Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A Christian nation: the inescapable paradox must be resolved.

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
The topic here is the idea that the USA was founded "under God" in a literal sense. It seems beyond debate that the predominant language and cultural context of the time was Protestant Christian. I accept that as fact.

What I can't reconcile is the relative precedence of Biblical law and Constitutional law as applied by a "true believer" of the time. According to the Bible, no laws should come before the "law of God" or in this case, laws written by humans that seek to replicate God's thoughts and words. My understanding is imperfect here, but I think I have the "jist".

In any case, what is in the Bible(s) must be held above laws written by men in the course of assembling collective society. I have had a number of Christians state that as fact and argue why now, it's appropriate for true Christians to simply ignore any common law if it conflicts with a Biblical law as interpreted.

So what I can't understand is how the Christian founders, if they were indeed that, didn't explicitly state that the USA constitution is explicitly subordinate to Biblical law? It seems they may have actually codified conflicts with Biblical law or at least formalized a structure which could later subordinate Biblical law.

My question is how all these devout, unified Christian founders let common law supersede Biblical law in the first place? From a philosophical standpoint, how can any true believer pledge allegiance to a sovereign nation and truly commit to following the rules? Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, I understand. They explicitly subordinate common law to their Koran rule book. But no explicit mention of Biblical law in the Constitution? Why? Did I miss it?

Is it not the duty of a "believer" to always work towards a Theocracy? If it is so, then the Christian Taliban may be the logical next phase of the implosion of the US empire. Taking over towns, demanding sovereignty, land, etc. and going straight to holy violence when they don't get their way. In a sense, "Messianic Zionism". Thoughts?



+3 more 
posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass


Is it not the duty of a "believer" to always work towards a Theocracy?

Boy, I sure hope not.

I'm an orthodox Christian, and if the United States started making moves toward becoming a theocracy, I'd leave. Why? Because it, and I, would be subject to the "interpretation of God's Law" by men who most likely disagree with my interpretation of God's Law.

The only acceptable theocracy would be one where the leader and decision maker was God himself, not a man who thinks he knows what God wants. And that theocracy is what we believe will be established when Christ returns to reign as the Lord of the Kingdom of God.

Until then, no, we are in the world, not of it, and the government has no business telling me who to worship or how.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

treaty of Tripoli - deep sixes the Christian nation argument with its 1st paragraph



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

treaty of Tripoli - deep sixes the Christian nation argument with its 1st paragraph



You might think so, but I do not think many Christians pay much heed to that. At least not the ones I come in contact with. They cite 10 quotes to every 1 that looks secular.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass


Is it not the duty of a "believer" to always work towards a Theocracy?

Boy, I sure hope not.

I'm an orthodox Christian, and if the United States started making moves toward becoming a theocracy, I'd leave. Why? Because it, and I, would be subject to the "interpretation of God's Law" by men who most likely disagree with my interpretation of God's Law.

The only acceptable theocracy would be one where the leader and decision maker was God himself, not a man who thinks he knows what God wants. And that theocracy is what we believe will be established when Christ returns to reign as the Lord of the Kingdom of God.

Until then, no, we are in the world, not of it, and the government has no business telling me who to worship or how.


I am glad I wrote this OP. Now I know there is one (person). Are there more?


+4 more 
posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Actually, the founders were not unified in Christianity. They believed in God, but didn't want any religious beliefs to color how the country was run. They founded the US as a secular nation.

Founders' Secular Vision for America



Our nation was perceived and molded by men of differing religious opinions. In their wisdom they wrote founding documents that both preserved and excluded religion. The U.S. Constitution is as thoroughly secular as a document can be.

No religious document was given authority by our founding documents. Not the Bible, not the Koran, not the Book of Mormon is allowed into our courtrooms as documents with authority over our public affairs. The Ten Commandments have no more authority over the laws of our nation than “Mary Had a Little Lamb.”



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I live in Africa and see America as the OMG nation. Everything is OMG all the time in all the media all the time. OMG OMG OMG all the time, its nuts its crazy. Not a Christian nation.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

I think you are confusing Biblical Law with the concept of Natural Law which the Founders were all very much in favor of. Natural Law states that there are some things which are intrinsic to you just because you are you, and no agency of man on earth has any power to grant them to you. Those things are your right to have, and just as no agency of government has any ability to grant them to you so to does no agency of man on earth have any power to take them from except either by your consent or through oppression.

Let’s look at the big three: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have life as an infant even before you are born. No other human being does some kind of operation and gives you that life. It is yours just because you are you. It’s your right to have it, and no other human being can take it from you except by violating that right, not even government although we may argue about whether or not the violation was justified. Liberty is another thing we are all born with unless some system of man is attempting to remove that right from us. And we can all pursue happiness, but the only one who has the power to grant us happiness is ourselves. No other agency of mankind can actually give you happiness. Some people can be given everything they say they want and still not ever be happy.

