# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  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.

----------


## 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.



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
> ...


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.

----------


## 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.


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
> ...



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.
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> ...

----------


## 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/ar...TICLE_ID=54349

----------


## strapko

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


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=c...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*
> ...


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 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.
> ...


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 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.

----------


## Godfather89

> Actually, the religious beliefs of our Founding Fathers 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/s..._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. *

----------


## 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/Religio...e_Soviet_Union) but it didn't save _them_.

----------


## 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/...gy/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/...gy/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?

----------


## Truth Warrior

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


 *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/...gy/mashist.htm
> 
> 
> 
> *"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton*


I wonder if you've ever heard of this book.

----------


## sidster

Great post strapko!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I wonder if you've ever heard of this book.


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

*Index to the Antifederalist Papers
**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?

----------


## 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/resource...?ResourceID=19 (this link has considerably more information and background on Benjamin Franklin's prayer than anywhere else)
> ...

----------


## 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"  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 $#@! 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 $#@!, 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 $#@! god because I've never talked to the guy, but I will say $#@! EVERY ORGANIZED CHARADE THAT SAYS ITS GOD(S) IS THE ONLY REAL GOD(S).  IE $#@! 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 bull$#@! 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 $#@! Patrick Henry too.  Funny, I dont see him all over the place like Jefferson and Franklin.  He is a guy that was along for the ride and used his ride to preach bull$#@!.

----------


## Conza88



----------


## 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 bull$#@!.  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.* 




*The Masonic Architecture of Washington, D.C.*

----------


## 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 BULL$#@!.  Im not saying god, the god, a god, the gods or whatever are as if there is one or them, that they are bull$#@!, 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 BULL$#@!. Im not saying god, the god, a god, the gods or whatever are as if there is one or them, that they are bull$#@!, 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

----------


## 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/...ht-bearer.html

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

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

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

http://www.redicecreations.com/speci...v/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. 
> 
> ...


Tell that to galileo


Copernicus


Kepler



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.
> ...


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)
> 
> ...


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.

----------


## 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?

----------


## BeFranklin

> Tell that to galileo
> http://www.catholiceducation.org/ima...ce/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.
> 
> ...


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 bull$#@! 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..."  

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 $#@! 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/Foundin..._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!

----------


## 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/Foundin..._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 $#@! 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.

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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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 $#@! 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 $#@! 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/showthr...92#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/showthr...92#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.
> ...


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.

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.




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.
> 
> 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."
> 
> ...

----------


## 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.
> ...


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. 

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.
> 
> ...


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. 

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.
> ...

----------


## 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*

----------


## torchbearer

> *THE MASONIC FOUNDATIONS* *OF THE UNITED STATES* 
> *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.

----------


## 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.


*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.

----------


## 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*


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

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.

----------


## 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!   
> 
> *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"?* 
> 
> By the way, the article you link to was written by fundamentalist Christians.
> 
> *I know who they are. DUH!!! Therefore .......?*
> ...


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

*Your choice.*

----------


## danberkeley

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

----------


## 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"
> ...


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.* 
> 
> *Your choice.*


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. 

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. 

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. 

*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. 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> *From Matthew, Chapter 5:
> ...



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. * 

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

*Conservatives Follow the Leader*

----------


## 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."*
> ...


*“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”*  George Washington quotes (American commander in chief of the colonial armies in the American Revolution (1775-83) and subsequently 1st US President (1789-97), 1732-1799)


*"By their fruits, ye shall know them."*

----------


## Conservative Christian

> *The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.*  George Washington quotes (American commander in chief of the colonial armies in the American Revolution (1775-83) and subsequently 1st US President (1789-97), 1732-1799)


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.  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.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> [B]You have NO idea about my education and knowledge on this issue.  
> 
> *BTW, Ron and I disagree on any number of things.  But Ron seems to be coming around and along nicely, if kind of slowly.   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.

----------


## 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.  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.
> ...


*You read a book. The HOLY word of GOD. BWAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAA!* 
*GOD NEVER SAID THAT!*

[h1]Does the 1796-97 Treaty with Tripoli Matter to Church/State Separation?[/h1]
_Speech given to the Humanists of Georgia on June 22, 1997 and at the 1997 Lake Hypatia Independance Day Celebration._ 
[h3]By Ed Buckner, Ph.D.[/h3]
 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. 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.


[h3] For Further Information:[/h3]
"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
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/s...7/secular.html
"Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church," 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
ebuckner@atlantafreethought.org

*"**Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church**,"*


*BTW, John Jay was a Freemason too.*  *Get a clue.*

----------


## Deborah K

> *The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.*  George Washington quotes (American commander in chief of the colonial armies in the American Revolution (1775-83) and subsequently 1st US President (1789-97), 1732-1799)
> 
> 
> *"By their fruits, ye shall know them."*


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.

----------


## 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.


 *And the title of this thread is ...................*

*Repeat: Get a clue.*

----------


## 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/...gy/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.*  *Try the OP again.*

----------


## Conservative Christian

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


Oh, and because "Truth" Warrior posted it in BIG WORDS, means EVERYTHING on that website MUST be the undisputed "truth". 

It MUST ALL be true, because a kid calling himself "Truth Warrior" saw it on the internet and posted it.  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! 

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? 

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.

----------


## Deborah K

> *And the title of this thread is ...................*
> 
> *Repeat: Get a clue.*


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". 
> 
> *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.  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! 
> 
> *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!
> ...


*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** quote some of the founding fathers whose words seem to indicate faith in Jesus Christ. But many quoted were* *Freemasons** 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**, 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**. 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*

*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*  
_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/Foundin..._Religion.html

Religious affiliation of the Presidents: 

Washington: http://www.adherents.com/people/pw/G...ashington.html
Jefferson:  http://www.adherents.com/people/pj/T...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*  
> _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?*
> ...


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/showthr...92#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..._Stiles_1.html

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&s...+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.

----------


## 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." 
> ...


*"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....."_ 
> ...


*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? $#@! 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? $#@! 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 $#@!ed 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 $#@! 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 $#@! 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 $#@! 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.  )*

*"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.  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)
[h5]"Abraham Intercedes for Sodom[/h5]
*22(U) So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham(V)23Then Abraham drew near and said,(W) "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) so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you!(Y) Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" 26And the LORD said,(Z) "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) "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) "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.... 




> 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)
> [h5]"Abraham Intercedes for Sodom[/h5]
> *22(U) So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham(V)23Then Abraham drew near and said,(W) "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) so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you!(Y) Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" 26And the LORD said,(Z) "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) "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) "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. 
> 
> ...

----------


## 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 3:9*_And 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.

----------


## DamianTV

I just cant help but to post this:

----------


## 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

[h4]Romans 13, v. 1-7 (KJV)[/h4] 
*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
> ...


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*


.

----------


## Conservative Christian

*"Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants."

--William Penn*


.

----------


## Conservative Christian

*"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

--James Madison*


.

----------


## Conservative Christian

*"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 of the Gift of 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, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

--Thomas Jefferson*


.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> *"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* .


*And not to forget to mention, the quite a few pagan religion Freemason dupes also.*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> *"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* .


*Age of Reason* (1794, 1796)

----------


## Truth Warrior

> *"Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants."*
> 
> *--William Penn* .


*Mox nix and moot point.* 
[h4]Romans 13, v. 1-7 (KJV)[/h4]

*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.*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> *"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."*
> 
> *--James Madison* .


*Was Madison Jewish?  What about the Jesus commandments? *

----------


## Truth Warrior

> *"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 of the Gift of 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, that His justice cannot sleep forever."*
> 
> *--Thomas Jefferson* .


*THOMAS JEFFERSON ON CHRISTIANITY & RELIGION*
*http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm*

----------


## Conservative Christian

*"Principally, and first of all, I resign my soul to the Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying on the merits of Jesus Christ for the pardon of my sins."

--Samuel Adams*


.

----------


## Conservative Christian

*"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

--John Quincy Adams*


.

----------


## Conservative Christian

*"A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian; that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

--Thomas Jefferson*


.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> *"A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian; that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."*
> 
> *--Thomas Jefferson* .


*"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -  Mahatma Gandhi*

----------


## Conservative Christian

*"Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."

--John Adams*


.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Here you will find 10 sayings of Jesus that I have collected together. Finding quotable passages from Jesus was not that easy, as most of what is recorded of what he said (in the gospel books: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are either metaphorical stories, or Jesus responding to particular questions that had been put to him. Neither work very well when taken out of context.
Of the more direct teachings of Jesus, most of them are contained in what is known as _the sermon on the mount_, which is a veritable goldmine of counter-cultural wisdom.
[h3]1. Love Your Enemies![/h3]
OK, you have to admit this is a pretty radical concept...
*“You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else?* (Matthew 5:43-47 )
[h3]2. Don't Worry About The Future[/h3]

Sometimes insightful sayings seem obvious once you hear them - I think that is the case here. Live in the moment you're in! *“So don’t worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Today’s trouble is enough for today.* (Matthew 6:34)
[h3]3. How To Treat Others[/h3]
*“Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets.* (Matthew 7:12)
[h3]4. The Most Important Commandment[/h3]
“Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?”
Jesus replied, *“‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”* (Matthew 22:36-40)
[h3]5. Spiritual Greatness[/h3]
In the topsy-turvy world of the _Kingdom of God_ it seems the usual understanding of things is reversed. Here is yet another example:
*“You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many.”* (Mark 10:42-45)
[h3]6. Gaining The World, Losing Your Soul[/h3]
Here Jesus highlights that the eternal and spiritual dimension is more important than the temporal physical one. Those who choose to follow His teaching will make physical sacrifices for spiritual rewards.
Then, calling the crowd to join his disciples, he said, *“If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me. If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake and for the sake of the Good News, you will save it. And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my message in these adulterous and sinful days, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that person when he returns in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”* (Mark 8:34-38)
[h3]7. The Kingdom Of God Is Not Physical[/h3]
Christian faith should not be militant, things like the crusades were not in line with what Jesus taught, or even the concept of christendom. He also taught that the _Kingdom of God_ was in the hearts of men.
The statement below was said in response to questioning in his trial before the roman govenor.
*“My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.”* (John 18:36)
[h3]8. God Loves Everyone[/h3]
This very well known passage is actually a quote from Jesus.
*“For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.* (John 3:16-17)
[h3]9. Ask, Seek, Knock[/h3]
*“And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.* (Luke 11:9-10)
[h3]10. His Claim To Be God[/h3]
While it seems Jesus didn't make a point of telling everyone that he was God, he did make it clear on a few recorded occasions. This quote is taken from Jesus' court trial, from which the resulting conviction of 'blasphemy' led to his crucifixion.
I include this quote, not because it's a great teaching, but because it affects how one perceives his teaching. It's hard to think of Jesus as [just] a good moral teacher when you know that he thought himself to be God. Either he is a weirdo, or he _is_ God!
Then the high priest said to him, “I demand in the name of the living God—tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
*Jesus replied, “You have said it. And in the future you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God’s right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven.”* (Matthew 26:63-64)

*http://rosskendall.com/blog/faith/10-great-quotes-from-jesus-of-nazareth*

----------


## Conservative Christian

*"The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty. A student's perusal of the sacred volume will make him a better citizen, a better father, a better husband."

--Thomas Jefferson*


.

----------


## Conservative Christian

*"The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests." 

--Andrew Jackson*


.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*The Libertarian From Nazareth? by Bill Butler*

----------


## Truth Warrior

*"If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be – a Christian." ~ Mark Twain*

----------


## Truth Warrior

*The World's Most Dangerous Book*
*http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1716356#post1716356*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *"Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."
> 
> --John Adams*
> 
> 
> .


Throughout this thread, you've neglected to mention that the men you've quoted were deists, not Christians per se in the modern sense.  They accepted the logic and philosophical teachings of Christ, but not the corrupt religions that later grew around those teachings.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> Throughout this thread, you've neglected to mention that the men you've quoted were deists, not Christians per se in the modern sense.  They accepted the logic and philosophical teachings of Christ, but not the corrupt religions that later grew around those teachings.


If you honestly believe what you've posted above, then you're simply a biased fool who believes only what you want to. No flame intended, just the plain truth.

*George Washington's Sacred Fire

by Peter Lillback

http://www.amazon.com/George-Washing...7296781&sr=1-1



"Secular historians ignore George Washington's ward Nelly Custis, who wrote that doubting his Christian faith was as absurd as doubting his patriotism. But they cannot ignore this mountain of evidence suggesting Washington's religion was not deism, but just the sort of low-church Anglicanism one would expect in an eighteenth century Virginia gentleman. His 'sacred fire' lit America's path toward civil and religious liberty."---Walter A. McDougall, Pulitzer Prize-winning author, University of Pennsylvania

"Dr. Lillback burries the myth that Washington was an unbeliever - at most a "deist" - under an avalanche of facts."---Robert P. George, Princeton University

"An enlightening, engaging, and long overdue correction of the falsehood that Washington lacked faith."---Rodney Stark, Baylor University*


.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Thomas Paines
_Origin of Free-Masonry_ 
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/history/paine_t.html

----------


## Conservative Christian

From George Washington's hand-written prayer journals:

*"O MOST GLORIOUS GOD, in Jesus Christ my merciful & loving father, I acknowledge and confess my guilt, in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day.  I have called on thee for pardon and forgiveness of sins, but so coldly & carelessly, that my prayers are become my sin and stand in need of pardon.  I have heard thy holy word, but with such deadness of spirit that I have been an unprofitable and forgetful hearer, so that, O Lord, tho' I have done thy work, yet it hath been so negligently that I may rather expect a curse than a blessing from thee.  But, O God, who art rich in mercy and plenteous in redemption, mark not, I beseech thee, what I have done amiss; remember I am but dust, and remit my transgressions, negligences & ignorances, and cover them all with the absolute obedience of thy dear Son, that those sacrifices which I have offered may be accepted by thee, in and for the sacrifice Jesus Christ offered upon the cross for me; for his sake, ease me of the burden of my sins, and give me grace that by the call of the gospel I may rise from the slumber of sin unto newness of life.  Let me live according to those holy rules which thou hast this day prescribed in thy holy word; make me to know what is acceptable in thy sight and therein to delight.  Open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith and repentance.  Increase my faith, and direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the way, the truth and the life.  Bless, O Lord, all the people of this land, from the highest to the lowest, particularly those whom thou hast appointed to rule over us in church & state.  Continue thy goodness to me this night.  These weak petitions I humbly implore thee to hear, accept and answer for the sake of thy dear Son Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen."*


.

----------


## Conservative Christian

*"We Recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!" 

John Adams and John Hancock
April 18, 1775*


.

----------


## Theocrat

> Thomas Paines
> _Origin of Free-Masonry_ 
> http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/history/paine_t.html


Read this, my friend.

----------


## Conservative Christian

*"I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me."

Alexander Hamilton*


.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Read this, my friend.


 *At 183 pages, I think that I'll just have to add it to my list for sometime, my friend.* 

*No conflicts of interest for Christian AND Freemason for you, huh?*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> *"I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me."*
> 
> *Alexander Hamilton* .


*Its Time To End Hamiltons Curse by Thomas DiLorenzo*

----------


## Theocrat

> *At 183 pages, I think that I'll just have to add it to my list for sometime, my friend.* 
> 
> *No conflicts of interest for Christian AND Freemason for you, huh?*


There is a conflict of interest between Christianity and Freemasonry. They are incompatible with each other. They are not similar in their creeds, so I hope that's not what you're implying.

----------


## Conservative Christian

*"Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience."

