Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all, the historical accuracy of that speech is debatable. Nearly twenty years after the speech was given, it was published in a book, rewritten by the author due to the sketchy memory of those who had heard it.
Secondly, he was an anti-federalist. He was a major contributing factor to the US Bill of Rights. The very first amendment separates the church and the state. He may of been one of the few religious founding fathers, but his religious beliefs do not make the US an Episcopalian nation.
First of all, the historical accuracy of that speech is debatable. Nearly twenty years after the speech was given, it was published in a book, rewritten by the author due to the sketchy memory of those who had heard it.
Secondly, he was an anti-federalist. He was a major contributing factor to the US Bill of Rights. The very first amendment separates the church and the state. He may of been one of the few religious founding fathers, but his religious beliefs do not make the US an Episcopalian nation.
This is quite interesting.
After all, the bible was written 100 years or more after Jesus died. Then, of course, was the Council of Nicea.
How do the proponents of the bible being the literal word of god discuss the fallibility of man after that period of time.
My original post was not based on The Age of Reason. My post is based on extensive readings of the founding fathers and their religious beliefs and practices and that influence on the founding of our government. In fact, The Age of Reason was published three years before the Treaty of Tripoli which would make it difficult to use it as a reference for my first post.
As far as Mr. Jefferson having some kind of Christian conscience, I haven't gathered that he was a Christian from anything that I have read. That's not to say he didn't believe some things that Christians do(i.e., "Thou shalt not kill"). In fact, Mr. Jefferson didn't believe that Jesus was divine. Jefferson simply believed that a person be free to practice or not practice any religion one desired, without retribution from government.
I wasn't referring to your original post in my answer, either. I was answering your post which referred to The Age of Reason. Which, btw, must be your favorite book because you also referred to it in another unrelated thread...
This is quite interesting.
After all, the bible was written 100 years or more after Jesus died. Then, of course, was the Council of Nicea.
How do the proponents of the bible being the literal word of god discuss the fallibility of man after that period of time.
Chielgirl, another potential problem with the bible is that the books that are contained in the bible were decided by a vote of men. They actually decided to include some and exclude others based on their vote. I wonder if all of the votes were counted?
Chielgirl, another potential problem with the bible is that the books that are contained in the bible were decided by a vote of men. They actually decided to include some and exclude others based on their vote. I wonder if all of the votes were counted?
You seem to be extremely knowledgeable and want to debate about history. You must therefore know that the number of manuscripts that agree are more for the Bible than any other ancient manuscript.
That is the widely accepted scientific method that proves the reliability of the Bible - among other things....
I wasn't referring to your original post in my answer, either. I was answering your post which referred to The Age of Reason. Which, btw, must be your favorite book because you also referred to it in another unrelated thread...
Actually World, I have a lot of favorite books. It just happened to be one that had application to the issues being discussed. Thanks for you comments on this thread. I find this topic interesting because it involves two things of interest to me-history and current political issues. There is a saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "People who don't know history are condemned to repeat it". I believe that a majority of people in this country are ignorant of what was involved, and the beliefs of the people involved, in the forming of the United States, as it relates to the intended role of religion and government.(btw, I'm not including you in this majority) I find it somewhat disheartening that people are making decisions in the voting booth who have little knowledge about our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Actually World, I have a lot of favorite books. It just happened to be one that had application to the issues being discussed. Thanks for you comments on this thread. I find this topic interesting because it involves two things of interest to me-history and current political issues. There is a saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "People who don't know history are condemned to repeat it". I believe that a majority of people in this country are ignorant of what was involved, and the beliefs of the people involved, in the forming of the United States, as it relates to the intended role of religion and government.(btw, I'm not including you in this majority) I find it somewhat disheartening that people are making decisions in the voting booth who have little knowledge about our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I hear you and agree with this particular post wholeheartedly!...
We all need to look at history and learn.
I'm very sorry for all of the mistakes, all of bad decisions, all of the intolerance and cruelty that have been made by people who are known to be christians... I wish I could do something about the bitterness against God and christians that their mistakes have caused.
