Same-sex couples begin marrying

That all clears up nothing....there is nothing in the commandments that is morally improper....nothing, even by todays standards.
The Bible is a history book....I don't think its immoral, its telling us, in their way, what life was like thousands of years ago. Life was savage then and in many ways
life is savage today too....the use of 'god' was their way of explaining things they didn't understand.

"The pagan civilizations of Bible times worshiped many gods. They had male and female deities, high and low gods, assemblies of gods, priests and priestesses, and temples and sacrifices. All the forces of nature that could not be controlled or understood were considered supernatural powers to be worshiped and feared. Most of the people of the ancient world worshiped more than one god. These gods were worshiped in the form of representative idols. This practice is called idolatry. The pagan nations made statues or images to represent the powers which they worshiped. Most of these idols were in the form of animals or men. Each civilization and culture had its own mythological structure, but these structures were often quite similar. The names of the gods may have been different, but their functions and actions were often the same. The most prominent myth to cross cultural lines was that of the fertility cycle.

I guess you thought pagans didn't worship any gods...but thats not the way it was....and those 'pagan gods' had very much to do with their development of what you call common law....
you're the one that is dense.......

How do you know Jefferson was referring to the pagans that inhabited the British Islands or Western Europe and laws were common to all cultures a thousand years before Jefferson....
Common law existed before Christ, in every culture....and evolved and spread and was adapted and changed according to the cultures....including Christians, and probably American Indians before they crossed into this continent from the far east....
wtf did Jefferson know of pagans that was anything special....his knowledge of ancient pagans was certainly no greater than ours is today....pagans had their gods and developed common law, along with every culture worldwide and the laws had many common themes, murder, etc.
get the picture.....gods and common law....go together like bread and butter.
American Indians have everything to do with this discussion....they too had a common law, quite apart from Christianity and different than the pagans of Biblical times....

It's clear who Jefferson was referring to because he explained it. Common law refers to case law, not laws common to different cultures, which is also made clear by the full context.

You are just too fucking stupid to continue the discussion and apparently don't have the attention span to comprehend a full paragraph. Instead you seem to read as if you are skimming and focus in on "pagan" and "common" without understanding the references. The fact that pagans may have worshipped many Gods has no relevance to anything.

Maybe when you sober up you will become a little more coherent, but I doubt it.
 
It's clear who Jefferson was referring to because he explained it. Common law refers to case law, not laws common to different cultures, which is also made clear by the full context.

You are just too fucking stupid to continue the discussion and apparently don't have the attention span to comprehend a full paragraph. Instead you seem to read as if you are skimming and focus in on "pagan" and "common" without understanding the references. The fact that pagans may have worshipped many Gods has no relevance to anything.

Maybe when you sober up you will become a little more coherent, but I doubt it.

You grabbed my rough draft I posted by accident....try the revised edition

How do you know Jefferson was referring to the pagans that inhabited the British Islands or Western Europe? Laws were common to all cultures a thousand years before Jefferson....he was most likely referring to the common laws of England in his letters... laws influenced by Christian culture.

You call it case law....what ever...England was Christian, English common law HAD TO BE influenced by that ...there is no way around that....


and it was YOU that brought up the pagan and common law bs 40 posts ago....
 
Last edited:
You grabbed my rough draft I posted by accident....try the revised edition

How do you know Jefferson was referring to the pagans that inhabited the British Islands or Western Europe? Laws were common to all cultures a thousand years before Jefferson....he was most likely referring to the common laws of England in his letters... laws influenced by Christian culture.

You call it case law....what ever...England was Christian, English common law HAD TO BE influenced by that ...there is no way around that....


and it was YOU that brought up the pagan and common law bs 40 posts ago....

Read what he wrote. All of it.

England was not Christian, had not even heard of Christ when the common law first developed. Cartwright, whom Jefferson was writing, had come to the same conclusion. Again, common law does not refer to the idea that laws are common to all cultures.

I quoted Jefferson 40 posts ago and yes I brought it up. I did not bring up Native Americans, that pagans had no Gods or any of the other confused nonsense you have been spewing.
 
Read what he wrote. All of it.

England was not Christian, had not even heard of Christ when the common law first developed.

