DamianTV
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 20,677
So much for Separation of Church and State...
Founded on Christian principles? Griffon believes otherwise.
- Thread starter strapko
- Start date
So much for Separation of Church and State...
BeFranklin
Member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,096
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
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 17,997
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
Lizard King
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 38,926
The angel of light, or enlightenment. Knowledge, like the tree of knowledge.
Considered by the early church to be evil to seek the knowledge of "god", ie. sciences... the basis of masonry.
Lucious... Lucifer... hell, even Luke, as in Luke Skywalker. If you will.
Listen to some Jordan Maxwell.
Surf some sites.
The church of today, was not the church of that day.
The church of that day would burn a witch, or torture a heretic.
Masons were "enlightened"... note... light. To bring to light.
http://masonictraveler.blogspot.com/2007/09/lucifer-light-bearer.html
http://www.illuminati-news.com/2007/0116b.htm
http://www.cuttingedge.org/free11.html
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chapter1/realmatrix.htm
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2005/11nov/lucifer.html
http://www.prepare-ye-the-way.com/freemasonry1.htm
Deborah K
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 17,997
It will be interesting to see if Obama swears an oath on the Holy Bible.
torchbearer
Lizard King
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 38,926
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
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 17,997
Deborah K
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 17,997
Just answer the question. Why do the Presidents swear an oath to defend the Constitution on the bible?
torchbearer
Lizard King
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 38,926
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
Lizard King
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 38,926
See above post.
BeFranklin
Member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,096
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
Member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,096
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
Lizard King
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 38,926
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
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,243
so lucifer does not equal satan. got it!
Deborah K
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 17,997
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
Member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,096
Actually, the phrase comes from the baptists, and was not meant to be used the way it is now. I'm mentioning it just because I thought you might be interested.
The origin of the phrase comes from Roger Williams, founder of the first baptist church and the colony at rode island - providence. He wrote a number of classic books, including "the bloody tenant of persecution for the cause of conscience", showing from the bible that persecuting people for what they believed, such as inquistions and crusades, was completely against the bible (obviously).
The wall of seperation came from his works as well, because he maintained that the church florishes best when not interfered with by the state - state run churches persecute separatists (obviously).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_(theologian)
The more modern use of the quote is from a letter from Jefferson replying back to a group of baptists wondering about religious freedom in the new nation. Jefferson's letter is making use of Roger Williams quote. (see above wikipedia article).
Roger Williams would be appaled at how the term is being mis-applied. Rhode Island is an early example of a colony with religilous liberty.
Deborah K
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 17,997
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
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
He did it in the Senate (according to all reports), so he'll likely do it again.
danberkeley
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,243
but but but but whatever happened to the seperation of church and state these democrats espouse all the time?
BeFranklin
Member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,096
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.
Last edited:
Similar threads
