This Is A Coup Against Our Right To Govern Ourselves

[Mesaclone]

It's amazing that in the space of one paragraph you not only condemned me, you condemned Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and a score of the Founders who made if abundantly clear that the only path to maintaining liberty in this country was one founded in the morality as contained in the scriptures and in the Christian religion you so despise.

A people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.

And here you are declaring that those who urge a people to be reconciled to and be governed by God are the real tyrants.

Jefferson had his own bible in which he cut out the miracles AND the sayings of Jesus he thought bogus. He was a Christian theist, not a fundamentalist in any sense of teh word. So rather than condemn him, I would praise the man. As for Christianity, I condemn only its distortions...and am an avid believer in the words of Jesus (as a guide, check out the Jesus Seminar's analysis of the Five Gospels for what Jesus likely did and did not say).

[Sighlass]

gnostic gospel... Nag Hamadi Codices.
prophets... itching ears,,, all that.

Oh good grief... can some posters get any weirder?

Far as anyone knows they never were carbon dated.  Hint: Date just made out of thin air, no carbon dating verified.

http://peterkirby.com/nag-hammadi-carbon-dating-myth.html

[Mesaclone]

It's amazing that in the space of one paragraph you not only condemned me, you condemned Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and a score of the Founders who made if abundantly clear that the only path to maintaining liberty in this country was one founded in the morality as contained in the scriptures and in the Christian religion you so despise.

A people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.

And here you are declaring that those who urge a people to be reconciled to and be governed by God are the real tyrants.

We all want a country ruled by morality and ethics, and yes...with a belief in a god who guides our choices for good.

The issue is that you presume to know how god wants us to behave in our governance of this country. You are wrong. Its really that simple.

[Smokin Joe]

Telling others that their politics are out of line with what God wants...or that their politics and beliefs are wrong because they are depending on men rather than god...is twisting god into a tool for his own political argument. It is just wrong to make god your plaything in this way IMHO. My path is firm, but not everyone's is as clear to them and this kind of garbage can be hurtful to people as they seek to find god in their lives. Its not "pointing to a path...that works" that is the problem, its proclaiming that is the ONLY path that can make it hard for others to feel free to find god as they choose. Multiply that kind of arrogance and certainty by millions...and you have real road blocks for many who are "seeking".

We're all adults here. People will look at what @INVAR says and decide for themselves. Where I see your conflict with that is that it conflicts with your philosophy and your little 'g' god. You seem to find that upsetting.

If we are not guided by some fundamental philosophy, in this case, the basic rules YHWH passed to Moses, there will be chaos. Without those ten simple rules, no political or other 'solution' will be just nor will it endure.
I fail to see where that detracts from the ability of people to choose their own course, should they decide. However, I must note that if those ten rules were followed by those in government, we would likely have far fewer problems, and far more Liberty than we do at present. Nor do I see basing the simplest laws in our culture on those rules as a deficit, certainly most of our laws are.
You call this "garbage" because you say your path is firm, but The Almighty calls us each to Him as He will. One man's trash is indeed another man's treasure.
It is no less arrogant to assert that only your path which is no path but the license to ramble about, exists to the exclusion of the straight path he advocates.
That makes as much sense as advising someone to go out and sin so they better understand God when they finally find Him, when all they had to do was read the directions and follow them.
If indeed he is to look in himself to find God, who are you to say he did not, and that this is the path he found?
I'm not calling names here, If your path works and you are sure of the God you found, I pray you have not been led elsewhere. That is between you and Him.
And everyone here is free to accept or reject as they choose.
I have not read the book to which you referred, only your quotes from it. That describes a path I tried as a younger man, one which led me away from YHWH. Be careful there, there are many pitfalls and precipices, if that is the path you choose. For me, all else failed. That's why I read the directions. Be blessed.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Should this be moved to the Religion Forum?

@mystery-ak

[roamer_1]

Nothing new under the sun.  The First Century Church had to deal with it on a massive scale.

That's right, and here it goes again.

[txradioguy]

Should this be moved to the Religion Forum?

@mystery-ak

Who died and appointed you as a Mod?

[INVAR]

We all want a country ruled by morality and ethics, and yes...with a belief in a god who guides our choices for good.

The issue is that you presume to know how god wants us to behave in our governance of this country. You are wrong. Its really that simple.

A greater statement of contradiction one may never find.

We are already doing what is right in our own eyes and via our own perceived ethics as a nation.

Enjoy the fruits - for they are exactly what you prescribe more of.

[Mesaclone]

We're all adults here. People will look at what @INVAR says and decide for themselves. Where I see your conflict with that is that it conflicts with your philosophy and your little 'g' god. You seem to find that upsetting. 

