FaithLikeARock
Let the human mind loose.
Penmark, I'm not entirely certain you and Herbie aren't the same person.
That said, of course not, because the Bible is NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT. Go make your theocracy somewhere else.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Constitution's "Natural Born" riddle solved! Read the shocking truth here!
- Thread starter pennmark
- Start date
Penmark, I'm not entirely certain you and Herbie aren't the same person.
That said, of course not, because the Bible is NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT. Go make your theocracy somewhere else.
DaisyDay
I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
- Jan 7, 2003
- 42,546
- 20,386
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Unitarian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
The Constitution is a legal document.
More than that, pennmark is stating that man can't define natural - which would make the use of the word bizarre in a legal document.
Are you calling me foreign and alien?
Whoa, there HH. Are you accusing me of being anti-God simply because I say that man can know what is natural and what is man-made?
Hey, you're breaking board rules here.
Yes, Herbie, if man uses the word "natural" in a clause of a legal document, the foundation of our laws, then he better know what the word means.
Tell me, what is the possibility of distinguishing between natural and what is man-made if no one but God can say what "natural" means?
Upvote
0
If its possible for humans to know what is natural without help from God, then why does our definition of what is natural keep changing?
Upvote
0
Herbie is a great guy, but I don't agree with him on everything.
If we use the Bible to help us determine what "Natural Born" meant to the men who wrote the Constitution, that's not establishing a religion.
Upvote
0
We can choose to define something as being natural if we wish. But if that definition does not respect God's natural law, then it will not be truly natural, and the definition will fail us.
The problem with defining "natural born" as meaning "native born" is that it does not respect God's natural law concerning Fathers and children. Children are meant to be rewards from God to their Fathers, and that means the Father's nation must accept his children as being citizens.
The purpose of the Natural Born clause, so far as I can tell, is to provide the American people with a leader who is natural for them. If we don't respect God's Natural Law, we run the risk of electing Presidents who are not truly natural for us.
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
If its possible for humans to know what is natural without help from God, then why does our definition of what is natural keep changing?
Got any valid examples?
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
I'm seeing a definate "Tautology: See Circular Reasoning"/"Circular Reasoning: See Tautology" thing going on here.
I'm sure this idea works great in theocracies. Thankfully we are not one.
"Natural for them"? This doesn't make any sense.
Upvote
0
Our definition of what a "Natural Born Citizen" is keeps changing.
According to what I've read, 2008 was the first time America knowingly voted for a President whose father was not American. Chester Arthur's father was a British Subject, but he deliberately hid that fact from the American public before he was elected. Why did he feel he needed to hide it?
Upvote
0
The Bible doesn't outright define "Natural Born". In order for our definition of Natural Born to be truly natural, however, we need to respect God's natural law that children are God's reward to their Fathers.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
And nobody would care if it did -- the Bible is not the law of this or any other land.
Upvote
0
So it's not about Natural Born anymore, it's about the "Natural Law" whatever that means.
I guess America always has to abide by God's law. Funny in Germany Gay people have more rights than the U.S. and Germans elected a Christian Democrat as their leader. I guess in Germany they have a different interpretation of God's Law or are just less homophobic like the majority of Repubs.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
DianaUsmcWife
Newbie
- Jul 2, 2011
- 98
- 31
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I must say I do not agree much with the OP's opinion on natural born, or this absence of female influence. With my husband being in the Corps, I have a huge influence on my son.. I raise him to be a proud American, teach him of G-d's love and how to be a good man. Is that not good enough for my son to one day be President?
Upvote
0
RETS
Telling it like it is
- Nov 30, 2010
- 2,370
- 182
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
RE: OP -
Interesting. I don't agree on some points, but for the most part, I'd say it's decent.
I also have to express some disbelief at the sheer number of responses which attempted to discredit the idea based solely on gender bias... Adults, are we all???
Interestingly enough, a duel citizen cannot have the best interest of a single country in mind for the sole purpose that their allegiance is divided. That would be like... Oh, we'll use the outrageous illustration.
That would be like asking Bernie Madoff to faithfully oversee the growth of your personal retirement fund. He may surprise you, but it is highly doubtful.
Interesting. I don't agree on some points, but for the most part, I'd say it's decent.
I also have to express some disbelief at the sheer number of responses which attempted to discredit the idea based solely on gender bias... Adults, are we all???
Interestingly enough, a duel citizen cannot have the best interest of a single country in mind for the sole purpose that their allegiance is divided. That would be like... Oh, we'll use the outrageous illustration.
That would be like asking Bernie Madoff to faithfully oversee the growth of your personal retirement fund. He may surprise you, but it is highly doubtful.
Upvote
0
What if your Husband was not in the Corps? What if he were some foriegn prince, or some other alien with foriegn entanglements? What if he were the King of Saudi Arabia? Your son would still legally be American, but do you think he would be "natural born" and eligible to run for President?
Children, of course, belong to their Mothers. They will most likely live with their Mothers in their Mother's country. Men are different from women in that they can possibly scatter their seed all over the world. Children must be seen as naturally belonging to their Fathers, even if not legally, to keep Fathers accountable for their children, wherever in the world they may be.
Upvote
0
Yes.
lolz.
Sure, just realize that has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitutional requirements for the presidency. Fact is, Barack Sr. abandoned his son when he was 2, and met him again only once when the boy was 10. Saying that he "belonged" to his father is laughable given the circumstances, much less that it has any impact in our legal system.
Upvote
0
Maybe I was mistaken to believe that "Natural Born" was not a legal term. It is a legal term, but it's meaning is derived from Natural Law. It has a real meaning, and it's meaning cannot be changed by Human Law.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
