By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Was the U.S Constitution inspired by God (like is said of the Bible)?

richardhutnik on 10 July 2012
Kasz216 said:

Depends on how you think the bible was created.

Most of the important founding fathers were actually deists.... BUT they were mostly Christian Deists.

That is... deists who denied Jesus' godliness but accepted his teachings as truth.  It's funny that someone above tried to use the Jefferson Bible above as an example that he wasn't Christian... when in reality it showed his belief in jesus' teachings were particularly strong, since he went to the trouble of rewriting the whole thing.  Cutting out specifically what jesus said.  Worth noting, after his death it strated being published, and was given to any new Congressmen who joined congress for a while.   So it very clearly wasn't some distatestful heretical work to most of the christians at the time... I can only image the outrage too if the government gave that book to entering congressment to read now adays as well.  Since people continue to misrepresent what seperation between church and State meant. (Only that there would be no laws supporting one religion over another.)

The question isn't so much "How do you think the constitution was created" So much as... "How do you think the bible was created."

That the constitution was created with a heavy influence from Christianity is beyond debate, hell everything everybody does in the west is still heavily influenced by Christianity, even those who have joined other religions or are full out atheists.

General western philosophy and our moral code come directly from it.

So, though only way to agree with the author is if I think it happened in another way. Which is, the bible as constructed which wasn't a real thing until long after Jesus' death was constructed as a bonding ethos for one nation.

Which arguably, it was, the current bible more or less coming together by Roman decree for Christianity to "figure it out" and get rid of all other teachings except for a core book.

In order to focus on what the artist means, which is the basis of this thread, I believe it is important to look at their background.  I found this on the site, regarding the painting:

Christ is holding up the U.S.Constitution while behind him are the founding fathers and other patriotic heroes from the past two centuries speaking to us from the dust. They are asking us to remember the foundation of our country's greatness and the liberties defined under the constitution. The fact that Christ holds the Constitution is very significant. I believe it was a God inspired document. I believe God holds this country in the hollow of his hand. The Constitution gave Americans the kind of liberty unknown elsewhere in the world. I believe our country has been gradually weakened over the years, and we are reaching a tipping point. In the front of the painting, on the left side, are your strong Americans. On the other side are those who I believe have weakened the country. The painting is very symbolic, and I wanted it to be that way to cause people to study it and ponder its message. I hope people will understand my feelings as they learn more about the meaning of the painting.

Ok, so maybe it is deist.  Well, you find the artist graduated from BYU, which is another sign.  And you can see the artist's other works here that are religious in nature:

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/page/view_thumbnails/Religious

One is Savior and and Son of God.  This isn't some sort of deism.  I would be hard pressed to NOT think the artist doesn't believe that the Constitution is inspired by God the way, Christians think the Bible is.  Maybe it is slightly lower form of inspired, but it is religious.  Flat out, I can say from a Christian perspective, this is a serious pushing of idolatry, and I find it offensive personally.  I will withhold large degrees of offensiveness, if I am seeing it wrong.  But as I see it now, I am offended by it.  

The artist doesn't say the work is the work of Christians, or under Christian influence.  The artist puts the hands in Jesus directly.  If the artist wanted to say something different, then you could have Jesus there, looking over the process and approving.  But, as of now, Jesus AT LEAST, is taking the role of Moses in that painting with the 10 Commandments.  And that is elevating the Constitution on par with the Bible.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 10 July 2012
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:

Depends on how you think the bible was created.

Most of the important founding fathers were actually deists.... BUT they were mostly Christian Deists.

That is... deists who denied Jesus' godliness but accepted his teachings as truth.  It's funny that someone above tried to use the Jefferson Bible above as an example that he wasn't Christian... when in reality it showed his belief in jesus' teachings were particularly strong, since he went to the trouble of rewriting the whole thing.  Cutting out specifically what jesus said.  Worth noting, after his death it strated being published, and was given to any new Congressmen who joined congress for a while.   So it very clearly wasn't some distatestful heretical work to most of the christians at the time... I can only image the outrage too if the government gave that book to entering congressment to read now adays as well.  Since people continue to misrepresent what seperation between church and State meant. (Only that there would be no laws supporting one religion over another.)

The question isn't so much "How do you think the constitution was created" So much as... "How do you think the bible was created."

That the constitution was created with a heavy influence from Christianity is beyond debate, hell everything everybody does in the west is still heavily influenced by Christianity, even those who have joined other religions or are full out atheists.

General western philosophy and our moral code come directly from it.