--James McHenry, Signer of the Constitution*


.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> There is a conflict of interest between Christianity and Freemasonry. They are incompatible with each other. They are not similar in their creeds, so I hope that's not what you're implying.


 *NO implication actually, it was just a question. And you answered it correctly.<IMHO>* 

*So all of the good Christian/Freemason founding fathers are legitimate causes for your probable concern, are they not?* 


*http://www.ephesians5-11.org/*

----------


## Truth Warrior

*The Triumph of Imperial Christianity by Laurence M. Vance*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

[quote=Conservative Christian;1836533]*If you honestly believe what you've posted above, then you're simply a biased fool who believes only what you want to. No flame intended, just the plain truth.*

*Your ad hominem attacks do nothing for your cause, sir. * 

See here:

The Christian Nation Myth

There were deists!

----------


## Truth Warrior

[quote=heavenlyboy34;1836653]


> *If you honestly believe what you've posted above, then you're simply a biased fool who believes only what you want to. No flame intended, just the plain truth.*
> 
> *Your ad hominem attacks do nothing for your cause, sir.* 
> 
> See here:
> 
> The Christian Nation Myth
> 
> There were deists!


( Pssst, FYI ... I'm pretty confident that CC is female. Shhhhh!   )

----------


## heavenlyboy34

[quote=Truth Warrior;1836688]


> ( Pssst, FYI ... I'm pretty confident that CC is female. Shhhhh!   )


(Thanks for letting me in on that, TW. Mum's the word! )

----------


## Conservative Christian

From George Washington's hand-written prayer journal:

*"MOST GRACIOUS LORD GOD, from whom proceedeth every good and perfect gift, I offer to thy divine majesty my unfeigned praise & thanksgiving for all thy mercies towards me.  Thou mad'st me at first and hast ever since sustained the work of thy own hand; thou gav'st thy Son to die for me; and hast given me assurance of salvation, upon my repentance and sincerely endeavouring to conform my life to his holy precepts and example.  Thou art pleased to lengthen out to me the time of repentance, and to move me to it by thy spirit and by thy word, by thy mercies, and by thy judgments.  Out of a deepness of thy mercies, and my own unworthiness, I do appear before thee at this time; I have sinned and done very wickedly, be merciful to me, O God, and pardon me for Jesus Christ's sake: instruct me in the particulars of my duty, and suffer me not to be tempted above what thou givest me strength to bear.  Take care, I pray thee of my affairs and more and more direct me in thy truth.  Defend me from my enemies, especially my spiritual ones.  Suffer me not to be drawn from thee, by the blandishments of the world, carnal desires, the cunning of the devil, or deceitfulness of sin.  Work in me thy good will and pleasure, and discharge my mind from all things that are displeasing to thee, of all ill will and discontent, wrath and bitterness, pride & vain conceit of myself, and render me charitable, pure, holy, patient and heavenly minded.  Be with me at the hour of death; dispose me for it, and deliver me from the slavish fear of it, and make me willing and fit to die whenever thou shalt call me hence.  Bless our rulers in church and state.  Bless O Lord the whole race of mankind, and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and thy son Jesus Christ. Pity the sick, the poor, the weak, the needy, the widows and fatherless, and all that mourn or are broken in heart, and be merciful to them according to their several necessities.  Bless my friends and grant me grace to forgive my enemies as heartily as I desire forgiveness of Thee my heavenly Father.  I beseech thee to defend me this night from all evil, and do more for me than I can think or ask, for Jesus Christ's sake, in whose most holy name & words I continue to pray, Our Father, &c."

--George Washington*


.

----------


## Dr.3D

I always find it humorous how people use King James English when praying, as if it were the only language God would understand or listen to.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I always find it humorous how people use King James English when praying, as if it were the only language God would understand or listen to.


 *Yep, like King James was not a REAL $#@!.*

----------


## Dr.3D

> *Yep, like King James was not a REAL $#@!.*


Well, actually, I believe it comes from reading the King James translation of the Bible and sometimes people get confused as to whey the English in it is the way it is and believe it has something to do with how God would speak or understand English.

----------


## Conservative Christian

From George Washington's hand-written 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 hast preserved me from the dangers of the night past, and brought me to the light of this day, and the comforts thereof, a day which is consecrated to thine own service and for thine own honour.  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 dost 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 prayer may come before thee as incense and as I desire 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 & peace to the saving of my 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 hast sent it.  Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God and 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

[h1]George Washington acknowledged the Doctrines of the Illuminati were spreading in United States (in Library of Congress)[/h1]
*http://hubpages.com/hub/Georges_Washington_did_acknowledge_the_Doctrines_o  f_the_Illuminati_was_spreading_in_United_States*

----------


## Conservative Christian

> I always find it humorous how people use King James English when praying, as if it were the only language God would understand or listen to.


Washington was born in 1732. Washington and other educated people of that period wrote and spoke a higher form of English than we use today, whether in their daily lives or during prayer.

It had nothing to do with thinking that was "the only language God would understand".

----------


## Dr.3D

> Washington was born in 1732. Washington and other educated people of that period wrote and spoke a higher form of English than we use today, whether in their daily lives or during prayer.
> 
> It had nothing to do with thinking that was "the only language God would understand".


Guess I should have known that from seeing thee and thou in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> [h1]George Washington acknowledged the Doctrines of the Illuminati were spreading in United States (in Library of Congress)


Yes, and he was STRONGLY OPPOSED to the doctrines of the Illuminati.

Just like their ideological buddy "Truth" Warrior, one of the primary goals of the Illuminati is the total destruction of Christianity.


.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*GEORGE WASHINGTON'S CORRESPONDENCE*
_Did George Washington Tell a Lie?_
*http://watch.pair.com/GW.html*

----------


## Dr.3D

> *GEORGE WASHINGTON'S CORRESPONDENCE*
> _Did George Washington Tell a Lie?_
> *http://watch.pair.com/GW.html*


Humm... read through a lot of those letters and have yet to have seen a thou, thine or thee in one of them.   Must be that "higher" form of English was only used on certain occasions.

----------


## Conservative Christian

Has "Truth" Warrior outed himself? From his own source:

*"The book, written in 1798, details a group forming in Germany in the late 1700s calling themselves the Illuminati who don't want any government or religion."*

Sounds EXACTLY like "Truth" Warrior, who's always railing against government and religion.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*THE GREAT SEAL OF THE UNITED STATES*

On the U.S. dollar bill is displayed the Great Seal of the United States, which contains important symbols of Judeo-Freemasonry: the All-Seeing Eye, the Great Pyramid, the Six-Pointed Star, the Eagle, the phrases Annuit Coeptis and Novus Ordo Seclorum, and the motto E Pluribus Unum. Altogether, the Judeo-Masonic symbolism on the dollar bill reveals in a code the true origins and destiny of the United States.






Manley P. Hall wrote in _The Secret Teachings of All Ages_ that the United States was dedicated to fulfillment of the Judeo-Masonic (Zionist) agenda from the day of its inception: 
"The Great Seal is the signature of this exalted body [a secret body existing in Europe] - unseen and for the most part unknown - and the unfinished pyramid upon its reverse side is a trestle board setting forth the task to the accomplishment of which the United States Government was dedicated from the day of its inception." (19)A British Israel website, Straight Talk, explains the hidden Zionist symbols of the Obverse and Reverse sides of the Great Seal: 
"E. Raymond Capt, in his booklet, 'Our Great Seal says: The Great Seal given to our country, after years of laborious heraldic and symbolic study, reveals our true national origin and destiny. *The Obverse face is Israel in the Old Testament; The Reverse face is our race under the New Covenant.* Each face is a masterly harmony of all that is potent in symbolism and prophecy. It was originated and adopted by men who recognized the overshadowing presence of the Great Architect of the Universe and submission to His will as revealed in the Scriptures and the Laws of Nature. They planned a government in conformity to His great Plan. They recognized that America's greatest task was to go toward the goal of the Plan -- the eventual establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth."In Judeo-Masonic numerology, the number 13 has enormous significance. For this reason, the many symbols in the Great Seal were composed of 13 units, as described by Manley P. Hall, founder of the Philosophical Research Society: 
"The significance of the mystical number 13, which frequently appears upon the Great Seal of the United States, is not limited to the number of the original colonies. The sacred emblem of the ancient initiates, here composed of 13 stars, also appears above the head of the 'eagle.' The motto, E Pluribus Unum, contains 13 letters, as does also the inscription, Annuit Coeptis. The 'eagle' clutches in its right talon a branch bearing 13 leaves and 13 berries and in its left a sheaf of 13 arrows. The face of the pyramid, exclusive of the panel containing the date, consists of 72 stones arranged in 13 rows. MPH" The British-Israel Straight Talk, explains that the number 13 refers to Jacob's (Israel's) blessing upon his sons in Genesis 49. The 12 Tribes of Israel became 13 when Joseph's inheritance was divided between his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh: "It must be remembered the Manasseh is the thirteenth tribe. Ephraim moved into Joseph's place and Manasseh was added to the twelve." 
"...Most of the symbols used by the tribes of Jacob's descendents are derived from the blessings and prophecies that were given to his sons in Genesis 49... Although Joseph's two sons Ephraim and Manasseh are not listed, we know from other sources that Ephraim and Manasseh each had two symbols. Ephraim used the Ox primarily and the Unicorn was his secondary symbol. Manasseh's primary symbol is an Olive Branch, while his second symbol is a Bundle of Arrows. *It must be remembered the Manasseh is the thirteenth tribe. Ephraim moved into Joseph's place and Manasseh was added to the twelve*... "It will be found that the Great Seal of the United States contains ten features of thirteen. And given that some sixteen drafts, over a time period of 159 years through which the seal was constructed, it makes coincidence impossible as an explanation for those 13's. I know that the easy answer to the fact of all these thirteens is that there were thirteen original colonies, but this surface explanation doesn't fit all the evidence. When the facts of the United States and the Great Seal are viewed in the context of the whole Lost Tribes teaching, it obviously fits like it belonged. The 'coincidence' of there being thirteen colonies doesn't add a whit to the total picture unless it is taken to be part of the [Lost Tribes] material. Finally in 1935 the final die was cut for the seal that we see on the one dollar bill today."The obverse, or front, side of the Seal as proposed by Thomas Jefferson was to show the Israelites being led by the Pillar of Cloud and of Fire. Benjamin Franklin suggested the event of Pharaoh's drowning in the Red Sea. The Harp of David was included in three early designs, while the number of olives and leaves did not settle to thirteen each until late in the nineteenth century."13 Courses of the Pyramid = 13 Tribes of Israel

The standard interpretation of the Pyramid on the Great Seal is that the 13 courses represent the 13 colonies of the United States. But do they really? Take a close look at the following drawing of "The Distribution of the Land of Israel During the Millennium" and compare the 13 divisions according to the Tribes of Israel with the unfinished Pyramid on the Great Seal. These illustrations provide stunning evidence that the various and sundry "13s" on our Great Seal symbolize the 13 Tribes of Israel, as stated by the British Israelite author. As well, that the unfinished Great Pyramid of Egypt is a structural symbol of "Eretz Israel" (Greater Israel) which will extend from the Nile River to the Euphrates River!  








Analyzing the Great Seal with this new information presented us with the following interpretation: 
The *Great Pyramid* represents Eretz Israel or Greater Israel, allegedly during the Millennium, but also the false fulfillment of Bible prophecy by the Zionists. The Great Pyramid has 144,000 stones. The detached *Capstone* of the Pyramid represents Lucifer who, in the person of the Antichrist, will preside over Eretz Israel during the Millennium. The *All-Seeing Eye* in the Capstone is the Eye of Horus, the Egyptian Sun God who will be reincarnated as the False Messiah of Eretz Israel. "*Annuit Coeptis*" has 13 letters and is Latin for "He (God) has favored our undertakings." "*Novus Ordo Seclorum*," is translated "A New Order of the Ages" when the world will be ruled from by the False Messiah from Israel. 

"*E Pluribus Unum,*" which also has 13 letters, means "Out of Many, One." This is a reference to God's Millennial promises to the dispersed tribes: 
". . . in the latter years thou shalt come into the land _that is_ brought back from the sword, _and is_ gathered *out of many* people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them. . . Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which _is_ in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, _even_ with the stick of Judah, and make them *one* stick, and they shall be *one* in mine hand." (Ezek. 38:8; 37:19) 

*In God We Trust* over the word "*ONE*" expresses the Jews' rejection of Jesus Christ which they erroneously derive from Deuteronomy. 6:4: Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One. The *6-Pointed Star* consisting of *13 stars* represents the "Star of David" which is really the Seal of Solomon, a pagan symbol which will be the Mark of the Beast in Rev. 13:16. The emblem of the *Eagle* was substituted for the Serpent by the Tribe of Dan, from which the False Messiah will come: 

"Dan's position in the journey was on the North of the Tabernacle, with Asher and Naphtali. The standard of the tribe was of white and red and the crest upon it an eagle. . .Jacob had compared Dan to a serpent. Ahiezer substituted the eagle, the destroyer of serpents, as he shrank from carrying an adder upon his flag." [Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 273]
The *13 arrows* in the left claw of the Eagle represent the 13 tribes of Israel fomenting wars and revolutions throughout the world. In its right claw, the Eagle carries an *Olive Branch* which has *13 leaves*. The Olive Tree represents the House of Israel and House of Judah (Is. 17:6, 23:14, Jer.11:16, Rom. 11). The 13 leaves represent the 13 tribes of Israel and Judah. Thus the numerous "13s" found in the Great Seal, as identified by Manly P. Hall, really represent the 13 tribes of Israel, although Hall would never divulge that very esoteric interpretation. The reason for the omission is found in Fritz Springmeier's book, The Top 13 Illuminati Bloodlines, which briefly mentions that Marie Bauer Hall was the wife of Manly P. Hall: 
"... Manly P. Hall whose wife was a Bauer (very likely part of the Rothschild bloodline.)" (p.43)Based on this new information, which has been withheld from the Gentile world, it becomes apparent that the Great Seal of the United States reveals in a symbolic code the quest of the Zionist Jews to return to and conquer the Holy Land which God originally gave them, but which they forfeited through their rejection of the true Messiah, Jesus Christ. Moreover, the Great Seal reveals that they are using the United States of America and to reestablish the kingdom of Israel from which their Antichrist, a descendant of King Solomon, will rule the world. A timeline of this Zionist conspiracy is presented in our report, Heeding Bible Prophecy: New Israel. The Judeo-Masonic Plan for the final stages of the Zionist conspiracy is the subject of another report, Death of the Phoenix: Final Act for the United States of America.

http://watch.pair.com/mason.html

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Has "Truth" Warrior outed himself? From his own source:
> 
> *"The book, written in 1798, details a group forming in Germany in the late 1700s calling themselves the Illuminati who don't want any government or religion."*
> 
> Sounds EXACTLY like "Truth" Warrior, who's always railing against government and religion.


*The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action*
*http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html*


*"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."*

----------


## Conservative Christian

Don't really know what the design of the current U.S. paper dollar has to do with George Washington and other Founding Fathers being Christians. 

It wasn't designed and issued until well after Washington's death. He had nothing to do with it.

In fact, Washington and most of the other Founding Fathers opposed the issuance of paper money:

*"No state shall... make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts"

--Article 1, section 10 of the United States Constitution.*


.

----------


## Conservative Christian

"Truth" Warrior reveals his true hand. Why am I not surprised that he's railing against "Zionist conspiracies".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Knowing Washington's Masonic ties, the words he used in this probably had allegorical meanings. 




