Founded on Christian principles? Griffon believes otherwise.

[strapko]

Sup guys, I am a fellow RP supporter. Browsing through these forums I always notice some individual boosting about how we were founded on Christian Principle's.(We all know who he is=D) Reading G Edwards essay, it seems otherwise... that we were founded on the principles of logic=D. I thought this was an interesting read so I decided to share.



"An excellent example of this difference can be seen by comparing the U.S Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration was an expression of the personal convictions of its signers, and it recognized God by stating that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. However, when it came to writing the Constitution, which was the binding law for a government of all citizens, regardless of their religious convictions, they chose a different course. There is no mention of God in the Constitution. This was not an accident and it certainly was not because the Founding Fathers believed that theology was not important. It was because they understood that one cannot legislate morality. It springs, not from constitutions or laws, but from the hearts and minds of the people. They also understood the necessity of building a social order that was tolerant of all religious persuasions and which, in fact, was dedicated to protecting the right to hold diverse views – exactly as we do in Freedom Force.

This issue was well understood at the time of drafting the United States Constitution. Although there were some who felt that the new government should be officially established as a Christian nation, the dominant view of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention was expressed by James Madison, who said:

Who does not see that the same authority that can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? ... Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. [1]

The majority of the Founding Fathers believed that, whenever the powers of church and state are combined, and religion becomes law, religious persecution would be the inevitable result. Thomas Paine, the man whose powerful essays helped to spark the American Revolution, was one of the most powerful advocates of this view. Although he was not present at the creation of the Constitution, his views were representative of the majority opinion at that time. He wrote:

By engendering the church with the state, a sort of mule-animal, capable only of destroying, and not of breeding up, is produced, called, The Church established by Law. ... The Inquisition in Spain does not proceed from the religion originally professed, but from this mule-animal, engendered between the church and the state. The burnings [of alleged witches] in Smithfield proceeded from the same heterogeneous production; and it was the regeneration of this strange animal in England afterwards, that renewed rancor and irreligion among the inhabitants, and that drove the people called Quakers and Dissenters to America. Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion reassumes its original benignity. [2]

It is curious that, in our present day, people of deep religious convictions can work tirelessly for a corporation, giving the largest single portion of their lives to its purposes, without feeling concern over the fact that its bylaws and mission statement do not mention God. They do not hesitate to sign a long-term loan contract for a home or an automobile or a business venture with no mention of God in the documents. They willingly place their life savings into investment programs that make no mention of God anywhere in their literature. They eagerly take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of their country even though there is no mention of God anywhere in the text of that document. Yet, when it comes to joining with others for the defense of their own freedom, they insist that God must be proclaimed, and they shun any movement that does not resemble their church.

Imagine that we are in the trenches of a battlefield with bullets whizzing overhead – and a man jumps into the trench and begins shooting back at the enemy. How absurd it would be to say: “Excuse me, are you of my faith? If not, we cannot cooperate. You must leave.” And yet, we see this sort of thing all the time in the battle trenches for freedom. As one man wrote to us recently:

I cannot support your organization…. The United States of America was founded on Biblical teachings, and the only way to bring this country back to greatness is by obeying God's word and His commands.… The motto of the American Revolution was: "No King but King Jesus!"

I replied that, in truth, this was not everyone’s motto. In fact, it was not the motto even of the majority. Christians outnumbered any other religious group in colonial America, but there were many others as well, including a large segment of the leaders who did not identify with any particular faith at all. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists, which means they believed in a supreme creator of the Universe but did not subscribe to a particular religion. Here are a few notable examples.

Benjamin Franklin:
I was scarce fifteen, when, ... some books against Deism fell into my hands; ... It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist. [3]

Thomas Paine:
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy. But ... I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. [4]

Thomas Jefferson occasionally was accused by his critics of being an atheist, but he was a classic deist. Gene Garman, tells us: "Jefferson says he was a ... "Unitarian" (letter to Waterhouse, Jan. 8, 1825). Jefferson rejected the Christian doctrine of the "Trinity" (letter to Derieux, Jul. 25, 1788), as well as the doctrine of an eternal Hell (letter to Van der Kemp, May 1, 1817). Further, Jefferson specifically named Joseph Priestly (English Unitarian who moved to America) and Conyers Middleton (English Deist) and said: "I rest on them ... as the basis of my own faith" (letter to Adams, Aug. 22, 1813). Therefore, without using the actual words, Jefferson issued an authentic statement claiming Deism as his faith. The 1971 (ninth edition) Encyclopedia Britannica, 7:183, states the following: "By the end of the 18th century deism had become a dominant religious attitude among upper-class Americans, and the first three presidents of the United States held this conviction, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence." [5]

George Washington was, of course, the first president of the United States, and to learn that the Encyclopedia says he was a deist is surprising in light of the stories circulated in later years claiming he was a Christian. This can be traced back to the 19th Century writings of Mason Locke Weems, a Christian preacher who created the fable of George Washington and the cherry tree. However, a careful reading of the historical record shows that Washington often referred to "Providence" (implying a divine power directing the affairs of men) but never espoused a specific religion.

In the book Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr., we read on page 92, "Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters."

On page 82 of the same book, Boller includes a quote from a Presbyterian minister, Arthur B. Bradford, who was an associate of Ashbel Green, another Presbyterian minister who had known George Washington personally. Bradford wrote that Green, "often said in my hearing, though sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist." [6]

Many of the Founding Fathers, like Washington, were deferential to religion even though not professing a specific faith, but some of them, were quite hostile to religion. Let us re-phrase that. They were not hostile to religion but what they perceived to be the exploitation of religion by religious leaders and their earthly organizations. Here are a few examples.

Thomas Jefferson:
Nothing can be more exactly and seriously true than ... that but a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their aggressors in church and state; that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves, that rational men, not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ. [7]

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. [8]

Thomas Paine:
The Church has set up a system of religion very contradictory to the character of the person whose name it bears. It has set up a religion of pomp and revenue, in pretended imitation of a person whose life was humility and poverty. [9]

James Madison:
Ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. [10]

John Adams:
Where do we find a praecept in the Gospel requiring Ecclesiastical Synods, Convocations, Councils, Decrees, Confessions, Oaths, Subscriptions and whole Cartloads of other trumpery that we find Religion incumbered with in these days? [11]

Major Greene this Evening fell into some conversation with me about the Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the Argument he advanced was, "that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes," and that "these things are very misterious." [The following sentence appears in the margin.] Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity. [12]

President Adams, along with the unanimous vote of the Senate, signed the Treaty of Tripoli on June 7, 1797. Article 11 states: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

It is clear from this sampling that our friend who said the motto of the American Revolution was "No king but King Jesus" had an incomplete view of American history. It is true that Christianity was the most populous religion in colonial America and that many of the mores that became a part of the American political system can be traced to the Christian ethic, yet there were deep divisions between the various sects. Some groups even felt that the others were not really Christian at all but heresies instead. More important, however, is the fact that religion was not the motivator of the American Revolution. It was not a religious crusade but a struggle for personal and economic liberty. General Washington was wise not to quiz them on their theology. He needed every able bodied man who was willing to fight regardless of their religious convictions. Freedom Force is following his example. (Incidentally, I am happy to report that, after reading the first draft of this reply, this gentleman reconsidered his position and became a member!!)"

[noxagol]

To say we were founded on Christian principles shows a complete lack of knowledge of most of the founders' thoughts on Christianity. Sure, some of them were Christian, but most were just deists. I think Franklin might have even been atheist though I'm not sure.

[Kade]

This thread

Will not end well.

http://gallery.dirtyhandschoppers.com/gallery/albums/Posters/this_will_not_end_well.sized.jpg

[Kade]

Sup guys, I am a fellow RP supporter. Browsing through these forums I always notice some individual boosting about how we were founded on Christian Principle's.(We all know who he is=D) Reading G Edwards essay, it seems otherwise... that we were founded on the principles of logic=D. I thought this was an interesting read so I decided to share.




It is a good read (still reading it)...

I'd like to comment that we have discussed this fully... the "belligerantes" ( a gang of insane theocratic Jesus Freaks) will come in here to help you understand that you are going to hell, and that you are not a patriot if you use common sense and basic history to understand the reduced role of Christianity in this nation's formation.

Fight the good fight my friend, against the belligerantes, whether you are a believer or not, we can all hold strong against ridiculous inaccuracy, like the re-shaping of our country's great history to fit into Christian propaganda.

[FunkBuddha]

To say we were founded on Christian principles shows a complete lack of knowledge of most of the founders' thoughts on Christianity. Sure, some of them were Christian, but most were just deists. I think Franklin might have even been atheist though I'm not sure.

If we were a Christian nation we would abide by Christian principles such as the Golden Rule and the Just War theory. I'm not a Christian myself but I think these are good principles to live and rule by.

The right has no one to blame but themselves for the societal problems they believe we are facing. They are the ones who deviated from their principles.

I have Christian neighbors who are missionaries that are excellent people. They practice what I believe to be true Christianity. They don't go out preaching to people and telling them how to live. They do it by example. They've been to Sudan and several other poor countries and they don't preach. They just try and help people.

They don't try and use the force of government, they use their own money and money that people have donated. My wife and I have given them money several times but they've never asked us for anything. They also help people out in our local community.

They also paid off all of their debt and saved up enough money so that they could be full time missionaries with the help of donations.

Even though I'm not a Christian I would be honored to live in a country that followed these same principles.

[Kade]

If we were a Christian nation we would abide by Christian principles such as the Golden Rule and the Just War theory. I'm not a Christian myself but I think these are good principles to live and rule by.

The right has no one to blame but themselves for the societal problems they believe we are facing. They are the ones who deviated from their principles.

I have Christian neighbors who are missionaries that are excellent people. They practice what I believe to be true Christianity. They don't go out preaching to people and telling them how to live. They do it by example. They've been to Sudan and several other poor countries and they don't preach. They just try and help people.

They don't try and use the force of government, they use their own money and money that people have donated. My wife and I have given them money several times but they've never asked us for anything. They also help people out in our local community.

Even though I'm not a Christian I would be honored to live in a country that followed these same principles.

Me too.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Torture_Inquisition.jpg

I can feel the burn.

[tonesforjonesbones]

When we say "founded on Christian principles" we mean this:

Don't steal
Don't Kill
Peace
Freedom (God's free will)
Don't covet your neighbors wife or property
No Usuary. (bad thing)
Love your fellowman
Be charitable..help people.

That sort of thing. Is anyone opposed to these ideas? TONES

[Truth Warrior]

Griffin is correct.

[Kade]

When we say "founded on Christian principles" we mean this:

Don't steal
Don't Kill
Peace
Freedom (God's free will)
Don't covet your neighbors wife or property
No Usuary. (bad thing)
Love your fellowman
Be charitable..help people.

That sort of thing. Is anyone opposed to these ideas? TONES

Are you saying adultery should be illegal?
That I should be legally forced to love my neighbor and fellow man?
That freedom is only under your god's will?
That I must partake in charity?


Your list is crap.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Ok, so you maintian that those things are bad? No wonder the USA has gone to hell in a handbasket. No moral compass. You can watch the further demise of our country then. Yes, I suppose you do have the freedom to destroy it. TONES

[Kade]

Ok, so you maintian that those things are bad? No wonder the USA has gone to hell in a handbasket. No moral compass. You can watch the further demise of our country then. Yes, I suppose you do have the freedom to destroy it. TONES

Yes, I maintain that any legislation that restricts personal liberty, especially in regards to sex and how I feel about other people is tyrannical. You better believe I would fight that nonsense with every available muscle in my body.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Do you remember what happened to Babylon? TONES

[Kade]

Do you remember what happened to Babylon? TONES

Yes, U.S. forces built a helicopter pad on the ruins near the Ishtar gate, when we invaded in 2003.

[georgiaboy]

I am a former agnostic-turned-Christian, and it's fascinating to me that there's so much lively religious debate on this forum. I'm glad it's happening for all our sakes.

I tend to agree with Griffin's main point - that our Constitution is based more-so in logic than religion.

However, I would also submit that the logic used in writing the Constitution is based more in Christian philosophy than any other philosophy.

I think this is where freedom comes in. For if God through Christ, as the Christians hold, gives ultimate freedom, then who is mankind to limit that freedom, if only just enough to restrain evil? To wit, our extremely limited central government with checks and balances, transferring the largest portion of governing and adjudication to the state and local levels. I'd say the founders were relying on the pressures and mores of the local societies to provide the structure around which a free people were to flourish.

As a Christian, this is ideal, because a free society is by far the best way for allowing the exchange of ideas, to wit, the spread of the message of ultimate freedom.

Further, we Christians do ourselves and our faith a disservice by majoring in protecting cultural icons instead of majoring in matters of the heart. I'd vote for the removal of every Christian symbol and edifice in this country if it would awaken more hearts to the kind of freedom I possess.

[Kade]

Further, we Christians do ourselves and our faith a disservice by majoring in protecting cultural icons instead of majoring in matters of the heart. I'd vote for the removal of every Christian symbol and edifice in this country if it would awaken more hearts to the kind of freedom I possess.

+1776. I'll drink to that...

[familydog]

I can't find too much that is wrong with the OP. There is no denying that founders such as Frankin, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, etc. were more deists than anything. The Declaration does mention "creator" which reflects their deists mentality. The Constitution represents more of what the Enlightenment thinkers of the time thought, not what the church thinks. This is obvious.

With that said, one could easily argue that Christian principles (at least of the time) coincided with Enlightenment principles at the time of the founding. This is especially true with American Catholicism which stressed a more "republican" form than it's Roman counterpart in the Old World. We must look at the "founders" as more than just an elite group. Such as the people I listed above. The "founders" of this country are everybody that fought for independence. The "founders" are all people that supported what these men of letters wrote down on paper.

So every person of the time that supported the Revolution must be taken into account. Christian spirituallity was alive and well with the lay person. Taking into account the great unwashed, the culture of the time relied on Christian ideas (whatever those may be). They used their beliefs to influence their local and state governments. Whether it was passing a law based on their beliefs, judges making decisions based on their beliefs, or how the governments themselves went about doing their business. Since this country is a republic, where state and local governments are suppose to be more important than the federal government, one can certainly argue that at the bottom, there were certainly Christian principles (tied to the Enlightenment or not) that were applied at the founding of the country. Thus, depending on where you look there is room for saying "we were founded on Christian principles."

Before I'm unjustly accused of being a theocrat and wanting a Christian state, I'll say this. I'm not arguing we should be run by Christianity. Many believers and non-believers of the time argued against mixing church and state and I side with them. Christiniaty is too good of a thing to be brought down by the stink of government. :p

[georgiaboy]

I can't find too much that is wrong with the OP. There is no denying that founders such as Frankin, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, etc. were more deists than anything. The Declaration does mention "creator" which reflects their deists mentality. The Constitution represents more of what the Enlightenment thinkers of the time thought, not what the church thinks. This is obvious.

With that said, one could easily argue that Christian principles (at least of the time) coincided with Enlightenment principles at the time of the founding. This is especially true with American Catholicism which stressed a more "republican" form than it's Roman counterpart in the Old World. We must look at the "founders" as more than just an elite group. Such as the people I listed above. The "founders" of this country are everybody that fought for independence. The "founders" are all people that supported what these men of letters wrote down on paper.

So every person of the time that supported the Revolution must be taken into account. Christian spirituallity was alive and and well with the lay person. Taking into account the great unwashed, the culture of the time relied on Christian ideas (whatever those may be). They used their beliefs to influence their local and state governments. Whether it was passing a law based on their beliefs, judges making decisions based on their beliefs, or how the governments themselves went about doing their business. Since this country is a republic, where state and local governments are suppose to be more important than the federal government, one can certainly argue that at the bottom, there were certainly Christian principles (tied to the Enlightenment or not) that were applied at the founding of the country. Thus, depending on where you look there is room for saying "we were founded on Christian principles."

Before I'm unjustly accused of being a theocrat and wanting a Christian state, I'll say this. I'm not arguing we should be run by Christianity. Many believers and non-believers of the time argued against mixing church and state and I side with them. Christiniaty is too good of a thing to be brought down by the stink of government. :p

i agree with and like this perspective a lot, esp. that last statement.

Wonder if anyone's every tried to argue for ascribing America's founding government to be based on Atheistic, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, etc., principles/philosophy? Seems like that'd be a tall order, based on the prevailing philosophies/worldviews of the founders.

[Truth Warrior]

i agree with and like this perspective a lot, esp. that last statement.

Wonder if anyone's every tried to argue for ascribing America's founding government to be based on Atheistic, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, etc., principles/philosophy? Seems like that'd be a tall order, based on the prevailing philosophies/worldviews of the founders.



THE MASONIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES



http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html#fathers

[strapko]

When we say "founded on Christian principles" we mean this:

Don't steal
Don't Kill
Peace
Freedom (God's free will)
Don't covet your neighbors wife or property
No Usuary. (bad thing)
Love your fellowman
Be charitable..help people.

That sort of thing. Is anyone opposed to these ideas? TONES


I do not understand what makes those "Christian Principles" are you implying that without the 10 commandments society would be in perpetual chaos? I do do not buy that, in fact looking at the times before Constantine when Christianity was not mainstream was it not illegal to kill? to steal? What about the classical Grecco times.

The idea's above(which were invented by humans) have been around for way longer then the bible/ten commandments. I am agnostic, I cannot say that god doesn't exist cause he might. But I know for sure that it is not anything close to what the Christians/Jewish/Muslims describe him to be.

[weslinder]

Read more about Unitarianism in the colonies in the late 18th century. Once you understand that, and its role in the Revolution, you will understand the real role that Christianity had in the founding of the country. Of course, this fits neither the humanists' bias nor the theocrats' bias, so few talk about it. This is a post I made on another board when someone called Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington all Deists:


During the French and Indian War, then Colonel George Washington fought a battle in which his jacket got 4 bullet holes, and he went unscathed. He gave credit to God for saving his life.

John Adams was a Puritan who converted to Unitarianism with much of New England under the leadership of Jonathan Mayhew (more on him later). He was a very religious man.

Thomas Jefferson was not particularly religious and denied the divinity of Christ (a "radical" Unitarian belief), but certainly believed in an active God, and called himself a Christian.

Perhaps the silliest of all though is calling James Madison a Deist. And it's been done a lot. Madison studied Anglican theology for his post-doctoral work at Princeton, and probably would have been a minister had the Revolution not started. He was an advocate of separation of Church and State, but he was also deeply religious.

------------------------------------------

My hypothesis on Jonathan Mayhew and Unitarianism:

Perhaps the most overlooked part of the Revolution is the role that the Unitarianism played. And more importantly, the fact that Unitarianism as a backlash against The Great Awakening. With all due respect to my ancestors, Mel Gibson, and the rest of the South Carolinians, Virginia and New England were the really important parts of the Revolution. The Revolution would never have succeeded without New England, which prior to the 1760s was primarily Puritan. The Puritans, especially Great Awakening Puritans, were Biblical literalists, who could have never reconciled the Revolution with Romans 13, which says that leaders are ordained by God. The common view among Puritans was that rebelling against the crown was sinful.

When Unitarianism began to take hold, which claimed a pre-Nicene orgin, and used Scripture as a general guide instead of an instruction book, this began to open up. Unitarians took over some Puritan Churches, like the famous West Church in Boston where John Adams worshipped, and influenced the rest. The Unitarians not only rejected the idea that rebellion and disobedience to the crown was sinful, Jonathan Mayhew taught that since the King interfered with the free will of Man, that subjecting oneself to him was sinful, and that rebellion was a Christian duty. It is Mayhew that is credited with coining the phrase "Taxation without Representation", and Unitarians and Unitarian-influenced Puritans that revolted.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Interesting on the Unitarians. It's a far cry from what Unitarian Universalists have become today. I don't think most of them even believe in God. I know a lot of em. They say they are "spiritual" not religious. they have managed to mix eastern philosophies with religion...it's to the left of the New Thought movement...Unity Churches and Science of Mind. TONES

[strapko]

"During the French and Indian War, then Colonel George Washington fought a battle in which his jacket got 4 bullet holes, and he went unscathed. He gave credit to God for saving his life."

I was not arguing that they do not believe in god, they certainly did... but it is not the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god. The quotes in the essay clearly state that A) They do not believe in religion B) They saw the importance of separation of church and state.
C) Some of the founding fathers where religious, but their philosophy did not come from the bible.

[mtmedlin]

Damnit, wheres Theo? THis thread just needs his particular type of crazy!

[SeanEdwards]

Are you saying adultery should be illegal?
That I should be legally forced to love my neighbor and fellow man?
That freedom is only under your god's will?
That I must partake in charity?


Your list is crap.

Isn't adultery a violation of contract? Don't you expect that your contractual rights should be protected by law?

[tonesforjonesbones]

Yes...but I think it's civil..not a felony. tones

[noxagol]

In some states and localities, adultery IS illegal.

[familydog]

I thought I'd share some interesting book passages.

"...for by some time in his twenties [Thomas] Jefferson had rejected both the Trinity and the Bible's miraculous explanations for physical phenomena. He also came to believe that a self-serving priesthood, starting with Paul, had encrusted Christianity with creed and dogma as to distort the simple teaching of Jesus--all commonplaces of Enlightenment secularlism. Nonetheless, Jefferson considered himself a 'real' Christian, described the moral system of Jesus as the most 'sublime ever preached to man,' and believed in a future state of rewards and punishments. His anticlericalism, moreover, was usually directed against the early church fathers, or pointed at the New England Calvinists on whose 'formidable sway' he blamed for both New England religion and politics. But if he wanted nothing to do with 'pious young monks from Harvard and Yale,' Jefferson had many friends among the Anglican clergy whom he regarded as enlightened and moderate. He sponsored young men for training and ordination in England; following disestablishment of the Virginia Anglican church, it was Jefferson who organized a voluntary subscription to pay the salaries of his parish minister and clerk. His personal religious practices included assiduous reading of the Bible and theology, regular churchgoing, and baptism, marriage, and burial within the Church of England for himself and family. Jefferson may well have participated in the ceremonial aspects of his church--while declining to stand godfather for a friend and, so far as we know, to take communion--because he believed that religious observance promoted public virtue and social harmony.

George Washington's active membership in the Anglican church also reflected in his part his sense of community and public leadership. No member of the Truro Parish Vestry attended meetings more faithfully than did Washington during the years he was at home. Moreover, Washington's minister at Pohick Church reportedly stated that he 'never knew so constant an attendant on church as Washington.' Because Washington believed that the church fostered morality and social stability, he no doubt considered it his duty to set a good example." p. 101-102
Under the Cope of Heaven: Religion, Society, and Politics in Colonial America - Patricia Bonomi

"A few weeks before his death [Ben] Franklin in a letter to President Stiles of Yale College wrote the following statement regarding Jesus:

'As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has recieved various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity, tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better obsvereved; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the World with any peculiar marks of his Displeasure.'

Like both Madison and Jefferson, Franklin accepted the ministrations of the Episcopal Church, but was never a communicant, while his friendship with George Whitefield and his support of the kind of religious activity in which the great evangelist was engaged, is proof conclusive that he at least believed various types of religious expression." p. 337 Religion in Colonial America - William Warren Sweet

[tonesforjonesbones]

Didn't Jefferson establish weekly church services in the senate chambers? CHRISTIAN services? Yes. So..that really debunks all that "separation of church and state". TONES

[tonesforjonesbones]

Here is an interesting article..kinda long but very important. TONES






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAITH UNDER FIRE
Jefferson advocated 'gate' between church and state
Pastor's research says 'deist' described himself as Christian

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 21, 2007
1:00 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com






Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

Thomas Jefferson, credited with penning the famous "wall of separation between Church and State" on which many secular organization have rested their hopes of eliminating Christianity from the public square, actually believed in a "gate" allowing free passage between the two, according to a researcher who's reviewed Library of Congress documents.

How else, asked Todd DuBord, senior pastor at Lake Almanor Community Church, could Jefferson as president in 1803 recommended a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians in which U.S. taxpayers promised to pay $100 a year for seven years "for the support of a [Catholic] priest …" and made a commitment that "the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church…"

And how else could Jefferson, as president, have held Christian church services in the executive branch buildings, the U.S. House of Representatives, and even the U.S. Supreme Court chambers? he asked.

"I used to believe in 'a wall of separation between Church and State,'" DuBord wrote in a compilation of his research prepared for his church website. "After researching the religion and politics of Thomas Jefferson in the Library of Congress, I now understand that barrier was a gate Jefferson would often pass through."






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAITH UNDER FIRE
Jefferson advocated 'gate' between church and state
Pastor's research says 'deist' described himself as Christian

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 21, 2007
1:00 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com






Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

Thomas Jefferson, credited with penning the famous "wall of separation between Church and State" on which many secular organization have rested their hopes of eliminating Christianity from the public square, actually believed in a "gate" allowing free passage between the two, according to a researcher who's reviewed Library of Congress documents.

How else, asked Todd DuBord, senior pastor at Lake Almanor Community Church, could Jefferson as president in 1803 recommended a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians in which U.S. taxpayers promised to pay $100 a year for seven years "for the support of a [Catholic] priest …" and made a commitment that "the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church…"

And how else could Jefferson, as president, have held Christian church services in the executive branch buildings, the U.S. House of Representatives, and even the U.S. Supreme Court chambers? he asked.

