Should a Christian be patriotic?

ThePlaidRanger · 05-26-2003, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bogieman
Travis- Have you actually looked at that site (other than that article)? It is by it own intent anti-Christian. The home page has a cross crossed out as its logo for goodness sake. That is your source for whether or not Jefferson is in hell? Oh my.

They're primary sources, for goodness' sake! Actually, Travis doesn't believe Jefferson was Christian because of quite a bit of evidence I presented in a debate on the "Christian nation" topic a while ago, IIRC. I can dig it up if you want, but it included those two quotes.

Travis · 05-26-2003, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bogieman
Travis- Have you actually looked at that site (other than that article)? It is by it own intent anti-Christian. The home page has a cross crossed out as its logo for goodness sake. That is your source for whether or not Jefferson is in hell? Oh my.

Those are quotes from Jefferson's own letters!

Bogieman · 05-26-2003, 03:04 PM

I am not stupid. I know what primary sources are. However, just because they are listed on a questionable site does not make them primary sources! To accept such would be brainless.

"I am a Christian and have been since I was a wee tot and shall forever more be." Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Gregory Hill May 1799.

Gasp, I made it up. Who knew. Its on the internet. It looks official now so it must be a primary source! All I am asking is for a better source then that trash.
Maybe Jefferson was non-christian, maybe he wasn't. I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me yet. But forgive me if I will not take what an openly anti-christian site says for face value. I can make up quotes all day long and attribute them to Jefferson too. The purpose of the site is to demean, belittle, and disprove anything Christian. Seeing that is the case, I will not assume they are being truthfull. Got to have something better than that.

By the way, the sites article on the 'real' Jesus was nice. Lets put faith in that site alright. *sigh*

MisterAgreeable · 05-26-2003, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bogieman
I am not stupid. I know what primary sources are. However, just because they are listed on a questionable site does not make them primary sources! To accept such would be brainless.

"I am a Christian and have been since I was a wee tot and shall forever more be." Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Gregory Hill May 1799.

Gasp, I made it up. Who knew. Its on the internet. It looks official now so it must be a primary source! All I am asking is for a better source then that trash.
Maybe Jefferson was non-christian, maybe he wasn't. I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me yet. But forgive me if I will not take what an openly anti-christian site says for face value. I can make up quotes all day long and attribute them to Jefferson too. The purpose of the site is to demean, belittle, and disprove anything Christian. Seeing that is the case, I will not assume they are being truthfull. Got to have something better than that.

By the way, the sites article on the 'real' Jesus was nice. Lets put faith in that site alright. *sigh*

If you have evidence to disprove these quotes, provide it. I just did a google search for them and found hundreds of corroborating sites with the same quotes attributed to Jefferson.

These opinions by Thomas Jefferson are well known. Have you ever heard of the Jefferson bible?

Bogieman · 05-26-2003, 03:19 PM

1. I never said he did not make the quotes. I said I questioned the site on which they were listed. Why not use other sources in the first place for those quotes?

2. Try Dr. James Kennedy's article for some opposite spin
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=28006

3. I don't have to disprove anything. An argument was made attributed to a source. I suggest that at least the foundation of that source is blatently anti-christian biased. Ball goes back to your court to show why it is not or offer other evidence independant of questionable source...

Bogieman · 05-26-2003, 03:24 PM

my point, I hope this is clear again.

An article comes out with all sorts of data saying that smoking is not harmful to you at all. In fact it says smoking makes you live longer and healthier. In the article it quotes the surgeon general to affirm this. You read deeper and discover the article is published by the tobacco farmers and cigarette maker society of america.

Do you read the article at face value? Do you believe it without reservation?

Travis · 05-26-2003, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bogieman
Do you read the article at face value? Do you believe it without reservation?

No. Jefferson's quotes and heretical "bible" speak for themselves, though.

MisterAgreeable · 05-26-2003, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bogieman
1. I never said he did not make the quotes. I said I questioned the site on which they were listed. Why not use other sources in the first place for those quotes?

Wasn't it you who said "I can make up quotes all day long and attribute them to Jefferson too?" What on earth was the meaning of the word "too" on the end of that sentence if not to suggest that these people were, like you, were inventing Jefferson quotes?

Quote:

2. Try Dr. James Kennedy's article for some opposite spin
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=28006

Dr. James Kennedy and worldnetdaily.com have their own personal agendas. If their agendas are similar to my own, does that mean their sources are naturally more reliable?

Quote:

3. I don't have to disprove anything. An argument was made attributed to a source. I suggest that at least the foundation of that source is blatently anti-christian biased. Ball goes back to your court to show why it is not or offer other evidence independant of questionable source...

