Interesting Quotes from Presidents and Founding Fathers

[Kenny]

To sell you stuff, usually stuff you don't need.

I learned morality the same way everyone else does, from the people around me. Mainly my parents.
Tom

To which most, in the US, were part of a church that gave the understanding as to why we love and forgive.

 

[shunyadragon]

I appreciate your veiwpoints... but just making statements doesn't make it convincing.

That is the problem I have with your use of crime statistics, and questionable and selective citations concerning the Founding Fathers.

 

[Kenny]

Can you actually be suggesting that people would murder each other significantly more than they already do if the Bible didn't tell them not too? If so, that's fascinating! Why would you think that?

That's not hard to understand. in many Muslim countries they teach their children to hate non-muslims and to consider blowing themselves up and then awaken to enter into a Heaven (personally, I think Hell but who knows?).

They get taught that and they actually do it. So, yes, if people would believe there is a God that said "don't commit murder and don't hate", for that matter, I think crime would be affected. Obviously that is a simplistic statement and there is much more to it than just "Don't murder". Don't steal would actually be a good first step. Right now they are teaching them "Take from the rich" which is a form of coveting.

 

[Kenny]

odd assumption that church understands the bible.

So speaking of cherry picking I say we should have muskets they were the weapon of the constitution but rabid godless evolutionists have insisted on modern semi automatic weapons. Heathen.
View attachment 21377

that's today's "musket".

 

[Kenny]

That is the problem I have with your use of crime statistics, and questionable and selective citations concerning the Founding Fathers.

WOW - did you expect me to quote a whole book?

 

[Kenny]

Unfortunately too many people interpret what he said and did different.

\

Would you like to offer an example?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand your point... yet if we are to test the spirits, it is still the word of God that is the plumbline. Certainly the relationship is first, but the reality is that it is still the preaching of God's word that

Thank you.

I can see why youre put the words side by side with The Word and the Source of that Word. When I read it from a raw objective lens (aka not influenced by bias [good bias]), it makes a lot of sense. For example:

1. You have the messenge (the Word/oral dicatations)

2. You have the messenger (the Imagine or reflection of the dictations made flesh; hence, why Jesus is called Word and not Joe Smo

3. When the Word/jesus/flesh dications speaks, he speaks directly for his father to his father's people on the message of salvation

4. Hebrew scriptures are written to preserve christ's words because they are the father's words through christ. Thats why The Church keeps the bible because it is written about christ and christ about his father. Its a chain line not a trinity (father, son, and bible).

5. When a christian receives the holy spirt, they connect with christ. When they connect with christ, they connect to his father. Moses and the apostles wrote about god the father.

In my opinion, its an idol to see the bible inline with christ That makes it bible, son, holy spirit, and father.

I would see the bible as a Confirmation of the athenticity of the inspired words. The inspired words are the father's not christ and not the bible.

I can see why youd use the bible to know christ personally. A protestant to his bible is a catholic to her eucharist.

Both have their place. The former is about christ. The later Is christ.

I dont understand how youbdont see a difference between gods Word and christs message and the apostles words about it.

I appreciate your veiwpoints... but just making statements doesn't make it convincing.

Should it be convincing?

I like exchanging views. Religion is personal and, like me with art, we wont budge one ioda.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Dr. Benjamin Rush - Signer of Declaration of Independence.:

By removing the Bible from schools we would be wasting so much time and money in punishing criminals and so little pains to prevent crime. Take the Bible out of our schools and there would be an explosion in crime.

Maybe there is truth to his statement.

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."

-Thomas Jefferson

Disclaimer: I don't agree with Jefferson on this. My point is that he was both a president and a founding father and certainly did not hold your view.

 

[Kenny]

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."

-Thomas Jefferson

Disclaimer: I don't agree with Jefferson on this. My point is that he was both a president and a founding father and certainly did not hold your view.

I would agree... I usually check quotes as it gives a better understanding - from the Jefferson foundation:

Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man (Spurious Quotation)
An Article Courtesy Of The Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia. Click For More.
This is a somewhat paraphrased version of the following:

"this was the real ground of all the attacks on you: those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, endeavored to crush your well earnt, & well deserved fame." - Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, Washington, March 21, 18011

 

[Kenny]

Thank you.

I can see why youre put the words side by side with The Word and the Source of that Word. When I read it from a raw objective lens (aka not influenced by bias [good bias]), it makes a lot of sense. For example:

1. You have the messenge (the Word/oral dicatations)

2. You have the messenger (the Imagine or reflection of the dictations made flesh; hence, why Jesus is called Word and not Joe Smo

3. When the Word/jesus/flesh dications speaks, he speaks directly for his father to his father's people on the message of salvation

4. Hebrew scriptures are written to preserve christ's words because they are the father's words through christ. Thats why The Church keeps the bible because it is written about christ and christ about his father. Its a chain line not a trinity (father, son, and bible).

