Posted on 07/25/2010 1:37:12 PM PDT by betty boop
You have a nerve. It was originally your assertion to support. You first refused to respond when challenged for a cite. When pressed you finally gave a vague reference. Then you have the nerve to lecture me on doing "homework."
"In the future" be prepared to support your assertions with valid citations before you speak.
Great points.
Thx for the ping.
Sometimes “nerve” is an extremely weak and inadequate term.
Well, let's see...I was asked in post #39 post the letter at 10:41:19 PM my time. In post #41 the Freeper in question provided the answer at 10:45:49 PM. That's exactly 4 minutes and 30 seconds later!
The reaosn I didn't repsond immediately in less than 5 minutes can be anything—I was probably making coffee, making a phone call, engaging in some private business, fixing a sandwich, checking the latest news, posting to someone else, psoting to another thread, same thread different person, same thread, same person, different post, etc., etc. yet you are sure (it appears from your post) that I refused to respond! That is ad hominem. You are making a straw man.
When I initially posted the quote I gave the name of the author, and the year it was written. That, with the opening sentence is enough to find the source if someone really wants to.
I resented the fact that my references was immediately suspicious (another way of saying "you're lying"), especially since the person who raised the suspicion later admitted to being familiar with the text.
So much for who has a nerve. In the future, you will just have to do your own research because I am under no obligation to do it for you and I am under no obligation to do it immediately upon request.
If you want something from me, you can ask politely, and for a good reason such as being unable to find the source after looking for it yourself, and not because I am automatically disbelieved, in which case I may oblige at the time of my choosing.
“”Separation is not against scripture””
Separation by force against someones will is
“”Apostle Paul clearly states that all authority on earth is from God and that slaves should be obedient to their masters””
That does not mean that slavery is approved by God. Only a Paulican would take it to mean this is God’s approval of slavery
“”Therefore the Church has no scriptural reason to oppose slavery.””
The Church has the Authority to condemn slavery and interpret the real meaning of Scripture ,and it has through Papal Bull
IN SUPREMO APOSTOLATUS (Apostolic Letter condemning the slave trade)1839 by Pope Gregory XVI
“We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples”
More...
Pope Eugene IV in 1435- Against the Enslaving of Black Natives from the Canary Islands
They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery, sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them... We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands...who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.
It’s therefore condemned by Christ -You can chose not to believe it.
It serves no purpose for you to defend slavery. How does this belief glorify Christ who is love anyway? It does NOT!
Hey KC!!! Great to see you! Thank you ever so much for this splendid excerpt from Hayek, so directly on-point WRT this discussion.
Thank you!!!
“Where laws do not serve the interest of Justice, they are no laws at all, they are illegitimate usurpations of God-given liberties.”
Which illustrates precisely the cause for the virulent resistance we encounter when we praise the Judeo-Christian traditions supporting our founding documents as well as those documents themselves. What frightens our opposition is that they know they cannot compete either with our founding documents or the Judeo-Christian belief that is those documents’ foundation. It is the same fear that drove Thomas Paine to launch a virulent attack on the Holy Bible, which he absurdly entitled The Age of Reason, in the hopes that he could sway the American people, like the French, to turn against their republicanism and their religion. He failed . . . and died in disgrace, scorned by the very people he had sought to betray.
Oh, that all 0bamatrons should suffer the same fate.
I couldn’t resist the parallel applicability of Chapter Four to your article. (I know people get tired of me dredging it up, but it is one of the touchstones of conservative thought for me.)
I think it was you that first pushed me ten years ago to breakdown and read some Voegelin, Dumb_Ox pushed me to read Chesterton, Cornelis got me to subscribe to Modern Age and by the time a decade has gone by I am much more well read as opposed to well versed.
We can’t deal with Obama today without reference to how Burke saw the Committee on Public Safety. Until we understand Adams (Sam and John) we can’t understand Pelosi. Without seeing the weakness of Paine, we can’t see the threat of Ayers.
I want to vote and get others to vote. But eyes of our countrymen must be opened for good and that requires a visit to the 18th century for the noise and smoke of today to clear away.
Certainly if stfassisi is looking for a "perfect" form of government in this world prior to the Second Coming of Christ, he will only be disappointed.
The Framers' purposes and goals were far more modest than that. They were aware that human nature tends naturally to the sinful; the only remedy for this is to be perfected in Christ. But Christ is not a secular politician!
If a "secular" Christ shows up, we're probably looking at the Antichrist....
I too share in your earnest prayer for a Spiritual revival in America!
Thank you ever so much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!
THANKS THANKS.
FOR THE PINGS.
That's not reality,dear sister.All I'm saying is we have a perfect system for faith in morals through the Church.The constitution is not a replacement,not even close. Sadly, people and governments want to detach themselves from it,even members of the Church itself,including clergy etc.. do this.
The reality is that the American system is degrading each day along with the world,so my point is ,it was never holy and is flawed in the first place even though it's better than other governments.
We are to stand up for what's moral and right,even though we know this world is falling away. What wrong with that?