> From George Washington's hand-written 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 hast preserved me from the dangers of the night past, and brought me to the light of this day, and the comforts thereof, a day which is consecrated to thine own service and for thine own honour.  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 dost 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 prayer may come before thee as incense and as I desire 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 & peace to the saving of my 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 hast sent it.  Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God and 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*
>  
> 
> .

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Don't really know what the design of the current U.S. paper dollar has to do with George Washington and other Founding Fathers being Christians. 
> 
> It wasn't designed and issued until well after Washington's death. He had nothing to do with it.
> 
> In fact, Washington and most of the other Founding Fathers opposed the issuance of paper money:
> 
> *"No state shall... make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts"
> 
> --Article 1, section 10 of the United States Constitution.*
> ...


The colonies issued debt-free paper money, printed by the individual states to be used as legal tender-backed by gold.  The federalists later enacted legal tender laws and prohibited the use of gold for money.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> "Truth" Warrior reveals his true hand. Why am I not surprised that he's railing against "Zionist conspiracies".


 *I suppose that must make you a booster and a Zionist, like the Rothschilds and the Trotskyite Neo-cons.  * 

*Member of AIPAC?*









The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that *a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson*  and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W.W. *The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States  only on a far bigger and broader basis.* 
Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in _F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945_, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), pg. 373.*BTW, FDR AND House BOTH 33rd Degree Freemasons. *

----------


## Conservative Christian

> Knowing Washington's Masonic ties, the words he used in this probably had allegorical meanings.


Another pathetic and failed attempt by unheavenlyboy to refute the painfully obvious. You're in denial. My earlier post about you was dead on the money.

I know Masons who are very devout Christians.

You and "Truth" Warrior live in a paranoid fantasy world where all Masons are "Zionist conspirators" who march in lockstep with every tenet of Freemasonry.

Freemasonry was actually quite common in the "Bible Belt" South. It was off to the lodge on Friday or Saturday night, then off to the Southern Baptist Church on Sunday.

Roy Rogers was a devout Christian and Mason. Is he one of the "evil conspirators" that "Truth" Warrior speaks of?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Another pathetic and failed attempt by unheavenlyboy to refute the painfully obvious. You're in denial. My earlier post about you was dead on the money.
> 
> I know Masons who are very devout Christians.
> 
> You and "Truth" Warrior live in a paranoid fantasy world where all Masons are "Zionist conspirators" who march in lockstep with every tenet of Freemasonry.
> 
> Freemasonry was actually quite common in the "Bible Belt" South. It was off to the lodge on Friday or Saturday night, then off to the Southern Baptist Church on Sunday.
> 
> Roy Rogers was a devout Christian and Mason. Is he one of the "evil conspirators" that "Truth" Warrior speaks of?


*You just keep on making this silly crap up. Isn't there a Commandment about bearing false witness that you just might want to be concerned with?  I have NEVER indicted nor accused all Freemasons. Almost always JUST the ones above the Scottish Rite 32nd Degree.  That is where the other secret society within the secret society "bad guys" now hide, abide and conspire.  The "good old boys" in the South haven't really got even a clue, by design. * 

*Nor do you, BTW.*

*The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. 
**John F. Kennedy
*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Another pathetic and failed attempt by unheavenlyboy to refute the painfully obvious. You're in denial. My earlier post about you was dead on the money.
> 
> I know Masons who are very devout Christians.
> 
> You and "Truth" Warrior live in a paranoid fantasy world where all Masons are "Zionist conspirators" who march in lockstep with every tenet of Freemasonry.
> 
> Freemasonry was actually quite common in the "Bible Belt" South. It was off to the lodge on Friday or Saturday night, then off to the Southern Baptist Church on Sunday.
> 
> Roy Rogers was a devout Christian and Mason. Is he one of the "evil conspirators" that "Truth" Warrior speaks of?


Another pathetic and failed attempt to indict me for being "in denial".  Your post about me earlier was not "dead on the money"-it was absurd and fallacious.   I know there are Christians who are masons (such as W.A. Mozart), but as TW said, I speak of a very specific group.  IMO, zionism is something different from freemasonry.  I don't know where you came up with that.  

If you refuse to accept that some people are manipulative, cruel, and justify this behavior on religious grounds at the same time, I submit that *you* are in fact in denial.  Your post was not very well thought out at all.  Want to try again?

----------


## Conservative Christian

> The colonies issued debt-free paper money, printed by the individual states to be used as legal tender-backed by gold.  The federalists later enacted legal tender laws and prohibited the use of gold for money.


Which, even if true, does absolutely nothing to change the fact that Washington opposed the issuance of paper money, and played a key role in ensuring that the Constitution was worded to stipulate that ONLY gold and silver coin be used.

Washington opposed the idea of a central bank, and opposed the goals of the Illuminati.

One of the primary goals of the Illuminati was to destroy Christianity, a goal they have in common with "Truth" Warrior.

True Freemasonry has no problem with religion. In fact, belief in a supreme being, though not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God, was an original requirement of membership.

The Illuminati, like "Truth" Warrior, opposes belief in a supreme being, ESPECIALLY the Judeo-Christian God.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> Another pathetic and failed attempt to indict me for being "in denial".  Your post about me earlier was not "dead on the money"-it was absurd and fallacious.   I know there are Christians who are masons (such as W.A. Mozart), but as TW said, I speak of a very specific group.  IMO, zionism is something different from freemasonry.  I don't know where you came up with that.  
> 
> If you refuse to accept that some people are manipulative, cruel, and justify this behavior on religious grounds at the same time, I submit that *you* are in fact in denial.  Your post was not very well thought out at all.  Want to try again?


Your above post is FURTHER PROOF I'M DEAD ON THE MONEY ABOUT YOU.

I was referring to you being in denial about Washington being a Christian, ignorantly proclaiming his CHRISTIAN PRAYERS to be "probably allegorical". You're a hoot! 

You disbelieve the HAND-WRITTEN PRAYERS of the man himself, on file at the national archives, but you'll believe poppycock articles written by "internet experts" who support your historical revisionism.

Oh, by the way, Washington was a Freemason LONG BEFORE the Order of the Illuminati was founded on May 1st, 1776 in Bavaria.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> The "good old boys" in the South haven't really got even a clue, by design.


Washington was a Freemason LONG BEFORE the Illuminati was founded in BAVARIA on May 1st, 1776.  




> Nor do you, BTW.


The pot "Truth" Warrior calling the kettle black! 


.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Washington was a Freemason LONG BEFORE the Illuminati was founded in BAVARIA on May 1st, 1776. 
> 
> *So George just joined a pagan Druid origin organization, per Thomas Paine. That sure doesn't sound any to Christian-like to me.*
> 
> 
> The pot "Truth" Warrior calling the kettle black! 
> 
> *Well I can only give you the information, reading it or not reading it is totally your choice. Some folks just seem to really enjoy flaunting and wallowing in their abysmal ignorance and stupidity. You seem to have merely chosen to be and remain just another one of those types. Your numbers are legion.*


 *I believe that quite a surprise is now quickly heading your way.* 

*Enjoy!*

*Good luck!*

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Looking at Freemasonry* _through Christian Glasses_ 
_http://www.ephesians5-11.org/pdf/glasses.pdf_

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Your above post is FURTHER PROOF I'M DEAD ON THE MONEY ABOUT YOU.
> 
> I was referring to you being in denial about Washington being a Christian, ignorantly proclaiming his CHRISTIAN PRAYERS to be "probably allegorical". You're a hoot! 
> 
> You disbelieve the HAND-WRITTEN PRAYERS of the man himself, on file at the national archives, but you'll believe poppycock articles written by "internet experts" who support your historical revisionism.
> 
> Oh, by the way, Washington was a Freemason LONG BEFORE the Order of the Illuminati was founded on May 1st, 1776 in Bavaria.



To the contrary, your post proves your continuing willful ignorance about me.  I never said Washington's prayers were allegorical.  The scriptures themselves are.  The prayers you speak of, in Washington's case are an example of the spiritual aspect of deism.  (See this for more-the article contains a bibliography and attributions that you can check at your library) 

FYI, I did not arrive at my conclusions by reading what you call "internet experts".  I have a local library and a set of Grolier reference books that I utilize frequently.  Again, your arrogance and ignorance has caused you to resort to ad hominem fallacies.

You're a hoot too.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Theocracy?*
*How the GOP* 
*Became God's Own Party*

*Kevin Phillips*

[COMMENT: I added "Theocracy" to the title above, as that is the underlying issue.

Has the GOP become, in any real sense of the word, God's own party? Test your wits, Christian or otherwise, on this one. What are the dangers of a theocracy, and how are the dangers of rule by God different from the dangers from rule by politicians?

My following commentary puts a Biblical preface on Phillips' article below. 

*Theocracy vs. Churchocracy*

A theocracy means 'rule under the law of God', a government under God,. A churchocracy is a government run by one church or another. Those are two quite different things. A churchocracy is subject to all the same dangers of power struggle as any political party. God is not subject to power struggle. 
The question is whether civil law could contradict the law of God. Most jurists and politicians on both sides of the 1700's Atlantic thought it could not, for the simple reason that human beings have no authority, only power, and that _all_ authority originates in God, or it does not originate at all. That was not a deeply contested issue in America, and not by Wm. Blackstone, the primary English jurist.

From the Biblical point of view, the roles of Church and State are parallel but different. Both belong to God (because the whole of creation belongs to Him), but they are not to interfere in each others role unless there are clear issues of usurpation or abuse. History has shown examples of both.

Phillips does not distinguish between God running the government (through the will of believers voting or through personal prayer on the part of the elected leadership) and a particular church controlling government, and so undercuts much of the value of his article.

People raise fears about God running things, with images of nefarious clergy shoving religion down everyone's throats. The same people do not raise fears about political parties shoving their politics down everyone's throats. By a very _large_ margin, more people have been killed by secular governments than by any form of religion, Biblical or otherwise. And politicians, in the name of compassion and pluralism, are now shoving religion and politics and morality down the throats of persons in America in ways that would have shocked any of the contenders of the 18th century. 

*Coercive Force -- the Real Problem* 

The problem is not God or religion, but coercive force -- which is what civil government is all about. The issue is how to restrain the use of coercive force so that it will be used for the benefit, not the abuse, of the people.

When churches run government, they run the same gamut of problems as when political parties run government, and for the same reasons. People with power let it go to their heads. Government is all about power. Government does everything at gun point -- though you do not see the gun unless you break the law. 

That is why our American founding fathers insisted on a limited government. There are only a limited number of things which ought to be coerced. Neither religion nor education should be on that list because both of them form the hearts, minds, and culture of the people. And both, under the domain of coercive force, will soon become mind-control institutions, not institutions for freedom.

The American Constitution (and English Common Law, upon which American law is largely based) were designed to put the use of coercive force under the law of God, the _only_ safe place for it to reside -- as the Declaration of Independence notes.

The Christian religion is built on freedom from top to bottom. God is building a Kingdom of Heaven, into which He invites us by way of a freewill covenant. A freewill covenant requires the full disclosure of the terms of the covenant and the introduction of the members of the community. Only then are potential participants rationally free to choose -- Yes or No. That is what revelation is all about -- God introducing Himself and His law (the terms of the covenant). An entirely rational procedure. God wants in His Kingdom only those who want to be there, so He gives and respects our capacity to say No.

The problem is that God has all the life there is (eternal or temporary), so if we choose No, then we alienate ourselves from life. The judgement is by ourselves on ourselves (as in John 3:19). 

Neither Greek politics nor the secular Enlightenment could have produced the American Constitution, as we are told by secularists. They have no authority above civil government to which that government is accountable, and are thus a law unto themselves -- the very meaning of autocracy. Christians have often violated their own principles, but the historical fact is that the Bible has been, by far in human history, the primary inspiration for the growth both of freedom and of education (the truth sets us free...). The only worldview known to mankind which consistently supports human freedom and honest education is the Biblical worldview (see two articles on slavery: 1 & 2). Freedom in the Bible is not only permitted, it is mandated.

So the issue is not merely about the "dangers of theocracy", but -- whether we can survive as a free and civilized people _without_ the rule of God. A theocracy is a danger only if the deity involved is less than that of the Bible. Islam is an example of a theology which, by its very nature, cannot sustain freedom. 

*A Godly Political Party*

If all authority comes from God, and if thus the Declaration is right, then it follows as a logical fact that secular folks who want a free people under a free government can have what they want only at the cost of something they are not willing to grant -- the sovereignty of God.

No party has succeeded in doing it, but there is one way a political party can become "God's party". And that is by adopting God's strategy and plan for human government, by adopting the way God governs in human affairs.

The first principle of anything God does is that it must be based on truth. As in, "Come, let us reason together..." (Isaiah 1:18). Or as illustrated by Elijah, several centuries (ca. 900 BC) on Mount Carmel, putting his whole case to an open, honest test of logic and fact (I Kings 18:17 ff.).

The second two principles are given in the two Great Commandments, the two highest laws of the whole cosmos: Love God and neighbor. Love is not emotionalism or soft or mushy. Love is tough, (1) based on truth (see #1 above...), and, (2) based on willingness to lay down one's life for God and neighbor, which includes willingness to speak the hard truth when necessary, and to discipline.

Biblical government, therefore, does not enforce belief in any religion, it rather enforces open, honest public debate on all political issues. And that is what our American Constitution was written to ensure. God, as He instructed Elijah, and is illustrated throughout the Bible, is content to win His case in that open contest.

See Michael Peroutka on Biblical government, and also the nature of honest pluralism (scroll down to "4. Honest Pluralism". See also Jesus & Pluralism. Do a search on 'pluralism' at the Road to Emmaus search page. Further comments below in text. E. Fox]

Sunday, April 2, 2006; Page B03 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040100004.html?referrer=emailarticle

----------


## Conservative Christian

> To the contrary, your post proves your continuing willful ignorance about me.  I never said Washington's prayers were allegorical.  The scriptures themselves are.  The prayers you speak of, in Washington's case are an example of the spiritual aspect of deism.  (See this for more-the article contains a bibliography and attributions that you can check at your library) 
> 
> FYI, I did not arrive at my conclusions by reading what you call "internet experts".  I have a local library and a set of Grolier reference books that I utilize frequently.  Again, your arrogance and ignorance has caused you to resort to ad hominem fallacies.
> 
> You're a hoot too.


Your OBVIOUSLY BIASED source is IRRELEVANT.

You think I'm going to believe the GARBAGE posted by the "World Union of Deists"?!, who OBVIOUSLY are going to try and claim Washington as one of their own.

That's EXACTLY one of the internet poppycock articles I was talking about. You ONCE AGAIN PROVE that I'm absolutely right about you. 

Who died and made the "World Union of Deists" the world authority on the religious beliefs of George Washington? They're naturally going to try to claim Washington as one of their own, in a vain attempt to make themselves seem important.


.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> *Theocracy?*
> *How the GOP* 
> *Became God's Own Party*
> 
> *Kevin Phillips*
> 
> [COMMENT: I added "Theocracy" to the title above, as that is the underlying issue.
> 
> Has the GOP become, in any real sense of the word, God's own party? Test your wits, Christian or otherwise, on this one. What are the dangers of a theocracy, and how are the dangers of rule by God different from the dangers from rule by politicians?
> ...


Not sure what "Truth" Warrior's point in posting this is, but I actually agree with much of it, since it supports much of what I've been saying. 

Please make special note of the parts in enlarged red font.


