PDA

View Full Version : Which Nation are we?



Keith Farmer
04-08-2009, 11:14 AM
Hussein Obama is now evidently throwing out the baby with the bath water by "dissing" this nation's heritage of Christian values:


Quote:
“…the United States and Turkey can send a powerful message to the world through their friendship. …that Turkey and the United States can build a model partnership in which a predominantly Christian nation, a predominantly Muslim nation — a Western nation and a nation that straddles two continents … that we can create a modern international community that is respectful, that is secure, that is prosperous, that there are not tensions — inevitable tensions between cultures — which I think is extraordinarily important.”

Then he says:



Obama, June 28, 2006 (as delivered): Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

also,


Quote:
that “one of the great strengths of the United States is that it does not consider itself a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values. I think modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of principles.” (CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/06/obama.turkey/index.html))



While the three quotes are not surprising the first is somewhat contradictory to the latter two and the third contradicts the second by saying first that we are a nation of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Non-believers, then he says we are not that nation....man can he just make up his mind?!?

The first quote places our history in perspective while the other two place it on a shelf and simply by fiat it appears we are now a nation based on multi faceted religions (second quote)...then only a "set of values" (third quote). This is important when viewed in the shadow of the third quote where Obama says we are bound by ideals and a set of values. My question, and it should be one of everyone else, is what set of values is Obama referring to? Does he even have a clue what he is talking about?

First) The religions he mentioned have very different values and ideals when compared to each other. The ideals and values THIS nation was founded on were/are those of Judeo Christians...that is very easily provable. What we are seeing now is the devaluing of our national heritage and the ushering in of Eastern values by Obama's decree (what a travesty that this is happening right before our very eyes!).

Second) Turkey may be a secular republic but the country is 99% Muslim. Most Turkish people would say that Turkey is a "Muslim" nation. Not ordered so by the Turkish government but none the less Muslim as a whole. In that light what similar set of PRINCIPLES does Turkey have with America????
__________________

YardleyLabs
04-08-2009, 11:29 AM
Keith,

I think Obama's comments are accurate with respect to both the US and Turkey.

Clearly we are a nation of principles, defined by Constitution and law, not by religion. Some of those laws have their roots in Judeo-Christian heritage, but nothing in our laws allows someone to be punished or favored legally based on religiously defined rules. We have elected, from our foundation, to be a secular state. While we are much more inclusive today than we were in the 18th century, even Jefferson spoke of welcoming Muslims to our country.

"Modern Turkey", as referenced by Obama, was also founded as a strictly secular state. In fact, they carried secular law much further than even our ancestors. This is unique among Muslim countries, and that secular commitment is now under attack in Turkey by some Islamists. I suspect that Obama's comments were designed, in part, to indicate support for the continuation of Turkey's secular traditions while also emphasizing his own commitments to preserving our own secular past.

Keith Farmer
04-08-2009, 11:55 AM
Clearly we are a nation of principles, defined by Constitution and law, not by religion


Jeff I don't disagree with the parts about secularism in terms of Turkey. My point being that I don't think Obama knows where he stands, what our nation is about, or where he should be leading us. I believe right now he is more concerned with trying to appease for the "past differences" of previous administrations with who he sees as potential allies in the region. However, what happened with his pals from Russia, China, and the like when N. Korea blantanly thumbed their nose at the warnings from Obama?... they all refused to help! Unless Obama learns from his failed efforts during this trip it will be a losing effort in total on his part with the U.S. being the beneficiary of his created mess.

Oh yeah, about our constitution. On what principles, Jeff, was that constitution written? Just in case you have forgotten...here is a portion of our Declaration of Independence (with my emphasis added):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (not evolved as eugenics teaches), that they are endowed by their Creator (that would be Jehovah God) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the puruit of Happiness.


Color it any way you want Jeff but our constitution is a drafted set of values/principles based on unalienable rights bestowed upon all mankind by Jehovah God...not Allah, not Buddha, not the millions of Hindu gods, not any mystical god or a mythical creature...you get the picture don't you? For this reason we are seeing a push towards international law for the UNITED STATES where our constitution will become obsolete. Obama's direction, his beliefs, and the beliefs of those he has chosen as his assistants all point to that end. His statments (like those in Turkey) should send chills down even your spine Jeff...I just don't get it man?!

One liberal view, proffered by John Kerry during a Bush debate, says that the constitution assures rights given by government. That, in my opinion, is the idea behind Turkey's constitution...much like the EU constitution (which by the way was voted against by the people of Britain, France, and others but shoved down the people's throats none the less). Only in America do we have a constitution based on a belief that God is sovereign and He alone holds our "rights" in His hand. Our government is supposed to protect those rights...they don't extend them!

YardleyLabs
04-08-2009, 01:37 PM
....

Oh yeah, about our constitution. On what principles, Jeff, was that constitution written? Just in case you have forgotten...here is a portion:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (not evolved as eugenics teaches), that they are endowed by their Creator (that would be Jehovah God) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the puruit of Happiness.


Strange, my copy of the Declaration of Independence says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I see nothing about evolution or Jehovah or any particular notion of god or religion. The Constitution has even less except for one section, the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "



Color it any way you want Jeff but our constitution is a drafted set of values/principles based on unalienable rights bestowed upon all mankind by Jehovah God...not Allah, not Buddha, not the millions of Hindu gods, not any mystical god or a mythical creature...you get the picture don't you?

One liberal view, proffered by John Kerry during a Bush debate, says that the constitution assures rights given by government. That, in my opinion, is the idea behind Turkey's constitution...much like the EU constitution (which by the way was voted against by the people of Britain, France, and others but shoved down the people's throats none the less). Only in America do we have a constitution based on a belief that God is sovereign and He alone holds our "rights" in His hand. Our government is supposed to protect those rights...they don't extend them!

Once again, your are talking about the Declaration of Independence which only specifically discussed the rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as creator given rights. The Constitution actually enumerates the rights and limitations of government -- presumably given by the People.

Franco
04-08-2009, 01:46 PM
I'll be dang, Jeff and I agree on something!

Let us not forget that the main-framer of the Constituition, Mr Tom Jefferson was a Deitist. So was John Adams though he was sipping some excellent French wines at the time of its writing, over in France. Oh, and so was George Washington and many others.

They saw the wisdom of seperating chruch from state and their use of the word God/Creator is used in a generic sense. Not a Christian God or any other organized religion god, thank Rama!

Keith Farmer
04-08-2009, 04:21 PM
Ok Jeff. That was the Declaration of Independance I quoted with my additions...not the Constitution.

So I guess you think are correct due to that error. Are you saying (like Obama) that we are not, never have been, and certainly will not in the future be a nation whose founding principles were derived from Christian standards.

I would like to know from your perspective from where the founders derived the laws that govern the land? What foundation or set of values did the founding fathers draw from in order to establish this more perfect union?

By the way Booty, they were deists, not deitists...but what do words mean anymore? That argument comes up everytime someone says that our country was founded on Christian principles..."they were deists". Well, I could fill pages with quote after quote supporting my position. I would ask that you guys tell me which god our founders were referring to if not Jehovah God of the Holy Bible? Do you guys honestly believe these men were willing to die for a falsely held belief in some made up deity? or worse yet, just any deity? You cannot be saying that...can you?!

About evolution...do you honestly believe the founders would use the word Creator if they held out a belief that they were the result of evolution?!

Did the founders actually mean to point to evolution as endowing us with our unalienable rights, or were they correct that our Creator did that? If it is true that they actually did say and mean Creator then who was the Creator they were referring to? History is full of clues...no, facts...about who they were referring to...so who was it in your mind, I am really curious to know?

It is said that a man is willing to die for what he truly believes in...he will not die for what he knows to be a lie. I contend that our founders were faithful men who had divine insight and were placed in their positions by divine appointment. You can believe they were just lucky stiffs who believed in a wild fantasy about a separated land from mother England or whatever...I do not accept your view however you dress it up...our history dictates otherwise!

In terms of separation of church and state...this has been beaten up for years. The truth is that the clause was placed there to protect churches from government interference...not what it is being touted as today.

Here is an exerpt from a case (I added the underlining for emphasis) (I'll leave it alone after this)...the entire case can be read here (I suggest reading the entire case):

http://www.moseshand.com/studies/db400yrs.htm




THE INCORPORATION OF DIVINE LAW
INTO AMERICAN COLONIAL LAW
12. The Ten Commandments are a smaller part of the larger body of divine law recognized and early incorporated into America’s civil documents. For example, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut - established in 1638-39 as the first written constitution in America and considered as the direct predecessor of the U. S. Constitution - declared that the Governor and his council of six elected officials would “have power to administer justice according to the laws here established; and for want thereof according to the rule of the word of God.”


Read the entire case...it will become clear that the Word of God referenced here is not some abstract deity's word...rather it is the Word of Jehovah God.

Pete
04-08-2009, 05:01 PM
Strange, my copy of the Declaration of Independence says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I see nothing about evolution or Jehovah or any particular notion of god or religion. The Constitution has even less except for one section, the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "



Jeff
your chitin me right

You are a liberal of all liberals

What created man ---the big bang. I never heard science say man was CREATED by the big bang. Something else usually takes the credit for being created. Its obvious to anyone with a a lick of sense to figure it out. And 200 years ago I guarentee it was God almighty they were refering to.,,,especially since back then worshipping God with out terrany was a big deal. After all thats why they came here in the first place and thats what they fought to presearve.


Today the only type of religion we must hide in the closet is christianity.


You tend to over think the simplest stuff.
Life is simple. Liberals can complicate something as simple as taking a crap.

You surprised me on that one.
The constitution is based on biblical priciple not religious principle by the way. The 2 are not the same.

Pete

Franco
04-08-2009, 05:24 PM
Here are some exerpts from letters written by Thomas Jefferson.

There is no question Jefferson rejected the Bible as divine revelation and rejected the divinity of Jesus. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson's appeal was to the God of the Deist, "Nature's God," not specifically to the God of Christianity (see letter dated Sep. 14, 1813, to Jefferson from John Adams equating "Nature's God" with "the revelation from nature").
As President, Jefferson occasionally attended church services; but, he was not a communing member of any Christian church. Further, he refused to proclaim any national days of prayer or thanksgiving.
Jefferson says he was a "Materialist" (letter to Short, Apr. 13, 1820) and a "Unitarian" (letter to Waterhouse, Jan. 8, 1825). Jefferson rejected the Christian doctrine of the "Trinity" (letter to Derieux, Jul. 25, 1788), as well as the doctrine of an eternal Hell (letter to Van der Kemp, May 1, 1817). Further, Jefferson specifically named Joseph Priestly (English Unitarian who moved to America) and Conyers Middleton (English Deist) and said: "I rest on them ... as the basis of my own faith" (letter to Adams, Aug. 22, 1813). Therefore, without using the actual words, Jefferson issued an authentic statement claiming Deism as his faith. The 1971 (ninth edition) Encyclopedia Britannica, 7:183, states the following: "By the end of the 18th century deism had become a dominant religious attitude among upper-class Americans, and the first three presidents of the United States held this conviction, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence." Therefore, it is appropriate to quote the two following paragraphs from the correspondence of President Thomas Jefferson wherein he wrote specifically about deism, as taught by Jesus.
"In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, and even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient [ancient] philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, . . . . I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, and doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice and philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, and even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark . . . that his system of morality was the most benevolent and sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers." (Ltr. to Joseph Priestly, Apr. 9, 1803.)
"I had believed that [Connecticut was] the last retreat of monkish darkness, bigotry, and abhorrence of those advances of the mind which had carried the other States a century ahead of them. ... I join you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character. If by religion we are to understand [I]sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, 'that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.' But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, 'something not fit to be named even, indeed, a hell.'" (Ltr. to Adams, May 5, 1817,Writings,A.A.Lipscomb,15:108-109.)

Pete
04-08-2009, 07:25 PM
Booty
It doesn't matter weather jefferson believed in God or not.


