Politics AND Religion..........Oh no he di'n't !

[G-Man]

Thought crossed my mind while reading posts about the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution......

There were several posts in which the poster gave his interpretation of what "well regulated militia"  meant.  Those on one side of the aisle said it meant governed, or to control.  Those on the other side of the aisle said that it meant well trained, in order.

I didn't read of any defense to the first interpretation, but in defense of the second interpretaion I read "that's what regulated meant back then".

It really is a diffrence in the interpretation of a document written a little more than 200 years ago, in English.

Now for the religion part...........  If there is so much disagreement regarding the interpretation of a document written 200 years ago in the same language, how much of the old/new testament can we really hold up as truth, since this document is 2,000 years old (supposedly written 300 years after the fact) and has been translated into several languages based on translations from yet other languages?

I ask because so many quote the bible.

[Oss]

Then Gary read the original Hebrew or aramaic

We have a few members who say they are older than dirt but I dont think any of them know more than us either

To me a militia is just a bunch of civilians who get together individually to supplement
a regular army in an emergency or in the case of the colonies, to supplement the army of the
colony or commonwealth ( I believe Virginia called itself a commonwealth back then)

For instance when the people of Massachusetts defied the assault weapon ban (imagine a gun you can reload in a mere minute when the powder was dry) and the british marched to Lexington, the word went out and good folks got their weapons to try to stop the British, they did not do so good at lexington but did much better at Concord ( I havent looked it up but that is my recollection)  Those good folks were called the militia by the framers of the constitution

The constitution could not be ratified by enough states without the Bill of Rights.

Personally  I find the bible quoting can get a bit much but if a person wants to quote scripture its a free country.  I quote anything that works for me, often POGO, the 3 stooges (coitenly) or my southern
brothers and sisters ( Gman yes bless his heart) 

[PAVALKER]

Then Gary read the original Hebrew or aramaic

We have a few members who say they are older than dirt but I dont think any of them know more than us either

To me a militia is just a bunch of civilians who get together individually to supplement
a regular army in an emergency or in the case of the colonies, to supplement the army of the
colony or commonwealth ( I believe Virginia called itself a commonwealth back then)

For instance when the people of Massachusetts defied the assault weapon ban (imagine a gun you can reload in a mere minute when the powder was dry) and the british marched to Lexington, the word went out and good folks got their weapons to try to stop the British, they did not do so good at lexington but did much better at Concord ( I havent looked it up but that is my recollection)  Those good folks were called the militia by the framers of the constitution

The constitution could not be ratified by enough states without the Bill of Rights.

Personally  I find the bible quoting can get a bit much but if a person wants to quote scripture its a free country.  I quote anything that works for me, often POGO, the 3 stooges (coitenly) or my southern
brothers and sisters ( Gman yes bless his heart) 

Virginia and Pennsylvania remain "commonwealth" ....     but don't confuse that to mean that the common have wealth   

[.]

For divine inspiration I much prefer Pogo myself: "We have met the enemy and he is us!"

Unless, of course, I am looking for inspiration in financial matters, at which time I turn to the Holy Bible, King James Version, Chapter 13. Therein usually lies the answer when bill collectors and revenuers come a'callin'.

I know what I think the intent of the Second Amendment is, to which most folks would probably disagree while disagreeing mostly with everyone else as well, but I'm pretty comfortable with my belief that Dianne Feinstein and Wayne LaPierre are nothing more than demagogues occupying opposite ends of the political spectrum for their own personal gain.

G-man, for starting a thread mixing politics and religion, my hat is off to you. 

[Willow]

Dr. Lasher, I won't attempt to convince you of what you can or can't trust as my experience has been that people believe pretty much what they want to believe rendering any argument based upon facts alone rather impotent.  I can, however help you out on a few misconceptions.

The Bible, as we know it today, was authored over a period of some 1500 years with the oldest portions written as early as 3500 years ago.  Even the most skeptical of scholars would place those earliest writings no less than 3000 years in the past.  Just as an aside, for the believer it is a comfort to witness the consistency of the writings spread over 1500 years and produced by no fewer than twenty-five and likely as many as forty different authors.

