Most atheists believe that “reason and kindness” should replace “superstition and ideologies.” Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot thought they were being quite reasonable as they implemented their purges.
What atheists do not understand is that atheism is theocratic with the human "animal" as the final arbiter of truth. At the moment, atheists have the benefit of a vibrant Christian worldview where they can borrow moral plugs like compassion, kindness and giving to keep their hole-filled materialist boat afloat.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence appealed to “the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,” not to some atheistic invisible god of reason. The signers realized that for reason to be reasonable it must be fixed on a standard outside of man himself.
When atheists no longer have Christianity to borrow from, from what bank will they draw their moral capital?
C. S. Lewis writes.“We make men without chests (hearts) and we expect of them virtue and enterprise.“We laugh at honor and we are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.” We strip men and women of the certainty that they are created in the image of God, and we are surprised when they act like the beasts of the field.
https://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php...
===============================================
Dinesh D’Souza & Christopher Hitchens Debate
“Is Christianity the Problem?”
http://www.tkc.edu/debate/
===============================================
(Margaret Johnston wrote)
<>The Rational. The Faithful have no reason to fear members of The Rational group.<>
If only that were so. I wouldn't use the word fear, but extreme caution instead. The events of history have shown what can happen when a government takes atheism to it's logical conclusion.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot thought they were being quite reasonable as they implemented their purges.
At the end of the Darwinian atheists’ first great experiment in civil government, 1917–1991, at least 85 million residents of Communism’s officially atheistic social laboratories had been either executed or starved to death by their rulers. The more likely figure is a hundred million, according to The Black Book of Communism. The total may have been higher. Mao’s strategy of systematic extermination may have resulted in tens of millions of executions not recorded or else not yet made available to researchers. What went on in Castro’s Cuba has been recorded in horrifying detail.3 What has gone on in North Korea has not been equally well recorded. The death toll from starvation is in the millions. This is the survival of the fittest, Darwinist-style.
The French revolutionaries of the eighteenth century elevated reason to high art, turning it into a goddess and confirming its legitimacy by the blood of the guillotine. Kindness is a great thing, but atheists cannot account for it given atheistic assumptions.
=========================================================
Local-not-Yocal wrote:
For crying out loud, those people have more in common being maniacal pricks than they do being a unified atheistic front. There are many more True Believers that have done just as bad, if not worse, that have more in common with each other because their beliefs come from the same basic idea.
Quit trying to co-op reason against atheists. Your ideas are about FAITH.
Hitler did not pervert, or even alter, the theory of evolution in order to use it to support his deeds. He simply followed it to its logical conclusion. According to the theory of evolution, nature has no conscience that distinguishes between what is right and what is wrong. Where would “nature” get such an awareness of morals? Such morals certainly could not evolve from lifeless, matter. No chemical soup could progress by evolution into a being with a conscience. The most evolution could produce would be the idea that “might makes right.
When Hitler exterminated approximately 10 million, and Stalin, near 100 million innocent men, women, and children, they acted in complete agreement with the theory of evolution—and in complete disagreement with everything humans know to be right and wrong.
The atrocities of Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler reveal in stark detail how despotic and cruel the impersonal worldview of naturalism can be if followed consistently. It is no accident that Communism and Nazism claimed Darwin as their patron saint. Darwin’s approach to origins found an enthusiastic adherent in Karl Marx and his communist successors. Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels in 1866 that Darwin’s Origin of Species “is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” The results have been horrendous. One-hundred million dead in what has been described as “Darwin’s century.”
It is true that many people in history have committed terrible crimes “in the name of Christianity.” But it is not true that they were following Christ’s principles.
In fact, they were perverting Christ’s teachings, and twisting them to say things that Christ did not say. On the other hand, the deeds performed by Hitler in the name of evolution were not a perversion of the theory. Rather, he understood perfectly the principles of evolution and attempted to apply them consistently.
The difference lies in the fact that the Crusades, witch trials, and Spanish Inquisition were perversions of Christianity’s teachings. Christ taught His followers to turn the other cheek, to pray for their enemies, and to love their neighbors as themselves. And in most cases the Christian world view of true adherence to the scriptures spoke up, and changed the perverted course back to the true teachings of the faith. Love thy neighbor as thy self.
One writer said:“If you teach children that they evolved from monkeys, then they will act like monkeys.” How true. On the other hand, if you teach children that they were made in the image of God, then we can expect them to act, and treat others with that divine presence in mind.
==================================================
Lu Ann Lewellen wrote:
Altruism in hominids preceded religion by millions of years. Just how did our genus manage to do so well in a time before religion?
Concerning belief or unbelief. There is not a vacuum filled by unbelief. We "all" believe in "something. " Ether the beliefs will be a secularist, atheistic belief system, or it will be in some form of a divine being.
The definition of religion is: A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Everyone believes in something, even what appears to be a rejection of all beliefs, is a kind of belief. One holds something to be true. Maybe what you hold to be true is that nothing else is true, but that is something that you believe is true in itself. So there has never been a time when man did not believe in “something.” Even a “belief” in no God, or Gods.
This is not double talk. Even agnostics have a type of belief. They believe that it is not possible to know things about ultimate issues like the existence of God. My point is that there is no neutral place to position yourself in philosophic space. There is no place where you can place yourself in which you believe nothing and therefore don't take on some burden of proof about what it is that you hold. You can't fairly say, "Well, Christian, you believe this and you must prove this, but I have no burden of proof regarding what I believe because I believe nothing." There is no person who believes nothing about ultimate things, and even if you are agnostic or atheist, you believe in the justifiability of your agnosticism -- your uncertainty -- and you really have a burden of proof to justify your uncertainty -- your unwillingness to decide -- to justify your agnosticism, or your atheism. So there is nowhere someone can stand where he has no beliefs. Pointing out the inconvenient truth, as I’ve stated before: You won’t find many atheists feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick in places like Africa or Mother Teresa’s Calcutta. It is precisely because people believe in the divinity of Jesus that they are willing to give up their lives (sometimes literally) in service to those whom Jesus calls “His brothers.” And that’s why many folks spend their lives ministering in prisons, and other places helping the least, the last and the lost. It's hard for atheists to account for altruism. The atheistic view point offers no reason as to why someone might give up their lives, or even their lifestyle for the benefit of others, especially those whom they do not know.(Oct 25, 2007
=========================================================
Paul in SC wrote:
ROFL. Hitler was an evangelical Christian and Stalin was raised by priests. Try again.
Sitting in a church, spouting Christian platitudes occasionally, makes one no more of a Christian, then sitting in your garage beeping like a car horn, makes one a car. LOL!
=====================================================
Darrell Lunsford wrote:
http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hitler_a...
[Excerpt]
While Hitler uses the word "evolution" in Mein Kampf, it is clear that he is not referring to Darwin's theory --- indeed, he never mentions the man. In fact, a look at his writings reveals his sentiments on the subject to be those of an orthodox creationist.
The allegation that Hitler was,(as one post stated, an” Evangelical Christian”) is just to rich. There are any number of sites that use quotes from Hitler to prove he was a Christian. And then we also have numerous other sites that use quotes to prove otherwise.
I can list a litany of both. But here are a few points to consider from the afore mentioned list.
In Hitler's Table Talk, a revealing collection of the Fuhrer's private opinions, assembled by a close aide during the war years, shows Hitler to be rabidly anti-religious. He called Christianity one of the great "scourges" of history, and said of the Germans, "Let's be the only people who are immunized against this disease." He promised that "through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity." In fact, he blamed the Jews for inventing Christianity. He also condemned Christianity for its opposition to evolution.
Hitler reserved special scorn for the Christian values of equality and compassion, which he identified with weakness. Hitler's leading advisers like Goebbels, Himmler, Heydrich and Bormann were atheists who hated religion and sought to eradicate its influence in Germany.
Hitler himself says in Mein Kampf that his public statements should be understood as propaganda that bears no relation to the truth but is designed to sway the masses.
In saying Hitler was a Christian, it’s for certainty he had no concern for his fellow Christians, as he slaugthered them enmass as well. Though there is no way of being positive of the exact number of Christians murdered by the Nazis, there is much speculation. It is estimated that over 660,000 Catholics were killed and approximately 3 million Christians total. The Scripture says the way to know you’ve passed from death unto life, is that you love the brethren. And by their fruits you shall know them. So I believe his actions certainly, and defiantly exclude him from being considered a “believing” Christian.
=============================================
Adolf Hitler - Christian, Atheist, or Neither?
As one researcher found on the pro or con of Hitler’s Christianity...
In conclusion, I think that Hitler was not an atheist, but he was not a
Finally, two last points. The first is not very compelling, but I found it interesting. The first time I found Hitler's Mein Kampf on-line was at a White Supremacy hate site whose homepage had a litany of Hitler's anti-Christian quotes.
The second point is that even the atheist websites highlights the difference between Hitler's public speeches before he came to power, and his attitude after 1935 when he saw Christianity as a threat to Nazi domination. http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_...
Much of Hitler’s inspiration came from Nietzsche, an avowed atheist. And I have to point out the strong influence of an avowed militant atheist like Nietzsche had on Hitler’s thought process,“and” his actions.’ Hitler may not have been an avowed posturing atheists, but the influence of an avowed militant adherent to atheism and “REASON”(Nietzsche) certainly did show itself in his murderous actions of Evolution and Darwinism, in “Survival of the Fittest.” Hitler’s mouthing of Christian platitudes, certainly did not show, in his actions, and deeds, a true belief in Christ’s teachings. It was Far, Far from it.
"Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and published his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man."
Thus, regardless of what he hoped for, Nietzsche offered grounds for the reprehensible Nazi ideology of a superior race exercising its will to power as it saw fit. Hitler was living out what Nietzsche had envisioned, trying to prove himself to be the Übermensch and the precursor of the Master race. He despised weakness as much as Nietzsche did and wanted to "transvalue" the current social values into something that supported the aggressive instinct. He wanted to become, as Nietzsche called it, a "lord of the earth."
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/Nietzsc...
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders...
And as I've already posted...
Sitting in a church, spouting Christian platitudes occasionally, does not make one a Christian, any more than sitting in your garage beeping like a car horn, makes one a car.
==============================================
Alma wrote:
O, you poor addled person.
The bible is so contradictory and so loosely compiled that anyone, even Torquemada and Hitler, can cite it for their ends.
Here is Jesus preaching violence in Matthew ch. 10:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
And then, of course, we know that he talked very impudently and disrespectfully to his mother and advised his followers to "hate" their mother and father and to abandon them and follow him. He would repay them a hundredfold, he said. That kind of an investment is irresistible, but we know the promise is from the mouth of a huckster.
Why don't you xians admit that your bible is a crazy-quilt of contradictions? Even the devil can cite the scriptures for his purpose.
If anyone were to follow the confusion that is the bible to the letter he would become quite mad.
__________
The devil hath power
To assume a pleasing shape.
Hamlet. Act ii. Sc. 2.
And you have a very shallow understanding of the Scriptures.
The sword Jesus is speaking of is the "word" of God. As in the Word is sharper than a two edged sword.
Some claim that Jesus taught his disciples to hate their mother and father. If true, that would obviously make Jesus to be an immoral and unethical teacher, immoral, since one of the Commandments is to honor one's mother and father. Understanding the Jewish background to Jesus' teaching puts an entirely different light on his words.
Many Bible scholars have suggested that while the terms "love" and "hate" are manifestations of emotion in the Western mindset, the ancient Jews used these terms to refer more to a decision of the will. To "love" often carried the idea of choosing to submit, whereas "hate" often carried the idea of choosing not to submit. "When Christ demanded that one hate those to whom he is bound by the closest of blood ties, He was not speaking in the area of emotions but in the area of the will.
Some fail to recognize the background to Jesus' words in Jewish literature. Jesus is not encouraging hate. Rather, he is saying that social networks will be torn apart because of his words and actions--as the end results of the people's sin, not because his goal is dissension.