It must have been divine intervention because the constution is made of mostly biblical principle. Name me one thing in the constitution that is not a biblical principle. I'm not talking religion here. The Jesus he refers to is associated with organized religion. ,,,which is often counter what you will find if you practice biblical research standards of I peter 1 20 could be II Pete which means it must interpret itself There are no other choices. Organized religion has corrupted the word for cneturies,,,hell we have the bunny rabbit and a fat guy in a red suit to proove it. The religious leaders in the bible were no different,,,Most of them made God puke.
If God could puke that is,,,and if God can't does that make him not a God.

Anyway Jefferson probably saw them for the pukes that they were. But that doesn't mean thats the way it is in the bible. Its only someones doctrine,,,not Gods. If it were we wouldn't be in the trouble we are in today.

Pete

twall
04-08-2009, 07:58 PM
Our constitution was written for a moral people. In the hands of immoral people it is bent and twisted so that it will soon be, if it already isn't, unrecognizable to our founders.

Still clinging to my God and guns,

Tom

Franco
04-08-2009, 08:12 PM
Booty
It doesn't matter weather jefferson believed in God or not.


It must have been divine intervention because the constution is made of mostly biblical principle. Name me one thing in the constitution that is not a biblical principle. I'm not talking religion here. The Jesus he refers to is associated with organized religion. ,,,which is often counter what you will find if you practice biblical research standards of I peter 1 20 could be II Pete which means it must interpret itself There are no other choices. Organized religion has corrupted the word for cneturies,,,hell we have the bunny rabbit and a fat guy in a red suit to proove it. The religious leaders in the bible were no different,,,Most of them made God puke.
If God could puke that is,,,and if God can't does that make him not a God.

Anyway Jefferson probably saw them for the pukes that they were. But that doesn't mean thats the way it is in the bible. Its only someones doctrine,,,not Gods. If it were we wouldn't be in the trouble we are in today.

Pete
Yes, I agree with you in principle.

No doubt that most of the folks that settled this country were of Christian decent and that is a big part of our culture. We are just lucky that we had men such as Jefferson, Adams and Washington who were intelligent enough to see through much of the religious folly that had fallen on most common men. That they had the insight to realize that an organized state sponsored religion would be a dual edged sword, so to speak and that a state religion would lead to tyranny. Just look at countries like Iran.

BTW, I was raised in a very strict Christian household where both Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were banned! When my daughter was a teen, she asked me why we didn’t belong to any particular church. I told her that I felt that it would hinder her from discovering for herself what the world and religion were about. That if it truly were going to mean anything to her that she would have to work that out in her own mind.

Keith Farmer
04-08-2009, 08:34 PM
Jeff (and Booty as well since you mentioned your child),

You posted a picture on a different thread showing your family...kids and grand kids I think. Let me ask three questions (second is multi-faceted) and make a couple of statements appealing to your obvious intellectual side:

1) (this is a rhetorical question) Would you inject poison in the brain of the children you showed in your picture?

2) Did you teach your kids and grand kids evolution? or worse did you allow a public educator/indoctrinator to teach your kids evolution? If so what did you tell those wonderful children when you sat them down and discussed the constitution and Declaration of Independence with them? Who did you tell them the Creator was when you came to that section? Did you ignore that section? What/who has secured their rights if they were taught they are the product of random selection and evolution?

3) Did you teach your children that abortion and infanticide (such as our president supports and has adamently defended) is proper behavior for ethical/moral people?

There is a scripture reference that anyone that has children should be in tune with...here it is:

"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble." Luke 17:2

The most awesome task anyone has is raising children. The bible says we are to train them in the way they should go and when they are old they will not depart from it. The training part comes with responsibilities and consequences. There will be an accounting required for how we as parents raise our children...

In classical Greek there is an understanding that an idol is not only an object of worship but also a concept of the mind. This is important since throughout scripture God repeatedly destroyed peoples and nations for idolotry. The mind set that says there is no God is idolotrous. In fact, the bible says of those who have that mind set that they are fools (Psalm 14:1) The mind set that says that the creation that was created in the likeness of the Holy Trinity is the product of evolution is idolotry.

Take some time and research this greek word: Metavnoia

twall
04-08-2009, 08:38 PM
That if it truly were going to mean anything to her that she would have to work that out in her own mind.

Franco,

You are right, we each need to work out our faith with fear and trembling. If parents try to force "their" faith on their children it will not "stick." Likewise, no mentoring or guiding does not mean someone will not develop faith in Jesus Christ. I'm proof of that!

Still clinging to my God and guns,

Tom

Pete
04-08-2009, 08:55 PM
I am thankful for our founding fathers . Weather they believed in God or not is uncertain and not much of a concern for me,,,but that they constructed a constitution which benefits all who want to live in liberty and freedom with justice . Where a person can be what he can attain through hard work without massive interference and terrany from a government is a pretty big Godly mindset. So to me its very unique for a country to value these attributes. And when our constitution is abandoned from its original intent and socialism flaunts its stench then I will discontinue my alliegence,,,because it will then be nothin special,,might as well move to cuba or N korea.I am pretty close to thinking this country isn't any difeerent than any other socialistic joint.

Our constitution and the people who love it and those who are willing to phisically fight for it is what makes this the best country in the world.

Pete

YardleyLabs
04-08-2009, 11:23 PM
Too much to even pretend to respond to each person's statements individually. Booty, I love your post. The only thing missing is the fact that Jefferson also produced his own version of the Bible (actually only a small section) in an effort to capture what he saw as the essential human nature of Jesus of Nazareth. It's book that I love and that I gave to both of my kids.

Pete and Keith, I'm not sure when either of you last read the Constitution. You are hard pressed to find anything in it having to do with any higher moral principals of any kind -- Judeo-Christian, Hindu, or whatever. It never mentions God or a Creator, or even any of the ten commandments. What it does talk about is how the national government will be organized and how elections will be held and how the Constitution will be changed over time. It would be hard to find a more secular document. The rights we all cherish are not even included in the main body of the document, but were added as original amendments. The only one of those that evidences a religious thought is the first amendment, quoted before, that says that govenment should stay out of religion altogether.

The legal structure that governed the normal lives of early Americans was based on English Common Law, which itself was based primarily on Roman law -- you may remember, they were the ones that killed Christ -- with modifications coming from Norman law, which descended from Roman law as modified primarily under Charlemagne.

The notions of evangelical Christianity or fundamentalist Christianity would have been almost entirely unrecognizable to our founding fathers. They were the children of the the "Age of Reason." They were followers of Locke and Priestly and Descartes. They were the philosophical offspring of those who rejected dogma and the authority of any and all churches. While many were in fact religious, many were not religious at all.

Yes Keith, my kids have always been taught the science of evolution. They have also been taught about the wide range of creation myths that are part of every major religion. Evolution was never mentioned in our Constitution because the science associated with it was not published until 1859. However, long before Darwin published his epic the foundations of evolutionary science were being identified by many other scientists as well. I can assure you that Jefferson would absolutely have been an evolutionist eager to travel with Darwin.

With respect to the poisons of public schools, I think the only time any teacher in a public school mentioned evolution to my kids with any details was when my son had a "science" teacher who had written his Masters thesis in an effort to disprove evolution and promote creationism as a scientific fact. My son complained to me. I told him he should listen, consider what his teacher was saying, and then make up his own mind. I did suggest to him that the argument that God must exist because everything had to start somewhere was not a proof of God. Rather it is only a proof that all beginnings, including the Big Bang, imply that something had to exist before. If that is true for the Big Bang, why would it be less true for God?

The existence or non-existence of God is a matter of faith, not science. There is no reason to pretend otherwise. I cannot see how one man's faith should be made any stronger or weaker by the faith of another person.

Leave each person to make his or her own decisions and keep government out of the faith business. That's what our Constitution said. If God gave us free will in matters of belief, who is man to take it away?

Keith Farmer
04-09-2009, 10:00 AM
Jeff,

You seem to dismiss the historical proof and where you get your information from is alarming...perhaps public education did that to you.

Here are a few facts about history for consideration:

John Adams said (my emphasis added):

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity...I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

That is precisely in-step with nearly every other framer at the time. I could give quote after quote if you want? But do I really need to?

I asked you where/how the framers derived the principles whereby the Declaration and Constitution were written...there is your answer strait from one of the framers himself...no need to add to it.

Did you read the case I posted...it is clear that the early pre-runners for the constitution were based on biblical principles.

Are you aware of the University of Houston study conducted in 1892? Here is the gist of what they did (my emphasis added):



Many have wanted to know where the Founders got their ideas for the Constitution. The University of Houston conducted a study over 10 years that examined 15,000 writings from the Founding Era. The researchers isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders and identified the source of these quotes. 34% of the quotes came directly out of the Bible.Another 60% came indirectly from the Bible from sources such as Baron Charles de Montesquieu, Sir William Blackstone, and John Locke. These were men who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions. Robert S. Dunn


Have you studied Washington's farewell address?...probably not since it has been removed from public education due to its "religious" overtones...Washington, our first president is now not constitutionally acceptable??!! Here are a few quotes from that address:



“Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert?”


“of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.”


I interpret that to mean that anyone who tries to subvert religion and morality are enemies of American patriotism...Washington said that!



“Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds ... reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
No need to say anything about that.

Want Jefferson support?



“The precepts of philosophy laid hold of actions only. But Jesus pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man, erected His tribunal in the region of the thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.”



“had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither king nor priest, the genuine doctrine of one God is reviving, and trust that there is not a young man in the United States who will not die a Christian . . . the doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man. 1) That there is only one God and he, all perfect. 2) that there is a future state of rewards and punishments. 3) That to love God, with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thy self is the sum of religion.”


Sound like someone who would accept Darwinism?? I say that (that Jefferson would embrace darwinism) is BS!

Want more Adams?


“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . .Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

This is why, again, Obama's administration and the courts are supporting international law! Our constitution is inadequate to govern in their minds.


How about John Quincy Adams in a speech given July 4th 1837 where he prefaced the quoted statement by asking why it was that the 4th of July and Christmas were our top two American holidays?...His answer to his own question:



“Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth. That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?”


Want case law? Here is a decision by the Supreme court in 1892:


“No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is a Christian nation.” (Church of The Holy Trinity vs. The United States)

In that case there were 87 different historical precedents that the Court used to support its conclusions.

How about John Jay...the first Supreme Court Chief Justice and one of the three men most responsible for the Constitution itself :



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


Perhaps that is enough support from the framers that we were founded on Christian principles, that our nation was considered by them as "a Christian Nation", and that our Constitution was developed for such a people. I could go on for hours and fill pages if you want but if that is not enough you guys will never get it?

In terms of your kids let me quote you, ask a question, and make a statement:


I told him he should listen, consider what his teacher was saying, and then make up his own mind.

Do you train your dog that way? Do you take out your dog, send him in the field and hope he makes the right decision...or any decision?

I believe that type action by a parent is why our kids are suffering so much at this time in history. It is a complete abdication of the parental role and irresponsibility at its highest to send an unlearned child in to a world that does not have his/her best interest at heart and hope that child will "make up his/her mind" and somehow benefit from the experience. Here are some statistics for consideration...

Since 1963 when the bible was officially ripped from our public school class rooms America has thrived...no it really has taken a nose dive:

America leads the world in violent crime
America leads the world in divorce
America leads the Western world in teen pregnancy
America leads in voluntary abortion
America leads in illegal drug usage
America leads the Western world in illiteracy

I think Washington was right!

BrianW
04-09-2009, 10:32 AM
If there were no basis for religion in US Government why would there be any need for the Office of the Chaplaincy of the United States House of Representatives and the continuation of the tradition, established by the Continental Congresses of starting each proceeding with a prayer?

The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion by the prohibition of Congressional establishment, not freedom from religion.
.

YardleyLabs
04-09-2009, 01:22 PM
Let's start with the basics.

First, as a parent, my role has always been to help my children grow into responsible, compassionate and productive adults; not dogs. The training is very different. As adults, I expect them to listen to and consider the opinions of others and then to make up their own minds. They must be prepared to defend their positions and live with the consequences of their actions. You cannot train children to become that kind of adult if along the way you tell them all the "right" answers. In fact, on a regular basis I routinely gave my children bad information and incorrect answers where they knew better. If they failed to challenge me I would ask why they had not. They learned quickly that it was better to challenge me when they disagreed and happily continue to do so as adults.

