The Divine Inspiration of the Constitution of the USA

[McCulloch]

Were they [the US Founders ] ordained by God to frame an eternal and inspired constitution?

Uh, yes.

Were the US Founders ordained by God to frame an eternal and inspired constitution?

[Nickman]

Were they [the US Founders ] ordained by God to frame an eternal and inspired constitution?

Uh, yes.

Were the US Founders ordained by God to frame an eternal and inspired constitution?

Doubtful. Many people don't understand how the constitution even came about. I just finished a Politics 215 class. Prior to our current constitution, we had the Confederate Constitution or Articles of Confederation. It was a trial and error that made our current constitution. It was actually difficult for the current constitution to even become adopted by all the states at that time. They all had their own constitutions and the citizens lived in devolutionary government. This means that states had more power than the federal government. The state were very reluctant to accept the constitution we currently have. They saw it as another form of what they had just left in England. The state of Virginia actually caused the most problems. It had a long territory that cut the states in half. It stretched from the coast to coast. Since it was the largest, the federal government found it very hard to get other states to accept the constitution and the state with the largest territory and population wasn't having it.

Given the history of our nation and how the Constitution came about, I would have to say that it was not divinely inspired. It was a trial and error of previously failed constitutions and governing ideas. It wasn't unanimously accepted by the charters or states. The states were in favor of the Articles of Confederation.

[JoeyKnothead]

Were they [the US Founders ] ordained by God to frame an eternal and inspired constitution?

Uh, yes.

Were the US Founders ordained by God to frame an eternal and inspired constitution?

As with many of the referenced poster's statements, you'll not find any more truth to that than you'll find I'm the man in the moon.

Where wishful thinking abounds, such statements as we see referenced here are sure to follow.

[Divine Insight]

Were the US Founders ordained by God to frame an eternal and inspired constitution?

Possibly. But it certainly wouldn't have been the God portrayed by the Hebrew Bible.

The US Founders prepared a constitution that begins with "We the People". That goes against all Biblical concepts of a central authoritarian God who works through Kings and monarchies to rule HIS people.

The only way the US Constitution could have been inspired by God is if God is more like the concept of God portrayed by the Eastern Mystical religion, then it would make sense that maybe God inspired it.

But no, a democracy that is run by the people and governed by consensual voting of the people is about as anti-biblical as it gets. That's direct blaspheme against the central authority of a God who works through Kings.

It's often claimed by some people that the USA is a "Christian Nation", but nothing could be further from the truth. The USA is as anti biblical as a nation can be and will hopefully continue to flourish and grow in that direction.

[McCulloch]

I would say that the US constitution was inspired more by John Locke and the Enlightenment than by the Christian God and Divine inspiration.

[bluethread]

Were the US Founders ordained by God to frame an eternal and inspired constitution?

Possibly. But it certainly wouldn't have been the God portrayed by the Hebrew Bible.

The US Founders prepared a constitution that begins with "We the People". That goes against all Biblical concepts of a central authoritarian God who works through Kings and monarchies to rule HIS people.

The only way the US Constitution could have been inspired by God is if God is more like the concept of God portrayed by the Eastern Mystical religion, then it would make sense that maybe God inspired it.

But no, a democracy that is run by the people and governed by consensual voting of the people is about as anti-biblical as it gets. That's direct blaspheme against the central authority of a God who works through Kings.

It's often claimed by some people that the USA is a "Christian Nation", but nothing could be further from the truth. The USA is as anti biblical as a nation can be and will hopefully continue to flourish and grow in that direction.

It would be nice, if people would stop using the word "biblical", when they mean "doctrinal". The "devine right of kings" is an RCC doctrine, established to assure the power of the papacy without the force of arms. Under this doctrine, the dictates of the RCC could be enforced by potentates that seek the the blessings of the pope.

The overwhelming message of the Scriptures is personal responsibility and accountability. Adonai only allowed authoritarianism at the request of man. Therefore, the Scriptural attitude toward authoritarian structures is one of tolerance at best. Though I would not call it "mystical", the "Hebrew Bible" is the documentation of an eastern philosophy.

[bluethread]

I would say that the US constitution was inspired more by John Locke and the Enlightenment than by the Christian God and Divine inspiration.

John Locke and the Enlightenment were greatly influenced by the Scriptures, as mass publication brought to light the contradictions between RCC doctrine and Sola Scriptura. The discoveries through the use of the scientific method did help fuel the enlightenment, but they were not the entire thrust of the enlightenment. It is my understanding that the conflicts were primarily with RCC doctrine and the Scriptures were used by many of the enlightenment philosophers in establishing the philosophies of that age.

I do not think that the Constitution is a sacred document. However, many of the priniples establlished in the Constitution were derived from thr Scriptures, including the concept of constitutional government.

[Nickman]

I would say that the US constitution was inspired more by John Locke and the Enlightenment than by the Christian God and Divine inspiration.

John Locke and the Enlightenment were greatly influenced by the Scriptures, as mass publication brought to light the contradictions between RCC doctrine and Sola Scriptura. The discoveries through the use of the scientific method did help fuel the enlightenment, but they were not the entire thrust of the enlightenment. It is my understanding that the conflicts were primarily with RCC doctrine and the Scriptures were used by many of the enlightenment philosophers in establishing the philosophies of that age.

I do not think that the Constitution is a sacred document. However, many of the priniples establlished in the Constitution were derived from thr Scriptures, including the concept of constitutional government.

John Locke was a proponent for the idea that people are generally good and left without government would govern themselves. This is far from the biblical idea that people are inherently sinful.

Hobbs would be more about where your coming from. His idea was that people are general bad and left without government would destroy themselves.

[JoeyKnothead]

Is that a Cricketus silentus I hear?

We can do all the claiming in the world, but if we can't show folks we speak truth, we ought'n be too upset when they don't believe us just 'cause we have mouths.

[Darias]

John Locke was a proponent for the idea that people are generally good and left without government would govern themselves. This is far from the biblical idea that people are inherently sinful.

Hobbs would be more about where your coming from. His idea was that people are general bad and left without government would destroy themselves.

Given all the death and destruction caused by governments, I'd say Locke was right.

Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.

Hobbs was wrong.



Also, this didn't happen:

[center][/center]