I'm assuming the reference to 300 years was to the New Testament.  The earliest of the New Testament books was written around 50 A.D. which would have been less than twenty years after the crucifixion of the Christ.  The last of the books in the New Testament as we know it today was authored at about 95 A.D.  We no longer have any of the originals, but we have many, many copies of the New Testament books dating back to around 125 A.D.  The oldest copies of the Old Testament writings date to 60 B.C. (those would be the copies discovered in the "Dead Sea Scolls").

The Old Testament was written almost entirely in ancient Hebrew with a few passages, notably in the book of Daniel, in Aramaic.  The New Testament books were written in their entirety in ancient Greek.  The Old Testament books were translated by the scholars of Alexandria into Koine Greek shortly after the time of Alexander the Great.  That Greek version of the Old Testament scriptures was commonly used in the days of the writing of the New Testament and is used today by translators in conjunction with the Hebrew writings.

The English translations which most English speaking people read today were translated directly from the original Hebrew and Greek texts although some have given consideration in study to some of the intermediate translations in Greek and Latin.  Some of the earliest English versions were indeed translated from the Latin Vulgate and that may be the origination of the myth that the modern Bible is a succession of language translations.  That certainly isn't the case with most modern day translations.

If you really are interested in pursuing answers to your questions I might recommend to you the writings of Lee Stroebel and C.S. Lewis.  Both are (were) Christian biblical scholars who began their scholarly work as skeptics.     

[crow]

Religion was created to keep poor people from killing rich people

[DLSSOJC]

Religion was created to keep poor people from killing rich people

            The bible was created to dupe and try and control Father and his childish devilish behavior, that is my belief the real theology interpretation behind it.

            There are 2 witnesses to everything that has happened here over the last 100's of millions of years, who are they ? they are Mother and Father who made all the life here from picking the fruit in the center of the garden ( screwing ) or sex.

              It is a story about he and she and the moral of the story is you cannot be older than your mother.

Willow, would you like to comment on this...? I think I just developed a migrain...My, my, my...

[Romeo]

Wow!!! Just Wow!!!

[SANDMAN5]

Quote from: crow on Today at 02:29:58 PM
Religion was created to keep poor people from killing rich people


            The bible was created to dupe and try and control Father and his childish devilish behavior, that is my belief the real theology interpretation behind it.

            There are 2 witnesses to everything that has happened here over the last 100's of millions of years, who are they ? they are Mother and Father who made all the life here from picking the fruit in the center of the garden ( screwing ) or sex.

              It is a story about he and she and the moral of the story is you cannot be older than your mother.

Neither of those comments is worth a comment, IMHO.

[Patrick]

Father and Mother ? Which mother ? Maybe there was a three-some ?

[Robert]

While Willow listed all the facts correctly there is one that is overlooked. One document was conceived by men the other by God. The Bible although written by men, they were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. You can read the Bible even study it but its words are watched over by God to do what He says. While the men who came to these shores did so for freedom from religious persecution it was not to stop the worship of God but to establish the church and a country run by Gods covenants. Men today are not ignorant of what the Constitution says it just doesn't accomplish the way that they want things to be. It also was established to be fair,open, to give men rights that those in power now seek to take away. It was written by men with religious ideals even though some may be close to a deist.  So when you complain about the Bible or religion remember its not the religious ones but the heathen such as some of you that look to devour the US and what it stands for. That run over peoples rights and that look to take away the rights of citizens. They do not persecute the ones who plunged this country into bankruptcy. Yet give a nod to corruption and greed that our fore fathers who making this country on the Bibles principles gave us fair warning about. So maybe the ones complaining should keep their mouths shut because it is those that are like you that are raping this country with no morals to keep. I guess we see what going away from the Bibles principles will do like it or not.

[Robert]

Yup even in the old west we had people like Whip it 

[crow]

I would invite everyone to google " open letter to the Kansas school board".