"I used to believe in 'a wall of separation between Church and State,'" DuBord wrote in a compilation of his research prepared for his church website. "After researching the religion and politics of Thomas Jefferson in the Library of Congress, I now understand that barrier was a gate Jefferson would often pass through."

(Story continues below)


DuBord, who was exposed to the conflict between the actual Christian heritage of the United States and what is being portrayed as the nation's secular heritage while on a tour of the Washington, D.C., and nearby areas, has researched the nation's Christian heritage through materials from the Library of Congress, and has been submitting requests that agencies responsible for that information be more accurate.

For example, WND has reported that he's been campaigning with the U.S. Supreme Court to provide information that the stone tablet in the East Wall Frieze actually represents the Ten Commandments, not the ten amendments as current public information states. His documentation on the church's website shows historical documents overwhelmingly support the Ten Commandments description.

WND earlier reported on his documentation of the other representations of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court Building.

His newest research includes pages of documentation of Jefferson's active support for the teachings of Jesus, even to the point of federal subsidies for the support of missionaries, the construction of churches, the publication of the Bible and other key outreaches.

Now he's seeking some corrections from the foundation that runs Jefferson's Monticello home, and offers information to visitors. He noted that on his recent trip, a tour guide, although "cordial and informative about many matters," became abrupt and even a little "arrogant" when asked about Jefferson's faith.

"We all know Jefferson was a strict deist, who ardently fought for the separation of Church and State," the guide announced at the historic site run by the private, nonprofit Thomas Jefferson Foundation, DuBord said.

But DuBord said his research actually supports the concept that Jefferson was more religious than most people know, and "used both his government positions and even funds on occasion to establish churches, distribute biblical information, and promote Christianity."

"As a result, I am again respectfully requesting that a fuller view of Thomas Jefferson and his intermingling of government and religion (specifically Christianity) be reinvestigated and reintroduced into the Monticello tour guides' information and education," he said in his newest request.

Near the end of his life, Jefferson said in letters to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, on June 26, 1822; to William Canby, on Sept. 18, 1813; and to Charles Thomson, on Jan. 9, 1816, that:


The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man…
Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus…

I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.

DuBord explained his research convinced him that Jefferson was opposed to the "tyranny and corruptions" of Christianity, but not to the teachings of Jesus himself. In a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, he said, "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others."


A Jefferson letter calling himself a Christian

DuBord concluded that Jefferson probably was not an evangelical Christian, and probably wasn't orthodox in most of his doctrine, but he certainly was not "a dogmatic deist with a secular progressive agenda to rid religion (specifically Christianity) from government, as he is often conveyed, even by our tour guide at Jefferson's estate, Monticello, in July of 2006."

DuBord said the background from which Jefferson came is important to understanding his dislike of the "business" of Christianity. England had a state-supported church and in Virginia, Jefferson's home, the Church of England also was funded by taxes.

In his "Notes" from the Library of Congress, it says Jefferson also was exposed to the religious intolerance of the anti-Quaker laws, and suffered the opposition of some church leaders during his presidential campaign.

A friend once noted of Jefferson that he didn't oppose Christianity, just the "tyranny" different sects imposed on people.

It is within those parameters then, that he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, whose members expressed concern he would endorse a state church:


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative power of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Jefferson letter erecting 'wall' of separation

DuBord said those words were written in reaction and possibly retaliation to the verbal attacks he'd endured from clergy. In another letter he called them an "irritable tribe of priests."

But when he was called on to express his beliefs, such as in recommending a seal for the U.S., Jefferson first suggested one that reflected the "children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and Pillar of Fire by night…" DuBord found.

Does such a symbol, he asked, "seem like they could come from those who are ardently in favor of the separation of Church and State?" And from a man, who two days after writing the letter to the Danbury Baptists, would attend a worship service inside the U.S. House of Representatives?

"Can anyone today see a president taking such Christian actions, signing such treaties, or using governmental monies to further 'promote Christianity' as Jefferson did?" asked DuBord. "Does his intermingling of religion and politics seem like deeds of the 'Thomas Jefferson' so often conveyed today in educational circles and at Monticello?

"If Thomas Jefferson espoused a wall of separation between Church and State, he also breached it, by merging Christianity and politics over and over again," DuBord said.

He said perhaps the best summary of the relation between government and Christianity during a time when Jefferson was heavily involved in that government comes from the Library of Congress:


The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.
Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

"While he was an advocate for the separation of the State from aligning with any specific national Church, he was not attempting to neuter government from Christian influence," DuBord said.

In fact, Jefferson wrote in 1781: "The God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever."

"While Jefferson conveyed deistic tendencies at times in his writings, denied Jesus’ miracles and deity, and certainly was Unitarian in his theology, his faith was far more complex than 'strict deism.' On the other hand, as he wrote to William Short on October 31, 1819, he declared that the teachings of Jesus contained the 'outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man,'" DuBord said.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54349

[strapko]

Here is an interesting article..kinda long but very important. TONES






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAITH UNDER FIRE
Jefferson advocated 'gate' between church and state
Pastor's research says 'deist' described himself as Christian

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 21, 2007
1:00 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com






Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

Thomas Jefferson, credited with penning the famous "wall of separation between Church and State" on which many secular organization have rested their hopes of eliminating Christianity from the public square, actually believed in a "gate" allowing free passage between the two, according to a researcher who's reviewed Library of Congress documents.

How else, asked Todd DuBord, senior pastor at Lake Almanor Community Church, could Jefferson as president in 1803 recommended a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians in which U.S. taxpayers promised to pay $100 a year for seven years "for the support of a [Catholic] priest …" and made a commitment that "the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church…"

And how else could Jefferson, as president, have held Christian church services in the executive branch buildings, the U.S. House of Representatives, and even the U.S. Supreme Court chambers? he asked.

"I used to believe in 'a wall of separation between Church and State,'" DuBord wrote in a compilation of his research prepared for his church website. "After researching the religion and politics of Thomas Jefferson in the Library of Congress, I now understand that barrier was a gate Jefferson would often pass through."






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAITH UNDER FIRE
Jefferson advocated 'gate' between church and state
Pastor's research says 'deist' described himself as Christian

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 21, 2007
1:00 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com






Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

Thomas Jefferson, credited with penning the famous "wall of separation between Church and State" on which many secular organization have rested their hopes of eliminating Christianity from the public square, actually believed in a "gate" allowing free passage between the two, according to a researcher who's reviewed Library of Congress documents.

How else, asked Todd DuBord, senior pastor at Lake Almanor Community Church, could Jefferson as president in 1803 recommended a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians in which U.S. taxpayers promised to pay $100 a year for seven years "for the support of a [Catholic] priest …" and made a commitment that "the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church…"

And how else could Jefferson, as president, have held Christian church services in the executive branch buildings, the U.S. House of Representatives, and even the U.S. Supreme Court chambers? he asked.

"I used to believe in 'a wall of separation between Church and State,'" DuBord wrote in a compilation of his research prepared for his church website. "After researching the religion and politics of Thomas Jefferson in the Library of Congress, I now understand that barrier was a gate Jefferson would often pass through."

(Story continues below)


DuBord, who was exposed to the conflict between the actual Christian heritage of the United States and what is being portrayed as the nation's secular heritage while on a tour of the Washington, D.C., and nearby areas, has researched the nation's Christian heritage through materials from the Library of Congress, and has been submitting requests that agencies responsible for that information be more accurate.

For example, WND has reported that he's been campaigning with the U.S. Supreme Court to provide information that the stone tablet in the East Wall Frieze actually represents the Ten Commandments, not the ten amendments as current public information states. His documentation on the church's website shows historical documents overwhelmingly support the Ten Commandments description.

WND earlier reported on his documentation of the other representations of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court Building.

His newest research includes pages of documentation of Jefferson's active support for the teachings of Jesus, even to the point of federal subsidies for the support of missionaries, the construction of churches, the publication of the Bible and other key outreaches.

Now he's seeking some corrections from the foundation that runs Jefferson's Monticello home, and offers information to visitors. He noted that on his recent trip, a tour guide, although "cordial and informative about many matters," became abrupt and even a little "arrogant" when asked about Jefferson's faith.

"We all know Jefferson was a strict deist, who ardently fought for the separation of Church and State," the guide announced at the historic site run by the private, nonprofit Thomas Jefferson Foundation, DuBord said.

But DuBord said his research actually supports the concept that Jefferson was more religious than most people know, and "used both his government positions and even funds on occasion to establish churches, distribute biblical information, and promote Christianity."

"As a result, I am again respectfully requesting that a fuller view of Thomas Jefferson and his intermingling of government and religion (specifically Christianity) be reinvestigated and reintroduced into the Monticello tour guides' information and education," he said in his newest request.

Near the end of his life, Jefferson said in letters to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, on June 26, 1822; to William Canby, on Sept. 18, 1813; and to Charles Thomson, on Jan. 9, 1816, that:


The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man…
Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus…

I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.

DuBord explained his research convinced him that Jefferson was opposed to the "tyranny and corruptions" of Christianity, but not to the teachings of Jesus himself. In a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, he said, "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others."


A Jefferson letter calling himself a Christian

DuBord concluded that Jefferson probably was not an evangelical Christian, and probably wasn't orthodox in most of his doctrine, but he certainly was not "a dogmatic deist with a secular progressive agenda to rid religion (specifically Christianity) from government, as he is often conveyed, even by our tour guide at Jefferson's estate, Monticello, in July of 2006."

DuBord said the background from which Jefferson came is important to understanding his dislike of the "business" of Christianity. England had a state-supported church and in Virginia, Jefferson's home, the Church of England also was funded by taxes.

In his "Notes" from the Library of Congress, it says Jefferson also was exposed to the religious intolerance of the anti-Quaker laws, and suffered the opposition of some church leaders during his presidential campaign.

A friend once noted of Jefferson that he didn't oppose Christianity, just the "tyranny" different sects imposed on people.

It is within those parameters then, that he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, whose members expressed concern he would endorse a state church:


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative power of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Jefferson letter erecting 'wall' of separation

DuBord said those words were written in reaction and possibly retaliation to the verbal attacks he'd endured from clergy. In another letter he called them an "irritable tribe of priests."

But when he was called on to express his beliefs, such as in recommending a seal for the U.S., Jefferson first suggested one that reflected the "children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and Pillar of Fire by night…" DuBord found.

Does such a symbol, he asked, "seem like they could come from those who are ardently in favor of the separation of Church and State?" And from a man, who two days after writing the letter to the Danbury Baptists, would attend a worship service inside the U.S. House of Representatives?

"Can anyone today see a president taking such Christian actions, signing such treaties, or using governmental monies to further 'promote Christianity' as Jefferson did?" asked DuBord. "Does his intermingling of religion and politics seem like deeds of the 'Thomas Jefferson' so often conveyed today in educational circles and at Monticello?

"If Thomas Jefferson espoused a wall of separation between Church and State, he also breached it, by merging Christianity and politics over and over again," DuBord said.

He said perhaps the best summary of the relation between government and Christianity during a time when Jefferson was heavily involved in that government comes from the Library of Congress:


The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.
Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

"While he was an advocate for the separation of the State from aligning with any specific national Church, he was not attempting to neuter government from Christian influence," DuBord said.

In fact, Jefferson wrote in 1781: "The God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever."

"While Jefferson conveyed deistic tendencies at times in his writings, denied Jesus’ miracles and deity, and certainly was Unitarian in his theology, his faith was far more complex than 'strict deism.' On the other hand, as he wrote to William Short on October 31, 1819, he declared that the teachings of Jesus contained the 'outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man,'" DuBord said.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54349

Did he really call himself a Christian? Can you link me a quote in his own words, because I have a hard time believing pastors words. For... Most Christians are Self Righteous. After reading personal quotes, in their own words... I have trouble believing others(ex: It has been said: it has been said.. bs I want to know what they said), and their words point me to deism.

[strapko]

Did he really call himself a Christian? Can you link me a quote in his own words, because I have a hard time believing pastors words. For... Most Christians are Self Righteous. After reading personal quotes, in their own words... I have trouble believing others(ex: It has been said: it has been said.. bs I want to know what they said), and their words point me to deism.

Side note: After reading a bit more, it talks about how Jefferson believed in god... Of course he did, it just was not the Christian/Jewish/Muslim one. And just because he was tolerant to Christianity does not mean he favored Christianity, he had the reasoning for all religions hence 1st amendment. Also when the founding fathers say
god, it does not mean the Christian one. Thomas Paine believed in god, but it was not a Christian one.

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." -- George Washington

[familydog]

Did he really call himself a Christian? Can you link me a quote in his own words, because I have a hard time believing pastors words. For... Most Christians are Self Righteous. After reading personal quotes, in their own words... I have trouble believing others(ex: It has been said: it has been said.. bs I want to know what they said), and their words point me to deism.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=807&chapter=88153&layout=html&Itemid=27

[Theocrat]

The following comes from the Library of Congress.


Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-1789

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."

The Liberty Window
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006409.jpg
At its initial meeting in September 1774 Congress invited the Reverend Jacob Duché (1738-1798), rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, to open its sessions with prayer. Duché ministered to Congress in an unofficial capacity until he was elected the body's first chaplain on July 9, 1776. He defected to the British the next year. Pictured here in the bottom stained-glass panel is the first prayer in Congress, delivered by Duché. The top part of this extraordinary stained glass window depicts the role of churchmen in compelling King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215.

Congressional Fast Day Proclamation
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/f0404s.jpg
Congress proclaimed days of fasting and of thanksgiving annually throughout the Revolutionary War. This proclamation by Congress set May 17, 1776, as a "day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer" throughout the colonies. Congress urges its fellow citizens to "confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness." Massachusetts ordered a "suitable Number" of these proclamations be printed so "that each of the religious Assemblies in this Colony, may be furnished with a Copy of the same" and added the motto "God Save This People" as a substitute for "God Save the King."

Morality in the Army
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006576.jpg
Congress was apprehensive about the moral condition of the American army and navy and took steps to see that Christian morality prevailed in both organizations. In the Articles of War, seen below, governing the conduct of the Continental Army (seen above) (adopted, June 30, 1775; revised, September 20, 1776), Congress devoted three of the four articles in the first section to the religious nurture of the troops. Article 2 "earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers to attend divine services." Punishment was prescribed for those who behaved "indecently or irreverently" in churches, including courts-martial, fines and imprisonments. Chaplains who deserted their troops were to be court-martialed.

Aitken's Bible Endorsed by Congress
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006472.jpghttp://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006473.jpg
The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere." On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament which he was preparing at his own expense. Congress "highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States." This resolution was a result of Aitken's successful accomplishment of his project.

Northwest Ordinance
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006502.jpg
In the summer of 1787 Congress revisited the issue of religion in the new western territories and passed, July 13, 1787, the famous Northwest Ordinance. Article 3 of the Ordinance contained the following language: "Religion, Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, Schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." Scholars have been puzzled that, having declared religion and morality indispensable to good government, Congress did not, like some of the state governments that had written similar declarations into their constitutions, give financial assistance to the churches in the West.

Christianizing the Delawares
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006403.jpghttp://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006404.jpg
In this resolution, Congress makes public lands available to a group for religious purposes. Responding to a plea from Bishop John Ettwein (1721-1802), Congress voted that 10,000 acres on the Muskingum River in the present state of Ohio "be set apart and the property thereof be vested in the Moravian Brethren . . . or a society of the said Brethren for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity." The Delaware Indians were the intended beneficiaries of this Congressional resolution.

These examples are in no way exhaustive in showing how our nation was heavily influenced by the Christian religion, for there are many more examples that could be shown to prove that our country was established on Christian principles. The most important thing to understand is when you study any historical document, you should always keep three things in mind.

You must evaluate words and ideas in the context of the era in which they were used. Words change meaning from generation to generation; therefore, it is necessary to define words in their historical context.

To understand properly the intent of a document, say the Constitution, you must know the intent of the writer.

You must understand the historical situations that led to the development of the historical document. What led our Founders to direct certain prohibitions against the national government while insuring the freedoms of the individual States? There must be a history behind their fears.

John Adams once said, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." He even went on to say that our American independence was achieved upon the principles of Christianity, stating,

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

This, to me, seems to fly in the face of those who seek to undermine the obvious religious heritage of our country. Our Founders didn't just inculcate Christianity into our forms of government based on its propositional truths; they lived it because our early American culture was imbedded with Christianity as a way of life.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Theocrat...Amen and so it is. tones

[Alex Libman]

If this nation was founded on religious principles, then it needs to be re-founded on rational ones.

[Theocrat]

If this nation was founded on religious principles, then it needs to be re-founded on rational ones.

This nation was founded on rational principles--the principles of Christianity. The "atheists" over in France during that time tried to establish their government on "rational" humanistic principles during the "Reign of Terror" of the French Revolution, but inevitably it failed because any mixture of "atheism" with the State is inherently irrational.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Love thy neighbor as thyself...
Those who live by the sword...die by the sword...
God is love...

That's irrational? tones

[LibertyEagle]

There certainly is an increased push out there to convince everyone that this country was not founded on Christian principles and to turn them away from God. It looks like it's working too, unfortunately.

[strapko]

There certainly is an increased push out there to convince everyone that this country was not founded on Christian principles and to turn them away from God. It looks like it's working too, unfortunately.

That's the catch, it was not founded on Christian principles. The Majority of the population were Christian, but many founding fathers did not follow religion BUT indeed believed in God(which was not a Christian/Jewish/Muslim.

The Constitution was written on pure philosophy, debates and of course trail and error(ex: Not to use Fiat money, they had Fiat money in many colonies and it always resulted in inflation so they adopted the gold standard.)

As for me, when I read the bible given to me by my dad around the age of 5. It resembled to much of fairy tale to me and everything I was supposed to feel, I did not. Does God exist? Quite possibly(I don't know all the secrets of the universe). But if God does exist he will not be anything resembled to the books which state his nature.

[10thAmendment]

While I appreciate where Christians (I am a Christian) are coming from from regarding the idea of the federal government being founded on Christian principles, the idea actually reflects ignorance of the intentions of the mostly Christian Founders. What Christians seem to be overlooking is the Founder's division of federal and state government powers evidenced by the 10th Amendment.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

More specifically, Christians have evidently forgotten that the Founding States had reserved government power to regulate religion for themselves regardless that they prohibited such power entirely to the federal government. Christians are understandably hostile at the federal government, particularly the corrupt USSC majority, for scandalously limiting the power of the states to cultivate religious expression by wrongly ignoring state power to address religious issues.

But the truth of the matter is that the idea that the USA, aka the federal government, was founded on so-called Christian principals, is sentimental, not rooted in the law. In other words, instead of spinning their wheels barking up the religiously sterile federal government tree to try to reclaim their religious heritage, Christians need to start blowing decades of dust off the forgotten 10th A. protected power of the states to address religious issues in order to reclaim the full enjoyment of their constitutional religious freedoms.

The series of posts at the following link should help people to understand how we got into today's c&s separation mess.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=148854

Finally, don't forget that to protect people from religious fanatics who would pirate state government power to regulate religion in order to shove their radical beliefs down people's throats, the honest interpretation of Sec. 1 of the 14th A. now limits state power to regulate religion.

[familydog]

While I appreciate where Christians (I am a Christian) are coming from from regarding the idea of the federal government being founded on Christian principles, the idea actually reflects ignorance of the intentions of the mostly Christian Founders. What Christians seem to be overlooking is the Founder's division of federal and state government powers evidenced by the 10th Amendment.

Finally, don't forget that to protect people from religious fanatics who would pirate state government power to regulate religion in order to shove their radical beliefs down people's throats, the honest interpretation of Sec. 1 of the 14th A. now limits state power to regulate religion.

It depends on which founders you look at. It depends on what we mean by "founded." One cannot make a blanket statement either way that this country was or was not founded by Christian principles.

At the same time, can you elaborate on why Section 1 of the 14th Amendment applies to limiting state power when it comes to religion? I'm curious as to what you see as an honest interpretation.

[10thAmendment]

It depends on which founders you look at. It depends on what we mean by "founded." One cannot make a blanket statement either way that this country was or was not founded by Christian principles.
Please consider the following. When Christians dispute different interpretations of various passages of the Holy Bible among themselves, specific verse numbers are inevitably used to reference disputed passages. On the other hand, when Christians claim that the USA, aka the federal government, was founded on so-called Christian principles, there is inevitably no references to particular Bible verses in such arguments. One verse that does come to mind which reflects on Articles I, II and III of the federal Constitution is Isaiah 33:22. But that's the only verse and it's not referenced in the Constitution.

The bottom line regarding so-called constitutional and Christian principals, in my opinion, is that both sides of the c&s separation feud are wrongly relying on the vague term "principle" in describing how the USA, aka the federal government, was founded and what the Constitution says about our religious freedoms. This because both sides of fence are using the term "principle" as a license, in my view, to push their respective politically correct understandings of the Constitution, understandings which are actually based on ignorance of what the Constitution and its history actually tells us about our religious freedoms.

At the same time, can you elaborate on why Section 1 of the 14th Amendment applies to limiting state power when it comes to religion? I'm curious as to what you see as an honest interpretation.
Regarding what I see as an honest interpretation, I suspect that you did not read the series of posts at the link I provided in my previous post, but no problem if you didn't. Here's relevant excerpts from those posts:

Justice Owen Roberts, a Hoover-nominated RINO, expressed his politically correct understanding of the relationship of the 14th A. to the 1st A. in the Cantwell opinion as follows.


"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940. http://tinyurl.com/38a87c

The problem with Justice Roberts' "profound insight" into the 1st and 14th Amendments is that he outrageously misrepresented the intentions of John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment. This is because Bingham had clarified, both before and after the ratification of the 14th A., that the 14th A. was not intended to take away any state's rights. See for yourself.


"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5d

"No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy

"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n


I'm going to stop here because although I've said many things up to this point, I possibly haven't addressed your concerns. Please let me know.

Added later:

Consider the following remark by Justice Reed in the Opelika, 1942, opinion. Justice Reed describes the relationship between the 10th and 14th Amendments.
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment,11 and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942

[tribute_13]

OK peeps.

1.) Just because there is a law that makes adultery illegal doesn't mean that law is constitutional. As for the foundation of marriage itself, what gives the government the right to issue a contract stating that two people love each other? Love shouldn't be a legal obligation. If two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other then where does the government get the idea that that's a cue for them to immediately intervene and say, "OK we need you to sign these forms and provide this information... etc." Just my opinion. If two people can't hold their love and trust eternally without a legal document/contract then they don't really love each other at least not to the extent of marriage to begin with.

2.) Ethics have been around a lot longer than religion has. I remember when I told my dad about The Epic of Gilgamesh and he grounded me for believing there was a book that predated the bible. Its this same mentality that mentally cripples people. Ethics was not an invention of God. If this was the case then Caveman would've had manners and a legal system to convict murderers, thieves, and rapists.

Proof that Ethics existed before the Invention/Institution of Christianity:

Hammurabi's Code- Which clearly and explicitly states that murder, thievery, rape, and other criminal acts are punishable by law, and yes these punishments were extreme but these acts were still deemed criminal and unethical regardless.

3.) I agree 100% with Kade, the government was not instituted here in the U.S. to force us to abide by the Ten Commandments. By doing so, our forefathers would've voided everything they had accomplished. Why would they fight a war and write a constitution stating that I had the right to follow what religion or belief system I wanted but inadvertently forced me to live Christian laws by modeling our country after them.

So your logic is this Tom: The forefathers modeled this country out of Christian morals to give me the right to oppose them? Doesn't make any sense at all. I don't agree with that at all.

[familydog]

Please consider the following. When Christians dispute different interpretations of various passages of the Holy Bible among themselves, specific verse numbers are inevitably used to reference disputed passages. On the other hand, when Christians claim that the USA, aka the federal government, was founded on so-called Christian principles, there is inevitably no references to particular Bible verses in such arguments. One verse that does come to mind which reflects on Articles I, II and III of the federal Constitution is Isaiah 33:22. But that's the only verse and it's not referenced in the Constitution.

The bottom line regarding so-called constitutional and Christian principals, in my opinion, is that both sides of the c&s separation feud are wrongly relying on the vague term "principle" in describing how the USA, aka the federal government, was founded and what the Constitution says about our religious freedoms. This because both sides of fence are using the term "principle" as a license, in my view, to push their respective politically correct understandings of the Constitution, understandings which are actually based on ignorance of what the Constitution and its history actually tells us about our religious freedoms.

Regarding what I see as an honest interpretation, I suspect that you did not read the series of posts at the link I provided in my previous post, but no problem if you didn't.

Like I said, it depends on what one means by the "founding."

If by the "founding" we are strictly speaking of the United States Constitution, then there is no room to suggest Christianity had any influence on it outside of Amendment I.

If by "founding" we are talking about the founding documents like the Declaration of Independence (which nobody cared about at the time), the Virginia Delcaration of Rights (which everybody cared about at the time which explicitly mentions Christinianity), or any of the other nearly 100 local and state declarations, then there certainly is room to say Christianity played a room in the founding. Christianity played a role in much of these documents.

