It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NLBS #48: The United States Is Not, And Never Was, A Christian Nation

page: 26
117
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Payne likely. Jefferson maybe. The rest? Nope.

But I don't think the separated faith from reason on all things. It's kinda protestant thing to try and work with the two within reason. One part reason for the present, one part faith in the past. Reason when needed.

After all, it was faith that they thought their government could work. Faith proven false time and time again over the decades of founding the nation. Faith in a system they knew they were experimenting on, asking for grace from a public waiting for them to figure it out. It's all very...Lutheran.
edit on 15-5-2015 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 15 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet

Maybe you should take a history course and find out. If you don't know, honestly that says a lot.

Because Albany was a nation with state atheism. State non-religion.

That's not the same thing as a secular state.
edit on 15-5-2015 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gorman91
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

According to Luther, Abrahamic God.


Which Abrahamic God, El Elyon, Jehovah, Yahweh? At any rate, according to the founding fathers, they settled on a "natural god", not a biblical god.


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. www.archives.gov...


The God of the Old Testament can't be classified as "natural" when it is doing things like causing food to rain down from the sky, making a man live for 3 days in the belly of fish or sending down a celestial chariot, drawn by horses made of fire, to abduct a man. A "natural god" doesn't travel around in a "pillar of fire" barking commandments at a group of people.

A "natural god" doesn't cause a virgin to conceive it's son, magically turn water to wine or defy physics by multiplying loaves and fish or causing a person to walk on water. A natural god doesn't raise dead people back to life.

The god of the founding fathers is a god much more akin to the god of Plato and Pythagoras than the any of the gods of the Bible.



edit on 15-5-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gorman91
Sort of.


I was appointed to several local governmental committess but I was still sworn in.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gorman91
a reply to: mOjOm

nah, because you're using the 21st century definition of secular, not the 18th century one.


Are you sure about that?


All solutions to religious conflict that were tried failed to some degree. However, a bold solution was tried in the 18th century. Boettner writes: During the eighteenth century the reign of intolerance was gradually undermined. Protestant England and Holland took the lead in extending civil and religious liberty, and the Constitution of the United States completed the theory by putting all Christian denominations on a parity before the law and guaranteeing them the full enjoyment of equal rights. The solution was not merely putting all Christian denominations on a parity before the law. It was separation of religion and state.


It would seem that professional historians disagree with your notion of secularity and secularism.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gorman91
a reply to: artistpoet

Maybe you should take a history course and find out. If you don't know, honestly that says a lot.

Because Albany was a nation with state atheism. State non-religion.

That's not the same thing as a secular state.


This was only true under Communist rule of Albania after WW2. Prior to that, the monarchy established secularism as an official policy after centuries of rule under the Ottoman Turks and subsequent forced comversion of Orthodox Christians and Catholics to Islam. Currently, Albania is constitutionally secular and not in the way you are describing in this post.


Albania is constitutionally a secular country, and as such, "neutral in questions of belief and conscience



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I agree with your assessment of the usage of the word God and how there are many religions it can be attributed to, however, the founding fathers of this country, USA, arrived here from a predominately Christian based society and therefore by the fruits of the poisonous tree one can draw a reasonable conclusion when they put IN GOD WE TRUST on the currency they were not referring to any of the other religious Gods you mention.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Pretty sure "Abraham God" is singular.

"Natural God" is the view that the God of Abraham is one expression of this absolute true God. This is actually a biblical concept, originating when God himself admitted that he revealed himself by a false identity to Abraham in Exodus 6:3


I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as Ba'el Shaddai, but by my name the YHWH I did not make myself fully known to them.


A natural God might cause a virgin to conceive, might turn water into wine, might defy physics, but only IF he has a reason to do it. That's the key point.

Hey man, the God of Plato, they would argue, would simply be another facade by the Abrahamic God. He wears masks, you know?