.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Your OBVIOUSLY BIASED source is IRRELEVANT.
> 
> You think I'm going to believe the GARBAGE posted by the "World Union of Deists"?!, who OBVIOUSLY are going to try and claim Washington as one of their own.
> 
> That's EXACTLY one of the internet poppycock articles I was talking about. You ONCE AGAIN PROVE that I'm absolutely right about you. 
> 
> Who died and made the "World Union of Deists" the world authority on the religious beliefs of George Washington? They're naturally going to try to claim Washington as one of their own, in a vain attempt to make themselves seem important.
> .


You conveniently overlooked where I said "FYI, I did not arrive at my conclusions by reading what you call 'internet experts'. I have a local library and a set of Grolier reference books that I utilize frequently."  The source I cited (and you "criticized") was supplemental.  Once again, you are wrong.  

Since you cite the English translation of the bible as a source, you are also making faulty assumptions.  The NIV and KJV are often misleading in thier translations of words (such as improperly translating the pronoun "you").  Unless you translated the Hebrew and Aramaic texts yourself, you are simply relying on words filtered through censorship committees like the Council of Trent.  So, who made _you_ anauthority on linguistics and religious history?

----------


## Conservative Christian

> You conveniently overlooked where I said "FYI, I did not arrive at my conclusions by reading what you call 'internet experts'. I have a local library and a set of Grolier reference books that I utilize frequently."  The source I cited (and you "criticized") was supplemental.  Once again, you are wrong.  
> 
> Since you cite the English translation of the bible as a source, you are also making faulty assumptions.  The NIV and KJV are often misleading in thier translations of words (such as improperly translating the pronoun "you").  Unless you translated the Hebrew and Aramaic texts yourself, you are simply relying on words filtered through censorship committees like the Council of Trent.  So, who made _you_ anauthority on linguistics and religious history?


Once again, YOU ARE WRONG!  

I NEVER claimed that the World Deist Site was your ONLY source, NOR did I claim that you arrived at your conclusions SOLELY because of the World Deist site.

Your STRAW MAN fails miserably! 

However, regardless of your irrelevant protestations, you DID cite it as a source. And your source is obviously flawed, just like your "thinking".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Once again, YOU ARE WRONG!  
> 
> I NEVER claimed that the World Deist Site was your ONLY source, NOR did I claim that you arrived at your conclusions SOLELY because of the World Deist site.
> 
> Your STRAW MAN fails miserably! 
> 
> However, regardless of your irrelevant protestations, you DID cite it as a source. And your source is obviously flawed, just like your "thinking".


More shallow ad hominems and vacuous points.    I guess I should expect this from you now.  I expected more from an RPFer, I really did.   I rather hate to win this way...it's kinda like beating up a girl.  I guess I'll have to live with it.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> The prayers you speak of, in Washington's case are an example of the spiritual aspect of deism.  (See this


heavenlyboy's own source soundly refutes him.

According to the World Union of Deists---deists CLEARLY REJECT Christ and Christianity, as well as any other REVEALED RELIGION.

However, Washington's prayers make reference to Christ as "the Son of God", "redeemer" etc.  Washington repeatedly prays to Christ for forgiveness of his sins.

Deists, by heavenlyboy's own source, STEADFASTLY REJECT Christ as "the son of God" etc.---and would NEVER pray to Him.

There's no historical record of a REAL DEIST like Thomas Paine praying to Christ and praying to God the Father in Christ's name. However, George Washington DID pray to Christ, and in Christ's name---which excludes him from being a deist, by the World Union of Deist's own stated criteria for being a deist.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> More shallow ad hominems and vacuous points.    I guess I should expect this from you now.  I expected more from an RPFer, I really did.   I rather hate to win this way...it's kinda like beating up a girl.  I guess I'll have to live with it.


You haven't won squat. Simply more proof you believe only what you want, regardless of the facts.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> heavenlyboy's own source soundly refutes him.
> 
> According to the World Union of Deists---deists CLEARLY REJECT Christ and Christianity, as well as any other REVEALED RELIGION.
> 
> However, Washington's prayers make reference to Christ as "the Son of God", "redeemer" etc.  Washington repeatedly prays to Christ for forgiveness of his sins.
> 
> Deists, by heavenlyboy's own source, STEADFASTLY REJECT Christ as "the son of God" etc.---and would NEVER pray to Him.


How does that refute my point?  My point was that he was a deist, not Christian.

From my source:

"Washington, like many people in colonial America,          belonged to the Anglican church and was a vestryman in it. But in early          America, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, you had to belong to          the dominant church if you wanted to have influence in society, as is          illustrated by the following taken from _Old Chruches, Ministers and          Families of Virginia_, by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. "Even Mr.          Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in          Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at          Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of          influence."         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. There is every reason to believe, from a careful          analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that          Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as          deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s          serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting          appearances of the everyday world."
         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 very 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."
*
Also...

http://www.georgewashington-history.com/
*Religious beliefs*

*George Washington was one of the few early American Presidents who was not a total follower of any one specific Christian denomination. He professed a strong belief in God, but did not necessarily believe that God intervened in the world through supernatural miracles. His informal religious beliefs were sometimes described as Deism; although he attended, and served as a vestryman (lay officer) of, the Episcopal Church – of which his wife was a devout member.*

Washington was an early supporter of religious pluralism. In 1790 he wrote that he envisioned a country "which gives bigotry no sanction...persecution no assistance.... May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid." This letter was seen by the Jewish community as a significant event; they felt that for the first time in millennia Jews would enjoy full human and political rights.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You haven't won squat. Simply more proof you believe only what you want, regardless of the facts.


Au contraire. I believe what I can verify. I only disregard false facts and fallacies.  I won.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> How does that refute my point?  My point was that he was a deist, not Christian.


Thomas Paine WAS a deist, and there's no historical record of him ever praying to Christ.

George Washington's hand-written PRIVATE prayer journals (which have been documented to be genuine by the National Archives in Washington), which were NEVER intended for public consumption---contain MANY prayers to Jesus Christ and in the name of Christ---specifically asking for his sins to be forgiven etc.

According to YOUR OWN source, the World Union of Deists---deists do NOT accept Jesus Christ or Christianity in any way, shape or form. Therefore, a TRUE DEIST would NEVER pray to Jesus or in Jesus' name.

Now what don't you get?

----------


## Conservative Christian

> Au contraire. I believe what I can verify. I won.


In a pig's eye.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Thomas Paine WAS a deist, and there's no historical record of him ever praying to Christ.
> 
> George Washington's hand-written PRIVATE prayer journals (which have been documented to be genuine by the National Archives in Washington), which were NEVER intended for public consumption---contain MANY prayers to Jesus Christ and in the name of Christ---specifically asking for his sins to be forgiven etc.
> 
> According to YOUR OWN source, the World Union of Deists---deists do NOT accept Jesus Christ or Christianity in any way, shape or form. Therefore, a TRUE DEIST would NEVER pray to Jesus or in Jesus' name.
> 
> Now what don't you get?


You conveniently skipped over this part: 
*George Washington was one of the few early American Presidents who was not a total follower of any one specific Christian denomination. He professed a strong belief in God, but did not necessarily believe that God intervened in the world through supernatural miracles. His informal religious beliefs were sometimes described as Deism; although he attended, and served as a vestryman (lay officer) of, the Episcopal Church – of which his wife was a devout member.*

Washington was an early supporter of religious pluralism. In 1790 he wrote that he envisioned a country "which gives bigotry no sanction...persecution no assistance.... May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid." This letter was seen by the Jewish community as a significant event; they felt that for the first time in millennia Jews would enjoy full human and political rights.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> In a pig's eye.

----------


## Conservative Christian

*George Washington's Sacred Fire

by Peter Lillback

http://www.amazon.com/George-Washing...7296781&sr=1-1



"Secular historians ignore George Washington's ward Nelly Custis, who wrote that doubting his Christian faith was as absurd as doubting his patriotism. But they cannot ignore this mountain of evidence suggesting Washington's religion was not deism, but just the sort of low-church Anglicanism one would expect in an eighteenth century Virginia gentleman. His 'sacred fire' lit America's path toward civil and religious liberty."---Walter A. McDougall, Pulitzer Prize-winning author, University of Pennsylvania

"Dr. Lillback burries the myth that Washington was an unbeliever - at most a "deist" - under an avalanche of facts."---Robert P. George, Princeton University

"An enlightening, engaging, and long overdue correction of the falsehood that Washington lacked faith."---Rodney Stark, Baylor University*


.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

You know, this thread represents the basic problem with our country. We cannot have a civil discussion without it devolving into ad hominem attacks and acrimony. To those who are self-professed Christians in this thread who've equated Deism with Atheism...STOP! I AM a Deist and I am NOT an Atheist. Its really beginning to hack me off. 

Nothing could sum up more the insanity of perverting the beliefs of one group than what has happened to The Boy Scouts of America. Before 1973, the BSA took NO STAND WHATSOEVER on either the sexual orientation or the religious belief of a Scout. That changed and now the Scouts are justly facing recrimination for the banning of self-professed gay and/or atheist Scouts. 

Furthermore, if this country was founded on Judeo-Christian Principles...SO WHAT? That does NOT give you the right to tell other people how to live their lives. Yes, there has been an organized attack on Christianity in this country by certain leftist leaning Statist groups. They use the Government to bludgeon those they don't agree with. The same crap is done by other Statists on the right to use the government as a bludgeon against those they don't like. STOP BEING PART OF THE PROBLEM! JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE BEING ATTACKED DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO ATTACK OTHERS AS YOU WERE ATTACKED!

To those self-professed Christians in this thread that are part of the problem, STOP using the Government to go after Gay People, Drug Users, Porn Users or any other group you find offensive. YOU ARE NOT YOUR BROTHERS KEEPER! MIND YOUR OWN AFFAIRS! LET US BELIEVE HOW WE WANT TO BELIEVE SO LONG AS WE DON'T AGRESS AGAINST YOU! If your God truly gave you (and by extenion us) Free Will, then by your own freaking beliefs, LET US PRACTICE OUR FREE WILL! If we don't want to believe in the divinity of Christ, LET US!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> you know, this thread represents the basic problem with our country. We cannot have a civil discussion without it devolving into ad hominem attacks and acrimony. To those who are self-professed christians in this thread who've equated deism with atheism...stop! I am a deist and i am not an atheist. Its really beginning to hack me off. 
> 
> Nothing could sum up more the insanity of perverting the beliefs of one group than what has happened to the boy scouts of america. Before 1973, the bsa took no stand whatsoever on either the sexual orientation or the religious belief of a scout. That changed and now the scouts are justly facing recrimination for the banning of self-professed gay and/or atheist scouts. 
> 
> Furthermore, if this country was founded on judeo-christian principles...so what? That does not give you the right to tell other people how to live their lives. Yes, there has been an organized attack on christianity in this country by certain leftist leaning statist groups. They use the government to bludgeon those they don't agree with. The same crap is done by other statists on the right to use the government as a bludgeon against those they don't like. Stop being part of the problem! Just because you are being attacked does not give you the right to attack others as you were attacked!
> 
> To those self-professed christians in this thread that are part of the problem, stop using the government to go after gay people, drug users, porn users or any other group you find offensive. You are not your brothers keeper! Mind your own affairs! Let us believe how we want to believe so long as we don't agress against you! If your god truly gave you (and by extenion us) free will, then by your own freaking beliefs, let us practice our free will! If we don't want to believe in the divinity of christ, let us!


+1776 :d

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Washington was indeed a man of profound philosophical integrity, which I've not denied.  However, from what I've read of him, he wouldn't approve of how the religion(and religion in general) is now used and has been corrupted since he lived. 




> *George Washington's Sacred Fire
> 
> by Peter Lillback
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/George-Washing...7296781&sr=1-1
> 
> 
> 
> "Secular historians ignore George Washington's ward Nelly Custis, who wrote that doubting his Christian faith was as absurd as doubting his patriotism. But they cannot ignore this mountain of evidence suggesting Washington's religion was not deism, but just the sort of low-church Anglicanism one would expect in an eighteenth century Virginia gentleman. His 'sacred fire' lit America's path toward civil and religious liberty."---Walter A. McDougall, Pulitzer Prize-winning author, University of Pennsylvania
> ...

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

Oh gee...ya'll must have missed this quote from John Adams:

"you have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."  john Adams

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]  Benjamin Franklin

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man." Alexander hamilton

Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

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

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]  James Madison

“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”   James Madison

A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. [Letter by Madison to William Bradford [urging him to make sure of his own salvation] November 9, 1772]

Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.” 
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”  George Washington

What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]  George Washington

To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]  George Washington

Should i continue???....Tones

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

abcde

----------


## BeFranklin

> Should i continue???....Tones



Yes, because I like reading them   Thanks for posting them

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”
> 
> Should i continue???....Tones


Interesting you would quote one of the most corrupt and dastardly men of the founders' generation to defend your stance and your religion-one of the biggest defenders of the central bank, too. (see "Hamilton's curse")

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Should i continue???....Tones


Only if you can show that any of the men knew that organized would become corrupt when they spoke favorably of it.  Otherwise, you're demonstrating their lack of foresight-verging on implying that they were naive.  I don't think any of the founders would support rev. Hagee or any of the others who have appointed themselves representatives of "Christianity", do you?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

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


He's referring to his faith in the philosophy rather than the religion that sprang up around it (ahem*desim*ahem).  Same with your other quotes.

----------


## BeFranklin

> He's referring to his faith in the philosophy rather than the religion that sprang up around it (ahem*desim*ahem).  Same with your other quotes.


No.  Jefferson wasn't a deist.  He was an Anglican. 

Deism is a swarmy corrupt way to deny what is right before your eyes when people read what the founders actually said.  Its a tool word taught by ex-Marxists who hate religion, particular that religion that founded America.

BY THE WAY, Happy Thanksgiving - And grace from God above and Thanks to Him on that day.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No.  Jefferson wasn't a deist.  He was an Anglican. 
> 
> Deism is a swarmy corrupt way to deny what is right before your eyes when people read what the founders actually said.  Its a tool word taught by ex-Marxists who hate religion, particular that religion that founded America.
> 
> BY THE WAY, Happy Thanksgiving - And grace from God above and Thanks to Him on that day.


You think Thomas Paine is an "ex-Marxist who hates religion"?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *No.  Jefferson wasn't a deist.  He was an Anglican.* 
> 
> Deism is a swarmy corrupt way to deny what is right before your eyes when people read what the founders actually said.  Its a tool word taught by ex-Marxists who hate religion, particular that religion that founded America.
> 
> BY THE WAY, Happy Thanksgiving - And grace from God above and Thanks to Him on that day.


