Mixing Politics and Religion...on Purpose
Forum category
Our illustrious and highly esteemed king, President Barack Hussein Obama, has in time past and continues to the present to regard the Constitution of the United States of America as merely a list of restrictions on government. Therefore, so much of the Constitution does not work for the people because of the limitations it places on government. Still his Eminency, through a form of post-modern receptor oriented textual criticism, has managed as Senator Obama to locate the right to murder an unborn child in the 14th Amendment which ensures a U.S. citizen’s right to her property [one’s body being one’s property: . Even further our president and his attorney general have found that the Constitution supports Universal Healthcare under the governments responsibility to “promote the general welfare” as found in the preamble of the Constitution.
Now those of you who tend to be liberal politically, the points to follow will hardly resonate with you, but for those of you who maintain a more conservative political bent and perhaps call yourselves part of the Tea Party, these assaults on the U.S. Constitution seem unconscionable.
So who is right? Does the Constitution defend the unborn or does it defend the right to murder the unborn? From this point most launch into rhetoric on interpretation or perhaps a discussion on the nature of the Constitution and its authors. I intend to do neither. Rather let us consider the motivation of present parties. When engaging a pro-abortion individual the question is not about what they do but why they do it. What is the motivation behind such abuse of our nation’s founding document? The words of the U.S. Constitution are important to U.S. citizens because our lives, families, and religion are protected or at risk through these words. Anyone who says that the Constitution allows for the murder of babies is strongly resisted in thought and word. Why? Because murder of the innocent is a terrible injustice.
Now to the point, the U.S. Constitution [c. 1776: and the present day King James Bible [c. 1769: both use old language, but for some reason we need a new Bible and not a new Constitution. In fact we are so bent on a new Bible that there are hundreds of versions of it. So why don’t we be intellectually consistent and have hundreds of versions of the U.S. Constitution, and probably one that allows for the murder of babies? But that would bring our nation to ruin, you say. Oh, and doing the same thing to the Bible hasn’t brought our churches to ruin? Can’t you just see it, hundreds of versions of the Constitutions leading our nation and hundreds of versions of the Bible leading our churches. Wait, we already have half of that ridiculous scenario. You say, “No one can change the Constitution unless the states [millions of people: ratify it.”, but five scholars in a room can make the call as to what words in the Bible are God’s words and the vast majority of the Church’s leaders are happy to jump on the band wagon. In conclusion, so many in the Church have seen fit to give more respect and care to man’s flawed law [U.S. Constitution: than to God’s law [the King James Bible: .
The purpose of this post is to sharpen the iron of my brothers and sisters who have given more respect to man’s law than God’s law, by challenging them to be intellectually consistent. Either allow for changes in the Constitution by a select few [Obama&Holder: as you do with the Bible or stand against changes in the Bible by a select few as you do with the U.S. Constitution.
Now those of you who tend to be liberal politically, the points to follow will hardly resonate with you, but for those of you who maintain a more conservative political bent and perhaps call yourselves part of the Tea Party, these assaults on the U.S. Constitution seem unconscionable.
So who is right? Does the Constitution defend the unborn or does it defend the right to murder the unborn? From this point most launch into rhetoric on interpretation or perhaps a discussion on the nature of the Constitution and its authors. I intend to do neither. Rather let us consider the motivation of present parties. When engaging a pro-abortion individual the question is not about what they do but why they do it. What is the motivation behind such abuse of our nation’s founding document? The words of the U.S. Constitution are important to U.S. citizens because our lives, families, and religion are protected or at risk through these words. Anyone who says that the Constitution allows for the murder of babies is strongly resisted in thought and word. Why? Because murder of the innocent is a terrible injustice.
Now to the point, the U.S. Constitution [c. 1776: and the present day King James Bible [c. 1769: both use old language, but for some reason we need a new Bible and not a new Constitution. In fact we are so bent on a new Bible that there are hundreds of versions of it. So why don’t we be intellectually consistent and have hundreds of versions of the U.S. Constitution, and probably one that allows for the murder of babies? But that would bring our nation to ruin, you say. Oh, and doing the same thing to the Bible hasn’t brought our churches to ruin? Can’t you just see it, hundreds of versions of the Constitutions leading our nation and hundreds of versions of the Bible leading our churches. Wait, we already have half of that ridiculous scenario. You say, “No one can change the Constitution unless the states [millions of people: ratify it.”, but five scholars in a room can make the call as to what words in the Bible are God’s words and the vast majority of the Church’s leaders are happy to jump on the band wagon. In conclusion, so many in the Church have seen fit to give more respect and care to man’s flawed law [U.S. Constitution: than to God’s law [the King James Bible: .
The purpose of this post is to sharpen the iron of my brothers and sisters who have given more respect to man’s law than God’s law, by challenging them to be intellectually consistent. Either allow for changes in the Constitution by a select few [Obama&Holder: as you do with the Bible or stand against changes in the Bible by a select few as you do with the U.S. Constitution.