No, the "source" mentioned was Thomas Jefferson. Travis gave you a link as well. We're assuming you know that Mr. Jefferson did not write that particluar web page. Maybe Travis picked it because it was the first site he could find with both quotes readily availiable. I don't care why he picked it. You called the quote into question, going so far as to offer a contrived Jefferson quote of your own and comparing your action to theirs. If you point was merely that you don't like the individuals behind that site, why not just say it? Why call the quote into question?

bobthecockroach · 05-26-2003, 04:35 PM

First of all I wanna say that..

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Now let's clarify some things....

Pledge - To make a solemn binding promise; swear

Allegiance - Loyalty or the obligation of loyalty, as to a nation, sovereign, or cause.

Quote:

Originally posted by ReformedYokel
As for my personal beliefs on the whole subject:

I'm not too proud of our nation. "one nation, under God" eh? Yes, they are under God, but they don't realize it or act like it. We live in a country where money is god, where selfishness is the key to happiness. It makes me sick.

I don't see how this is on the whole subject at all. What does an opinion of how our nation acts have to do with the pledge?

Quote:

Originally posted by barefooter
'Tis ok. I sympathize. It's not some intense hatred for this country or anarchic logic that keeps me from pledging allegiance to the flag. I've just thought it through and have decided that I don't believe that it is appropriate...for me.

So why are you here? Why should this country do anything for you if you will not be loyal? The pledge of allegiance is not giving your complete support of every action of the US. It's promising your loyalty, and if you cannot do that why should the country do anything for you? How long do you think I'd stay a mod on CGR if I said I wasn't gonna bother with my duties and wasn't going to be loyal to fulfill them?

Quote:

Originally posted by Raphael
Isn't pledging allegiance to a flag almost idolatory?

No. I don't even see how it could be. I promise to be loyal to CGR by doing my duties as a moderator. Uh oh, did that just make me an idolater? That doesn't even make sense.

Quote:

Originally posted by HisFreshClay
i've been wondering that too. i dunno.

prov. 3:5-6

"trust in the Lord with all your heart do not lean on your own understnading. seek His will in all you do and He will direct your paths!"

What does that verse have to do with anything? Does anyone have a slightly sensible reason how pledging allegiance to a flag and the country it represents is anything like idolatry? I'm simply not seeing it.

This whole thread is making VERY little sense. I would almost venture to guess that people simply don't understand what the pledge means.

barefooter · 05-26-2003, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobthecockroach
So why are you here? Why should this country do anything for you if you will not be loyal? The pledge of allegiance is not giving your complete support of every action of the US. It's promising your loyalty, and if you cannot do that why should the country do anything for you? How long do you think I'd stay a mod on CGR if I said I wasn't gonna bother with my duties and wasn't going to be loyal to fulfill them?

What? I have pledged my allegiance to my country. I don't have to pledge allegiance to a symbol representing it. I feel that there is a difference between swearing allegiance to a nation (as a citizen you are obligated) and swearing allegiance to a symbol.

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, the Republic of which I am a natural born citizen, and swear to uphold all of its laws and its Constitution, and support its standing as one soverign Nation.

Good enough?

Yojimbo · 05-26-2003, 11:18 PM

One major point to remember is that this country was formed to serve the people, not the other way around. I believe that's why the Bill of Rights was created.

And as I pay the taxes and obey the laws, I don't have to pledge allegience to anything. This country still owes me regardless.

Bogieman · 05-27-2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by MisterAgreeable
Wasn't it you who said "I can make up quotes all day long and attribute them to Jefferson too?" What on earth was the meaning of the word "too" on the end of that sentence if not to suggest that these people were, like you, were inventing Jefferson quotes?

me- point being? I distrust the motives of the particular website. Jefferson could have indeed said such things, I would need verification from another source, which I now have, but not blindly believing the one biased source.

Dr. James Kennedy and worldnetdaily.com have their own personal agendas. If their agendas are similar to my own, does that mean their sources are naturally more reliable?

me- My point exactly. You always should look at the agenda. It does taint reliabilty. Thanks

No, the "source" mentioned was Thomas Jefferson. Travis gave you a link as well. We're assuming you know that Mr. Jefferson did not write that particluar web page. Maybe Travis picked it because it was the first site he could find with both quotes readily availiable. I don't care why he picked it. You called the quote into question, going so far as to offer a contrived Jefferson quote of your own and comparing your action to theirs. If you point was merely that you don't like the individuals behind that site, why not just say it? Why call the quote into question?

me- no the "source" (where the information was gathered) was the website, not original documentation. The link was crap. I do care where the stated info was from. I called the qoute into question because of where it was obtained from. As stated per everyone, it was initially that website. Now I see quotes from other places as well. No problem. I think it was clear that I distrusted the site from the start. Just because they said Jefferson said something did not mean he did. Needed other sources verifing it. Did now done. If you don't want questions asked about the validity of facts, don't offer questionable resources from which they were gathered.