*Au contraire.
*
http://www.adherents.com/people/pj/T...Jefferson.html

President Thomas Jefferson was a Protestant. Jefferson was raised as an Episcopalian (Anglican). He was also influenced by English Deists and has often been identified by historians as a Deist. He held many beliefs in common with Unitarians of the time period, and sometimes wrote that he thought the whole country would become Unitarian. He wrote that the teachings of Jesus contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." Wrote: "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." Source: "Jefferson's Religious Beliefs", by Rebecca Bowman, Monticello Research Department, August 1997 [URL: http://www.monticello.org/resources/interests/religion.html]. Although Jefferson was never an atheist, he was indeed a champion of religious freedom, and the "Positive Atheism" website has a page of quotes by Jefferson at: 
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/jefframe.htm  
 Note that Thomas Jefferson, one of the nation's most popular and respected presidents, is claimed by many groups. 
Jefferson was born into an Anglican family and was raised as an Aglican. He would later be considered an Episcopalian, after the Episcopal Church was officially founded as a separate province within Anglicanism in 1789 (after the Revolution and independence from England). 
Later in his adult life Jefferson did not consider himself an Episcopalian, or a member of any other specific denomination. Later in life Jefferson held many clearly Christian, Deist, and Unitarian beliefs, but was not a member of any congregation or denomination. Today, many Unitarians sincerely believe that Jefferson should be "counted as" a Unitarian, just as many Christians point to Jefferson as a Christian, and many of the small number of Americans who identify themselves as Deists believe Jefferson should be classified a Deist. 
Jefferson was never a member of the Unitarian denomination nor was he ever active in a Unitarian congregation. However, he did once write that he would have liked to be a member of a Unitarian church, but he was not because there were no Unitarian churches in Virginia. It is not unreasonable to identify Jefferson as a Unitarian (with the caveat that, technically speaking, he was not actually one). However, it is a mistake to extrapolate from Jefferson's stated admiration for Unitarianism the notion that he was somehow "un-Christian" or "non-Christian." It is true that contemporary Unitarian-Universalists _now_ classify their denomination as a distinct religion not confined as a subset of Christianity (although a large proportion of individual Unitarian-Universalists do indeed identify themselves as Christians). _However_, in Jefferson's day, Unitarianism was considerably different from its present form, and there was no concept that it was a non-Christian religion. Unitarianism in Jefferson's time was regarded as one liberal Protestant denomination among many other Protestant denominations extant in America. Virtually nobody thought of Jefferson as a non-Christian (or even non-Protestant) president. 
 By _some_ of the more narrowly-conceived definitions of the word "Christian" which are in use today, particularly among Evangelicals since the 1940s, it is entirely possible that Jefferson's beliefs would mark him as a "non-Christian." Defining Jefferson as a non-Christian must be done purely on contemporary theological grounds, because he was clearly a Christian with regards to his ethics, conduct, upbringing, and culture. Furthermore, to define Jefferson as a "non-Christian" requires using definitions retroactively to classify Jefferson counter to his own self-concept and the commonly understood meanings of words during his own time. 
Adherents of other religious groups, including atheists and agnostics, also point to various writings of Jefferson which are in harmony with their positions. The difficulty in classifying Jefferson using a single word for religious affiliation does not stem from a lack of information, but rather a wealth of writing -- which can be interpreted differently depending on a person's perspective. Jefferson left a considerable amount of writing on political and philosophical issues, as well as writing about religion, including the "Jefferson Bible." 
 In a practical sense, classifying Jefferson as a "Deist" with regards to _religious affiliation_ is misleading and meaningless. Jefferson was never affiliated with any organized Deist movement. This is a word that describes a theological position more than an actual religious affiliation, and as such it is of limited use from a _sociological_ perspective. If one defines the term "Deist" broadly enough, then the writing of nearly _every_ U.S. president or prominent historical figure could be used to classify them as a "Deist," so classifying people as such without at least some evidence of nominal self-identification is not very useful. 
Although Jefferson's specific denominational and congregational ties were limited in his adulthood and his ever-evolving theological beliefs were distinctively his own, he was without a doubt a Protestant. One should keep in mind that despite his later self-stated non-affiliation with any specific denomination, he was raised as an Episcopalian, attended Episcopalian services many times as an adult and as President, and he expressed a clear affinity for Unitarianism. However these denominations may be classified now, uring Jefferson's lifetime, the Episcopal Church and the Unitarian Church were both considered to be Protestant denominations. 
From: Rick Shenkman, "An Interview with Jon Butler ... Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?", posted 20 December 2004 on History News Network website (http://hnn.us/articles/9144.html; viewed 30 November 2005): 
 _Mr. Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Yale University, is the author of Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People (Harvard University Press, 1990). This interview was conducted by HNN editor Rick Shenkman for The Learning Channel series, "Myth America," which aired several years ago..._ [Interviewer:] _Let's go through some of [the Founding Fathers]... Thomas Jefferson?_ 
[Jon Butler:] Well, Jefferson's interesting because recently evangelicals, some evangelicals, have tried to make Jefferson out as an evangelical. Jefferson actually was deeply interested in the question of religion and morals and it's why Jefferson, particularly in his later years, developed a notebook of Jesus' sayings that he found morally and ethically interesting. It's now long since been published and is sometimes called, "The Jefferson Bible." But Jefferson had real trouble with the Divinity of Christ and he had real trouble with the description of various events mentioned in both the New and the Old Testament so that he was an enlightened skeptic who was profoundly interested in the figure of Christ as a human being and as an ethical teacher. But he was not religious in any modern meaning of that word or any eighteenth century meaning of that word. He wasn't a regular church goer and he never affiliated himself with a religious denomination--unlike Washington who actually did. He was an Episcopalian. Jefferson, however, was interested in morals and ethics and thought that morals and ethics were important but that's different than saying religion is important because morals and ethics can come from many sources other than religion and Jefferson knew that and understood that. 
[Interviewer:] _Where does he stand on Christ exactly?_ 
[Jon Butler:] Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ, but he believed that Christ was a deeply interesting and profoundly important moral or ethical teacher and it was in Christ's moral and ethical teachings that Jefferson was particularly interested. And so that's what attracted him to the figure of Christ was the moral and ethical teachings as described in the New Testament. But he was not an evangelical and he was not a deeply pious individual. 
...The principal Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin--were in fact deeply suspicious of a European pattern of governmental involvement in religion. They were deeply concerned about an involvement in religion because they saw government as corrupting religion. Ministers who were paid by the state and paid by the government didn't pay any attention to their parishes. They didn't care about their parishioners. They could have, they sold their parishes. They sold their jobs and brought in a hireling to do it and they wandered off to live somewhere else and they didn't need to pay attention to their parishioners because the parishioners weren't paying them. The state was paying them. From: Peter Roberts, "Thomas Jefferson" page in "God and Country" section of "Science Resources on the Net" website (http://www.geocities.com/peterroberts.geo/Relig-Politics/TJefferson.html; viewed 23 November 2005):  *Religious Affiliation:* None  *Summary of Religious Views:* 
Jefferson considered himself a deist; he also considered himself a follower of Jesus. This is not a contradiction, in Jefferson's view, because he believed Jesus to be merely human, not divine, and believed the precepts Jesus taught to be deistical. Much of traditional Christianity, Jefferson claimed, was error and corruption added by later followers of Jesus. 
Jefferson was a strong supporter of the separation of church and state, believing that both government and religion would be strengthened by keeping each free of the corrupting influence of the other. From a PBS website (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/jefferson.html): 
Jefferson was convinced that the authentic words of Jesus written in the New Testament had been contaminated. Early Christians, overly eager to make their religion appealing to the pagans, had obscured the words of Jesus with the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and the teachings of Plato. These "Platonists" had thoroughly muddled Jesus' original message. Jefferson assured his friend and rival, John Adams, that the authentic words of Jesus were still there. With the confidence and optimistic energy characteristic of the Enlightenment, Jefferson proceeded to dig out the diamonds. Candles burning late at night, his quill pen scratching "too hastily" as he later admitted, Jefferson composed a short monograph titled The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth. The subtitle explains that the work is "extracted from the account of his life and the doctrines as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke & John." In it, Jefferson presented what he understood was the true message of Jesus. 
Jefferson set aside his New Testament research, returning to it again in the summer of 1820. This time, he completed a more ambitious work, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French and English. The text of the New Testament appears in four parallel columns in four languages. Jefferson omitted the words that he thought were inauthentic and retained those he believed were original. The resulting work is commonly known as the "Jefferson Bible." From: B. J. Lossing, _Signers of the Declaration of Independence_, George F. Cooledge & Brother: New York (1848) [reprinted in _Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence_, WallBuilder Press: Aledo, Texas (1995)], page 175: Mr. Jefferson's family were among the early British emigrants to Virginia. His ancestors came from Wales... His grandfather settled in Chesterfield, and had three sons, Thomas, Field, and Peter. The latter married Jane, daughter of Isham Randolph, of Goochland, of Scotch descent... she became the mother of [Thomas Jefferson]... His father died when he was fourteen years old, leaving a widow and eight children... He left a handsome estate to his family; and the lands, which he called Monticello, fell to Thomas... Thomas entered a grammar school at the age of five years, and when nine years he commenced the study of the classics with a Scotch clergyman named Douglas. On the death of his father, the Reveend Mr. Maury became his preceptor; and in the spring of 1760, he entered William and Mary College, where he remained two years. From Doctor William Small, a professor mathematics in the college, he received his first philosophical teachings, and the bias of his mind concerning subjects of scientific investigation seemed to have received its initial impetus from that gentleman. From: B. J. Lossing, _Signers of the Declaration of Independence_, George F. Cooledge & Brother: New York (1848) [reprinted in _Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence_, WallBuilder Press: Aledo, Texas (1995)], pages 182-183: In the spring of 1826, [Thomas Jefferson's] bodily infirmities greatly increased, and in June he was confined wholly to his bed. About the first of July he seemed ree from disease, and his friends had hopes of his recovery; but it was his own conviction that he should die, and he gave directions accordingly. On the third, he inquired the day of the month. On being told, he expressed an ardent desire to live until the next day, to breathe the air of the fiftieth anniversary of his country's independence. His wish was granted: and on the morning of the fourth, after having expressed his gratitude to his friends and servants for their care, he said with a distinct voice, "I resign myself to my God, and my child to my country." [His child was his daughter, Mrs. Randolph, to whom he gave instructions about what he wanted his epitaph and tomb to be like.] These were his last words, and about noon on that glorious day he expired. It was a most remarkable coincidence that two of the committee (Mr. [John] Adams and Mr. Jefferson) who drew up the Declaration of Independence; who signed it; who successively held the office of Chief Magistrate, should have died at exactly the same hour on the fiftieth anniversary of that solemn act. He was a little over eighty-three years of age at the time of his death. Mr. Jefferson's manner was simple but dignified, and his conversational powers were of the rarest value. He was exceedingly kind and benevolent, an indulgent master to his servants, liberal and friendly to his neighbors. He possessed remarkable equanimity of temper, and it said he was never seen in a passion. His friendship was lasting and ardent; and he was confiding and never distrustful. 
In religion he was a freethinker; in morals, pure and unspotted; in politics, patriotic, honest, ardent and benevolent. Respecting his poltical character, there was (and still is) a great diversity of opinion, and we ar not yet far nough removed from the theatre of his acts to judge them dispassioinately and justly. His life was devoted to his country; the result of his acts whatever it may be, is a legacy to mankind. He was identified as a Deist by the _1995 Information Please Almanac_. (Source: Ian Dorion, "Table of the Religious Affiliations of American Founders", 1997).  From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), _Signers of the Declaration: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Declaration of Independence_, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1975), page 90: 
Jefferson died only a few hours before John Adams at the age of 83 on July 4, 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. For his tombstone at Monticello, ignoring his many high offices and multitudes of other achievements, he chose three accomplishments that he wanted to be remembered for: authorship of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom and the founding of the University fo Virginia.From: R.P. Nettelhorst, "Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State", posted on Quartz Hill School of Theology website (http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm; viewed 30 November 2005): Thomas Jefferson created his own version of the gospels; he was uncomfortable with any reference to miracles, so with two copies of the New Testament, he cut and pasted them together, excising all references to miracles, from turning water to wine, to the resurrection. There has certainly never been a shortage of boldness in the history of biblical scholarship during the past two centuries, but for sheer audacity Thomas Jefferson's two redactions of the Gospels stand out even in that company. It is still a bit overwhelming to contemplate the sangfroid exhibited by the third president of the United States as, razor in hand, he sat editing the Gospels during February 1804, on (as he himself says) "2. or 3. nights only at Washington, after getting thro' the evening task of reading the letters and papers of the day." He was apparently quite sure that he could tell what was genuine and what was not in the transmitted text of the New Testament... (Thomas Jefferson. _The Jefferson Bible; Jefferson and his Contemporaries_, an afterward by Jaroslav Pelikan, Boston: Beacon Press, 1989, p. 149.).In his _Notes on Virginia_, Jefferson wrote: The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury to my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. (Dumas Malon, _Jefferson The President: First Term 1801-1805_. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1970, p. 191)

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> Deism is a swarmy corrupt way to deny what is right before your eyes when people read what the founders actually said.  Its a tool word taught by ex-Marxists who hate religion, particular that religion that founded America.


Ok, thats it. You want to be treated like a shmuck, then you'll be treated like a shmuck. You obviously cannot behave in a rational manner without resorting to ad hominems.

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

But befranklin is correct.  The communists who infiltrated our country knew they had to get rid of christianity ...and our traditions ..in order to take the country over.  Go back and watch some old cowboy movies from the fifties,  and then go look at "Dances with Wolves".  Who were the heros in the 50's?  Who were the heros in DAnces with Wolves.  That has happened across the spectrum...the hero's from back in the day are now portrayed as wicked demons.  Wake up. please.  That is part of the Dialectic.  tones

----------


## Truth Warrior

*OR much of it can merely be looked at as finally setting the historical record straight and countering "government schooling" brainwashing.<IMHO>*

----------


## RockEnds

> But befranklin is correct.  The communists who infiltrated our country knew they had to get rid of christianity ...and our traditions ..in order to take the country over.  Go back and watch some old cowboy movies from the fifties,  and then go look at "Dances with Wolves".  Who were the heros in the 50's?  Who were the heros in DAnces with Wolves.  That has happened across the spectrum...the hero's from back in the day are now portrayed as wicked demons.  Wake up. please.  That is part of the Dialectic.  tones


As if 50's westerns weren't propaganda.  

Did I ever tell you the story of Indian Dick?  Oh my, how thoughtless of me.    See, my grandma's grandpa rushed off to California in '49.  Well, he didn't really rush.  He took a team of oxen.  I don't know why they call it the Gold Rush.  Travel was really slow back then.  But, I digress.    So, he went out there, and he killed a bear in the mountains--shot it right between the eyes, of course--but he didn't find any gold.  Well, not much.  Grandma had some gold dust in the garage.  Just a little vial.  Dad threw it out when she died.  He's crazy.    Well, anyway, he didn't get much out of the trip except four children, some gold dust, and a bear coat.  So he'd made friends with this Indian fella in California.  And this fella had a boy.  Well, grandpa Rankin decided to bring this boy back with him to Iowa so that he could see how the Indians lived back here.  Grandpa wrote stories comparing west coast Indians to midwest Indians.  He grew up here before it opened up for white settlement, and he learned quite a bit from living with the Indians.  Anyway, so he promised this fella that he'd bring his son back to California later.  Well, Indian Dick did make the 1860 Iowa census.  He was listed just like that--Indian Dick.  Sometime before grandpa got around to going back to California, he was building a house--out of logs, of course.  Well, they were putting up one of the logs, and the rope broke.  It landed straight on Indian Dick and smashed him.  He's buried over in Harbour Cemetery in an unmarked grave.  I used to put flowers on all the unmarked graves there when I was a kid.  I felt really sorry for Dick not getting to go back home to his family.  Grandpa decided he couldn't go back to California without Dick.  He figured he'd be, well, demonized.  So he stayed here in Iowa, and that's why I'm here and not in California.  And the communists had nothing to do with it.  Unless, of course, they manufactured the rope.  Naw, there were no communists yet.

Now, the moral of the story is, singing cowboys were of little use back then.

Seriously, you don't really think 50's westerns were an accurate portrayal of western settlement, do you?

----------


## swirling_vortex

Does it really matter which founding father believed in what? Regardless of what principles the Constitution was created in, I'd say it's a good document that _all_ religions can follow. As long as the government isn't favoring one religion or trying to destroy it, I'd say it doesn't matter if Christianity was involved or not.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Does it really matter which founding father believed in what? Regardless of what principles the Constitution was created in, I'd say it's a good document that _all_ religions can follow. As long as the government isn't favoring one religion or trying to destroy it, I'd say it doesn't matter if Christianity was involved or not.