Jesus in fact reiterated the commandment to honor one's mother and father.
Matthew 15:4-6, Matthew 19:17-19, Mark 7:10-13, John 19:25-27
And on these two deceptive, and out of context interpretations of yours alone, we see with a little study, anyone can find the true meaning, and understanding of the words of Jesus. But then, many "choose" not to come to the knowledge of the truth.
http://jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/family
The out of context and shallow understanding of yours, of scripture is very much like that of the man who justified suicide, because the Bible says in one place, "Judas went and hanged himself," and in another. "Go thou, and do likewise. Picking a choosing scripture, and then pontificating on the meaning without contextual study, ain't necessarily the smart thing to do.
But interpretation of scripture digresses from the original subject. I'll leave that to more learned scholars of Theology.
=================================================
Margaret Johnston wrote:
Regardless of whether Hitler CALLED HIMSELF a Christian or an atheist, his actions prove he was a member of what I am calling "the Lawless" group - the lowest group of people who will do anything in pursuit of their own will. It is not a matter of what church a person might choose membership in, it is a matter of something deep inside the person that causes them to do right or wrong.
The group I am calling "the Faithful" needs the structure of an organized religion (that they fully buy into - not just belong to) to keep their lives and their behavior in order. Hitler's "faith" obviously did not to this for him - so he was not a member of this group!) The group I am calling "the Rationals" have this structure internalized within themselves and do not need external supports like religion to govern their behavior. That is the distinction that makes all the difference.
Margaret Johnston
BeliefStagesandGrowth.com
So what your saying is, the "Rationals" are not to be lumped in with "The Lawless?"
Well now! I do hope you give the same consideration to those true followers of Christianity that take the scriptures admonition to serve The Least, The Last and The Lost, and not lump them in with those that profess, what they don't possess. Provable by the examples they set in their life, and their obedience to the scriptures. By their fruits, ye shall know them.
==================================================
Paul in SC wrote:
They both believed they were sent by God to lead their people. That doesn't sound like atheists to me. Hmmm. Who else said he was sent by God?
<>They both believed they were sent by God<>
Hummm! So you can now see into a persons heart? And evidentially you don't believe these two ever lied. They lied, cheated, stole and slaughtered millions, but you "choose" to believe them on their say so, even though there behavior, and actions proved they professed what they didn't possess. I can assure you, serving "The Least, The Last and The Lost" was the furtherest thing from these men's mind. As their actions proved.
===============================================
Darrell Lunsford wrote:
That it most certainly is. You throw about the terms "belief" and "believe" as if all uses of the terms are equal, which they are not.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/belief
Main Entry:
be·lief
Function:
noun
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms belief faith credence credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer
faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof
credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent .
credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof
synonyms see in addition opinion
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/believe
Main Entry:
be·lieve
intransitive verb
1 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real
2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something
3: to hold an opinion : think
transitive verb1 a: to consider to be true or honest
2: to hold as an opinion : suppose
: to be astounded at
Wow! A lot of hair splitting going on here. And over kill in trying to prove the point.
Atheism is a belief system, just like any other. A rose by any other name, is still a rose.
=================================================
Does truth matter? I say Truth does matter! It matters whether there is a transcendent supreme arbitrator, or whether man is to be the final judge of ultimate morality, and ethics. If that's the case, then we truly are in desperate trouble.
A Christian worldview is essential in keeping, and securing the liberties America has enjoyed since our founding. Ideas have consequences, and what we believe determines how we behave, what we value and care for, and what kind of society we leave our children. We would not have the freedoms we have today if it had not been for the Christian Worldview that influenced our founders.
"Self-evident truths," "inalienable rights," "equal protection," "limited government with delegated powers" -- all these flow naturally from the Judeo-Christian worldview. The Darwinian, evolutionary concepts lead to an increasingly uncompassionate, and unjust society.
We see the Darwinian, evolutionary concept of "Survival of Fittest" being increasingly played out in Western Culture to the determent of a compassionate, caring society.
Jenni Murray, popular and controversial presenter of “Woman’s Hour,” a popular program on the BBC shocked her audience with a "personal rant" about the historical responsibilities we all have for our family members.
Murray complained that assisted suicide is illegal in Great Britain only because it is demanded by a “religious minority” who hold to outdated views concerning the value of human life. Furthermore, this “religious minority” also holds to the quaint belief that children have a moral obligation to care for elderly parents.
She suggested that she does not want to be “trapped” into caring for her own mother who is currently ill with Parkinson’s disease. BBC spokesperson said:“Jenni is angry that, having fought so hard to become liberated and independent, woman are now being trapped into caring for dependent parents.”
Without doubt, this dimension of Murray’s argument—and the revealing statement released by the BBC—demonstrates the true nature of her pact with death. It is not just about ending her own life, but the "obligation" of others to die and get out of the way," lest they interfere with her own life plans. This "unthinkable", Nazi like idea is growing throughout Western culture.
(CONTINUED)
(CONTINUED FROM POST 203)
Increasingly, arguments for “assisted suicide” and euthanasia are moving from claims of a supposed “right” to die to an "obligation to die." The state will increasingly demand that the old, the ill, and the disabled be killed so the state will not be burdened. Think about it, your mother, your father, your disabled child, and eventually "YOU."
Then we have Peter Singer Ethics professor at Princeton saying there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby. From Singer's book "Practical Ethics," Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." But animals are self-aware, and therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee." If Christians stand argue against this philosiphy, the critics rage that we are pushing our views on others. But we hear nary a peep from those same critics about Singer when he pushes his “extreme” views on others in the public arena. Singer also espouses for equality between humans and animals by advocating for sex between them. Bestiality is to be encouraged and considers normal sexual behavior.
These arguments should demand the attention of all persons who believe in the inherent dignity of human life. We are witnessing the embrace of a pact with death, and a degrading, and dehuminizing of the most vunerable, and of man himself.
Some on this borard say releigion should be private. The Christian religion was never meant to be a private thing. And if your religion is private, it's not the religion of Jesus, Paul , Peter, and John. When I hear the "releigion is private" agrument, what their really saying is, they would like to deny you the right free speech, and of exhibiting that faith in the public square.
Thomas Jefferson rightly declared, "God, who gave us life, gave us liberty." Then he wisely asked, "Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are a gift of God?"
==========================================
2manytaxesandlaws wrote:
Native54,
Precisely my point in Post #174 above.
Thank you!
Jeff Dreibus
Your welcome! I've enjoyed reading your posts.
==============================================
u Ann Lewellen wrote:
Yep. It's just easier.
Yep! I guess it is easier when there are no ethical or moral guide posts.
Even the serial killer Jeffery Dahmer in an interview before his death in prison, realized that the mainstream societal influence of Darwin's theory of evolution affected his moral behavior.
(Quote) The whole theory of Evolution cheapens life. What's the point of modifying your behavior if no one is to be held accountable?
============================================
The Faith of Our Fathers
Making a blanket statement that all the Founders were deists is deceptive and disingenuous
The standard assertion is that the Founders were deists. Deists? What is a deist? In dictionaries like Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Century, and others, the terms “deist,”“agnostic,” and “atheist” appear as synonyms. Therefore, the range of a deist spans from those who believe there is no God, to those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator of the universe, to those who believe there is no way to know if God exists. Do the Founders fit any of these definitions?
There are over two hundred Founders (fifty-five at the Constitutional Convention, ninety who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fifty-six who signed the Declaration) and any generalization of the Founders as deists is completely inaccurate.
The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon—founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry—founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King—helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin—a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom—also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson—placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights.
Any portrayal of any handful of Founders as deists is inaccurate.(If this group had really wanted some irreligious Founders, they should have chosen Henry Dearborne, Charles Lee, or Ethan Allen). Perhaps critics should spend more time reading the writings of the Founders to discover their religious beliefs for themselves rather than making such sweeping accusations which are so easily disproven.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles...
=============================================
Tuckerdogavl wrote:
As Dave Barry has pointed out in his humorous article, "16 things I have learned since turning 50": "People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them." Religion and sky-gods are the single-most destructive force today. Yes, I can understand thinking that there was some sort of skygod taking away the light and bringing dark thousands of years ago...or the need to corral the unwashed into temples and churches to keep them in line, but we should all know better now. Read up on the 10th century folks, learn about what religion is and has meant in terms of political power....and decide that, hey, the sun will come up tomorrow and it has nothing to do with a sky god. Absolutely nothing.
I find it amazing that to debate the issue of religion, on civil government, and the impact of certain worldviews on society is always presented as shoving your religion down somebodies throat. Looks like if their argument can't be touched they would welcome a debate so they could trounce their opponents. No, they always fall back on the, "your shoving your religious views down my throat." That line of argument is nothing more than trying to shut people up. Just like screaming racist or bigot is used in the attempt to shut people up. I have read the atheist arguments on the board with an open mind, but in my research their arguments are seriously flawed. And to not point these flaws out would be to deceive ourselves for the sake of expediency. Sorry, not going to do that.
==========================================
The Faith of Our Fathers
The Constitutional Convention
It's not necessary to dig through the diaries, however, to determine which faith was the Founder's guiding light. There's an easier way to settle the issue.
The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.
The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.[1]
This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55--a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.
Who Were the Founding Fathers?
Historical proof-texts can be raised on both sides. Certainly there were godless men among the early leadership of our nation, though some of those cited as examples of Founding Fathers turn out to be insignificant players. For example, Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen may have been hostile to evangelical Christianity, but they were firebrands of the Revolution, not intellectual architects of the Constitution. Paine didn't arrive in this country until 1774 and only stayed a short time.
As for others--George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, John Witherspoon, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and even Thomas Jefferson--their personal correspondence, biographies, and public statements are replete with quotations showing that these thinkers had political philosophies deeply influenced by Christianity.
http://www.str.org/site/News2...
======================================================
Faith of Our Fathers
Thomas Jefferson
Though deeply committed to a belief in natural rights, including the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, Jefferson was individualistic when it came to religion; he sifted through the New Testament to find the facts that pleased him.
Sometimes he sounded like a staunch churchman. The Declaration of Independence contains at least four references to God. In his Second Inaugural Address he asked for prayers to Israel's God on his behalf. Other times Jefferson seemed to go out of his way to be irreverent and disrespectful of organized Christianity, especially Calvinism.
It's clear that Thomas Jefferson was no evangelical, but neither was he an Enlightenment deist. He was more Unitarian than either deist or Christian.[3]
This analysis, though, misses the point. The most important factor regarding the faith of Thomas Jefferson--or any of our Founding Fathers--isn't whether or not he had a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The debate over the religious heritage of this country is not about who is ultimately going to heaven, but rather about what the dominant convictions were that dictated the structure of this nation.
Even today there are legions of born-again Christians who have absolutely no skill at integrating their beliefs about Christ with the details of their daily life, especially their views of government. They may be "saved," but they are completely ineffectual as salt and light.
By contrast, some of the Fathers may not have been believers in the narrowest sense of the term, yet in the broader sense--the sense that influences culture--their thinking was thoroughly Christian. Unlike many evangelicals who live lives of practical atheism, these men had political ideals that were deeply informed by a robust Christian world view. They didn't always believe biblically, having a faith leading to salvation, but almost all thought biblically, resulting in a particular type of government.
Thomas Jefferson was this kind of man. In Defending the Declaration, legal historian Gary Amos observes, "Jefferson is a notable example of how a man can be influenced by biblical ideas and Christian principles even though he never confessed Jesus Christ as Lord in the evangelical sense.
http://www.str.org/site/News2...
=============================================
Lu Ann Lewellen wrote:
Really? I've gotten none of this from teachers. In fact, about all I remember from High School is the the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides and the Battle of Hastings was in 1066.
I originally got my ideas about Jefferson from Montecello.
I would say that's what's wrong with our country. No one is teaching the history of our nation. And that includes the influence of our Christian Heritage. I mean for crying out loud, the main books for education in early America was the Bible. Our institutions for higher education, colleges, and universities were mostly established by religious denominations.