If by "founding" we are talking about the culture of the lay people (or even the elites) at the time and the local laws and customs set up at the formation of the country, then there is certainly room to say that this country was founded on Christian principles. Christianity, whether the religion or spirituality, was (and still is) important to many of the average person. They used that to shape their local, state, and even federal laws, to what is acceptable or not acceptable in society.

If by "founding" we are talking about the system of common law carried over from the colonial period, there again is room for Christianity.

Etc.

When I use the term principle I simply mean that Christianity was used as a source or one source for an argument.

As far as the Fourteenth Amendment goes, I did not learn much from that link. Can you point to me a specific clause or clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment that prevent the state from regulating religion? On what intellectual basis could you use that clause?

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

Do you remember what happened to Babylon? TONES

You mean the version written by men who were power hungry control freaks many centuries ago?

[10thAmendment]

Like I said, it depends on what one means by the "founding."

If by the "founding" we are strictly speaking of the United States Constitution, then there is no room to suggest Christianity had any influence on it outside of Amendment I.
I agree.


If by "founding" we are talking about the founding documents like the Declaration of Independence (which nobody cared about at the time), the Virginia Delcaration of Rights (which everybody cared about at the time which explicitly mentions Christinianity), or any of the other nearly 100 local and state declarations, then there certainly is room to say Christianity played a room in the founding. Christianity played a role in much of these documents.

If by "founding" we are talking about the culture of the lay people (or even the elites) at the time and the local laws and customs set up at the formation of the country, then there is certainly room to say that this country was founded on Christian principles. Christianity, whether the religion or spirituality, was (and still is) important to many of the average person. They used that to shape their local, state, and even federal laws, to what is acceptable or not acceptable in society.

If by "founding" we are talking about the system of common law carried over from the colonial period, there again is room for Christianity.

Etc.
The word "founding," when used in conjunction with the country, is reasonably construed to be a reference to the founding of the federal government, the USA, and its Constitution, as opposed to the founding of the individual colonies. Regarding your pointing out of the various senses of the word, to be blunt, I think that you like arguing word meanings.


When I use the term principle I simply mean that Christianity was used as a source or one source for an argument.
You're sidestepping the following problem. Yes, Christians in the USA are being wrongly persecuted by secular justices and judges who are perverting constitutional religious freedoms. But in sharp contrast to the sad fact that the various Christian denominations base their interdenominational civil wars on differences of opinion about specific Bible passages, the fact that Christians have to use the vague term "Christian principles" when trying to defend their constitutional religious rights is telltale evidence that the mostly Christian Founders intended for the federal government to be religiously sterile.


As far as the Fourteenth Amendment goes, I did not learn much from that link. Can you point to me a specific clause or clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment that prevent the state from regulating religion? On what intellectual basis could you use that clause?
Let's face it. You're not here to learn, you're here to argue.

In your first question to me about the 14th A. you used the word "limit" instead of "prevent" where the exercising of state power to regulate religion is concerned, and there's a big difference. Noting that the 14th A. doesn't use the word religion and only refers to state powers indirectly, please consider the following.

Again, regardless that the 1st A. prohibits government power to regulate religion to the federal government altogether, the states had the power to regulate religion and other 1st A. protections before the federal government was even established. And the states retained such powers uniquely to themselves when they established the federal goverment and its Constitution as evidenced by the 10th Amendment.

But the problem with state power to regulate our basic freedoms is that there were initially no constitutional checks on such power. This is because, unless explicitly stated, general constitutional restraints on government power did not apply to the states. Unfortunately, constitutionally unchecked state power over personal rights helped to precipitate the Civil War.

Although the post Civil War 14th A. was intended to resolve the problem of unchecked state powers, unfortunately, politically correct interpretations of Sec. 1 of the 14th A. came into play. Such interpretations are evidenced by Justice Owen Roberts' politically correct interpretation of the 14th A. in the Cantwell opinion which I included in my previous post.

Justice Roberts wrongly suggested that the 14th A. was intended to apply the 1st A.'s prohibition on religious powers of the federal government to the states, contradicting John Bingham's clarification that the 14th A. was to take away no powers from the states. Consider John Bingham's words from the Congressional Globe concerning the 14th A.'s limiting of state power.

"These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment." --John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1871 http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

[Godfather89]

The founding father have a common denominator they were believers in God that is all... In what way is irrelevant, whether it be philosophical or theological is irrelevant.

[Theocrat]

The founding father have a common denominator they were believers in God that is all... In what way is irrelevant, whether it be philosophical or theological is irrelevant.

Actually, the religious beliefs of our Founding Fathers (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html) is very relevant because it reflects the culture in which they lived. Christianity was heavily influential upon our Founders for the simple fact that it was the norm in our early Republic. That's why they held church services in Congress, the Supreme Court, and even the Treasury Building.

Interestingly enough, the Constitution itself affirms its Christian character and purpose. Article VII declares it to be framed and adopted "by the unanimous consent of the States, the seventeenth day of September in the year of our LORD 1787, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth." The date of the Constitution is twofold: first, it is dated from the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, and second, from the birth of our independence. Thus, any argument which might be presupposed to proving that the authority of Christianity is not recognized by the people of the United States, in the first mode, would equally prove that the independence of the United States is not recognized by them in the second mode.

Equally interesting is that our Constitution recognizes the Christian Sabbath. In Article I, Section 7, it says, "If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law." A constitutional scholar, Dr. Adams, comments on this by saying,

In adopting this provision, it was clearly presumed by the people that the President of the United States would not employ himself in public business on Sunday... [T]he obligation on the President to respect the observance of Sunday is greatly superior to any which could have been created by a constitutional enactment.

[familydog]

The word "founding," when used in conjunction with the country, is reasonably construed to be a reference to the founding of the federal government, the USA, and its Constitution, as opposed to the founding of the individual colonies. Regarding your pointing out of the various senses of the word, to be blunt, I think that you like arguing word meanings.


You're sidestepping the following problem. Yes, Christians in the USA are being wrongly persecuted by secular justices and judges who are perverting constitutional religious freedoms. But in sharp contrast to the sad fact that the various Christian denominations base their interdenominational civil wars on differences of opinion about specific Bible passages, the fact that Christians have to use the vague term "Christian principles" when trying to defend their constitutional religious rights is telltale evidence that the mostly Christian Founders intended for the federal government to be religiously sterile.


Let's face it. You're not here to learn, you're here to argue.

In your first question to me about the 14th A. you used the word "limit" instead of "prevent" where the exercising of state power to regulate religion is concerned, and there's a big difference. Noting that the 14th A. doesn't use the word religion and only refers to state powers indirectly, please consider the following.

Again, regardless that the 1st A. prohibits government power to regulate religion to the federal government altogether, the states had the power to regulate religion and other 1st A. protections before the federal government was even established. And the states retained such powers uniquely to themselves when they established the federal goverment and its Constitution as evidenced by the 10th Amendment.

But the problem with state power to regulate our basic freedoms is that there were initially no constitutional checks on such power. This is because, unless explicitly stated, general constitutional restraints on government power did not apply to the states. Unfortunately, constitutionally unchecked state power over personal rights helped to precipitate the Civil War.

Although the post Civil War 14th A. was intended to resolve the problem of unchecked state powers, unfortunately, politically correct interpretations of Sec. 1 of the 14th A. came into play. Such interpretations are evidenced by Justice Owen Roberts' politically correct interpretation of the 14th A. in the Cantwell opinion which I included in my previous post.

Justice Roberts wrongly suggested that the 14th A. was intended to apply the 1st A.'s prohibition on religious powers of the federal government to the states, contradicting John Bingham's clarification that the 14th A. was to take away no powers from the states. Consider John Bingham's words from the Congressional Globe concerning the 14th A.'s limiting of state power.

"These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment." --John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1871 http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n


It's only fair to include more than the establishment of the federal government when we consider the founding of the country. To not do this is giving the federal government too much credit. To ignore the other instututions created and institutions that existed before is going against the entire federalist system set up in the first place. The culture was Christian and the lay person used their religion to shape the state and local institutions at the founding. These instititons were inherently stronger than the federal government. After all, the Constitution directs a lot more power to the people, state, and local than it does the federal.

Also, I'm not trying to argue anything. You're talking about honest interpretations and that Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents the states from regulating religion. Fine. All I'm looking for is some substance which you haven't given. I was thinking you'd argue incorporation of the Amendment I, but it never came up. That is the only logical way to argue the Fourteenth Amendment does anything in regards to religion.

[strapko]

Actually, the religious beliefs of our Founding Fathers (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html) is very relevant because it reflects the culture in which they lived. Christianity was heavily influential upon our Founders for the simple fact that it was the norm in our early Republic. That's why they held church services in Congress, the Supreme Court, and even the Treasury Building.

Interestingly enough, the Constitution itself affirms its Christian character and purpose. Article VII declares it to be framed and adopted "by the unanimous consent of the States, the seventeenth day of September in the year of our LORD 1787, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth." The date of the Constitution is twofold: first, it is dated from the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, and second, from the birth of our independence. Thus, any argument which might be presupposed to proving that the authority of Christianity is not recognized by the people of the United States, in the first mode, would equally prove that the independence of the United States is not recognized by them in the second mode.

Equally interesting is that our Constitution recognizes the Christian Sabbath. In Article I, Section 7, it says, "If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law." A constitutional scholar, Dr. Adams, comments on this by saying,

In adopting this provision, it was clearly presumed by the people that the President of the United States would not employ himself in public business on Sunday... [T]he obligation on the President to respect the observance of Sunday is greatly superior to any which could have been created by a constitutional enactment.

Adams said that, but Washington Said:

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." -- George Washington

[Theocrat]

Adams said that, but Washington Said:

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." -- George Washington

You need to read this (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125).

[Godfather89]

Actually, the religious beliefs of our Founding Fathers (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html) is very relevant because it reflects the culture in which they lived. Christianity was heavily influential upon our Founders for the simple fact that it was the norm in our early Republic. That's why they held church services in Congress, the Supreme Court, and even the Treasury Building.

Interestingly enough, the Constitution itself affirms its Christian character and purpose. Article VII declares it to be framed and adopted "by the unanimous consent of the States, the seventeenth day of September in the year of our LORD 1787, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth." The date of the Constitution is twofold: first, it is dated from the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, and second, from the birth of our independence. Thus, any argument which might be presupposed to proving that the authority of Christianity is not recognized by the people of the United States, in the first mode, would equally prove that the independence of the United States is not recognized by them in the second mode.

Equally interesting is that our Constitution recognizes the Christian Sabbath. In Article I, Section 7, it says, "If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law." A constitutional scholar, Dr. Adams, comments on this by saying,

In adopting this provision, it was clearly presumed by the people that the President of the United States would not employ himself in public business on Sunday... [T]he obligation on the President to respect the observance of Sunday is greatly superior to any which could have been created by a constitutional enactment.

True... however, some were deists. So how can you be a Christian with deistic beliefs? Thats what I am trying to say that was the common denominator a belief in a God. Because when America was young deism was also a major belief as well.

[10thAmendment]

Adams said that, but Washington Said:

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." -- George Washington
Will somebody please correct any of the following information if it is wrong?

Regarding the quote attributed to George Washington, please consider the first line in Article II of the Treaty of Tripoli.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -- Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797.

The words attributed to George Washington seems to have actually originated from Article 11 of the treaty for the following reason. I believe that the treaty was signed into law between the Washington and Adams administrations - 1797. So while some people attribute the words to Washington, I am inclined to believe that they originated in Article 11 of the Treaty which was signed into law by Washington or Adams; I don't know for sure.

The issue with Article 11 is that both sides of the c&s separation fence have politically correct - and wrong - interpretations of the article. Given that both sides of the c&s separation fence have forgotten the Founder's division of federal and state government powers as evidenced by the 10th Amendment, here's what's going on.

Neither side of the fence seems to understand that, historically, the terms U.S., United States, etc., including the way that it is used in the first line of Article 11, are references to the federal government, not the state governments. As a consequence, anti-religious expression factions have fallen into the trap of thinking that Article 11's reference to the government of the United States of America is a generic reference to both the federal and state governments. But this interpretation wrongly ignores the 10th A. protected power of the states to regulate religion.

On the other hand, Christian factions, also having forgotten the Founder's division of federal and state government powers, wrongly shrug off Article 11 as a hoax.

What was going on with Article 11, if I remember correctly, is that the North African Muslim nation of Tripoli was attacking American ships. But federal legislators were evidently aware of a religious situation concerning these attacks. More specifically, Christian federal legislators were likely aware that Tripoli families had had to deal with the Christian Crusaders and that these families probably regarded American ships merely as more crazy Christians. So federal legislators essentially resorted to using the 1st A. of the federal Constitution as a diplomatic license to appease Tripoli. But federal legislators went further than simply saying that the federal government of the USA was religiously neutral by bluntly saying that the USA government, the federal government, was not a Christian entity. But such wording possibly saved the lives of a few Americans.

[foofighter20x]

Whoever quoted Isaiah 33:22 is incorrect.

For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.

The argument made from this passage is that the seperation of powers in the U.S. Constitution is derived from this chapter and verse.

My question: Where is the seperation of power? If all the powers are inherent in one being, how are the powers separate? How does one branch check or balance the others if ONE being holds all the powers of each branch?

The argument made by those citing this passage as its base is thusly an utter failure and a non sequitur.

The doctrine of the SEPARATION of powers come from the Baron Montesquieu's work of 1752: The Spirit of the Laws.

[Soldier of Liberty]

My simple opinion on this is, that Thomas Jefferson, while a Deist, and a denier of Christ divinity, was do nothing more than applying his own words to his own beliefs, and that he expected others to think and do the same. If you remember, our nation began with the Pilgrims seeking religious freedom by launching out on their own in the "New World." Many people who came to America subsequently came to escape the rigidity and forcefulness of the established church in England. We must also consider that these men were the "thinkers" of their day. The average individual, while possibly educated, did not have the wealth of experience that individuals like Jefferson did, so they in many respects did not reach the same conclusions that Jefferson and his colleagues did. Many of these individuals retained their religious inclinations,not neccesarily because of a lack of education, but by simple choice, which I am sure Jefferson would equally applaud on the basis of freedom of religion. Our founders while Christian, and less than Christian, were not so naive to think that their opinions represented everyone, and subsequently because of the COE and religious inclinations of many of the colonist they included Freedom of Religion.

As a Christian, I find many parallel's in the Bible and the Constitution, I believe that it is if not the only, the one of the sources of our Republic, as my Bible tells me I am a free moral agent, I have the choice of being a Christian, or not being a Christian, and I have chose to be one.


SOL

[phixion]

Further, we Christians do ourselves and our faith a disservice by majoring in protecting cultural icons instead of majoring in matters of the heart. I'd vote for the removal of every Christian symbol and edifice in this country if it would awaken more hearts to the kind of freedom I possess.

As a Christian your freedom is limited to what is written in the bible, Sir.

You are free to do as the bible tells you.

I guess you couldn't shake your religious upbringing and couldn't continue living as an 'agnostic' any longer. The void needed filling. Is that not so?

Pete

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.sovereignlife.com/files/sovereign_manifesto.pdf

[tonesforjonesbones]

Communists knew their battle was to rid the USA of Christianity in order to take over. By this thread, they have done a damn fine job of it. Watch your country crumble without it. tones

[Truth Warrior]

Communists knew their battle was to rid the USA of Christianity in order to take over. By this thread, they have done a damn fine job of it. Watch your country crumble without it. tones
~75% of the US population "claims" to be Christian, so obviously it must be all OK with at least some (enough) of the folks. :( :p

[LibertyEagle]

communists knew their battle was to rid the usa of christianity in order to take over. By this thread, they have done a damn fine job of it. Watch your country crumble without it. Tones

qft

[heavenlyboy34]

Communists knew their battle was to rid the USA of Christianity in order to take over. By this thread, they have done a damn fine job of it. Watch your country crumble without it. tones

The soviets had plenty of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union) but it didn't save them. :rolleyes:

[PatriotOne]

As a Christian, I find many parallel's in the Bible and the Constitution, I believe that it is if not the only, the one of the sources of our Republic, as my Bible tells me I am a free moral agent, I have the choice of being a Christian, or not being a Christian, and I have chose to be one.


SOL

Your bible tells you that if you do not believe in and serve "God" you are going to burn eternally in hell. You call that a "choice"? I call it a threat similar to the threats all tyrants have used in history to enforce their sheep suppressing laws.

[Truth Warrior]

American Masonic History
What Are America's True Roots?*
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/mashist.htm



"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton

[heavenlyboy34]

American Masonic History
What Are America's True Roots?*
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/mashist.htm



"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton

So, you're saying that it's the freemasons-not the jews/neocons that are the problem? :confused:

[Truth Warrior]

So, you're saying that it's the freemasons-not the jews/neocons that are the problem? :confused: The top degrees of the Freemasons are just some of the inter connecting cross membership glue among the numerous secret societies.<IMHO>

[Theocrat]

American Masonic History
What Are America's True Roots?*
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/mashist.htm



"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton

I wonder if you've ever heard of this book (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1760894#post1760894).

[sidster]

Great post strapko!

[Truth Warrior]

I wonder if you've ever heard of this book (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1760894#post1760894).

Nope, "official" history tends to be written by the "winners" ( so called ). :p

Index to the Antifederalist Papers
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm (http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm)

[Soldier of Liberty]

Your bible tells you that if you do not believe in and serve "God" you are going to burn eternally in hell. You call that a "choice"? I call it a threat similar to the threats all tyrants have used in history to enforce their sheep suppressing laws.

Then you show your lack of knowledge concerning the Bible.........As a Christian I have free will..................



SOL

[PatriotOne]

Then you show your lack of knowledge concerning the Bible.........As a Christian I have free will..................

SOL

FYI....worshipping God or burning in hell is not a choice, it is a threat. Maybe you will understand that better when the NWO instills their God as supreme and threatens you with extermination if you do not worship him.

[heavenlyboy34]

FYI....worshipping God or burning in hell is not a choice, it is a threat. Maybe you will understand that better when the NWO instills their God as supreme and threatens you with extermination if you do not worship him.

I thought the NWO was statist, not religious (they simply use religion as a pretext for controlling the masses). Am I mistaken?:confused:

[Truth Warrior]

Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

[foofighter20x]

Religion and government are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

Fixed it for ya.

Politics is, IMHO, more about the authoritative determination and allocation of moral values.

As such, it is a topic of its own kind that spans the realms of interpersonal/societal and ecumenical relations.

[Conservative Christian]

"The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country."

--General George Washington

General Order, (9 July 1776) George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 3g, Varick Transcripts

..

[Conservative Christian]

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.

Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

President George Washington
Farewell Address
..

[BeFranklin]

Quote:
"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.

Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

President George Washington
Farewell Address





Thanks for the post :)

[BeFranklin]

Your bible tells you that if you do not believe in and serve "God" you are going to burn eternally in hell. You call that a "choice"? I call it a threat similar to the threats all tyrants have used in history to enforce their sheep suppressing laws.

Actually, my bible says you are already going to hell and are born that way, and God in his Son Jesus *saved* you from that by dying for you.

So you are accusing someone who died for you.

[BeFranklin]

It is threads like this on this forum that makes me realize how little many of the posters on here have actually read or understood the thinking of the founders of this country.


Monday, March 20, 2006

Benjamin Franklin - Prayers and Speeches


Here are some links to works by Benjamin Franklin. The first is the speech for prayer giving during the Constitutional Convention. The second is the last speech to the Constitutional Convention by Franklin. And the third is a link to his autobiography, well worth reading because it emphasizes the work ethic, diplomacy, temperance, and perhaps above all, the inclusive, neighborly love that Philadelphia 'the city of brotherly love' is meant to be filled with according to its name.


http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=19 (this link has considerably more information and background on Benjamin Franklin's prayer than anywhere else)

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin.htm
(This link has facsimiles from one of the original books on the convention with Franklin's prayer included)

Mr. President:

The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other -- our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own wont of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.



http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html

Mr. President

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right-Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.



http://www.bartleby.com/1/1/

Franklin's autobiography

[DamianTV]

I'll accuse anyone who threatens me or my family.

This needs explaining. The book called the Bible is written by MAN, not by GOD or JESUS. I will eliminate the latter two although they are a great deal of the subject matter. The Bible has NOTHING to do with the actual word of god, it is the word of MAN. It was rewritten for the word of MAN. Then rewritten again, and again and again. Thus, its not a problem that I have with a REAL GOD, not the one desribed in ANY book, my beef is with MAN threatening me.

I think George Carlin said it best when he said something like, "Supreme Being, creator of everything and all that is in existence, but he never has enough money. God cant even balance his check book." Of course George wasnt talking about a real GOD, he was talking about the people who run around and push GOD down everyones throats and make them fear. That is nothing different than to ask "What if George W. Bush Did It?" If Bush did it, we would call it fear mongering. Obama, our new "great savior" :rolleyes: recently called for teh reinstatement of the Nazi Youth Brigade. Lets ask again, what if Bush did it? Yeah, his approval rating would have dropped from 16% to probably 11% because people would be that pissed. But now that someone else has done it, most of the sheeple went back to sleep and very few people have noticed.

A REAL GOD or the real JESUS CHRIST wouldnt run around saying shit like "you'll burn in hell if you dont believe in me". That is the words of a preacher who wants more MONEY. More control. More power.

I only know one thing in my entire life to be absolutely true above everything else. And that is I dont know everything. I dont know if there is or is not a real god, and quite frankly, dont really give a shit, it doesnt stop me from doing what I think is right. I might find out, I might not. There might be an afterlife, there might not. It doesnt matter. What matters is right now. What you do with your life, and IMHO, those that run around and say if you dont believe in god or Christ (no I did NOT capitalize that name because it is not a proper name it is a referal to god or gods as deities in general) that you will burn in hell, those people are no better than has been George W. and will be Obama with FEAR MONGERING.

I dont say fuck god because I've never talked to the guy, but I will say FUCK EVERY ORGANIZED CHARADE THAT SAYS ITS GOD(S) IS THE ONLY REAL GOD(S). IE FUCK the control of manipulative brainwashed MAN.

---

No I didnt read it, like I dont expect most of you to read my wall of text. But the Constitution was designed in the benefits of ALL MEN and ALL RELIGIONS, NOT just christian give me money bullshit artists.

[Conservative Christian]

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

--Patrick Henry
..

[DamianTV]

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

--Patrick Henry

Then FUCK Patrick Henry too. Funny, I dont see him all over the place like Jefferson and Franklin. He is a guy that was along for the ride and used his ride to preach bullshit.

[Conza88]

http://jj.am/gallery/d/39413-2/Rumsfeld_Origami.gif

[Conservative Christian]

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage."

--Dr. Ron Paul
..

[DamianTV]

Well for one RP wasnt trying to get elected office so he could shove the threats of "Believe in jesus or burn in hell" down my throats. And I do not share his religious hocus pocus beliefs, I supported him because he supported CHOICE, not THREATS.

That and there are so many religious morons in this country that he, nor America, would have been very popular if they didnt support religious freedom.

The world is not ready to wake up to the fact that religion is bullshit. They still have their crack addict dependancy on a lie so big that to reveal the lie would shatter the person.

[Truth Warrior]

Founded on Christian principles?

Hmmm, maybe that's why D.C. is laid out like a cross. ;)

:D


The Masonic Architecture of Washington, D.C. (http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html#architecture)

[DamianTV]

So when the north and south poles shift and trade places, will it then be an upside down cross? More like a big X with one line longer than the others for "BOMB HERE".

Religion is BULLSHIT. Im not saying god, the god, a god, the gods or whatever are as if there is one or them, that they are bullshit, I dont know, I do know that their words are twisted by man to become what is now religion.

[Truth Warrior]

So when the north and south poles shift and trade places, will it then be an upside down cross? More like a big X with one line longer than the others for "BOMB HERE".

Religion is BULLSHIT. Im not saying god, the god, a god, the gods or whatever are as if there is one or them, that they are bullshit, I dont know, I do know that their words are twisted by man to become what is now religion.

Think about it. ;)


Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

[heavenlyboy34]

thanks for the post, OP. It's a good read. :)

[DamianTV]

Think about it. ;)


Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

/agree totally

[Truth Warrior]

/agree totally :cool: :)

[BeFranklin]

..
Quote:
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage."

--Dr. Ron Paul


Good quote, and fairly true.

The next blow to saving this nation won't come from here. Without a solid foundation, it would be pointless to build upon it. Also, only with the help of God can America be revived.

Proverbs 25:28 "Whoever has no rule over his own spirit is like a city broken down, without walls."

Proverbs 16:32 "He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city."

[BeFranklin]

Sup guys, I am a fellow RP supporter. Browsing through these forums I always notice some individual boosting about how we were founded on Christian Principle's.(We all know who he is=D)
...
It is clear from this sampling that our friend who said the motto of the American Revolution was "No king but King Jesus" had an incomplete view of American history. It is true that Christianity was the most populous religion in colonial America and that many of the mores that became a part of the American political system can be traced to the Christian ethic, yet there were deep divisions between the various sects. Some groups even felt that the others were not really Christian at all but heresies instead. More important, however, is the fact that religion was not the motivator of the American Revolution. It was not a religious crusade but a struggle for personal and economic liberty. General Washington was wise not to quiz them on their theology. He needed every able bodied man who was willing to fight regardless of their religious convictions. Freedom Force is following his example. (Incidentally, I am happy to report that, after reading the first draft of this reply, this gentleman reconsidered his position and became a member!!)"