[Robert]

I cannot wait till atheism is formally classified as the religion it is. Its already been judged a religion by courts now we need to walk it all the way to its final conclusion and put it on the same ground as other religions. this will stop all the frivolous court challenges and wasting of tax pay dollars by a select group looking to push a agenda. Even to the point of schools not allowing the name of Jesus to be spoken of on Easter.

[.]

I would invite everyone to google " open letter to the Kansas school board".

[f6john]

 I draw a distinct difference between religion and Christianity. Most of our religions that are based on the Bible are just  groups of people that interpret what the Bible says differently. All the intellectuals out there can continue to dissect the Bible and it's origins to try and satisfy there own thoughts and beliefs about the world and it's beginnings and that's ok, it's our nature. However, I challenge anyone to read the New Testament with an open mind.  Even if you can't accept a virgin birth, the feeding of the 5000, healing of the sick, raising the dead, don't feel too bad as those who lived back then were skeptical. The real challenge is to find fault with any of his teachings or in the words written in red and measure your life against his and his wish for us to share a life with him. I have and I find myself lacking but I can't find any argument with his teachings.

 The important point where religion and Christianity come together is the death and resurrection of Jesus and the believe that the shedding of his blood was the price of forgiveness of our sin for all time. Salvation, a free gift, awarded to those who believe, confess and follow him, available to all, not by our own worth or works but by his grace.

[Varmintmist]

It is the use of words that kicks some peoples butts. EX; regulated.
reg·u·late/ˈrɛgyəˌleɪt/ Show Spelled [reg-yuh-leyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing. 
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses. 
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature. 
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch. 
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion. 
It STILL means to put in good order, 3 out of 4 times, or "to bring order, method, or uniformity to"
Regulated by definition has NEVER and does not now mean only controled and directed. To stop there, is to lie by omission and is just plain lazy. It is not now commonly used as a referance to bring order in thing except for energy, The regulated fuel going into your gas grill isnt in fear of a govenment takeover is it? You have to refer to the time it was written, and the common verbage of the time.

[Robert]

I draw a distinct difference between religion and Christianity. Most of our religions that are based on the Bible are just  groups of people that interpret what the Bible says differently. All the intellectuals out there can continue to dissect the Bible and it's origins to try and satisfy there own thoughts and beliefs about the world and it's beginnings and that's ok, it's our nature. However, I challenge anyone to read the New Testament with an open mind.  Even if you can't accept a virgin birth, the feeding of the 5000, healing of the sick, raising the dead, don't feel too bad as those who lived back then were skeptical. The real challenge is to find fault with any of his teachings or in the words written in red and measure your life against his and his wish for us to share a life with him. I have and I find myself lacking but I can't find any argument with his teachings.

 The important point where religion and Christianity come together is the death and resurrection of Jesus and the believe that the shedding of his blood was the price of forgiveness of our sin for all time. Salvation, a free gift, awarded to those who believe, confess and follow him, available to all, not by our own worth or works but by his grace.

[Robert]

School Bans the Word 'Easter' From Easter Festivities to Not 'Infringe on the Rights of Others
Heritage Elementary School in Madison, Alabama is taking the word "Easter" out of Easter, according to WHNT19 News.

What does that mean?  Well, they'll still tolerate someone dressed as a giant bunny, but it will no longer be called the "Easter bunny."  Similarly, "Easter eggs" are just "eggs," and it might be better just to use "different shapes."

School principal Lydia Davenport said with a smile: "Kids love the bunny, and we just make sure we don't say 'the Easter bunny' so that we don't infringe on the rights of others, because people relate the Easter bunny to religion.  A bunny is a bunny and a rabbit is a rabbit."
Heritage School in Alabama: No Mention of Easter With Easter Activities WHNT News adds:

    [Davenport] informed staff no activities related to or centered around any religious holiday would be allowed in the interest, she says, of religious diversity among students.

    There is nothing biblical about Easter bunnies or colorful plastic eggs or synthetic iridescent grass clippings — but the perceived need to modify the student egg hunt has many parents upset; less upset, they say about the need to preserve religious freedom and more about their students' freedom to simply be a kid.

[miscott]

Thought crossed my mind while reading posts about the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution......