Answers.com
Early American organized education was religious in character and content. From the time public education began to spread in the 1820 and 1830s until after World War II, most public elementary and secondary schools in America included daily Bible reading and prayer. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, initially drafted to apply, like the rest of the Constitution, to the federal government alone, was not relevant to religious activities in state‐run schools.
No doubt that's the reason, our founding history is no longer taught. If the many religious quotes of the founders were sited as having any influence on the shaping of this nation then the ACLU and the atheists like Michael Newdow, would swiftly file a lawsuit.
Monticello? So did I, as I crossed referenced the research. I would advise anyone to research on their own, to validate any information presented. Wherever it comes from. None of us are perfect, and we all can make mistakes. Just like we are all sinners, and will never be prefect in life.
==============================================
CONTRADICTION? OR SYMBOLIC TOLERANCE?
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
THE STATE BECOMES THE CHURCH:
JEFFERSON AND MADISON
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared.(Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.
==========
The Old House of Representatives
Church services were held in what is now called Statuary Hall from 1807 to 1857.
==========
The Treasury Building
The first Treasury Building, where several denominations conducted church services, was burned by the British in 1814
==========
Communion Service in the Treasury Building
Manasseh Cutler here describes a four-hour communion service in the Treasury Building, conducted by a Presbyterian minister, the Reverend James Laurie:
==========
Adams's Description of a Church Service in the Supreme Court
at the Hall of Representatives" where "the audience is the largest in town....nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath" for services, making the congregation in the House the "largest Protestant Sabbath
==========
Church Service in the Supreme Court" where "the audience is the largest in town....nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath" for services, making the congregation in the House the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States.
The Old Supreme Court Chamber
Description of church services in the Supreme Court chamber by Manasseh Cutler (1804)
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
And I could go on and on...
The anti-religion, no correct that, "anti-Christian" crowd would have had Jefferson, Madison and Adams, as well as the rest of the Founders that attended services on public property taken to court for daring to attend services on government property. The strict adherence to the separation of church and state by Jefferson, and Madison purported by the ant-Christian revisionists seems to have not troubled Jefferson or Madison in the least. Nor any of the citizens, or courts of that time.
================================================
National Center for Constitutional Studies Discover the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Founding Fathers which they said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desired peace, prosperity, and freedom. These beliefs have made possible more progress in 200 years than was made previously in over 5,000 years. Thus the title "The 5,000 Year Leap". The following is a brief overview of the principles found in The 5,000 Year Leap, and one chapter is devotes to each of these 28 principles. Principle 1 - The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law. Natural law is God's law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, there are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are "the laws of nature and of nature's God." Principle 2 - A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin Principle 3 - The most promising method of securing a virtuous people is to elect virtuous leaders. "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who ... will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man." - Samuel Adams Principle 4 - Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained. "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." - George Washington Principle 5 - All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent, and to him they are equally responsible The American Founding Fathers considered the existence of the Creator as the most fundamental premise underlying all self-evident truth. They felt a person who boasted he or she was an atheist had just simply failed to apply his or her divine capacity for reason and observation. Principle 6 - All mankind were created equal. The Founders knew that in these three ways, all mankind are theoretically treated as: 1. Equal before God. 2. Equal before the law. 3. Equal in their rights.(MORE) http://www.xm issio n.com/~nccs/ftyl.h tml
==================================================
Jefferson has a major influence on the making of the Constitution, but he "was not" the only Founder that impacted that document. It seems because Jefferson's writings are more favorable to the secularists point of view, that he is the only one that they trot out to bolster their view point. If people don't take into account the entire documentation of the Founders then the conclusions drawn will be distorted. In my research I've tried to take into account all viewpoints. The reason I wish to see Christianities influence acknowledged is because unless as a nation sees where the thoughts and idea originated from, then you can't hope to keep the form of govenment the Founders made. Google the words "virtuous, and the Founding Fathers." They believed that in order for a free society to remain free its people must be virtuous in their private and public lives and that Christianity and the Bible taught how to be virtuous. There are tons of quotes out there that ether side can us to bolster their point of view. Ether one side is right, or the other is. Or maybe there is a combination of both. I've found in my research of what the true nature and influence of Christianity was on the founding has lead me to believe through overwhelming evidence that, yes indeed the Christian beliefs of the Founders did indeed have a major influence on the construction of the Constitution, and the founding of this nation. When I started my research I was looking for the truth of the matter. If I had found the claims of the those that believe the nation was founded as a totally secular nation, without any other influences except the philosophies of the age of enlightenment then I would have gladly acknowledged that fact. But I found the Founders papers absolutely saturated with references to God, the Christian faith, and the role of the faith on government and the individuals in that government. Did you know that since most of the Founders were Calvinists the very structure of limited government was a Calvinist concept? Calvinists not only believe civil government is ordained and established by God, they also believe that God has given civil government only limited authority. The same power that grants authority to government, also limits that authority. And these Calvinists influences go on and on in the founding structure of this nation.
===============================================
Lu Ann Lewellen wrote:
Excerpts from response to controversy concerning the Treaty of Tripoli.
THE 1797 TREATY OF TRIPOLI
In an attempt to drive a stake in the belief that America had “been founded on Christian principles,” Allen resurrects the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli and its statement that “the Government of the United States ... is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”8
The statement in question was to assure a radically religious (Muslim) government that America would not depose that government and impose Christianity by force. A single phrase ripped from its historical context does nothing to nullify the volumes of historical evidence that Christianity was foundational to the building and maintenance of this nation.
Muslim nations were hostile to “Christian nations.” The Barbary pirates habitually preyed on ships from “Christian nations,” enslaving “Christian” seamen.
The American consul in Algiers had to construct a treaty that would assure the ruler of Tripoli that troops would not be used to impose Christianity on a Muslim people.
Those who use the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli as a defense against the Christian America thesis are silent on the 1805 treaty. For example, Alan Dershowitz cites the 1797 Treaty as “the best contemporaneous evidence” against claims that the United States was founded as a Christian nation,5 but he makes no mention of the 1805 treaty and other treaties that are specifically Trinitarian.
THE TRINITARIAN TREATIES
If treaties are going to be used to establish the religious foundation of America, then it’s essential that we look at more than one treaty. In 1783, at the close of the war with Great Britain, a peace treaty was ratified that began with these words:“In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great Britain....”The treaty was signed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay. Keep in mind that it was Adams who signed the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli.
In 1822, the United States, along with Great Britain and Ireland, ratified a “Convention for Indemnity Under Award of Emperor of Russia as to the True Construction of the First Article of the Treaty of December 24, 1814." It begins with the same words found in the Preamble to the 1783 treaty:“In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.” Only Christianity teaches a Trinitarian view of God. The 1848 Treaty with Mexico begins with “In the name of Almighty God.” The treaty also states that both countries are “under the protection of Almighty God, the author of peace....”
If one line in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli turns America into a secular State (which it does not), then how does Allen deal with the treaties of 1783, 1822, 1805, and 1848 and the state constitutions? She doesn’t, because she can’t. Allen needs to go back and do a bit more research and look at resources beyond the typical college professor’s bag of tricks and sleight of hand.
http://www.americanvision.org/bwarchive/4-05%... 's%20Founding.pdf
==========
Treaty of Tripoli
The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Those documents completely disprove the notion that any founding President, especially Washington, ever declared that America was not a Christian nation or people.(Chapter 16 of Original Intent will provide numerous additional current examples of historical revisionism.)
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles...
=================================================
Excerpts from response to controversy concerning the Treaty of Tripoli.
THE 1797 TREATY OF TRIPOLI
In an attempt to drive a stake in the belief that America had “been founded on Christian principles,” Allen resurrects the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli and its statement that “the Government of the United States ... is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”8
The statement in question was to assure a radically religious (Muslim) government that America would not depose that government and impose Christianity by force. A single phrase ripped from its historical context does nothing to nullify the volumes of historical evidence that Christianity was foundational to the building and maintenance of this nation.
Muslim nations were hostile to “Christian nations.” The Barbary pirates habitually preyed on ships from “Christian nations,” enslaving “Christian” seamen.
The American consul in Algiers had to construct a treaty that would assure the ruler of Tripoli that troops would not be used to impose Christianity on a Muslim people.
Those who use the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli as a defense against the Christian America thesis are silent on the 1805 treaty. For example, Alan Dershowitz cites the 1797 Treaty as “the best contemporaneous evidence” against claims that the United States was founded as a Christian nation,5 but he makes no mention of the 1805 treaty and other treaties that are specifically Trinitarian.
THE TRINITARIAN TREATIES
If treaties are going to be used to establish the religious foundation of America, then it’s essential that we look at more than one treaty. In 1783, at the close of the war with Great Britain, a peace treaty was ratified that began with these words:“In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great Britain....”The treaty was signed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay. Keep in mind that it was Adams who signed the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli.
In 1822, the United States, along with Great Britain and Ireland, ratified a “Convention for Indemnity Under Award of Emperor of Russia as to the True Construction of the First Article of the Treaty of December 24, 1814." It begins with the same words found in the Preamble to the 1783 treaty:“In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.” Only Christianity teaches a Trinitarian view of God. The 1848 Treaty with Mexico begins with “In the name of Almighty God.” The treaty also states that both countries are “under the protection of Almighty God, the author of peace....”
If one line in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli turns America into a secular State (which it does not), then how does Allen deal with the treaties of 1783, 1822, 1805, and 1848 and the state constitutions? She doesn’t, because she can’t. Allen needs to go back and do a bit more research and look at resources beyond the typical college professor’s bag of tricks and sleight of hand.
http://www.americanvision.org/bwarchive/4-05%... 's%20Founding.pdf
==========
Treaty of Tripoli
The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Those documents completely disprove the notion that any founding President, especially Washington, ever declared that America was not a Christian nation or people.(Chapter 16 of Original Intent will provide numerous additional current examples of historical revisionism.)
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles...
=================================================
Excerpts from response to controversy concerning influences on the shaping of the Constitution.
ENLIGHTENMENT LITE
Allen is correct that there were a number of Enlightenment principles floating around the colonies in the late eighteenth century as well as anti-clericalism. And there is no doubt that some of these principles made their way into the Constitution, although it’s hard to tell where when compared to the obvious Enlightenment principles inherent in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789). But we should be reminded of Allen’s absolutist claim of a complete dissolution of religion from political considerations in the Constitution. She has set the evaluative standard. If she is correct, then why didn’t the framers presage the French revolutionaries by starting the national calendar with a new Year One? Why did the Constitutional framers set aside Sunday—the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue—as a day of rest for the President (Art. 1, sec. 7) if it was their desire to secularize the nation as Allen suggests? The French revolutionaries reconstructed the seven-day biblical week and turned it into a ten-day metric week in hopes of ridding the nation of every vestige of Christianity. Nothing like this was done in America.
STATE CONSTITUTIONS
Then there’s the issue of the state constitutions. One of the reasons some give for the absence of a more explicit declaration of God in the Constitution was the fact that the state constitutions made numerous references to God. The issue of religion was the domain of the states. Since the Federal Constitution was a document of enumerated powers, to mention religion in a more specific way would have given the national government jurisdiction over religious issues. The framers believed that such issues were best left to the states. Constitutional scholar and First Amendment specialist, Daniel Dreisbach, writes:
The U. S. Constitution’s lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer’s personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as “godless” or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God.3
Keep in mind that the national Constitution did not nullify the religious pronouncements of the state constitutions, and neither did it separate religion from civil government. The First Amendment is a direct prohibition on Congress, not the states, to stay out of religious issues:“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This is a good indication that the states were to be unmolested on their religious requirements. As I’ve noted elsewhere,4 even today every state constitution makes reference to God. Here’s a sample of some of the state constitutions and their religious language during the time the Constitution was drafted:
If, as Allen maintains,“God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent,” how does she explain these state constitutional provisions? If the federal Constitution nullified these state constitutional mandates, then her point would be valid. The point is, God was a major player in the founding of America for more than 50 years before the Constitution was drafted.
http://www.1776faith.com/constitutions.html
===============================================
The Importance of Morality and Religion on Government.
