# Think Tank > History >  The Faith of Our Founding Fathers

## Theocrat

Special thanks to LibertyEagle for sharing this with me. Now, let this be forever settled in His name, and may the historical revisionists and secular humanists be ever put to shame.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Are you counting the Freemason  FFs? *

----------


## Theocrat

> *Are you counting the Freemason  FFs? *


Yes. Freemasonry was only peripheral in our nation's founding, TW.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Don't believe every random collection of information without listed sources you see on the webbernet.  That's what evil atheists do-remember, Theo?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Yes. Freemasonry was only peripheral in our nation's founding, TW.


 *Are you counting the slave owner FFs?*

----------


## TonySutton

omg, a web page says it so it must be true.  I am not discounting your concept but anyone can make a web page and publish truth or lies on it and state it is all true.  Of course, this does not make it true.

----------


## LibertyEagle

*Guys, must you flock to every, single, thread that has something about Christianity in it and barf your humanist garbage all over it?*

Note:  And by the way, Tony, if you still doubt that our Founding Fathers were Christians (with the exception of Paine) you might want to peruse BeFranklin's thread where he posted a plethora of documents from our Founding Fathers, clearly showing that they were.

There has been a concerted effort to convince you otherwise and you guys are falling for it.  Perhaps you should stop and ask yourself why.

----------


## TonySutton

One thing I find odd and amusing.  If I google this phrase:




> In 1782, the United States Congress voted this
> 
> resolution: "The congress of the United States
> 
> recommends and approves the Holy Bible
> 
> for use in all schools”


Every hit on the front page goes to a regurgitation of the same facts.  All the same facts!  hehehe

----------


## Theocrat

> *Are you counting the slave owner FFs?*


Most of our nation's slave owners treated their slaves like family members.

----------


## Theocrat

> One thing I find odd and amusing.  If I google this phrase:
> 
> 
> 
> Every hit on the front page goes to a regurgitation of the same facts.  All the same facts!  hehehe


That fact comes from this amazing document:

 

Any other questions?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Guys, must you flock to every, single, thread that has something about Christianity in it and barf your humanist garbage all over it?*
> 
> Note:  And by the way, Tony, if you still doubt that our Founding Fathers were Christians (with the exception of Paine) you might want to peruse BeFranklin's thread where he posted a plethora of documents from our Founding Fathers, clearly showing that they were.
> 
> There has been a concerted effort to convince you otherwise and you guys are falling for it.  Perhaps you should stop and ask yourself why.


I didn't.  I'm just saying that the internet isn't the most reliable source for this kind of info.  I'm frankly tired of the religious threads (both atheist and theist), myself.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Most of our nation's slave owners treated their slaves like family members.


 *Are you counting the Anti-Federalist FFs?*

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I didn't.  I'm just saying that the internet isn't the most reliable source for this kind of info.  I'm frankly tired of the religious threads (both atheist and theist), myself.


Yet you flock to every one of them that I have seen.  Why is that exactly?

----------


## Bman

> Most of our nation's slave owners treated their slaves like family members.


How comforting.  And I'm sure they felt just like one of the family.

I know plenty of people who call themselves christian who are nothing of the sort.  They say it because it is good for business.  Kinda of like the founding fathers might have to get all the idiots in line.  Not saying everyone who has belief is an idiot.  But followers hardly ever question orders which certainly does not make them smart.

----------


## Theocrat

> I didn't.  I'm just saying that the internet isn't the most reliable source for this kind of info.  I'm frankly tired of the religious threads (both atheist and theist), myself.


If you're tired of religious threads (although I would argue all threads on here are religious in nature), then you don't have to visit them, you know.

----------


## Theocrat

> *Are you counting the Anti-Federalist FFs?*


Yes, although I would disagree with their reasoning on the nature of central governments.

----------


## TonySutton

> That fact comes from this amazing document:
> 
> Any other questions?


Yes, where in there does it recommend it to be used in schools?

Again, I am not arguing whether or not the founding fathers were religious.  to me this has no bearing at all.  I do not like people misrepresenting facts.  Here is some more reading for everyone.