On the Constitution, I would be interested in any direct quotes you can provide that evidence Christian intent in the body of the Constitution or in any of its amendments. The ones I am aware of are:
the Constitution is dated "in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven"
Art. VI states "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The actual addition of the words "so help me God" to the Presidential Oath of Office has been done by some Presidents but is not part of the statutory oath, which is dictated by Article II which states "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That language is even clearer than the second amendment right to bear arms.
14th Amendment: "Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Important because it is the basis for extending some Constitutional guarantees to the State level.It seems to me that if there were ever an intent to define the United States as a Christian country, it would have appeared somewhere in the Constitution. Such language promoting a state religion certainly does appear in the Constitutions of many other countries both now and at the time that ours was drafted. Do you assume that this was simply an oversight? What language do you see in our adopted Constitution to support your position?

With respect to your quotes from Jefferson, there is an important context that you are leaving out. In stating that "there is only one God" Jefferson meant that Jesus was purely human. He believed that Jesus had, in barely three years of preaching, put forward an amazing moral framework that Jefferson supported in part and disagreed with in other parts, but still considered the best that had been articulated. He mourned the "fact" that those disciples surrounding Jesus -- both through their ignorance and through their own personal motives, had so corrupted his message.Jefferson wrote in a letter to Benjamin Rush "I am a Christian, in the only sense that he wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other."

Adams was a Unitarian (that is, he accepted the teachings of Jesus as articulated in the Gospels but did not accept the divinity of Jesus). He and Jefferson clashed bitterly at times but in the end it was at least partly based on the encouragement of Adams that Jefferson finally wrote the "Jefferson Bible". Jefferson had always believed that his religion was a completely personal matter and avoided discussing it in public. During his Presidential campaign he was repeatedly attacked as an atheist and anti-Christian -- claims which he largely ignored. He was elected anyway. The impetus for the Jefferson Bible began in conversations and correspondence with Benjamin Rush, whom he had befriended in 1776, and Joseph Priestly, but the project was not completed until about 1820.

In a letter to Van der Kamp in 1820, Jefferson wrote "While this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in its true and high light, as no impostor Himself, but a great Reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with Him in all of his doctrines. I am a Materialist; He takes the side of Spiritualism. He preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise or good work to redeem it..."

Please understand, Keith, that I am not arguing for or against any religious belief. I consider all religious beliefs to be matters of personal faith and respect them as such.

I am arguing against the revisionist notion that we were founded as a Christian country and have some form of obligation to support and preserve that Christianity. We were founded as a secular country by individuals who were, in almost every case Christian, but who believed wisely that our government had no business being involved in such matters. Writing a Constitution that only mentions religion in the context of saying that government should stay out of it was not and oversight, but a founding principal for our country.

Franco
04-09-2009, 01:58 PM
I'll add this again for Keith;

In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson's appeal was to the God of the Deist, "Nature's God," not specifically to the God of Christianity (see letter dated Sep. 14, 1813, to Jefferson from John Adams equating "Nature's God" with "the revelation from nature").

Yes, Jefferson beleive in God, the Deist God. And, I do think Jefferson would have embraced Darwin.

Are we to discount science over the writings of ancient man, who had a very limited grasp of our origins? Ancient man's mind was full of superstitions, and much that modern science has clear with fact.

Keith Farmer
04-09-2009, 02:13 PM
The training is very different


I totally disagree. That position, that children don't need proper training just let 'em figger it out on their own, is why our country is in the mess it is now...improper perspectives about the need for proper training with regards to our children in part has led to the statistics I posted previously...did you read those...do they bother you?...probably not. It really is sad that a post modern generation of adults have screwed up our future generations in such a way...good going!




As adults, I expect them to listen to and consider the opinions of others and then to make up their own minds.


You said you did that when they were in school. Adults may be a different story. As children you and I are obligated to extend the very best we can to our children. Neglecting that role or relegating it to someone else...even the child himself...is a cheap substitute for parenting.




I am arguing against the revisionist notion that we were founded as a Christian country and have some form of obligation to support and preserve that Christianity. We were founded as a secular country by individuals who were, in almost every case Christian, but who believed wisely that our government had no business being involved in such matters.


Jeff,

I tried to cite enough info about where the framers got their ideas about how to draft the Constitution...read the info I posted, don't just dismiss it. However, if you and others want to ignore the wealth of information supporting those truths then what else can I say?

Keith Farmer
04-09-2009, 02:16 PM
Yes, Jefferson beleive in God, the Deist God. And, I do think Jefferson would have embraced Darwin.





“had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither king nor priest, the genuine doctrine of one God is reviving, and trust that there is not a young man in the United States who will not die a Christian . . . the doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man. 1) That there is only one God and he, all perfect. 2) that there is a future state of rewards and punishments. 3) That to love God, with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thy self is the sum of religion.”


Booty, you are saying then that Jefferson lied when he said he wished that every man in the U.S. would die a Christian?

Man you guys are something else...

Franco
04-09-2009, 02:30 PM
(snip)
With respect to your quotes from Jefferson, there is an important context that you are leaving out. In stating that "there is only one God" Jefferson meant that Jesus was purely human. He believed that Jesus had, in barely three years of preaching, put forward an amazing moral framework that Jefferson supported in part and disagreed with in other parts, but still considered the best that had been articulated.
(snip)
Jefferson wrote in a letter to Benjamin Rush "I am a Christian, in the only sense that he wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other."

(snip)

.

Keith, I believe Jeff did a great job of covering your question, see above.

I do beleive that the "hardess heads" play here on the Potus forum, including you and me!;-)

Just one reason I consider myself a political Independent.

Keith Farmer
04-09-2009, 03:04 PM
Aint it fun though Booty?!

Here is an interesting case for you guys...see how you can twist this into some deist format:



In 1811 a case (People vs. Ruggles) came to the Court that dealt with a man who had gone into a fit of profanity. It was not a moment of anger or temporary loss of control, for he had taken the time to write it out and distribute it. It maliciously and capriciously attacked Jesus Christ in the vilest of terms. The Court explained the problems with his writings: an attack on Jesus Christ was an attack on Christianity; and an attack on Christianity was an attack on the foundation of the country; therefore, an attack on Jesus Christ was an equivalent to an attack on the country! The man was sentenced to 3 months in prison and a fine of $500.00 ( a princely sum in those days) for attacking the country by attacking Jesus Christ. Robert S. Dunn


You know, even Hussein Obama said we are a predominantly Christian Nation...just before he kow-towed on that and said we were Muslim, etc, then said we were not any of those things...which by the way is how all this started...

YardleyLabs
04-09-2009, 03:17 PM
I totally disagree. That position, that children don't need proper training just let 'em figger it out on their own, is why our country is in the mess it is now...improper perspectives about the need for proper training with regards to our children in part has led to the statistics I posted previously...did you read those...do they bother you?...probably not. It really is sad that a post modern generation of adults have screwed up our future generations in such a way...good going!



You said you did that when they were in school. Adults may be a different story. As children you and I are obligated to extend the very best we can to our children. Neglecting that role or relegating it to someone else...even the child himself...is a cheap substitute for parenting.

Oh, I trained my kids and I believe I trained them very well. But I can't train someone to think for themselves and make decisions well unless I let them think for themselves, make decisions poorly, and suffer the consequences of their mistakes. As a parent, I try to limit the severity of their mistakes and the severity of the consequences, but I also train them to make decisions and accept responsibility as soon as they are verbal with increasing levels of freedom and responsibility as they grow.

A variety of basic rules went into my kids lives. Allowance begins at five and ends at 12. From 12 on there are lots of opportunities given for fairly paid jobs, but no financial gifts of any kind. If a kid needs jeans, she gets basic utilitarian jeans. If he want designer jeans, he earns the money and pays himself. At 12 they were also given the simple choice about meals: cook or clean, it was their choice. Both hated cleaning and became great cooks. They learned to read recipes, plan complete menus, prepare shopping lists, and plan and prepare multi-course meals. They also learned that at least on most nights, meals were a family event. Guests were welcome, but attendance by kids was not optional unless other arrangements were made days before as the menus for the week were planned. Beginning at age 16, my kids were expected to find ways to give back to their community. My son, for example, worked 1000 hours per year as a volunteer EMT on our local ambulance squad. On graduating from high school or at age 19, my kids knew it was time to move out -- either by going to college or getting a place of their own. If they went to college (which both did) they were given four years tuition, room and board, but no money for personal expenses, clothes, travel, or books. Those were their responsibility. Both have done exceptionally well since graduating -- as workers, as human beings, as members of their communities, and as parents. Last night my son in law was thanking me for that "out of the house by 19" rule and talking about how they have already started talking to my 5 year old granddaughter about how she will grow up and leave home when she is 19 and the different types of things she'll need to learn to be ready.

What my kids didn't get were instructions on what to believe. We discussed politics routinely, but they had to learn to present both sides of issues and to stick with facts. They learned to distinguish between a person, a person's stated beliefs, and a person's actions. They were not taught religion but were taught about the range of religious beliefs and were encouraged to visit their friend's churches. Both attended Christian and non-Christian churches at different times. They do not consider themselves to be Christian now, and neither am I.

Keith, you said "you and I are obligated to extend the very best we can to our children." I agree completely and believe that I did.






Jeff,

I tried to cite enough info about where the framers got their ideas about how to draft the Constitution...read the info I posted, don't just dismiss it. However, if you and others want to ignore the wealth of information supporting those truths then what else can I say?

I actually read your quotes, including trying to track down some of the more popular quotes repeated only on "save Christianity" web sites for which actual sources were never named. I also reread the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence several times. I won't quibble with your quotes, some of which are accurate, but I will repose the question I asked in turn. Where do you find evidence of the guiding Christian hand in the text of our Constitution?

Decimal based mathematics and our entire system of numbering, along with much of our early knowledge of astronomy came from peoples who were overwhelmingly pagan and Muslim. Does that mean that those sciences are shaped by and extend pagan and Muslim beliefs?

Culture, including religion, necessarily and appropriately help to shape governance. There is no question that much of our attittudes towards individual freedom derived from our predominantly Protestant (as distinct from Catholic) heritage in the 18th century, as well as from the fact that we were founded by a bunch of wild eyed anti-authoritarian rebels. Happily, for the most part, the Hamiltonians lost out to the Jeffersonians in the early years of our history and we were able to preserve our commitment to independence and rebelliousness rather than falling into a more orderly and authoritarian tradition. The fact that those traditions have worked for us does not make them universally correct for all. Different countries have their own cultures and resulting differences in their approaches to governance. A benefit for us is that we have often been successful at attracting the best ad the brightest of their rebels and the blood of those rebels has helped refresh ours through many waves of immigration. I hope that will continue to happen and that we will not sink into some moribund swamp of mediocrity where having differences of belief is considered to be un-American.

YardleyLabs
04-09-2009, 03:29 PM
Aint it fun though Booty?!

Here is an interesting case for you guys...see how you can twist this into some deist format:



You know, even Hussein Obama said we are a predominantly Christian Nation...just before he kow-towed on that and said we were Muslim, etc, then said we were not any of those things...which by the way is how all this started...
If you investigated further you would see that the full citation for this case was 1811 NY The People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns 545 (Sup Ct N.Y. 1811). That is, it was a case filed under New York State law in New York Courts. It was never heard in Federal Court since, prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment few of the provisions of the Bill of Rights were assumed to restrict state actions. However, in New York State this decision was overturned. During a Constitutional Convention in 1826, an amendment was proposed that said "It shall not be declared or adjudged that any particular religion to be the law of the land." To avoid having this passed, Kent, who had authored the 1811 opinion specifically asserted that the opinion was never intended to define Christinanity as the religion of the land. (See http://candst.tripod.com/case03.htm)

Edit: There is also a big difference between saying we are a predominantly Christian -- meaning that most of our population identify themselves as Christian -- and saying that somehow our country is founded on Christianity and should be fulfilling some Christian mission. Given that only a very small minority of our population would support your definitions of Christianity, does that make your religion un-American?