MisterAgreeable · 05-27-2003, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bogieman
me- point being? I distrust the motives of the particular website. Jefferson could have indeed said such things, I would need verification from another source, which I now have, but not blindly believing the one biased source.

Quote:

My point exactly. You always should look at the agenda. It does taint reliabilty. Thanks

So when you said "The purpose of the site is to demean, belittle, and disprove anything Christian. Seeing that is the case, I will not assume they are being truthfull," what you actually meant to say was "That site has a personal bias regarding the exitence or non-existence of God, and I will not trust it."

If that was the case, why did you consider the worldnetdaily.com link "better?"

Quote:

me- no the "source" (where the information was gathered) was the website, not original documentation. The link was crap. I do care where the stated info was from. I called the qoute into question because of where it was obtained from. As stated per everyone, it was initially that website. Now I see quotes from other places as well. No problem. I think it was clear that I distrusted the site from the start. Just because they said Jefferson said something did not mean he did. Needed other sources verifing it. Did now done. If you don't want questions asked about the validity of facts, don't offer questionable resources from which they were gathered.

Well I'm glad to hear that, at long last, you've researched the validity of the quotes. Are you seriously suggesting that if you had known those quotes were real ahead of time you would have accused the site of inventing them?

You say a non-Chistian reference is not good enough. And now you say a Christian site is not good enough. Well, that leaves you with a bit of a dillema.

What site will you trust? None at all? All men have biases, so none are trustworthy. The Bible makes it clear that no man is neutral concerning Christ. Assuming that is true, your protest about the reference for Travis' quotes is in bad faith. It doesn't matter where he gets them - sacred or secular, you won't trust them.

So clearly one option is to call to question every web page we ever post, because they are, by definition, biased, without ever really researching the validity of what they say.

Or, we can go back to what I said at the very beginning - if you have problems with a fact as stated, provide evidence that it is invalid. It took me about 10 seconds to find those exact quotes cited at hundreds of pages. It is simple research, and the obligation was yours to do it before you accuse. Even if the quote was fake, it would have been perfectly valid to say "Travis, I'm having trouble finding independent confirmation of that quote. Can you offer a better cite?"

Bogieman · 05-27-2003, 11:01 AM

Misteragreeable- So when you said "The purpose of the site is to demean, belittle, and disprove anything Christian. Seeing that is the case, I will not assume they are being truthfull," what you actually meant to say was "That site has a personal bias regarding the exitence or non-existence of God, and I will not trust it."

me- NO, I meant exactly what I said. How tough is that? Being anti-christian, which it is, is not the same as having a bias against the existence or non existence oF God. You can be a believer non believer in God and still not be outspoken against Christianity.

misteragreeable- You say a non-Chistian reference is not good enough. And now you say a Christian site is not good enough. Well, that leaves you with a bit of a dillema.

me- actually I say an anti -christian reference is not good enough when offering proof of somethings or someones christianity. so yes I would place more weight on the validity of a Christian resource when dealing with this matter.

If you follow the thread you will see that when I asked for a reference the anti-christian site was the only one listed. that i had a problem with in determining its truthfulness. I did the google search on my own to determine the truth. hear me again....why is the first source which was fallen on a site whose intent is to go away from the truth? Why am i belittled for looking at it with severe skeptism on first glance? I am not in any dellima. Any good researcher looks at more than one source to verify a claim, except when you have the original documentation, which we do not in this case. I will not...will not...blindly accept any "fact" or "truth" simply because it is stated on a website, much less one I know to be biased against the Truth.

You are making this into something it is not. No compexity here. That site=blatent anti-christian propoganda
me= very skeptical of source, needed to look elsewhere for verification.

Miscellaneous · 05-27-2003, 11:23 AM

Oh man yokel, I hate that. I can remember,a few years ago, my old church invited some Christian singers to come and sing some songs and lead my church into worship. Well, it just so happened that it was the aniversary of 9/11 week or soemthing. The church had at freaking least 30 american flags hung up (1 christian flag). The church looked like uncle Sam came visited and forgot his stuff. We pledged allegiance to the flag before service (we don't pledge allegiance to the Christian flag) and then the group started leading worship. In a conservative Baptist church no one naturally even stood up for worship besides perhaps 10 youth. However, the last song the group sang was the national anthem. I'll never forget it. Everyone stood up applauding. Old women and men pumping their flabby fists. It was ridiculous. Not a word during worship but the ending song about the nation gets an extreme amount of applause. I no longer attend that church.
As a side note, the flags were never taken down. More may have even been added. The church sits about >300 so there literally is a flag on every row as well as in the front and back of the church. ugh.