- 1 view
Peter, This is an interesting subject you bring up, The constitution is supposed to be the foundation of this country and yet Americans for the most part are completely ignorant of it. Our government seems to be able to circumvent the constitution without any real opposition and those that do speak out are labeled as extremists .
Our constitution is but a document made by men, made up of words that greatly helped this nation but still a document produced by men.
In the realm of Christianity , Gods word has been under attack since the garden, and as scholars have increased their ability , knowledge and opinions we are subjected to the fruit of their labors. To imply that God is not supportive of mainstream christian scholarship is to call into question all their labor.
And to call into question their labor is just cause to label you an extremist, and as an extremist yours is but a small group.
We live in a world where pseudo intellectual scholars, with hundreds of books, programs and opinions at their fingertips can offer an opinion on a multitude of subjects in short time . There is no limit for those who are well skilled with a keyboard and a program . But where is God in all this ?
The constitution doesn’t need revision as it is the work of men, and the average American doesn’t care about its content, But the bible?
It seems the bible must be revised , translated, and updated to the point men no longer have faith in it, many have faith in the message but the words itself are not so important, how can they be important if they are constantly revised , updated, translated, to the point of confusion for the average christian?
By their fruit ye shall know them . No need to argue, debate, across America the constitution is ignored . Revision isn’t necessary .
Across America we see the fruit of of the multitude of revisions , updates, and modern translations, Its hard to call it a holy bible when it is so imperfect according to many.
The constitution is safe , the word of God never has been since the garden
Our constitution is but a document made by men, made up of words that greatly helped this nation but still a document produced by men.
In the realm of Christianity , Gods word has been under attack since the garden, and as scholars have increased their ability , knowledge and opinions we are subjected to the fruit of their labors. To imply that God is not supportive of mainstream christian scholarship is to call into question all their labor.
And to call into question their labor is just cause to label you an extremist, and as an extremist yours is but a small group.
We live in a world where pseudo intellectual scholars, with hundreds of books, programs and opinions at their fingertips can offer an opinion on a multitude of subjects in short time . There is no limit for those who are well skilled with a keyboard and a program . But where is God in all this ?
The constitution doesn’t need revision as it is the work of men, and the average American doesn’t care about its content, But the bible?
It seems the bible must be revised , translated, and updated to the point men no longer have faith in it, many have faith in the message but the words itself are not so important, how can they be important if they are constantly revised , updated, translated, to the point of confusion for the average christian?
By their fruit ye shall know them . No need to argue, debate, across America the constitution is ignored . Revision isn’t necessary .
Across America we see the fruit of of the multitude of revisions , updates, and modern translations, Its hard to call it a holy bible when it is so imperfect according to many.
The constitution is safe , the word of God never has been since the garden
Tjhall
Peter,
A long way from IBC.
I think you are arguing apples and oranges here. The Bible is a translation from a several foreign languages; the Constitution was written originally in English. The Bible is a compilation of some 40 authors comprising 66 books; the Constitution is barely more than a couple of pages long. The Bible originated in its parts in multiple cultures which all must be studied to aid understanding in today’s receptor culture; the Constitution was written by Americans, for Americans.
My point is that clarity is an issue in biblical study; clarity is not an issue with the Constitution. Instead, the issue with the Constitution resides a step latter in the application; a point no one is arguing when discussing Bible translations.
A long way from IBC.
I think you are arguing apples and oranges here. The Bible is a translation from a several foreign languages; the Constitution was written originally in English. The Bible is a compilation of some 40 authors comprising 66 books; the Constitution is barely more than a couple of pages long. The Bible originated in its parts in multiple cultures which all must be studied to aid understanding in today’s receptor culture; the Constitution was written by Americans, for Americans.
My point is that clarity is an issue in biblical study; clarity is not an issue with the Constitution. Instead, the issue with the Constitution resides a step latter in the application; a point no one is arguing when discussing Bible translations.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Thank you for your post Brother Van Emmerik. While apples and oranges do not agree with regard to accidents; they do according to certain essential properties e.g. they both participate in the what-ness of fruit. It is within this sphere of essential and accidental properties that I proposed the above question. So then Scripture and the Constitution both participate in document-ness i.e. written proposition-ness. The only accidents under consideration are the respective authority and perfection i.e. completeness of each document. In short the accidents you have proposed are outside the scope of the present discussion, and I would be delighted to deal with them on another occasion, so long as our Lord does not return between now and then. :)
–––-
Thank you for your post Brother Hall. The purpose of your post in unclear, still there are certain portions of the post that are questionable. I believe most would agree with me that the Constitution is more than just a “great help” to our nation, rather it is the foundation of our nation.