Franco
04-09-2009, 03:35 PM
Aint it fun though Booty?!



Yes it is and enlighting too!

There are only two subjects I like to debate/argue more than football...politics and religion.

Keith Farmer
04-09-2009, 04:34 PM
By the way, I am not using "save Christianity" web sites for my quotes Jeff...The quotes are what they are...you are distorting their intent, maligning the framers, and twisting details so they fit your schemes...




What my kids didn't get were instructions on what to believe.



That is precisely why our heritage, our sense of worth and value, and the truth is being fettered away...we (read Americans in general) don't teach our kids what the truth is...just make it up as you go is the norm now...again sad! It is called moral relativism. Whatever truth you find is truth to you and whatever truth I find is my truth. The problem with that is we both will answer to the Creater Who says that His Word is truth. His Word by the way is Jesus Christ (I can detail that for you if you would like) Who is the only pathway in order to obtain salvation "...no other name given under heaven whereby men must be saved". "



Decimal based mathematics and our entire system of numbering, along with much of our early knowledge of astronomy came from peoples who were overwhelmingly pagan and Muslim. Does that mean that those sciences are shaped by and extend pagan and Muslim beliefs?



Tell me what the very first text book in American public schools was Jeff. The tell me what method, exactly what the words were, that was used to teach the alphabet. Just want to see you post the words...



and saying that somehow our country is founded on Christianity and should be fulfilling some Christian mission


I don't think I am saying that our country was "founded on Christianity"...I am saying, as did the framers, that Christian principles (you know those pesky little ideals that drive someone in a certain direction) were indeed the foundation for what became the Constitution. You are making something out of nothing here Jeff. You cannot deny the myriad of evidence that the framers used Christian principles to build our Constitution and our organic laws...you just cannot make that work.

What do you do with the Mayflower compact Jeff? Can you butcher this up somehow? (By the way, the annotation at the end Anno Domini means the year of our Lord. It is sometimes specified more fully as Anno Domini Nostri Iesu (Jesu) Christi ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ")...just so ya know!




"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."


How about Henry (my emphasis)...



Patrick Henry (1736-1799), five-time Governor of Virginia, whose "Give me liberty or give me death" speech has made him immortal, said: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly, nor too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. . . ."


Jefferson again...



Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), third U.S. President, chosen to write the Declaration of Independence, said: "I have little doubt that the whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator, and, I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also." He proclaimed that it was the God of the Bible who founded America in his 1805 inaugural address: "I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in this country."


That "Being ...who led...Israel" was/is Jehovah God (not a god worshipped by deists)...that is easily provable so I will not go in to that...unless you are not aware of the exodus, Moses, etc???

YardleyLabs
04-09-2009, 06:01 PM
By the way, I am not using "save Christianity" web sites for my quotes Jeff...The quotes are what they are...you are distorting their intent, maligning the framers, and twisting details so they fit your schemes...

Any examples?



That is precisely why our heritage, our sense of worth and value, and the truth is being fettered away...we don't teach our kids what the truth is...just make it up as you go...again sad!

And here I thought I was bringing them up in accordance with the best of American ideals....
Work
Compassion and charity
Curiosity
Courage
Intellectual independence
Honesty and integrity
Commitment to family, community, country and worldWhich of those would you have me throw out?



Tell me what the very first text book in American public schools was Jeff. The tell me what method, exactly what the words were, that was used to teach the alphabet. Just want to see you post the words...


It's hard to know what you mean by "American public schools". The following comes from "A History of Public Education in the United States"
by Deeptha Thattai:


The most preliminary form of public education was in existence in the 1600s in the New England colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire. The overriding belief on educating the children was more due to religious reasons and was easy to implement, as the only groups in existence were the Puritans and the Congregationalists. However, the influx of people from many countries and belonging to different faiths led to a weakening of the concept. People refused to learn only in English and opposed the clergy imposing their religious views through public education. By the middle of the eighteenth century, private schooling had become the norm.



After the Declaration of Independence, 14 states had their own constitutions by 1791, and out of the 14, 7 states had specific provisions for education. Jefferson believed that education should be under the control of the government, free from religious biases, and available to all people irrespective of their status in society. Others who vouched for public education around the same time were Benjamin Rush, Noah Webster, Robert Coram and George Washington. It was still very difficult to translate the concept to practice because of the political upheavals, vast immigration, and economic transformations. Thus, even for many more decades, there were many private schools, and charitable and religious institutions dominating the scene."

If you are referring to the Puritan schools in the 17th century, I suspect the answer would be the Bible (not sure what edition). Even later many schools would have used the Bible simply because of the shortage of other books in many areas.




I don't think I am saying that our country was "founded on Christianity"...I am saying, as did the framers, that Christian principles (you know those pesky little ideals that drive someone in a certain direction) were indeed the foundation for what became the Constitution. You are making something out of nothing here Jeff. You cannot deny the myriad of evidence that the framers used Christian principles to build our Constitution and our organic laws...you just cannot make that work.
I identified the areas of our Constitution that appeared to reflect religious consideration. You are obviously seeing something that I am not. Can you give an example (other than the date, which I also noted in my list).



What do you do with the Mayflower compact Jeff? Can you butcher this up somehow? (By the way, the annotation at the end Anno Domini means the year of our Lord. It is sometimes specified more fully as Anno Domini Nostri Iesu (Jesu) Christi ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ")...just so ya know!

Happily, even Massachusetts had pretty much given up on the Puritans by the time of the revolution (turning more to Unitarianism and Congregationalism) and their example was reason enough for the other colonies to want to make sure that such Puritanical fanaticism would not seep out into the other colonies. This was of greatest concern to neighbor Rhode Island which championed the First Amendment prohibition against "any law respecting the establishment of religion".




How about Henry (my emphasis)...
Snopes identifies this as a "spurious quotation" that "does not appear anywhere in the writings or recorded utterances of Patrick Henry." (See http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp for this and for responses on many of the other quotes you have provided).




Jefferson again...

[/quote}
As far as I can tell this quote originated in Eidsmore's book Christianity and the Constitution but I can't tell where he got it and don't have his book. However, you can find a very comprehensive discussion of Jefferson's religious beliefs and their evolution from 1776 through publication of the Jefferson Bible in 1820 in the forward to The Jefferson Bile: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth published Beacon Press with a forward by Forrest Church (author of the discussion I referenced). Jefferson had little regard for the disciples of Jesus as historians or chroniclers of Jesus' ministry. He invested 20 years in an effort to try to discern the true beliefs of Jesus as a man. While he did not, as I noted previously, accept all that Jesus preached (and none of what he viewed as the spurious additions found in the Bible), he believed that the moral framework espoused by Jesus was indeed the most perfect, as I also noted before. What did Jefferson reject from the Gospels? Every account of any miraculous event. For Jefferson, Jesus was an extraordinary human being who suffered death at the hands of the Romans and whose memory was repeatedly slain again by the distortions of his followers. None of this mean Jefferson was right. But I do not believe I am distorting his beliefs.

[quote=Keith Farmer;427656]
That "Being ...who led...Israel" was/is Jehovah God (not a god worshipped by deists)...that is easily provable so I will not go in to that...unless you are not aware of the exodus, Moses, etc???
Jefferson was certainly referring to the God of the Hebrews. However, his own view of God seems to have been very flexible. He viewed the teachings of Jesus as a worthy improvement on the religion of the Hebrews and viewed his own "Materialist" beliefs as an imprvement on the beliefs of Jesus. His hope was that people would adopt his own "purer" and somewhat more rebellious view of God and morality. In 1822 he predicted that "there is not a young man now living in the US who will not die an Unitarian." and he submitted a request to the Unitarian Association that they send a minister to his area in Virginia. Needless to say, he got neither of his wishes.

Keith Farmer
04-09-2009, 07:29 PM
I identified the areas of our Constitution that appeared to reflect religious consideration. You are obviously seeing something that I am not. Can you give an example (other than the date, which I also noted in my list).



Jeff,

My contention is not that the Constitution directly states religious wording. My contention is that overwhelming proof exists that the framers used Christian principles (much like you cited about raising your kids...which I'll get to momentarily) during the construction phase of the Constitution. If you don't see that then I am sorry.



And here I thought I was bringing them up in accordance with the best of American ideals....

Work
Compassion and charity
Curiosity
Courage
Intellectual independence
Honesty and integrity
Commitment to family, community, country and worldWhich of those would you have me throw out?



And where did America get those ideals from Jeff...certainly not Islam, Hinduism, deism, or any other ...ism. They also did not just appear on the scene or in a mans heart/mind...why: The heart (mind) is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9 (AKJV) That is why our minds need to be renewed with the mind of Christ.

and

There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
13 “ Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-27999c)]

“ The poison of asps is under their lips”;[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-27999d)]
14 “ Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-28000e)]
15 “ Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known.”[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-28003f)]
18 “ There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-28004g)]


Your list:

1) Work. The bible says concerning work..."If a man will not work, he shall not eat." 2 Thessalonians 3:10 (NIV)

2) Compassion and Charity. The bible says... "Now as touching things offered to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but [B]charity edifies." 1 Corinthians 8:1 (AKJV)

3) Curiosity. The bible says..."Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. Matthew 7:7(NASV)

4) Courage. The bible says..."Be strong and courageous, do not be afraid or tremble at them, for the LORD your God is the one who goes with you. He will not fail you or forsake you." Deuteronomy 31:6 (NASV)

5) Honesty and Integrity. The bible says..."I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans 12:1 & 2 (KJV)

6) Commitment to family, community, country, and world.

There is a problem with the last one. You see Jeff you left out the most important commitment for your family...the commitment to God. You may scoff but the list of commitments you gave in 6 is incomplete and dangerous...here is why: 36 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? 37 Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”Mark 8:36-38 (KJV)

You should really reconsider that last one Jeff...

Keith Farmer
04-09-2009, 07:32 PM
Oh yeah,

The first book I referenced...here ya go:

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

Matt McKenzie
04-09-2009, 07:38 PM
Keith,
What do you propose as a solution to this country's slow drift away from Christianity?

Keith Farmer
04-09-2009, 07:52 PM
Keith,
What do you propose as a solution to this country's slow drift away from Christianity?


That is a great question Matt. Adrian Rogers addressed this question some time before he passed. He said the answer was for America's churches to get rid of their relativistic preachers who are avoiding the true Word of God and get back to basic principles of the faith.

I would add that churches should give up their tax exempt status and preach the truth without fear of repercussion.

In terms of a biblical response this is a standing promise from God concerning just the issues we are dealing with now:

If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14 (ASV)

Matt McKenzie
04-09-2009, 08:07 PM
That is a great question Matt. Adrian Rogers addressed this question some time before he passed. He said the answer was for America's churches to get rid of their relativistic preachers who are avoiding the true Word of God and get back to basic principles of the faith.

I would add that churches should give up their tax exempt status and preach the truth without fear of repercussion.

In terms of a biblical response this is a standing promise from God concerning just the issues we are dealing with now:

If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14 (ASV)

The question then, I believe, would be who determines what is "the truth".

YardleyLabs
04-09-2009, 08:43 PM
Jeff,

...

And where did America get those ideals from Jeff...certainly not Islam, Hinduism, deism, or any other ...ism. They also did not just appear on the scene or in a mans heart/mind...why: The heart (mind) is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9 (AKJV) That is why our minds need to be renewed with the mind of Christ.

....

6) Commitment to family, community, country, and world.

There is a problem with the last one. You see Jeff you left out the most important commitment for your family...the commitment to God. You may scoff but the list of commitments you gave in 6 is incomplete and dangerous...here is why: 36 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? 37 Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”Mark 8:36-38 (KJV)

You should really reconsider that last one Jeff...

Excuse the partial quote.

I disagree on your initial premise. In my own experience those values are very cross cultural. They are found in Islam, in Buddhism, in Judaism, and even in secular humanism.

With respect to your last point, I would have to say that I cannot envision a God that would be capable of putting together a universe as complex, as interesting, as changing, and miraculous as ours but that would also base salvation on practices of worship.