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I really don't think a committee member is the same as the president of the united states, no offense. My university president was a committee member to the president. I very much so doubt she was sworn in on a bible, if even sworn in at all.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Pretty sure what you quoted is not a 21st idea of secular, and more akin to what I mentioned a looong time ago. A secular state to protect sects from destroying each other. A state that bows to know head of faith.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Yes I was talking about the non-religiousness being in opposition to the secularism. They're not the same

Thanks for proving my point! Maybe read what I said before you try to oppose it by showing it's true?
edit on 15-5-2015 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

the united states of america never was a christian nation, it was a nation of freedom to worship what ever religon you wanted. However, the majority of the singers of the declaration of independence were know to be Episicapolian/chothlic/christians. i know some self claimed athiests in the bunch.i was taught these things in school, doing a few min of research backs up the what i was taught in school. so christian nation no, began by christians yes. so really you are only partially right



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gorman91
a reply to: windword

Pretty sure "Abraham God" is singular.

"Natural God" is the view that the God of Abraham is one expression of this absolute true God. This is actually a biblical concept, originating when God himself admitted that he revealed himself by a false identity to Abraham in Exodus 6:3


I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as Ba'el Shaddai, but by my name the YHWH I did not make myself fully known to them.


A natural God might cause a virgin to conceive, might turn water into wine, might defy physics, but only IF he has a reason to do it. That's the key point.

Hey man, the God of Plato, they would argue, would simply be another facade by the Abrahamic God. He wears masks, you know?


Now your twisting scripture to fit your world view. There is no way that the mental gymnastics that you just went through above, like a circus performer, represent what the founding fathers were thinking when they wrote and sanctioned the Declaration of Independence.



A natural God might cause a virgin to conceive, might turn water into wine, might defy physics, but only IF he has a reason to do it. That's the key point.

Hey man, the God of Plato, they would argue, would simply be another facade by the Abrahamic God. He wears masks, you know?


BS! Again, I refer you to Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

The founding fathers didn't put "In God We Trust" on their currency. That didn't happen until 1956. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Gorman91




Pretty sure "Abraham God" is singular.


You would be wrong. The expression of the God of Judaism is 4 fold, Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh (YHVH), 5 fold when pluralized, Elohim. The God of the Christians is 3 fold, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Gorman91

Right, isnt thst what you were whining about? Someone using what you decry as a 21st century definition of secularism? Youre imparting what you want to see here. The secularity is in not favoring one faith over any others or sanctioning/favoring one per government mandate. Its not to protect the, from destroying each other or bowing to no head of any particular faith. The US version of secularism is not what ypu are trying to comvince yourself during your fits of arrogance while comdescending towards other posters. Highly ironic for someone who claims to be taking the religious/christian/Protestant high road!
edit on 15-5-2015 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Not really seeing how I'm twisting scripture by directly quoting it...



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Folds of one. Three in one. Let's not get into trinitarian concepts when talking about a question of "which God".


(post by Gorman91 removed for a manners violation)

posted on May, 15 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gorman91
a reply to: peter vlar

Yes I was talking about the non-religiousness being in opposition to the secularism. They're not the same

Thanks for proving my point! Maybe read what I said before you try to oppose it by showing it's true?


Oh o read what you wrote. I domt think your reading comprehension is what you believe it to be however as you completely missed what i was saying. As you were extraordinarily vague on the timeframe you were referencing, i used examples from a few. You domt actually have a point except to be right otherwise you would have been more specific on your frame of reference. Its a cheap copout IMO as you are omce again, taki g a comdescending tone towards posters while berating them to take a history course. A course you would do well to take yourself as you seem to misunderstsnd your own point in your quest to demomstrate arrogance and ignorance.

All you said was the Albania was, i.e. Some period im the past with no specificity. I showed thst this was only true during one relatively short period in context of the regions lemgthy history, And that in contrast to a political ideology echoed by all easter block countries as well as the instigator, Russia, you singled out Albania who during other periods of its history has had an almost theocratic approach and currently takes a completely secular approach. Perhaps instead of talking down to people, you could be more succinct in what you say and a little less obtuse.



new topics

top topics



 
117
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join