Founded on Christian principles? Griffon believes otherwise.

[torchbearer]

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

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

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

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

 

[Deborah K]

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

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

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

 

[BeFranklin]

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

So lawyers can be saved!

 

[BeFranklin]

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

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

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

 

[BeFranklin]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[torchbearer]

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

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

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

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

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

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 fuck about human governments.

 

[Deborah K]

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

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

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

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

 

[torchbearer]

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

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

 

[Deborah K]

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

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

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

 

[Deborah K]

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

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

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

 

[torchbearer]

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

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

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

 

[danberkeley]

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

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

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

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

 

[BeFranklin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[torchbearer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazing, you have figured it all out, and so few others have.
Indeed, you must commune with God often.
Of course, a protestant, who reads from a redacted version of the bible.. of a redacted catholic version of many pages of man made scriptures put together by catholic priest would condemn those who don't believe as he does.

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.