Clearly, this OP message was not posted to me or many of the other Christian posters on this forum, as it is somewhat dated.

However, the ignorance on these threads about what our founders believed is really telling. Of the whole list, only Paine was an aetheist, but his most fameous work common sense is religious - he knew what audience he was writing to. The rest of the quotes would also call Luther, Calvin, Fox, Wycliffe, and many other reformers aeithiest for holding the Roman Catholic church to account. That is a ridicilous misquoting from a nation founded by and large by protestants and puratians.

Some of the Christian quotes from the founders appear at the end of this thread, including the ones I posted from Benjamin Franklin (some of my favorite). Futhermore, the American Revolution was started on a church lawn, fought by people from that church, and the name "the shot heard round the world" was phrased by that minister. The slogan really was "No King But King Jesus", and it was a direct challenge to the idea of a divine right of kings and pope instituted monarchs. For, as the bible says "He has made us priests and kings", and Jesus is "King of Kings and Lord of Lords".

The reviving of America will occur because of God. It is impossible for it to occur otherwise, and complete destruction lies ahead on all sides impossible for any normal stength to stop. Looking at various people on here calling for gay marriages, despising Christians, and reposting the same things over and over without caring about the historical truth makes me think the time is coming that the door will be closed.

Its not numbers, its about a solid foundation. The same thing occured in the old testament when selecting men, already outnumbered, they where whiddled down even more by God on who would go on. In a similar way, about salvation Jesus says: Many are called, but few are chosen.

[Deborah K]

Can someone please tell me why, since the beginning of our gov't why does the President have to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution on a bible?

[torchbearer]

Can someone please tell me why, since the beginning of our gov't why does the President have to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution on a bible?

George Washington was sworn in using a masonic bible.

[Deborah K]

George Washington was sworn in using a masonic bible.

Okaaaaaay....and your point issssss????

[torchbearer]

Then, you'll have to ask yourself, If they swore an oath to god, on a bible, to defend the constitution... why do they destroy the constitution?
Is that god's will?

[torchbearer]

If George Bush swears to god on bible... and then goes to war in Iraq. Is it god's war?

[torchbearer]

Okaaaaaay....and your point issssss????

Mason's understand the true meaning of Lucifer.

[Deborah K]

Mason's understand the true meaning of Lucifer.

Skewz me??? Are you saying the bible that Washington swore on was something other than the King James version??? And if you are saying that, will you please cite your source?

[danberkeley]

Mason's understand the true meaning of Lucifer.

enlighten me, por favor!

[DamianTV]

..., If they swore an oath to god, on a bible, to defend the constitution...


So much for Separation of Church and State...

[BeFranklin]

Can someone please tell me why, since the beginning of our gov't why does the President have to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution on a bible?

They don't have to, they just do by tradition.

The same thing was traditionally done in the court system - as you might see in old perry mason shows (the black and white ones). Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.. so help me God. Under common law, in an english tradition, you would indeed probably use a king james version of the bible, because that was the official bible. The presidents however usually use whatever is their family bible.

However, I think the time to discuss this is rapidly coming to a close. I see utter destruction lying ahead; but like a flood God will spare His people. There isn't an infinite time to make a decision, and bad things as far as I see are literally on every side. I do not see just one or two disasters ahead. America is hemmed in, and she needs to seek God if she is going to survive.

[Deborah K]

Then, you'll have to ask yourself, If they swore an oath to god, on a bible, to defend the constitution... why do they destroy the constitution?
Is that god's will?


My point is, if our nation was not founded upon Christian principles then why do our Presidents swear an oath to uphold the Constitution on the Holy Bible?

As to your question, any President who subverts the Constitution is violating a sworn oath on the Bible.

[torchbearer]

enlighten me, por favor!

The angel of light, or enlightenment. Knowledge, like the tree of knowledge.
Considered by the early church to be evil to seek the knowledge of "god", ie. sciences... the basis of masonry.

Lucious... Lucifer... hell, even Luke, as in Luke Skywalker. If you will.
Listen to some Jordan Maxwell.
Surf some sites.

The church of today, was not the church of that day.
The church of that day would burn a witch, or torture a heretic.

Masons were "enlightened"... note... light. To bring to light.

http://masonictraveler.blogspot.com/2007/09/lucifer-light-bearer.html

http://www.illuminati-news.com/2007/0116b.htm

http://www.cuttingedge.org/free11.html

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chapter1/realmatrix.htm

http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2005/11nov/lucifer.html

http://www.prepare-ye-the-way.com/freemasonry1.htm

[Deborah K]

They don't have to, they just do by tradition.

The same thing was traditionally done in the court system - as you might see in old perry mason shows (the black and white ones). Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.. so help me God. Under common law, in an english tradition, you would indeed probably use a king james version of the bible, because that was the official bible. The presidents however usually use whatever is their family bible.

However, I think the time to discuss this is rapidly coming to a close. I see utter destruction lying ahead; but like a flood God will spare His people. There isn't an infinite time to make a decision, and bad things as far as I see are literally on every side. I do not see just one or two disasters ahead. America is hemmed in, and she needs to seek God if she is going to survive.

It will be interesting to see if Obama swears an oath on the Holy Bible.

[torchbearer]

My point is, if our nation was not founded upon Christian principles then why do our Presidents swear an oath to uphold the Constitution on the Holy Bible?

As to your question, any President who subverts the Constitution is violating a sworn oath on the Bible.

The ideas of the declaration of independence didn't come from the bible.
It came from philosophers.
The ideas of the constitution didn't come from the bible.
It came from philosophers.
A lot of the founders were Deist, not bible thumpers who believed in the oppression of knowledge.

[Deborah K]

So much for Separation of Church and State...


And where did you come up with that phrase? NOT from the Constitution, I assure you.

[Deborah K]

The ideas of the declaration of independence didn't come from the bible.
It came from philosophers.
The ideas of the constitution didn't come from the bible.
It came from philosophers.
A lot of the founders were Deist, not bible thumpers who believed in the oppression of knowledge.


Just answer the question. Why do the Presidents swear an oath to defend the Constitution on the bible?

[torchbearer]

So much for Separation of Church and State...

Oaths had to have meaning. That was simple.
As in, if you swore on oath to your god. That would be something you would only break with the punishment of damnation for lying under an oath sworn in your god's name.
It was a measure of sincerity which has absolutely zero meaning to the presidents who swear to the bible.. and who obviously do not really believe in the bible or god.. as they have no fear of the oath they break in his name.
This is not a christian nation, and we don't have christian presidents.

[torchbearer]

Just answer the question. Why do the Presidents swear an oath to defend the Constitution on the bible?

See above post.

[BeFranklin]

The angel of light, or enlightenment. Knowledge, like the tree of knowledge.


Thats the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not "knowledge" by itself. Like knowledge you get from experience, like by doing evil. In the same way that "to know someone" in the old testament might mean to sleep with them.

Satan was always a liar and a murderer from the beginning. There is no good in him. He is also always lying about scripture, changing it slightly to make it seem the same. Luke 4 shows the devil trying to lie about scripture. The temptation of eve was the same way.

John 8:44 He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Luke 4:1-13
1And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, 2Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

3And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. 4And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

5And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. 7If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
8And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

9And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: 10For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: 11And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 12And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

13And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.

[BeFranklin]

The ideas of the declaration of independence didn't come from the bible.
It came from philosophers.
The ideas of the constitution didn't come from the bible.
It came from philosophers.
A lot of the founders were Deist, not bible thumpers who believed in the oppression of knowledge.

Nonsense.

Bible thumpers is only a pergative term I've heard used by the Roman Catholic church which somehow doesn't apply to them. Qouting from scripture is thought to be bad in the RC, while listening to the magisterium, traditions of the RC, and the infallible pope is good. It follows a similar political reasoning to separate the founders from their protestant upbringing.

Who would benefit from that? A particular church it seems.

Politically, the same thing goes on in the US. There are those of us that are constitution thumpers, and believe it means what it says. And there are those that like to follow the current fad of the day, political doctrine, or infallible supreme court.

[torchbearer]

Thats the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not "knowledge" by itself. Like knowledge you get from experience, like by doing evil. In the same way that "to know someone" in the old testament might mean to sleep with them.

Satan was always a liar and a murderer from the beginning. There is no good in him. He is also always lying about scripture, changing it slightly to make it seem the same. Luke 4 shows the devil trying to lie about scripture. The temptation of eve was the same way.

John 8:44 He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Luke 4:1-13
1And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, 2Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

3And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. 4And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

5And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. 7If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
8And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

9And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: 10For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: 11And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 12And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

13And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.

Tell that to galileo
http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/Science/galileo.JPG

Copernicus
http://web.hao.ucar.edu/public/education/sp/images_old/copernicus.gif

Kepler
http://www.johanneskepler.com/pics/kepler_portrait_sm.gif


and many other great men of knowledge.....


Only clergy was to read the bible.
Only the clergy were allowed to learn...
But don't dare question the authority of the church... for anything outside its scope... is EVIL.
And the knowledge they brought to the world was declared EVIL by the church.
GOD forbid their knowledge. So say the wise men of the BIBLE.

You want to start quoting scripture. We can do that too.
You want some really enlightened passages to go along with this discussion?

[danberkeley]

The angel of light, or enlightenment. Knowledge, like the tree of knowledge.
Considered by the early church to be evil to seek the knowledge of "god", ie. sciences... the basis of masonry.

Lucious... Lucifer... hell, even Luke, as in Luke Skywalker. If you will.
Listen to some Jordan Maxwell.
Surf some sites.

The church of today, was not the church of that day.
The church of that day would burn a witch, or torture a heretic.

Masons were "enlightened"... note... light. To bring to light.

http://masonictraveler.blogspot.com/2007/09/lucifer-light-bearer.html

http://www.illuminati-news.com/2007/0116b.htm

http://www.cuttingedge.org/free11.html

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chapter1/realmatrix.htm

http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2005/11nov/lucifer.html

http://www.prepare-ye-the-way.com/freemasonry1.htm

so lucifer does not equal satan. got it!

[Deborah K]

This is not a christian nation, and we don't have christian presidents.

Maybe it isn't so much anymore. But we were founded on Christian principles.

I reject the obvious desire to revise history on this matter. It is as though our heritage is something that should be feared and reviled, and so it must be denied. An Orwellian trait to be sure.

I’ve decided to share some facts about this issue, but before I get into it, allow me to preface this by stating that I believe in a Creator, and I believe that Christ was the human manifestation of that Creator. However, I do not belong to a religious organization. I am a recovering Catholic. I come from a very long line of Catholics that includes priests and nuns on my French-Canadian Father’s side. My Mother was raised with no religion as her Father was an atheist. I was baptized right after birth, but my parents did not raise me Catholic. I practiced Catholicism of my own volition as a young girl, up until the Priest molestation scandal and subsequent illegal alien advocacy of the Catholic Church.

While I believe there is a place in the world for religion, I also believe that way too many people see it as an end, rather than a means to an end. This undermines a person’s wisdom and sense of balance. Instead of viewing the church as a vehicle in which to teach people about the source of divine power and through which divine power can be channeled into man’s nature, people view the church as the power itself. And the church allows and even encourages this line of thinking. I believe this is extremely deceptive and destructive.

I see organized religion in the same way as I see government. If it is allowed to be corrupted, it will be. The idea of religion, as in the idea of capitalism is not, in and of itself, corrupt. But human nature dictates that those who are left to their own devices without any oversight or intervention, will inevitably succumb to the greed and corruption that comes with too much power.

The founders knew this. You can tell they did when you read the Declaration of Independence. Read how they describe King George. Their goal was to protect us against corruption of power. “[They] delivered to us a system of government which has enjoyed unprecedented success: we are now the world’s longest on-going constitutional republic. Two hundred years under the same document- and under one form of government – is an accomplishment unknown among contemporary nations. For example: Russia, Italy, Spain, and other nations underwent revolutions about the same time as the American Revolution, but with very different results. Consider France: in the last 200 years it has gone through seven completely different forms of governments; Italy has over 50 tries, yet we are still in our first.

Where then, did our Founding Fathers acquire the ideas that produced such longevity? Other nations certainly had access to what our Founders utilized, yet evidently chose not to. From what sources did our Founders choose their ideas?

This question was asked by political science professors at the University of Houston. They rightfully felt that they could determine the source of the Founders’ ideas if they could collect the writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.

The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from the founding Era – no small sample – and searched those writings. That project spanned ten years; but at the end of that time, the researchers had isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders and had identified the source of those quotes.

The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the man quoted most often by the founding fathers, with 8.3 percent of the Founders’ quotes being taken from his writings. Sir William Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of the Founder’s quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent.

Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.

The study was even more impressive when the source of the ideas used by Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke were identified. Consider for example, the source of Blackstone’s ideas. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws was first introduced in 1768, and for the next 100 years America’s courts quoted Blackstone to settle disputes, to define words, and to examine procedure; Blackstone’s Commentaries were the final word in the Supreme Courts. So what was a significant source of Blackstone’s ideas? Perhaps the best answer to that question can be given through the life of Charles Finney.

Charles Finney is known as a famous revivalist, minister, and preacher from one of America’s greatest revivals; the Second Great Awakening in the early 1800’s. Finney, in his autobiography, spoke of how he received his call to ministry. He explained that – having determined to become a lawyer – he, like all other law students at the time, commenced the study of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws. Finney observed that Blackstone’s Commentaries not only provided the laws, it also provided the Biblical concepts on which those laws were based. Finney explained that in the process of studying Blackstone, he read so much of the Bible that he became a Christian and received his call to the ministry. Finney’s life story clearly identified a major source of Blackstone’s ideas for law.

So, while 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”

This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts. I can produce those as well, if need be ,as well as what was taught in American schools for the first 175 years.

Bear in mind, the above is not some made up opinion, it is well documented, irrefutable research into actual quotes from the Founders.


Sources:

David Barton, Original Intent, 1997

Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988

“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review

[BeFranklin]

And where did you come up with that phrase? NOT from the Constitution, I assure you.

Actually, the phrase comes from the baptists, and was not meant to be used the way it is now. I'm mentioning it just because I thought you might be interested.

The origin of the phrase comes from Roger Williams, founder of the first baptist church and the colony at rode island - providence. He wrote a number of classic books, including "the bloody tenant of persecution for the cause of conscience", showing from the bible that persecuting people for what they believed, such as inquistions and crusades, was completely against the bible (obviously).


Roger Williams, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution (1644)That the blood of so many hundred thousand souls of protestants and papists, ... 21.5 So thousands of Christ's witnesses, and of late in those bloody Marian ...

The wall of seperation came from his works as well, because he maintained that the church florishes best when not interfered with by the state - state run churches persecute separatists (obviously).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_(theologian)

The more modern use of the quote is from a letter from Jefferson replying back to a group of baptists wondering about religious freedom in the new nation. Jefferson's letter is making use of Roger Williams quote. (see above wikipedia article).

Roger Williams would be appaled at how the term is being mis-applied. Rhode Island is an early example of a colony with religilous liberty.

[Deborah K]

Actually, the phrase comes from the baptists, and was not meant to be used the way it is now. I'm mentioning it just because I thought you might be interested.

The origin of the phrase comes from Roger Williams, founder of the first baptist church and the colony at rode island - providence. He wrote a number of classic books, including "the bloody tenant of persecution for the cause of conscience", showing from the bible that persecuting people for what they believed, such as inquistions and crusades, was completely against the bible (obviously).



The wall of seperation came from his works as well, because he maintained that the church florishes best when not interfered with by the state - state run churches persecute separatists (obviously).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_(theologian)

The more modern use of the quote is from a letter from Jefferson replying back to a group of baptists wondering about religious freedom in the new nation. Jefferson's letter is making use of Roger Williams quote. (see above wikipedia article).

Roger Williams would be appaled at how the term is being mis-applied. Rhode Island is an early example of a colony with religilous liberty.

Yessir I am fully aware of the originality of the phrase - as it pertains to Jefferson's use of it. I was baiting the poster who used the phrase. :eek: ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

It will be interesting to see if Obama swears an oath on the Holy Bible.

He did it in the Senate (according to all reports), so he'll likely do it again.

[danberkeley]

He did it in the Senate (according to all reports), so he'll likely do it again.

but but but but whatever happened to the seperation of church and state these democrats espouse all the time? :D

[BeFranklin]

Tell that to galileo
http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/Science/galileo.JPG

Only clergy was to read the bible.
Only the clergy were allowed to learn...
But don't dare question the authority of the church... for anything outside its scope... is EVIL.
And the knowledge they brought to the world was declared EVIL by the church.
GOD forbid their knowledge. So say the wise men of the BIBLE.

You want to start quoting scripture. We can do that too.
You want some really enlightened passages to go along with this discussion?

That was one of my points that you missed from my earlier message. You were raised Catholic, but the founders of this country were for the most part raised in the protestant tradition. When they talk about the superstitutions of the church, the corruption of the clergy or its divine rights, they aren't sounding different than the same reformers from before that. Quoting their disdain for false religion doesn't prove them to not be Christians. To the roman catholic heirarchy, not believing in the mother church for sure makes them infidels. Too bad the RC educates so many people in this country now.

[torchbearer]

That was one of my points that you missed from an earlier message. You were raised Catholic, but the founders of these country were the most part raised in the protestant tradition. When they talk about the superstitutions of the church, the corruption of the clergy or its divine rights, they aren't sounding different than the same reformers from before that. Quoting their disdain for false religion doesn't prove them to not be Christians. To the roman catholic heirarchy, not believing in the mother church for sure makes them infidels. Too bad the RC educates so many people in this country now.

I wasn't just raised catholic. My father was baptist, my mother was catholic.
I'd attend mass at 9am. Be in baptist bible school by 10am and at baptist service at 11am.
Funny thing is.. when I attended the baptist service, the preacher would often speak of how all the catholics were going to hell.
weird thing for a child to try and figure out.
And my college theological studies were at Louisiana College. A private Baptist Univeristy.
So your argument fails.
I've studied all traditions... and all of you pick and choose what you want to be god's words from the bible. and none of you follow all of it.
You are all hypocrits. and have an excuse for the things you choose to ignore and for the things you try to cram through people's throats.

And i want to make myself clear. This has nothing to do with our creator. and that is exactly my point. The bullshit you want to talk about on here has nothing to do with our creator. It has everything to do with a man made bible.
"Oh no... he didn't just say that..." :eek:

If you wish to continue, I will began by showing all the women here who profess to be godly women, how they are all offensive to their god according the bible... and then we can progress.
I didn't spend 21 years of my life studying this shit in a sincere effort to find truth in my creator to be lectured by someone who thinks they know my upbringing, and can dismiss what I say with crap from a man made bible.
For every verse you throw up, I will throw one up that shows people in our modern day christian movement are living in sin according to that very bible.
Shall we begin?

[Deborah K]

That was one of my points that you missed from my earlier message. You were raised Catholic, but the founders of this country were for the most part raised in the protestant tradition. When they talk about the superstitutions of the church, the corruption of the clergy or its divine rights, they aren't sounding different than the same reformers from before that. Quoting their disdain for false religion doesn't prove them to not be Christians. To the roman catholic heirarchy, not believing in the mother church for sure makes them infidels. Too bad the RC educates so many people in this country now.

Here's an interesting site that shows the various religions of our founders. For those who would like to deny that most of the founders were Christian.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

[BeFranklin]

Charles Finney is known as a famous revivalist, minister, and preacher from one of America’s greatest revivals; the Second Great Awakening in the early 1800’s. Finney, in his autobiography, spoke of how he received his call to ministry. He explained that – having determined to become a lawyer – he, like all other law students at the time, commenced the study of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws. Finney observed that Blackstone’s Commentaries not only provided the laws, it also provided the Biblical concepts on which those laws were based. Finney explained that in the process of studying Blackstone, he read so much of the Bible that he became a Christian and received his call to the ministry. Finney’s life story clearly identified a major source of Blackstone’s ideas for law.


So lawyers can be saved! :D:)

[BeFranklin]

Here's an interesting site that shows the various religions of our founders. For those who would like to deny that most of the founders were Christian.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Interesting site, I'll have to look at that more closely later. FYI: Even though Roger Williams colony was known as a "haven for quakers" (sometimes persecuted elsewhere), he wrote a whole book decrying some of their theology: ie "George Fox Digg'd out of His Burrowes", which shows I think a traditional American trait - you can disagree with someone and still be tolerant of them and friendly.

[BeFranklin]

I didn't spend 21 years of my life studying this shit in a sincere effort to find truth in my creator to be lectured by someone who thinks they know my upbringing, and can dismiss what I say with crap from a man made bible.
For every verse you throw up, I will throw one up that shows people in our modern day christian movement are living in sin according to that very bible.
Shall we begin?

I didn't say I knew you upbringing, I was pointing out how a large part of this debate is being framed from a catholic viewpoint, regardless of whether any of the participants know it. Also, I was aware of part of your past education from reading another thread 6 months or so ago.

In example, this thread starts out quoting our founders as being atheists for being anti-clerical, yet that is completely in the protestant tradition. Sure, that would make them infidels in the catholic tradition, but that isn't what the founders believed. Its not like I haven't heard the argument before, but for even the argument to be framed that way suggests something to me - and it isn't aethism. It is just my opinion, but I'm 110% sure that this is being propogated by catholicism, which wasn't well represented at the founding of this country, and some of which the founders were fighting against - for instance the divine rights of kings.

Same thing with bible thumpers. I've never heard the term applied to Catholic priests, only evangilical Christians. Why, and where does it come from?

So precede with your arguments, but I was not trying to be personal, only pointing out that this modern argument against the founders being Christian is being framed in a certain way (which is everywhere, certainly not just on this forum).

[torchbearer]

I didn't say I knew you upbringing, I was pointing out how a large part of this debate is being framed from a catholic viewpoint, regardless of whether any of the participants know it. Also, I was aware of part of your past education from reading another thread 6 months or so ago.

In example, this thread starts out quoting our founders as being atheists for being anti-clerical, yet that is completely in the protestant tradition. Sure, that would make them infidels in the catholic tradition, but that isn't what the founders believed. Its not like I haven't heard the argument before, but for even the argument to be framed that way suggests something to me - and it isn't aethism. It is just my opinion, but I'm 110% sure that this is being propogated by catholicism, which wasn't well represented at the founding of this country, and some of which the founders were fighting againt - for instance the divine rights of kings.

Same thing with bible thumpers. I've never heard the term applied to Catholic priests, only evangilical Christians. Why, and where does it come from?

So precede with your arguments, but I was not trying to be personal, only pointing out that this modern argument against the founders being Christian is being framed in a certain way (which is everywhere, certainly not just on this forum).

Catholics are also christians even though protestants don't believe so.
The founders were not protestant to the point of being "bible thumpers". (some were actually deist)
Meaning, the declaration wasn't a church sermon.
The constitution wasn't based on the leviticus.
They were scholars and philosophers. Human beings first.
And this push to say the U.S. is based on christianity is false in the same sense that the founders were atheist is false.
It was based on a philosophy of government... and i'm not talking about the City of God (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1201.htm).

It is a misrepresentation that is used to divide people... and to make christians feel like they have some divine right at deciding what this country stands for.. and that isn't what the founders wanted at all.

[BeFranklin]

Catholics are also christians even though protestants don't believe so.
The founders were not protestant to the point of being "bible thumpers". (some were actually deist)
Meaning, the declaration wasn't a church sermon.
The constitution wasn't based on the leviticus.
They were scholars and philosophers. Human beings first.
And this push to say the U.S. is based on christianity is false in the same sense that the founders were atheist is false.
It was based on a philosophy of government... and i'm not talking about the City of God (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1201.htm).

It is a misrepresentation that is used to divide people... and to make christians feel like they have some divine right at deciding what this country stands for.. and that isn't what the founders wanted at all.

There is no push to say that. There is a push to remove Christianity from the history of this country. Some of that is from gay groups, some from the NWO crowd, some from leftists, and some from marxists. Some is also from the catholic church, because the founders were too protestant.

As far as being "bible thumpers" goes, does printing up bibles count as bible thumping? Many of our founders did that. Jefferson even wanted to with the indians.

Or how about the Liberty Bell? Its inscriped with a verse from Leviticus 25:10
"Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." Ringing a bell with a bible verse that can be heard thoughout the countryside sounds to me like "bible thumping" by the founders.

[BeFranklin]

Catholics are also christians even though protestants don't believe so.
.

So you either believe something or you don't believe something. I'd argue the bible says to come out of her my people. So if you are in her, come out of her. Then you won't have to post pictures of scientests the great w killed. You won't have any part of her.

[torchbearer]

So you either believe something or you don't believe something. I'd argue the bible says to come out of her my people. So if you are in her, come out of her. Then you won't have to post pictures of scientests the great w killed. You won't have any part of her.

PLease define her.. and how god said this... and how you know god said this...
As I don't indentify with any religious group. I've truly come out of her.
If I get your drift.