So, though only way to agree with the author is if I think it happened in another way. Which is, the bible as constructed which wasn't a real thing until long after Jesus' death was constructed as a bonding ethos for one nation.
Which arguably, it was, the current bible more or less coming together by Roman decree for Christianity to "figure it out" and get rid of all other teachings except for a core book.

In order to focus on what the artist means, which is the basis of this thread, I believe it is important to look at their background.  I found this on the site, regarding the painting:

Christ is holding up the U.S.Constitution while behind him are the founding fathers and other patriotic heroes from the past two centuries speaking to us from the dust. They are asking us to remember the foundation of our country's greatness and the liberties defined under the constitution. The fact that Christ holds the Constitution is very significant. I believe it was a God inspired document. I believe God holds this country in the hollow of his hand. The Constitution gave Americans the kind of liberty unknown elsewhere in the world. I believe our country has been gradually weakened over the years, and we are reaching a tipping point. In the front of the painting, on the left side, are your strong Americans. On the other side are those who I believe have weakened the country. The painting is very symbolic, and I wanted it to be that way to cause people to study it and ponder its message. I hope people will understand my feelings as they learn more about the meaning of the painting.

Ok, so maybe it is deist.  Well, you find the artist graduated from BYU, which is another sign.  And you can see the artist's other works here that are religious in nature:

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/page/view_thumbnails/Religious

One is Savior and and Son of God.  This isn't some sort of deism.  I would be hard pressed to NOT think the artist doesn't believe that the Constitution is inspired by God the way, Christians think the Bible is.  Maybe it is slightly lower form of inspired, but it is religious.  Flat out, I can say from a Christian perspective, this is a serious pushing of idolatry, and I find it offensive personally.  I will withhold large degrees of offensiveness, if I am seeing it wrong.  But as I see it now, I am offended by it.  

The artist doesn't say the work is the work of Christians, or under Christian influence.  The artist puts the hands in Jesus directly.  If the artist wanted to say something different, then you could have Jesus there, looking over the process and approving.  But, as of now, Jesus AT LEAST, is taking the role of Moses in that painting with the 10 Commandments.  And that is elevating the Constitution on par with the Bible.


I feel like you didn't read my whole post.  I bolded what you missed.

In otherwords, to agree that the Bible and Constituion were created in the same way, you need to disagree with his premise and recognize both not as primarily reigious documents mandated by god, but as primarily political documents meant to be the foundations of a country.

So that it wasn't that Jesus created the bible so much as it was people afterwords taking what they liked out of christianity



gergroy on 10 July 2012
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:

Depends on how you think the bible was created.

Most of the important founding fathers were actually deists.... BUT they were mostly Christian Deists.

That is... deists who denied Jesus' godliness but accepted his teachings as truth.  It's funny that someone above tried to use the Jefferson Bible above as an example that he wasn't Christian... when in reality it showed his belief in jesus' teachings were particularly strong, since he went to the trouble of rewriting the whole thing.  Cutting out specifically what jesus said.  Worth noting, after his death it strated being published, and was given to any new Congressmen who joined congress for a while.   So it very clearly wasn't some distatestful heretical work to most of the christians at the time... I can only image the outrage too if the government gave that book to entering congressment to read now adays as well.  Since people continue to misrepresent what seperation between church and State meant. (Only that there would be no laws supporting one religion over another.)

The question isn't so much "How do you think the constitution was created" So much as... "How do you think the bible was created."

That the constitution was created with a heavy influence from Christianity is beyond debate, hell everything everybody does in the west is still heavily influenced by Christianity, even those who have joined other religions or are full out atheists.

General western philosophy and our moral code come directly from it.

So, though only way to agree with the author is if I think it happened in another way. Which is, the bible as constructed which wasn't a real thing until long after Jesus' death was constructed as a bonding ethos for one nation.

Which arguably, it was, the current bible more or less coming together by Roman decree for Christianity to "figure it out" and get rid of all other teachings except for a core book.

In order to focus on what the artist means, which is the basis of this thread, I believe it is important to look at their background.  I found this on the site, regarding the painting:

Christ is holding up the U.S.Constitution while behind him are the founding fathers and other patriotic heroes from the past two centuries speaking to us from the dust. They are asking us to remember the foundation of our country's greatness and the liberties defined under the constitution. The fact that Christ holds the Constitution is very significant. I believe it was a God inspired document. I believe God holds this country in the hollow of his hand. The Constitution gave Americans the kind of liberty unknown elsewhere in the world. I believe our country has been gradually weakened over the years, and we are reaching a tipping point. In the front of the painting, on the left side, are your strong Americans. On the other side are those who I believe have weakened the country. The painting is very symbolic, and I wanted it to be that way to cause people to study it and ponder its message. I hope people will understand my feelings as they learn more about the meaning of the painting.