For me, as a matter of faith, that is inconceivable. I do not "blame" God for my morality -- living my life in a moral fashion is my personal responsibility whether or not a God exists. As Jefferson would say, I am more interested in acts than I am in beliefs. I only consider the latter relevant to the extent that they inform action.

I actually do attend church regularly, but one where the Bible is no more likely to be read than the Koran and neither is read very often. I read the Bible as a child because my mother believed it was impossible to understand western literature and culture without it. I've read it as an adult for that reason and because I respect the efforts that it reflects to explore morality.

I have read at least portions of the Talmud, the Koran, and religious readings from around the world and across time for similar reasons. I believe almost all of them carry insights that are important to all of us and I find more similarities than differences.

But then, I don't care what you call the spirit of life. I don't care if you believe it is the God of Moses, or the tree spirits of the Druids, or even if it all simply comes down to the Big Bang. All of those, in my mind, are legitimate as long as they are bound by a fundamental respect for life and a respect for the moral framework that allows life to thrive. I understand that my beliefs are very different from yours, and possibly even abhorrent. I believe that the strength of our country is that it allows both of us equal freedom of faith.

By the way, I also believe that churches should give up their tax exemption and practice what they preach within the law but without concern for the approval or disapproval of the government. As a board member at my church I suggested this but was voted down by those more concerned by the financial implications (and I was the treasurer;-)).

road kill
04-10-2009, 06:03 AM
"One nation, under God...."

YardleyLabs
04-10-2009, 06:36 AM
"One nation, under God...."

A change made to the Pledge of Allegiance after I had already learned the original version in school. The bill changing it was passed in 1954, but it didn't reach my school until 1956. Of historic interest is that the pledge itself was written by a socialist in 1892. I don't think you would have found support for anything similar among the attendees of the Continental Congress in 1787. It took the Cold War to force the legislation through when 50 years of intense lubbying by the Knights of Columbus, among many others, had failed.

BrianW
04-10-2009, 08:52 AM
According toThe Pledge of Allegiance A Short History by Dr. John W. Baer, Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist.

Also according to http://wiki.answers.com http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/fischer/070502/Q/Did_the_Continental_Congress_open_with_a_prayer (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Continental_Congress_open_with_a_prayer) & http://www.historywiz.com/continentalcongress.htm

The first Continental Congress opened with a motion to pray this was objected to because the founders weren't sure which clergyman should give this prayer due to their being Episcopalians, Quakers, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists present.

According to John Adams, "Samuel Adams arose and said that he was no bigot, and could hear a Prayer from any gentleman of Piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his Country."

As a result of Sam Adams' intervention, the motion carried and an Episcopalian clergyman, Rev. Jacob Duche', was prevailed upon to open the next morning's session in prayer.

Duche' read Psalm 35 he then read a prayer:
"Be Thou present, O God of Wisdom, and direct the counsel of this Honorable Assembly; enable them to settle all things on the best and surest foundation; that the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that Order, Harmony, and Peace may be effectually restored, and that Truth and Justice, Religion and Piety, prevail and flourish among the people."

Duche' went on to ask God to preserve the delegates' health and vigor of mind, and to grant them "temporal Blessings" and "everlasting Glory in the world to come."

Rev. Duche' closed his prayer this way: "All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Saviour, Amen."

Keith Farmer
04-10-2009, 09:06 AM
The question then, I believe, would be who determines what is "the truth".


Matt,

You see, that is why moral relativism does not work. Truth has to have a foundation; it cannot be based on ones ideas of what truth should/could be...that is idolotry and idolotry will destroy a person.

I will give you biblical evidence of truth...you decide how to deal with it (this by the way is not an exhaustive list but should be suffecient for an answer):


Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgement: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
John 17:2 & 3
As thou has given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Psalm 19:9
The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
Psalm 33:4
For the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth.
Psalm 57:10
For thy mercy is great unto the heavens, and thy truth unto the clouds.
John 8:31b-32
If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 17:17
Sanctify them through truth: thy word is truth.
John 18:37 & 38
Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
II Thessalonians 2:10-13
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

With regard to John 17:17 (...Thy Word is truth) look closely at the following:

(John1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(John 1:14) And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

This says to believers in Christ that He is truth. Our faith in Christ places our faith in truth. This is not an abstract view of religion but a crystalized view of the only mediator between God and man the man Christ Jesus.

Franco
04-10-2009, 09:56 AM
John 17:2 & 3
As thou has given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.





So Keith, all of the other major religions of the world have it wrong? By your statement, Christianity and its many, many different view points is the only true religion?

I don't think so.

Matt McKenzie
04-10-2009, 10:16 AM
Keith,
My point was that Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Pentacostals, etc., etc. etc. all read the same book and come up with their own version of "truth". Who is right? Does that make the rest of them wrong?
There are some pretty dangerous folks all over the world from many different religions who feel that their version of the truth is the only way and are unwilling to accept others with different beliefs. Fortunately for us, God blessed us by allowing us to be born in a country founded on individual liberty and religious freedom. Most of the founders of this country were without a doubt religious men and Christians to some degree. The beauty of their creation was that religion and politics are intermingled, while church and government are seperate. I agree with you that the basis of all morality is religious in nature and that the social mores that guide this country are based on Judeo-Christian values. I also believe that there is a direct correlation between many of our current social problems and a decline in the number of people in this country who consider themselves religious and actively attend church.
My wife and I only have one school-age child still at home with us and he has always attended private Christian schools. There are many reasons we made that choice, but I, like Jeff, believe in allowing my children to use thier own minds. In middle school science, he was taught both creation and evolution. Even he could immediately see huge problems with the theories put forth by those who attempt to use scientific methods to prove that the earth is only a few thousand years old. He also has legitimate questions about the big bang theory. I don't think his mind has been "poisoned" by being exposed to either creation or evolution theory, but I feel he would be limited if I did not do my part to see that he got many different points of view. If he choses not to believe in the literal translation of Genesis, I don't think that he will be adversely affected in his relationship with God or his fellow man. The same holds true if he decides that he doesn't believe in evolution. He will still know right from wrong, he will still have the values that he has learned from his parents, his school and his church, and will hopefully grow into a productive member of our society and (the highest honor of all) a "good man". One man's opinion.
I've found that in conversations regarding religion, it is far too easy to offend people I respect, so I think I'll stop here. I'll go back to offending folks about politics, which I don't mind at all. If I can ever make it up to your neck of the woods to train, maybe we can talk about this more.

twall
04-10-2009, 10:21 AM
So Keith, all of the other major religions of the world have it wrong? By your statement, Christianity and its many, many different view points is the only true religion?

Franco,

Keith can speak for himself. But, there is only one true God. There is only one way to heaven, accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. Our post-modern society wants to believe that all paths lead to heaven. That is a lie out of the pit of hell! Truth is not relative.

Still clinging to my God and my guns,

Tom

Franco
04-10-2009, 10:46 AM
Franco,

Keith can speak for himself. But, there is only one true God. There is only one way to heaven, accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. Our post-modern society wants to believe that all paths lead to heaven. That is a lie out of the pit of hell! Truth is not relative.

Still clinging to my God and my guns,

Tom

So, the many sects of Christians have it correct and all the Buddist, Hindus, Hebrews and others have it wrong?

How lucky are we!

Pete
04-10-2009, 10:52 AM
Decimal based mathematics and our entire system of numbering, along with much of our early knowledge of astronomy came from peoples who were overwhelmingly pagan and Muslim. Does that mean that those sciences are shaped by and extend pagan and Muslim beliefs?



Astronomy dates back to the beginning of man. Astromomy in its purest form was how God originally communucated his will to his people before moses wrote it down.
Moses also lived in a time where his life span bridged 2 administrations,,The patriarcal and the Law. Prior to the Law there wasn't anything written down. They observed the stars for their knowledge of God
Many of Moses's writings are astronomical and litteral in the sence there are coresponding astronmoical signs which co inside with the written word.

Genesis 3 :15 is the first astronomical writing and its talking about JC with his foot on the serpents neck. There are hundreds more.
The greeks were perverters of trueth and change that into herculies being victorious. Greek Mythology is just that a bunch of myths,

Also Revalations 12 Is the picture of the sky and the arrangement of stars on the birth of JC. As a matter of fact you can deturmine the birth date and time of birth (within 1 hour and 21 minutes) using astromical signs and some documented events of Herod the king.
Its the greeks and pagans who perverted the original meaning of the written word.

The stars are everybit as accurate of as any math equation. You can spin back the sky 5 thousand years and it will give you the precise time something took place.

Oh ye of little faith.
The heavens and all that encompass it,,,,, the written word ,,,and JC are all ways God provided a way for man to understand his will. JC being our living example.

All of these 3 media's criss cross with perfect acuracy and have no contradictions. The contradictions are in the mind of those who have no interest in devoting the time to see how real God is and how with mathmatical precision his word,stars,and JC are perfected. Its actually the most mind blowing phenomina known to man kind.


Here are is a small fraction of trueth. It would take volumes of books to get in the meat of. And most likely most will Poo Poo it. I look at it like your not rejecting me your rejecting the words of God. So its no skin off my ass.
But for those who believe and for those that scoff
Psalms 138:2
''' '' 147:4
"' " 8: 1-3
Isa.13:10 ,,,, Luke 21:25 ,,,,I cor. 15:41

and Jer.31:35 Now how did Jerimiah know that ? did he have a gravity machine.
Unfortunately religion has done its job,,,and thats to dull the minds of good people who want more than just a sermon and a nice feeling to take home with them after they wake up at the end of a boring sermon.
People have been kept in a stuper because of IIcor 4:4

This isn't a sermon,,,this is documented ,mathmatically accurate trueth

OK Jeff I,ve said my piece:)
Pete

Keith Farmer
04-10-2009, 10:54 AM
Matt,

I have to ask what does your devotional time/effort to scripture consist of (not being sarcastic)?

The problem with most churches, Christians, and average folk, in terms of their understanding of scripture, is that they do not search the scriptures for themselves, pray for guidance, and diligently seek for truth. The efforts one puts in to study will result with how much one grows spirtitually.

God says of His people:



My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6 KJV)


By contrast Luke records in the book of Acts:


Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11)

twall
04-10-2009, 11:32 AM
How lucky are we!

No, luck has nothing to do with it. It is only by God's grace, through Jesus Christs' sacrifice on the cross at Calvary, that we are saved. If you do not accept Jesus as your personal savior you are lost to eternal hell. This God's plan, not mine.

Tom

Franco
04-10-2009, 12:03 PM
No, luck has nothing to do with it. It is only by God's grace, through Jesus Christs' sacrifice on the cross at Calvary, that we are saved. If you do not accept Jesus as your personal savior you are lost to eternal hell. This God's plan, not mine.

Tom

Tom, I respect everyone's right to beleive in what they do, in terms of religion. I just don't beleive that all the Buddist, Hindus, Hebrews, Muslims and other peoples of the world are damed to hell.

Pete
04-10-2009, 12:28 PM
GTom, I respect everyone's right to beleive in what they do, in terms of religion. I just don't beleive that all the Buddist, Hindus, Hebrews, Muslims and other peoples of the world are damed to hell. Today 03:32 PM


religion teaches that not the word of God

But there are some that shall remain dead forever. There is no hell for people. Hell is the word "gravedom" or shol in the aromaic or hades in the greek is the world of the dead. In which all are dead. A Firey pit of hell is figurative. fire is the perfect cleansing and purifying agent. better and more thoughro than water.
I know religion teaches there will be a bunch of people running around in a furnace 20000 leages under the earth. I
In the finally administration things will return to there original state.
Eternal death compared to eternal life is a good way to look at it. Some scriptures need to be researched in order to understand this concept.
God I love this stuff

I


Booty

God figured all things out. Just as the Isreal will be judged by their works there is also a stipulation and redeeming factor for those who never heard the word or those which lived by their own accord.
prosylites will be judged accordingly also.