[torchbearer]

There is no push to say that. There is a push to remove Christianity from the history of this country. Some of that is from gay groups, some from the NWO crowd, some from leftists, and some from marxists. Some is also from the catholic church, because the founders were too protestant.

As far as being "bible thumpers" goes, does printing up bibles with government money count as bible thumping? Many of our founders did that. Jefferson even wanted to with the indians.

Or how about the Liberty Bell? Its inscriped with a verse from Leviticus 25:10
"Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." Ringing a bell with a bible verse that can be heard thoughout the countryside sounds to me like "bible thumping" by the founders.

I showed the examples of how they weren't "bible thumpers".
They didn't quote scripture in their letter of independence and they didn't base their government on the bible.
They based it on philosophers.

I never said they weren't christian. I said they didn't intend to force their religion on the populus through the government. This isn't a christian government. Its a republic based on the philosophy of a republic.
They could have used the City of God as a blue print for their government. And had they.. I would say.. this country was founded on christianity.. and that the founders were indeed bible thumpers.

When I say bible thumper, I refer to that preacher on sunday who is pounding the bible as he is preaching the fear of hell to incite that 10% contribution that comes from the scriptures....

[Deborah K]

Catholics are also christians even though protestants don't believe so.
The founders were not protestant to the point of being "bible thumpers". (some were actually deist)
Meaning, the declaration wasn't a church sermon.
The constitution wasn't based on the leviticus.
They were scholars and philosophers. Human beings first.
And this push to say the U.S. is based on christianity is false in the same sense that the founders were atheist is false.
It was based on a philosophy of government... and i'm not talking about the City of God (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1201.htm).

It is a misrepresentation that is used to divide people... and to make christians feel like they have some divine right at deciding what this country stands for.. and that isn't what the founders wanted at all.

It isn't about "some divine right at deciding what this country stands for" - it is about historical facts vs. some pretentious idea that the founders were all philosophers with no regard for morality in the religious sense. It is awfully presumptuous of the 'deniers' to conclude that Judeo-Christian principles had not a profound influence upon the founding of this nation. Have you forgotten that many of the early settlers were fleeing religious persecution?

"Christian doctrine affirms the worth of each and every human being. Where Christianity has not taken a foothold collectivism reigns" ~ ToryNotion

[torchbearer]

It isn't about "some divine right at deciding what this country stands for" - it is about historical facts vs. some pretentious idea that the founders were all philosophers with no regard for morality in the religious sense. It is awfully presumptuous of the 'deniers' to conclude that Judeo-Christian principles had not a profound influence upon the founding of this nation. Have you forgotten that many of the early settlers were fleeing religious persecution?

"Christian doctrine affirms the worth of each and every human being. Where Christianity has not taken a foothold collectivism reigns" ~ ToryNotion

John Locke had more influence than Jesus.
I don't remember anywhere in the Bible where Jesus gave a fuck about human governments.

[Deborah K]

I showed the examples of how they weren't "bible thumpers".
They didn't quote scripture in their letter of independence and they didn't base their government on the bible.
They based it on philosophers.

I never said they weren't christian. I said they didn't intend to force their religion on the populus through the government. This isn't a christian government. Its a republic based on the philosophy of a republic.
They could have used the City of God as a blue print for their government. And had they.. I would say.. this country was founded on christianity.. and that the founders were indeed bible thumpers.

When I say bible thumper, I refer to that preacher on sunday who is pounding the bible as he is preaching the fear of hell to incite that 10% contribution that comes from the scriptures....

No one is saying this is a Christian gov't or that it was founded on Christianity, I am saying that it was founded on the principles of Christianity. Principles being the key word.

[torchbearer]

No one is saying this is a Christian gov't or that it was founded on Christianity, I am saying that it was founded on the principles of Christianity. Principles being the key word.

Please list those Principles and where they come from in the bible and how the building blocks of our constitution comes from those principles.

[Deborah K]

John Locke had more influence than Jesus.
I don't remember anywhere in the Bible where Jesus gave a fuck about human governments.


“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21)

I don't really want to get into a verse debate. It's completely useless as the bible contradicts itself since it is written by dozens of writers over a span of 3 thousand years or so.....

[Deborah K]

Please list those Principles and where they come from in the bible and how the building blocks of our constitution comes from those principles.


I think I already made that point here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1823292#post1823292

What I would like to know is why you find it so terribly difficult to accept that Christianity influenced the founding of this nation.

[torchbearer]

I think I already made that point here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1823292#post1823292

What I would like to know is why you find it so terribly difficult to accept that Christianity influenced the founding of this nation.

I find it ridiculus for someone to try and tell me the constitution was derived from christian "principles".
When Jesus had nothing to do with human governments.
If you studied Jesus from a political stand point, everything he preaches is true communism.
The earliest christians lived in communes.
There is no "property" in God's kingdom.
I suggest you go back and reread the gospels. I think you missed something.

[danberkeley]

From The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html


The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

[BeFranklin]

PLease define her.. and how god said this... and how you know god said this...
As I don't indentify with any religious group. I've truly come out of her.
If I get your drift.

Well, if she is defined as the Roman Catholic church defines her, I'd say that she is the great mistress as in "I acknowledge the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, the Mother and Mistress of all Churches, and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Bishop, the successor of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ.", and if she is defined as traditional protestants define her, she would be called "the great whore" in Revelation; although ironically both definitions sound alike. Indeed, if you accept that a priest is necessary for your spiritual birth, and the great mistress of the RC has hundreds of thousands of priests or millions of them, she is a great whore by the other definition as well. You only have one father, who is in heaven.

How you are born again has a lot to do with baptism, whether it is by the will of man, or God, or if a father priest is your father, or it is by God's will.

For instance, here is how the Roman Catholic church defines baptism, sealed by the priest with a mark on the forehead (note the ... is not mine, is as appears in cathechism) :

An indelible spiritual mark . . .
1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ (by the priest). Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ.
Roman Catholic Catechism
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that, in the three sacrments, Baptism, to wit, Confirmation, and Order, there is not imprinted in the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible Sign, on account of which they cannot be repeated; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, seventh session

Here is the point. Your personal relationship with God is between you and God, not between a priest or between me either, but these two gospels are completely different. Even if you don't believe what the RC believes about your "soul being left with an indelible mark" made by the priest on your forehead, usually as an infant, certainly believing the doctrine leaves you with a mark in your forehead and in your actions. Which is similar to what the Jews were commanded to do with frontlets.

The gospel of you are saved by grace alone and the gospel of the RC are completely opposite from each other - you can not believe one without repudiating the other. You can't believe you are going straight to heaven and believe you are going to purgatory at the same time. You can't believe you ask God to forgive you for your sins and believe that you ask a priest to indulge your sins at the same time. You can't believe in the priesthood of all believers and in a heirachy of priests at the same time, etc etc. They are completely contridictory beliefs.

So I can understand it must have driven you nuts being raised in both religions at once, but although you might say coming out of her is sufficient in one sense, in another sense you haven't repudiated the mark if you say both gospels are the same. Or to put it another way, accepted that it is by grace alone in Christ alone, to God be the glory alone by which your salvation depends. The two gospels can't co-exist.

[torchbearer]

Well, if she is defined as the Roman Catholic church defines her, I'd say that she is "I acknowledge the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, the Mother and Mistress of all Churches, and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Bishop, the successor of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ.", and if she is defined as traditional protestants define her, she would be called "the great whore" in Revelation; although ironically both definitions sound alike. Indeed, if you accept that a priest is necessarily for your birth, and the great mistress of the RC has hundreds of thousands of them or millions of them, she is a great whore by the other definition as well. You only have one father, who is in heaven.

How you are born again has a lot to do with baptism, whether it is by the will of man, or God, or if a father priest is your father, or it is by God's will.

For instance, here is how the Roman Catholic church defines baptism, sealed bthe priest with a mark on the head (not ... is not mine, is as appears in cathechism) :
An indelible spiritual mark . . .
1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ (by the priest). Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ.
Roman Catholic Catechism
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that, in the three sacrments, Baptism, to wit, Confirmation, and Order, there is not imprinted in the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible Sign, on account of which they cannot be repeated; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, seventh session

Here is the point. Your personal relationship with God is between you and God, not between a priest or between me either, but these two gospels are completely different. Even if you don't believe what the RC believes about your "soul being left with an indelible mark" made by the priest on your forehead usually as an infant, certainly believing the doctrine leaves you with a mark in your forehead and in your actions. Which is similar to what the Jews were commanded to do with frontlets.

The gospel of you are saved by grace and the gospel of the RC are completely opposite from each other - you can not believe one without repudiating the other. You can't believe you are going to straight to heaven and believe you are going to purgatory at the same time. You can't believe you ask God to forgive you for your sins and believe that you ask a priest to indulge your sins at the same time. You can't believe in the priesthood of all believers and in a heirachy of priests at the same time, etc etc. They are completely contridictory beliefs.

So I can understand it must have driven you nuts being raised in both religions at once, but although you might say come out of her is sufficient in one sense, in another sense you haven't repudiated the mark if you say both gospels are the same. Or perhaps to put it another way, accepted that it is by grace alone in Christ alone, to God be the glory alone by which your salvation depends.

Amazing, you have figured it all out, and so few others have.
Indeed, you must commune with God often.
Of course, a protestant, who reads from a redacted version of the bible.. of a redacted catholic version of many pages of man made scriptures put together by catholic priest would condemn those who don't believe as he does.
:rolleyes:
The stupidty of your above statement has no english word to describe....

Anyone who thinks they know their creators mind is a fool.
Your mind couldn't begin to understand such an entity.
And if you continue to hold on to the perceptions of the old worlds perceptions of god... how are you ever to know your creator?

How much faith would you put in a book I would write today, and then proclaim to be the teachings of jesus?
not much.
why?

then why would you put the life of your soul at risk over "faith" that the men who wrote those words... and the men who chose what words.... and the men who redacted such words... and the men who translated such words... or even close to what your creator surely is...
If you life depended on it, how important is it for you to know the truth?
Gonna bet your eternal life on "faith" that you haven't been misled by a redacted "catholic" bible authorized by a pagan emperor?
Hope the gamble pays off for you.

[Deborah K]

I find it ridiculus for someone to try and tell me the constitution was derived from christian "principles".
When Jesus had nothing to do with human governments.
If you studied Jesus from a political stand point, everything he preaches is true communism.
The earliest christians lived in communes.
There is no "property" in God's kingdom.
I suggest you go back and reread the gospels. I think you missed something.

hehe, show me where I stated that "the constitution was derived from christian principles". This is where you deniers get into trouble, you try to win your arguments with clever wordsmithing. I have stated that this country was founded on and influenced by Christian principles. It can easily be found in Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts, not to mention the founders quoted the bible frequently which I have already provided evidence of.

I don't need to read the gospels again. You are trying to mix the issues up by concluding that Christ had nothing to do with human govt's. It was the Roman gov't that put him to death, but I digress, and so do you.

[torchbearer]

hehe, show me where I stated that "the constitution was derived from christian principles". This is where you deniers get into trouble, you try to win your arguments with clever wordsmithing. I have stated that this country was founded on and influenced by Christian principles. It can easily be found in Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts, not to mention the founders quoted the bible frequently which I have already provided evidence of.

I don't need to read the gospels again. You are trying to mix the issues up by concluding that Christ had nothing to do with human govt's. It was the Roman gov't that put him to death, but I digress, and so do you.

:rolleyes:

This country is founded by its constitution.
If the founders created this country through a christian influence they would have put it in their rules for government.

It wouldn't hurt you to reread the gospels, beginning to end... with the sole objective to see where Jesus fits in the political spectrum.
We did this in our college level classes.
I already know what Jesus' teaching were politically speaking... property was of no importance to life in his kingdom. In fact, it was completely trivial.
The poor were exalted, the rich were condemned.
Money was not of importance... neither were worldy possessions.
Give it up and follow me....
Jesus was not consumed with property and consumerism... nor with democracies or any of that sort.
We were to act as a family... in commune. We were to share in commune.

This isn't some trick.."ah ha! i got you!"
Though it does illustrate an earlier point that I made that people pick and choose what they want to believe from the bible.

Jesus' focus was on his kingdom to come... not on if the roman empires form of government was good or bad.
He didn't care about constitutions, or property rights... or any of that stuff.

You need to reread your gospels.

[BeFranklin]

No one is saying this is a Christian gov't or that it was founded on Christianity, I am saying that it was founded on the principles of Christianity. Principles being the key word.

A striking example is the name of the city of Philidelphia itself. Its one of the cities mentioned in the letters in the beginning of Revelation, and in the greek it means the city of brotherly love.

The founders weren't of one denomination, but their principles where the brotherly love sort.

[BeFranklin]

Amazing, you have figured it all out, and so few others have.
Indeed, you must commune with God often.


Its easy to do when you don't have to go through a priest to get to God.


Of course, a protestant, who reads from a redacted version of the bible.. of a redacted catholic version of many pages of man made scriptures put together by catholic priest would condemn those who don't believe as he does.
:rolleyes:
The stupidty of your above statement has no english word to describe....

I thought you said they were both the same? At least all the traditional protestant churches beleived the pope was the antichrist *1 listed below, and per the original point of the discusion, it isn't remarkable that someone from a protestant tradition would decry the scoundels of the clergy and the man made organization of the church, and not be an athiest.


Anyone who thinks they know their creators mind is a fool.
Your mind couldn't begin to understand such an entity.
And if you continue to hold on to the perceptions of the old worlds perceptions of god... how are you ever to know your creator?

How much faith would you put in a book I would write today, and then proclaim to be the teachings of jesus?
not much.
why?

Well, that is what you believe. But that isn't what the founders believed. They liked the bible, quoted from it a lot, and some of them raised money to distribute the bible.



then why would you put the life of your soul at risk over "faith" that the men who wrote those words... and the men who chose what words.... and the men who redacted such words... and the men who translated such words... or even close to what your creator surely is...
If you life depended on it, how important is it for you to know the truth?
Gonna bet your eternal life on "faith" that you haven't been misled by a redacted "catholic" bible authorized by a pagan emperor?
Hope the gamble pays off for you.

Its called a living saving faith. My life does depend on it. I would still be dead in the world without it. Thanks and all glory be to Almighty God! Amen!



*1 This is a list that shows that all the major churches at one time declared that the pope was the antichrist in their documents and confessions of faith.

Presbyterians
graceonlinelibrary.org
hwww.reformed.org
Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)

"There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God."

Baptists
www.grace.org.uk/faith/bc1689/
www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm

Baptist Confession of Faith 1689
26.4 The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church. In him is vested, by the appointment of the Father in a supreme and sovereign manner, all authority for the calling, institution, order and government of the church.1 The Pope of Rome cannot in any sense be the head of the church, but he is the antichrist, that 'man of lawlessness', and 'son of destruction', who exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.2
(1) Col 1:18; Eph 4:11-16; 1:20-23; 5:23-32; 1Co 12:27-28; Joh 17:1-3; Mat 28:18-20; Act 5:31; Joh 10:14-16
(2) 2Th 2:2-9

Congregational (Puritans)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.v.i.i.html
The Savoy Declaration 1658

"There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but it (he) is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming."

Methodists
John Wesleys Commentaries
John Wesley’s commentaries on the bible, 2 Thessalonians 2
John Wesley is the founder of the Methodists

”2:3 .. Unless the falling away - From the pure faith of the gospel, come first. This began even in the apostolic age. But the man of sin, the son of perdition - Eminently so called, is not come yet. However, in many respects, the Pope has an indisputable claim to those titles. He is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled, the son of perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers, destroyed innumerable souls, and will himself perish everlastingly. He it is that opposeth himself to the emperor, once his rightful sovereign; and that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped - Commanding angels, and putting kings under his feet, both of whom are called gods in scripture; claiming the highest power, the highest honour; suffering himself, not once only, to be styled God or vice - god. Indeed no less is implied in his ordinary title, "Most Holy Lord," or, "Most Holy Father." So that he sitteth - Enthroned. In the temple of God - Mentioned Revelation 11:1.Declaring himself that he is God - Claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.
2:6 And now ye know - By what I told you when I was with you. That which restraineth - The power of the Roman emperors. When this is taken away, the wicked one will be revealed. In his time - His appointed season, and not before. “

(I quoted it to 2:6 to show that Wesley believed in a historical church history approach, and that it also contradicts other claims by the apostate church.)

Lutherans
Smalcald Articles, confession of faith
written in 1537 by Martin Luther
http://www.bookofconcord.org/smalcald.html
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/...nberg/wittenbe
rg-boc.html#sa

Article IV: Of the Papacy
10] This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. 11] This is, properly speaking to exalt himself above all that is called God as Paul says, 2 Thess. 2, 4. Even the Turks or the Tartars, great enemies of Christians as they are, do not do this, but they allow whoever wishes to believe in Christ, and take bodily tribute and obedience from Christians.

Article IV: Of the Papacy
14] [...] Lastly, it is nothing else than the devil himself, because above and against God he urges [and disseminates] his [papal] falsehoods concerning masses, purgatory, the monastic life, one's own works and [fictitious] divine worship (for this is the very Papacy [upon each of which the Papacy is altogether founded and is standing]), and condemns, murders and tortures all Christians who do not exalt and honor these abominations [of the Pope] above all things. Therefore, just as little as we can worship the devil himself as Lord and God, we can endure his apostle, the Pope, or Antichrist, in his rule as head or lord. For to lie and to kill, and to destroy body and soul eternally, that is wherein his papal government really consists, as I have very clearly shown in many books.

Calvinists
John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/inst...iv.viii.html?b
cb=0

7. Of the Beginning and Rise of the Romish Papacy, till it attained a height by which the Liberty of the Church was destroyed, and all true Rule overthrown.

To the dishonest arts of Boniface succeeded fouler frauds devised in more modern times, and expressly condemned by Gregory and Bernard. sec. 19-21. V. The Papacy at length appeared complete in all its parts, the seat of Antichrist. Its impiety, execrable tyranny, and wickedness, portrayed, sec. 23-30.

[...]
25. To some we seem slanderous and petulant, when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who think so perceive not that they are bringing a charge of intemperance against Paul, after whom we speak, nay, in whose very words we speak. But lest any one object that Paul’s words have a different meaning, and are wrested by us against the Roman Pontiff, I wil1 briefly show that they can only be understood of the Papacy. Paul says that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4). In another passage, the Spirit, portraying him in the person of Antiochus, says that his reign would be with great swelling words of vanity (Dan. 7:25). Hence we infer that his tyranny is more over souls than bodies, a tyranny set up in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Then his nature is such, that he abolishes not the name either of Christ or the Church, but rather uses the name of Christ as a pretext, and lurks under the name of Church as under a mask. But though all the heresies and schisms which have existed from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist, yet when Paul foretells that defection will come, he by the description intimates that that seat of abomination will be erected, when a kind of universal defection comes upon the Church, though many members of the Church scattered up and down should continue in the true unity of the faith. But when he adds, that in his own time, the mystery of iniquity, which was afterwards to be openly manifested, had begun to work in secret, we thereby understand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by one man, nor to terminate in one man (see Calv. in 2 Thess. 2:3; Dan. 7:9). Moreover, when the mark by which he distinguishes Antichrist is, that he would rob God of his honour and take it to himself, he gives the leading feature which we ought to follow in searching out Antichrist; especially when pride of this description proceeds to the open devastation of the Church. Seeing then it is certain that the Roman Pontiff has impudently transferred to himself the most peculiar properties of God and Christ, there cannot be a doubt that he is the leader and standard-bearer of an impious and abominable kingdom.


King James Bible (preface)(therefore Church of England)
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/kjavpref.htm
Preface to the King James Bible, 1611

…And this their contentment doth not diminish or decay, but every day increaseth and taketh strength, when they observe, that the zeal of Your Majesty toward the house of God doth not slack or go backward, but is more and more kindled, manifesting itself abroad in the farthest parts of Christendom, by writing in defence of the Truth, (which hath given such a blow unto that man of sin, as will not be healed,)
[…]
For when Your Highness had once, out of deep judgment, apprehended how convenient it was, that, out of the Original sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own and other foreign languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; Your Majesty did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the Work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.
[…]
“…acceptance of our labours shall more honour and encourage us, than all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us. So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness;”

William Tyndale was murdered at the stake by the Roman Catholic church for his work in translating the bible. 90% of the new testament in the King James version is still William Tyndale's translation. William Tyndale prayed when he was burning at the stake; “Lord, open the eyes of the King of England”. The King James Bible was the answer to that prayer.
http://www.williamtyndale.com/0biblehistory.htm

[torchbearer]

Its easy to do when you don't have to go through a priest to get to God.



I thought you said they were both the same? At least all the traditional protestant churches beleived the pope was the antichrist *1 listed below, and per the original point of the discusion, it isn't remarkable that someone from a protestant tradition would decry the scoundels of the clergy and the man made organization of the church, and not be an athiest.



Well, that is what you believe. But that isn't what the founders believed. They liked the bible, quoted from it a lot, and some of them raised money to distribute the bible.



Its called a living saving faith. My life does depend on it. I would still be dead in the world without it. Thanks and all glory be to Almighty God!

YOur soul. Your gamble.
I pointed out the bible you bet your life on is a farse put together by the first holy roman catholic emperor.
Your beliefs are based on the teaching of priest... and through those teaching your think you can find god.
So yeah, you are going through priest to find god if you use the bible.
Sorry to burst your protestant bubble.
Whatever happened to those two books they removed from the protestant bible anyway?
Someone decided later that wasn't god's work?
I guess that was "god inspired" too.

Kinda like talking to a child who lives in a imaginary world. Creates whatever imaginary reason to justify what is going on.
I have a schizo friend who thinks "AI" from god causes him to tick. Maybe he's just as in tune with the divine as you are. :rolleyes:

It won't hurt you to look outside that book for god. He can be found without it. Despite what the catholic priest put in the bible... as in, you must come to christ through it...ie, through the church's book.
A self serving "divine" order indeed.

nevermind, it will be easier if you just put your faith in a "catholic" document.

[BeFranklin]

YOur soul. Your gamble.
I pointed out the bible you bet your life on is a farse put together by the first holy roman catholic emperor.
Your beliefs are based on the teaching of priest... and through those teaching your think you can find god.
So yeah, you are going through priest to find god if you use the bible.
Sorry to burst your protestant bubble.
Whatever happened to those two books they removed from the protestant bible anyway?
Someone decided later that wasn't god's work?
I guess that was "god inspired" too.

Kinda like talking to a child who lives in a imaginary world. Creates whatever imaginary reason to justify what is going on.
I have a schizo friend who thinks "AI" from god causes him to tick. Maybe he's just as in tune with the divine as you are. :rolleyes:

It won't hurt you to look outside that book for god. He can be found without it. Despite what the catholic priest put in the bible... as in, you must come to christ through it...ie, through the church's book.
A self serving "divine" order indeed.

nevermind, it will be easier if you just put your faith in a "catholic" document.

Well, if you want to discuss how the bible was put together, thats a long discussion for another night. But I disagree completely. And the jewish people were already using the old testament.

I'll just finish this discussion with one point - I re-edited the message above to include statements from many old-time protestant churches, so obviously many people have believed the same thing. And the original point in this discussion - being anti-priest and anti autocratic religion doesn't mean you are an athiest, especially if you were raised in a protestant culture.

[torchbearer]

Well, if you want to discuss how the bible was put together, thats a long discussion for another night. But I disagree completely. And the jewish people were already using the old testament.

I'll just finish this discussion with one point - I re-edited the message above to include statements from many old-time protestant churches, so obviously many people have believed the same thing. And the original point in this discussion - being anti-priest and anti autocratic religion doesn't mean you are an athiest, especially if you were raised in a protestant culture.

Yet they still worship a book created by men. Doesn't sound very enlightened to me.
The old testament is Jewish tradition. As was Jesus a jew.
As were the early christians.
If you are to be like christ, would you not follow the tradition of the chosen?

well, then, maybe you can quote paul.. but paul also believe women should be subserviant and submissive... never hold a position of authority over a man.
Sounds more like the thought of the time than the thought of Jesus.

The book you base your religion on is flawed. Your religion is flawed.
Protestant are definitely anti-priest yet they seem to spout the same ignorance as their preachers.
Took one jerk-off and replaced him with another.
You are so much better than those stupid catholic fools. :rolleyes:

In truth, you are all foolish.
But I'm not trying to convince you of this fact... If it helps you sleep at night to believe the things you were taught as a child.. then that's fine with me.
But i've seen hundreds of different doctrines/dogmas from thousands of different "christian" churches all proclaiming to follow the truth path of god.
If they all tell their people their god demands different things.. which one is right?
Yours?
Wow, what a coincidence.

Until you are willing to accept everything you were taught and took as fact growing up is wrong, you will never be open to the truth.

And like I said earlier, there is no lick of difference between talking to you and talking to my schizo friend who thinks he is a titan from God's future time office being punished by a defunked divine plan gone awry.
Equal in so many ways.

I never thought one religion was superior to another. The benefit of having witnessed the hypocrisy in so many of them.
More people have been butchered in the name of god... and so many people have been so certain that what they feel inside is what god has told them that this should be a red flag for you.
Blinders are indeed thick.

[Allen72289]

The Constitution was most certainly founded on logic.

ffs the bible is a war book.

religion is useless.