*Who Killed the Constitution?*


*'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr*

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

No Truth..I don't believe that.  You posted Griffin's presentation...did you read the section about their decision to re write history?  Well, they did it and that's part of it...to tear down our traditions, demonize the european white christian...it's all part of the dialectic.  tones

----------


## Truth Warrior

> No Truth..I don't believe that. You posted Griffin's presentation...did you read the section about their decision to re write history? Well, they did it and that's part of it...to tear down our traditions, demonize the european white christian...it's all part of the dialectic. tones


 *It's just all a very mixed bag.<IMHO>  There's "bad guys" EVERYWHERE. ~4% of the population are sociopaths.* 

*Trail of Tears*
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears*



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

----------


## RockEnds

> No Truth..I don't believe that.  You posted Griffin's presentation...did you read the section about their decision to re write history?  Well, they did it and that's part of it...to tear down our traditions, demonize the european white christian...it's all part of the dialectic.  tones


tones, when history is based on B rated movies and tv sitcoms, it's not hard to tear it down.  Believe it or not, the people who settled this country had complete personalities, and often only the bright, shiny side are presented.  

Remember Daniel Boone?  Now there was a fine man who had a nice tv show, but they somehow omitted that he may not have been a frontiersman were it not for his father being kicked out of church:




> In Boone's youth, his family became a source of controversy in the local Quaker community. In 1742, Boone's parents were compelled to publicly apologize after their eldest child Sarah married John Wilcoxson, a "worldling" (non-Quaker), while she was visibly pregnant. When Boone's oldest brother Israel also married a "worldling" in 1747, Squire Boone stood by his son and was therefore expelled from the Quakers, although his wife continued to attend monthly meetings with her children. Perhaps as a result of this controversy, in 1750 Squire sold his land and moved the family to North Carolina. Daniel Boone did not attend church again, although he considered himself a Christian and had all of his children baptized. The Boones eventually settled on the Yadkin River, in what is now Davie County, North Carolina, about two miles (3 km) west of Mocksville.[6]


(While the story many not fulfill the fundamentalist vision of an American Christian Utopia, I personally think the guy made the right decision.)

History is full of this kind of stuff, and you're completely missing it when you try to whitewash everything in true 50's propaganda style.  Since you're so worried about the communist rewrite of history, why not try to read some original sources?  (Lots of libraries have them.  They're the old books with lots of dust that no one ever touches.)  An accurate portrayal of history requires taking responsibility for the blemishes as well as boasting of the accomplishments.  The whitewashed version *is* a rewrite of history.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*"Official" history is written by the winners. Any corespondence, correlation or accuracy to the actual events is purely coincidental and accidental. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.*



*"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." -- D. James*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." -- D. James*


That's a great quote, TW!  I think I'll use it sometime.

----------


## RockEnds

Here's a sample of what the commies deleted from our local schools.  Back in the 20's and 30's, this was included in the textbook used by our local public school students for their county history class.  Yeah, we actually had a county history class back then.  A local ladies auxiliary combed the library and newspapers, compiled a collection of stories authored by the pioneer settlers, and published it for the use of the students.  Lobbyists weren't required to get a book into schools back then. Anyway, this is a bit of a story written by Hosea B Horn:




> FIRST ELECTION
> 
> ...And at another precinct, where one hundred and twelve votes were cast, the voters had a high old time.  About 10 oclock in the morning, a Mr. McIntosh arrived at the polls with a barrel of whisky, on a log sled, (an article much used in ye olden tyme, and denominated by the squatters a lizard,) which he had hauled some ten miles with a pair of two year old steers.  Immediately upon his arrival it was tapped, and by 3 oclock in the afternoon there was not a drop of whisky to be had.  This is literally truethe whole of it had been drank by those at the polls.  It is not necessary for us to say whether any of the voters were drunk or sober.  But we will say, however that between 1 oclock and the time of leaving the polls, there were no less than seven fights, besides much other noise and confusion.  The greatest efforts were made by the peace officers (self constituted) to preserve order and prevent disturbance, and a person whose name we do not recollect, mounted on the head of the empty whisky barrel, and in the name and by the authority of Jehovah and the United States of America, commanded the peace, and notified the tumultuous assemblage that if they refused to obey, hed have their hides on a pole in less than fifteen minutes, as a sample.  But, being filled with the spirit, his threats of a rapid march to kingdom come made not the least impression upon the crowd, and the muss went on until it ended of its own free will and accord.


And that's what's being deleted from our history.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> That's a great quote, TW! I think I'll use it sometime.


 *I just "borrrowed" it from someone else here on the RPF.* 

*Before or after you correct the spelling of Gandhi?*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *I just "borrrowed" it from someone else here on the RPF.* 
> 
> *Before or after you correct the spelling of Gandhi?*


After.  edit: sorry, it has too many characters to fit.

----------


## BeFranklin

> [B]Au contraire.


I don't use secondary sources or one-two lines of quots without looking at the originals, but even from what you posted:




> In a practical sense, classifying Jefferson as a "Deist" with regards to religious affiliation is misleading and meaningless. Jefferson was never affiliated with any organized Deist movement. This is a word that describes a theological position more than an actual religious affiliation, and as such it is of limited use from a sociological perspective. If one defines the term "Deist" broadly enough, then the writing of nearly every U.S. president or prominent historical figure could be used to classify them as a "Deist," so classifying people as such without at least some evidence of nominal self-identification is not very useful.


Jefferson wasn't a Deist.  It has/had a specific meaning, although I disagree with the very last sentence from this paragraph - Calling everyone a Deist has been very useful, but as  propoganda to mis-label people and bury American history.

----------


## BeFranklin

Originally Posted by BeFranklin  
Deism is a swarmy corrupt way to deny what is right before your eyes when people read what the founders actually said. Its a tool word taught by ex-Marxists who hate religion, particular that religion that founded America.




> Ok, thats it. You want to be treated like a shmuck, then you'll be treated like a shmuck. You obviously cannot behave in a rational manner without resorting to ad hominems.


I was thinking of a specific professor in political science I had as an undergraduate who came over from Marxist Cuba, and who claimed all the founders were deist.  When I gave him an exact definition of deism, he acted surprised, and said swarmingly, "What, you mean deism doesn't just mean belief in a deity".

Yeah..

Benjamin Franklin went through a period of being a Deist in his youth (20s), and later really regreated it.  He wrote about it in his autobiogrphy, which should give most readers an idea of what deism is.  And no, it doesn't mean belief in a deity, its a specific set of beliefs.

So no, calling a propanda tool a propoganda tool isn't an ad hominem attack against anyone in specific.  You can call me a shmuch, but I won't be a shmuck and I won't be lied to. 

The founders weren't Deists.  The most well known God hater was Paine, and he announced his athiesm after he wrote common sense - which used the bible to prove some points

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> I was thinking of a specific professor in political science I had as an undergraduate who came over from Marxist Cuba, and who claimed all the founders where deist.  When I gave him an exact definition of deism, he acted surprised, and said swarmingly, "What, you mean deism doesn't just mean belief in a deity".
> 
> Yeah..


I don't give a good godd@mn about some supposed conversation with some supposed Cuban Marxist professor. That anecdotal bull$#@! at best. So whats the 'definition' of Deism. This I have to read.




> So no, calling a propanda tool a propoganda tool isn't an ad hominem attack against anyone in specific.  You can call me a shmuch, but I won't be a shmuck and I won't be lied to.


It is when you consistently misrepresent someone else's beliefs! It would be no different than my claiming all Christians supported cannibalism based on Communion.

----------


## BeFranklin

Look it up in Benjamin Franklin's autobiography.  He gives a good account of it.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deism*

----------


## BeFranklin

> *http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deism*


Clicking through two links - one below the first, I find that Isaac Newton is a deist who believes in a God that set the universe in motion and just left it like that - clockwork universe.

Yet this also isn't true, and Isaac Newton wrote books commenting on revelation and bible prophecy.

----------


## BeFranklin

> Part XX
> Before I enter upon my public appearance in business, it may be well to let you know the then state of my mind with regard to my principles and morals, that you may see how far those influenc'd the future events of my life. My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. 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. My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins and Ralph; but, each of them having afterwards wrong'd me greatly without the least compunction, and recollecting Keith's conduct towards me (who was another freethinker), and my own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me great trouble, I began to suspect that this doctrine, tho' it might be true, was not very useful. My London pamphlet, which had for its motto these lines of Dryden: 
> 
> 
> 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.
> "Whatever is, is right. Though purblind man Sees but a part o' the chain, the nearest link: His eyes not carrying to the equal beam, That poises all above;" 
> and from the attributes of God, his infinite wisdom, goodness and power, concluded that nothing could possibly be wrong in the world, and that vice and virtue were empty distinctions, no such things existing, appear'd now not so clever a performance as I once thought it; and I doubted whether some error had not insinuated itself unperceiv'd into my argument, so as to infect all that follow'd, as is common in metaphysical reasonings. 
> 
> I grew convinc'd that truth, sincerity and integrity in dealings between man and man were of the utmost importance to the felicity of life; and I form'd written resolutions, which still remain in my journal book, to practice them ever while I lived. Revelation had indeed no weight with me, as such; but I entertain'd an opinion that, though certain actions might not be bad because they were forbidden by it, or good because it commanded them, yet probably these actions might be forbidden because they were bad for us, or commanded because they were beneficial to us, in their own natures, all the circumstances of things considered. And this persuasion, with the kind hand of Providence, or some guardian angel, or accidental favorable circumstances and situations, or all together, preserved me, thro' this dangerous time of youth, and the hazardous situations I was sometimes in among strangers, remote from the eye and advice of my father, without any willful gross immorality or injustice, that might have been expected from my want of religion. I say willful, because the instances I have mentioned had something of necessity in them, from my youth, inexperience, and the knavery of others. I had therefore a tolerable character to begin the world with; I valued it properly, and determin'd to preserve it.


I underlined the part where Benjamin Franklin begins to suspect this doctrine, as a good reminder.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Clicking through two links - one below the first, I find that Isaac Newton is a deist who believes in a God that set the universe in motion and just left it like that - clockwork universe.
> 
> Yet this also isn't true, and Isaac Newton wrote books commenting on revelation and bible prophecy.


*Isaac Newton quotes:*

*If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.* 

*A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.* 

*If I have done the public any service, it is due to my patient thought.*

*We build too many walls and not enough bridges.* 

*I keep the subject of my inquiry constantly before me, and wait till the first dawning opens gradually, by little and little, into a full and clear light.* 

*If I have ever made any valuable discoveries, it has been owing more to patient attention, than to any other talent.* 

*Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy.* 

*I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.* 

*If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.* 

*This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.* 

*I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.* 

*To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me.* 

*No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess.* 

*It is the weight, not numbers of experiments that is to be regarded.* 

*I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.*

*To me there has never been a higher source of earthly honor or distinction than that connected with advances in science.* 

*Trials are medicines which our gracious and wise Physician prescribes because we need them; and he proportions the frequency and weight of them to what the case requires. Let us trust his skill and thank him for his prescription.* 

*The seed of a tree has the nature of a branch or twig or bud. It is a part of the tree, but if separated and set in the earth to be better nourished, the embryo or young tree contained in it takes root and grows into a new tree.* 

*About the Time of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition.* 

*Errors are not in the art but in the artificers.* 

*Oh Diamond! Diamond! Thou little knowest the mischief done! (Said to a pet dog who knocked over a candle and set fire to his papers.* 

*To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction.* 

*Yet one thing secures us what ever betide,/ The scriptures assures us the Lord will provide.* 

*I'm kind of obsessed with that song, I've used it in almost every project I've done, ... I can't get over it. I own 30 versions of it.* 

*What I'm trying to do with most of my work is establish this new modernism, ... If people don't walk out of theatres saying, 'Yes, something is possible,' then you've failed.* 

*If I saw further than other men, it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants.* 

*I am ashamed to tell you to how many figures I carried these computations, having no other business at the time.* 

*The system of revealed truth which this Book contains is like that of the universe, concealed from common observation yet...the centuries have established its Divine origin.* 

*Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love.* 

*We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.*




*"Many people never grow up. They stay all their lives with a passionate need for external authority and guidance, pretending not to trust their own judgment." -- Alan Watts*

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> Look it up in Benjamin Franklin's autobiography.  He gives a good account of it.


I'm going to take that as a non-answer especially as the burden of proof is yours and not mine to look up for you.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

The problem with these kind of threads is that they are soooo blindly objective.  We're really all oversimplifying this issue, IMHO.  The founders lived in the Enlightenment period, and would've been exposed to many different ideas and philosophies.  Some were hypocrites, some were rude, some were virtuous...they all had at least a few negative qualities, just as we do.  Looking at all the posts I've seen on this issue, I'd bet that the founders were at least as divided as we are.  

I hope this issue dies soon so we don't have so many silly and insulting discussions.

----------


## BeFranklin

> I'm going to take that as a non-answer especially as the burden of proof is yours and not mine to look up for you.


I don't have an obligation to you or burden, and have ceased to consider you an entity, when about 5 posts back, I gave you a civil reply to an insult post which you posted on your first try, and I continued to give you civil replies for several messages, although you didn't deserve it.  I even posted an excerpt from Franklin's autobiography, taking my time for someone who was attacking me personally.

Go back to whatever hole you crawled out.  I won't be turning the cheek for you again, but exposing you for the rotter you are.

----------


## BeFranklin

> The problem with these kind of threads is that they are soooo blindly objective.  We're really all oversimplifying this issue, IMHO.  The founders lived in the *Enlightenment* period, and would've been exposed to many different ideas and philosophies.  Some were hypocrites, some were rude, some were virtuous...they all had at least a few negative qualities, just as we do.  Looking at all the posts I've seen on this issue, I'd bet that the founders were at least as divided as we are.  
> 
> I hope this issue dies soon so we don't have so many silly and insulting discussions.


People are even divided by periods in their life, so one may mature more later on.  But overall, we aren't the society we were.  Fixing the government or the econonic system means nothing if America as a whole isn't fixed.   *Mark 36*  _For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? 37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?_

Here's a verse for the englightenment and the dark ages:

*Rev 16:10* _And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,  11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds._

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> People are even divided by periods in their life, so one may mature more later on.  But overall, we aren't the society we were.  *Fixing the government or the econonic system means nothing if America as a whole isn't fixed.*


QFT.  Glad we can agree on this, sir.

----------


## BeFranklin

My turkey feast was founded on Christian principles.

Burp.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> My turkey feast was founded on Christian principles.
> 
> Burp.


You mean the slaughter and eating of the innocent bird?  lol

----------


## Conservative Christian

> *"I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, 'that they may be seen of men'."
> 
> --Nelly Custis
> Adopted daughter of George Washington
> Lived with the Washington family for 20 years at Mount Vernon, until shortly after Washington's death*


Hmmmmmm. Who should we believe, a woman who lived in Washington's home for 20 years, or a gaggle of self-deluded internet atheists? 


.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Hmmmmmm. Who should we believe, a woman who lived in Washington's home for 20 years, or a gaggle of self-deluded internet atheists? 
> 
> 
> .


*Ask his slaves. * 

*George Washington and Slavery*
http://www.mountvernon.org/index.cfm...token/59543419

*"By their fruits, ye shall know them."*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Hmmmmmm. Who should we believe, a woman who lived in Washington's home for 20 years, or a gaggle of self-deluded internet atheists? 
> 
> 
> .


or a condescending "Conservative Christian" who refuses to let dead arguments lie by quoting without a source when the "self-deluded internet atheists" have moved on to other, more productive things?