5. When a christian receives the holy spirt, they connect with christ. When they connect with christ, they connect to his father. Moses and the apostles wrote about god the father.

In my opinion, its an idol to see the bible inline with christ That makes it bible, son, holy spirit, and father.

I would see the bible as a Confirmation of the athenticity of the inspired words. The inspired words are the father's not christ and not the bible.

I can see why youd use the bible to know christ personally. A protestant to his bible is a catholic to her eucharist.

Both have their place. The former is about christ. The later Is christ.

I dont understand how youbdont see a difference between gods Word and christs message and the apostles words about it.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclussion that I don't understand. 80% of all discussion is just a lack of proper communication. Perhaps the both of us can improve on it.

For an example:"

"I would see the bible as a Confirmation of the athenticity of the inspired words."

You don't make sense here. As you put it, it reads the bible is a confirmation of the authenticity of the "ispired words" aka, the Bible.

Doesn't quite jive.

Should it be convincing?

I like exchanging views. Religion is personal and, like me with art, we wont budge one ioda.

Yes it should in the context that I said it to the poster. If I said "Your responses are computer generated", I may be exchanging views but was it convincing enough to pay attention to it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not sure how you came to the conclussion that I don't understand. 80% of all discussion is just a lack of proper communication. Perhaps the both of us can improve on it.

For an example:"

"I would see the bible as a Confirmation of the athenticity of the inspired words."

Sorry about that. Brievity doesnt come naturally for a writer

When you have a belief in christ, that is fine. You know this belief is true based on your experiences. Since christians say they find it hard to trust their feelings accurate, they consort the bible for advice. Because of their bias towards the bible as true, that is the manner in which they read it. Since its through a personal one sides lens, whatever one reads confirms the truth or correction of how they see their experiences.

Once they get that confirmation, they feel it is from christ. Christ is god, most believe, so their belief is confirmed by god at the same time. The bible becomes the "last word" to what the christian experiences is true. They cant tell the difference between the two because one confirms the other.

You don't make sense here. As you put it, it reads the bible is a confirmation of the authenticity of the "ispired words" aka, the Bible.

Yes. The bible is the confirmation of authenticity of god's Word through christ. Without the bible, do you have gods Word?

Yes it should in the context that I said it to the poster. If I said "Your responses are computer generated", I may be exchanging views but was it convincing enough to pay attention to it?

My mind doesnt work like that. I never valued "getting my side right" or convincing people. Never did like jobs and points of view that questions the personal opinions of another person. Math, yes. Religion, no.

But if what I say doesnt make sense, Im all for clarifying my views. When you say convince, do you mean to question the logic and validity of your views or to provide a logical argument that you understand dispite your disagreement?

 

[shunyadragon]

Would you like to offer an example?

Some churches do not believe in the Trinity, and do not interpret the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as physical, nor that Jesus Christ is the incarnate Son of God. I likewise agree with their interpretation instead of the Roman version.

 

[shunyadragon]

WOW - did you expect me to quote a whole book?

Of course not, but cite completely ALL the relevant parts of the crime statistics that were relevant. It was demonstrated that you misrepresented the data with a selective citation.

 

[David T]

that's today's "musket".

I know best I could do !!! Lol

 

[Kenny]

Sorry about that. Brievity doesnt come naturally for a writer

When you have a belief in christ, that is fine. You know this belief is true based on your experiences.

I'm not quite sure I can agree here as a statement although there may be some applicatons. There are things that I believe even though my experiences haven't matched up. Much like Thomas, "You believe because you have seen (experience), blessed are those who believe and have not seen (no experience)"

Since christians say they find it hard to trust their feelings accurate, they consort the bible for advice. Because of their bias towards the bible as true, that is the manner in which they read it. Since its through a personal one sides lens, whatever one reads confirms the truth or correction of how they see their experiences.

I am sure that what you have described would be true in some cases. My statement would differ:

"We walk by faith and not by sight" (feelings), therefore if what I am feeling violates what is written, then I don't follow my feelings. If I need wisdom, there are two venues that I can find that wisdom. From above, by asking, and from the book of wisdom. They aren't contrary to each other.

Once they get that confirmation, they feel it is from christ. Christ is god, most believe, so their belief is confirmed by god at the same time. The bible becomes the "last word" to what the christian experiences is true. They cant tell the difference between the two because one confirms the other.

I am sure that there may be cases as such. But would you like to offer an example?