[torchbearer]

The Constitution was most certainly founded on logic.

ffs the bible is a war book.

religion is useless.

I wouldn't say the pursuit of a divine or higher power is useless, but the religious institutions have been a plight on humanity for thousands of years.
And still to this day its causes division. And you would think the true religion of an almighty god would include everyone.

[Conservative Christian]

All of the documented quotes below are from John Jay, who co-authored the Federalist Papers, which formed the basis for the U.S. Constitution. Along with Madison and Hamilton, Jay was one of the three men most responsible for the U.S. Constitution.

Jay served as President of the Continental Congress, and was the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, nominated for that position by George Washington. He also served as the second Secretary of Foreign Affairs (i.e. Secretary of State).

Jay was also one of the most prominent abolitionists of his era, regarded as the leading opponent of slavery and the slave trade in New York.


"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

--John Jay to Jedidiah Morse February 28, 1797

-------------------------

"God's will be done; to him I resign--in him I confide. Do the like. Any other philosophy applicable to this occasion is delusive. Away with it."

--John Jay, in a letter to his wife, Sally Jay, April 20, 1794, reprinted in The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, ed. Henry P. Johnston (New York, NY: Burt Franklin, 1970), vol. 4, p. 7.

-------------------------

"I have long been of opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds . . ."

--John Jay, in a letter to Rev. Uzal Ogden, Feb. 14, 1796, in CPPJJ, vol. 4, p. 203.

-------------------------

"While in France . . . I do not recollect to have had more than two conversations with atheists about their tenets. The first was this: I was at a large party, of which were several of that description. They spoke freely and contemptuously of religion. I took no part in the conversation. In the course of it, one of them asked me if I believed in Christ. I answered that I did, and that I thanked God that I did."

--John Jay, in a letter to John Bristed, April 23, 1811, in CPPJJ, vol. 4, p. 359.

--------------------------

"The same merciful Providence has also been pleased to cause every material event and occurrence respecting our Redeemer, together with the gospel He proclaimed, and the miracles and predictions to which it gave occasion, to be faithfully recorded and preserved for the information and benefit of all mankind."

--John Jay, in an address to the American Bible Society, May 9, 1822, in CPPJJ, vol. 4, p. 480.

[SeanEdwards]

religion is useless.

Not true! It's fantastic for manipulating and asserting authority over billions of conceited monkeys.

[Conservative Christian]

I find it ridiculus for someone to try and tell me the constitution was derived from christian "principles".
When Jesus had nothing to do with human governments.
If you studied Jesus from a political stand point, everything he preaches is true communism.
The earliest christians lived in communes.
There is no "property" in God's kingdom.
I suggest you go back and reread the gospels. I think you missed something.

It's obvious YOU missed something. Even the most cursory examination of the Ten Commandments, proves you're posting tommyrot.

The 8th Commandment---"Thou Shalt Not Steal"

The 10th Commandment---"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s."



.

[torchbearer]

It's obvious YOU missed something. Even the most cursory examination of the Ten Commandments, proves you're posting tommyrot.

The 8th Commandment---"Thou Shalt Not Steal"

The 10th Commandment---"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s."



.

That's mosaic law. That means the country was founded on Jewish principles. Oops.

[Truth Warrior]

THE MASONIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html#fathers (http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html#fathers)

[torchbearer]

THE MASONIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html#fathers (http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html#fathers)

Yeh, I even pointed out earlier that Washington was sworn in with a Masonic bible... people were like "so?".

What they think they know, and what is reality are two different things.

[Deborah K]

:This country is founded by its constitution.
If the founders created this country through a christian influence they would have put it in their rules for government.

That is absurd. They didn't want a religious gov't. That is quite obvious. But that did not preclude them from being influenced by Christian principles. How could they not? Are you aware that almost half of the signers graduated from seminary school?


It wouldn't hurt you to reread the gospels, beginning to end... with the sole objective to see where Jesus fits in the political spectrum.
We did this in our college level classes.
I already know what Jesus' teaching were politically speaking... property was of no importance to life in his kingdom. In fact, it was completely trivial.
The poor were exalted, the rich were condemned.
Money was not of importance... neither were worldy possessions.
Give it up and follow me....
Jesus was not consumed with property and consumerism... nor with democracies or any of that sort.
We were to act as a family... in commune. We were to share in commune.

This isn't exactly accurate. Lazarus was very wealthy and unwilling to give up his treasures to follow Christ. Christ did not condemn him for it.


This isn't some trick.."ah ha! i got you!"
Though it does illustrate an earlier point that I made that people pick and choose what they want to believe from the bible.

Glad to hear it although you yourself seem to be guilty of picking and choosing what you want to believe from the bible and each time you have done so I have countered you, as the above example shows.


Jesus' focus was on his kingdom to come... not on if the roman empires form of government was good or bad.
He didn't care about constitutions, or property rights... or any of that stuff.

You need to reread your gospels

I wouldn't mind reading the gospels again. I rather enjoy them. I will take your suggestion.

It seems as though the people who deny that our country was founded on Christian principles are confusing the concept. They seem to be presuming it to mean that we are stating the founders established a Christian government and that is not accurate.

[Deborah K]

That's mosaic law. That means the country was founded on Jewish principles. Oops.

Christianity was born out of Judaism. Christ was a Jew. Oops. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Yeh, I even pointed out earlier that Washington was sworn in with a Masonic bible... people were like "so?".

What they think they know, and what is reality are two different things.

"It ain't so much the things we don't know that hurts us, as it is the things we do know that ain't true."

[Truth Warrior]

Christianity was born out of Judaism. Christ was a Jew. Oops. :rolleyes:

Institutionalized "Christianity" (so called ) was born out of the Roman Empire. ;) Can you tell?

[Deborah K]

Institutionalized "Christianity" (so called ) was born out of the Roman Empire. ;) Can you tell?

I agree.

[danberkeley]

From The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html


The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

[Deborah K]

From The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul, MD http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html


The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.


Sighhhhh.....one of the reasons why I love that man soooo much!

[heavenlyboy34]

Institutionalized "Christianity" (so called ) was born out of the Roman Empire. ;) Can you tell?

yep. :eek:

[swirling_vortex]

Regardless if we were founded on Christian principles or not, I don't see a problem with using those principles as long as it doesn't restrict other religions and if society as a whole is ok with these principles. (I think that's what the Constitution Party is trying to get at) I agree with Ron Paul that the left are trying to push religion completely out of the picture, which in a way is trying to force their beliefs on us.

Of course, the bigger issue is getting the knuckleheads to follow the constitution in the first place.

[Conservative Christian]

THE MASONIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html#fathers (http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html#fathers)

"Truth Warrior" read it on an internet website, so it MUST be true! :rolleyes: :D

By the way, the article you link to was written by fundamentalist Christians.

I'm surprised an old "Truth Warrior" like yourself would be endorsing fundamentalist writings. :p

[Conservative Christian]

That's mosaic law. That means the country was founded on Jewish principles. Oops.

Since my rather obvious point sailed well over your head, I'll have to explain it to you.

You made the following statement:


Posted by torchbearer:
There is no "property" in God's kingdom.

I then posted the 8th and 10th Commandments, which establishes beyond any doubt to those able to think, that there MOST CERTAINLY IS "property" in God's kingdom.

The 8th Commandment---"Thou Shalt Not Steal"

The 10th Commandment---"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s."

[Truth Warrior]

"Truth Warrior" read it on an internet website, so it MUST be true! :rolleyes: :D

Just additional confirmation of OTHER extensive research.

Is that lame type of response what you call and is supposed to pass for a denial and refutation in your "flock"? :rolleyes:

By the way, the article you link to was written by fundamentalist Christians.

I know who they are. DUH!!! Therefore .......?

I'm surprised an old "Truth Warrior" like yourself would be endorsing fundamentalist writings. :p

My guess is that quite a few things surprise you. Unlike some Conservative Christians, I'm actually allowed to read and learn from a lots of different types of folks and sources. BTW, posting information is not necessarily endorsing fundamentalist writings.

Quoting the Koran does not endorse Islam, nor is quoting the Talmud an endorsement of Judaism. :rolleyes:


You're just really going to need to up your game about 12 levels, if you really want to play. :p

Your choice. :rolleyes:

[danberkeley]

Sighhhhh.....one of the reasons why I love that man soooo much!

:D

[torchbearer]

Since my rather obvious point sailed well over your head, I'll have to explain it to you.

You made the following statement:



I then posted the 8th and 10th Commandments, which establishes beyond any doubt to those able to think, that there MOST CERTAINLY IS "property" in God's kingdom.

The 8th Commandment---"Thou Shalt Not Steal"

The 10th Commandment---"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s."

If mosaic law will be enforced in god's kingdom, then their will be stonings of disobedient children and adulterers. Doesn't sound like paradise. oops.
Who stopped the stoning of the adultery? hmmm... that guy who was pissing off the pharisees for going against mosaic law.
Jesus gave a new commandment to supercede the mosaic law. Its the golden rule.
The only person who could own property in a kingdom is the king. Not his serfs.

Early followers of Christ and the earliest christians lived in communes in communism. This is documented fact. Get an education. Then come back and we can talk.

[Conservative Christian]

You're just really going to need to up your game about 12 levels, if you really want to play. :p

Your choice. :rolleyes:

No, Mr. Big Stuff. You're quite simply going to have to up yours. Your lame, egotistical response is typical of your incredibly weak arguments.

By the way, you and torchbearer conveniently ignored my post about John Jay. Hmmmm, who should we believe---John Jay, one of the three most important figures in the crafting of the U.S. Constitution---or you.

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

--John Jay to Jedidiah Morse February 28, 1797

-------------------------

"God's will be done; to him I resign--in him I confide. Do the like. Any other philosophy applicable to this occasion is delusive. Away with it."

--John Jay, in a letter to his wife, Sally Jay, April 20, 1794, reprinted in The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, ed. Henry P. Johnston (New York, NY: Burt Franklin, 1970), vol. 4, p. 7.

-------------------------

"I have long been of opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds . . ."

--John Jay, in a letter to Rev. Uzal Ogden, Feb. 14, 1796, in CPPJJ, vol. 4, p. 203.

-------------------------

"While in France . . . I do not recollect to have had more than two conversations with atheists about their tenets. The first was this: I was at a large party, of which were several of that description. They spoke freely and contemptuously of religion. I took no part in the conversation. In the course of it, one of them asked me if I believed in Christ. I answered that I did, and that I thanked God that I did."

--John Jay, in a letter to John Bristed, April 23, 1811, in CPPJJ, vol. 4, p. 359.

--------------------------

"The same merciful Providence has also been pleased to cause every material event and occurrence respecting our Redeemer, together with the gospel He proclaimed, and the miracles and predictions to which it gave occasion, to be faithfully recorded and preserved for the information and benefit of all mankind."

--John Jay, in an address to the American Bible Society, May 9, 1822, in CPPJJ, vol. 4, p. 480.



.

[Conservative Christian]

"Truth" Warrior and torchbearer have also been conveniently ignoring the words of Dr. Ron Paul, a man far more educated on the issue in question than themselves:


From The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."

[torchbearer]

"Truth" Warrior and torchbearer have also been conveniently ignoring the words of Dr. Ron Paul, a man far more educated on the issue in question than themselves:

I didn't realize med students took college level theology classes.
Nor did I know they studied religous history.
I forgot Dr. Paul is an expert on all of these things. :rolleyes:

Anyone who uses Jesus and his teaching to validate capitalism is not using a realistic view of what Jesus was about or what he was teaching.
I invite you to reread the gospels for yourself, with the sole intention of seeing jesus in a political light.
This I have done, not just on my own, but in the context of classes with professors who could read and write greek and hebrew. Had been on the Tels of Israel... and understood that the modern day protestant churches views of jesus really aren't in line with what is written in the books.

I'm waiting for Deb to come back from rereading those books and show me how Jesus was pro property, pro capital, etc.

None of you are dealing with the facts of history. The known history of the early christians who lived as christ preached.
They were monastic is nature. Communal in philosophy, communist in practice.
And the dissonance is so great between what you were taught growing up, and what is really there... the excuses you come up with make no sense.

I have state previously, this has nothing to do with our creator. And that is exactly my point. A point you are not understanding because it flies in the face of everything you have falsely based your life on.

Don't take my word for it. That would be wrong. Do your research.

[Conservative Christian]

If mosaic law will be enforced in god's kingdom, then their will be stonings of disobedient children and adulterers. Doesn't sound like paradise. oops.
Who stopped the stoning of the adultery? hmmm... that guy who was pissing off the pharisees for going against mosaic law.
Jesus gave a new commandment to supercede the mosaic law. Its the golden rule.
The only person who could own property in a kingdom is the king. Not his serfs.

Early followers of Christ and the earliest christians lived in communes in communism. This is documented fact. Get an education. Then come back and we can talk.

You need to follow your own advice about getting an education. :D

Nobody said anything about returning to the penalties of Mosaic Law. You're running off on a tangent again.

The Ten Commandments apply to ALL men. They're not to be confused with the hundreds of JEWISH laws that apply only to Jews, such as not eating pork etc.

And Christ NEVER repudiated the Ten Commandments, nor replaced them with the "Golden Rule". Your bogus claim is quite simply laughable. :D

From Matthew, Chapter 5:

"17 Think not that I [Jesus Christ] am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

[torchbearer]

You need to follow your own advice about getting an education. :D

Nobody said anything about returning to the penalties of Mosaic Law. You're running off on a tangent again.

The Ten Commandments apply to ALL men. They're not to be confused with the hundreds of JEWISH laws that apply only to Jews, such as not eating pork etc.

And Christ NEVER repudiated the Ten Commandments, nor replaced them with the "Golden Rule". Your bogus claim is quite simply laughable. :D

From Matthew, Chapter 5:

"17 Think not that I [Jesus Christ] am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."


Then why is it that christians don't honor the sabbath??

[Truth Warrior]

"Truth" Warrior and torchbearer have also been conveniently ignoring the words of Dr. Ron Paul, a man far more educated on the issue in question than themselves:

You have NO idea about my education and knowledge on this issue. :rolleyes:

BTW, Ron and I disagree on any number of things. But Ron seems to be coming around and along nicely, if kind of slowly. :D As I've said before, Ron is NOT my "shepherd".

Conservatives Follow the Leader (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/conservatives-follow-leader.html) :p

[Truth Warrior]

No, Mr. Big Stuff. You're quite simply going to have to up yours. Your lame, egotistical response is typical of your incredibly weak arguments.

From what I've seen you wouldn't know a strong argument if it bit you on the butt.

By the way, you and torchbearer conveniently ignored my post about John Jay. Hmmmm, who should we believe---John Jay, one of the three most important figures in the crafting of the U.S. Constitution---or you.

I only read and responded to your goofy post to me. Your crap to others is irrelevant.

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

--John Jay to Jedidiah Morse February 28, 1797

-------------------------

"God's will be done; to him I resign--in him I confide. Do the like. Any other philosophy applicable to this occasion is delusive. Away with it."

--John Jay, in a letter to his wife, Sally Jay, April 20, 1794, reprinted in The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, ed. Henry P. Johnston (New York, NY: Burt Franklin, 1970), vol. 4, p. 7.

-------------------------

"I have long been of opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds . . ."

--John Jay, in a letter to Rev. Uzal Ogden, Feb. 14, 1796, in CPPJJ, vol. 4, p. 203.

-------------------------

"While in France . . . I do not recollect to have had more than two conversations with atheists about their tenets. The first was this: I was at a large party, of which were several of that description. They spoke freely and contemptuously of religion. I took no part in the conversation. In the course of it, one of them asked me if I believed in Christ. I answered that I did, and that I thanked God that I did."

--John Jay, in a letter to John Bristed, April 23, 1811, in CPPJJ, vol. 4, p. 359.

--------------------------

"The same merciful Providence has also been pleased to cause every material event and occurrence respecting our Redeemer, together with the gospel He proclaimed, and the miracles and predictions to which it gave occasion, to be faithfully recorded and preserved for the information and benefit of all mankind."

--John Jay, in an address to the American Bible Society, May 9, 1822, in CPPJJ, vol. 4, p. 480.

Screw John Jay, who made him the arch authority, on the matter? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay

I don't like Alexander Hamilton and his criminal Federalist cabal coup either, BTW. :p

Does the term DEIST have ANY significant meaning for you?

How come, D.C. isn't laid out like a "Christian" cross, instead of ALL of the Masonic and Roman Empire type gobbledygook? :rolleyes:



“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” http://thinkexist.com/i/sq/as5.gif George Washington quotes (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/george_washington/) (American (http://thinkexist.com/nationality/american_authors/) commander in chief of the colonial armies in the American Revolution (1775-83) and subsequently 1st US President (http://thinkexist.com/occupation/famous_presidents/) (1789-97), 1732 (http://thinkexist.com/birthday/february_22/)-1799 (http://thinkexist.com/birthday/december_14/))


"By their fruits, ye shall know them."

:rolleyes:

[Conservative Christian]

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” http://thinkexist.com/i/sq/as5.gif George Washington quotes (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/george_washington/) (American (http://thinkexist.com/nationality/american_authors/) commander in chief of the colonial armies in the American Revolution (1775-83) and subsequently 1st US President (http://thinkexist.com/occupation/famous_presidents/) (1789-97), 1732 (http://thinkexist.com/birthday/february_22/)-1799 (http://thinkexist.com/birthday/december_14/))


BWAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAA!

Now "Truth" Warrior stoops to FALSELY ATTRIBUTING a quotation to Washington, that Washington NEVER SAID.

That quotation is from the Treaty of Tripoli, which was NOT authored by Washington, who NEVER spoke those words.

"Truth" Warrior can't even comprehend what's being debated here. :D NOBODY in this thread is claiming that the Constitution established Christianity as the government and state religion of America.

So "Truth" Warrior needs to stop with his PATHETIC straw man arguments, and FALSELY ATTRIBUTED quotes.

Don't anybody hold their breath waiting for "Truth" Warrior to provide documentation for the quotation he FALSELY attributes to George Washington. :p

[Conservative Christian]

You have NO idea about my education and knowledge on this issue. :rolleyes:

[B]BTW, Ron and I disagree on any number of things. But Ron seems to be coming around and along nicely, if kind of slowly. :D As I've said before, Ron is NOT my "shepherd".

And you have NO idea about MY education and knowledge on this issue.

Thus far you've presented NOTHING that would impress even a grade schooler.

You may impress yourself with your straw man arguments and falsely attributed quotes, but you're not impressing anybody even reasonably versed on the issue.

And I completely disagree that Ron Paul is "coming around" to your NON-THINKING on this issue. Please provide documentation for your BASELESS proclamation.

[Deborah K]

If mosaic law will be enforced in god's kingdom, then their will be stonings of disobedient children and adulterers. Doesn't sound like paradise. oops.
Who stopped the stoning of the adultery? hmmm... that guy who was pissing off the pharisees for going against mosaic law.
Jesus gave a new commandment to supercede the mosaic law. Its the golden rule.
The only person who could own property in a kingdom is the king. Not his serfs.

Early followers of Christ and the earliest christians lived in communes in communism. This is documented fact. Get an education. Then come back and we can talk.


Christ never disregarded the 10 commandments. He never told anyone to disregard the Torah either!

[Deborah K]

I'm waiting for Deb to come back from rereading those books and show me how Jesus was pro property, pro capital, etc.



You misunderstood my decision to reread the gospels. Show me where I ever stated that Christ was pro property, etc. Please stop twisting up the debate. The argument is whether or not our country was founded on/influenced by (whatever phrase you like) Christian priniciples. Christian principles. The evidence is overwhelmingly - YES! But alas, so many choose not be bothered with the facts. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

BWAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAA!

Now "Truth" Warrior stoops to FALSELY ATTRIBUTING a quotation to Washington, that Washington NEVER SAID.

That quotation is from the Treaty of Tripoli, which was NOT authored by Washington, who NEVER spoke those words.

"Truth" Warrior can't even comprehend what's being debated here. :D NOBODY in this thread is claiming that the Constitution established Christianity as the government and state religion of America.

So "Truth" Warrior needs to stop with his PATHETIC straw man arguments, and FALSELY ATTRIBUTED quotes.

Don't anybody hold their breath waiting for "Truth" Warrior to provide documentation for the quotation he FALSELY attributes to George Washington. :p

You read a book. The HOLY word of GOD. BWAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAA!
GOD NEVER SAID THAT!

Does the 1796-97 Treaty with Tripoli Matter to Church/State Separation?
Speech given to the Humanists of Georgia on June 22, 1997 and at the 1997 Lake Hypatia Independance Day Celebration.
By Ed Buckner, Ph.D.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/images/letters/we.gif freethinkers are, I suspect, sometimes suckers for the big lie that the U.S. really was founded as a Christian nation. We've heard it so often that we tend to doubt our allies who dispute it as maybe just over-zealous, over-eager, well-intentioned-but-wrong atheists out to prove what they want to believe rather than to understand the truth. I know I suspected something like that when I first read "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion..." as a quote from the Treaty with Tripoli (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html). And I know of at least one cynical atheist, Frederic Rice (with his own website full of information: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/).

Mr. Rice has even, in his profound ignorance, called me dishonest and urged me not to use the honorable label "atheist" for talking about the treaty. But careful research into the facts, accompanied by honest presentation of those facts, leads to important support for the thesis that the Constitutional framers intended this nation to have a government strictly neutral regarding religion.
The pirates of the Barbary coast in general and of Tripoli (in what is now called Libya) in particular were destroying U.S. shipping and holding as prisoners U.S. seamen in the 1790s. It was a serious problem and a series of negotiators were sent to try to put together an agreement to improve it.

On 4 November 1796, near the end of George Washington's second term, a treaty with the "Bey and People of Tripoli" was signed, promising cash and other considerations to Tripoli in exchange for peace. Leading the negotiations for the U.S. at that point was Joel Barlow, a diplomat and poet (he wanted very much to be remembered as America's epic poet). Barlow was a friend of Thomas Jefferson and of Thomas Paine (Paine hurriedly entrusted the manuscript of the first part of the Age of Reason to Barlow when Paine was suddenly arrested by the radicals of the French revolution).

Barlow was very likely by 1796 a deist, though he had served earlier as a military chaplain. There is considerable dispute about whether the Arabic version of the treaty read and signed by the representatives of Tripoli even had the famous words included (they are not present, as was discovered in about 1930, in the surviving Arabic version). No one knows why. The treaty remained in effect for only four years, replaced, after more war with Tripoli, with another treaty that does not have the famous words included. One or two later treaties even allude to the Trinity. *If* the major claim of separationists regarding the treaty were a legal one, these facts might be fatal. But no one claims that the treaty was the basis for our government being non-Christian--it is the godless Constitution, which calls on no higher power than "We the People," that is the necessary and sufficient legal basis. What the treaty does is to powerfully reaffirm what the Constitution and First Amendment intended. (The references in one or two later treaties to things such as the Trinity occurred in treaties with Great Britain and Russia, both officially Christian nations at the time; no declarations that the U.S. is a Christian nation were included.)

When I first read the words "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion..." I was, as I said, skeptical. Why would such a thing be in a treaty? Why would some have claimed, as I later learned, that George Washington wrote them? (Apparently only because the words were written during Washington's second term.) Was there controversy in the Senate when the treaty was ratified, or did the language even appear in the version ratified? Or was it buried deep within a long, complicated treaty where perhaps it wasn't even noticed? Did the public even know the treaty was passed or what it contained, and what was the reaction? Was it possible for the public to know who voted for it, and what price did those supporting it pay?

Fortunately for me, my son (and only child), Michael, lived for several years in Washington, DC, only two blocks from the Library of Congress, and my wife and I visited him frequently. When we did, I spent time at the L of C, much of it reading up on the treaty. I found some answers in the official Journal of the Senate. The President (by then John Adams) sent the treaty to the Senate in late May 1797. It was, according to the official record, read aloud (the whole treaty was only a page or two long), including the famous words, on the floor of the senate and copies were printed for every Senator. (It should be noted that the controversy about the Arabic version is irrelevant here: all official treaty collections from 1797 on contain the English version, and all include the famous words of Article XI.) A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification. Twenty-three Senators voted to ratify:

Bingham, Bloodworth, Blount, Bradford, Brown, Cocke, Foster, Goodhue, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Martin, Paine (no, not Thomas Paine), Read, Rutherfurd, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tattnall, Tichenor, and Tracy. We should ask ourselves whether we should not consider these 23 (and President Adams) great freethought heroes. In a very public way, they voted to say that "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, . . ." the Muslims of Tripoli therefore need not fear a religious war from the U.S. The vote was recorded only because at least a fifth of the Senators present voted to require a recorded vote. This was the 339th time (I went through the Journal for the first five Congressional sessions and counted them myself) that a recorded vote was required. It was only the third time that a vote was recorded when the vote was unanimous! (The next time was to honor George Washington.)There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty.

President Adams signed the treaty and proclaimed it to the nation on 10 June 1797. His statement on it was a bit unusual: "Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."

What happened then? Did our heroes pay a heavy price? Skeptical that the public even knew about the treaty, I went to the periodicals reading room of the Library of Congress in, appropriately enough, the Madison Building. After some poking about I found out how to get access to newspapers of the 1790s, mostly on microfilm, but in a few cases I saw the actual papers of the day.