----------


## M House

Arguing the constitution was founded on Christian principles has always been a total load. Um sure obviously many of the founders were Christians but many just look it up were not. It's founded on the freedom of religion which last time I checked wasn't a Christian value. The founders obviously used a variety of thoughts to consider things. They applied Greek and Roman elements of government, they applied various forms of modern philosophy at the time. Arguing the constitution had the base in one sole religion, teaching, or view is just ignorance. And to make peace with Christians of course many probably considered those teachings as well when writing it. But to take credit for its views, values, and construction without considering perhaps a much greater depth of thought and principle is a shallow insult to the depth of the document.

----------


## BeFranklin

> Arguing the constitution was founded on Christian principles has always been a total load. Um sure obviously many of the founders were Christians but many just look it up were not. *It's founded on the freedom of religion which last time I checked wasn't a Christian value.* The founders obviously used a variety of thoughts to consider things. They applied Greek and Roman elements of government, they applied various forms of modern philosophy at the time. Arguing the constitution had the base in one sole religion, teaching, or view is just ignorance. And to make peace with Christians of course many probably considered those teachings as well when writing it. But to take credit for its views, values, and construction without considering perhaps a much greater depth of thought and principle is a shallow insult to the depth of the document.


You haven't checked then.  Get over your hate of Christianity, which in a nation founded by Christians is odd.

Roger Williams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_W...s_(theologian))

The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, for Cause of Conscience soon followed (London, 1644). This is his most famous work, and was the ablest statement and defense of the principle of absolute liberty of conscience that had appeared in any language. It is in the form of a dialogue between Truth and Peace, and well illustrates the vigor of his style.

----------


## BeFranklin

> or a condescending "Conservative Christian" who refuses to let dead arguments lie by quoting without a source when the "self-deluded internet atheists" have moved on to other, more productive things?


The only one that has been consistently condescending here is you for the last couple of messages.

As for me, I'm perfectly happy if you move on.  I enjoy talking to the other Christian patriots and trading information.  I don't really need the internet atheists telling me all the things that the school and NWO has tried to indoctrinate me with all these years.  If you licked that boot a long time ago, you don't need to spout it here.  I'm sure we *all* have heard it before.  Let something new grow here that wasn't been allowed to be talked about before.  Or do you simply hate free speech, and that can't be talked about *anyplace*.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The only one that has been consistently condescending here is you for the last couple of messages.
> *Let something new grow here that wasn't been allowed to be talked about before.  Or do you simply hate free speech, and that can't be talked about *anyplace**.


False choice fallacy.  I refuse to accept your question as legitimate.  




> *The only one that has been consistently condescending here is you for the last couple of messages.
> *




Ad hominem.  Patently false.

----------


## JK/SEA

what do christains want in regards to this debate?

give me your bottom line.

we already have churches on every street corner..

we alrady have multiple christian cable network shows..

we already have tax breaks for these cults..

and yet we get internet christians complaining and whining about not being allowed to spew their disdain for anyone who doesn't subscribe to their mental dis- order.

is it ok to be a patriot and not subscribe to the brainwashed christian ideal?

----------


## Theocrat

Behold! Our nation was discovered by "rational" secular humanists, and this painting proves it once and for all!



Oh, wait a minute. Something's not right here...

----------


## M House

Seriously you Christian's need a break ALOT of religions believe in god.

----------


## bojo68

I'd like to know why no law respecting religion allows for a no tax status. Seems to me that violates the constitution. Not that I'm for taxes, but if we have to have them, EVERYBODY should. So, why not remove the tax break for religion?

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> Behold! Our nation was discovered by "rational" secular humanists, and this painting proves it once and for all!
> 
> Oh, wait a minute. Something's not right here...




WRONG CENTURY! This painting has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the founding of the United States. Furthermore 'God, Gold & Glory' has NOTHING to do with the founding of this country, or else you would have to include Christopher Columbus in with The Founding Fathers. The colonization of North America happened a full century and a half before the first rumblings of discontent started that lead us to the Revolutionary War.

----------


## BeFranklin

> Ad hominem.  Patently false.


Hardly.  We aren't arguing an impersonal argument based on logic anymore, but a case of misconduct.  For condescending to have any meaning at all, some have to be factually guilty of it.  It has to exist.

First, either you are condescending or a hypocrite, because here you accuse me of an ad hominem attack, but I was merely copying your reponse that you gave to someone else, ie:

heavenlyboy34:
"*or a condescending* "Conservative Christian" who refuses to let dead arguments lie by quoting without a source when the "self-deluded internet atheists" have moved on to other, more productive things?"

So is this is an example of an ad hominem attack by you just a few posts before, and are you being hypocritical or are you just being condescending?  It says right here you are far superior to someone else as a class of person, exagerates what that person has said about your class, implies he has to be wacked for believing that (strawman) statement, implies that he is stubborn *AND* that the poster has other, better and more productive things, while at the same time directly lying because the poster has posted endless quotes with sources and has been one of the most productive members on this thread.

That is the *MOST CONDESCENDING*  post I've ever seen. 

"You mean the slaughter and eating of the innocent bird?  lol"

And it follows this one, which is seemingly making a joke of being condescending.  Shakespeare said that many a true word is spoken in jest.

This was not an ad hominem.  You called a poster condescending, and I justly observed you are.  The observation is based on facts.  Two of your posts to support that assertion are mentioned above.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condescending* ( *Is prodescending even a word? If not, why not? )*

*Well I for one, certainly oppose descending also.<IMHO> * 

*( It's really no wonder that the GOP just can't stand US. < LOL ! > )*

----------


## BeFranklin

> and yet we get internet christians complaining and whining about not being allowed to spew their disdain for anyone who doesn't subscribe to their mental dis- order.
> 
> is it ok to be a patriot and not subscribe to the brainwashed christian ideal?


I can only speak for myself as one Christian, but your words above clearly define you.  I do not know what type of cause you think you are fighting for, but it clearly is not my cause, and since you also reject the founders own beliefs, you clearly aren't even part of the same tree.

God is my strength.  You aren't here.  Its pretty clear to me.  You are on the other side and support many of the same programs as the NWO type crowd, and insofar as a person doesn't recognize that, you are like a covered up ditch.

----------


## BeFranklin

> WRONG CENTURY! This painting has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the founding of the United States. Furthermore 'God, Gold & Glory' has NOTHING to do with the founding of this country, or else you would have to include Christopher Columbus in with The Founding Fathers. The colonization of North America happened a full century and a half before the first rumblings of discontent started that lead us to the Revolutionary War.


We just celebrated Thanksgiving.  I'm really shocked that some of the people on here even managed to find the url of this forum by reading.  




> Judges 7:4-8 (King James Version)
> 
>  4And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go. 
> 
>  5So he brought down the people unto the water: and the LORD said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink. 
> 
>  6And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water. 
> 
>  7And the LORD said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand: and let all the other people go every man unto his place. 
> ...

----------


## BeFranklin

> *http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condescending* ( *Is prodescending even a word? If not, why not? )*
> 
> *Well I for one, certainly oppose descending also.<IMHO> * 
> 
> *( It's really no wonder that the GOP just can't stand US. < LOL ! > )*


I'm sure we drive the establishment nuts.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I'm sure we drive the establishment nuts.


*Oh, I certainly hope so, though actually it's really only a very short trip for them.*

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> We just celebrated Thanksgiving.  I'm really shocked that some of the people on here even managed to find the url of this forum by reading.


Which one half of the country didn't celebrate until after The Civil War. Which proves, thats right, NOTHING! Thanksgiving as celebrated in the United States has more in common with traditional English harvest festivals than the day of prayer and fasting as the Puritans observed.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *oh, i certainly hope so, though actually it's really only a very short trip for them.*  :d


lol :d

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The only one that has been consistently condescending here is you for the last couple of messages.


Then you misinterpreted what I was saying.  You should've asked.  I only sought to make points and counterpoints.




> As for me, I'm perfectly happy if you move on.  I enjoy talking to the other Christian patriots and trading information.  I don't really need the internet atheists telling me all the things that the school and NWO has tried to indoctrinate me with all these years.  If you licked that boot a long time ago, you don't need to spout it here.  I'm sure we *all* have heard it before.  Let something new grow here that wasn't been allowed to be talked about before.


1) I'm not an atheist(in the hardcore, militant sense as many here seem to use), if that's what you imply.  I'm spiritual, but not religious.  2) You know very well that I'm against the NWO if you've been following my posts in this and other threads, so that shouldn't have come up here.




> Or do you simply hate free speech, and that can't be talked about *anyplace*.


False choice fallacy.  These are not valid, IMO.





> heavenlyboy34:
> "*or a condescending* "Conservative Christian" who refuses to let dead arguments lie by quoting without a source when the "self-deluded internet atheists" have moved on to other, more productive things?"
> 
> So is this is an example of an ad hominem attack by you just a few posts before, and are you being hypocritical or are you just being condescending? It says right here you are far superior to someone else as a class of person, exagerates what that person has said about your class, implies he has to be wacked for believing that (strawman) statement, implies that he is stubborn *AND* that the poster has other, better and more productive things, while at the same time directly lying because the poster has posted endless quotes with sources and has been one of the most productive members on this thread.
> 
> That is the *MOST CONDESCENDING*  post I've ever seen.


My remark was not ad hominem, it was a black and white response.  If you interpreted it as ad hominem, I'm sorry.  Your "directly lying" comment is also not true.  I also back my historical assertions with quotes, if you haven't noticed.  (unless I am clearly stating my stance/opinion in my own "writer's voice".) You're right that I'm very stubborn, but you imply that it is a vice.  IMO, it's not.   I get it from my dad's side of the family, and I consider it a virtue.  (Andrew Jackson was quite stubborn too, you know.  ) You also imply that I have been an "unproductive" poster, but I (and apparently others) disagree.  We've had some pretty good debate in many cases (IMHO).

----------


## The_Orlonater

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbGopoUGcEk

Ignore the music, but there's some good info there.

Except when he calls our country a democracy.

----------


## BeFranklin

> 1) I'm not an atheist(in the hardcore, militant sense as many here seem to use), if that's what you imply.  I'm spiritual, but not religious.  2) You know very well that I'm against the NWO if you've been following my posts in this and other threads, so that shouldn't have come up here.


Well, I haven't taken you as an athiest.  I've taken you as a neo-pagan, although you've presented yourself as an atheist.  Since you are clearly anti-Christian, and your name implies something, I've taken you as some new ager want to be, which would explain the ax you are attempting to grind against Christianty. 

And indeed all the purpose of the NWO should come up.  The religious purpose of the NWO is more important than the government or economic, and yet you are all for that purpose.  Exactly what have you said that I couldn't have heard as propoganda in any of the public schools or media?  Why shouldn't you be treated as a collectivist, and doesn't 3/4ths of your arguments hinge on "well this is what everyone believes" ie its in the schools and media, and therefore simply ignoring the facts in lie of what "everyone believes", even calling Christians on these forums "delusionial".

Isn't this exactly what has happened in Russia, China, and other places?  There isn't anything new here.  Its just hate and a possible prelude to government violence against Christians.

----------


## BeFranklin

_... The Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.  To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other._
-- Thomas Jefferson

http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib...in_Rush_1.html



> Sir,
> --In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798--99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other. 
> 
> At the short intervals since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more I considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information. In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Doctr Priestley, his little treatise of Socrates & Jesus compared. This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field it became a subject of reflection while on the road, and unoccupied otherwise. The result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus, or outline of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity, as I wished to see executed by some one of more leisure and information for the task, than myself. This I now send you, as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute. And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations & calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public; because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behoves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God & himself. Accept my affectionate salutations.
> 
> -- T Jefferson.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I can only speak for myself as one Christian, but your words above clearly define you.  I do not know what type of cause you think you are fighting for, but it clearly is not my cause, and since you also reject the founders own beliefs, you clearly aren't even part of the same tree.
> 
> God is my strength.  You aren't here.  Its pretty clear to me.  You are on the other side and support many of the same programs as the NWO type crowd, and insofar as a person doesn't recognize that, you are like a covered up ditch.


My cause?

Was just elected a Precinct Committee Officer as a Republican.
Was a State delegate for Ron Paul in Spokane Washington.

Whats your claim to fame, besides being a resident NEOCON?

Your correct in that my assessment of right wing evangelicals as yourself, (and others in here) seem to exert a tremendous amount of effort into framing the debate away from liberty, by using religion as a tool to limit said liberty's by attempting to marginalize those of us who think that religion is the problem in this world, and to legislate laws via the bible.

Your words reek of hatred. Congrats. You just re-enforced the reason why i don't go to church. I don't like getting fleas.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

I'm not neo-pagan either.  I didn't purposely present myself to be atheist.  If it seemed that way, I apologize.  I'm not anti-Christian.  I'm anti-organized religion (as we now know it).  I happen to own my own NIV and KJV bibles and enjoy them-in particular the philosophy of Yeshua.   (though I like the NIV better) Frankly, I can't stand the new age stuff you mentioned.  (Penn and Teller did a good job mocking that, if you're interested.)

It has been corrupted by man.  I shouldn't be treated as a collectivist because I'm not.  I don't recall calling Christians "delusional", but if I did, it was probably a specific person(s) for a specific reason.  I've known and liked several prominent Christians here in Phoenix because they had solid character.  

My artistic pursuits came about in large part because of a heavy influence by the European churches.  The music you hear all the time came about because church music was secularized after the dark ages and flourished in the renaissance.  Can you name and describe the church modes?  I can.  Do you understand the principles of baroque and renaissance chorales/chants?  I do.  

You see, I'm not so much opposed to Rabbi Yeshua bin Yosif (who westerners call by his latin name, "Jesus") and his words as organized religion's various false interpretations of them.

I don't really know what the media and public schools teach because I've ignored them for a very long time. (Wasn't it Twain who said "I became wise in spite of my education")  I've learned a bit about it from reading Griffin's(etc.) work on education, but that's about it.

Your portrayal not exactly what happened in the communist countries.  Religion fell in Russia quite a while after it started(I learned a bit about this when I studyed Russian lit and history). (see here and here for a bit of info) China and some others, I would probably agree.  

If you think my arguments rest on what "everyone believes", you've misinterpeted me there too.  If you follow my threads regularly, you know that I rather regularly rail against the MSM and other coporate/government institutions.  If you refer to my varioius references to established facts that historians tend to agree on, then you're right.  

As to NWO, I also oppose their attempts to eliminate spirituality.  This is an attempt to institutionalize the "mechanical" worldview (which essentially views organisms as machines rather than individual humans).

As to my name, you read too much into it.  "Heavenly" is valley girl speak that made it's way into 'zoni' (arizonan) culture.  (much like "dreamy" and so on, which I heard a lot of growing up, since Cali is nextdoor.)

Hope that clears things up.  If I overlooked anything, let me know (I'm usually multi-tasking, so I make mistakes sometimes)

Ciao for now. 




> Well, I haven't taken you as an athiest.  I've taken you as a neo-pagan, although you've presented yourself as an atheist.  Since you are clearly anti-Christian, and your name implies something, I've taken you as some new ager want to be, which would explain the ax you are attempting to grind against Christianty. 
> 
> And indeed all the purpose of the NWO should come up.  The religious purpose of the NWO is more important than the government or economic, and yet you are all for that purpose.  Exactly what have you said that I couldn't have heard as propoganda in any of the public schools or media?  Why shouldn't you be treated as a collectivist, and doesn't 3/4ths of your arguments hinge on "well this is what everyone believes" ie its in the schools and media, and therefore simply ignoring the facts in lie of what "everyone believes", even calling Christians on these forums "delusionial".
> 
> Isn't this exactly what has happened in Russia, China, and other places?  There isn't anything new here.  Its just hate and a possible prelude to government violence against Christians.

