Did the Founding Fathers get anything Wrong?

[Hammster]

How are they "suppressing" the truth, specifically? To say that they deny Christ isn't a specific description or analysis about what and how they are doing this, so the statement you've made remains vague. Maybe if you were less vague they'd more likely be able to see the light?

I did post this:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
— Romans 1:18-19

 

[Hammster]

In just the way that Shiva applies to you.

No. Not the same.

 

[Bradskii]

No. Not the same.

Two deities in which I don't believe? One in which you don't? Sounds exactly the same.

 

[NxNW]

I know. The fact that it’s true is why it’s in print, though.

It's a belief, not a fact.

 

[wing2000]

...eh hem. THis is not a theology forum...

 

[Hammster]

Two deities in which I don't believe? One in which you don't? Sounds exactly the same.

No. One of the Deities is real. Thats a huge difference.

 

[Hammster]

It's a belief, not a fact.

It’s a fact that everyone should believe in.

and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’
— Acts 17:26-28

 

[Hammster]

...eh hem. THis is not a theology forum...

It is Christian Forums.

 

[durangodawood]

It is Christian Forums.

The mods seem to like it when we maintain the integrity of the various subforums, such as "American Politics".

(I'm not always completely innocent in this regard.)

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Alexander Hamilton was 21 when he signed the declaration of independence.

Yes, I'm aware of the ages of our founders at the time. I'm not implying those under 25 are "worthless" in their opinions. But they often live "too much in the moment". That last development of the brain is what helps humans to think about long term consequences of decisions. That is, there are fewer "hold muh beer" moments.

And there are also obviously exceptions to the rule, as Hamilton (and others in history) have demonstrated. And one proof is that they are remembered. So taking this into account, I'll compromise at age 21. But down to 18 is stupid, as we have learned. You may be old enough to serve in the military, being at a physical high point and easily mentally pliable, but it's not in anyone's best interest that you drink - or vote. I know what I'm talking about. I used to be 18. I know how my mind worked back then.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I did post this:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
— Romans 1:18-19

I knew you'd follow true to form and quote that particular set of "go to" verses. However, as I already said from my own academically laced angle, this all too brief statement by the Apostle Paul does not delineate in any stringent discourse the specific epistemology by which this spiritual "recognition" is suppressed. Of course, Paul goes on to lay out the scriptural echoes that make up the outline of how morality gradually falls in stages among human beings. But this doesn't explain the epistemological dynamics by which everyone---and I mean everyone---is going about "suppressing" the truth.

So while you and I can in some vague, general way assert with Paul that the world of non-Christians is suppressing God's truth(s), it is at this point that you Reformers rely too much on your exegesis and spiritual applications of the Reformers to qualify epistemology, especially where today's politics and spiritualized goals come into view and clash. Hence, it's also a reason I am not a Theonomist.

 

[Hammster]

The mods seem to like it when we maintain the integrity of the various subforums, such as "American Politics".

(I'm not always completely innocent in this regard.)

I’m defending my position which I stated early on. Everyone was free to ignore me and move on.

 

[Hammster]

I knew you'd follow true to form and quote that particular set of "go to" verses. However, as I already said from my own academically laced angle, this all too brief statement by the Apostle Paul does not delineate in any stringent discourse the specific epistemology by which this spiritual "recognition" is suppressed. Of course, Paul goes on to lay out the scriptural echoes that make up the outline of how morality gradually falls in stages among human beings. But this doesn't explain the epistemological dynamics by which everyone---and I mean everyone---is going about "suppressing" the truth.

So while you and I can in some vague, general way assert with Paul that the world of non-Christians is suppressing God's truth(s), it is at this point that you Reformers rely too much on your exegesis and spiritual applications of the Reformers to qualify epistemology, especially where today's politics and spiritualized goals come into view and clash. Hence, it's also a reason I am not a Theonomist.

Just because you deconstructed the text doesn’t mean I need to follow suit. I’ll stick with proper hermeneutics.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Rather than battle against Jesus Christ, name another thing the founding fathers got wrong. Your arguments are getting old and stale.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The Second Amendment (and the First, and probably several others) could have benefitted from a little more definition and clarity.

I'm not asserting I know what they meant, but there's enough argument about it that they could have nipped in the bud with a little effort.

 

[Hammster]

Rather than battle Jesus Christ, name another thing the founding fathers got wrong. Your arguments are getting old and stale.

Who are you talking to?

 

[durangodawood]

The Second Amendment (and the First, and probably several others) could have benefitted from a little more definition and clarity.

I'm not asserting I know what they meant, but there's enough argument about it that they could have nipped in the bud with a little effort.

Totally. What a wreck the 2A is, just in terms of comprehensibility.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Who are you talking to?

How many angles are posters going to try and use against your point? It's funny to me that out of a million possibilities that the Founding Fathers could have gotten wrong, it's become *your* argument for Christianity that's become the entirety of the subject.

I don't know what's going on here, but it's weird.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Totally. What a wreck the 2A is, just in terms of comprehensibility.

Thank you for the variety.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I’m defending my position which I stated early on. Everyone was free to ignore me and move on.

That's exactly it. Why were your posts deemed so controversial? Makes no sense.