There were several posts in which the poster gave his interpretation of what "well regulated militia"  meant.  Those on one side of the aisle said it meant governed, or to control.  Those on the other side of the aisle said that it meant well trained, in order.

I didn't read of any defense to the first interpretation, but in defense of the second interpretaion I read "that's what regulated meant back then".

It really is a diffrence in the interpretation of a document written a little more than 200 years ago, in English.

Sometimes it's better to go back to the original sources and let them speak for themselves....

 From Founding Fathers' Own Mouths, What is a Well-Regulated Militia?


Here's a collection of quotes from the revolutionaries who were there at that moment in history when the United States Constitution got ratified, together with the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

First of all, note that the clause that uses the term "well-regulated militia" is only the justification, the basis, that provides the necessity for the second clause. Secondly, see in the great number of comments made by the signers and authors of the Constitution, that explain what they meant by a "well-regulated militia": common civilian citizens like farmers that had weapons and knew how to use them well, well-trained in their use.

Just the simplest form of logic would make it clear. Why in the world would anybody include, in a list of the rights of the people, a right for the government to bear arms??!! Hello?? This is la-la land. It is an Orwellian Doublespeak when people do not even think about this and instead get lost because we've come so far that too many people don't understand they were talking about a citizenry that was so well-armed they could take on its own government's armies?

Well, thank God that at least in the USA of 2012, most of the soldiers in the American military have not been subsumed into mindless robotic obeisance, but still have some understanding of the people's rights. But there are other armed domestic government forces, and the Second Amendment was meant to recognize the people's individual right.

They were especially interested in having individual citizenry well-armed enough to be able to take on whatever government might be in power.

   A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


But first, a warning from Solzhenitsyn, a WWII veteran in Stalin's Army and also a veteran of Stalin's gulags:

   "How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt."
   Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) Russian Novelist and Historian


And now a word for the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, that "shall not be infringed":

"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."
Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789 Episcopal pastor, friend of Benjamin Franklin

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823

"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm house."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Jacob J. Brown (1808)

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson

"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Source a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright in 1824

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson (attributed without source)

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
Samuel Adams

"...It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control...The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them."
Samuel Adams

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.

"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."
James Madison, The Federalist Number 46 January 29, 1788

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
James Madison, In his autobiography

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President

"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them..."
George Mason (1725-1792), drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George Washington

"Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia is put in the hands of Congress?"
Patrick Henry (1736-1799), 3 Elliot Debates 48.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry

"Are we at least brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

Noah Webster American Patriot (1758-1843) (Author of America's first dictionary)

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
Noah Webster (1758-1843) American patriot and scholar, author of the 1806 edition of the dictionary that bears his name, the first dictionary of American English usage.
Defined the militia similarly as "the effective part of the people at large."
Source: An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

Tench Coxe (1755-1824)
"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tench Coxe (1755-1824), writing as "the Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, February 20, 1788

Daniel Webster (1782-1852) (Secretary of State under three U.S. Presidents)

"God grants Liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it."
Daniel Webster (1782-1852) in a speech on 3 June, 1834

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

"...[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine (1737-1809), Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

"...if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to 'bind me in all cases whatsoever' to his absolute will, am I to suffer it?"
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

"Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789; spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750

"Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
"M.T. Cicero" 1788

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people."
Saint George Tucker (1752-1827) Lawyer, Judge and Professor On Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D \

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Joseph Story (1779-1845) U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1811-1845. His Dad was one of the Sons of Liberty who took part in the Boston Tea Party and fought at Lexington & Concord in 1775. The above quote was from 1833

"[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression."
Joel Barlow (1754-1812) Politician and Poet, Advice to the Privileged Orders in the Several States of Europe: Resulting From the Necessity and Propriety of a General Revolution in the Principle of Government (London, 1792, 1795 and reprint 1956).