The crowns of rightousness will go to those who did their best to live up to Gods expectations from genesis through John and another for the church of God.
God is a just God,,,he can't break the laws which he set up. ,,which is why this planet is so corrupt. He is so just that even the transfer of dominion from Adam to lucerifer must play out.
It says in malichi that isreal deserved really harsh penalties but because of Gods promise to Isreral he 'consumes them not" which is an old hebrew idium,,,meaning God must allow ,,,why ,,,because his hands are tied. He doesn't go back on his words.

He never can go against whatever he has said or written. because it says he is a JUST God

If you look up the word JUST in a concordance you will see that is just one redeeming quality of God,,,father of JC I think there are 10 or 12 redemptive names.

Just as I am not just a man,,I am a father ,,husband ,friend ,trainer ,ect. ect. All the same person but different attributes.
Anyway lest I bore the hell out of the readers.

Pete

twall
04-10-2009, 01:00 PM
Franco,

I use to believe as you do, I don't anymore. The Bible tells us the Gospel must be preached to all the nations of the world (Mark 13:10). It also tells us that narrow is the gate which leads to life and there are few who will find it (Matt. 7:14).

Our postmoderm society wants everyone to believe that truth is relative and all paths lead to heaven. I respect everyone's right to believe what they want to believe. When I hear something I believe to be false, especially when eternity is involved, I share what I know to be the truth.

Tom

Pete
04-10-2009, 03:56 PM
I use to believe as you do, I don't anymore. The Bible tells us the Gospel must be preached to all the nations of the world (Mark 13:10). It also tells us that narrow is the gate which leads to life and there are few who will find it (Matt. 7:14).



Sorry I couldn't resist:razz:

Narrow is the gate and "Its about as hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God as it is to get a camel through the eye of a needle are called orientalisms. Back then if was very difficult for a camel to enter the gates of many cities. The opening was refered to a needle ( one of those fancy looking spiiary things you see in the middle east.
Anyway the camel had to get on his knees and often baggage had to be removed for the camel to get through. That is exactly what that scripture is talking about. It doesn't have to do with rich or poor.
Rich men carried great wealth and cargo on the back of their string of camels and it was a pain in the ass to get inside the gates without rearanging everything and getting that obstenant cammel on his knees.

Pete

Franco
04-10-2009, 04:50 PM
Sorry guys but this thread just reaffirms to me why seperation of chruch from state is so important if we are to remain a free country. To think that Christians have it right and the rest of the world is wrong is a big stretch for any religion. Doesn't appear to be much of a difference between the Muslim superiority of their religion and what I am reading here.

Keith Farmer
04-10-2009, 05:30 PM
I cannot envision a God that would... base salvation on practices of worship.


Jeff,

The reason you cannot envision that of Jehovah God is because it is not true. Works are the basis for the world's religions. However, your misunderstanding about the redemptive plan of salvation is a lie from the minds of corrupt false teachers who do not have the interest of salvation at heart. Judaism and Christianity are God's organized plans. Nearly all of the world's religions can be traced back to Nimrod and the organized pagan worship he developed in Babylon. Almost every dominant religion (except perhaps that involving witchcraft, devil worship, etc.) is a perversion of Judaism or Christianity (even some that claim to be Christian). I don't want to try and develop that but if you want to discuss details let me know...may take days but we can get it done. In terms of Christianity (which is a relationship based on grace from agape love by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and faith by redeemed sinners) I ask you to consider the following.

I'll try and keep this brief...

Christianity is not a religion. All of the world's religions base their ideologies on works (the so called practices of worship you stated).

First, salvation is necessary because man sinned against a Holy God by rebelling against His ordinances causing a separation between man and God that man could not bridge no matter what efforts were used. Subsequently, every man born in this world is born with a sin nature and spirtitually dead. The term born again is valid and necessary since we cannot enter heaven, see God, or experience salvation unless we are made alive spiritually. We cannot commune with God unless we do so in spirit and truth and that is impossible unless we have been made alive by being born again.

Christianity is based completely on the completed work of the cross (accomplished by God Himself as noted above in that He became flesh and dwelt among us). God has not required of man that he do anything...in fact man cannot do anything whereby he can be saved. The bible declares that man's righteousness (man's best efforts at trying to bridge that gap outside of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ) are as filthy rags to a Holy God. Further, the bible declares that salvation is not a result of man's works...the worship you refer to...so that no man can boast that he had anything to do with the process. The process, according to scripture, is thus:

God extends salvation to a sinful world via His Icon and our Saviour Jesus Christ. God does this strictly through grace which is unmerited favor...we did nothing whereby we should receive His gift yet He offers it (salvation) anyway: (Romans 5:8 NKJV) But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

God calls man to salvation in Christ through His Holy Spirit...man cannot come otherwise: (John 6:44 KJV) "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

God gives man the faith by which he answers the call: (Hebrews 12:2 KJV) “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.”

We answer the call by repenting of our sins placing faith in the completed work of Jesus, and accepting His sacrifice as payment for the sin penalty (which was/is spiritual and physical death and eternal separation from God) (Acts 2:36-40 NKJV): "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." {37} Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" {38} Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. {39} "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call. {40} And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation"

God makes us a completely new being when we come to Christ and accept His redemptive offer: (2 Corinthians 5:17 KJV) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

God gives us assurance of our salvation (unlike religions whereby salvation attempting works are weighed in a balance and one never really knows for sure) (Romans 8:38,39, NKJV) For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

God has placed within man an understanding of Himself so that man's rejection would not have an excuse in ignorance. Paul said while speaking at Mars Hill to the men of Athens after seeing an altar marked with the inscription "To The Unkown God": (Acts 17:30 KJV) “the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent”.

Further, the bible declares: (Romans 1:18-22 NKJV) 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,...

I stand with Paul, who when writing to Timothy penned these words:

(i Timothy 1:15 NKJV) This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

At this time of the celebration of the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may we not forget that He alone is worthy to provide salvation. He alone is worthy of our praise. He alone is worthy of our worship. He alone is worthy...(Rev. 5:9)They sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, because you were slaughtered. With your blood you purchased people for God from every tribe, language, people, and nation.

There is more theology/truth in the above than most will hear in perhaps as many as 90% of America's churches this weekend. That is the Gospel made clear. Please treat it with the respect and dignity it deserves.

May God bless each of you.

twall
04-10-2009, 06:27 PM
Sorry guys but this thread just reaffirms to me why seperation of chruch from state is so important if we are to remain a free country.

Franco,

I agree completely with the seperation of church and state, to protect the "church" form a state religion. Not, to protect the state from christianity. This concept has been turned around 180 degrees in the past few decades. They wanted freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Most of the early settlers came here from countries with state sanctioned religions. Many of the early colonies were inhabited by predominately one faith. The term "seperation of chruch and state" was first penned by Thomas Jefferson in a private letter to the Danbury CT Baptist church to assure them he was not going to create a state religion.

I don't want to force my beliefs on anyone. I am compelled to share my faith. No one is compelled to accept it. Liberty and justice for all is a foundational tennant of this country. Recently, with the growth of secular humanism and post-modernism, christianity, and white males, have become a class that it is acceptable to discriminated against.

I think what many of us have found offensive is the revisoinist, and apologetic, slant our current president has applied to many of his recent comments. We cannot look at our founding fathers values and beliefs with todays values and beliefs. I don't believe any of our founding fathers would support many of the things that are "legal" today under the constitution they wrote.

Ultimately, we both have the freedom to disagree on this and any issue because of where we live.

God bless the USA!

Tom

nrsergent
04-10-2009, 06:54 PM
Keith,

The truth could not be stated any clearer than what you just wrote!!
Excepting that truth would mean as you know that men and women would have to answer to a Holy God for their lifestyles and there can be none of that.... We as a Nation have removed and are on the verge of trying to remove every reference to God in our Nation.
Even non-christian people can recognize this fact. If any other religion was attacked in this manner there there would be an uproar!!
The World and our Nation calls Jesus "a good man," "a wise teacher," "a moral teacher," "a moral example," and other references, but reject him as GOD.
Here lays the problem that people have with excepting that our Nation was built and designed as a Christian Nation.

Pete
04-11-2009, 09:32 AM
My point was that Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Pentacostals, etc., etc. etc. all read the same book and come up with their own version of "truth". Who is right? Does that make the rest of them wrong?



God is logical ,,,he created the heavens and the earth .. He cannot contradict himself. If he does he is not much of a God.
So if there is 1 God there must be 1 will of God.
There are over 4000 different organized belief systems in this world. Many or I will say all contradict what is written somewhere along the line.

Some contradict the bible alot and blatently ,,, and others very little.
Most of christianity today is derived from paganism.
Constantine tried in 3 something AD to form a world religion ,,,mixing pagan beleifs with christian beliefs.

There is no doubt in my mind that we can get back to the original or close to it ,,,Gods intent via hundreds of research books covering,,manners and customs,,orientalisms,,hebrew idiums,word changes and the evendence of fraudulent verses added, through simple books such as concordances,lexicons,greek interlinears, scripture indexes, and so many more.
Hell the tranlation of Kings english into our modern day english has cause scholars great difficulty in translation. In contrast its incredably simple to figure out.
Here is the rub.
You must put everything religion has ever taught you and toss it aside.
If you start with the false premise you will come up with a false conclusion. And the more lies or falsehoods you throw into the equation the bigger bunch of hog wash it become.

There is know doubt in my mind that a person can understand Gods true intent for man.
Where man can worship God in spirit and in trueth. Its silly to try to force this stuff down peoples throat. You speak it,,,like God exhorts his people to do,,,then people have the choice if they want to believe or not.

The problem with christianity is there are so many hood winkers and so many top religious leaders have perverted the word over the years that no body wants to believe no body ,,,
It exactly what the god of this world had planned ,,,,IIcor 4:4

You have to be an incredably tough SOB these days to walk the walk and not give a crap what others may think.
Christians who are wimps need to evaluate what they are practicing.

Let me ask you this. Do you think God glories in seeing what he made formed and created worshipping rocks and calling then god.?

Pete

zeus3925
04-11-2009, 09:37 AM
Interesting discussion! FYI, Kieth Ellingson took his oath of office on the Quran
from Jefferson's library.

YardleyLabs
04-11-2009, 12:47 PM
Franco,

I agree completely with the seperation of church and state, to protect the "church" form a state religion. Not, to protect the state from christianity. This concept has been turned around 180 degrees in the past few decades. They wanted freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Most of the early settlers came here from countries with state sanctioned religions. Many of the early colonies were inhabited by predominately one faith. The term "seperation of chruch and state" was first penned by Thomas Jefferson in a private letter to the Danbury CT Baptist church to assure them he was not going to create a state religion.

.....
I do not think it's possible to have freedom of religion unless the government itself is unreligious. That does not mean that the people who work in/for government must be without religion (although it does mean that they may be without religion); it means that they may not use the trappings of government to further their religion. For years, various states tried to come up with non-sectarian prayers that could then be used in schools without violating the prohibition on actions "respecting an establishment of religion". The reality is that there is no such thing; there is no common religious denominator that is universally accepted.

Keith, I understand and respect your beliefs, but I don't share them. I have no problems with anybody's religious beliefs until they expect me to accept them as my own or until they use the powers and offices of government to promote those beliefs. The magic of our laws is that, in the end, they are only laws. Violating them may result in punishment, but not damnation. Obeying them brings no salvation and could conceivably result in damnation.

It is not necessary or appropriate to legislate morality -- we can't even agree on what that means. However, in those cases where compromises are reached among people of different moral beliefs that a particular form of behavior should be made legal or illegal, that law may be passed. However, it is still a law of man, not morality. Even our separation of church and state may be overturned through Constitutional amendment although I hope it never will be for my own sake and the sake of my children and grandchildren.

Keith Farmer
04-11-2009, 04:31 PM
It is not necessary or appropriate to legislate morality


Ah but Jeff, that is precisely what liberal judges are doing with complete support from your side of the world. Look at the gay marriage decisions where the people voted against that act but liberal judges thumbed their noses and said go ahead...who really cares anyway?? Where was your outrage over that Jeff? (maybe you disagree but most liberals are silent on the issue)

I am not for legislating morality any more than I am for taking away the autonomy of weekend field trial judges...self decision within the frame work of constitutional law (which is biblically based) is the perfect scenario for a free, democratic people. But again, Jeff, your side of the fence is trying its darndest to strip that away...where is your outrage over US Justices citing International law in an American case such as in Lawrence v. Texas (as well as others)? Where is your outrage over Obama's nominee Harold Koh to be the State Department's top lawyer?