Most of the Bill of Rights are specific codification of things the Founders felt were intrinsic rights. You have the right to speak out, you have the right to practice your religion freely, you have the right to gather and petition for redress of greivances. You have the right to self-defense against any and comers. You have the right of defense in legal challenges. You have the right to be secure in your person and property. You have the right to your property (which really covers food, clothing and shelter; why do you need to be granted the “right” to them if they are already yours as your property?).

The Founders recognized these rights as being granted to all humans by God, or Nature’s God. And in as much as a person recognized and believes in that, then yes, we live in a theocracy.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I have a very hard time trusting anything Biblical oriented Christians say. Invariably they cherry pick the parts of the Bible that fits into their personal agenda and ignore anything they are uncomfortable with or cop out with the "that's symbolic or a parable" To me that shows a compromised ability of discernment; Driven mainly by subjective, selfish motives; or else a slavish worship of perceived authority.

And to me the "founding fathers" not being able to see the dignity of All men and keeping slaves diminishes a lot of what they said concerning life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

www.smithsonianmag.com...
edit on 25-7-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

Great post and well-stated, adjensen.

So yes, InverseLookingGlass, there are more. (And I am also an Eastern Orthodox Christian, living in the USA.)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   


The topic here is the idea that the USA was founded "under God" in a literal sense. It seems beyond debate that the predominant language and cultural context of the time was Protestant Christian. I accept that as fact.


The USA is not, and never has been a "Christian Nation". You may think it is and you are entitled to your opinion. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts and the fact is that the USA is not, and never has been a "Christian Nation"



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: xDeadcowx

And it needs to STAY THAT WAY.

Star for you.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: xDeadcowx



The topic here is the idea that the USA was founded "under God" in a literal sense. It seems beyond debate that the predominant language and cultural context of the time was Protestant Christian. I accept that as fact.


The USA is not, and never has been a "Christian Nation". You may think it is and you are entitled to your opinion. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts and the fact is that the USA is not, and never has been a "Christian Nation"



I personally believe the founders were staunchly secular. That's one of the truly novel and principled components of their work. It's a principle to be defended today. The premise of the OP is that 'Murican Christians are drifting into a mindset that they are victimized and persecuted for their attempts to subordinate laws (just or unjust) put into place by collective society to what they interpret as God's law.

This is often articulated as a birthright, which is more or less how the Taliban and Zionists justify everything they do. I don't believe the rules of religion allow a believer to pledge allegiance to anything except God, therefore, when they go on about this or that law, it's obfuscation and they are just preparing to try and assume control. I could be wrong, but in my view, attitudes are definitely shifting and this is leading to an increased risk of Christian insurgency in the US. I call it "Messianic Zionism".



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

I do not accept any religious doctrine. Your entire premise is biased.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass



The premise of the OP is that 'Murican Christians are drifting into a mindset that they are victimized and persecuted for their attempts to subordinate laws (just or unjust) put into place by collective society to what they interpret as God's law.


I think these fundamentalism and dominionism movements are relatively new, but the premise of religious supremacy goes way back, and we can thank the Catholic Church and the Papal Bull of May 4, 1493 and "the Doctrine of Discovery" for that.


The Bull stated that any land not inhabited by Christians was available to be “discovered,” claimed, and exploited by Christian rulers and declared that “the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself.” This “Doctrine of Discovery” became the basis of all European claims in the Americas as well as the foundation for the United States’ western expansion.
www.gilderlehrman.org...



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
While this nation was founded as one nation under God it is not specified which god. It's certainly not one nation under Jesus or Allah or Buddha. The exact premise is that any religion may be practiced here and we came here o these shores for that very reason. While Christianity is the predominant religion here it is not the nation's religion. The nation does not have a religion.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Well we hear OMG over and over in our movies but it's usually followed by YES, YES, YES... a reply to: egoli



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
And just for the record we are Americans not muricans. That just sounds stupid.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657


And just for the record we are Americans not muricans. That just sounds stupid.

and disrespectful.

"Americans" are 300 million and counting - and we DON'T all agree on how this too-big country is being run (into the ground).



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

I think the [correct] assumption from the OP was that Protestant Christianity was the predominant worldview of the founders. We did indeed come to these shores because of religious intolerance, but the Pilgrims/Puritans were not advocates of "any religion" - they were advocates of a different sect of Protestant Christianity than what was imposed under the Church of England.

When you look at the worldview of people who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they were Christians, and the assumption (that the phrase "under God" in historical political documents refers to the Protestant Christian God) is a safe and sane one.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join