"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I would never lay down my arms never, never, never! You cannot conquer America."
William Pitt, Speech, November 18, 1777

"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state...such are a well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
Richard Henry Lee (1732-1894), State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788

"It's the misfortune of all Countries, that they sometimes lie under a unhappy necessity to defend themselves by Arms against the ambition of their Governors, and to fight for what's their own. If those in government are heedless of reason, the people must patiently submit to Bondage, or stand upon their own Defence; which if they are enabled to do, they shall never be put upon it, but their Swords may grow rusty in their hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that is most capable of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his side, shall have least occasion to make use of it."
John Trenchard (1662-1723)
Source: and Walter Moyle (1672-1721), "An Argument, shewing; that a standing Army is Inconsistent with a Free Government and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy," (London, 1697)

"Under every government the dernier [Fr. last, or final] resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people... entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens."
A Framer Anonymous 'framer' of the US Constitution Source: Independent Gazetteer, January 29, 1791

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
Zachariah Johnson Source: June 25, 1788, Virginia Constitutional Ratification Convention. Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal
Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.3 p.646 (Philadelphia, 1836)

"For we may not think ever to keep that people in subjection which hath always lived in liberty, if they be not disarmed."
Jean Bodin (1530-1596) French Jurist and Political Philosopher, in Six Books of a Commonweale, 1606 AD (R. Knolles translation, pg. 615, 1606)

"Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power."
Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author commenting on the lack of protest with which Japanese tolerated governmental corruption, Los Angeles Times, 10/15/92

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
Heinrich Himmler (1900-1945) Adolph Hitler's head of the SS in Nazi Germany

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, Feb. 1960, p. 4

"...By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be an important danger to our Nation, the Amendment remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
President John F. Kennedy

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler's
Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

"The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all the elimination of the so-called subversive elements.... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results."
Italy's Fascist ruler, Prime Minister Benito Mussolini, Italian Senate Speech, June 8, 1923

Not much wiggle room in the interpretation of a document written a little more than 200 years ago, in English
And that's all I got to say bout that!

[bigguy]

Miscott:
I've used a few of those quotes myself. Thanks for posting.
Something that has been simmering in the back of my mind since first looking into what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote those words is that they had a very different view of "The People." That archetype individual who would represent the American Citizen.
They believed him brave, moral, energetic, and civic. They trusted him enough to want him armed. They believed he would would stand with his brothers against evil and fight for the common good. They believed him responsible enough to bear his weapon wisely and justly. And in his collective hand was ,"the law."
It seems to me that a large number of the people now living on the lands known as The United States no longer have that view. The archetype American of the 21st century can't "take the law into his own hands," because anarchy would ensue. Many American citizens dont trust their neighbor to use his weapon wisely or justly. They don't believe him to be a moral man imbued with the sense of civic duty required to be an agent of "The Law." They question his training, his ability, his motives, and indeed his morality. They trust "The Government" more than they trust what they believe to be the archetype American citizen.
Those who see "Americans" they same way the founding father did will inevitably support the 2nd amendment. Anybody who would reinterpret, restrict, or rescind the 2nd amendment will have a very different view of the American citizen.

[SANDMAN5]

Well, I was going to argue with Whipitnow....but his grammar is so bad
I can't really figure out what he's saying....exactly. ???

[f6john]

I draw a distinct difference between religion and Christianity. Most of our religions that are based on the Bible are just  groups of people that interpret what the Bible says differently. All the intellectuals out there can continue to dissect the Bible and it's origins to try and satisfy there own thoughts and beliefs about the world and it's beginnings and that's ok, it's our nature. However, I challenge anyone to read the New Testament with an open mind.  Even if you can't accept a virgin birth, the feeding of the 5000, healing of the sick, raising the dead, don't feel too bad as those who lived back then were skeptical. The real challenge is to find fault with any of his teachings or in the words written in red and measure your life against his and his wish for us to share a life with him. I have and I find myself lacking but I can't find any argument with his teachings.

 The important point where religion and Christianity come together is the death and resurrection of Jesus and the believe that the shedding of his blood was the price of forgiveness of our sin for all time. Salvation, a free gift, awarded to those who believe, confess and follow him, available to all, not by our own worth or works but by his grace.