John Adams
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles...
==========
Benjamin Franklin
Constitutional Convention Address on Prayer
I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benf...
====================================================
The Point!!
Our founding documents are saturated with religious philosophy . Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, Endowed by their Creator--The Declaration of Independence, Reverence for our Creator --Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms: July 6, 1775, Unto the honor of Almighty God, and for the salvation of the souls----Magna Carta: as confirmed by Edward I with his seal in 1297, and it goes on and on.
If any of these documents were put forth by our government today the ACLU and their atheists friends, like Michael Newdow would piss themselves screaming "the government is invoking religion!"
The whole point of the Founders using religious language in our founding documents was to emphasis, and establish that our rights "do not" come from man or the state, they come from God. And to deny that concept, puts all our God given rights in jeopardy. What man, or the state gives, they feel they can take away. Not so, if it is established that man, or the state did not give us those rights in the first place.
========================================
The Point of the whole issue!!
While I can agree with atheist and secularists that we should not have a state supported government, as in "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience"-- Atheists and secularists "CAN NOT" in any way shape or form, acknowledge that religion, in particular the Judaeo-Christian religion had "any" kind of influence on the shaping, founding, and philosophy of this nation. Give me a break!! Even when we see tons, and tons of that influence from the Founders writings. For the secularists, and atheists, to give any credence to our Christian heritage, would mean giving legitimacy to Christianity, and they "CAN NOT EVER" afford to do that. Because in their worldview, religion must be smashed and destroyed, and giving legitimacy in any way to what they hate, would not work toward their agenda. So deception, and biased omissions must be the order of the day when examining, and siting the founding documents.
I could find tons and tons of quotes from the founders, and founding documents for my position, as well from the other position of "religion has no influence at all on the shaping of the country." Really you can find information for whatever your position is. But the overwhelming evidence is that Christianity, especially Calvinism had a profound influence on the founding of this nation.
============================================
WHOCARES wrote:
Who cares people? Go be productive in life and quit worrying about who believes what.
Worldviews matters! If the Founding Father did not have a Biblical Worldview, you, and I would not be enjoying the freedoms we have now through the application of the Constitution, and and the Bill of Rights. As is pointed out in many founding documents, the rights we have are God given. Not man or state given. I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in a country with a Socialist/Communist atheistic worldview, nor an Iranian type theocracy. I want the historical influence of the Christian nature of this country. Which gave us our educational system, and influenced our form of government. And helped give us our freedoms to believe or not to believe. Now we can point all the atrocious thing that this nation has done, and no doubt someone will, but name me one country that has not had terrible things happen in their history. Because of this Christian nature, we see the injustice, and try to rectify, if possible. And that's the thing about atheism, they cannot get away from using the ethical codes of conduct from the Judaeo-Christian traditions. They just can't get away from it. As someone said, their code is just Judeo-Christianity without the God.
A world view provides a model of the world which guides its adherents in the world.
Worldviews are so much a part of our lives that we see and hear them daily, whether we recognize them or not. For example, movies, television, music, magazines, newspapers, government, education, science, art, and all other aspects of culture are affected by worldviews. If we ignore their importance, we do so to our detriment.
When science is guided merely by our ability, not morality, all sorts of scary things start to happen. And where we get that morality matters. It's an old saying but never more true: just because we can, doesn't mean we should.
==========================================
Hey Atheists … Get Your Own Moral Code.
By Doug Giles
Saturday, May 26, 2007
I received a lot emails from snippy atheists after my column,“Atheists had Better Pray to God They’re Right” ran the week of May 13, 2007. I had many God-deniers tell me, quite self-righteously I might add, that they lived by a high moral code without the aid of any “opiate” or “crutch” like Jesus or Moses, and they didn’t need some archaic holy book giving them the skinny on how they should live.
Hey, arrogant atheists, here’s an aside before I take you to task any further: that self-righteous,“I’m good enough without God” attitude is the very sin that Christ condemned the most. But I wouldn’t worry about that, since Jesus probably never existed anyway. And if He did, He wasn’t “the One” He thought He was and said He was and thus, all He said was a load of hooey. That is, according to your wizards.
Anyway, back to my point. Did I make a point yet? Please forgive me. My coffee is wearing off. Okay, now I’m tracking....
In the volley of hate email hailed down upon me, one particular anti-God guy stated that he lived better than most Christians. He further patted himself on the back by saying that his Christian buddies even gave him big props for his squeaky-cleanness. Well, let me join in your hombres’ praise by saying a big “Good for you, dude. Here’s a brownie button.” I’ll be the first to admit that I’ll take a civil atheist over an irrational and violent al Qaeda op any old day.
The problem I have, however, with the atheists and their goodness and their morality claims is that all your ethical codes of conduct sound strangely similar to the principles inherent to the Judeo-Christian traditions. As a matter of fact, it seems as if you have bellied up to the Bible and are treating it like a buffet ... passing up on the worship of the person and work of God, while taking second helpings of His moral principles, you duplicitous, little, evolved monkey, you.
One of my old seminary profs used to say that although such muddled atheists would never verbally affirm the existence of God, they would live according to some ethical standard, some moral capital they have milked from us theists.
If I were an atheist and I believed that God didn’t exist, that the Bible was a bunch of weird bunk written by religiously deluded men several thousand years ago, that Jesus was an apocalyptic, sandal-wearing, hippie forerunner of David Koresh who went around spitting out cheeky clichés who needed not to be heeded, but straight-jacketed or at least ignored—I sure as heck wouldn’t be borrowing any tidbits of His wisdom to navigate my life’s glide path.(More)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/...
(Continued)
Hey Atheists...
If Moses, Elijah, Abraham, David, Jeremiah, Paul and Peter were not who they claimed to be and spoke not for Whom they claimed to speak, then these dudes were certifiably psycho and you wouldn’t find me (if I were an atheist) taking any of their moral maxims and making them into inspirational refrigerator magnets.
That’s what I appreciate about the atheist and philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Freddy is one of the few atheists who told his fellow atheistic buddies that they couldn’t have their cake and eat it, too. Nietzsche understood that we can either have God and meaningful morality, or we can have no God and thus, all life is meaningless and without any trace of hope ... it officially sucks.
Nietzsche came to the conclusion that if there is no God—or God is dead, as he put it—then he’s not going to live “as if” God is alive and His moral principles mattered. Yes, brass-balled Friedrich said that the opposite of how the Bible says to live is the way we should live.
Nietzsche, unlike you postmodern Nancy atheists, was welded to his belief that God was dead and Christian morality was gonzo. He was not a half-hearted atheist parading around like most atheists do today, claiming the title while schlepping to Judeo-Christian principles.
Once again, if I did not believe in God and I believed that the 10 commandments were BS and that faith, hope and love is for “the herd”, and that I came from nothing and I’m going to nothing and there is no ultimate eternal accountability for my actions—then I am sure not going to live like I did. Why do you do so, Mr. & Mrs. Atheist?
So what’s it going to be, my obstreperous amigos? Are you going to continue to blather on about there being no God and then live like there is one and that His word and will matters? Get consistent, why don’t ‘cha? Don’t live by the Ten Commandments. Don’t live by the Golden Rule. Don’t do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That’s our stuff. That’s the Judeo-Christian way. Get your own commandments that are logically deduced from the “no God” hypothesis, write your own unholy book and form your own civilization. Then let’s see how appealing it is, how it betters the planet and how far you’ll get.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/...
===========================================
Local-not-Yocal wrote:
native54, you have proven your point beyond all doubt: God exists because some men wrote down on an important document that our rights are God-given, and atheists are tolerated in America BECAUSE of Christian values, and atheists try not to kill, steal, rape babies, et al SIMPLY because avoiding those things is a longstanding Christian tradition.
Now, since you have proven God's love for us beyond all doubt, I just want to know why He hates amputees?
Hey, I'm not trying to coerce anyone into believing. I'm just putting out some thoughts and information to consider. It's up to the individual what they do with it.
And by the way, I've had my moments of doubt. Still do. Quite often in fact. And if someone says they haven't, the are lying. I don't take any belief system at face value. Not even the atheists. The Bible says to study to show thy self approved. I do that everyday trying to find answers to my many questions. Quite often I find and answer, or argument that satisfies me, and sometimes not. And in the end, it really comes down to faith on the questions I can't find the answers to. As it is for the atheists. You have "theory" (oops, you'll just to look over the quotes) which is nothing more than faith. For the simple reason that evolution can never be proven by running scientific tests or formulas.
Here's a link, that has some great arguments and questions that need to be answered by the scientific oriented atheists. As I said, if they can't answer the questions posed by the author of the this website, then it must be a matter of faith on the atheists part.
Atheism's Assertions
http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/20...
Some of the Headers from Articles.
# Atheism Succinctly
# Atheism’s Sects
# Succinct Statements On Atheism
# Atheism’s Faith Based Dogmatic Beliefs
# Atheism is Holier Than Theism
# Atheism’s Circular Logic
# Look Both Ways Two Atheistic Logical Fallacies
# Atheism’s Theistic Concepts
Atheism’s Faith Based
Dogmatic Beliefs
There is no authority higher than the individual; the individual is qualified to judge all things by his own wit.
There are no absolutes, except the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth, no God, no supernatural, etc., etc.
Morals are relative or situational, except that which the individual atheist has concocted as a moral standard (since atheism is amoral they must borrow moral concepts from theistic worldviews).
http://www.squidoo.com/atheismsuccinctly
Succinct Statements On Atheism
There are various sects within atheism. Generally speaking, atheism is a faith based belief system that holds to the belief that God does not exist.
http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/20...
==========================================
Ray Smith wrote:
Morality existed before Christ. It can be observed in the animal kingdom in the way herd members respond to each other. The moral choice is most likely the logical choice.
Claiming that your religion is morally superior to all others is bigotry.
Then you sir are not an evolutionist. You know, survival of the fittest and all.
(Quote)
<>Moreover, does it really stand to reason that naturally occurring morals (or are they instincts?) would be to not steal, murder, lie, etc.? How would such actions give us an evolutionary edge? I could certainly succeed more in life if I simply stole whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted, from whomever I wanted. I could lie to people in order to deceive them for my own personal gain. I could simply eliminate my competition—in procreation, in business, etc.<>
And your assertion of bigotry is nothing more than moral relativism. Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, for evolution teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose.
Oooh the "B" word. Wow that ought to shut me up. I guess it's easier to call bigot than debate the issue.
Moral Relativism - Is It Really Neutral?
Moral relativism has steadily been accepted as the primary moral philosophy of modern society, a culture that was previously governed by a "Judeo-Christian" view of morality. While these "Judeo-Christian" standards continue to be the foundation for civil law, most people hold to the concept that right or wrong are not absolutes, but can be determined by each individual. Morals and ethics can be altered from one situation, person, or circumstance to the next. Essentially, moral relativism says that anything goes, because life is ultimately without meaning. Words like "ought" and "should" are rendered meaningless. In this way, moral relativism makes the claim that it is morally neutral.
Studies indicate 75% of American college professors currently teach that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Rather, they treat the questions of good and evil as relative to "individual values and cultural diversity." The problem with this, according to traditionalists, is that "they see the world not as it is, but as they want it to be. And annoying questions about moral absolutes and unacceptable behavior are usually left unanswered."
Sorry, every truth claim can not be true. Ether one is true and the rest false. They can't all be true. And if you believe that, then your deluding yourself for expedience.
============================================
Paul in SC wrote:
Secularism has served the United States so well for so long, why are all these people seeking to change our government and make this country officially a Christian State. It's simply a back door method of obtaining political control, and a dangerous one at that.
In the history of the world, whenever religious people take control of a country, you see human rights violations, massive genocides, and repression like none other. It happens every time, 100% of the time. The education level in the US is now so low, no one's knows a thing about history and the country is set for the fall.
