would break down, and the wild animal of State would attack the garden. It was always understood in Williams analogy that the Christians would influence the State for Good, and that they should be involved in the political sphere; and that the State should encourage what was Godly, which is what they understood as good (see introduction to William's Bloody Tenent). In fact our English word for Good comes from the word God. Williams point was that Christianity should not be spread through the use of putting people to death, confiscating their property, or removing their fundamental Natural law rights as they were outlined in the scriptures.

You can find William's Garden Analogy, as well as the points alluded to in regards to Christian involvement in Government, in: Williams, Roger, The Bloody Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed and Mr. Cotton’s Letter Examined and Answered. Edited by Edward Underhill. (London: J. Haddon, 1848), introduction and 435.

Jefferson wanted the Danbury Baptists to know he understood their analogy, and that in our form of federal Government, it was the 1st Amendment that prevented the federal Government from interfering in religious affairs, teaching, or expression of.

Again, you may want to understand these issues if you are going to speak about them in an instructive way.

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by CommentUser on 09/21/2015 at 4:44 PM

Re: “UPDATE: Weinstein makes new demand of the Air Force Academy

Hey happyfew,

Nice try on the Jefferson quote, but way out of context. It appears you better actually read Jefferson before you claim somehow he did not advocate Christian principles as the foundation of American Republicanism.

So, for the full quote, not that of your straw man twist-history-to-meet-my-own-ideas comment:

"If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas [strong theological positions, which scripture does not unequivocally answer, from separate denominations of Christianity], in which no two of them agree, then your [Adam's] exclamation on that hypothesis is just, 'that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.' But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, 'something not fit to be named even, indeed, a hell.'"

Photographic Facsimile:

But, to press the point further, let me point out James Wilson, signer of the Declaration, of the U.S. Constitution, and the first appointed Supreme Court Justice. Wilson stated "All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1. Divine. 2. Human laws.... But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God.... Nature, or, to speak more properly, the Author of nature, has done much for us;… What we do, indeed, must be founded upon what he has done; and the deficiencies of our laws must be supplied by the perfections of his. Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is Divine." Wilson, James, “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation,” in The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, edited by Wilson, Bird. (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. I, 103, 104-105.

In fact, Christianity is fundamental to American law and jurisprudence. As Noah Webster, who was both a judge and legislator during the founding era, explains "The brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government and... that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion."
Webster, Noah, History of the United States. (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), 6.

While you might like to change fundamental law such as the Declaration of Independence (which finds the legitimacy of our country and authority of its functionaries upon Natural Law - that law which grew up in the western world over the past two thousand years which was directly influenced by Christianity and the New Testament), the U.S. Constitution, or Natural Law itself, it doesn't just cease to be legally binding because you think it is "old" or "outdated" or truthfully because you just don't like it.

10 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by CommentUser on 09/15/2015 at 12:31 AM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

All content © Copyright 2018, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation