My U.S. Constitution Challenge

[Nathan Poe]

If the U.S. Constitution consisted of the 1611 King James Bible only --- and said Constitution was interpreted the way most Atheists on this forum interpret the Bible --- what would be different?

I propose the following:

1. Slavery would be the norm --- since most Atheists here interpret the Bible as supporting slavery.
2. The stoning of children for disobedience to parents --- same reason as #1 above.
3. Saturday as the Lord's Day --- since Dispensation Theology is either ignored or not understood.
4. Genocide of our enemies --- same reason as #3 above.

Can anyone think of anything else?

I think you're forgetting that unlike the Bible, the authors of the Constitution never attempted to pass themsleves off as infallible, and as such, designed it so that it could have its mistakes corrected, not Idolized.

Since the Bible (KJ1611 or any other) has no such failsafe, it's a poor substitute for the Constitution, and any society using it as the sole source of Law is doomed to ruin.

 

[thaumaturgy]

OK, so seems like AV is leveraging the whole "Dispensationalism" thing as an analogue for "reinterpreting the constitution".

Now the key point for the Bible side under contention seems to be "Do the Old Testament Laws" hold today? Clearly under the Dispensationalist ideal (promulgated in the 19th century, but some find roots as far back as Augustine in the 5th century), it appears that we are in the age of "Grace".

Like in any reinterpretation of the Constitution, let's look at the "case law":

In Matthew Jesus says:

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And in Luke Jesus says:

16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

So Jesus claims to have come in fulfillment of the Law but also seems to be preaching an eschatology in keeping with Luke 21:32 "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.", and Matthew 24:34 "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."


Now, if the Jesus eschatologies had come to pass then surely the "age of Grace" would be short and, indeed, Jesus "filfilled the Law" and the earth passed away (depending on how one interprets "passing away").


As a rubric for "reinterpretting" and getting an "out" from the strictest parts of the Old Testament Laws it would seem to me that the Age of Grace would have been somewhat "short", rather as a "fulfillment" rather than among the longest of any of the ages (before the Millenium).


As Nathan points out, the Constitution never claims inerrancy and has built into it the opportunities to re-craft it as needed. It can be a living document. The Bible, however, seems somewhat less clear on the requirements needed to whole-sale change the rules. I think this underlies the earliest issues within Christianity as it split away from Judaism. Was it an heretical sect intent on divorcing itself from Judaism in a Marcionite-type divorce? Or was it to be an Ebionite-type religion adhering to the previously established rules?


The only real problem in this discussion, unlike the matters related to reinterpretation of the Constitution is, on the Bible it hardly seems that it should be "up for a vote" among humans. Seems that inerrant truth should be crystal clear and leave no question.


Obviously I still have questions, even after reading it. It appears to me that I am not alone. I used to think Jesus taught that the laws were still in effect, but clearly the passages cited above can be interpretted as supporting a post-Law period upon Jesus' Fufillment of the Law. But my question remains: why are we still here in a sin-drenched world that bears many of the same hallmarks of the world before fulfillment? Has the old earth passed away? Doesn't look like it. What does it mean to "fulfill" the Law?

But more importantly if the Old Testament Laws are, indeed, fulfilled, and we are currently under Grace, do the 10 Commandments still hold effect? What about some of the other Old Testament Laws? People were not suffering witches to live as long as 1600 years after Jesus "fulfilled" the Law. Homosexuals, while not being put to death these days, they are hardly "accepted" and embraced by many of the most pious among some Christians.

It strikes me that some people would rather use the Old Testament as a "buffet" of laws from which they can pick and choose, avoiding the unpleasant ones using the "Fulfillment" clause, while cleaving to the ones that they "like" as suits them. This is a flawed way to reinterpret any constitution, I should think.

 

[tanzanos]

That's a good one --- I'll agree with that.I'm not so sure on this one. I do know that some say (as do I) that the Tower of Babel incident partly occurred because of technology advancing too fast --- thus God intervened and arrested it.Probably --- since God gifts us scientists --- and we have a penchant for placing them in the trash can before they get here --- I would expect a decrease in technological and commercial advantages. However, my OP has the atheists ruling, with the Bible as the constitution --- and since the atheists here believe that the commandment THOU SHALT NOT KILL does not mean THOU SHALT NOT MURDER, as Jesus interpreted it, then I would assume that under their interpretation, it would be illegal to step on an ant.
Here I disagree. I think atheists could handle justice just fine --- but mercy and grace? Well --- don't hold your breath.