Yes. The bible is the confirmation of authenticity of god's Word through christ. Without the bible, do you have gods Word?

It would be like rediscovering Algebra from the beginning without any help. You can get a word from God, but you have lost much of God's words. As Paul said, "Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other."

There is a benefit to what is written (as there are many other scriptures with the same thought)

My mind doesnt work like that. I never valued "getting my side right" or convincing people. Never did like jobs and points of view that questions the personal opinions of another person. Math, yes. Religion, no.

But if what I say doesnt make sense, Im all for clarifying my views. When you say convince, do you mean to question the logic and validity of your views or to provide a logical argument that you understand dispite your disagreement?

I'm not responding to this portion in as much as it was built on a totally different application for why it was written.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm.

I'm not quite sure I can agree here as a statement although there may be some applicatons. There are things that I believe even though my experiences haven't matched up. Much like Thomas, "You believe because you have seen (experience), blessed are those who believe and have not seen (no experience)"

How do you believe something without anything (or anyone) to let you confirm inwardly what you accept is true is actually true?

I dont like the term blind-faith though, in essense, when you believe something is true (trust it) without criteria of your own, it takes a huge leap of faith without any support of its validity (whether to yourself and/or others)

I am sure that what you have described would be true in some cases. My statement would differ:

"We walk by faith and not by sight" (feelings), therefore if what I am feeling violates what is written, then I don't follow my feelings. If I need wisdom, there are two venues that I can find that wisdom. From above, by asking, and from the book of wisdom. They aren't contrary to each othe

Do you not trust your feelings in relation to how god speaks with you?

Is it pure obedience with no other mental and physical experience just your oath to follow god?

I am sure that there may be cases as such. But would you like to

Example...

I had an experience I attributed to my grandmother watching me. Most would most definitely say its god. One hundred percent. But we both have different backgrounds. Different criteria for authority and validity ot a said experience.

I have no sacred book to confirm my experiences; I just know.

When you dont trust your feelings you check the answers to see if it lines up.

Say, I believed the authority of the bible. I wouldnt take my experiences at first glance. Id check the bible.

Since the bible is from god, if my experienced mirror what god says....

I used the bible to confirm my experieces. If christians trusted their feelings and experiences, they wouldnt need the bible.

I find that odd; but, Im not a sacred book person.

It would be like rediscovering Algebra from the beginning without any help. You can get a word from God, but you have lost much of God's words. As Paul said, "Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other."

How do you reeiscover alegebra?

Edit.

The issue still remains you need basics in order to make personal the bible. (Though, I dont know how the bible isbpersonal when you dont trust your feelings to confirm it so?)

 

[Kenny]

Hmm.

How do you believe something without anything (or anyone) to let you confirm inwardly what you accept is true is actually true?

Thus, we are back to the need of scripture. A full circle. Not trying to be argumentative... just sharing.

I dont like the term blind-faith though, in essense, when you believe something is true (trust it) without criteria of your own, it takes a huge leap of faith without any support of its validity (whether to yourself and/or others)

I don't agree with "blind" faith and believe that people generally use that as an escape hatch to dismiss faith (not in your case, but speaking generally)

Again, we are back to scripture. One reads about a New Covenant and a Last Will and Testament. One doesn't need to have "blind" faith to believe on the words spoken or printed.

Do you not trust your feelings in relation to how god speaks with you?

Maybe the problem here is that we are dealing with different definitions or different applications? Feelings can be both an emotional state (not reliable) or a leading by the Holy Spirit (reliable) depending on the application. So I'm not sure how you are definiting "feelings".

Sight could be classified as part of "feelings" in a broader sense and specifically, "We walk by faith (not blind) and not by sight.

It's application can be understood easily. Jesus said to the blind man, "Go wash yourself..." and received sight. He didn't "feel" anything as he walked but faith trusted what Jesus said.

Is it pure obedience with no other mental and physical experience just your oath to follow god?

Again, that can go either way depending on meaning and application. Obedience can include just your oath to follow God. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego obeyed with just their oath to follow God.

True?

Example...

I had an experience I attributed to my grandmother watching me. Most would most definitely say its god. One hundred percent. But we both have different backgrounds. Different criteria for authority and validity ot a said experience.

I have no sacred book to confirm my experiences; I just know.

When you dont trust your feelings you check the answers to see if it lines up.

Say, I believed the authority of the bible. I wouldnt take my experiences at first glance. Id check the bible.

Since the bible is from god, if my experienced mirror what god says....

I used the bible to confirm my experieces. If christians trusted their feelings and experiences, they wouldnt need the bible.

I find that odd; but, Im not a sacred book person.