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


http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

Also both pages of the Journal of Congress

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006472.jpg

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006473.jpg

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Yes, although I would disagree with their reasoning on the nature of central governments.


 *Are you counting T J?*

----------


## Theocrat

> Yes, where in there does it recommend it to be used in schools?
> 
> Again, I am not arguing whether or not the founding fathers were religious.  to me this has no bearing at all.  I do not like people misrepresenting facts.  Here is some more reading for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
> 
> Also both pages of the Journal of Congress
> ...


I can't find the documentation from early State legislatures, but you're correct that the document says nothing about using the Bible in schools. Back then, they had this crazy notion that States would take care of education concerns. 

My only point is presenting that evidence was to show that Congress endorsing a Bible was a normative act in our early republic, which shows that Christianity (not secular humanism, not Islam, not Buddhism, etc.) was the dominant religion in our legislatures and courts. It carried on into our nations schools, as well.

----------


## Theocrat

> *Are you counting T J?*


Yes, but he was in the minority when it came to his own "Christian" views.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yet you flock to every one of them that I have seen.  Why is that exactly?


I used to.  I'm done.  The reason I came to this is for the same reason a person is attracted to a massive car wreck.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Yes, but he was in the minority when it came to his own "Christian" views.


 *Are you counting Tom Paine?*

----------


## TonySutton

> Back then, they had this crazy notion that States would take care of education concerns.


That is why I looked at that specific quote to check authenticity.  In my mind if one fact claimed as truth is indeed false, I consider the entirety of it questionable.

I feel everyone has a right to practice their religion or lack thereof as long as it does not transgress the rights of any individual.  Right or wrong, this is my belief.

----------


## Xenophage

Deists, anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

----------


## Truth Warrior

> That is why I looked at that specific quote to check authenticity. In my mind if one fact claimed as truth is indeed false, I consider the entirety of it questionable.
> 
> I feel everyone has a right to practice their religion or lack thereof as long as it does not transgress the rights of any individual. Right or wrong, this is my belief.


 *I wish more "Christians" shared your belief.*

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Yes. Freemasonry was only peripheral in our nation's founding, TW.


The Renaissance of Christ didn't begin until the time of Martin Luther, November 1483 – February 1546. During this time, Christians did not know the authority of Christ in the bible but of the supposed authority of the Pope as God's authority on earth.  
This split happened during the time of Constantine.  When he decided to convert to Christianity, the emperor didn't kneel to join the lowly Christian slaves of that time, known as "The Way; rather, he appointed St. Augustine to create for him a new religion that he could control -- what would become the Catholic Church.  This set up what would become a confrontational battle between the Catholic religionists and the Catholic protestants.
During the time of the rule of the Holy Empire, the life and death of Christ became largely unknown.  This is because Christians weren't allowed to read the bible outside of the very poor translation of Latin.   So, even if one could read Latin, one had to be incredibly gifted to understand how such a version was poor in translation.  That is where the extraordinary vision of Martin Luther comes into play.    
Now, why would the Founding-Fathers be great Christians when during their time the history of Christ was still awakening?

----------


## pcosmar

> The Renaissance of Christ didn't begin until the time of Martin Luther, November 1483 – February 1546. During this time, Christians did not know the authority of Christ in the bible but of the supposed authority of the Pope as God's authority on earth.  
> This split happened during the time of Constantine.  When he decided to convert to Christianity, the emperor didn't kneel to join the lowly Christian slaves of that time, known as "The Way; rather, he appointed St. Augustine to create for him a new religion that he could control -- what would become the Catholic Church.  This set up what would become a confrontational battle between the Catholic religionists and the Catholic protestants.
> During the time of the rule of the Holy Empire, the life and death of Christ became largely unknown.  This is because Christians weren't allowed to read the bible outside of the very poor translation of Latin.   So, even if one could read Latin, one had to be incredibly gifted to understand how such a version was poor in translation.  That is where the extraordinary vision of Martin Luther comes into play.    
> Now, why would the Founding-Fathers be great Christians when during their time the history of Christ was still awakening?