I found the treaty and Adams' statement reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City and, in one case, held the actual newspaper (the Philadelphia Gazette and Universal Daily Advertiser for Saturday, 17 June 1797) in my hands. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

And what of our heroes? Well, none suffered any known negative consequences, and I've read biographies of each. One Senator, Theodore Sedgewick of Massachusetts, went on to become the Speaker of the House (imagine Newt Gingrich endorsing such a treaty! Henry Clay is the only other American in history to be first a Senator, then Speaker). Another, Isaac Tichenor, became Governor of Vermont, and then returned to the Senate for many years. Georgia's Senator, Josiah Tattnall (Georgia's other Senator was absent), did not return to the Senate, but he did serve thereafter as one of the youngest Governors in Georgia's history, and has a county in Georgia and a number of streets, squares, etc., named after him. (His father was a Tory; his son by the same name was a famous officer in the Confederate Navy.)

From our perspective these men may be heroes, but in truth the vote they cast was ordinary, routine, normal. It was, in other words, quite well accepted, only a few years after first the Constitution and then the First Amendment were ratified, that "the Government of the United States of America was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." After a bloody and costly civil war and the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment determined that citizens of the United States cannot have their rights abridged by state or local governments either, religious liberty for all was established. Governmental neutrality in matters of religion remains the enduring basis for that liberty.


For Further Information:

"Does the Treaty of Tripoli say that 'The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion?'" by Tom Peters. Website: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/tripoli.htm
"The Government of the United States of America Is Not, in Any Sense, Founded on the Christian Religion," by Jim Walker (webpage link from the Freethinkers Home Page; Website: http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
"Joel Barlow and the Treaty of Tripoli," by Rob Boston. Church & State, Vol. 50, No. 6 (June 1997), pp. 11-14; Website: http://www.au.org/c&sjun6.htm (http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/archive/boston_tripoli.html)
The Journal of the Senate, including The Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate, John Adams Administration, 1797-1801, Volume 1: Fifth Congress, First Session; March-July, 1797. Edited by Martin P. Claussen. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1977.
"Little-Known U. S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular," by Jim Walker. Early America Review, Vol. II, No. 1 (Summer 1997); Website: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
"Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html)," Second Edition. Edited by Edward M. Buckner and Michael E. Buckner. Atlanta: Atlanta Freethought Society, 1995.
"Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary," 1796-1797. Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Edited by Hunter Miller. Vol. 2. 1776-1818. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1931, p. 383.
Ed Buckner, Treasurer
Atlanta Freethought Society
1170 Grimes Bridge Rd, Suite 500
Roswell GA 30075
404-284-3478 (Voice Mail)
www.atlantafreethought.org (http://www.atlantafreethought.org)
ebuckner@atlantafreethought.org

"Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html),"


BTW, John Jay was a Freemason too. :p Get a clue.

[Deborah K]

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” http://thinkexist.com/i/sq/as5.gif George Washington quotes (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/george_washington/) (American (http://thinkexist.com/nationality/american_authors/) commander in chief of the colonial armies in the American Revolution (1775-83) and subsequently 1st US President (http://thinkexist.com/occupation/famous_presidents/) (1789-97), 1732 (http://thinkexist.com/birthday/february_22/)-1799 (http://thinkexist.com/birthday/december_14/))


"By their fruits, ye shall know them."

:rolleyes:

Again, the debate is not whether the country was founded on the Christian religion. The debate is whether the country was founded on Christian principles. There is a huge difference between the two and Ron Paul's stance on this spells it out very nicely:

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."

[Conservative Christian]

Here's an AUTHENTIC and DOCUMENTED quotation from George Washington:

"The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country."

--General George Washington
General Order, (9 July 1776) George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 3g, Varick Transcripts

[Conservative Christian]

Again, the debate is not whether the country was founded on the Christian religion. The debate is whether the country was founded on Christian principles. There is a huge difference between the two and Ron Paul's stance on this spells it out very nicely:

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."

EXACTLY!

"Truth" Warrior and torchbearer aren't even intellectually able to comprehend what's being debated in this thread, yet they expect us to buy their straw man arguments, misquotes and constant attempts to change the subject. :p

[Truth Warrior]

EXACTLY!

"Truth" Warrior and torchbearer aren't even intellectually able to comprehend what's being debated in this thread, yet they expect us to buy their straw man arguments, misquotes and constant attempts to change the subject. :p And the title of this thread is ...................

Repeat: Get a clue. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Again, the debate is not whether the country was founded on the Christian religion. The debate is whether the country was founded on Christian principles. There is a huge difference between the two and Ron Paul's stance on this spells it out very nicely:

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."

And would a "Christian" ( so called ) nation and Constitution do that? Is that confirmed by the history of Christianity?

[Truth Warrior]

American Masonic History

What Are America's True Roots?*

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/mashist.htm

[Conservative Christian]

Another DOCUMENTED quote from George Washington, rather than one of "Truth" Warrior's PHONY quotes:

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.

Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

George Washington
Farewell Address

[Truth Warrior]

Another DOCUMENTED quote from George Washington, rather than one of "Truth" Warrior's PHONY quotes:

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.

Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

George Washington
Farewell Address

Did I just miss the words, Christian, God, Protestant and Jesus in that quote?

A whole bunch of Masons TALK that way. Talk is cheap and politician's talk is even cheaper.

Now you're just getting even sillier. :p Try the OP again.

[Conservative Christian]

American Masonic History

What Are America's True Roots?*

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/mashist.htm

Oh, and because "Truth" Warrior posted it in BIG WORDS, means EVERYTHING on that website MUST be the undisputed "truth". :D

It MUST ALL be true, because a kid calling himself "Truth Warrior" saw it on the internet and posted it. :rolleyes: And all "educated" and "informed" individuals like "Truth" Warrior KNOW that EVERYTHING they read on the internet is the UNDISPUTED TRUTH---as long as it happens to coincide with THEIR OWN opinions! :p

If TW had even bothered to read HIS OWN posted source, he would realize that even they are claiming that ONLY EIGHT of the FIFTY SIX signers of the Declaration of Independence were KNOWN FREEMASONS!

[Conservative Christian]

I didn't realize med students took college level theology classes.
Nor did I know they studied religous history.
I forgot Dr. Paul is an expert on all of these things.

FYI, Dr. Paul has two brothers who are ordained Christian ministers, and Dr. Paul himself considered becoming an ordained minister in his younger days.

To state that one must have "college level theology classes" to properly understand Christianity and history, is both incredibly arrogant and ignorant.

And how do you know Dr. Paul DOESN'T have any "college level theology classes"? Are you also a self-proclaimed expert on Dr. Paul's collegiate curriculum? :rolleyes:

I also doubt you have personal knowledge of what Dr. Paul has or hasn't studied in regard to the subject of history, whether religious or otherwise.

Please stop boring us with your logical fallacies. :p

[Deborah K]

And the title of this thread is ...................

Repeat: Get a clue. :rolleyes:

The title of the thread is : Founded on Christain princples? <sic> Griffon believes otherwise.

The title does not ask if the country was founded as a Christian government. That seems to be a cause of confusion in debates related to this issue.

[Deborah K]

And would a "Christian" ( so called ) nation and Constitution do that? Is that confirmed by the history of Christianity?

I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase it please?

[strapko]

See the problem is this... Christians take great PRIDE at the idea of a nation being principled on what they believe! Who wouldn't? Fact of the matter is, Christian principles existed way before Christianity existed, because morals are human concepts. Anyhow recycled material ftw.

[Truth Warrior]

Oh, and because "Truth" Warrior posted it in BIG WORDS, means EVERYTHING on that website MUST be the undisputed "truth". :D

You're just unbelievably squirrelly. And actually a most excellent representative of a typical Conservative Christian that I've run into in a LONG time, both church and state working in perfect disharmony. Off course, NO refutation of the concept nor contents.

It MUST ALL be true, because a kid calling himself "Truth Warrior" saw it on the internet and posted it. :rolleyes: And all "educated" and "informed" individuals like "Truth" Warrior KNOW that EVERYTHING they read on the internet is the UNDISPUTED TRUTH---as long as it happens to coincide with THEIR OWN opinions! :p

Keep it up, you're working your way up to psychotic, if you're not there already.

If TW had even bothered to read HIS OWN posted source, he would realize that even they are claiming that ONLY EIGHT of the FIFTY SIX signers of the Declaration of Independence were KNOWN FREEMASONS!

I've read it and now it's necessary to post it to clearly display what an absolute DISHONEST utter FRAUD you are. No need to thank me, it's totally my pleasure.



American Masonic History

What Are America's True Roots?*

There is much speculation on the religious nature of the United States of America as it was founded. Many Christians assert that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and, therefore, it is not only our right but our duty to reclaim it for God. But is America a Christian nation in the true sense of the word?


To call anyone or anything "Christian," whether an individual or a nation, certain criteria must be met. If we are speaking of an individual, the Biblical requirements are that he must be born again by the Spirit of God, understanding all that this entails.


If we are speaking of a nation, its purpose must be that of ministry in the name of Jesus Christ alone, without regard to any other gods. Its primary charter must be the Bible, and all who hold positions of authority must be individuals who meet the criteria necessary to call themselves Christians. A true Christian nation would be a theocracy governed by God through His prophets. His law would reign supreme in the hearts and minds of that nation's founders, and all who founded the nation would have to meet the criteria necessary to call themselves Christians. Just as important, the nation would have to have been created in response to a covenant initiated by God with those who founded it.


As a point of information, the Pilgrims did not found the United States; they founded a small colony that eventually got swallowed up by the states and the newly formed federal government.


The belief that the Mayflower Compact was the basis for a Christian nation has caused many to attempt to reestablish what never existed: a Christian nation based upon Biblical precepts and founded upon a covenant relationship with God. What is overlooked is that the Mayflower Compact reaffirmed loyalty to the King of England; its framers never intended to found an independent state.


Ignoring, and even twisting the facts of history, "Christian" dominionists (http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/) quote some of the founding fathers whose words seem to indicate faith in Jesus Christ. But many quoted were Freemasons (http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/masons.htm) who highly regarded Jesus as a man who attained the highest degree of moral enlightenment.


The words of many Freemasons might lead the uninformed to believe that they are true brethren in Christ. An example is this statement from a Masonic publication:

God may have other words for other worlds, but His supreme Word for this world, yesterday, today, forever, is Christ! He is the central Figure of the Bible, its crown, its glory, its glow-point of vision and revelation. Take Him away and its light grows dim. He fulfilled the whole Book, its history, its poetry, its prophecy, its ritual, even as He fulfills our deepest yearning and our highest hope. Ages have come and gone, but He abides-abides because He is real, because he is unexhausted, because He is needed. Little is left today save Christ-Himself smitten and afflicted, bruised of God and wounded-but He is all we need. If we hear Him, follow Him, obey Him, we shall walk together in a new world wherein dwelleth righteousness and love-He is the Word of God (Joseph Fort Newton, "The Great Light in Masonry," Little Masonic Library, Vol. 3, p. 177).
Unless we recognize that the theosophical philosophy of Freemasonry attributes its own definitions to Biblical language, we won't understand the author's meaning. We might welcome him as one of our own.


Only the most naive would not know that many who claim to be Christians do not meet the required criteria. Such is the case with Freemasons. While Freemasonry has an outward show of religious faith, the tenets of Freemasonry preclude any truly born-again believer from belonging.

Space doesn't allow for a full treatise on Freemasonry's religious philosophy, but true Christians will recognize from another statement in the same publication that the Faith is not compatible with Freemasonry:

Into Freemasonry have been poured the irradiations of the mystical schools of antiquity. Particularly is this so in the higher degrees of the Order, such as the Scottish Rite, where undeniable traces of Cabalism, neo-Platonism, Rosicrucianism, and other mystical cults are plainly discernible. I do personally contend that Freemasonry is the direct descendent of the Mysteries, but that our ritual makers of the higher degrees have copied the ancient ceremonies of initiation so far as the knowledge of those ceremonies exists (Henry R. Evans, A History of the York and Scottish Rites of Freemasonry, p. 8).
Because most Christians today are unaware of the manner in which Christianity was melded with the esoteric philosophies of theosophy and Jewish Cabalism to produce a hybrid mystery religion known as Freemasonry, they offer quotes from many of our founding fathers as evidence that they were Christians. Indeed, some were even clerics. But just as one of today's most famous clerics, Norman Vincent Peale (http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/guidepo/), was a Freemason (prelate of the Grand Encampment of the Knights Templar of the United States), many of the nation's founding fathers were also Freemasons who used peculiar definitions of Biblical language in asserting their beliefs.


This is not to say that they were not noble men. Freemasons pride themselves in their noble attitudes and adherence to strict moral codes. These are not "evil" men in the classical sense. But they are blinded to the true revelation of God's Word, and their religious philosophy embraces all religions as valid. To be a Freemason, one must believe in a supreme being, but he need not be a Christian.


Based upon the evidence of Masonic influences in the establishment of this nation, there is no doubt that the criteria necessary to classify the United States as a Christian nation were not met. An objective study of the Masonic affiliations of the founding fathers must cause Christians to reevaluate their own political philosophy. For if the United States is not a Christian nation then we must choose to whom we will commit "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" -- our Lord or our country.






20 GREATEST NAMES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

John Adams - Spoke favorably of Freemasonry -- never joined
Samuel Adams - (Close and principle associate of Hancock, Revere & other Masons
Ethan Allen - Mason
Edmund Burke - Mason
John Claypoole - Mason
William Daws - Mason
Benjamin Franklin - Mason
Nathan Hale - No evidence of Masonic connections
John Hancock - Mason
Benjamin Harrison - No evidence of Masonic connections
Patrick Henry - No evidence of Masonic connections
Thomas Jefferson - Deist with some evidence of Masonic connections
John Paul Jones - Mason
Francis Scott Key - No evidence of Masonic connections
Robert Livingston - Mason
James Madison - Some evidence of Masonic membership
Thomas Paine - Humanist
Paul Revere - Mason
Colonel Benjamin Tupper - Mason
George Washington - Mason
Daniel Webster - Some evidence of Masonic connections
Summary: 10 Masons, 3 probable Masons, 1 Humanist, 2 Advocates of Freemasonry, 4 no record of connections.

SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Known Masons (8): Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Joseph Hewes, William Hooper, Robert Treat Payne, Richard Stockton, George Walton, William Whipple

Evidence of Membership And/or Affiliations (7): Elbridge Berry, Lyman Hall, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Nelson Jr., John Penn, George Read, Roger Sherman

Summary: 15 of 56 Signers were Freemasons or probable Freemasons.


It's true that this represents only 27% of the total signers. But this 27% included the principle movers of the Revolution, most notably Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, the primary authors of the Declaration. The former was a Freemason, the latter a deist and possible Freemason. If one were to analyze the Declaration, he would see the humanistic influences.
In any event, there is no evidence that even 27% of the signers were true Christians. In considering whether or not this is a Christian nation, it isn't the number of Masons that is as important as is the number of founders overall who were non-believers.


SIGNERS OF THE CONSTITUTION


Known Masons (9): Gunning Bedford, Jr., John Blair, David Brearly, Jacob Broom, Daniel Carrol, John Dickinson, Benjamin Franklin, Rufus King, George Washington


Evidence of Membership And/or Affiliations (13): Abraham Baldwin, William Blount, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Lansing, Jr., James Madison, George Mason, George Read, Robert Morris, Roger Sherman, George Wythe


Those Who Later Became Masons (6):

William Richardson Davie, Jr., Jonathan Dayton, Dr. James McHenry, John Francis Mercer, William Patterson, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer


Summary: 28 of 40 signers were Freemasons or possible Freemasons based on evidence other than Lodge records.


MASONIC INFLUENCES IN EARLY AMERICAN HISTORY


- Lafayette, French liaison to the Colonies, without whose aid the war could not have been won, was a Freemason.


- The majority of the commanders of the Continental Army were Freemasons and members of "Army Lodges."


- Most of Washington's Generals were Freemasons.

- The Boston Tea Party was planned at the Green Dragon Tavern, also known as the "Freemasons' Arms," and "the Headquarters of the Revolution."


- George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States by Robert Livingston, Grand Master of New York's Masonic Lodge. The Bible on which he took his oath was from his own Masonic lodge.


- The Cornerstone of the Capital building was laid by the Grand Lodge of Maryland.


Even if the initiators of the Revolution had been Christians, the fact remains that the Revolutionary War and the nation's government were structured by the tenets of Freemasonry, not God's Word. It was an unholy alliance at best.


Scripture tells us that God has made one nation of all: the Church. It is the Church that is our "Christian nation," not the social and political institutions of the world.


We can thank our heavenly Father that we enjoy the freedoms that this republic grants us. But as citizens of Heaven, our allegiance is first to our brethren in foreign countries. Otherwise, we may find ourselves killing true Christians for political causes.


We must be vigilant to the dangers of becoming embroiled in political and social causes in the name of Christ (http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/amr/cact2.htm). Else we will find ourselves unequally yoked, storing up for ourselves wood, hay, and stubble for the day of judgment.


* This material has been excerpted from a 6/90 Media Spotlight Special Report -- "A Masonic History of America," by Al Dager.


http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/mashist.htm (http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/mashist.htm)

Even some of your Christian brethren clearly refute your goofy and bogus views, it seems. Poor baby.

Welcome to merely sad and pathetic. Counseling and medication may be of some valuable assistance to you. Seek both.

[Deborah K]

See the problem is this... Christians take great PRIDE at the idea of a nation being principled on what they believe! Who wouldn't? Fact of the matter is, Christian principles existed way before Christianity existed, because morals are human concepts. Anyhow recycled material ftw.

It isn't a matter of pride for me, it's a matter of fact. It's just a fact. Why do secularists have such a terrible time accepting it? The fact that morals existed before Christianity, completely misses the point.

[Truth Warrior]

I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase it please?

Perhaps the complete context would help to clarify:

Originally Posted by Deborah K http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1826179#post1826179)
Again, the debate is not whether the country was founded on the Christian religion. The debate is whether the country was founded on Christian principles. There is a huge difference between the two and Ron Paul's stance on this spells it out very nicely:

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
And would a "Christian" ( so called ) nation and Constitution do that?

Is that viewpoint and perspective confirmed by the long history of Christianity?

Crusades, Inquisition, repeated European religious wars over centuries, Spanish brutal and gencidal conquest of Mexico, Central and South America, Jewish persecution, torture and burning of the heretics and witches, etc., etc.

Does that help?

[Deborah K]

Here is a site with sourcing, etc. that recounts the religious affiliations of the founders:

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Religious affiliation of the Presidents:

Washington: http://www.adherents.com/people/pw/George_Washington.html
Jefferson: http://www.adherents.com/people/pj/Thomas_Jefferson.html
Madison: http://www.adherents.com/people/pm/James_Madison.html
Monroe: http://www.adherents.com/people/pm/James_Monroe.html

and so on..... can be found on the site listed here:
http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html

[Deborah K]

Perhaps the complete context would help to clarify:

Originally Posted by Deborah K http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1826179#post1826179)
Again, the debate is not whether the country was founded on the Christian religion. The debate is whether the country was founded on Christian principles. There is a huge difference between the two and Ron Paul's stance on this spells it out very nicely:

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
And would a "Christian" ( so called ) nation and Constitution do that?

Is that viewpoint and perspective confirmed by the long history of Christianity?

Crusades, Inquisition, repeated European religious wars, Spanish brutal and gencidal conquest of Mexico, Central and South America, Jewish persecution, torture and burning of the heretics and witches, etc., etc.

Does that help?

It would be unfair to conclude that Christianity is nothing but pure evil, TW. I hope that is not what you are trying to imply. The first hospitals and Universities were founded by the Church. Charity stems from the Church as well. I think it would be fair to say that the Church and State were quite intermingled during those times. It was difficult to tell one from the other, and the corruption that occurred came not from only one side.

I comment on corruption in the church as well as the gov't here:

"I see organized religion in the same way as I see government. If it is allowed to be corrupted, it will be. The idea of religion, as in the idea of capitalism is not, in and of itself, corrupt. But human nature dictates that those who are left to their own devices without any oversight or intervention, will inevitably succumb to the greed and corruption that comes with too much power."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1823292#post1823292


This hostility toward Christianity as a whole is telling and worrisome to me.

[strapko]

It isn't a matter of pride for me, it's a matter of fact. It's just a fact. Why do secularists have such a terrible time accepting it? The fact that morals existed before Christianity, completely misses the point.

My point on morals is this: Christianity borrowed a whole bunch of morals, put it in their book and labeled it; thus the country was principled on ideas which were the norms before Christianity existed. Then all the Christians run around all jolly explaining how if we don't go back to Christ this nation is doomed yada yada, thanking glorious Christianity for the prosperity of the nation and the birth of it. So what do you think secular folks are going to do? Obviously refute retarded claims.

[RockEnds]

You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it: But I do not take your Curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho' it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble....

http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/44/Letter_from_Benjamin_Franklin_to_Ezra_Stiles_1.htm l

Letter Benjamin Franklin to Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790. Franklin died less than six weeks later.

[BeFranklin]

If mosaic law will be enforced in god's kingdom, then their will be stonings of disobedient children and adulterers. Doesn't sound like paradise. oops.
Who stopped the stoning of the adultery? hmmm... that guy who was pissing off the pharisees for going against mosaic law.
Jesus gave a new commandment to supercede the mosaic law. Its the golden rule.
The only person who could own property in a kingdom is the king. Not his serfs.

Early followers of Christ and the earliest christians lived in communes in communism. This is documented fact. Get an education. Then come back and we can talk.




John 14
1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Doesn't sound like a commune to me. Sounds like property and mansions.

Just give up your hate for Christianity. If you don't have anything to say, you don't need to make stuff up. The entire "puritan work ethic" that helped found this country is based on the bible.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:*&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=puritan+work+ethic&spell=1

[heavenlyboy34]

The entire "puritan work ethic" that helped found this country is based on the bible.


Partly. It has more to do with enlightenment philosophy, IMHO. A similar revolution occurred in France at roughly the same time for rather similar reasons.

[BeFranklin]

Partly. It has more to do with enlightenment philosophy, IMHO. A similar revolution occurred in France at roughly the same time for rather similar reasons.

I'm not sure why my words are being parsed differently then I mean then in multiple threads, but I'm only pointing out where the phrase "puritain work" ethic came from, not quantifying its effect since that isn't the point of my current argument. The point being, the forefather's of this country obviously didn't get "communes and communism" from reading the bible.

[danberkeley]

My point on morals is this: Christianity borrowed a whole bunch of morals, put it in their book and labeled it; thus the country was principled on ideas which were the norms before Christianity existed. Then all the Christians run around all jolly explaining how if we don't go back to Christ this nation is doomed yada yada, thanking glorious Christianity for the prosperity of the nation and the birth of it. So what do you think secular folks are going to do? Obviously refute retarded claims.

Maybe they should be sued for copyright infringement. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

It would be unfair to conclude that Christianity is nothing but pure evil, TW. I hope that is not what you are trying to imply. The first hospitals and Universities were founded by the Church. Charity stems from the Church as well. I think it would be fair to say that the Church and State were quite intermingled during those times. It was difficult to tell one from the other, and the corruption that occurred came not from only one side.

No, I'm not. It just seems that Christianity easily tends to become corrupted beyond recognition by involvement in and association with STATES and politics, the sociopathic cult.

BTW, I really like Jesus, but I'm NOT a Christian. ;)

I comment on corruption in the church as well as the gov't here:

"I see organized religion in the same way as I see government. If it is allowed to be corrupted, it will be. The idea of religion, as in the idea of capitalism is not, in and of itself, corrupt. But human nature dictates that those who are left to their own devices without any oversight or intervention, will inevitably succumb to the greed and corruption that comes with too much power."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1823292#post1823292


This hostility toward Christianity as a whole is telling and worrisome to me.

"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Gandhi

"Those who say politics has nothing to do with religion do not know what politics is." -- TW


"Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth." --Mohandas K. Gandhi

[BeFranklin]

"Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth." --Mohandas K. Gandhi

Significantly different than Christianity, and falls right in line with what secular humanists and globalists think - everyone is basically good.. Which tends to lead to the thinking of course the government must be intending to do good, how else could it be..

Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The later tends to led to the founders philosophy of checks and balances, because no one could be trusted to being good.

Quoting Thomas Jefferson:

"It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go....."
...
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

[Truth Warrior]

Significantly different than Christianity, and falls right in line with what secular humanists and globalists think - everyone is basically good.. Which tends to lead to the thinking of course the government must be intending to do good, how else could it be..

Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The later tends to led to the founders philosophy of checks and balances, because no one could be trusted to being good.

Quoting Thomas Jefferson:

"It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go....."
...
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

If man is basically good, he needs no government. If man is basically evil, he dare not have government.

Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

[DamianTV]

Religion exists to control the masses that are dumb enough to believe the hocus pocus sacrifice a chicken to the cow god BS.

