Founded on Christian principles? Griffon believes otherwise.

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

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

:rolleyes:

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

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

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

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

You need to reread your gospels.
 
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.
 
Amazing, you have figured it all out, and so few others have.
Indeed, you must commune with God often.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

William Tyndale was murdered at the stake by the Roman Catholic church for his work in translating the bible. 90% of the new testament in the King James version is still William Tyndale's translation. William Tyndale prayed when he was burning at the stake; “Lord, open the eyes of the King of England”. The King James Bible was the answer to that prayer.
http://www.williamtyndale.com/0biblehistory.htm
 
Last edited:
Its easy to do when you don't have to go through a priest to get to God.



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll just finish this discussion with one point - I re-edited the message above to include statements from many old-time protestant churches, so obviously many people have believed the same thing. And the original point in this discussion - being anti-priest and anti autocratic religion doesn't mean you are an athiest, especially if you were raised in a protestant culture.
 
Well, if you want to discuss how the bible was put together, thats a long discussion for another night. But I disagree completely. And the jewish people were already using the old testament.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ffs the bible is a war book.

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

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

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

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

--John Jay to Jedidiah Morse February 28, 1797

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




.
 
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.
 
: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.
 
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."
 
Back
Top