       What does the virgin birth mean in reality? he had no father why is that ? because he is mother's child not fathers. He has nothing to do with father, yes the bible is more sheople and herd duping.  

                    They wrote it the way they did so father would carry the greatest sci fi novel ever written with him through time, one if not the major theme of Jesus's teachings is directed at keeping the males out of the cookie jar, ( SEX ) which is the fruit not to pick in the center of the garden .

            We have just recently invented birth control and condoms, you think there are alot of unwanted children today paying for our sins ? Imagine what it was like back then with no form of birth control. Just look at 3rd world nation living conditions of the children and you have the idea somewhat.

    Uhhhhh, Ok, sure,     Hmmmmm. Nevermind.

[MP]

I draw a distinct difference between religion and Christianity. Most of our religions that are based on the Bible are just  groups of people that interpret what the Bible says differently. All the intellectuals out there can continue to dissect the Bible and it's origins to try and satisfy there own thoughts and beliefs about the world and it's beginnings and that's ok, it's our nature. However, I challenge anyone to read the New Testament with an open mind.  Even if you can't accept a virgin birth, the feeding of the 5000, healing of the sick, raising the dead, don't feel too bad as those who lived back then were skeptical. The real challenge is to find fault with any of his teachings or in the words written in red and measure your life against his and his wish for us to share a life with him. I have and I find myself lacking but I can't find any argument with his teachings.

 The important point where religion and Christianity come together is the death and resurrection of Jesus and the believe that the shedding of his blood was the price of forgiveness of our sin for all time. Salvation, a free gift, awarded to those who believe, confess and follow him, available to all, not by our own worth or works but by his grace.

       What does the virgin birth mean in reality? he had no father why is that ? because he is mother's child not fathers. He has nothing to do with father, yes the bible is more sheople and herd duping.  

                    They wrote it the way they did so father would carry the greatest sci fi novel ever written with him through time, one if not the major theme of Jesus's teachings is directed at keeping the males out of the cookie jar, ( SEX ) which is the fruit not to pick in the center of the garden .

            We have just recently invented birth control and condoms, you think there are alot of unwanted children today paying for our sins ? Imagine what it was like back then with no form of birth control. Just look at 3rd world nation living conditions of the children and you have the idea somewhat.

Wow.  Good thing you said that about Christians.  If you had something like that about Muslims, you would be on a kill list somewhere by now!

MP

[NCGhostrider]

Willow did a great synopsis of the history of the original language that our Bible was derived from.  I spent a number of years (besides my IT profession), studying the Bible in those languages.  The amount of information that is truly available is absolutely amazing, perhaps overwhelming, if you understand the consistency, the use of the vocabulary, history of the word(s) being used, their intended audience etc.

Many of the so called "higher scholars" have tried to pick the Bible apart, but continued study usually resolves so called inconsistencies.   For instance, the Hebrew language, as used in the Old Testament, is, for want of a better term, circular.  That is, it repeats itself, the first mention of something does not contain all the information, continued reading will result in repetition of the event, with more information, or clarity.  The end result is dispersion of inconsistencies.  Now, having said that, I know that you can not change the mind of someone that is so locked in their viewpoint that all they see is an "ERROR."  A supposed mistake in God's word found by a casual reader compared to thousands of learned students who find no fault, is not new.   We all should remember that in the study of ancient language in past were requirements for University students.  I would contend that their years of learning probably outdo that of most scholars today. 

As a side note, one of my professors, wrote his disertation in Latin, because it is the language of true scholars  (his words), he did not recieve his full Doctorate as a result.   Those reviewing his work couldn't read all of it.   He wrote in Greek during the undergrad Greek civ classes I took.   Students dropped like flies! 

It always amazes me that we think we are much smarter than our predecessors in all things.  I personally say "NO."  Our language skills have dropped to virtually nothing compared to the scholars of yesterday who understood Latin, Greek, or even Hebrew (with a touch of Aramaic).  They were required courses for any true scholar. 

As for the King James Bible, I invite anyone to study it with a pre 1860 dictionary.  The word usage of the old English is superb.  It is different than our dumbed down English of today, using that method, the language can be understood as it was meant to be.