If we are not guided by some fundamental philosophy, in this case, the basic rules YHWH passed to Moses, there will be chaos. I am guided by a philosophy just as you are, and the ten rules you attribute to yahweh were well incorporated into western thought before the birth of Jesus...most cultures have similar moral codes in which murder, theft, envy, caring for fellow citizens, etcetera are held in high regard.Without those ten simple rules, no political or other 'solution' will be just nor will it endure. I agree, the basic moral code of the Ten commandments is a great basis for establishing societal norms
I fail to see where that detracts from the ability of people to choose their own course, should they decide. However, I must note that if those ten rules were followed by those in government, we would likely have far fewer problems, and far more Liberty than we do at present. Nor do I see basing the simplest laws in our culture on those rules as a deficit, certainly most of our laws are. I agree, our legislation is and should be founded in these principles...they are core "truths" that are found in many cultures and religions
You call this "garbage" because you say your path is firm, but The Almighty calls us each to Him as He will. One man's trash is indeed another man's treasure.No, what is garbage, is this declaration of having "the one" path.
It is no less arrogant to assert that only your path which is no path I don't assert mine to be the only path, as there are actually innumerable roads that lead to god, nor is my path "no path"...rather, it is a very clear road steeped in Platonic thought as well as in the words of men like Jesus and Buddha. It would only seem "rambling" to someone who felt their was only one narrow road to god. but the license to ramble about is any exists to the exclusion of the straight path he advocates. Keep to your own path, I'm happy for you on it, just quit proclaiming that every other path is wrong.  If you somehow want to argue that its your path to tell everyone they are wrong, than...well...that is what I'm criticizing in this thread
That makes as much sense as advising someone to go out and sin so they better understand God when they finally find Him, when all they had to do was read the directions and follow them.I've not called for anyone to sin, only to seek
If indeed he is to look in himself to find God, who are you to say he did not, and this is the path he found? You will know him by his acts and his words. If he had found god, he would no longer be claiming to have the only path to him.
I'm not calling names here, If your path works and you are sure of the God you found, I pray you have not been led elsewhere. That is between you and Him. Agreed, and I share the same wishes for you.
And everyone here is free to accept or reject as they choose. Agreed
I have not read the book to which you referred, only your quotes from it. That describes a path I tried as a younger man, one which led me away from YHWH. Be careful there, there are many pitfalls and precipices, if that is the path you choose. For me, all else failed. That's why I read the directions. There are many sets of directions, most of which are found not in a book but in our lives, and in the world around us. Be blessed.Again, I'm glad for you that you've found contentment. As have I. In that, we are both very fortunate men.

Lest it be lost in the conversation, this is about using god as a tool to declare your political view correct...or another's incorrect. That is using god, not following him and it is self serving in the extreme. Worse, as I see it, it is frequently used in lieu of reason and a coherent argument for one's positions.

Always remember, it was men who wrote the bible, not god himself. Men also copied and edited each of the books therein. Further, it was a group of men who selected...voted on...and decided what would and would not make it into the New Testament...and a similar process was undertaken in deciding how to interpret much of the doctrine laid forth in the NT. The early church was rife with diverse interpretation, not truly coalescing until well into the 4th century.

[txradioguy]

Lest it be lost in the conversation, this is about using god as a tool to declare your political view correct...or another's incorrect. That is using god, not following him and it is self serving in the extreme. Worse, as I see it, it is frequently used in lieu of reason and a coherent argument for one's positions.

And that's different from the Founding Fathers declaring rights given by the Creator? 

[roamer_1]

Lest it be lost in the conversation, this is about using god as a tool to declare your political view correct...or another's incorrect. That is using god, not following him and it is self serving in the extreme. Worse, as I see it, it is frequently used in lieu of reason and a coherent argument for one's positions.

You mean like when someone quotes pseudepigraphal work, claiming it as Scripture, nay, even the words of the Messiah?
You mean like when someone does that to prove a political point?

[Mesaclone]

And that's different from the Founding Fathers declaring rights given by the Creator?

It is true that the FF's used the imprimatur of the Creator to add gravitas to their work. They did so consciously and with aforethought...and the specifically used the term creator with equal intention (choosing to avoid a more obvious Christian-centric terminology).

[Mesaclone]

You mean like when someone quotes pseudepigraphal work, claiming it as Scripture, nay, even the words of the Messiah?
You mean like when someone does that to prove a political point?

Thomas claims to be the words of Jesus just as do all the other gospels. It is no more pseudepigraphical than the other 4 gospels. My citing of it was part of plea to NOT use these words in making our political arguments/points. This was an ethical argument, not a political one.

[Sighlass]

You mean like when someone quotes pseudepigraphal work, claiming it as Scripture, nay, even the words of the Messiah?
You mean like when someone does that to prove a political point?

Thumbs-up emote goes here displaying a nice big picture showing my approval of this message.