WARNING! OVERLOAD! CRITICAL MASS ACHIEVED! Kerrrrboooommmm!!!!!!!

Was that my mind blowing?

 

[Nathan Poe]

What AV is forgetting/ignoring/denying -- as usual -- is that Atheists don't worship the Bible; only select hristians do. So all the things proposed in his OP would be practiced/enforced/foisted on the rest of us by Christians, not Atheists.

 

[AV1611VET]

So all the things proposed in his OP would be practiced/enforced/foisted on the rest of us by Christians, not Atheists.

Christians interpreting the Constitution like Atheists interpreting the Bible.

If the U.S. Constitution consisted of the 1611 King James Bible only --- and said Constitution was interpreted the way most Atheists on this forum interpret the Bible --- what would be different?

So it wouldn't matter what party was in power --- the Christians or the Atheists --- they interpret the AV1611 Constitution the same way.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Christians interpreting the Constitution like Atheists interpreting the Bible.

True or false, AV --

1. The Bible can be edited and Amended by the people as they see necessary.
2. The Constitution is a magically infallible document.
3. Atheists want the rest of the world to live their lives according to their interpretation of the Bible.

So it wouldn't matter what party was in power --- the Christians or the Atheists --- they interpret the AV1611 Constitution the same way.

Interpreted by Christians, you mean? Well then I'd agree on one point -- they'd bungle the interpretation as badly as they currently bungle the Bible.

Just because you worship the magic book doesn't mean you understand it -- in fact, the opposite often holds true, due to the dogmatic prohibition from questioning it.

 

[tcampen]

If the U.S. Constitution consisted of the 1611 King James Bible only --- and said Constitution was interpreted the way most Atheists on this forum interpret the Bible --- what would be different?

I propose the following:

1. Slavery would be the norm --- since most Atheists here interpret the Bible as supporting slavery.
2. The stoning of children for disobedience to parents --- same reason as #1 above.
3. Saturday as the Lord's Day --- since Dispensation Theology is either ignored or not understood.
4. Genocide of our enemies --- same reason as #3 above.

Can anyone think of anything else?

This hypothetical is internally inconsistent as Atheists would never have a Constitution consisting of the Bible to begin with, thus the so called consequences could never happen to begin with.

It's like asking what would Christians today believe about Jesus if their only bible that ever existed was the Vedas? Well....gee...I guess they wouldn't really be Christians in the first place, now would they?

See what I mean. Your question is incoherent.

 

[gaara4158]

Christians interpreting the Constitution like Atheists interpreting the Bible.So it wouldn't matter what party was in power --- the Christians or the Atheists --- they interpret the AV1611 Constitution the same way.

Are you just going to yak, or are you going to address my points?

 

[thaumaturgy]

A quiz! And just a couple days before the holiday break! Leave it to a teacher! Sheesh.

OK.

True or false, AV --

1. The Bible can be edited and Amended by the people as they see necessary.

That's an interesting topic! What is the sum total of the Word of God? Who decides? Did God decide? If so, how did it come to us, mere humans? Looks like it came to us through a series of various discussions around "canonicity" (apparently conducted by humans!)

• Comparison of the Canon List of the Old Testament (LINK)
• List of Disputed Books in the O.T. and which catalogues they appear in up to the 8th century (LINK)
• The Gospel of Peter (LINK, LINK2)

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.


The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.
...
Nonetheless, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for British Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.
(SOURCE)

The Gospel of Peter is equally interesting. Initially it was accepted as canonical by at least one early Christian church, even Serapion "allowed it" (before having read it apparently -cf "Lost Christianities" by Ehrman). Later when he read it he found in it, if I recall, teachings that might lead some to docetic thought and removed his "OK" to use it. Regardless of how "canonical" or not a book is, the Bible is made up of many of this type of story. Books of unknown and questionable authorship and message are reviewed by humans and established as canonical or non-canonical. To my knowledge there is no way to establish some supernatural development to the Bible's canon.

1. The Constitution is a magically infallible document.

Good lord, man, didn't you see National Treasure? It's not only magical but it's a TREASURE MAP TOO! (or one of them documents is, maybe that's The Declaration of Independence...sorry, 'Merican History isn't my specialty).

1. Atheists want the rest of the world to live their lives according to their interpretation of the Bible.

Yes! As an atheist I pray to Darwin daily that we can install an atheist Theocracy in this country and enforce only our most poorly reasoned interpretations of the Old Testament Laws. Only the really brutal ones! The ones that are irrevocable and require stoning (hey, I'm a geologist...I like stones...so sue me?)