Here I would disagree in principle. There are spiritual experiences that may not be from God. With no standard of reference and if all you go by is "feelings", one could be dealing with a familiar spirit and it not be God.

How do you reeiscover alegebra?

I'm sorry, let me rephrase. I can learn by two methods, learn it myself (figure out how algebra works, what are the principles that need to be known, what are the postulates and theorems and why are they true) and spend a life time re-discovering algebra. Or, I can go to three classes, Algebra I, II and III, and learn it in three semesters by what other people wrote and use it as a spring board into Calculus

So, yes, you can "learn" all over how things are from God or not from God, or you can read the scripture and springboard from there in a lot shorter time and go further.

The issue still remains you need basics in order to make personal the bible. (Though, I dont know how the bible isbpersonal when you dont trust your feelings to confirm it so?)

Again, it depends on the definition of "feelings". My journey with God didn't start with "feelings" but rather logical thought.

It went like this:

1. My life is going from bad to worse, I might as well as try something different;
2. The Bible is either true or false. It can't be both. I will start with the assumption that it is true and test the sucker. If it is false, I will find out soon enough
3. It certainly won't hurt me to confess from my heart that Jesus is Lord.

Not sure "feelings" were involved as much as a heart decision.

EDIT:

On your defense, the next day I knew something had changed. I felt it, but it was scriptures that gave me the understanding of what happened. So back to "relationship" but also tied with "scirpture,."

 

[shunyadragon]

Again, it depends on the definition of "feelings". My journey with God didn't start with "feelings" but rather logical thought.

It went like this:

1. My life is going from bad to worse, I might as well as try something different;
2. The Bible is either true or false. It can't be both. I will start with the assumption that it is true and test the sucker. If it is false, I will find out soon enough
3. It certainly won't hurt me to confess from my heart that Jesus is Lord.

On your defense, the next day I knew something had changed. I felt it, but it was scriptures that gave me the understanding of what happened. So back to "relationship" but also tied with "scirpture,."

Sorry, this does not remotely represent a logical train of thought. It sounds more like a dive into Pascal's Wager.

To many contradiction's in the above post to be logical, beginning with the presupposition that the Bible has to be completely true or completely false. The objective verifiable evidence concerning the history of the Bible negates both options. Your assumption is strictly 'faith' based and not logical.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm.

Maybe the problem here is that we are dealing with different definitions or different applications? Feelings can be both an emotional state (not reliable) or a leading by the Holy Spirit (reliable) depending on the application. So I'm not sure how you are definiting "feelings".

I think we have different definitions.

Since we are both human, we both ideally have the same senses. Spirituality, pysiological, and psychological go hand in hand. To say spiritual is different than these things is saying X amount of people have special feelings (say from god) while others mundane. I disagree regardless however phrased.

For example, spirituality is physiological. When you get that god-umph, what does your Body tell you? Is dull? Numb? Robotic?

Psycological is how you (whether you regard it as heart/god or not, I'll get to) you interpret those feelings. Are they from god? Scripture? Which verse clicks with you at the moment? Why? If its just heart/god, are you not god to where only the heart experiences truth but you seperate your human feelings not of god?

What about you is in his image when seperate feelings into two definitions? God is not two in christianity. How you personalize your umph/god/heart is how you express, seperate, or unify the concept of god...

With scripture confirming it

Its spiritual: What is spiritual? If you are a robot, who are You that experiences god/spirituality? If you seperate feelings, what about your expression of god does not relate to how you interpret god thereby how he connects with you?

Spirituality isnt mystic or gothic. Thats just highlighting something (or someone if you like) that, when looked at without bias, culture, preknowledge and/or indoctrination, can be seen through what I discribed above.

Im not downing spirituality/how you define god/spirit, I experienced what you call god, what another tao, another brahman, and another energy. We arent that unique to where we claim experiences dispite different cultures. Not special; not higher; it just is (culture, scripture, practice excluded)

Again, that can go either way depending on meaning and application. Obedience can include just your oath to follow God. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego obeyed with just their oath to follow God.

This can take on any definition. When you obey or obedient, you are giving your self (service, time, whatever) at the will of another. The details vary not the definition.

Here I would disagree in principle. There are spiritual experiences that may not be from God. With no standard of reference and if all you go by is "feelings", one could be dealing with a familiar spirit and it not be God.

I disagree. Christianity seperates. Not all religions do. Im not fan of christian history (another topic)

On your defense, the next day I knew something had changed. I felt it, but it was scriptures that gave me the understanding of what happened. So back to "relationship" but also tied with "scirpture,."

interpretation and understanding (at its core). Saying spiritual and godly feelings is fine. I dont see a difference.

Edited.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@KenS sorry. No rush.