Wow
How incredibly confused.
No wonder your posts never make sense.
Mix a bit of truth with the completely false and then stir 1500 years of time line in a circle.

----------


## Theocrat

> The Renaissance of Christ didn't begin until the time of Martin Luther, November 1483  February 1546. During this time, Christians did not know the authority of Christ in the bible but of the supposed authority of the Pope as God's authority on earth.  
> This split happened during the time of Constantine.  When he decided to convert to Christianity, the emperor didn't kneel to join the lowly Christian slaves of that time, known as "The Way; rather, he appointed St. Augustine to create for him a new religion that he could control -- what would become the Catholic Church.  This set up what would become a confrontational battle between the Catholic religionists and the Catholic protestants.
> During the time of the rule of the Holy Empire, the life and death of Christ became largely unknown.  This is because Christians weren't allowed to read the bible outside of the very poor translation of Latin.   So, even if one could read Latin, one had to be incredibly gifted to understand how such a version was poor in translation.  That is where the extraordinary vision of Martin Luther comes into play.    
> Now, why would the Founding-Fathers be great Christians when during their time the history of Christ was still awakening?


What?

----------


## 1000-points-of-fright

This country cannot be a "christian nation" _and_ tolerant of non-christians without violating the 1st commandment.

The options are either a theocracy or a religiously neutral government.  Guess which one the founders, regardless of their individual faiths, would have chosen.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> Deists, anyone?


Yes, but not according to our 'betters' Theocrat and BeFranklin. We're just ignorant tools of the international communists who get called Atheists because we believe in a Rational God instead of one who wants government to put gays, witches, liars, adulterers and all other manner of 'social deviants' to death.

----------


## Theocrat

> Deists, anyone?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism


Deism is for those former "atheists" who acknowledge the obvious that there is a God, but at the same time want to limit God by not having Him involved in human affairs, especially of a personal or civil nature. In essence, deism is idolatry, a god set up to *suit the sins of men*, by the minds of men.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Deism is for those former "atheists" who acknowledge the obvious that there is a God, but at the same time want to limit God by not having Him involved in human affairs, especially of a personal or civil nature. In essence, deism is idolatry, a god set up to *suit the sins of men*, by the minds of men.


You ask that others not insult your religion, but you go and insult BRL's religion.  Why did you decide to set up a double standard for yourself?   Why should anyone consider you credible if you can't do what you ask of others (and what Yeshua demands of you, as well)?

----------


## Theocrat

> You ask that others not insult your religion, but you go and insult BRL's religion.  Why did you decide to set up a double standard for yourself?   Why should anyone consider you credible if you can't do what you ask of others?


People insult my religion all the time on this forum, and I don't really mind it because I understand where they are coming from. However, what sometimes troubles me is when people cannot substantiate their claims against my religion, especially when they have no basis to judge my religion (in an absolute and objective sense), in the first place.

As many skeptics and scoffers have stated on this forum, no one's beliefs are above examination and critique, not even mine. I grant them that, and I welcome the discussion of any and all those who do not share my beliefs. My intent is not to make enemies, but to set the record straight by proclaiming truth. I also wish to learn, as well. So, I say let the conversation and controversy continue.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You ask that others not insult your religion, but you go and insult BRL's religion.  Why did you decide to set up a double standard for yourself?   Why should anyone consider you credible if you can't do what you ask of others (and what Yeshua demands of you, as well)?


I hope you remember that _yourself_, heavenlyboy.

----------


## BenIsForRon

> In essence, deism is idolatry, a god set up to *suit the sins of men*, by the minds of men.


Could you explain this? I'm not sure I follow.

I ask because I am in fact a former atheist, now a deist.  And I do believe God is active in the human realm.  

But I don't believe he is here to encourage sinning, if that's what you meant.

----------


## Xenophage

> Deism is for those former "atheists" who acknowledge the obvious that there is a God, but at the same time want to limit God by not having Him involved in human affairs, especially of a personal or civil nature. In essence, deism is idolatry, a god set up to *suit the sins of men*, by the minds of men.


God is your imaginary friend, so what's it matter?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I hope you remember that _yourself_, heavenlyboy.