BTW, I love how Christians as a whole are blamed or accused for the many things in history that modern society condemns today.  A lesson in history, based on the viewpoints of the era, probably should be undertaken before spewing supposed facts without basis. 


My .02, and it is worth what it cost.  Sorry for the ramble!

Craig
NCGhostrider
99 I/S and a library full of language/history books

[SANDMAN5]

As for the King James Bible, I invite anyone to study it with a pre 1860 dictionary.  The word usage of the old English is superb.  It is different than our dumbed down English of today, using that method, the language can be understood as it was meant to be.

BTW, I love how Christians as a whole are blamed or accused for the many things in history that modern society condemns today.  A lesson in history, based on the viewpoints of the era, probably should be undertaken before spewing supposed facts without basis. 

[Robert]

A bit off topic but it belongs on this post, Seems Sarah Palin is back again and regardless of what you feel about her made a great remark, "The President is pushing for more background checks seems, we should have started with yours".  I thought that this was great! Liberals don't like whats going on as much as anyone else yet we see the ideology of liberalism spawning laws and regulations built on lies and deceit. This is what the liberal ideology gives birth to. How is it that liberals cant see the feces in front of  their face that their ideas create?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/sarah-palin-compares-obama-to-bernie-madoff-sips-from-a-big-gulp-and-jokes-about-her-gun-rack/

[Oss]

first I would like to wish all of my Vrcc brothers and sisters a most joyous Easter
with your families and friends.

Robert I saw  Sarah "I'd hit that" Palin you tube video also, that was a good line

I wonder if she would make a good Secretary of State or an ambassador to the UN

No mistaking her words that is for certain

Look forward to seeing y'all in three weeks down in Delray

[SANDMAN5]

The quote I made was from the King James

Exactly WHERE did you quote the King James Version?

[SANDMAN5]

3  20     And Adam called his wife's name Eve because she was the mother of all living.

Yes, I'll give you that one, but that was several replies ago. Where did the cookie jar and
Father and Mother and sci-fi come from? That one quote from Genesis is the ONLY comment
you've made that even remotely resembles the Bible.

[Serk]

I love a good political religious discussion just as much as the next guy, but this is literally giving me a headache... I'm so confused.

[Daniel Meyer]

   That is why nobody wants to talk about religion and politics. Most people are plain shallow, I just made a thread on religion and science and they took it down and I spent alot of time posting it, it was a good thread if you have a intellect to debate it.

             It explained in my view why science is much more pure than religion, this site obviously has a some old goats behind the scenes running it.

            Hey this is 2013 not 500 BC!

Definitely some old goats...They're pretty cool old goats too.

I know it's more fun to feel persecuted and all...but if you need to find your past posts you can use the search feature or even the "show last posts" in your profile...yaknow...SCIENCE! (echo echo echo)

Like this...
http://www.valkyrieforum.com/bbs/index.php?action=profile;u=2458;sa=showPosts

And you would find your "old goat removed post" was actually not removed, but posted (uh, that would be by you) in the tech board...where it doesn't really belong...and I'm sure some old goat will get around to moving it to the general board sooner or later...because, I've found...neither praying or finding god particles helps in a technical capacity on the Valkyrie.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled persecution.

[SANDMAN5]

Your gonna tell me the first book of the bible is not a sci fi novel ? to me the fruit in the center of the garden is not to have sex. One of Jesus's main themes is sex in other words cookie jar.

Depends on how you look at it. If you want to talk "science FICTION", read evolution theories.
You seem to believe that only an idiot would say there is a God that created the universe. Do
you REALLY understand what the evolutionists are telling you? ALL life on earth ( humans, land
animals, fish, plants, etc) came from "pond scum"!!! Therefore, our great-great ancestors were
poison ivy, snail darters, shrimp, and Canadian geese. Yep, "fiction" sure fits, all right.
Jesus' main theme was LOVE, not sex. If you think love always equals sex then you've missed
out on a LOT of stuff!! I love my family, my friends, my dog, my Valkyrie, etc. I love them all
in different ways, but, with the exception of my wife, I haven't had (nor intend to have) sexual
relations of any way, shape, form, or fashion with any of them.
If you want to be an atheist, go ahead. That's your God-given right. But if you want to discuss the Bible, at least read it and learn enough so you can discuss it like an adult.
P.S. I've never had sex in/with a cookie jar, so that comment is lost on me.