Incorrect. Try again.

The term "common law" originally derives from the 1150s and 1160s, when Henry II of England established the secularity|secular English tribuna]s. The "common law" was the law that emerged as "common" throughout the realm (as distinct from the various legal codes that preceded it, such as Mercian law, the Danelaw and the law of Wessex)[45] as the king's judges followed each other's decisions to create a unified common law throughout England. The doctrine of precedent developed during the 12th and 13th centuries,[46] as the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent.[47]

The form of reasoning used in common law is known as casuistry or case-based reasoning. The common law, as applied in civil cases (as distinct from criminal cases), was devised as a means of compensating someone for wrongful acts known as torts, including both intentional torts and torts caused by negligence, and as developing the body of law recognizing and regulating contracts. The type of procedure practiced in common law courts is known as the adversarial system; this is also a development of the common law.

[edit] Medieval English common lawSee also: English law
In the late 800s, Alfred the Great assembled the Doom book (not to be confused with the more-famous Domesday Book from 200 years later), which collected the existing laws of Kent, Wessex, and Mercia, and attempted to blend in the Mosaic code, Christian principles, and Germanic customs dating as far as the fifth century.[48]

Before the Norman conquest in 1066, justice was administered primarily by what is today known as the county courts (the modern "counties" were referred to as "Shires" in pre-Norman times), presided by the diocesan bishop and the sheriff, exercising both ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction.[49] Trial by jury began in these courts.[49][citation needed]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law



Christianity in Roman Britain

The first evidence of Christianity in England is from the late 2nd century AD. (There may have been Christians in Britain before then, we cannot be sure). Roman Britain was a cosmopolitan place. Merchants from all over the empire settled there and soldiers from many countries served there so we will never know who first introduced Christianity to England.

At that time England and Wales were ruled by the Romans. The native people were Celts. They were polytheists (they worshipped many gods). The Romans too were polytheists and they were willing to allow the Celts to worship their old gods.

However the Romans were not tolerant of Christianity. At times waves of persecution crossed the empire. St Alban the first British Christian martyr was executed in a town called Verulamium in 304 AD. Much later an abbey was built there dedicated to St Alban and it gave its name to the town of St Albans.

In 313 the Emperor Constantine granted Christians freedom of worship. So persecution ended and during the 4th century Christianity became widespread in England.


http://www.localhistories.org/christian.html
 
I don't doubt it. So a serious question then.
If it felt grand, why did you stop?
The same reasons it ended with any of the girls, until I met my wife I was never interested in a LTR with anyone who was interested in one back.

Ive always been much more interested in women, but on a couple of occasions I met men who were attractive. It's as simple as that.
 
I am incorrect about nothing. You can take it up with Jefferson. The point is that our most influential founders intended to create a secular government and seperate church and state.

Your point is eroded when it is built on faulty facts. Christianity existed in England well before Common Law was in any way codified.
 
Your point is eroded when it is built on faulty facts. Christianity existed in England well before Common Law was in any way codified.

Common law is not codified. It is case law.

You are arguing a point made by Jefferson. My point was to illustrate his perspective as an influential founder, their ideas on the Ten Commandments as foundational to our own laws and their desire to create a secular state. Whether or not Jefferson was right or wrong and your attempt to counter him is debatable, but not actually relevant to my point.

But, thank you for an intelligible response as opposed to the addled ramblings of Nova.
 
Common law is not codified. It is case law.

You are arguing a point made by Jefferson. My point was to illustrate his perspective as an influential founder, their ideas on the Ten Commandments as foundational to our own laws and their desire to create a secular state. Whether or not Jefferson was right or wrong and your attempt to counter him is debatable, but not actually relevant to my point.

But, thank you for an intelligible response as opposed to the addled ramblings of Nova.

The constitution is not just about Jefferson any more than it is about any particular founding father. Do you deny that several of the founding fathers took their cues and their morals from Christianity as they understood it?
 
The constitution is not just about Jefferson any more than it is about any particular founding father. Do you deny that several of the founding fathers took their cues and their morals from Christianity as they understood it?

I deny that they, as a group, intended to create a Christian nation. They clearly did not.