I'm cool with it, same as always.  I hope you remember it too.   Have a nice day!

----------


## Kraig

> People insult my religion all the time on this forum, and I don't really mind it because I understand where they are coming from. However, what sometimes troubles me is when people cannot substantiate their claims against my religion, especially when they have no basis to judge my religion (in an absolute and objective sense), in the first place.


Maybe but you also tend to take questions and disbelief as insults quite often IMO.

----------


## John E

Posting that on the CFL site was in Poor Taste. The CFL site should remain neutral and in support of all religions, not a sounding board for why someone believes this to be a christian nation. This drives support away guys.

----------


## eOs

Who cares what religion the founding fathers were. It's their actions I'm interested in. You know, George Bush is a christian too. God, these arguments are so beneath me.

----------


## fedup100

> How comforting.  And I'm sure they felt just like one of the family.
> 
> I know plenty of people who call themselves christian who are nothing of the sort.  They say it because it is good for business.  Kinda of like the founding fathers might have to get all the idiots in line.  Not saying everyone who has belief is an idiot.  But followers hardly ever question orders which certainly does not make them smart.


I think that is a huge generalization of Christians.  Trust me real Christians know what is going on.  Who are they?  They are the ones everyone makes fun of.  They aren't PC!

You know people do not understand farming or growing food in the 1800's or even the early 1900's.

There where no Combines or Tractors to do the farm work.  Slavery is not a sin and the Bible speaks to it, about it and how a slave should be treated.  There had to be slaves and few were black.  

The most sought after where Irish or english and would draw much more on the block than a black slave, it was a better tractor.

The Christians who owned slaves in that time followed the guidelines from the Bible as to how to treat a slave.

No, it was not the best place to be but it was a fact of life.  In the 1930"s my Father was 6 years old and was a slave, a share cropper in Alabama.  They had no choice and the whole family picked cotton until there fingers bleed and swelled their hands double.  There was no master to feed them or house them, they lived in a shack and were eaten alive by mosquitoes and then all but three starved to death during the depression and the new "Raw Deal".

Life's a bitch aint, get over it  and quit spewing nonsense about black slaves.  Just like the joooooos, there were lots of other colors that had to be a slave and die a slave.

The truth on the civil war and slavery in "The South Was Right" by the Kennedy brothers.

----------


## phill4paul

There is no reference in the Pre-Amble or the Constitution to an adherence to Christian values. If you can find one please post it. I have read both.

  Yes, there is the mention of a "Creator" but no where is it defined as the Christian God.

  If the founders had intended these United States to be subjugated under Christian Law then I would believe they would have made it imperatively so.

  They did not.

----------


## eOs

mass madness, you maniacs.

----------


## Deborah K

> Don't believe every random collection of information without listed sources you see on the webbernet.  That's what evil atheists do-remember, Theo?



Here ya go: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Foundin..._Religion.html  and here's a blast from the past:  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=126770

----------


## Deborah K

> There is no reference in the Pre-Amble or the Constitution to an adherence to Christian values. If you can find one please post it. I have read both.
> 
>   Yes, there is the mention of a "Creator" but no where is it defined as the Christian God.
> 
>   If the founders had intended these United States to be subjugated under Christian Law then I would believe they would have made it imperatively so.
> 
>   They did not.


Don't confuse the issue.  This is about the faith of our founders NOT subjugation to Christian Law.

----------


## Deborah K

> Posting that on the CFL site was in Poor Taste. The CFL site should remain neutral and in support of all religions, not a sounding board for why someone believes this to be a christian nation. This drives support away guys.



That is a secular response and given the fact that our founders were mostly Christian, I don't see anything wrong with bringing that up on C4L as long as the statements can be verified as historical fact.  Why has it become so politically incorrect to bring up that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles?  PRINCIPLES folks - NOT subjugation as someone else has implied.  So what if not all Americans are Christian?  Do we revise or omit history because it might offend some?  Sounds.............Orwellian........