Why do most of the federal buildings in Washington DC have Bible quotes, or Biblical figures carved into them? As well as many of our state government buildings.
Our education system was for a hundred years or more influenced by Biblical values, and morals. Were we a theocracy then? Were we a repressed tyrannically run nation? Was blood running in the streets, when we took for granted the influence of the Christian worldview in our educational systems and in the public square?
No everyone continues to ignore what I previously posted. That while I can totally agree with not having a government supported and sanctioned religion, the atheists and secularists "CAN NOT" afford to admit the influence that the Biblical world view had on this nation. It might give credence to religion, and especially, Christian religion.
=============================================
Paul in SC wrote:
Actually, they don't. That is just a lie and has been debunked on snopes.com.
Lie? Why so strident and adamant? Curious!
Gee! Then I guess we should ignore all these (Photo Essay)...
--"De Soto's Burial in the Mississippi River" in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol--A stained glass window of George Washington praying, in the chapel in the U.S. Capitol--A phrase from Lord Tennyson in the rotunda of the Library of Congress--A memorial plaque from the Free Press Methodist Episcopal Church inside the Washington Monument--A painting of the Roman goddess of war in the Senate side of the U.S. Capitol--An excerpt from Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural speech carved into the interior of the Lincoln Memorial--The phrase, Laus Deo,(Praise be to God) is inscribed on the cap of the Washington Monument.
These pictures are a small sampling of the many religious images scattered throughout government buildings in D.C. and around the country.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php...
Paul in SC wrote:
The predominately secular nature of education in this country is what made it a world leader in science and technology. We never burned people at the stake or chopped off their heads for contradicting a holy book.
Early American organized education was religious in character and content. From the time public education began to spread in the 1820 and 1830s until after World War II, most public elementary and secondary schools in America included daily Bible reading and prayer. See previous post 288.
Our God given rights are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, authored by men with a Biblical worldview. And yes we have no government sanctioned national religion. Which I support.
Paul in SC wrote:
Even the founding fathers knew that the influence of religion on any country was a millstone around the neck of progress and an invitation to tyranny they were trying to escape in the old country.
I believe damskippy's post 370 said it best..."Ah yes the suppression of religion,that's what the framers wanted.Talk about not knowing history."
=====================================================
Paul in SC wrote:
If you go into any big city you'll find religious references in public places. Many of the ones that are claimed to be religous are phony, like the ten commandments on the Supreme Court Building, and so on. The framers of the constitution were adamant about not having an established religion. Many were not Christian. If the United States ever becomes a Christian nation it will lapse into tyranny, dictatorship, and rapidly decline into a third rate power. All you have to do is look at every other religious state that has ever existed to see what happens. This is scary stuff, and you people should be concerned about the future for the children growing up today.
You don't seem to understand that I'm not advocating for a theocracy, or for a government sanctioned state religion. All I'm advocating for is that "ALL" the history of this country be taught. I'm tired of the selective way the media, movies, schools, universities and college professors portray, or ignore the positive contribution and impact that Christianity had on the formation of this nation.
It's gotten to the point, especially in our education system that even quoting the Founding Fathers making references to God, faith, Jesus, the Bible, Christianity or even the words divine providence are not to be tolerated. Any exploration into the influence of Christianity is a taboo subject, unless of course, it's in a negative context.
And I hate to shatter anyone's delusions but there were "some" good things that came from the influence and contributions of a Biblical worldview on the founding of this nation. Teach it all! The good, the bad and the ugly. But stop with the intolerance and censorship of information. Whether by unintended omission, or conscience overt commission. I don't think that's to much to ask.
==============================================
Lu Ann Lewellen wrote:
This also is in the Jefferson Memorial:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
(Appears on the panel of the southeast interior wall. Redacted and excerpted from a letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816.)
Well yeah! I'm happy to embrace all the quotes on the Jefferson Memorial. I've been to the Memorial. The question is, do you embrace the references to God in the memorial as well?
=========================================
Sharp Eyes wrote:
AMEN!!!!!!!! TALK THE TALK, WALK THE WALK OR SHUT TO HELL UP!
Wow! You must think Christians are perfect.
The one thing I can agree with the Calvinist on is the concept of the total depravity of man. If man can do evil, he will, if man can lie cheat, or steal, he will. Evil is done for many reasons. The main ones are for power, control, and enrichment.
Atheists can no more explain evil than they can prove evolution.
And another thing, tell me why it's wrong to be a hypocrite? Why is it wrong to steal, especially if no one finds out your stealing? Or lying, or to cheat? Or is it ok, as long as no one knows? After all, with no higher power that holds a person accountable what difference does it make?
Dostoevsky wrote, without belief in a God who judges us, human evil goes unchecked—that is, there is no justice. "Without God anything is permissible."
The great philosopher Blaise Pascal wrote that if there is no God, and you bet your life there is, you have lost nothing. But if there is a God, and you bet your life there is not, you have made an eternal mistake.
But there is another kind of evidence for the rationality of belief in God: that is, its impact on human lives and society.
As Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, people noticed that, compared to the squalor and general hopelessness of Rome, Christians lived a profoundly different, more hopeful life. This difference made conversion to Christianity a rational choice.
The same thing is true today: Studies of evangelization show that people come to Christianity because it delivers the results. It changes families, which atheistic worldviews cannot.
Without Christianity the world would not have been impacted by people like Florence Nightinggale,
John Woolman
Quaker mystic and abolitionist,
William Wilberforce
Antislavery politician,
Elizabeth Fry
Prison reformer,
And Albert Schweitzer. The list goes on and on. Faith in Christ changes lives. And for the most part, has benefited the world.
Accusations of hypocrisy means the standards of the doctrine of Christ have been broken, because of that before mentioned depravity of man. Even the most sublime philosophy, and altruistic endeavors can be corrupted by the selfish wickedness of men's hearts. The standards Christ has set in the Scriptures are to be striven for. We can never attain anywhere near perfection in this life, because of our flawed sinful natures.
As Paul wrote in Romans...So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
Oh no! Perfection will not be found in this life for anyone.
================================================
Darrell Lunsford wrote:
You claim that the ACLU is basically out to destroy your beliefs, but that just shows your ignorance of the ACLU.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/relatedinformati...
ACLU Announces Settlement in Case of Christian Barred from Preaching in Rhode Island Prison (07/30/2007)
Guess you missed this previous post of mine.
CONTRADICTION? OR SYMBOLIC TOLERANCE?
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2 ....
THE STATE BECOMES THE CHURCH:
JEFFERSON AND MADISON
Church Services in Congress after the Civil War at the Hall of Representatives"
Adams's Description of a Church Service in the Supreme Court at the Hall of Representatives"
Communion Service in the Treasury Building.
The Old House of Representatives.
Church services were held in what is now called Statuary Hall from 1807 to 1857.
The anti-religion, no correct that, "anti-Christian" crowd would have had Jefferson, Madison and Adams, as well as the rest of the Founders that attended services on public property taken to court for daring to attend services on government property. The strict adherence to the separation of church and state by Jefferson, and Madison purported by the ant-Christian revisionists seems to have not troubled Jefferson or Madison in the least. Nor any of the citizens, or courts of that time.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2 ....
You must have me confused with someone else. I've never mentioned the ACLU. But I concur that the ACLU is an organization that has a goal to destory the traditions and institutions that made this country great. Of course they must appear to be even handed, so they take on cases that mirror the image they wish to create. Here's a little information on the American Communist Lawyers Union. The Brief History of the ACLU's Communist founding and Agenda. http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/07/12/am...
==========================================
Darrell Lunsford wrote:
How does the "Christian Worldview" above all other worldviews supply us with freedom of speech or of the press?
How does the "Christian Worldview" above all other worldviews provide us to petition our governmnt for redress of grievances?
How does the "Christian Worldview" above all other worldviews provide us with the right to bear arms?
How does the "Christian Worldview" above all other worldviews protect us against unreasonable searches and seizures or provide for due process of law?
To be continued....
Missed this one to...
The whole point of the Founders using religious language in our founding documents was to emphasis, and establish that our rights "do not" come from man or the state, they come from God. And to deny that concept, puts all our God given rights in jeopardy. What man, or the state gives, they feel they can take away. Not so, if it is established that man, or the state did not give us those rights in the first place. See post 306 & 307 for the full version.
============================================
Darrell Lunsford wrote:
Of particular note in regards to our founders...
<>..and in the cases of Jefferson and Adams, you use quotes from them that seem supportive of religion or outright church attendance to bolster this conviction despite varous quotes from them against religion and Christianity in particular... Need I quote you here?<>
Because so many of the founders were Calvinists, they used principles and concepts of the Christian Calvinists religion to structure some of the foundational concepts. Such as limited government.
The advocates for separation of church and state often fail to realize that separation of church and state, and the entire concept of limited government, is uniquely Judeo-Christian idea. For Calvinism, like any theological system, encompasses both a world view and a view of human nature. The one views the world and human nature will determine one's choice for effective government. As James Madison asked in "Federalist No. 51, "What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature." John Edisome, Christianity and the Constitution.
<>But in the case of Adolf Hitler, it's a different story, you assert that he wan't a Christian and was only using religion for political gain basically, despite various quotes and historical sorces linking the government that he helped to form with Christianity.<>
I've already presented my arguments, and research links supporting my position in previous posts.
=================================================
Darrell Lunsford wrote:
I gurantee yo that the influence of religion on the history of the US and the World at large IS being given equal and proprtional time with most other influences. I can remember learning about Cotton Mather and his contribution to education and in particular the "Great Awakening" of his time in US History class. I also studied world religions From Egypt through Mesopotamia and on over to the Native Americans.
What we DIDN'T do was have prayers to anyone's god(s) or Godess(es). Not even the Prayer of Allegiance was recited on any regular basis in my High School.
What we DIDN'T learn was how the early colonies that adopted "state religions" treated those of differing beliefs and how long it took each state to finally end such practices.
Certain powers not covered in the US Constitution were given to the states, however:
The federal Constitution was written and ratified as "the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state" are "bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Cotton Mather huh? World religions huh? Well while both are important they hardly give an insight to the founders frame of mind. None of the information I have previously posted concerning the Founders and their beliefs were taught in any public school that I know of. it was never taught to me. So in your view any reference to the faith of the founders, and how that faith influenced them in the construction of the founding documents would off limits? As I previously posted..The anti-religion, no correct that, "anti-Christian" crowd would have had Jefferson, Madison and Adams, as well as the rest of the Founders that attended church services on public property taken to court for daring to attend services on government property.
And you make my point. Only the negatives are to be taught. That's fine, but also give us the positives. And yes there were positives. That is bias by omission.
The Declaration of Independence states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator. Now what creator could that be?? Hummm!
================================================
BuncCyBapt wrote:
What a smug comment. Florence Nightingale is remembered as a Unitarian, an outstanding nurse, a humanitarian, inventor of the pie chart, a pioneer in mathematics, an agent of women's rights, and a person who made sacrifices to treat soldiers injured in the Crimean War.
You'd be more honest if you claimed Adolf Hitler as a proponent of Christianity.
__________
Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no
religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a
religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character
training and religion must be derived from faith ... we need
believing people.- Adolf Hitler, Speech, April 26, 1933
Smug?(grin)
Religion: Florence's Mysticism
Florence was baptized in the Church of England, and during her last years she was a frequent communicant. Yet throughout her life she had sought a deeper experience of God, something beyond the socially expected rituals she had grown up with. Something she called Mysticism. "For what is Mysticism?" she wrote once. "Is it not the attempt to draw near to God, not by rites or ceremonies but by inward disposition? Is it not merely a hard word for 'The Kingdom of Heaven is within'?"
When she broke from family expectations to become a nurse at age 30, she noted that this was the age when Jesus began his ministry. She clearly saw her work as a way of following her Lord. And what better way to commit one's life to the Healer than by devoting oneself to healing? She once told an assembly of nurses, "Christ is the author of our profession."