The vast majority of them were influenced by the enlightenment and tested their morals with reason and logic, not faith. Most appreciated the moral teachings of Christ, as they understood them, from an intellectual and philosophical perspective, not because they believed him divine. They agreed with some parts of the bible and rejected others, including most of the teachings of the ot.

Most atheists agree with some parts of the bible. Social conservatives do the same, that is they reject or fail to observe some parts of the bible and only demand obedience when they are seeking to punish others. That is, they are hypocrites.
 
I am incorrect about nothing. You can take it up with Jefferson. The point is that our most influential founders intended to create a secular government and seperate church and state.


Which they did....I've been saying that from the start....my point was not how we constructed the secular government hierarchy and the powers we've allowed it to have, but the rules, regulations and laws we choose to regulate our civil and social intercourse.........you just can't seem to separate the two concepts....

The government is secular as they set it up, the other is Christian by virtue of the Christian nature and value system of the citizens. The inherited customs of generations of
those that established the system....the common law of England having had a major influence on it along with all the other social customs that were
natural to the populous at that time in history....from criminal justice and what constituted criminal behavior, the marriage contract, private property ownership, private business transactions, and hundreds of other social norms that the population lived by, all heavily influenced by Christian thought.....we are a Christian nation at the core, socially changing and evolving to be sure, by the influences of other cultures around the world,.... but the influence of Christianity is ever present....
When you can open you eyes to the two different concepts its easy to see.....

That said, its also clear to see that the Christian influence is losing its grip as the society becomes more diverse and exposure to the rest of the world grows....not changing the government hierarchy so much as changing the moral code and our value system that was so prevalent 200 years ago....the gov. part is slowly being eroded also, to a lesser degree, but evolving, nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
I deny that they, as a group, intended to create a Christian nation. They clearly did not.

The vast majority of them were influenced by the enlightenment and tested their morals with reason and logic, not faith. Most appreciated the moral teachings of Christ, as they understood them, from an intellectual and philosophical perspective, not because they believed him divine. They agreed with some parts of the bible and rejected others, including most of the teachings of the ot.

Most atheists agree with some parts of the bible. Social conservatives do the same, that is they reject or fail to observe some parts of the bible and only demand obedience when they are seeking to punish others. That is, they are hypocrites.


Of course they didnt intend to create a 'Christian' nation, they were creating a system of government ONLY, not trying to change the moral code or value system of the population.....the undeniably "Christian" moral or value system of the population...2 different things

A system of government has nothing to do with religion or belief in a god or a thousand gods....the other has everything to do with those beliefs.

They plainly stipulated that concept from the start...government that would have no role in regulating the religious beliefs of the population, which was also ALMOST totally
Christian.

enlightenment, or more accurately, knowledge, has tested mans morals with reason and logic from the moment man first walked upright, it wasn't a miracle newly

experienced by men of the 18th century...its evolution, physical and mental.
 
Last edited:
Your point is eroded when it is built on faulty facts. Christianity existed in England well before Common Law was in any way codified.


Christianity arrived in the British Isles around AD 47 and had many generations to ingrain itself into the minds and social fabric of the people....
1776 was still far in the future.....
 
I deny that they, as a group, intended to create a Christian nation. They clearly did not.

The vast majority of them were influenced by the enlightenment and tested their morals with reason and logic, not faith. Most appreciated the moral teachings of Christ, as they understood them, from an intellectual and philosophical perspective, not because they believed him divine. They agreed with some parts of the bible and rejected others, including most of the teachings of the ot.

Most atheists agree with some parts of the bible. Social conservatives do the same, that is they reject or fail to observe some parts of the bible and only demand obedience when they are seeking to punish others. That is, they are hypocrites.

Thats what I've been telling for days now....Its disingenuous to try and deny that their beliefs and values had no influence on their ideas of establishing a government...
even a secular government.
 
A signer of the Declaration of Independence and the First Supreme Court Chief Justice of the United States disagrees with you.

You mean the guy that argued, unsuccessfully, that no catholics should hold office and, successfully, that catholics should be denied citizenship within New York? Yeah, he is a great example of what those arguing against a strict seperation of church and state were about.

I did not use any absolute terms to describe the founders. Of course, there were those of differing opinion.
 
Back
Top