The way the Church teaches it is, but the Bible says otherwise (unfortunately).
Pope Eugene IV in 1435
Noble efforts by individuals, as I said earlier.
That does not mean that slavery is approved by God.
What does it mean?
It’s therefore condemned by Christ -You can chose not to believe it.
Not biblically it isn't. Sorry I don't believe the Pope speaks for Christ.
It serves no purpose for you to defend slavery
I don't defend slavery. The Bible does.
Evidently the letter kosta50 cites was a diplomatic communiqué to the Sultan of Tripoli in 1785. The United States was then engaged in suing for "peace" with this powerful Islamic ruler in order to get the Barbary Pirates off the backs of American shipping in the Mediterranean. The U.S. simply couldn't afford to pay the tribute necessary to prevent the seizure of American cargos, and the capture and enslavement of American seamen.
Kosta is never very particular about issues of "context." But it seems clear to me that a speech crafted to appeal to the sensibilities of an Asiatic autocrat is probably not the place to go to look for essential statements relative to John Adams' confession of conscience, or for clues as to what the DoI means.
David McCullough — Adams' great biographer — has said that, although Thomas Jefferson was the "pen" of the American Revolution (i.e., of the DoI), John Adams was its "voice." BTW, Adams was not a Hindu, nor a Buddhist, nor a Confucian, Mohammedan, Gaia worshipper, whatever. He was a Christian man, heart and soul.
Kosta's general M.O. is that of a rationalist. He has little use (it appears) for the empirical approach to understanding reality. An analogy might help clarify this point.
It's as if kosta were a butterfly hunter. He goes out there with his net, and captures the little critturs, then immediately takes 'em back to his workshop, and pins them down on display boards. Then he is free to go back anytime and admire these now-dead artifacts, and thinks that they can actually tell him something about butterflies....
An empiricist would say, however, you learn a heck of a lot more about butterflies by observing them in their natural context, in their actual environment, by watching their behavior WRT all the other constituents of natural reality operating within that context. THEN you can form an idea of "butterfly." All those dynamics are missing, of course, from any inspection of a dead artifact on a display board. But kosta does not seem to miss those dynamics! He doesn't think he needs to know anything about them to understand what a "butterfly" is.
In short, to kosta, words are just so many butterflies tacked down dead as doornails on a display board. CONTEXT does not matter at all.
Or so it seems to me. If kosta thinks my analysis here is unfair, he can instruct me as to why that is.
Thank you ever so much, dear YHAOS, for your absolutely marvelous essay/post!
SFA, we are all aware (I hope) that this is far form the truth. Not because of what the Church teaches, but what the Church practices.
The same thing is true of our government: based on noble principles, but stained in practice.
All this time, from post #36 to post #144, and you still haven’t tumbled to the fact that the quote at issue comes not from a letter, but from a 1797 treaty with Tripoli!
“. . . for a good reason such as being unable to find the source after looking for it yourself”
I had no need to find the source, since I’ve known for decades from whence it came, and that it was a favorite item of Atheists to spring on the unwary. I wanted to discover what you knew about the quote. Not very much apparently. I won’t accuse you of attempting a hoax since you didn’t even know it was from a treaty and not from a letter.
Now I direct you to the aforementioned #41 posted by Wallop the Cat, where he references the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797, Article 11, in response to betty boop’s (#39) request to you for the source of the Adams’ quote which you represented in #38 & #36 to be a letter wherein Adams had written that the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
Aside from what you thought to be a letter is, in fact, a passage from an obscure treaty, what’s wrong with this picture? You cite as a source a reference posted in Wallop the Cat’s post 41 supporting a passage you reference in posts #38 & #36!
Back to the Future is alive and well right here in FR.
Believe me, when you cite a passage from a treaty as a letter, you will be disbelieved. Now, really, where did you get the Adams’ passage?
At this point, my advice to you would be for you to stop digging.
As always ,I appreciate your views ,even if I disagree at times. You have always been kind
It's people who decide not to practice what the Church teaches regarding faith and morals.It's all there in dogmatic form for them to see,thus,it is people,not dogmatic Church teaching that make mistakes
EXCELLENT POINTS.
Dear brother in Christ, the Constitution was never designed to be a completed system, let alone a replacement for "faith in morals," through the Church or in any other way. It was designed to keep the State off the backs of people seeking to express their conscience, their expressions of faith protected against and unmolested by transient opinion.
The genius of the Framers was to recognize the profound peril of allowing the secular and the spiritual to become fused under a single STATE authority. They KNEW that man in civil society must render unto Caesar — that is above all the nature of things in human mortal existence — while at the same time God calls him "to render unto God what is God's." But that sort of thing must always escape the direct command of the secular state, at all times. That is why our founding documents place such a profound emphasis on the bases of human liberty — which can only be sought in God.
And so you blame God for human cupidity? For human backsliding?
Why do you think that is God's fault? Are you "mad at Him" for creating men free to chose evil?
If they can't choose evil, then neither can they choose the good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.