With regard to the Standard Sacred Text position as being extreme or held by extremists, in your fourth “paragraph” you chose to make a logical connection between a small group and extremism. The one does not necessitate the other or else a family or a small church would be considered extreme under that reasoning.
Furthermore, the Standard Sacred Text position can be observed throughout the history of the Church in exegetes and theologians such as Augustine, Musculus, Andrew Willet, William Whitaker, the Westminster Divines, and most notably in Francis Turretin who wrote the standard Systematic Theology for the academic community which remained with the Church through the mid-19th century. There are even those in the recent past and present that have maintained this same historic position. Men like, Dr. Black from Southeastern Theological Seminary who in a conference I attended, defended the findings of Burgon. There are more, Dr. David O. Fuller [ a Princeton grad] , Dr. Edward F. Hills [ a Harvard grad] , and Dr. Theodore Letis [a University of Edinburgh grad]. Then there is the P.J. Zondervan Professor of Historical Theology - Dr. Richard Muller who maintains in his Post -Reformed Reformed Dogmatics the certainty and authority of the Standard Sacred Text. Then there is Dr. Richard Gaffin Jr. who taught Theology at Westminster (East) and espoused the synecdoche of Holy Scripture, which flies in the face of Modern Scientific Textual Criticism.
These are only the ones in my experience. There are hundreds of others and hundreds of thousands of pages that maintain a similar position but remain inaccessible to most because these writings are in Latin. I say all of this to say that the Standard Sacred Text position is by no means small or extreme. Old and time-tested, yes, but not extreme. Any position has its extremists, and I do not count myself among them. Things like double-inspiration and “people can only be saved out the KJB” I reject. Still, the presence of extremists in the Standard Sacred Text discussion does not make the Standard Sacred Text position extreme.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
The purpose of this post is to sharpen the iron of my brothers and sisters who have given more respect to man’s law than God’s law, by challenging them to be intellectually consistent. Either allow for changes in the Constitution by a select few [Obama&Holder] as you do with the Bible or stand against changes in the Bible by a select few as you do with the U.S. Constitution.This would be a more interesting question if either side of the analogy were actually happening.
a. Obama & Holder have not changed the Constitution. (They have taken some steps whose constitutionality is debatable but that’s not the same thing. It still says what it has always said.)
b. The word of God is not changed either (it is forever settled in heaven and human beings do not have the power to change it)
But if “change” means “make mistakes in the process of copying,” this has gone on for thousands of years and the work of comparing copies to discern the most likely correct reading is good honest work.
So even if either half of the analogy was happening, it doesn’t resemble either the “changes” that have happened in copying or the “changes” that have happened in correcting.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Brother Blumer you have failed to grasp the argument.
I ask you to be intellectually honest and “allow for changes in the Constitution” because it is old and arcaic in language and form as well as content because you find such revisions suitable for God’s Holy Word. You demand verbage and content revision of the 1769 KJB but you will not allow liberal radicals to make some changes to 1776 document called the U.S. Constitution. That is intellectually dishonest, to allow for God’s words to be changed based on the changing of a culture and society but not the words of men.
I ask you to be intellectually honest and “allow for changes in the Constitution” because it is old and arcaic in language and form as well as content because you find such revisions suitable for God’s Holy Word. You demand verbage and content revision of the 1769 KJB but you will not allow liberal radicals to make some changes to 1776 document called the U.S. Constitution. That is intellectually dishonest, to allow for God’s words to be changed based on the changing of a culture and society but not the words of men.
Ontology Precedes Epistemology.
StandardSacredText.com
[Peter Van Kleeck Jr.] I ask you to be intellectually honest and “allow for changes in the Constitution” because it is old and arcaic in language and form as well as content because you find such revisions suitable for God’s Holy Word.No, I grasped the argument just fine. It fails because it’s an argument by analogy and neither side of the analogy is actually true.
1. Nobody is saying the Constitution needs to be reworded because the language is archaic.
2. Nobody is saying we need to revise the word of God.
[Peter] You demand verbage and content revision of the 1769 KJB but you will not allow liberal radicals to make some changes to 1776 document called the U.S. Constitution. That is intellectually dishonest, to allow for God’s words to be changed based on the changing of a culture and society but not the words of men.This above is a bit better, but the argument still fails because…
a. Nobody is saying the Constitution may not be changed (by the fully legal amendment process)
b. The Constitution is a not a document that was actually written in a different language and needs to be translated.
c. The Constitution is not in language from 400 years ago.
d. Nobody is saying that the Constitution will never need to be reworded/translated eventually due to changes in the English language.
e. I’ve never cared what anyone does with the 1769 KJB, though I do believe there are many benefits to new translation from the Hebrew and Greek.
Argument by analogy requires two things to be sound:
- The alleged similarities must actually be similar
- The statements of similarity must actually be true
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The other problem with PVK’s analogy is that we DO have a few copies of the original Constitution. We don’t have the inspired originals for the Bible.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Discussion