At her death in 1910, Florence Nightingale was buried in her family's 13th-century parish church, St. Margaret, in Hampshire, England. In recognition of her life of Christ-like care, there is a movement to have Florence commemorated in Lesser Feasts and Fasts of the Episcopal Church.
http://chi.gospelcom.net/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/gl...
The quote on Hitler means nothing. What did he do with his power? Versus what the Founders did with theirs. You remember the car and garage post don't you? I stand by my posted research and position on the subject.
=================================================
Darrell Lunsford wrote:
Perhaps you are such a person as would be unable to prevent himself from harming or taking advantage of others if you didn't believe an invisible parent were watching and waiting to punish you, but it's an insult on common sense and humanity to to assume that everyone is equally ill-suited to function within society.
Wow! Guess some people don't have to struggle with temptation. Oops sorry! Temptation could be construed in a religious context. So of course atheists cannot be tempted. To admit temptation would mean there is a moral and ethical standard expected in a civilized society.
Darrell Lunsford wrote:
Our ability to feel emotions is central to our ethical behavior, most importantly empathy guides us. A feeling person doesn't have to think about a set of rules decreed by an invisible being to understand how another person feels.
The example of moral and ethical failings that are done in secret was what I used. What about the person that takes advantage of the elderly. A care giver, or supposed friend that steals from a sickly bedridden elderly person? The elderly person dies and no one is the wiser about the theft. Does that theft matter? Was it the right thing to do, or was it a selfish, heartless act? What would keep a person from behaving that way? Oh right! In the atheist's world it's our genes. LOL!
Ethical behavior? Well gee! Wonder where that small little voice comes from that tells you the behavior your engaging is wrong? Conscience? No! Couldn't be. That's connected to a spiritual experience. It must be in our genes. Sure! That's what it is!(Grin) Yeah right!
By the way, you didn't answer my question. Why is wrong to be a hypocrite?
==============================================
Darrell Lunsford wrote:
Wh should Methodists do any good, if according to their statements of faith:
Article IX, The Confession of Faith, The Book of Discipline: "We believe we are never accounted righteous before God through our works or merit, but that penitent sinners are justified or accounted righteous before God only by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. "We believe regeneration is the renewal of man in righteousness through Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature and experience newness of life. By this new birth the believer becomes reconciled to God and is enabled to serve him with the will and the affections. "We believe, although we have experienced regeneration, it is possible to depart from grace and fall into sin; and we may even then, by the grace of God, be renewed in righteousness."
By this philosophy, doing good isn't important,'believing' and repenting (feeling sorrow, regret, or contrition) is. All you have t do is feel bad about whatever you did or didn't do and believe that "Jesus will forgive you". Why ask for permission if you're guranteed forgiveness later? Why go out of your way to help your fellow man when it doesn't affect your 'salvation' or 'eternal reward'?
The answer to that question is that we have feelings of love and caring for our fellow man regardless of religion.
What a shallow understanding people have of scripture.
The evidence of a contrite heart is the sincere act and acknowledgment of our sinful nature, and to pray for forgiveness. Forgiveness from God, as well as from those we might have harmed. To love and serve God is to love and serve our fellow man. The scripture commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Mother Teresa is a prime example of endeavoring to do that. It's one of the moral guide posts that we all should strive to embrace.
Faith without works is dead, likewise works without faith is dead.
The fruit of our faith is good works.“So then, as the body without the spirit is dead, also faith without actions is dead. Paul’s teaching (or vice versa) but just showing that in addition to faith should come the fruit of faith, which is good works. Both go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other. Paul was one of the key persons in starting the Church on earth, and hence was dealing mostly with new Christians, where many were trying to be saved according to the Law of Moses. The Galatians are a classic example of this as they tried to achieve salvation through works alone, instead of by faith. James on the other hand, seemed to be aiming his teaching more at the converted, where many seemed to have wrongly concluded that faith alone was adequate for salvation, so James showed them where they were in error.
By the way, what are you doing quoting scripture? Some on this message board go into fits of rage at the audacity of someone quoting scripture. That should be outlawed! No doubt if given the chance, secular atheists would do just that.
============================================
native54 wrote:
Wow! Guess some people don't have to struggle with temptation. Oops sorry! Temptation could be construed in a religious context. So of course atheists cannot be tempted. To admit temptation would mean there is a moral and ethical standard expected in a civilized society.
That depends on how you use the term. When "temptation" is not treated as the direct object of the sentence itself, then it can make sense without deference to religion, as in:
He felt the temptation to leave work early.
And yes, there are ethical standards expected in civilized society, those standards develop when groups of individuals share views of ethical behavior.
native54 wrote:
The example of moral and ethical failings that are done in secret was what I used. What about the person that takes advantage of the elderly. A care giver, or supposed friend that steals from a sickly bedridden elderly person? The elderly person dies and no one is the wiser about the theft. Does that theft matter? Was it the right thing to do, or was it a selfish, heartless act? What would keep a person from behaving that way? Oh right! In the atheist's world it's our genes. LOL!
When one relies on internal ethical standards rather than exterior moral dictum, there is no 'in secret'. To the question "Who will know?" The answer is "I will know."
From the faith-over-works Christian crowd, it doesn't matter if "God knows" (or anybody else for that matter) Just repent and all is forgiven -except possibly by those you've wronged.
native54 wrote:
Ethical behavior? Well gee! Wonder where that small little voice comes from that tells you the behavior your engaging is wrong?
Primarily the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.
http://science-community.sciam.com/thread.jsp...
"When morality is hard to like"
(you have to scroll down a bit to get the full article)
native54 wrote:
By the way, you didn't answer my question. Why is wrong to be a hypocrite?
To the question "Who will know?"
The answer is "I will know."
================================================
Lu Ann Lewellen wrote:
The Declaration is not a legal document.
(GRIN) So if it's not a legal document, and speaks of a "Creator" in in the body of the document, lets just dismiss it as not having any influence, or impact on this nation. You've got to be kidding! LOL!
The point of the quote was to set the thinking and influence that Christian Calvinist political thought had on the Founders. It influenced them heavily, as is seen in many of our Founding documents. Not just the DOI.
Lu Ann Lewellen wrote:
It's pretty clear to me the wall between church and state was erected because of our Christian heritage.
Thank you! Now why is that not taught in our public schools? I'll tell you why, because of the suppression and hatred of any historical Christian underpinnings of the founding of our nation. To acknowledge or teach that influence would be to give some sort of credence to Christianity.
I support not having a state sanctioned religion.
But the exercise of religious freedom, and the acknowledgment of the Christian influence on our country by those in government, and by the average citizen in the public square should not be infringed by government ether.
==================================================
Darrell Lunsford wrote:
Yadayadayada...
All these arguments you're trying to make have already been refuted in posts that you are clearly ignoring.
Just like with your other arguments, the same broken record over and over.... you've made most of these same arguments that you've posted here in the Opinion section of the AC-T; to me in private e-mail debates and on other threads here.
As soon as your arguments are shown to be outright silly or specious at the least, you walk away from the discussion...only to attempt the same arguments at a later date with (hopefully for you) a new audience.
You sir, are incorrigible and intellectually dishonest.
Dur to family obligations I have limited time for posting.
What ones am I ignoring? Post 542, the one you accused me of no answering, was answered a long time ago. It seems YOU just don't pay attention and read very well.
And I have never had private email conversations with you. I have no idea what your talking about. Nor did I bring up the ACLU that you accused me of in one of your post. Man you are confused!
You haven't refuted any of the arguments.
And you sir are incredible confused and myopic.
There is much more to America’s founding than the Constitution. America was not born in 1877 or even in 1776. The Constitution did not create America, America created the Constitution. Through the influence of Calvinism as one of the philosophies of our founding.
He that will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin, knows but little of the origin of American liberty. He bequeathed to the world a republican spirit in religion, with the kindred principles of republican liberty."
William Jackman, History of the American Nation, Vol.2, p.394
To ignore that influence is to lose what the nation was founded on. Why are our historical Calvinists roots, and the influence they had on this nation not being taught in our public schools. Because atheists like you would sue and deny the children of this country that knowledge. What are you afraid of? The truth?? That this country "is" predicated on Christian principles.
I just want our education system to teach about the history of that Calvinists influence. But oh no! Can't have any mention of religion in our schools, even when it's a history lesson. That's nothing but biased suppression of information.
=====================================
BuncCyBapt wrote:
The only founding document in the USA, and the supreme law of the land, is the Constitution. The DOI was merely a dear john to King George. If you can find anywhere in the Constitution that it invokes your personal skydaddy, please point that out. I'll pay you a crisp $100 bill for it. You won't, of course.
No state or government gives us our rights. We are born with them. They are innate and inalienable, and no skydaddy has ever manufactured them or interceded to guarantee or vindicate them for us. We have always done that for ourselves.
Our government with its three separate executive, legislative and judicial branches to check and balance each other, and our bicameral legislatures are modeled after ancient Greek and Roman republics which knew nothing of your xian god. The common law of England which was incorporated into our laws began with the pagan Saxons between 300 and 400 CE and existed over 200 years before xianity came to England. See the _Federalist Papers_ and a good history book unsullied by xian revisionists for details.
“Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God.”“No mention whatever” is pretty absolute. Given this bold claim, then how does she explain that the Constitution ends with “DONE in the year of our Lord”?“Our Lord” is a reference to Jesus Christ. This phrase appears just above the signature of George Washington, the same George Washington who took the presidential oath of office with his hand on an open Bible, the same George Washington who was called upon by Congress, after the drafting of the First Amendment, to proclaim a national day of prayer and thanksgiving. The resolution read as follows:
That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution for their safety and happiness.
It seems rather odd that the constitutional framers would thank God for allowing them to draft a Constitution that excluded Him from the Constitution and the civil affairs of government.
==============================================
Darrell Lunsford wrote:
You consider church state separation to be a uniquely Judeo-Christian idea because of....?
What the rejection of the "divine authority" of the Emperor of Rome?
Was that because they didn't think religion and politics should be mixed, or because they didn't acknowleded the deities of the Romans?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_ch...
"The idea of separating the church and state is often credited to the writings of the British philosopher John Locke, which deeply influenced the drafting of the United States Constitution.[6] According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain inviolable by any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became influential in the American colonies.[7]"
Do you have a response to post #516,(you must've read it you've commented on posts all around it) or are you finally concedeing that the ACLU and freedom-loving secular folks aren't out to get you?
"Federalism," "representative government," "social contract" -- these are ideas which are nothing else than political Presbyterianism. The British called the American Revolution "The Presbyterian Revolt."
http://www.electricscotland.com/books/scots_v...
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/read_blackreg...
George Bancroft points out that Locke's political ideas were not "enlightenment" ideas, but were largely lifted from Calvinists:
History of the United States, Vol. 5, p. 229
In 1688 England contracted to the Netherlands the highest debt that one nation can owe to another. Herself not knowing how to recover her liberties, they were restored by men of the United Provinces; and Locke brought back from his exile in that country the theory on government which had been formed by the Calvinists of the continent, and which made his chief political work the text-book of the friends of free institutions for a century.
Without Christian Calvinism there would have been no United States.
The response to post 516 is 542.
Life's to short to try and educate those that have an agenda, and will not countenance having their historical perspective jeopardized. No matter at the overwhelming evidence presented. Even acknowledging the Christian influence on the founding of this nation would put in peril their indoctrinated preconceived notion of a Godless nation. And that acknowledgment can never be tolerated in the wider world of our public schools.
By the way, no one has answered my question of why it's wrong to be a hypocrite? I'm still waiting.
Nor will Lu Ann say she embraces the quotes of Thomas Jefferson concerning God on his memorial. I made it clear I embraced the quote she presented from the memorial. But she just skipped over my question. Talk about people ignoring posts.
But no matter, family calls. I'm gone.
The National Center for Constitutional Studies
http://www.xmission.com/~nccs/
http://www.xmission.com/~nccs/ftyl.html
=================================================
Local-not-Yocal wrote:
It's old legalese. This has been covered already. Shall we start this whole thread over?