[roamer_1]

Much like the bible. 800 year old men, guys staying alive inside of whales, entire planets flooded, snakes talking to women, people turning into salt pillars, 2 people populating a planet, people made out of ribs, god ordering the slaughter of children...it goes on and on. By comparison, many of the Gnostic gospels are islands of common sense and sanity...though a number of them are a bit "loopy" in biblical fashion. With gnostic gospels AND the bible, a wise man has to separate the chaff from the wheat.

No... you are reading it wrong, as I have told you before.
and in your zeal to discount, what you are doing is separating the tare from the wheat, and keeping the tare.

[Smokin Joe]

Lest it be lost in the conversation, this is about using god as a tool to declare your political view correct...or another's incorrect. That is using god, not following him and it is self serving in the extreme. Worse, as I see it, it is frequently used in lieu of reason and a coherent argument for one's positions.

How will you resist Islam?
You do not see scripture as a coherent argument?

How about this: If a law allows one to steal from their neighbor, would you see that law as immoral? Would not most people use The Almighty, the God of Moses who carved the rules in stone as as good a reason as any to overturn such a law? (Of course those laws had been around for a long time before Jesus was born. They were given to Moses. Is not that Law the basis for our own? No that you can't eat oysters or bacon, but the big ten?)

Sure it is.

Always remember, it was men who wrote the bible, not god himself. Men also copied and edited each of the books therein. Further, it was a group of men who selected...voted on...and decided what would and would not make it into the New Testament...and a similar process was undertaken in deciding how to interpret much of the doctrine laid forth in the NT. The early church was rife with diverse interpretation, not truly coalescing until well into the 4th century.

Someone put it down. But what was kept has stood the test of time. What do you so disagree with?

BTW, it is a real pain to address comments mired within the quote of the previous poster's comments. Please make the effort to separate your own comments from the previous posts in a way that is easier to quote.

[roamer_1]

Thomas claims to be the words of Jesus just as do all the other gospels. It is no more pseudepigraphical than the other 4 gospels. My citing of it was part of plea to NOT use these words in making our political arguments/points. This was an ethical argument, not a political one.

The claims of the Book of Thomas are easily refuted... that is why it is absolutely among the psuedepigrapha. But we have had this argument before. Press me on it, why don't you... Start a thread.

You are not dealing with ill informed people anymore, @Mesaclone . Some of the top Biblical scholars, the best to ever grace FR, are here now. @INVAR , who seems to be the focus of your ire, could tear down the Book of Thomas like the paper shell it is... with his eyes closed and his hands in mittens.

[roamer_1]

[...] and the specifically used the term creator with equal intention (choosing to avoid a more obvious Christian-centric terminology).

You are patently ignorant of English Common Law. Read Blackstone and see if your theory holds up.

[roamer_1]

Thumbs-up emote goes here displaying a nice big picture showing my approval of this message.

 

 

[Mesaclone]

How will you resist Islam? Easily, with common sense and Platonic reasoning. As well, my belief in Jesus desire for us to love our fellow man precludes accepting MANY of the tenets of Islam.
You do not see scripture as a coherent argument? Some of it, yes. Other parts, such as god directing the slaughter of children and women, not so much.

How about this: If a law allows one to steal from their neighbor, would you see that law as immoral? Yes, by any logic that would be damaging to any society.Would not most people use The Almighty, the God of Moses who carved the rules in stone as as good a reason as any to overturn such a law? (Of course those laws had been around for a long time before Jesus was born. They were given to Moses. Is not that Law the basis for our own? No that you can't eat oysters or bacon, but the big ten?) Even the Code of Hammurabi, much pre-dating Moses, commands citizens not to steal or lie.
 Morality did not arrive with Moses, nor was it circumscribed by Ten very true but far from all inclusive commandments

Sure it is. Someone put it down. But what was kept has stood the test of time. What do you so disagree with? As I said, I don't disagree with the Ten Commandments...though I view them more as gods ten guides to leading a good and happy life in a rational society.

BTW, it is a real pain to address comments mired within the quote of the previous poster's comments. Please make the effort to separate your own comments from the previous posts in a way that is easier to quote. Sorry, I answered all the above before reading this one. In future, I will do as you request.

To be clear, I see the bible as having great moral weight...much of it, anyway. Its metaphor, akin to much of greek mythology, conveys valuable lessens in wisdom and ethics.

[Mesaclone]

The claims of the Book of Thomas are easily refuted... that is why it is absolutely among the psuedepigrapha. But we have had this argument before. Press me on it, why don't you... Start a thread.

You are not dealing with ill informed people anymore, @Mesaclone . Some of the top Biblical scholars, the best to ever grace FR, are here now. @INVAR , who seems to be the focus of your ire, could tear down the Book of Thomas like the paper shell it is... with his eyes closed and his hands in mittens.