----------


## AuH20

> That is a secular response and given the fact that our founders were mostly Christian, I don't see anything wrong with bringing that up on C4L as long as the statements can be verified as historical fact.  Why has it become so politically incorrect to bring up that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles?  PRINCIPLES folks - NOT subjugation as someone else has implied.  So what if not all Americans are Christian?  Do we revise or omit history because it might offend some?  Sounds.............Orwellian........


 I agree. Just because there's a gaggle of crazed Christians running around, it doesn't necessarily diminish the value of Judaeo-Christian values  had towards the ascent of Western Civilization. I'm a deist and I can admit this.

----------


## fedup100

The founding Fathers where devout Christians.  It is in black and white and the atheists and enemies of GOD and this country will continue to deny it.

http://www.lonang.com/conlaw/1/c12a.htm

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God:*
The True Foundation of American Law




> An examination of the true foundation of American law must begin with the question: "Is the law of God supreme or is it subject to the laws of peoples and nations?" Two answers to this question are possible. The first answer is that God exists and his law, including his laws pertaining to the creation of nations, governments and constitutions, are supreme, right and absolute. The second answer is that whether or not God or his law exist, the law of peoples and nations, are supreme, right and absolute at least until they are changed.


This book was in the hands of every person in Jefferson's time.  They used it with the Bible to build the foundation of this country.  I saw one of the original books once and got to hold it and read it.  The hair on the back of my neck stood up in awe.

The fed gov has sought to destroy these books as well as the real ORIGINAL Magna Carta, they the enemy has changed the Magna Carta.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/fea...ta/legacy.html

http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm

_"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."_

----------


## Bman

> I think that is a huge generalization of Christians.  Trust me real Christians know what is going on.  Who are they?  They are the ones everyone makes fun of.  They aren't PC!


You speak like I have no personal experience with christians.  This is completely unture.  AT one point in my life I would have considered myself christian and had no doubt that he existed.  Then like George Carlin says.  I reached the age of reason.

Plus who lets you decide, or believe you know who real christians are.  If you were christian you would understand that only god can make such a comment.  Are you god?




> You know people do not understand farming or growing food in the 1800's or even the early 1900's.
> There where no Combines or Tractors to do the farm work.


And since the majority of my ancestors were farmers, and since I grew up in the middle of Dutch Country Pennsylvania, I just happen to know a heck of a lot about farming and how it gets and has gotten done. Not that they don't have some new stuff, but I was able to watch Amish people farm everyday of my life by simply sitting on my front porch and looking across the street.  Farming is hard work.  I spent two years of my life working for a farmer as a teenager.




> Slavery is not a sin and the Bible speaks to it, about it and how a slave should be treated.  There had to be slaves and few were black.


There never has to be slaves.  That has to be the lamest thing I've ever heard.  Farming can and does get done without slaves.  It did back then just like it does now.  People who take slaves are trying to get somewhere the easy way without having to suffer the hard work.  And if the bible does not condemn slavery it just gives one more good reason not to use the bible as the law of the land.





> The Christians who owned slaves in that time followed the guidelines from the Bible as to how to treat a slave.


Yeah which also gave them a supposed right to beat the slave to death.  A contradiction in itself.





> No, it was not the best place to be but it was a fact of life.  In the 1930"s my Father was 6 years old and was a slave, a share cropper in Alabama.  They had no choice and the whole family picked cotton until there fingers bleed and swelled their hands double.  There was no master to feed them or house them, they lived in a shack and were eaten alive by mosquitoes and then all but three starved to death during the depression and the new "Raw Deal".


Sound terrible.  How exactly were they slaves in the 1930's?  Wasn't slavery abolished about 50 years prior?





> Life's a bitch aint, get over it  and quit spewing nonsense about black slaves.  Just like the joooooos, there were lots of other colors that had to be a slave and die a slave.
> 
> The truth on the civil war and slavery in "The South Was Right" by the Kennedy brothers.


Dude.  I don't care that you are a KKK member but your ideas are antiquated.  And if there indeed is a god for that I will give praise.  Such Ideas need to go the way of the dinosaur.