So I guess some should stop submitting the same questions over and over again. Wouldn't you say?
Oh legalese? Yeah Right! The founding legal documents are all Godless, and atheistic to. You've got to be kidding! LOL!
Once again, No the Founders never wanted a government run religion. I have no quarrel with that. But in their papers they submitted that a people must be a moral, religious and virtuous people to continue the blessings of liberty. And of course what do we see now, but the suppression of information in our schools by militant secularists, teachers unions and the ACLU concerning the motivations and influences that helped shape the founding documents.
Public spaces were "very open, very welcoming" to religion in the early republic. "Now there's a militant hostility to every public expression of faith. I don't see any support among the Founders for that."
You guys are scared to death that all this religious stuff coming from many of the Founders in their personal papers of what motivated them might make people see that we do still need the faith, and one of the philosophies that was the catalyst and motivator for our founding documents and liberty. No secularists can't admit there is any value to the Christian Calvinists influence on the founding of this nation and the Constitution.
When the phrase "America is a Christian nation" is proposed. This does not mean that all the people were or are Christian. It merely means that there was a Christian consensus and most of our founding documents, laws, moral codes and institutions are based on Christian principles. After all Christianity is one of the three distinct traditions of Western Civilization that scholars site.
In broad sense Buddhism and Confucianism made China what it is. Shintoism made Japan what it is. Hinduism made India what it is. Islam made the middle east and North Africa what it is. Communism made 30 nations what they became. Reformation Christianity made America what it is - and this is the country we choose - and so would millions of others if they could.
"You" finally grudgingly admitted that Christianity was a major influence on this nations founding, after overwhelming evidence that was posted to prove it. No one else can bring themselves to join you. Wonder why? Agenda anyone?(Grin)
=============================================
Lu Ann Lewellen wrote:
It's the date, for Pete's sake. They used the Julian calendar. Do you think everyone who uses the intials B.C. or A.D. after a date is a Christian?
Have I said the founders were all Christian? Don't think so! And you know it! I'm not implying that. What I'm pointing to is the absolute, almost militant refusal by secularists to admit that Christian Calvinism had any thing to do with the construction and shaping of our founding documents, and this nation.
But you did finally admit that Christianity through the Biblical principle of free will, influenced the freedom of religion clause in the Constitution. Once again, Thank you! Two down, many, many to go.(grin)
========================================
Lu Ann Lewellen wrote:
I don't punch a clock here. I actually skip over most of your lengthy posts, especially when Darrell's already addressed them.
I'm not sure I even understand the question; I finally decided it must be rhetorical.
The framers could hardly have foreseen everything that could happen in public education. They were concerned that there be public education.
Jefferson's quote referred to government's need to change with the times. Does agreeing with that mean I have to agree with everything else Jefferson said? I agree there are mentions of God on monuments, okay?
I've already made it clear I think he'd have been an atheist if he'd had an alternative explanation and the science we have today. I also think as a politician he'd have had to hide it. He was accused of it in his time.
Your opinion that Jefferson would have been an atheists is just that, your opinion.
So you think that if the country was an atheistic nation we would have had no atrocities happen in this country? Yeah Right! A good example of Darwinian atheism is the rule of Stalin during the Soviet Union. Marx one of the father if socialist communism was enamored with Darwin.
Marx read Darwin's The Origin of Species and recognized its value in supporting his theory of class struggle. He even sent Darwin a personally inscribed copy of Das Kapital in 1873.Marx understood that Darwin's work both helped to explain the internal struggles of human society, and provided a material explanation for the processes of nature.
In 1861, Karl Marx wrote to his friend Ferdinand Lassalle, "Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.... Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time,‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained. Near 100 million people were starved, tortured and murdered under this Godless system.
The witch trials had around 35 people that lost their life. This is not at all to diminish or minimize the impact of the witch hunts which resulted in these thirty-five deaths. But thirty-five is not millions. It is not hundreds of thousands. It's not even hundreds. It's thirty-five. This was not genocide. The fact is that there are people who do things consistently that are inconsistent with the code that they allegedly follow does not mean the entire philosophy is wrong. There are standard that are expected of those that say they posses a belief in Scripture. The book of John makes it clear that those who consistently live unrighteously are ipso facto by definition not part of the faith. For example, no one would fault the Hippocratic Oath, which is a very rigid standard of conduct for physicians, just because there are doctors who don't keep it. On the other hand the atheists Darwinian evolutionist have no historical standards of behavior they can site as a person not living up to. Do I embrace cruelty, and coercion, of course not. The question was really inappropriate, and down right silly.
If you want to do the body count thing, witch trials, crusades, blah, blah, blah, I can site the same thing. We can do that all day long if you wish.
The point is that every time you bring these atrocities up that have plagued mankind from the beginning, you make my point. The belief in the total depravity of man as the Calvinist believed, was the influence that effected the Constitution. As we see the limited government concept implemented. That if man could do evil, he would. No one branch of government was to have more power than the other, to off set the evil intent of mens heart for power.
=============================================
Lu Ann Lewellen wrote:
Limited government is a common practice through Western culture. It has roots in "Hebraic Law." In Western Civilization, the Magna Carta and the United States Constitution are examples of the limiting of government powers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_governme...
====================================================
Chuck Zimmerman wrote:
From my post at 594:
Jefferson's letter to John Adams, from Monticello, April 11, 1823.
Ear Sir,— The wishes expressed, in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of `Mon Dieu! Jusque à quand'! Would make me immortal. I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Dæmonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. Points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a dæmon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin. Indeed I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their general dogma that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a god
"Calvinists" by & large supported King George.
First off...History is eloquent in declaring that American democracy was born of Christianity and that that Christianity was Calvinism. The great Revolutionary conflict which resulted in the formation of the American nation, was carried out mainly by Calvinists, many of whom had been trained in the rigidly Presbyterian College at Princeton, and this nation is their gift to all liberty loving people.
J. R. Sizoo tells us: "When Cornwallis was driven back to ultimate retreat and surrender at Yorktown, all of the colonels of the Colonial Army but one were Presbyterian elders. More than one-half of all the soldiers and officers of the American Army during the Revolution were Presbyterians."
Saying that all Presbyterians (which are Calvinists) supported the crown is not factual. I'm sure there were some that did, but the overwhelming evidence is that most did not.
So Jefferson had theological disagreements on Calvinism? LOL! That went on all the time. There was an on going debate on the Calvinist theology of Predestinations. And it's still going today. LOL!
The influence of Calvin can be traced in every New England village
George Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol.2, p.138 - p.139
Calvinism has had more impact politically than theologically (when "theologically" is defined merely in terms of "predestination" and who goes where when they die.)
The doctrine of Calvinism which holds that men are sinful and that a government of checks and balances is required. This distinguishes him from the French Revolutionaries of his day.
Politically speaking, which is what this Message Board is all about. A person can be an atheist and have political views which are staunchly Calvinist, especially if he was raised a staunch Calvinist and moved toward deism only in theological terms. And Jefferson and many others were steeped in Calvinist thoughts of liberty, and freedom of consicence.
H. Henry Meeter, The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, 1939, writes:
Calvinism does not restrict itself to theology; but it is an all-comprehensive system of thought, including within its scope views on politics, society, science, and art as well as theology. It presents a view of life and of the universe as a whole -- a world- and life-view.
=========================================
Chuck Zimmerman wrote:
Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, p. 236
Politically, the tendency of Protestantism was toward democracy. Luther preached obedience to legitimate princes; Calvin established at Geneva a kind of aristocratic republic of virtue, governed in effect by presbyters (ministers and elders of the church). Yet the idea of the priesthood of all believers gradually would be transferred from the realm of religion to the realm of politics. The presbyterian form of Calvinism especially would become a forerunner of democratic institutions, even though in the beginning it had more nearly resembled the ancient Hebrew concept of theocracy.
Alain Besançon, "The Church Embraces Democracy,"
Crisis Magazine, Vol. 13, No. 8, September 1995, p. 34
Madison's point of view is doubtless connected with the idea of tolerance as it had been developed by Locke and the Anglo-French Enlightenment. But it also contains a trace of biblical influence. American Calvinism retained, against the optimism of the European Enlightenment, the consciousness of original sin. Madison did not seek to render man good, nor did he count on his goodness. He knew man's corruption and, thus, deployed what I will call the strategy of Babel. Following the Eternal, who had dispersed men so that they could not unite in the project of a fatally bad goal, Madison dispersed citizens into innumerable interest groups and religious denominations, in order to render them incapable of building the totalitarian city, of persecuting and oppressing one another, which would happen if a denomination became powerful enough to impose its will politically. Since men, because of original sin, see their most sublime enterprises (and especially those) turn to disaster and to crime, let us divide them so that they will only be capable of partial and localized evils.
Paul Gottfried, "Concepts of Government."
Modern Age: A Quarterly Review, Vol. 37, No. 3, p.267
To me it seems remarkable that one can discuss European and American republicanism without analyzing its Calvinist roots. The one reference by Rahe to Calvin is to the Protestant reformer's critical opinion of classical virtue. More important from a political and theoretical standpoint, how did the Calvinist ideas of Covenant and the right to rebellion influence English Puritans, Scottish Presbyterians, French Huguenots, and New England Congregationalists? Such a question is still asked in history classes, and for good reason.
Russell Kirk, speaking of Fisher Ames, the author of the First Amendment, in The Conservative Mind from Burke to Eliot, p.84:
Of all the terrors of democracy, the worst is its destruction of moral habits. "A democratic society will soon find its morals the encumbrance of its race, the surly companion of its licentious joys….In a word, there will not be morals without justice; and though justice might possibly support a democracy, yet a democracy cannot possibly support justice." Here speaks the old Calvinism which finds milder expression in John Adams.
A Short Treatise on Political Power, John Ponet, D.D.(1556) President John Adams credited this Calvinist document as being at the root of the theory of government adopted by the the Americans. According to Adams, Ponet's work contained "all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterward dilated on by Sidney and Locke" including the idea of a three-branched government.(Adams, Works, vol. 6, pg. 4). Published in Strassbourg in 1556, it is one of the first works out of the Reformation to advocate active resistance to tyrannical magistrates, with the exception of the Magdeburg Bekkentis (the Magdeburg Confession).
=============================================
Chuck Zimmerman wrote:
There are many ways to "limit government".
Here is one:
Sec. 13. Religious liberty.
All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.
North Carolina Bill of Rights.
I love how you ignore the roots of this concept.
(Grin)
=======================================================
(Reply to Chuck Zimmerman)
Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, p. 236
Politically, the tendency of Protestantism was toward democracy. Luther preached obedience to legitimate princes; Calvin established at Geneva a kind of aristocratic republic of virtue, governed in effect by presbyters (ministers and elders of the church). Yet the idea of the priesthood of all believers gradually would be transferred from the realm of religion to the realm of politics. The presbyterian form of Calvinism especially would become a forerunner of democratic institutions, even though in the beginning it had more nearly resembled the ancient Hebrew concept of theocracy.
Alain Besançon, "The Church Embraces Democracy,"
Crisis Magazine, Vol. 13, No. 8, September 1995, p. 34
Madison's point of view is doubtless connected with the idea of tolerance as it had been developed by Locke and the Anglo-French Enlightenment. But it also contains a trace of biblical influence. American Calvinism retained, against the optimism of the European Enlightenment, the consciousness of original sin. Madison did not seek to render man good, nor did he count on his goodness. He knew man's corruption and, thus, deployed what I will call the strategy of Babel. Following the Eternal, who had dispersed men so that they could not unite in the project of a fatally bad goal, Madison dispersed citizens into innumerable interest groups and religious denominations, in order to render them incapable of building the totalitarian city, of persecuting and oppressing one another, which would happen if a denomination became powerful enough to impose its will politically. Since men, because of original sin, see their most sublime enterprises (and especially those) turn to disaster and to crime, let us divide them so that they will only be capable of partial and localized evils.