Some day this dream will come true, by the will of Darwin and his only begotten Son Dawkins (and the holy Spirits Harris and Hitchens).

-Selah!-

Interpreted by Christians, you mean? Well then I'd agree on one point -- they'd bungle the interpretation as badly as they currently bungle the Bible.

Bungle the Bible? Sounds like the world's worst "Christian X-Box game".

 

[thaumaturgy]

It's like asking what would Christians today believe about Jesus if their only bible that ever existed was the Vedas? Well....gee...I guess they wouldn't really be Christians in the first place, now would they?

No, no no, man! The real difference would be Jesus was blue and had six arms! (Just think how interesting crucifixes on church walls would be then!)

(Man this theology stuff is wicked easy!)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Are you just going to yak, or are you going to address my points?

A bucket of blessings says he's just going to yak.

 

[AV1611VET]

See what I mean. Your question is incoherent.

Why --- all of a sudden --- is my question "incoherent"?

You "Bible experts" are constantly telling us how It should be interpreted - (not to mention my particular denomination).

Now, all of a sudden, when I turn It into the U.S. Constitution, you all start babbling like a baby that needs burped.

Like I say --- you guys are a laugh-a-minute.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes, your question is incoherent.

We don't want the Bible as any ruling document at all (let alone constitution) because of a literal interpretation.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't want the Bible as any ruling document at all (let alone constitution) because of a literal interpretation.

I don't recall asking you if you wanted It.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would have thought one of you brilliant scholars would have gotten on here by now and said something to the effect of:

• Even though we know the earth is round, it would be against the law to refer to it as anything but flat.

 

[gaara4158]

Nathan Poe, looks like i owe you a bucket of blessings :faceslap:

 

[gaara4158]

AV -- I'm going to be very clear so I don't have to repeat myself.

1. Your proposal is indeed preposterous and incoherent because of the fact that the Bible and the Constitution simply aren't the same type of document. You can't use a cookbook as a phone book, and you can't use the Bible as a law book.

2. Even if, magically, the laws outlined in the Constitution were replaced by those in the Bible, we wouldn't strive to find an acceptable interpretation for said laws. If we had a problem with any of them, we'd edit them out through due process. In the end, it is very likely that we'd end up with the very same constitution we have now.

3. In the very unfortunate case that we were unable to change these laws, we would be reduced to a third-world country, as someone said, on par with Afghanistan and Pakistan. There would likely be a revolution, or else another superpower would simply eat us, and we'd become a part of their country.

I see what you're trying to do, AV. Get us to try to interpret the Bible and its despicable laws in a more positive, acceptable light, but that's not what we do. We don't idolize any scripture; if we spot a flaw in something, we point it out and work to get it fixed. We don't cover our eyes and rationalize. You shouldn't either.

 

[AV1611VET]

... or else another superpower would simply eat us, and we'd become a part of their country.

Oh wow --- even though I made it clear ---

I propose the following:

4. Genocide of our enemies --- same reason as #3 above.​

You're really struggling with this, aren't you, Gaara?

-----

And here's another one for you guys that I thought would have lined up to show us your brillance:

• Remember kids --- no Christmas trees allowed --- (Jeremiah 10:1-5).

 

[gaara4158]

I propose the following:

4. Genocide of our enemies --- same reason as #3 above.​

As a third-world country, we would lack the organization, resources, and allies to so much as communicate with our enemies. Russia would eat us alive, let us die in its stomach acid, spit us back out, feed us to Japan, which in turn would swallow us whole and excrete us out under a tree for Afghanistan to destroy.

The only thing I'm struggling with, AV, is the poor quality of the air down here on the basement level where your thoughts seem to take place. Why don't we go upstairs for once?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why --- all of a sudden --- is my question "incoherent"?

Because it makes no sense.

You "Bible experts" are constantly telling us how It should be interpreted - (not to mention my particular denomination).

Yep -- and surprise, surprise, it's actually not God's own dictation having floated down from Heaven on a golden plate.

Now, all of a sudden, when I turn It into the U.S. Constitution, you all start babbling like a baby that needs burped.

Like I say --- you guys are a laugh-a-minute.

Indeed -- all you did was mistake the Bible for the Constitution.

Sorry AV -- we've got too many real fundies trying to pull that schtick. You're not even all that original.

You seem to see a similarity between your magic book and the US Constitution that nobody else sees -- causing you to think they can be used interchangably to prove some sort of alleged point.

But, I'll humor you -- assuming you have an actual point, what is it?