----------


## John E

> That is a secular response and given the fact that our founders were mostly Christian, I don't see anything wrong with bringing that up on C4L as long as the statements can be verified as historical fact.  Why has it become so politically incorrect to bring up that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles?  PRINCIPLES folks - NOT subjugation as someone else has implied.  So what if not all Americans are Christian?  Do we revise or omit history because it might offend some?  Sounds.............Orwellian........



The CFL is a political group with stated aims.

These types of comments on the official site makes the CFL appear to be a group that is pushing a religious agenda and a religion based government.

Right, wrong or other -- when you are at work, you do the job and go home. You save the political and religious debates for home when its on your time and when it doesn't reflect on the company you work for. Same logic applies here. Get it?

----------


## Deborah K

> The CFL is a political group with stated aims.
> 
> These types of comments on the official site makes the CFL appear to be a group that is pushing a religious agenda and a religion based government.
> 
> Right, wrong or other -- when you are at work, you do the job and go home. You save the political and religious debates for home when its on your time and when it doesn't reflect on the company you work for. Same logic applies here. Get it?


Oh that makes so much sense.  Yes, let's do box up religion and only speak of it behind closed doors, lest we offend anyone.   And never speak about in terms of historical value on a political website.  So much for freedom of speech.

----------


## phill4paul

> Don't confuse the issue.  This is about the faith of our founders NOT subjugation to Christian Law.


  I do not believe I am confusing the interest of the OP and the link cited.

  It is presented as a treatise that the founding fathers were Christians and therefore our government base should be based in that belief.

  Roll your eyes all you want. I am not contending the faith or religion of the founders. I am merely pointing out that they chose not to create a system of government based on any religions belief.

----------


## Deborah K

> I do not believe I am confusing the interest of the OP and the link cited.
> 
>   It is presented as a treatise that the founding fathers were Christians and therefore our government base should be based in that belief.


I disagree.  I see it as giving historical credence to the fact that the founders (most) were religious.  This is something that _should_ be dealt with since the secular revisionists have launched a vicious campaign to deny this historical fact.  I know from personal experience that many of our youth have been indoctrinated by our government learning institutions into believing that the founders were non-religious.  A lie.




> Roll your eyes all you want. I am not contending the faith or religion of the founders. I am merely pointing out that they chose not to create a system of government based on any religions belief


   And I agree.  Would it make you feel better if that caveat was put on that site?

----------


## phill4paul

> I disagree.  I see it as giving historical credence to the fact that the founders (most) were religious.  This is something that _should_ be dealt with since the secular revisionists have launched a vicious campaign to deny this historical fact.  I know from personal experience that many of our youth have been indoctrinated by our government learning institutions into believing that the founders were non-religious.  A lie.


   Maybe you haven't read this thread by the O.P. 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=178069

  I have no apprehension to his intentions.




> And I agree.  Would it make you feel better if that caveat was put on that site?


  Yes. Yes it would.

----------


## Deborah K

> Maybe you haven't read this thread by the O.P. 
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=178069
> 
>   I have no apprehension to his intentions.


I'm not clear on why you think his intentions are to create a religious gov't.
According to his own words in the thread you just posted: 




> Since we have so many arguments and discussions about the nature of homosexuality on these forums, I just felt led to make a post which could be referenced to for a Biblical understanding of homosexuality for present and future purposes. Inevitably, the subject will come up again, so it seemed wise to have a thread giving both the Christian and non-Christian a perspective on why homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes, thus, explaining the Christian's belief against it as a natural way of life.

----------


## Deborah K

> Yes. Yes it would.


Well I don't have a problem with that.  Why don't you suggest it to the blogger?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I do not believe I am confusing the interest of the OP and the link cited.
> 
>   It is presented as a treatise that the founding fathers were Christians and therefore our government base should be based in that belief.
> 
>   Roll your eyes all you want. I am not contending the faith or religion of the founders. I am merely pointing out that they chose not to create a system of government based on any religions belief.


Our government WAS based on Christianity.  That is fact.  Now, beyond that, we have freedom of religion and fully cognizant of what they had just come from in England, our Founders did not want the church to be the ruler of the country.  One thing you might not remember is that most people back then were Christians.  They were just different denominations and they wanted the freedom to worship as they saw fit.  That is one of the primary reasons for "freedom of religion".