Someone has said that using coercion to drive charity is like kidnapping someone in an effort to create love. I am happy you and I have the choices we have in terms of religious freedom.


Even our separation of church and state may be overturned

Tell me where that is in our Constitution whereby it can be "overturned". The establishment clause I know...but where is the separation clause?...oh yeah, that too has been legislated from the bench without precedence!



Keith, I understand and respect your beliefs, but I don't share them.


Jeff, what I shared previously are the directives of the Creator; the Creator who is cited in the Declaration of Independence (by the way, you never said how you educated your kids about who that Creator was/is....again, did you lie to them or just skip over that portion?). I am proud to embrace those ideals. I am proud to pass those ideals along to my family and friends. I am privileged to be able to call myself a Christian, an American, and in the mind of George Washington a Patriot! If you choose not to embrace those ideals that is certainly your prerogative. However, Jeff, you are not snubbing my beliefs. You are snubbing the only plan of redemption, the only plan of salvation, by the very Creator of the universe to whom you will give an account and by whom you will be judged. The Creator who probed Job with these quetions...see how many you can answer Jeff:

The LORD Speaks

3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=22&chapter=38&version=31#fen-NIV-13801a)] shouted for joy?
8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt'?
12 "Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.
15 The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.
16 "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=22&chapter=38&version=31#fen-NIV-13811b)] ?
18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.
19 "What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?
20 Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!
22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?
24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a path for the thunderstorm,
26 to water a land where no man lives,
a desert with no one in it,
27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland
and make it sprout with grass?
28 Does the rain have a father?
Who fathers the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
30 when the waters become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?
31 "Can you bind the beautiful [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=22&chapter=38&version=31#fen-NIV-13825c)] Pleiades?
Can you loose the cords of Orion?
32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=22&chapter=38&version=31#fen-NIV-13826d)]
or lead out the Bear [e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=22&chapter=38&version=31#fen-NIV-13826e)] with its cubs?
33 Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God's [f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=22&chapter=38&version=31#fen-NIV-13827f)] dominion over the earth?
34 "Can you raise your voice to the clouds
and cover yourself with a flood of water?
35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
Do they report to you, 'Here we are'? 36 Who endowed the heart [g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=22&chapter=38&version=31#fen-NIV-13830g)] with wisdom
or gave understanding to the mind [h (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=22&chapter=38&version=31#fen-NIV-13830h)] ?

YardleyLabs
04-11-2009, 05:40 PM
Ah but Jeff, that is precisely what liberal judges are doing with complete support from your side of the world. Look at the gay marriage decisions where the people voted against that act but liberal judges thumbed their noses and said go ahead...who really cares anyway?? Where was your outrage over that Jeff? (maybe you disagree but most liberals are silent on the issue)

I am not for legislating morality any more than I am for taking away the autonomy of weekend field trial judges...self decision within the frame work of constitutional law (which is biblically based) is the perfect scenario for a free, democratic people. But again, Jeff, your side of the fence is trying its darndest to strip that away...where is your outrage over US Justices citing International law in an American case such as in Lawrence v. Texas (as well as others)? Where is your outrage over Obama's nominee Harold Koh to be the State Department's top lawyer?


Someone has said that using coercion to drive charity is like kidnapping someone in an effort to create love. I am happy you and I have the choices we have in terms of religious freedom.



Tell me where that is in our Constitution whereby it can be "overturned". The establishment clause I know...but where is the separation clause?...oh yeah, that too has been legislated from the bench without precedence!



Jeff, what I shared previously are the directives of the Creator; the Creator who is cited in the Declaration of Independence (by the way, you never said how you educated your kids about who that Creator was/is....again, did you lie to them or just skip over that portion?). I am proud to embrace those ideals. I am proud to pass those ideals along to my family and friends. I am privileged to be able to call myself a Christian, an American, and in the mind of George Washington a Patriot! If you choose not to embrace those ideals that is certainly your prerogative. However, Jeff, you are not snubbing my beliefs. You are snubbing the only plan of redemption, the only plan of salvation, by the very Creator of the universe to whom you will give an account and by whom you will be judged. The Creator who probed Job with these quetions...see how many you can answer Jeff:

....?
1. Gay marriage: In each case where courts have allowed gay marriage, it has been a state court acting on the basis of the language of a state constitution that prohibited discrimination, effectively stating that to modify the terms of the state constitution requires an amendment, not a simple law. In California the constitution was amended based on a referendum although there are questions about whether the referendum itself was legal. Froma personal perspective, I don't believe that government should be in the marriage business at all. It is a relatively recent phenomenon that arose lergely to help settle property and custody disputes in marriages that were ending, along with inheritances. In my mind thaoe are issues that could be handled with civil unions. Let churches handle marriages rites any way they want. To the extent that marriage law becomes a weapon to offer privileges to some based on their living arrangements while denying those same privileges to others, I oppose them.

2. "International law", in the form of English Common Law, has been a foundation for our legal system since its beginnings and many of the precedents cited in courts cases since the beginning of our country have been based on cases in other countries.

3. Harold Koh has an extraordinary background. I think the administration is lucky to get him. Would that a similar standard of competence had governed attorney appointments over the last eight years.

4. Theology: I have tried to focus my comments on the relationship between religion and the state as you raised it in your initial post. I do this for two reasons. Chris has asked that we not discuss theology on the forum. Personally I enjoy such discussions but it'a not my forum and I understand his concern. Second, I simply disagree with your beliefs. What you view as divine I view as human because it was originally written by humans and has been interpreted and reinterpreted over the millenia by humans. Like Booty, I feel that it is the ultimate human arrogance to assume that your (or my) interpretation is the one and only divinely inspired truth. However, each of us is entitled to believe what he chooses. I prefer to live in a country with a constitution that says simply that the government shall "make no law respecting the establishment of religion" and that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust."

Franco
04-11-2009, 06:20 PM
What you view as divine I view as human because it was originally written by humans and has been interpreted and reinterpreted over the millenia by humans. Like Booty, I feel that it is the ultimate human arrogance to assume that your (or my) interpretation is the one and only divinely inspired truth. However, each of us is entitled to believe what he chooses.



AMEN!

P S I didn't know Chris didn't want us to discuss religion. I just thought he wanted it all to be civil, which this thread certainly is.

I'll just add that religious writings tend to be selfserving. Everything being absolute(dogma) in the writers mind in promoting thier beliefs. I don't beleive many of them know the truth and I make that comment about all the major religions of the world.

I also find it interesting that Christianity and Islam are so similar yet, through the ages they have killed one another by the millions in the name of god. Both are very judgemental religions.

Pete
04-11-2009, 10:31 PM
2Pe 1:16¶ For gar we have exakolouqew not ou followed exakolouqew cunningly devised sojizw fables muqoV, when we made known gnwrizw unto you umin the power dunamiV and kai coming parousia of our hmon Lord kurioV Jesus IhsouV Christ CristoV, but alla were ginomai eyewitnesses epopthV of his ekeinoV majesty megaleiothV. 2Pe 1:17For gar he received lambanw from para God qeoV the Father pathr honour timh and kai glory doxa, when there came jerw such toiosde a voice jwnh to him autoV from upo the excellent megaloprephV glory doxa, This outoV is esti my mou beloved agaphtoV Son uioV, in eiV whom oV I egw am well pleased eudokew. 2Pe 1:18And kai this tauth voice jwnh which came jerw from ek heaven ouranoV we hmeiV heard akouw, when we were wn with sun him autoV in en the holy agioV mount oroV. 2Pe 1:19¶ We have ecw also kai a more sure bebaioV word logoV of prophecy projhtikoV; whereunto oV ye do poiew well kalwV that ye take heed prosecw, as wV unto a light lucnoV that shineth jainw in en a dark aucmhroV place topoV, until ewV ou the day hmera dawn diaugazw, and kai the day star jwsjoroV arise anatellw in en your umwn hearts kardia: 2Pe 1:20Knowing ginwskw this touto first prwton, that oti no ou paV prophecy projhteia of the scripture grajh is ginomai of any private idioV interpretation epilusiV. 2Pe 1:21For gar the prophecy projhteia came jerw not ou in old time pote by the will qelhma of man anqrwpoV: but alla holy agioV men anqrwpoV of God qeoV spake lalew as they were moved jerw by upo the Holy agioV Ghost pneuma


It boils down to weather you believe Gods word or not.
Some do,,, some don't.
"Is of any private interpretations" ,,,means just that.

Either there is no interpretation or it must interpret itself because no one can privately interpret it. The greek word is idios or ones own. Either you believe these men were inspired through revalation or you don't

Either you believe or you don't,,,,there is no yea buts
.

Pete

Keith Farmer
04-12-2009, 08:58 AM
To God be the Glory...Christ is risen!!


Jeff,

I figured you would back the courts throwing out the will of the people since that type action supports the twisted mind set of liberalism.

I figured you would support International law since it fits with post modern theology (which, in its full embodiment, is what you are ascribing to as a religion...like Bob Dylan said: you gotta serve somebody...)

I figured you would support Harold Koh since he epitomizes the face of post modernism and liberalism in the 21st century. I guess you see no problem at all with using sharia law in America as Koh has suggested will be ok?..(for those who don't know sharia is theocratic law based on extreme (if there is such a thing) Islamic rule).

In terms of religion...I stated before that biblical Christianity is not a religion. There are groups that call themselves Christian that are as far away from biblical Christianity as is Islam or any other religion. If you want to bow out of the debate then that is fine...I just expected more.

By the way, you never answered my question about the Declaration. Next time you look in the face of those whom you have educated with liberalism ask yourself this: Am I sure I am right about this stuff? Because if you are wrong Jeff they will be the recipients of your arrogance with respect to not being opened minded about the one aspect of life that really counts.

YardleyLabs
04-12-2009, 09:38 AM
To God be the Glory...Christ is risen!!


Jeff,

I figured you would back the courts throwing out the will of the people since that type action supports the twisted mind set of liberalism.
How did you feel about the courts throwing out the "will of the people" in DC with respect to gun control. The role of the courts is to help ensure that laws are followed even by law makers.



I figured you would support International law since it fits with post modern theology (which, in its full embodiment, is what you are ascribing to as a religion...like Bob Dylan said: you gotta serve somebody...)
I can't even pretend to understand what point you are making here.



I figured you would support Harold Koh since he epitomizes the face of post modernism and liberalism in the 21st century. I guess you see no problem at all with using sharia law in America as Koh has suggested will be ok?..(for those who don't know sharia is theocratic law based on extreme (if there is such a thing) Islamic rule).
I strongly oppose the use of any religious law -- that is law based on religious documents as distinct from adopted laws and related court precedents -- regardless of whether those religious documents are Christian, Islamic, or from any other source including the direct voice of God. Let God take care of his own justice; let humans take care of ours.



In terms of religion...I stated before that biblical Christianity is not a religion. There are groups that call themselves Christian that are as far away from biblical Christianity as is Islam or any other religion. If you want to bow out of the debate then that is fine...I just expected more./quote]
As Pete noted, you either accept the Gospels or you do not. I do not. I have found very few religious people who seem to believe that their own beliefs are based on anything other than a revealed truth. You have that in common with them even though your beliefs are very different.

[quote=Keith Farmer;428961]
By the way, you never answered my question about the Declaration. Next time you look in the face of those whom you have educated with liberalism ask yourself this: Am I sure I am right about this stuff? Because if you are wrong Jeff they will be the recipients of your arrogance with respect to not being opened minded about the one aspect of life that really counts.
And if the Muslims are right and you are wrong, where does that leave you? The fact is that those who, like you, appear to believe that true believers/practicers will be saved while others will not, are assuming that most will find their way to eternal death or damnation. Personally, I'll stick with Mark Twain and choose Hell for the company. As for "the Creator" in the Declaration, I have no problem with that. Call the mystery anything you will. I find no logic leading me to ascribe creation to a deity, but it is no less miraculous for that.