Ok, so maybe it is deist.  Well, you find the artist graduated from BYU, which is another sign.  And you can see the artist's other works here that are religious in nature:

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/page/view_thumbnails/Religious

One is Savior and and Son of God.  This isn't some sort of deism.  I would be hard pressed to NOT think the artist doesn't believe that the Constitution is inspired by God the way, Christians think the Bible is.  Maybe it is slightly lower form of inspired, but it is religious.  Flat out, I can say from a Christian perspective, this is a serious pushing of idolatry, and I find it offensive personally.  I will withhold large degrees of offensiveness, if I am seeing it wrong.  But as I see it now, I am offended by it.  

The artist doesn't say the work is the work of Christians, or under Christian influence.  The artist puts the hands in Jesus directly.  If the artist wanted to say something different, then you could have Jesus there, looking over the process and approving.  But, as of now, Jesus AT LEAST, is taking the role of Moses in that painting with the 10 Commandments.  And that is elevating the Constitution on par with the Bible.

Seeing as the artist is mormon, I guess I will try to give you some context, although I don't believe this artists work is a very good indicator of mormon theology.  First of all, like I said before, mormons believe that constitution is divinely inspired, but we don't believe it is scripture or equal to bible.  We believe god wanted a nation of freedom and religious tolerance in the world, a chosen nation much like israel once was.  In that sense, the constitution was inspired to bring about such a nation.  

However, this artist goes way beyond that with this painting and others.  First thing to note, BYU wouldn't even sell the painting you posted because it was too political.  I agree that this painting is offensive, having christ looking on and approving would have been much better and more in line with mormon idealogy.  It is even more offensive when you look at bottom right and see all the left leaning people associated with satan.  The author also has an even more offensive painting of obama on top of a pile of money looking over a crowd in chains if you look online.  

My take away is that this painter believes that liberals are evil and that conservatives are what god wants.  Personally, from a mormon perspective, that is a load of crap.  If you take away the social issues, liberals are actually closer to christs teachings than conservatives are.  



KungKras on 10 July 2012

I found the part with the smug professor to be especially offensive.
Seriously, if you want to criticize science, you should damn well do some better science yourself! Contempt for other viewpoints my ass. More like contempt for people thinking unproven faith should be taught as proven facts.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Adinnieken on 10 July 2012
richardhutnik said:

This artist thinks so:

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353

 

Ok, I had a bit of a concern that the artist was saying Jesus gave the world the U.S Constitution.  But, the artist only says the Constitution is God inspired (same is said of the Bible though).

This image fails to take into consideration the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution.

Modern day Republicans would ascend far more to the powers of the states under the Articles of Confederation than they ever would to the Constitution which provided for the powers of the Federal government. 

People seem to want to believe that we went from the Declaration of Independence to the US Constitution, but there was the failed government under the Articles of Confederation in between. 



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 10 July 2012
KungKras said:
I found the part with the smug professor to be especially offensive.
Seriously, if you want to criticize science, you should damn well do some better science yourself! Contempt for other viewpoints my ass. More like contempt for people thinking unproven faith should be taught as proven facts.

I have issues when people try to fuse political views with religious ones.  End result is that the political views end up warping the religious views, and then the zeal of the religious side ends up being used to justify the political views.  The religion gets corrupted in the process, and the corrupted thing gets spread by coersive power.  And people of the same religion, who see differently are shut out of the discussion, and people outside that religious faith who may agree with another view of the religious belief, get turned away.  



richardhutnik on 10 July 2012
Adinnieken said:
richardhutnik said:

This artist thinks so:

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353

 

Ok, I had a bit of a concern that the artist was saying Jesus gave the world the U.S Constitution.  But, the artist only says the Constitution is God inspired (same is said of the Bible though).

This image fails to take into consideration the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution.

Modern day Republicans would ascend far more to the powers of the states under the Articles of Confederation than they ever would to the Constitution which provided for the powers of the Federal government. 

People seem to want to believe that we went from the Declaration of Independence to the US Constitution, but there was the failed government under the Articles of Confederation in between. 

I wonder what Hamilton would think about those who argue for a weaker Federal government.



Adinnieken on 11 July 2012
richardhutnik said:

I wonder what Hamilton would think about those who argue for a weaker Federal government.

I think Hamilton would be absolutely dismayed about the modern Republican's, as they embody part of the beliefs that the Democratic-Republican Party of his era believed.  While the modern day Republican's somewhat embody his fiscal beliefs, no current party has the same fiscal beliefs that the Federalists once did.