----------


## M House

You guys need to get real Russia is predominantly religious just you know you might have to actually look it up for yourself.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You guys need to get real Russia is predominantly religious just you know you might have to actually look it up for yourself.


Saint Cyrill FTW!!

----------


## TER

General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houfes of Congress have, by their joint committee, requefted me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eftablifh a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and affign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of thefe States to the fervice of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our fincere and humble thanksfor His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the fignal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpofitions of His providence in the courfe and conclufion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have fince enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to eftablish Conftitutions of government for our fafety and happinefs, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are bleffed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffufing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleafed to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in moft humbly offering our prayers and fupplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and befeech Him to pardon our national and other tranfgreffions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private ftations, to perform our feveral and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a bleffing to all the people by conftantly being a Government of wife, juft, and conftitutional laws, difcreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all fovereigns and nations (especially fuch as have shewn kindnefs unto us); and to blefs them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increafe of fcience among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind fuch a degree of temporal profperity as he alone knows to be beft.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand feven hundred and eighty-nine. 

(signed) G. Washington

----------


## Truth Warrior

*C'mon George, WWJD? Free your slaves.*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *C'mon George, WWJD? Free your slaves.*


Now that you mention it-food for thought (I'm not inserting my opinion, just something I thought you might like)....

http://www.inu.net/skeptic/slavery.html

*SLAVERY and the BIBLE*  _Slavery was      established by decree of Almighty God. It is sanctioned in the Bible, in      both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation - - Jefferson Davis_*1* _ Where the spirit of     the Lord is there is liberty - - 2 Corinthians 3:17_ *Louis W. Cable*      There is no morality outside of the Holy Bible! We hear this     cliché  repeated _ad nauseam_ by Bible believers. But     is the Bible itself morally flawed? Take for example the institution     of human slavery perhaps the most degrading form of social subordination. Could anything be more immoral than the buying     and selling of fellow human beings into a hopeless life of involuntary     servitude? What does the Bible have to say about it? Well, we'll     see. But first, let us briefly review the history of slavery     in the United States of America.
      The importation of African slaves into the New World began     shortly after Columbus’ famous “discovery” in     1492. In 1517 the Bishop of Las Casas, a high official in the     Roman Catholic Church, encouraged immigration to the New World     by permitting Spaniards to import twelve Negroes each2. So Christianity and African slaves were     introduced into the New World at about the same time. In what     was later to become the United States of America it begin in     1619 when twenty Africans were off loaded from a Dutch ship at     Jamestown, Virginia and sold into slavery3. From these humble beginnings the slave trade     blossomed into a hugely profitable venture for the slave traders.
      Many of our revered founding fathers were slave owners. George     Washington, the father of our country, owned slaves as did the     great Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence.     Patrick Henry, the great orator who coined the famous slogan,     “Give me liberty or give me death,” was, ironically     enough, a slave owner. The slaver trade was recognized as a legitimate     commercial enterprise, and slave markets operated openly. The     rights of slave owners were protected by law while the slave,     of course, had no rights. Although President Lincoln's famous Emancipation      Proclamation became effective on January 1,1863, slavery did not officially end in this country     until the thirteenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution was finally ratified      on      December 6,1865.
      Slavery was legal in the United States for almost two hundred     and fifty years. Why so long? Isn’t this a Christian nation founded on God’s word, the     Holy Bible? That’s what many Christians tell me. Well, if     that’s so, maybe that’s where the rub comes in because     the Bible not only condones slavery, it actually encourages that     cruel institution and has, in fact, been effectively used to     promote and preserve it. Here, for example, is a quote from Jefferson     Davis, the first and only president of the Confederacy, "It (slavery) was established by decree     of Almighty God and is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments     from Genesis to     Revelation4."
      President Davis was right. God approves of slavery. In Exodus 21 the     guidelines for the buying, selling and treatment of slaves is given. God says      in verse 4 that if a male slave marries, his wife and children shall     remain with the master when the slave departs because technically     speaking they belong to the master. How's that for family values? Now if the slave is imprudent     enough to protests because he loves his wife and children and wants to stay      on, the consequences can be pretty drastic. In verse 6 the master is directed      to "Bring      him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door      post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall      serve him for ever".     This is all repeated with some minor alteration in Deuteronomy     15:16-17. Here the master is told to "Do likewise to your maid slaves."     In Exodus 21:7-9 God even instructs men how they are to go about     selling their own daughters into slavery. Here it is worth noting that many      church officials including popes have owned slaves*5*.
      Concerning family values, in Joel 3:8 God warns that, “I     will sell your sons and your daughters to the Judians, and they     shall in turn sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off.”     In case you are still unconvinced, try 1 Tim. 6:1-2; “Let     slaves regard their masters as worthy of all honor." Matthew     10:24 and John 13:16 remind us that slaves are never better than     their masters. Women take note that in Titus 2:9-10 slaves are     ordered to, “Be submissive to your master and give satisfaction     in every respect." Also check Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22     which say, “Slaves obey your master." Of the venerated     Ten Commandments, numbers four and ten recognize and therefore     give tacit approval to slavery. In fact, neither the Old or New     Testament contains an outright condemnation of this infamous institution.
     In Genesis 3:16 God decrees that as a result of the “fall” the wife will      henceforth be ruled over by her husband thereby relegating women to the      status of a slave. This second class status for women is reinforced      throughout the Bible. Although somewhat offset in Ephesians 5:25 where      husbands are told to love their wives, there is an unresolved      contradiction here. The question remains: How can a master truly love his      slave - and just as important - how can a slave truly love her master? The      biblically mandated husband/wife relationship breads nothing but resentment,      contempt and hatred. 
     The Church, particularly in Central and South America, supported the      enslavement of native inhabitants. Based on a 1493 papal Bull, Spanish      jurist Encisco claimed in 1509*6*,      “The king has every right to send his men to the Indians to demand the      territory from these idolaters because he had received it from the pope. If      the Indians refuse, he may quite legally enslave them, just a Joshua      enslaved the Canaanites.” As justification for this action, Leviticus      25:44-46 is cited. It reads*:* “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids,      which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of      them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the      strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their      families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be      your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children      after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for      ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one      over another with rigor.”
      What did Jesus have to say about slavery? Well, in the cherished Sermon      of the Mount, allegedly given by him and recognized as a prescription for      Christian living, the institution of slavery, so prevalent at the time, is      never mentioned. However, in Matthew 8:5-13 Jesus heals the Roman centurion's      slave while praising the centurion for his exemplary faithfulness. Why      didn't Jesus seize this opportunity to condemn slavery and forbid it? In      Luke 12:47, the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave, Jesus even      recommends the beating of slaves. But      the most astounding pro-slavery statement in the Bible is made by Jesus      himself in Matthew 10:24-25. Here Jesus not only reminds slaves that they are      never above their master, he actually recommends that they strive to be like      him. 
      Throughout the gospels Jesus ignores countless opportunities to condemn      slavery. Another good example is the parable of the ten pound (Luke      19:11-27). Here we read how while visiting at the house of  Zacchaeus, the      rich tax collector, Jesus ceases upon the opportunity to lecture us on the      proper technique of profitable money investment. In verse 27  the      greedy, wicked nobleman tells his slaves, "But those mine enemies, which      would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before      me." Instead of condemning such a display of wanton cruelty and intolerance      as he should have Jesus simply ignores it and goes on with his money-saving      lecture thereby passing up another opportunity to register his condemnation      of slavery. 
     Paul, the earliest Christian evangelist and a contemporary of Jesus,      expresses his unqualified support of the institution of human slavery by      instructing slaves to obey their masters in several passages, Ephesians 6:5,      I Timothy 6:1 and again in Titus 2:9-10.
      What are some other Bible commentaries concerning slavery? Peter, Jesus' favorite disciple, directs slaves to obey and fear their master without question, even though he may be cruel and unjust (1 Peter 2:18). This directive is repeated in Ephesians 6:5. In Exodus 21:26-27 and Proverbs 29:19 God tells the masters how to punish their slaves. In Leviticus 25:44-46 God instructs his chosen people on how to treat their slaves. Here he sets a more lenient standard for the Israelite slaves than for those who are not Israelites. But, God is not totally without a sense of justice because in Exodus 21:20-21 he says that if the master beats a slave to death, the master shall be punished. If, however, the severely beaten slave lingers on for a day or two, the master is off the hook. God says in Exodus 21:28-32 that if an ox gores a slave, the ox's owner shall give the slave master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned to death. In Deuteronomy 20:13-14 God tells the Israelites what they should do with the inhabitants of a conquered city, "Whereas the men must be killed, the women and children are to be taken as the spoils of war." Presumably that gives the Israelites the green light to sell them into slavery.
      Those among us who remain dedicated to the Bible, especially African      Americans, should realize that while it may be morally correct in some cases,      the Bible's     unrelenting endorsement of slavery is certainly immoral. Now, some Bible      apologists have been quick to point out to me those verses such      as Colossians 4:1directing the slave owner to be kind to his slaves. I would      just remind them that regardless of whether the master is sweet and gentle      or mean and cruel the slave is still a slave and therefore is bereft of      freedom and stripped of human dignity. In      the final analysis it is     the liberal secular state, not the Bible, which we have to thank for     ending slavery. Also, it is the liberal secular state, not the church,     which stands as the guarantor of freedom and human rights. The     truth is that human rights were (and are being) achieved today     not because of the Bible but in spite of it. 
    _______________________________________________
1 Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the      Confederate States of America, Montgomery, AL, Feb. 18, 1861.
2 Franklin, John H., From Slavery to Freedom     - A History of Negro Americans, Vintage Books, 1969, page 49.
3 Ibid, page 71.
4 Rowland, Dunbar; _Jefferson Davis,_ vol.     1, page 286.
5 Spong, John S., _The Sins of      Scripture_, Harper San Francisco, 2--5, pg.155.
     6 Ellerbe, Helen, _The Dark Side of      Christian History,_ Morningstar Books, page 90.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*"The Empire ( Roman ) Strikes Back"* 

*Damn, maybe the US WAS founded on "Christian" principles after all.* 

*Next time try Jesus principles.*

----------


## BeFranklin

> My cause?
> Whats your claim to fame, besides being a resident NEOCON?
> Your words reek of hatred. Congrats. You just re-enforced the reason why i don't go to church. I don't like getting fleas.


More insults.  I've waited months of seeing this on these threads before I decided to stop turning the other cheek and call hypocricy and a condescending attitude what it is.  The same things occured in Russia and China before they became atheist states, and the same thing occured in Nazi Germany before they killed the Jews.  You have to start slandering people with insults before you can justify the killings.

The bible says a man is hated by the person who lies to him.  When I see willful lying on these threads followed by insults when factual documentation is presented that can't be explained away, I don't see just ignorance.  I see purposful hate.

In regards to Jefferson "really being a deist", so the "Declaration of Independence really doesn't mean what it says", here is another quote:




> "My opinion on the right of expatriation has been so long ago as the year 1776 consigned to record in the act of the Virginia code, drawn by myself, recognizing the right expressly and prescribing the mode of exercising it. The evidence of this natural right, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings. If He has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, he has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode, and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which nature has traced for each individual the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817.


King of kings, that is straight from the bible.  Jefferson was no deist.  Now follow it with another round of insults because those who know the truth must be killed.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> 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.


Franklin was no atheist. He believed in God.

----------


## BeFranklin

> ...


Ok, apology accepted, but it wasn't needed.  I shouldn't have lost my temper, and have probably co-mingled your posts in memory with other posters less kind and more prone to insults over the months, so I also apologize.




> ...
> If you think my arguments rest on what "everyone believes", you've misinterpeted me there too.  If you follow my threads regularly, you know that I rather regularly rail against the MSM and other coporate/government institutions.  If you refer to my varioius references to established facts that historians tend to agree on, then you're right.  
> 
> As to NWO, I also oppose their attempts to eliminate spirituality.  This is an attempt to institutionalize the "mechanical" worldview (which essentially views organisms as machines rather than individual humans).


The way I am looking at it is like the Roman Empire, they tried to absorb everyones religions into one, which, since it was all for political purposes, and truth didn't matter, resulted in emperor worship.

I'm tired of many posters characterizing Christian patriots who like the founders' Christian thoughts as right wing fasists.  This is the left-right wing dichotomy of the modern day, and it isn't true. Christian patriotism in the Revolutionary day would be called liberal, not conservative.  It certainly resembles nothing like divine rights of kings or priest worship.  All men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with rights.  That is liberal.  

So were the thoughts about religious liberty, such as expressed by Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson, or Benjamin Franklin, or from the church who fought the first battle of the Revolutionary war i.e. the shot heard round the world, whose slogan was "No King but King Jesus" and no monarch.  I believe those things, and just like any traditional protestant, I don't believe my children would be born saved or are saved as infants, but are just as my neighbor may be.  In the pursuit of truth, the exchange of ideas is a good thing, and God leds people to find it and Him.  It is imposible to separate the founders from what they believed, or hope to effectively tar it - because it was a good thing.

----------


## BeFranklin

...

----------


## Truth Warrior

*It's really no wonder that almost any institutionalized HUMAN anything usually just tends to merely give me the creeps. * 

*"By their fruits, ye shall know them."*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *It's really no wonder that almost any institutionalized HUMAN anything usually just tends to merely give me the creeps. * 
> 
> *"By their fruits, ye shall know them."*


+1

----------


## JK/SEA

> More insults.  I've waited months of seeing this on these threads before I decided to stop turning the other cheek and call hypocricy and a condescending attitude what it is.


irononically, its christians who have more blood on their hands than any one cult.

how's that for historical facts?....

if i wanted to join a 'club' of murderers and drug dealers, i'd join the hell's angels.

----------


## Republicae

> 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


Ethics and morals are not exclusive to the christian religion, to imply such is a misapplication of the principles that preceded christianity for several thousands of years.  A moral compass doesn't necessarily come in the form of a cross, in fact, more times than not, I have found some of the most immoral and hateful people to be wrapped up in cloak of christianity. 

In terms of law, take common law, that was primarily of Saxon origin and preceded the advent of christianity to the British Isles by several hundred years.

----------


## Conservative Christian

Benjamin Franklin was no atheist. He may not have been a Christian, but he was most certainly a THEIST:

*"I've 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 the House they labor in vain who 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 become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages."

Benjamin Franklin
Speech to the Constitutional Convention (06-28-1787). Manuscript notes by Franklin are preserved in the Library of Congress.*


.

----------


## hope7134

Not all people who believe in God are christians. Christians are followers of Christ. But all people who profess some type of religion believe in some type of God. Ben Franklin believed in God, but he never said he believed in Christ. The bible says Demons believe and tremble. Does that make them Christians. So my fellow christians don't believe because the founding fathers believed in God they were Christians. Even witches believe in *a* God.

To answer the question about the declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they are moral documents, not christian documents. No where in these documents do you find christians have any other rights than any other religion. These documents are a moral code. If they were Christian documents, then they would require no wars, no abortions, no homosexual marriages, church required attendance, forgiveness, etc...! Sehe the problem here my fellow christians? You can't regulate christianity, as it is an aspect of the heart, it's about love not about regulations. So it is impossible for these documents to be christian documents. The only thing the christians have a right too with these documents, is the same rights of all other religious citizens. We have the right to freely worship or not.

----------

