Interesting concept! So another thread is do to start here I feel
Well, then I guess that's the crux of the disagreement. That's good to know. I can deal with disagreement as long as I feel I got my point out.
Same-sex partners to get fed benefits
- Thread starter Beanstalk
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Well, then I guess that's the crux of the disagreement. That's good to know. I can deal with disagreement as long as I feel I got my point out.
Wrong, It was the Geneva bible.
I don't believe this is quite accurate. There were two groups aboard, the separatists, the Christian group searching for religious freedom and the strangers looking to make their fortune in the new world. The two groups didn't much like like each other and openly disagreed making the voyage more difficult. Someone with a better knowledge of history may want to comment on this.
America's First True "Pilgrims" | History & Archaeology | Smithsonian Magazine
This book is on my reading list now. Especially since I plan to visit this area and will now be a permanent resident of FL.
Fascinating story!!! Now that's a history lesson!
G
This book is on my reading list now. Especially since I plan to visit this area and will now be a permanent resident of FL.
Fascinating story!!! Now that's a history lesson!
G
So the founding principles of this country were bloody Christian savagery and atrocity. By the logic of some on this thread, we are supposed to maintain those principles for an eternity since they were our foundation.
I didn't post it to stir up trouble 
- but mostly because it was so fascinating and FL has a lot of history I did not know about.
But back to the subject at hand. Regardless of who thought what hundreds of years ago (or longer) or what we think now, the issue is the constitution - which is a secular document. I am not a constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that any Biblical interpretation of whether or not same sex marriage should be or shouldn't be - is moot. This is a constitutional issue - and it was written to [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
LOL I don't even remember what this entire thread started out talking about!
I always try to imagine myself on the side of the person who is in love with another person of the same sex. I really try to imagine how this must make someone feel to hear that they are denied the same rights that I have. I love my husband. They love their partner.
It must make someone feel very unaccepted to see picket signs, etc...I would think it would make them feel like society believes their love to be second rate. Since we have no official church of These United States it comes back to our constitution doesn't it? Where is this logic flawed? I am truly trying to understand why someone would disagree.
Thanks for reading,
G
[/FONT]
- but mostly because it was so fascinating and FL has a lot of history I did not know about.But back to the subject at hand. Regardless of who thought what hundreds of years ago (or longer) or what we think now, the issue is the constitution - which is a secular document. I am not a constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that any Biblical interpretation of whether or not same sex marriage should be or shouldn't be - is moot. This is a constitutional issue - and it was written to [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
LOL I don't even remember what this entire thread started out talking about!
I always try to imagine myself on the side of the person who is in love with another person of the same sex. I really try to imagine how this must make someone feel to hear that they are denied the same rights that I have. I love my husband. They love their partner.
It must make someone feel very unaccepted to see picket signs, etc...I would think it would make them feel like society believes their love to be second rate. Since we have no official church of These United States it comes back to our constitution doesn't it? Where is this logic flawed? I am truly trying to understand why someone would disagree.
Thanks for reading,
G
[/FONT]
Last edited:
We are both incorrect, Please read,
The Geneva Bible
- The First English Bible in America
The first English church service held on American soil was probably conducted by a chaplain to Sir Francis Drake when he put ashore briefly in California in 1579, and the Bible used was more likely a Great Bible or Bishops Bible (first edition 1568) than a Geneva Bible. Yet it is unknown.
Sir Walter Raleighs ill-fated Roanoke Island colony beginning in 1584 certainly had a Bible. Captain John Smiths book, The General Historie of Virginia, published in 1624, states that Roanoke colonist Thomas Hariot, a devout Christian, had a Bible among his possessions. Because of the absence of any Puritan influence, it is assumed that Hariots as well as other Bibles in the colony were Bishops Bibles. But the Roanoke colony disappeared mysteriously, and whether they used a Bishops Bible or Geneva Bible is unknown.
Despite the uncertainty of the Geneva Bible being the first English Bible brought to American soil, it is certain the Geneva Bible became the spiritual foundation for the future United States of America. Though earlier temporary colonies may have used other Bibles, the Geneva Bible was most likely the Bible of Jamestown, and clearly the Bible of the Pilgrims and the Puritans.
It is likely that the Geneva Bible first came to Jamestown with Captain John Smith and company in 1607, since the first ministers of Virginia were Puritans. In 1609 William Strachey, secretary of the Virginia Company, arrived in Jamestown, and quoted from the Geneva Bible in writing his history of Virginia. Rev. Alexander Whitaker, who came to the colony in 1611, used a Geneva Bible as documented in one of his surviving sermon texts. It is very likely that John Rolfe, a young widower, used a Geneva Bible to teach Matoaka, better known as Pocahontas, about Christianity. She became a Christian, and soon afterwards, on April 5, 1614, they were married.
Also called the "Pilgrims Bible," the Geneva Bible influenced many of the Pilgrims. In his book The Genesis of the New England Churches, Leonard Bacon says that the Pilgrims Pastor, John Robinson, used the Geneva Bible in Leyden. It therefore implies that it was the Geneva Bible that his congregation carried to the New World. Further, Massachusetts Governor John Bradfords history quotes the Geneva Bible. In fact, the Pilgrim Society Museum in Plymouth, Massachusetts has Geneva Bibles that belonged to Governor Bradford as well as other Pilgrim Fathers.
P. Marion Simms, author of The Bible in America, says of the Geneva Bible, "Being a Puritan Bible, the Geneva would be used throughout the early colonies wherever English-speaking Puritans were found. New England used it extensively and the Plymouth colony used it exclusively." Even the famous Puritan preacher John Cotton used a copy of the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible helped form the Christian culture in the English-speaking colonies of the New World that would later become America.
I
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]LOL I don't even remember what this entire thread started out talking about!
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]I[/FONT]
It was about The Obama administration allowing same sex partners to get fed benefits. Very interesting twist has become of it on this thread, Interesting how it becomes more important for some to get their religious beliefs into a thread about politics
Guess thats what the world has come to with the INTERNET now, Everyone has a Soap Box to stand on!
Since Y'all are discussing Bibles, I have a cool story. I wanted to give a friend an antique Bible for Christmas one year, went to Scott Antiques and found one! It's gorgeous!
Old English and dedicated to Prince James! He wasn't even King, yet! And, the King James version is even different from this one~~~~~~
Groovy, huh??
Old English and dedicated to Prince James! He wasn't even King, yet! And, the King James version is even different from this one~~~~~~
Groovy, huh??
Post #15 threw the discussion off course and was rather insulting implying that non-religious are necessarily amoral.