Paul Gottfried, "Concepts of Government."
Modern Age: A Quarterly Review, Vol. 37, No. 3, p.267
To me it seems remarkable that one can discuss European and American republicanism without analyzing its Calvinist roots. The one reference by Rahe to Calvin is to the Protestant reformer's critical opinion of classical virtue. More important from a political and theoretical standpoint, how did the Calvinist ideas of Covenant and the right to rebellion influence English Puritans, Scottish Presbyterians, French Huguenots, and New England Congregationalists? Such a question is still asked in history classes, and for good reason.
Russell Kirk, speaking of Fisher Ames, the author of the First Amendment, in The Conservative Mind from Burke to Eliot, p.84:
Of all the terrors of democracy, the worst is its destruction of moral habits. "A democratick society will soon find its morals the encumbrance of its race, the surly companion of its licentious joys….In a word, there will not be morals without justice; and though justice might possibly support a democracy, yet a democracy cannot possibly support justice." Here speaks the old Calvinism which finds milder expression in John Adams.
A Short Treatise on Political Power, John Ponet, D.D.(1556) President John Adams credited this Calvinist document as being at the root of the theory of government adopted by the the Americans. According to Adams, Ponet's work contained "all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterward dilated on by Sidney and Locke" including the idea of a three-branched government.(Adams, Works, vol. 6, pg. 4). Published in Strassbourg in 1556, it is one of the first works out of the Reformation to advocate active resistance to tyrannical magistrates, with the exception of the Magdeburg Bekkentis (the Magdeburg Confession).
============================================
Chuck Zimmerman wrote:
The Declaration of Independance came from George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights.
Wow! Like that hasn't been already gone over. See previous posts.
On Calvinism in America...
Another important factor in the independence movement was what is now known as the "Mecklenburg Declaration," proclaimed by the Scots-Irish Presbyterians of North Carolina, on May 20, 1775, more than a year before the Declaration of Independence was signed by the Continental Congress.
These North Carolinians had been watching the progress of the Colonists against the Crown. They deemed it was time for the patriots to speak out. Calling their church representatives together, by unanimous resolution they declared the people of the colony free and independent, and all laws and commissions from the king would henceforth be null and void.
The Declaration stated the following: "We do hereby dissolve the political bonds which have connected us with the mother-country, and hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiances to the British Crown. We hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people, under control of no power, other than that of our God and general government of the Congress. To the maintenance of which we solemnly pledge each other our mutual cooperation and our lives, our fortunes, and our most sacred honor."
That assembly was composed of twenty-seven Colonists. One-third of these were ruling Elders in the Presbyterian Church, including the president and secretary and one clergyman. The man who drew up that famous and important document was the secretary--Ephraim Brevard, a ruling Elder and graduate of Princeton. It was sent by a special messenger to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia and many of these concepts were obviously incorporated into the Declaration of Independence.
The Presbyterian Church
If the average American citizen were asked, Who was the founder of America? He would undoubtedly hesitate to reply. A Presbyterian, however, and with considerable justification, might point to the answer given by Ranke, the famous German historian: "John Calvin was the virtual founder of America."
To back up this assertion about their famed theologian, Presbyterians might point out that at the time of the American Revolution two thirds of the population were trained in the schools of Calvin, where they learned the immortal principles of the rights of man, of human liberty, equality, and self-government on which they based our republic. Their intense zeal for liberty was so pronounced that the colonists' struggle for freedom was called, in England, "The Presbyterian Rebellion." Presbyterians are proud that one of their ministers, John Witherspoon, was the only clergyman who signed the Declaration of Independence.
Says John Lothrop Motley 1814-77, American historian and diplomat: "In England the seeds of liberty, wrapped up in Calvinism and hoarded through many trying years, were at last destined to float over land and sea, and to bear the largest harvests of temperate freedom for great commonwealths that were still unborn.5 "The Calvinists founded the commonwealths of England, of Holland, and America." And again, "To Calvinists more than to any other class of men, the political liberties of England, Holland and America are due."6
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/calvi...
And I could go on and on......
==============================================
Chuck Zimmerman wrote:
Does this sound "Calvinist" to anyone:
Amendment I (Religion)
Document 44
Virginia, Act for Establishing Religious Freedom
31 Oct. 1785Madison Papers 8:399--401
I. Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; ...
Did not Calvin "set up his own mode of thinking"?
Did not Jefferson by his letter to Adams consider Calvin to be not just wrong, but an "Atheist" & promoter of a "false religion".
Wow! I didn't know Jefferson and Madison were the "only" ones that had any impute in the construction of our founding documents. And all other influences other than the enlightenment concepts should be ignored. Yep! Just put blinders on, and ignore those men behind the curtain. LOL!
It was a theological discussion Jefferson was having. How hard is that to understand. Calvinism is also has political concepts.
============================================
Lu Ann Lewellen wrote:
I do not write for Wikipedia.
And just how you get Calvinism out of that, I do not know.
Don't know what you mean by the first remark. I was address Zimmerman. I guess you've never heard of the term Judeao-Christian. And that term has it's root in Judaism. aks "Hebraic Law."
=============================================
Lu Ann Lewellen wrote:
It's a good example of Stalin breaking the power of the churches.
Darwin deplored "social Darwinism", so don't even think about trying that one.
He was an abolitionist as well, so save the Darwin-was-a-racist routine for the terminally gullible.
I'd rather discuss something more important, like whether or not young earth geology should be taught in science classes. Was the Grand Canyon carved by Noah's flood?
OK your God Darwin is not to be toyed with.(Grin)
I'm still waiting for someone to answer why it's wrong to be a hypocrite?
========================================
stronger now wrote:
You missunderstand the intent of my question. I am well aware that christians are not to have free will if they are to call themselves christians at all. They are to submit to christ in all things. Free will is antithetical to christianity. I was asking because it appeared that native54 was misconstruing this facet of christian faith.
Again what a shallow understanding of Christianity.
The whole idea comes to will. A person surrenders their will "voluntarily" to the Lordship of Christ. We have choice. Wow! What a concept. Free will.
=============================================
Chuck Zimmerman wrote:
"Original Sin" is not anywhere within any of the Founding Documents. Nor was anything like it established. The assumption of innocence which OUR courts & police must honor is a direct contradiction of such nonsense.
The Founders seperated the church from the state to avoid even the shadow of religious Judgementalism which Calvin certainly supported.
I was a Presby for to long myself. Rejected the Virgin Birth, Trinity, etc, before I was a teenager. Was absolutely delighted to read of Jefferson's opinions.
As he said Calvin was an Atheist compared to Jefferson.
Good for you! Your God is Jefferson and Darwin.
Nooooo! What about the word "influence" don't you people understand? Most of the Founders were steeped in Christian theology. Even Jefferson. See my previous posts from several historians insights on the matter. It's almost laughable how dogmatic, and resistant to the evidence of the Christian influence on this country you guys are. I mean really! LOL!
============================================
stronger now wrote:
Do you really not know, or are you trying to get into a debate about morality?
I've put it out there several times. No takers. And come guys the genes thing won't fly. LOL!
============================================
damskippy wrote:
I to must run along. I've made my point several times over. And submitted the information to back it up. This debate could go on till we all draw our last breath. Time should be spent in better ways after a period of time. I'll leave you and your beloved Darwin and his belief system of evolution to it. Go forth and do like wish.(Grin)
====================================================
native54 wrote:
First off...History is eloquent in declaring that American democracy was born of Christianity and that that Christianity was Calvinism. The great Revolutionary conflict which resulted in the formation of the American nation, was carried out mainly by Calvinists, many of whom had been trained in the rigidly Presbyterian College at Princeton, and this nation is their gift to all liberty loving people.
J. R. Sizoo tells us: "When Cornwallis was driven back to ultimate retreat and surrender at Yorktown, all of the colonels of the Colonial Army but one were Presbyterian elders. More than one-half of all the soldiers and officers of the American Army during the Revolution were Presbyterians."
Saying that all Presbyterians (which are Calvinists) supported the crown is not factual. I'm sure there were some that did, but the overwhelming evidence is that most did not.
So Jefferson had theological disagreements on Calvinism? LOL! That went on all the time. There was an on going debate on the Calvinist theology of Predestinations. And it's still going today. LOL!
The influence of Calvin can be traced in every New England village
George Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol.2, p.138 - p.139
Calvinism has had more impact politically than theologically (when "theologically" is defined merely in terms of "predestination" and who goes where when they die.)
The doctrine of Calvinism which holds that men are sinful and that a government of checks and balances is required. This distinguishes him from the French Revolutionaries of his day.
Politically speaking, which is what this Message Board is all about. A person can be an atheist and have political views which are staunchly Calvinist, especially if he was raised a staunch Calvinist and moved toward deism only in theological terms. And Jefferson and many others were steeped in Calvinist thoughts of liberty, and freedom of consicence.
H. Henry Meeter, The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, 1939, writes:
Calvinism does not restrict itself to theology; but it is an all-comprehensive system of thought, including within its scope views on politics, society, science, and art as well as theology. It presents a view of life and of the universe as a whole -- a world- and life-view.
This was clearly rejected by OUR Founders:
"The doctrine of Calvinism which holds that men are sinful and that a government of checks and balances is required. This distinguishes him from the French Revolutionaries of his day."
The Founding Principle of naturally inherent inalienable rights negates such nonsense.
============================================
NOW THIS ONE IS FUNNY!
native54 wrote:
Wow! Like that hasn't been already gone over. See previous posts.
On Calvinism in America...
Another important factor in the independence movement was what is now known as the "Mecklenburg Declaration," proclaimed by the Scots-Irish Presbyterians of North Carolina, on May 20, 1775, more than a year before the Declaration of Independence was signed by the Continental Congress.
These North Carolinians had been watching the progress of the Colonists against the Crown. They deemed it was time for the patriots to speak out. Calling their church representatives together, by unanimous resolution they declared the people of the colony free and independent, and all laws and commissions from the king would henceforth be null and void.
The Declaration stated the following: "We do hereby dissolve the political bonds which have connected us with the mother-country, and hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiances to the British Crown. We hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people, under control of no power, other than that of our God and general government of the Congress. To the maintenance of which we solemnly pledge each other our mutual cooperation and our lives, our fortunes, and our most sacred honor."
That assembly was composed of twenty-seven Colonists. One-third of these were ruling Elders in the Presbyterian Church, including the president and secretary and one clergyman. The man who drew up that famous and important document was the secretary--Ephraim Brevard, a ruling Elder and graduate of Princeton. It was sent by a special messenger to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia and many of these concepts were obviously incorporated into the Declaration of Independence.
The Presbyterian Church
If the average American citizen were asked, Who was the founder of America? He would undoubtedly hesitate to reply. A Presbyterian, however, and with considerable justification, might point to the answer given by Ranke, the famous German historian: "John Calvin was the virtual founder of America."
To back up this assertion about their famed theologian, Presbyterians might point out that at the time of the American Revolution two thirds of the population were trained in the schools of Calvin, where they learned the immortal principles of the rights of man, of human liberty, equality, and self-government on which they based our republic. Their intense zeal for liberty was so pronounced that the colonists' struggle for freedom was called, in England, "The Presbyterian Rebellion." Presbyterians are proud that one of their ministers, John Witherspoon, was the only clergyman who signed the Declaration of Independence.
Says John Lothrop Motley 1814-77, American historian and diplomat: "In England the seeds of liberty, wrapped up in Calvinism and hoarded through many trying years, were at last destined to float over land and sea, and to bear the largest harvests of temperate freedom for great commonwealths that were still unborn.5 "The Calvinists founded the commonwealths of England, of Holland, and America." And again, "To Calvinists more than to any other class of men, the political liberties of England, Holland and America are due."6
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/calvi...
And I could go on and on......
Keep lieing, then.
The actual words of Jefferson & OUR Founding Documents speek "self-evident truth's".
1 comment:
You seem obsessed.
Post a Comment