Religion is a tool of mind control. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[heavenlyboy34]

if man is basically good, he needs no government. If man is basically evil, he dare not have government.

religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

the ends do not justify the means.

qft!! :d

[Andrew-Austin]

Communists knew their battle was to rid the USA of Christianity in order to take over. By this thread, they have done a damn fine job of it. Watch your country crumble without it. tones

Hahahahahaha, and I just remembered a couple people I have met who call themselves both Christians and Marxists.
They go to church on sunday and read some Marx on monday, perhaps they think the state should force everyone to be selfless like Jesus was. lol

And yeah never mind all the people in this movement who are atheists, agnostics, and people who believe in other religions. Their all a bunch of communists for not believing in the same exact God you do. Get a grip.

[Truth Warrior]

Religion is the opium of the masses.
Karl Marx


"POLITICS is ANOTHER opium of the masses." -- Groucho Marx

(OK, I just made that last one up, with apologies to both Karl and Groucho) ;)

[BeFranklin]

Hahahahahaha, and I just remembered a couple people I have met who call themselves both Christians and Marxists.
They go to church on sunday and read some Marx on monday, perhaps they think the state should force everyone to be selfless like Jesus was. lol

And yeah never mind all the people in this movement who are atheists, agnostics, and people who believe in other religions. Their all a bunch of communists for not believing in the same exact God you do. Get a grip.

None of the people in this movement are capable of founding or correcting our government to what our forefathers founded.

There is a reason for that. They only partly believe what the founders believed about government.

No, I don't expect this movement to really get anywhere. The problem is not the government, the problem is the citizens themselves.

[Andrew-Austin]

None of the people in this movement are capable of founding or correcting our government to what our forefathers founded.

There is a reason for that. They only partly believe what the founders believed about government.

No, I don't expect this movement to really get anywhere. The problem is not the government, the problem is the people themselves.

And why is that? Is it just the monumental difference in the degree of tyranny we face? Shit the NWO/US government makes the redcoats look like ants in comparison.

Is it due to our circumstances of nature and nurture.. If we were all brought up to be Christians like the founders, then we would have never been in such a mess right.. If we were all a bunch of martyrs..

[BeFranklin]

And why is that? Is it just the monumental difference in the degree of tyranny we face? Shit the NWO/US government makes the redcoats look like ants in comparison.

Is it due to our circumstances of nature and nurture.. If we were all brought up to be Christians like the founders, then we would have never been in such a mess right.. If we were all a bunch of martyrs..

It takes a moral people to maintain a government. Also, the entire concept of "public servants" as opposed to masters is from the New Testament. A new world order as it were from what came before in the nature of government.

The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible.
Patrick Henry

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.
Thomas Jefferson

With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
...
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.
George Washington

America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.
Alexis de Tocqueville





FYI:

The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out and stripped of its lettering and guilding, lies here, food for worms. Yet the work itself shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more beatiful edition, corrected and amended by the Author. (FRANKLIN’S EULOGY THAT HE WROTE FOR HIMSELF)

[heavenlyboy34]

It takes a moral people to maintain a government. Also, the entire concept of "public servants" as opposed to masters is from the New Testament. A new world order as it were from what came before in the nature of government.



I agree. I just don't agree that 1) religion is naturally moral 2) government is necessary for individuals to be successful.

[Andrew-Austin]

It takes a moral people to maintain a government. Also, the entire concept of "public servants" as opposed to masters is from the New Testament.

BeFranklin, let me make this clear to you...

I'm just 19 years old. The founders might have been raised in a free affluent world, but I was born and brought up a slave in the public education system. The US government was fucked over and corrupt long before I was even of voting age. (its like that with plenty of people in this 'movement')
But now that I can supposedly "have a say" in government, believe me I fully plan to vote only for "public servants" of the same caliber of Dr. Paul. And you know what? Religion, especially the Christian religion, has nothing to do with this whatsoever.

In fact, I'm willing to bet if I had a very religious up bringing (Cathloc, Protestant, or w/e), I'd most likely be a sheep with a more collectevistic world view.


The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible.
Patrick Henry

Not such a great quote, I'd axe the word religion from it in a heart beat. I will never "have faith" in government no matter how virtuous the officials running it seem to be. All social life revolves around religion? This guy had his head in the clouds...



America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

Morality/virtue is not dependant upon religion, thus Americans can cease to be apart of the Christian religion and America can still be good. Or at the very least, morality is not dependant upon the one Christian religion. I know this concept scares the fuck out of zealots like Theocrat, he has to have it his way since hes so egoically enthralled with his religion.

[BeFranklin]

Morality/virtue is not dependant upon religion, thus Americans can cease to be apart of the Christian religion and American can still be good. Or at the very least, morality is not dependant upon the one Christian religion. I know this concept scares the fuck out of zealots like Theocrat, he has to have it his way since hes so egoically enthralled with his religion.

A) I disagree you can be a good person without God, in fact, the religious sort of person is the person without God.

B) You are young, but America is a very immoral country as even compared to 20 years ago, which was immoral compared to 50 years ago. I don't need to argue about "could be moral", it "isn't moral" and that is the root of the problem, not the government, but the people themselves.

C) I doubt anyone is scared of anything of the sort. Indeed, like me, they probably expect that America is about to be punished for its decadence. America will continue to go down hill until America learns that it needs God.

The difference between my point of view and others is I don't expect to see America pulling itself out of this hole without God. This is the perfect storm, with multiple types of destruction on all sides. If there is no God, I expect America will be destroyed.

[Theocrat]

Morality/virtue is not dependant upon religion, thus Americans can cease to be apart of the Christian religion and America can still be good. Or at the very least, morality is not dependant upon the one Christian religion. I know this concept scares the fuck out of zealots like Theocrat, he has to have it his way since hes so egoically enthralled with his religion.

The problem I have is with people who don't stick to the evidence which obviously shows that our nation was founded on the principles of the Christian Religion. We fail to see that this began in the 1600s with the Puritans, not in late 1700s with the signers of our founding documents. Those people who inherently have a problem with or hate the Christian religion very often look over the documents, quotes, pictures, and other writings which attest to the fact that our Founders viewed religion and morality as inseparable from each other.

It should be obvious today that America can not be good without God, as seen from the increase of anti-Christian attitudes of secularists to remove every mention of God from our public institutions. What has replaced God is humanistic relativism and a lack of any moral standards. Why do you think so many people in our government are caught in scandals, deceit, and utter hypocrisy while serving in office? It's because they try to separate morality from their religious beliefs. In church, they can be moral and religious. In political office, they can do whatever they feel is right, as long as they can get away with it. It's utter failure to see the significance of having an objective moral compass to live by in both the public and private life. Religion gives the reason and definition for what morality is and how it is to be applied towards God and man.

So, people like you, Andrew-Austin, who are still young in years and without much experience in life and knowledge (at least as much as us older folks), have much to learn about these things. You need to understand what our country was really founded upon by considering all of the evidence, not just what you want to believe because you disagree with the tenets of a certain belief system. That is the charge I leave you with.

It's not about having things "my way"; it's about ascertaining truth, and honoring our Creator, the Lord and Giver of our unalienable rights. I strive to consider the objective proof of our nation's heritage, and though my studies have not been in any way exhaustive, I am convinced that they are legitimate and do conform to the evidence which our Founders left for us through the providence of God. So, please cease from making any discussions against me and my views based on a subjective opinion of mine. That is simply not my aim on these forums. I would encourage you to read the information I've given in Posts #33 and #48 of this thread if you sincerely desire to know how religion and morality were coupled in the framework of our Founders vision of the early Republic.

[Truth Warrior]

Step right this way to sign up for the Roman Empire created CULT. Bring money! ;)

( DISCLAIMER: Any actual correlation to lessons taught by a previous Jewish carpenter from Nazareth is purely accidental, coincidental and unintentional. :rolleyes: )

"By their fruits, ye shall know them."

[Andrew-Austin]

A) I disagree you can be a good person without God, in fact, the religious sort of person is the person without God.

B) You are young, but America is a very immoral country as even compared to 20 years ago, which was immoral compared to 50 years ago. I don't need to argue about "could be moral", it "isn't moral" and that is the root of the problem, not the government, but the people themselves.

C) I doubt Theocrat is scared of anything of the sort. Indeed, like me, he probably expects that America is about to be punished for its decadence. America will continue to be punished by God until America learns that it needs God.

The difference between my point of view and others is I don't expect to see America pulling itself out of this hole without God. This is the perfect storm, with multiple types of destruction on all sides. If there is no God, I expect America will be destroyed.

Since your entire world view stems from the belief in a diety, I can't really gain anything from continuing this conversation sorry.

I might try and address Theos post when I have time.

[heavenlyboy34]

A) I disagree you can be a good person without God, in fact, the religious sort of person is the person without God.

B) You are young, but America is a very immoral country as even compared to 20 years ago, which was immoral compared to 50 years ago. I don't need to argue about "could be moral", it "isn't moral" and that is the root of the problem, not the government, but the people themselves.

C) I doubt Theocrat is scared of anything of the sort. Indeed, like me, he probably expects that America is about to be punished for its decadence. America will continue to be punished by God until America learns that it needs God.

The difference between my point of view and others is I don't expect to see America pulling itself out of this hole without God. This is the perfect storm, with multiple types of destruction on all sides. If there is no God, I expect America will be destroyed.

Do you consider yourself virtuous? Would God destroy a nation if there were but one man of virtue therein? If so, then your view contradicts the bible. You need to expand on your view further to account for this kind of situation. Till then, I don't see you as credible.

[Danke]

"POLITICS is ANOTHER opium of the masses." -- Truth Warrior
[/B]

Fixed.

I like it. <IMHO>

[Truth Warrior]

Fixed.

I like it. <IMHO> Not broken. :p I like mine better. ;)

[Roxi]

Love thy neighbor as thyself...
Those who live by the sword...die by the sword...
God is love...

That's irrational? tones


they may sound rational as blanket statements, but you can view them in different ways too

if my neighbor rapes babies, i will not love him as i love thyself

..whats the definition of lives by the sword? is this a crude representation of "eye for an eye"? or is it a simple definition of karma?

"god is love" ? lots of people kill in the name of god is that love? god isn't ALWAYS love... some christians take the bible so literally that they use its words to justify doing evil,

so yes, they are irrational, or rational, depending on how you look at them

[BeFranklin]

Do you consider yourself virtuous? Would God destroy a nation if there were but one man of virtue therein? If so, then your view contradicts the bible. You need to expand on your view further to account for this kind of situation. Till then, I don't see you as credible.

Lol. God frequently punishes nations in the bible.

What amazes to me is all these posters that have no trouble seeing a government, organization, or posse rounding up the bad guys - many times which they will get wrong, but can't see God doing it, who doesn't ever get it wrong.

I much rather have my life in the hands of God, who is perfectly just, then in the hands of the government, which is not.

The cries of God's children have been rising up against this nation, and God is a judge you can not bribe, and can not fool. The more unjust the country becomes, the more certain God will act.

[heavenlyboy34]

Lol. God frequently punishes nations in the bible.

What amazes to me is all these posters that have no trouble seeing a government, organization, or posse rounding up the bad guys - many times which they will get wrong, but can't see God doing it, who doesn't ever get it wrong.

I much rather have my life in the hands of God, who is perfectly just, then in the hands of the government, which is not.

The cries of God's children have been rising up against this nation, and God is a judge you can not bribe, and can not fool. The more unjust the country becomes, the more certain God will act.

(from the book of Genesis)
"Abraham Intercedes for Sodom
22(U (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018&version=47#cen-ESV-447U)) So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham(V (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018&version=47#cen-ESV-447V))23Then Abraham drew near and said,(W (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018&version=47#cen-ESV-448W)) "Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? 25Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked,(X (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018&version=47#cen-ESV-450X)) so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you!(Y (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018&version=47#cen-ESV-450Y)) Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" 26And the LORD said,(Z (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018&version=47#cen-ESV-451Z)) "If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake." still stood before the LORD. 27Abraham answered and said,(AA (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018&version=47#cen-ESV-452AA)) "Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. 28Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking. Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?" And he said, "I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there." 29Again he spoke to him and said, "Suppose forty are found there." He answered, "For the sake of forty I will not do it." 30Then he said, "Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak. Suppose thirty are found there." He answered, "I will not do it, if I find thirty there." 31He said, "Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there." He answered, "For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it." 32Then he said,(AB (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018&version=47#cen-ESV-457AB)) "Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there." He answered, "For the sake of ten I will not destroy it." 33And the LORD went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place."


Surely this vast country meets the same reuqirements that caused God to spare the "wicked city", yes?

[heavenlyboy34]

Lol. God frequently punishes nations in the bible.

What amazes to me is all these posters that have no trouble seeing a government, organization, or posse rounding up the bad guys - many times which they will get wrong, but can't see God doing it, who doesn't ever get it wrong.

I much rather have my life in the hands of God, who is perfectly just, then in the hands of the government, which is not.

The cries of God's children have been rising up against this nation, and God is a judge you can not bribe, and can not fool. The more unjust the country becomes, the more certain God will act.

One of the strongest reasons for abandoning the state as we know it. Thanks for making that point for me! :)

[Andrew-Austin]

It should be obvious today that America can not be good without God, as seen from the increase of anti-Christian attitudes of secularists to remove every mention of God from our public institutions.

How is that proof America cannot be good without God?

I personally don't mind if the legislature and court give lip service to some deity, so long as the laws they pass and enforce are completely just.





What has replaced God is humanistic relativism and a lack of any moral standards.

Secularists/atheists/agnostics do have moral standards. And you only seem to say otherwise because you personally believe the only correct morality is that which stems through your God exactly as you perceive that God to be.

I'm sure you believe people cannot objectively discover true morality, but then again I'm pretty sure you have been quoted as saying:

"The only reason why you think poop is gross, is because you live in a civilization influenced by Christianity."

Yeah.....




Why do you think so many people in our government are caught in scandals, deceit, and utter hypocrisy while serving in office? It's because they try to separate morality from their religious beliefs. In church, they can be moral and religious. In political office, they can do whatever they feel is right, as long as they can get away with it.

Yeah, us secularists feel we should be able to do whatever we want so long as we can get away with it, thats not pigeonholing a broad spectrum of people based upon the extreme minority of corrupt politicians running this country... Oh wait.... :rolleyes:



So, people like you, Andrew-Austin, who are still young in years and without much experience in life and knowledge, have much to learn about these things.

No Theo, I might be young, but you still come off as an arrogant mystic. You are not exactly someone who can be described as more philosophically wise just because of your age, so don't imply that.


You need to understand what our country was really founded upon by considering all of the evidence, not just what you want to believe because you disagree with the tenets of a certain belief system. That is the charge I leave you with.

Okay. I can be more open minded about how this country was founded, and try to more thoroughly look at both sides. But even if this country was founded on Christianity, that obviously still does not answer the question what should a government be founded/based on, what should the role of government be.





It's not about having things "my way"; it's about ascertaining truth, and honoring our Creator, the Lord and Giver of our unalienable rights. I strive to consider the objective proof of our nation's heritage, and though my studies have not been in any way exhaustive, I am convinced that they are legitimate and do conform to the evidence which our Founders left for us through the providence of God. So, please cease from making any discussions against me and my views based on a subjective opinion of mine. That is simply not my aim on these forums. I would encourage you to read the information I've given in Posts #33 and #48 of this thread if you sincerely desire to know how religion and morality were coupled in the framework of our Founders vision of the early Republic.

Stepping aside from the subject of how this country was founded...
When I said that "you have to have things your way" I was more referring to your method of ascertaining "truth" by simply reading the bible, and how you would set up your ideal theocracy and force everyone to live within its narrow bounds.

For instance I'm fairly certain your government would label homosexuality immoral just because (and yeah I'm paraphrasing however you would word the argument) "God says it is", and thus make it illegal and a highly punishable offense.

This comes off as incredibly arrogant to me. For I wish I had some magical book which fully explained the nature of reality, man, society, the role of government etc. But I don't have one, and I'm not going to pretend to. Instead of having such a freakishly simple way of discovering truth (reading an old book which just supposedly "comes from God"), people like me have to painstakingly discover it through empiricism and reason. Reason might not be the most aesthetically appealing means to you to discover the proper role of government, since your entire world view stems from what you perceive the whims of God to be, but it is for many people in this liberty movement. I do not see any rational argument as to why homosexuality is immoral, nor do I see any rational argument to say it should be the governments business.

[BeFranklin]

Some things about God related to the above:

2 Peter 2:9 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment until the day of judgment

Psalm 33:5 "The Lord loves righteousness and justice;"

Proverbs 17:15 "Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent the Lord detests them both."

And especially:
Psalm 94
1 O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself. 2Lift up thyself, thou judge of the earth: render a reward to the proud. 3 LORD, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph? 4 How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves? 5 They break in pieces thy people, O LORD, and afflict thine heritage.

6 They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. 7 Yet they say, The LORD shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it. 8 Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? 9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?

10 He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? 11The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.
12Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law; 13That thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the wicked. 14For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance. 15But judgment shall return unto righteousness: and all the upright in heart shall follow it.

16Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity? 17Unless the LORD had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence. 18When I said, My foot slippeth; thy mercy, O LORD, held me up. 19In the multitude of my thoughts within me thy comforts delight my soul. 20Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? 21They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood. 22But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.

23And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the LORD our God shall cut them off.

[BeFranklin]

(from the book of Genesis)
"Abraham Intercedes for Sodom
22(U (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018&version=47#cen-ESV-447U)) So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham(V (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018&version=47#cen-ESV-447V))23Then Abraham drew near and said,(W (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018&version=47#cen-ESV-448W)) "Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? 25Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked,(X (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018&version=47#cen-ESV-450X)) so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you!(Y (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018&version=47#cen-ESV-450Y)) Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" 26And the LORD said,(Z (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018&version=47#cen-ESV-451Z)) "If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake." still stood before the LORD. 27Abraham answered and said,(AA (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018&version=47#cen-ESV-452AA)) "Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. 28Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking. Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?" And he said, "I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there." 29Again he spoke to him and said, "Suppose forty are found there." He answered, "For the sake of forty I will not do it." 30Then he said, "Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak. Suppose thirty are found there." He answered, "I will not do it, if I find thirty there." 31He said, "Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there." He answered, "For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it." 32Then he said,(AB (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2018&version=47#cen-ESV-457AB)) "Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there." He answered, "For the sake of ten I will not destroy it." 33And the LORD went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place."


Surely this vast country meets the same reuqirements that caused God to spare the "wicked city", yes?

One of many similar psalms that says God rules the nations and does with them whatever He will:


Psalm 99
1 The LORD reigns,
let the nations tremble;
he sits enthroned between the cherubim,
let the earth shake.

2 Great is the LORD in Zion;
he is exalted over all the nations.

3 Let them praise your great and awesome name—
he is holy.

4 The King is mighty, he loves justice—
you have established equity;
in Jacob you have done
what is just and right.

5 Exalt the LORD our God
and worship at his footstool;
he is holy.

6 Moses and Aaron were among his priests,
Samuel was among those who called on his name;
they called on the LORD
and he answered them.

7 He spoke to them from the pillar of cloud;
they kept his statutes and the decrees he gave them.

8 O LORD our God,
you answered them;
you were to Israel [a] a forgiving God,
though you punished their misdeeds. [b]

9 Exalt the LORD our God
and worship at his holy mountain,
for the LORD our God is holy.

[BeFranklin]

Surely this vast country meets the same reuqirements that caused God to spare the "wicked city", yes?

The Jews thought the same thing, but God didn't spare them because Abraham was their father. God destroyed Jerusalem. If God didn't spare Jerusalem, He isn't going to spare us. God is just and America needs to repent.

Matthew 3:9And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

[BeFranklin]

Anyway God bless. I'm going to write a paper. My point is America is a lot worse off morally then some of you may realise, since we are emersed in it. God isn't going to allow that to infinitely go on, so obviously something is coming. How God will react can be seen from how he has reacted in the past in the bible, which both has complete mercy and exact justice. God is good, so that is hope, at least for me, but not so for the wicked whether public officials or private merciless individuals.

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom Prov. 1:7, and God gives hope Romans 15:13.

[heavenlyboy34]

Anyway God bless. I'm going to write a paper. My point is America is a lot worse off morally then some of you may realise, since we are emersed in it. God isn't going to allow that to infinitely go on, so obviously something is coming. How God will react can be seen from how he has reacted in the past in the bible, which both has complete mercy and exact justice. God is good, so that is hope, at least for me, but not so for the wicked whether public officials or private merciless individuals.

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom Prov. 1:7, and God gives hope Romans 15:13.

Good luck with your paper, sir. It was great conversing with you. I totally agree with you about the dilemma that follows a lack of moral/ethical boundaries. I look forward to further chats with you in the future. :D

[DamianTV]

I just cant help but to post this:

http://www.direwolves.net/theory.jpg

:D

[Deborah K]

"god is love" ? lots of people kill in the name of god is that love? god isn't ALWAYS love... some christians take the bible so literally that they use its words to justify doing evil,



God is ALWAYS love. Always! Just because some loon kills in God's name doesn't change that. Secularists (and I'm not saying you're one) always seem to confuse the concept of Christianity (or any other religion) with the behavior of people who proclaim to practice it. It's the same with capitalism. Marxist types proclaim that capitalism is bad because they confuse the concept of it with the behavior of certain people who practice it in a corrupt manner.

This isn't directed at your post, but I get weary of people like many on this thread who make blanket statements about Christianity. They obviously haven't taken the time to thoroughly study the history of it, and they have an 'ala cart' attitude about it - picking and chosing that which fits in with their own paradigms. :(

[heavenlyboy34]

God is ALWAYS love. Always! Just because some loon kills in God's name doesn't change that. Secularists (and I'm not saying you're one) always seem to confuse the concept of Christianity (or any other religion) with the behavior of people who proclaim to practice it. It's the same with capitalism. Marxist types proclaim that capitalism is bad because they confuse the concept of it with the behavior of certain people who practice it in a corrupt manner.

This isn't directed at your post, but I get weary of people like many on this thread who make blanket statements about Christianity. They obviously haven't taken the time to thoroughly study the history of it, and they have an 'ala cart' attitude about it - picking and chosing that which fits in with their own paradigms. :(

If one were daring and controversial, one could say the same about Islam(and most other relgions). ;) I'll leave that to others, tho...I'm not in the mood for bringing that up again.

[Deborah K]

If one were daring and controversial, one could say the same about Islam(and most other relgions). ;) I'll leave that to others, tho...I'm not in the mood for bringing that up again.

I agree with this. And a perusal of my posts will show that I, for one, have never debased any religion because I understand that it isn't the religion (the service and worship of God) that is the problem, it is the manner in which it is practiced that is the problem.

[Conservative Christian]

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

--George Washington

----------------------------

"What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ."

--George Washington



.

[Conservative Christian]

Excerpt from George Washington's personal prayer journal:

"Almighty God, and most merciful father, who didst command the children of Israel to offer a daily sacrifice to thee, that thereby they might glorify and praise thee for thy protection both night and day, receive, O Lord, my morning sacrifice which I now offer up to thee; I yield thee humble and hearty thanks that thou has preserved me from the danger of the night past, and brought me to the light of the day, and the comforts thereof, a day which is consecrated to thine own service and for thine own honor. Let my heart, therefore, Gracious God, be so affected with the glory and majesty of it, that I may not do mine own works, but wait on thee, and discharge those weighty duties thou requirest of me, and since thou art a God of pure eyes, and wilt be sanctified in all who draw near unto thee, who doest not regard the sacrifice of fools, nor hear sinners who tread in thy courts, pardon, I beseech thee, my sins, remove them from thy presence, as far as the east is from the west, and accept of me for the merits of thy son Jesus Christ, that when I come into thy temple, and compass thine altar, my prayers may come before thee as incense; and as thou wouldst hear me calling upon thee in my prayers, so give me grace to hear thee calling on me in thy word, that it may be wisdom, righteousness, reconciliation and peace to the saving of the soul in the day of the Lord Jesus. Grant that I may hear it with reverence, receive it with meekness, mingle it with faith, and that it may accomplish in me, Gracious God, the good work for which thou has sent it. Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God & guide this day and for ever for his sake, who lay down in the Grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."

--George Washington

[Truth Warrior]

I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
George Carlin

[Conservative Christian]

"Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?"

--John Quincy Adams



.

[Truth Warrior]

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." -- Thomas Paine

[Kludge]

I now have a presence in this thread.

[Truth Warrior]

Romans 13, v. 1-7 (KJV)
1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.



"By their fruits, ye shall know them."

[heavenlyboy34]

"Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?"

--John Quincy Adams



.

Because December 25 is a Pagan holiday (winter solstice), and more fun to celebrate than the actual religious nature of Christmas. :)

[Josh_LA]

When we say "founded on Christian principles" we mean this:

Don't steal
Don't Kill
Peace
Freedom (God's free will)
Don't covet your neighbors wife or property
No Usuary. (bad thing)
Love your fellowman
Be charitable..help people.

That sort of thing. Is anyone opposed to these ideas? TONES

agreed

[Kludge]

No Usuary. (bad thing)

What do you believe makes usury bad?

[Conservative Christian]

"Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary."

--Daniel Webster



.

[Conservative Christian]

"The Almighty implanted in us these inextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes. They are the guardians of His image in our heart. They distinguish us from the herd of common animals."

--Thomas Paine


.