Self aggrandizement and hyperbole...humorous AND a bit of sin. You naughty boy. Let me sin as well, though I'm not a theologian, I do have an MA in Ancient History. As for closed eyes and mittens, that seems to be a good description of Invar's diatribes thus far.

As I'm not a theologian, however, I'll rely much on those who are...Dominic Crossan, Bruce Bawer, Shelby Spong, Elaine Pagels and a host of others...for studies in authenticity and meaning. Further, works such as the Five Gospels received input from...literally...thousands of theologians at universities across the nation, so most of what I'm giving out about Thomas comes well sourced by true experts in this field.

As for refuting Thomas, you apparently don't know that it is a saying gospel...not a story line one. As such, you may disagree with what it asserts are the words of Jesus, but you have no means of refuting it beyond a scientific analysis of the text in its original Coptic version. The earliest fragments of Thomas rival those of any other gospel, by some measures dating earlier than any of the extant 4 gospel fragments. ARE you an expert in this? If so, have at it....present your scientific work on these fragments and their archaeological authenticity. My guess, you're an expert in your own mind.

[mystery-ak]

Should this be moved to the Religion Forum?

@mystery-ak

I don't have a Religion section and this thread is the reason why

[roamer_1]

Self aggrandizement and hyperbole...humorous AND a bit of sin. You naughty boy. Let me sin as well, though I'm not a theologian, I do have an MA in Ancient History. As for closed eyes and mittens, that seems to be a good description of Invar's diatribes thus far.

As I'm not a theologian, however, I'll rely much on those who are...Dominic Crossan, Bruce Bawer, Shelby Spong, Elaine Pagels and a host of others...for studies in authenticity and meaning. Further, works such as the Five Gospels received input from...literally...thousands of theologians at universities across the nation, so most of what I'm giving out about Thomas comes well sourced by true experts in this field.

As for refuting Thomas, you apparently don't know that it is a saying gospel...not a story line one. As such, you may disagree with what it asserts are the words of Jesus, but you have no means of refuting it beyond a scientific analysis of the text in its original Coptic version. The earliest fragments of Thomas rival those of any other gospel, by some measures dating earlier than any of the extant 4 gospel fragments. ARE you an expert in this? If so, have at it....present your scientific work on these fragments and their archaeological authenticity. My guess, you're an expert in your own mind.

Like I said. Press me on it. Start a thread.

[Smokin Joe]

Easily, with common sense and Platonic reasoning. As well, my belief in Jesus desire for us to love our fellow man precludes accepting MANY of the tenets of Islam.

and they will laugh at you while sawing your head off with a dull kitchen knife.

Some of it, yes. Other parts, such as god directing the slaughter of children and women, not so much.

Yet in popular fiction there are no qualms about the slaughter of women and children in so many scenarios. Not to mention Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, all not so very long ago and perfectly secularly and Platonically justified. It is the application of Christian (second book, New Testament) beliefs that do not call for such slaughter, and despite 1945 years of that (less time for the book to be compiled, of course) we did it in all our righteousness. You cannot tell me that even today those same secular, rational people wouldn't nuke Pyonyang or Teheran or other cities full of women and children as an expediency. Yet every one of them would have said 'god' is on our side, from those running death camps in Poland to those who raped Nanking, and our own government, too. Sorry, but slaughter is common practice in warfare, whether it is with bullets, the sword, or simply starvation. The Israelites were at war, they vanquished their enemies in such a way as to eliminate reprisal. For the last 60 years we have generally failed to have the resolve to do so, and as such the slaughter of South Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, ongoing squabbles with the North Koreans, the Somalis (oh, we're importing them), and a host of others have led to a world full of people who want death for America, and who will not have your qualms.

Even the Code of Hammurabi, much pre-dating Moses, commands citizens not to steal or lie.
 Morality did not arrive with Moses, nor was it circumscribed by Ten very true but far from all inclusive commandments. As I said, I don't disagree with the Ten Commandments...though I view them more as gods ten guides to leading a good and happy life in a rational society.

Do you believe in Hell? Do you believe that God, so frustrated with the corruption of His creations would destroy all but a few? That He would punish noncorporeal beings with eternal damnation? If so, the slaughter by the Israelites was nothing. But the Ten Commandments take on more gravity if you believe there is a downside to breaking them, and if no downside, why "Commandments", why not "Suggestions"? Do you believe that two cities and their inhabitants were destroyed (a microcosm of the flood) for their wickedness? They have not been found, yet all other biblical cities have. 

To be clear, I see the bible as having great moral weight...much of it, anyway. Its metaphor, akin to much of greek mythology, conveys valuable lessens in wisdom and ethics.

Great moral weight? It remains the all time best seller. As I said, it is the directions. When all else fails (and it will), consult it.

[Mesaclone]

Like I said. Press me on it. Start a thread.

Lighten up, Francis. Go start a thread of your own if you're that wound up about it.