But, separation of church and state does not mean that our government must re-write history... change the constitution, take God off our silver dollars, take prayer out of schools, take the Ten Commandments out of Government offices (the Ten C's have some good advice...even if it is from the Bible)
Freedom is what our country stands for. When we start taking away the freedom of any group - including christians - it is the beginning of the end.
First of all, the historical accuracy of that speech is debatable. Nearly twenty years after the speech was given, it was published in a book, rewritten by the author due to the sketchy memory of those who had heard it.
Secondly, he was an anti-federalist. He was a major contributing factor to the US Bill of Rights. The very first amendment separates the church and the state. He may of been one of the few religious founding fathers, but his religious beliefs do not make the US an Episcopalian nation.
Anything is debatable...just because it was published later does not mean they didn't have a copy of the speech. Nor eyewitnesses to testify of its validity.
Publishers, publish to make $, the timing was for the purpose of selling it at a time when the words proved moving and accurate.
Modern historians publish today on subjects that are hundreds of yrs. old, do we toss them in the bin, or read with anticipation of new information.
godspeed,
You seem to be extremely knowledgeable and want to debate about history. You must therefore know that the number of manuscripts that agree are more for the Bible than any other ancient manuscript.
That is the widely accepted scientific method that proves the reliability of the Bible - among other things....
That link only attempts to prove that the Bible has stayed the same over time, it doesn't say anything about how the actual new testament came to be. That site is a terrible source for anything, though, just look at the section for atheists, nothing but fallacious arguments after fallacious arguments (straw mans, arguments from incredulity, etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom
Anything is debatable...just because it was published later does not mean they didn't have a copy of the speech. Nor eyewitnesses to testify of its validity.
Publishers, publish to make $, the timing was for the purpose of selling it at a time when the words proved moving and accurate.
Modern historians publish today on subjects that are hundreds of yrs. old, do we toss them in the bin, or read with anticipation of new information.
godspeed,
freedom
They did NOT have a copy of the speech, like I said before, it was published 20 years later and the author had to rewrite it from the fuzzy memories of a few of those who heard it. It is a known FACT that he had to rewrite the speech. The debatable part is how accurate his rewrite is, even down to the famous "give me liberty or give me death" line.
As you say, publishers are in the business of making money, just like authors, and it is in an authors' (and publishers') best interest to make their book an interesting one.
They did NOT have a copy of the speech, like I said before, it was published 20 years later and the author had to rewrite it from the fuzzy memories of a few of those who heard it. It is a known FACT that he had to rewrite the speech. The debatable part is how accurate his rewrite is, even down to the famous "give me liberty or give me death" line.
As you say, publishers are in the business of making money, just like authors, and it is in an authors' (and publishers') best interest to make their book an interesting one.
Can you site one rebuttal of anyone that was present, while the speech was given, that says it is innacurate?
What about it gives you cause to dispute the words of the man that spoke it. Did he say it was re written based on memory, and that he erred in reproducing it?
How do you trust anything written ever?
From Science, Philosophy, History? Do you apply the same scrutiny on everything that has ever been written?
I did a little search regarding authenticity and it appears that those present gave an accurate portrail of the speech given.
St. George Tucker was present and took notes on the speech and confirmed the published document as an accurate representation of what Patrick Henry said.
The greater point is that what ever he said, moved men to fight for freedom and stand against the tyranny of English domination. I think history proved him to be right. And none dispute that his belief in God and freedom motivated him and guided his opinion of divine destiny. Looks like he was rightly led.
godspeed,
freedom
Last edited by freedom; 03-16-2008 at 07:26 PM..
Reason: Added thoughts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wasn't referring to your original post...
Thanks for you comments on this thread. I find this topic interesting because it involves two things of interest to me-history and current political issues. There is a saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "People who don't know history are condemned to repeat it". I believe that a majority of people in this country are ignorant of what was involved, and the beliefs of the people involved, in the forming of the United States, as it relates to the intended role of religion and government.(btw, I'm not including you in this majority