[SANDMAN5]

 Asexual or not, we supposedly evolved from it over billions of years. Think a frog
can really turn into a Prince? Evolutionists say it can if you give it enough time.
Yes, God created "matter" from nothing. Big bang says matter created itself. There
was "nothing" and then 2 chemicals came together and exploded.....but if there was
"nothing" where did the 2 chemicals come from? Some science (fiction) books still in
use today say that 15 billion or so years ago ALL the matter in the universe was
gathered together in a space about the size of the period at the end of this sentence.
Then it exploded in about 1 Trillionth of a second and the universe "happened". Where
did the matter come from? They can't explain it so they skip over it.
I'm not claiming to be a Bible expert or to know everything it says. But I know enough
to believe it. I've lived on both sides of the "is God real" fence. I like this side MUCH better!!

[SANDMAN5]

 Once again I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm not sure how you can
believe in God (at least a little) but not the Bible.....the Word of God.
Can't explain it here on this board anyway. Female Trump??? ???
I'm going outside to play with my grandson now. We can discuss this
in some other thread at some other time.

P.S. Two stories? Same story in two parts, maybe. OT is about the Law
and how mankind cannot live up to God's expectations. NT is about Jesus
fulfilling the Law and paying for our sins because we never could. That's
it in a nutshell. Like I said it's WAY too complicated to try and explain it
with words typed on a computer screen.....for me anyway. IF you are so
inclined, you might want to try watching Joseph Prince. He explains it rather
well. If you don't like/agree with it, you're only out 30 mins or so. No big
loss.

[Alien]

 

[/quote]

               The pond scum is Asexual which can by some scientist be considered female.  Do you understand what the bible is really telling you ?
[/quote]

Asexual in no way means female.  Do YOU understand your own nonsense?

a·sex·u·al (-sksh-l)
adj.
1. Having no evident sex or sex organs; sexless.
2. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding.
3. Lacking interest in or desire for sex

[Alien]

               The pond scum is Asexual which can by some scientist be considered female.  Do you understand what the bible is really telling you ?

Asexual in no way means female.  Do YOU understand your own nonsense?


a·sex·u·al (-sksh-l)
adj.
1. Having no evident sex or sex organs; sexless.
2. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding.
3. Lacking interest in or desire for sex
[/quote]  

      As to weather asexual is female is debatable, some people say in a sense it is and they are making a lot of progress in understanding this feild as I type this. There are indicators going on in the environment right now which point to the possibilty the earliest bacteria were female like in a sence.

          The environment is turning female and the males are being shutout, I am not going to get into the details about it you have to research it yourself. It appears mother is the ground and the ground for all life here would have been the asexual bacteria.

           The males have got to have the female as a host in order to exist out in the environment but the female does not have to have the males.

         They are finding more and more female only critters on this planet all the time, not only that they are finding the females switching to Asexual reproduction and dumping their partner's and this is how the males are being shutout.

         Mother is flexing here muscle and giving the males the boot.
[/quote]

Dude.  You're not making any sense.  I think that you're trying to suggest that males are becoming extinct due to females switching to asexual reproduction.  Is it your feeling that one day women will utilize cellular mitosis as a form of reproduction?  They'll just split into two?  I'm not sure what you've been smoking but it's time to exhale.

[SANDMAN5]

Sex came on the scene when God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and
multiply. I agree with Alien, if you're not on medication you should be.
I know elementary school kids with better grammar, spelling, sentence
composition, etc. I'm not saying you're stupid, but the way your sentences
look makes it extremely difficult to take your comments seriously.

[Xtracho]

I just wish that horrible yellow font color used when quoting someone could be outlawed. It may work for those that have a dark background, but for those of us that use the white background it's just plain annoying.