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The CFL is a political group with stated aims.
> 
> These types of comments on the official site makes the CFL appear to be a group that is pushing a religious agenda and a religion based government.
> 
> Right, wrong or other -- when you are at work, you do the job and go home. You save the political and religious debates for home when its on your time and when it doesn't reflect on the company you work for. Same logic applies here. Get it?


No.  That was a comment from a MEMBER of the C4L.  Not an employee.  It was located on the individual's own personal blog.  

I can hear the cries of censorship now.

----------


## phill4paul

> I'm not clear on why you think his intentions are to create a religious gov't.
> According to his own words in the thread you just posted:


Perhaps it is this quote:




> No, I don't think any government should enforce nor encourage homosexual behavior. Because God sees homosexuality as a capital offense (Leviticus 20:13),* I would say it should be punished via the death penalty.* Since our justice system lacks any objective standard of what's just and unjust, that probably won't happen anytime soon. Eventually, I believe God will judge our nation (if He hasn't began already) for not taking homosexuality seriously because the tolerance of it is such a stench to His nostrils.


  He goes on to explain how people could be accused of homosexually and have their day in court and the ability to repnt and find salvation through Jesus of Nazareth. 

  Perhaps you have not read all his posts.

----------


## phill4paul

> Our government WAS based on Christianity.  That is fact.  Now, beyond that, we have freedom of religion and fully cognizant of what they had just come from in England, our Founders did not want the church to be the ruler of the country.  One thing you might not remember is that most people back then were Christians.  They were just different denominations and they wanted the freedom to worship as they saw fit.  That is one of the primary reasons for "freedom of religion".


  Show me one *governing* document that explicitly cites the Christian Bible or Christian belief as the governing dogma.
  Your interpretation of the founders, much like anyones interpretation of the Bible, is founded in your reasoning.
  As I am not Christian I can not find anywhere in any of the governing documents that cites the Christian God. While Christians on the other hand seem to see it everywhere.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Show me one *governing* document that explicitly cites the Christian Bible or Christian belief as the governing dogma.
>   Your interpretation of the founders, much like anyones interpretation of the Bible, is founded in your reasoning.
>   As I am not Christian I can not find anywhere in any of the governing documents that cites the Christian God. While Christians on the other hand seem to see it everywhere.


It's throughout their letters and other planning documents.  BeFranklin posted a great deal in his 2 threads on this board.  Go find them and read.

I'm not saying the church should rule; nor did our Founders.  I'm just saying that our Founders did base a great deal of the formation of our government on Christian principles.  They also used their knowledge of all the governments that had existed to that point and framed ours from the best aspects.

----------


## phill4paul

> It's throughout their letters and other planning documents.  BeFranklin posted a great deal in his 2 threads on this board.  Go find them and read.


  I am not disputing that the founders were not Christians.

  The fact is, even as Christians, they created a government that was not ruled by the laws of their Christian God. Or any God.

  Period. 

  No Christian has ever cited anything in our governing documents that would lead me to believe that the founders, Christian or not, intended the United States to be governed by any specific dogma.

  Their political writings are irrelevant. The "Word" is the Declaration, The Pre-Amble and the Constitution.

----------


## Deborah K

> Perhaps it is this quote:
> 
> 
> 
>   He goes on to explain how people could be accused of homosexually and have their day in court and the ability to repnt and find salvation through Jesus of Nazareth. 
> 
>   Perhaps you have not read all his posts.




OOOoooooh.....Kayyyyyyyy......that was just a bit over the topppp!!

----------


## phill4paul

> OOOoooooh.....Kayyyyyyyy......that was just a bit over the topppp!!


  Glad you agree.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> OOOoooooh.....Kayyyyyyyy......that was just a bit over the topppp!!


Which is exactly why a number of us have a problem with him. Personally, if he didn't continually insult my religious beliefs, I wouldnt have posted in this thread. I don't appreciate being labeled an Atheist when I'm not and Theocrat has equated atheism with immoral douchebaggery. If Christians expect to be respected, they have to respect others as well.

----------