Martin
04-12-2009, 10:29 AM
This Has been Great! Happy Resurection Day!

Debate is a wondreful thing! Man where to begin? All of your posts have been educating, Im sure to non-believers and belivers. Many facts have been provided thaqt are helpful to both sides.

My friends, Religon was created by men FOR men! We thought we could do all this stuff and get close to holiness, pure, clean our concious and the stuff. But That all falls pitifully short! God Created Jesus for us. He is tht image of an invisible God, Col. 1 I think.

This day is of very great significance, Jesus conquered death, took the keys of hell form satan so we can have an assurance that if we Belive in HIm we will have everlasting life. John 3:16. Very simple. Believe in HIM. Rom. 10:9-10, If you confess Jesus as Lord and Believe in your heart God raised him form the dead you will be saved. With the tounge you confess and with the heart you believe." Simple.

We can debate the existance of God all day long but the fact remains, There is a God , He is alive and in him we live. Just because we cannot prove Him does not mean that he is not there. Gravity....Debate that one. You cannot touch gravity, can't smel gravity, can on ly feel the effects of gravity! Go jump off a two story building and tell me if gravity does not exist! lol! The wind. Can you see it? Smell it? Touch it? NO. YOu can only see the effects, smell the effects, like when my neighbor cranks up the smoker..yeah baby, or feel it blowing across your face. But does it exist? Yes.

Jesus said " I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the father but thru me" John 14:6 If this wer not so, He woul be a liar adn would nulify his sinless life, there fore making his sacrifice viod. With the greatest of respects.....No Other prophet, good person, preacher, or anyother man in history was or is a sinless person. Making Jesus The only one that could be our way to the father. Belive it or not. That is each person's choice...Period!

I have learned to respect each persons choice, see Im just the messenger, they have to deal with Jesus. In fact I have to deal with my Jesus with my own crap. But what's cool is Everyone of us has our crap to deal wiht and it is all different.. But God in his Power and Wisdom gave us one man, Jesus, that can help us, each one of us deal with our crap. That is Sweet!!!!!!!!

I used to be a youth minister and the c-string worship leader. Long story short, I lost my humbleness adn created havoc in my life. Perscription drug use and many more unspeakable behaviors. Lost my family for a short time and almost lost my business. I fell flat on my face and had to live in the sewage I created..BUT GOD is GREAT. He Restored what the devil meant for destruction. He SLOWLY restored and is restoring every day. I screwed up and with only His help would I be where I am today. That is what I'm talking about each one of has crap.. You crap could not be worse than mine or worse than mine. Heck your crap could not seem loike crap to you at all. You could be an upstanding person, never having done anything bad at all, infact living a sinless life.. but YOu still have to deal with the Man JESUS> Period.......

He loves you. He gave his life for you. He rose from the dead for you. He created the world for you! Heck he is sitting right ther with you while you read this calling me crazy or agreeing with me. He is Omnipitent...SP? Omnipresent. How...I can only say that by faith! Sometimes He doesn't want us to have all the answers...lol..I remember my dad telling me, because i told you so. Why? Becaue I said so, only to find out later the reason! Wisdom from my father.

Gentlemen and ladies,

Jesus Loves you no matter where you are in your life...Period.
Talk to him today and see what difference he will make in your life!

Martin

zeus3925
04-12-2009, 11:04 AM
Let me rile the pot here a bit.

Who says that liberalism or conservatism holds the keys to paradise? They are both a form of political "religion" whose viewpoints are often arrived at in a similar manner to that of religious beliefs. Like different religions they seem to develop differing views of the world. The adherents tend to look at the others as heretics and evil incarnate.

But, who is justified in calling the others heretics? I don't see the sky opening and hearing a booming voice saying, "You Liberals shalt go to Purgatory" or "You Conservatives shalt go to Gehenna."

Pete
04-12-2009, 11:16 AM
We can debate the existance of God all day long but the fact remains, There is a God , He is alive and in him we live. Just because we cannot prove Him does not mean that he is not there. Gravity....Debate that one. You cannot touch gravity, can't smel gravity, can on ly feel the effects of gravity! Go jump off a two story building and tell me if gravity does not exist! lol! The wind. Can you see it? Smell it? Touch it? NO. YOu can only see the effects, smell the effects, like when my neighbor cranks up the smoker..yeah baby, or feel it blowing across your face. But does it exist? Yes.



Excelent post Martin.
However in my bible God oftens asks his people to prove him.
Romans 12:2,,,,,Malichi 3:10 ,,,IThes.5 :21 are a just few

If we diligently abide by his word it will be proven. Also I cor 12 will explain the proof in a totally different area,
Happy ressurection day.:razz:

Pete

Pete
04-12-2009, 11:41 AM
strongly oppose the use of any religious law -- that is law based on religious documents as distinct from adopted laws and related court precedents -- regardless of whether those religious documents are Christian, Islamic, or from any other source including the direct voice of God. Let God take care of his own justice; let humans take care of ours.



Just thinking
Should we then allow murder,and theft, After all they are written in the old testiment.
where does this insanity stop

Pete

Martin
04-12-2009, 12:10 PM
very true Pete! I can only offer proof in my life and hope someone looking for hope and proff, can look at my story and see HOPE and proof that situations or circumstances can change if we are willing, and have a willing heart. Cuz I've screwed crap up.

Going through all the recovery i went through, listening to the people who conqured addictions, gave me hope and the faith in Jesus that got me through. I hope someone who is struggling with their own nightmare can look around a find the hope and faith they need to get help to come out of the pit!

We are the body and there are no unimportant parts!!!!!

Fatih, Hope and love. But the greatest is LOVE!

Zeus, nice...lol! My way is right, no my way is right...or left rather...lol!
It all boils down to a point of view. For the point of view to be revelent or concrete, it has to be based on fact..truth...history and the such.
Check this out....I have alot of fun with my liberal Christian friends with this one..Ecclesiastes 10:2...The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. Wish I knew how to put a laughing smiley here.


Make it a Great Day!
Martin

Franco
04-12-2009, 12:47 PM
Let me rile the pot here a bit.

Who says that liberalism or conservatism holds the keys to paradise? They are both a form of political "religion" whose viewpoints are often arrived at in a similar manner to that of religious beliefs. Like different religions they seem to develop differing views of the world. The adherents tend to look at the others as heretics and evil incarnate.

But, who is justified in calling the others heretics? I don't see the sky opening and hearing a booming voice saying, "You Liberals shalt go to Purgatory" or "You Conservatives shalt go to Gehenna."

I'll just say that in the true sense of the lable, "Conservative" has nothing to do with religion. Religion was added to the Conservative movement in the last 25 years and could be the very reason why the Republican Party is in such disarray. True Conservatism borders on Libitarian ideals, that government's roll is to protect The Constitution, its citizens and to provide the infastructure for commerce.

I'll also clarify that I do beleive ina "Higher Power". I just don't beleive in man-made religions. I don't think any human has a grasp of what exsist beyond our mortality and certainly not ancient man.

zeus3925
04-12-2009, 01:24 PM
Martin, I don't think that Ecclesiastes has much to do with the the political terms right and left. Rather it goes back to the French practice of seating the French National Assembly according to political philosophy.

Pete
04-12-2009, 02:06 PM
I'll just say that in the true sense of the lable, "Conservative" has nothing to do with religion. Religion was added to the Conservative movement in the last 25 years and could be the very reason why the Republican Party is in such disarray. True Conservatism borders on Libitarian ideals, that government's roll is to protect The Constitution, its citizens and to provide the infastructure for commerce.

I'll also clarify that I do beleive ina "Higher Power". I just don't beleive in man-made religions. I don't think any human has a grasp of what exsist beyond our mortality and certainly not ancient man.
__________________
Borders - Language - Culture
Last edited

Booty
I don't want to scare you,,,but over the years I have read your posts and much of the way you post is biblically accurate.
even if you never posted a verse.
I could run a list of many things you said over the years and post a scripture or contexual reference to it.
Just because people don't believe the written word doesn't mean they don't naturally apply the principles in their life.

It rains on the just and unjust alike and the more biblical principle people use in their life the more they get the benefit,,weather they believe or not.
But being a nice guy and operating biblical principles is not enough to get a person through the gate at the end.

Believing romans 10;9 and 10 was as simple as God could make the process,,,,yet it is a requirement,and yet most people have trouble swaollowing it.

That why those who believe are often refered to as a remenant. Just not many out their that truely believe.
But those that do believe are no better than those that don't. Everyone of us is askew to some degree .

Pete

Franco
04-12-2009, 02:48 PM
Just because people don't believe the written word doesn't mean they don't naturally apply the principles in their life.


Pete

I agree Pete, many of these principles exsist in different religions too. I also beleive in man's inate ability to detemine right from wrong.

This has been a good discussion. I need to turn my puter off as we will soon have a severe thunderstorm/lightning/golfball size hail/possible tornados. I also need to pull my truck inside the garage.

YardleyLabs
04-12-2009, 03:45 PM
Just thinking
Should we then allow murder,and theft, After all they are written in the old testiment.
where does this insanity stop

Pete

Pete,

The point I was making is not to say there should be no laws, but that the laws of our government are those adopted by men. Neither of us can be prosecuted, for example, for idolatry or failing to honor our parents. While the Bible may contain commandments regarding both of these, those commandments are among the laws adopted in our country. Murder is illegal in most cases because it is against the law; in other cases the law may say that killing is justified. The fact that it's legal doesn't make it justified from a moral perspective, and the fact that it's illegal doesn't make it a sin.

Pete
04-12-2009, 05:27 PM
Pete,

The point I was making is not to say there should be no laws, but that the laws of our government are those adopted by men. Neither of us can be prosecuted, for example, for idolatry or failing to honor our parents. While the Bible may contain commandments regarding both of these, those commandments are among the laws adopted in our country. Murder is illegal in most cases because it is against the law; in other cases the law may say that killing is justified. The fact that it's legal doesn't make it justified from a moral perspective, and the fact that it's illegal doesn't make it a sin. Today 06:48 PM

I would definately agree that government and churches should stay very far apart and that anyone imposing their belief system on anyone is wrong.
But politically I look at it the same way. I consider politics a type of religion,,,with men and women making rediculous laws in whichI must live and imposing their idiology on me..
Isupport the right for liberals and conservatives to believe and live accordingly. what I do not support is them making their belief system my way of life.
I know you don't support that either,,,but it happens time and time again.
And we are bound by what our so called representives dictate according to law. Much of it is extremely immoral from a common persons point of view.

Happy Holiday Jeff

Pete

Martin
04-15-2009, 12:32 AM
Zeus, my point was, as I stated, I like to have fun with my liberal friends...Fun...not a history lesson!

With Regards,
Martin

zeus3925
04-15-2009, 08:00 AM
Thanks, Martin. Sorry if I came across as a history lesson. Just responding to the origins of the terms left and right.

road kill
04-15-2009, 09:22 AM
Incontrovertible truth;

There is a GOD, I am not him!!

Keith Farmer
06-16-2009, 10:10 AM
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=23909


This is a great article to refute the misguided teachings of the revisionists who have poisoned our National Heritage by secularizing our past in terms of our religiously...Christian based, foundations. Here is a quote from the last lines of the article:



President Obama’s declaration that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nation” http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/historical/images/CN30.jpg is a repudiation of the declarations of the national leaders before him and is an unabashed attempt at historical revisionism. Of such efforts, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wisely observed, “no amount of repetition of historical errors . . . can make the errors true.” <A href="http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=23909#FN74">74
Americans must now decide whether centuries of presidents, congresses, and courts are correct or whether President Obama is, but historical fact does not change merely because the President declares it.
The best antidote to the type of revisionism embodied by President Obama’s statement is for citizens (1) to know the truth of America’s history and (2) share that truth with others.





Here is the case where the dissention of Rehnquist is cited...one should read the dissention fully!:

http://vftonline.org/TestOath/JaffreeR.htm
.