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.

 

What does "Christian Nation" mean?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   
To me, the US is a christian nation but not a christian nation.


it is certainly founded on judaeo-christian morals, ethics and principles but I feel what makes the US different from what has come before is that it takes the ideals of the enlightenment as well. The United States was founded by men who are from christian cultures with christian backgrounds and christian lives, i dont think its questionable that this environment that they lived in had profound effects on their beliefs.

The founding fathers believed that all men were born equal and should have equal oppurtunity to suceed in life. Freedom of the individual is prized and so is freedom of religion.

Now the founding fathers were christians and deists (in other words they believed in christ and/or god) but it doesnt mean that religion played a huge, huge role in their lives. What i'm trying to say is that being a christian doesnt mean being some wacko evangelical or someone who is methodical in their practice (i.e. praying at dinner, before bed, attending mass every morning, going to church on sunday). Ben Franklin didnt even go to church because the minister was boring because he didnt teach people how to be better people but just wanted to talk about the bible and dogma.

The first amendment says that congress shouldnt respect an establishment of a religion. The seperation of church and state is one of the key things that made the US different from many european monarchies. The founding fathers wanted to keep religion out of government so that all religions are treated equal and so that freedom of religion is kept.

In conclusion, I feel that people in the United States should not try and deny the christian background and the importance of judaeo-christian principles, morals and ethics of their country however they should not try and profess that the united states is a christian nation in the sense of religious icons, dogma, rhetoric and the many other things that comes from the human part of religion, the apparatus that is the church.

hope my rant made sense, sometimes i am not too good at conveying things.

thanks,
drfunk




posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
To me, the US is a christian nation but not a christian nation.

...
In conclusion, I feel that people in the United States should not try and deny the christian background and the importance of judaeo-christian principles, morals and ethics of their country however they should not try and profess that the united states is a christian nation in the sense of religious icons, dogma, rhetoric and the many other things that comes from the human part of religion, the apparatus that is the church.

hope my rant made sense, sometimes i am not too good at conveying things.


You made perfect sense to me.


My purpose in starting this thread was to find out what people meant by the term because I think that's key. There really are (at least) 2 meanings, as outlined by Lordling (in this thread) and then elaborated upon. It's clear that agreement or disagreement with the statement "The US is a Christian Nation" depends soley on what exactly that means to each individual.


Then one can agree or disagree on the statements, but only when it's defined. That was my seedy motive. To define a term.

So, was this country built on Christian ideals? Yes, that's hardly arguable (although I've seen people argue it). Is a majority of the population professed to be Christian? Yes. That's a fact.

Should Christian morals be made law? That's the question that has so many panties in a twist. I say not, but others say they should. It's a matter of opinion... in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.Millions of innocent men,women and children,since the introduction of Christianity,have been burnt,tortured,fined and imprisoned.
What has been the effect of this coercion?To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypoxrites to support roguery and error all over the world.

Thomas Jefferson

I'm asking what does the term "Christian Nation" mean?

IMO you could ask this question in a hundred places and get a hundred different answers.

I feel that people in the United States should not try and deny the christian background and the importance of judaeo-christian principles, morals and ethics of their country.

these " principles,morals and ethics are not exclusive to xianity, nor were
they original to its founders. many beliefs that predate xianity profess
the same ideals.



Christianity is a relationship between the himan and his Savior.
might this ebe a Freudian slip? being something of the nature of
"between the HYMEN and his/her Savior.



"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, "

Which is "natures" God? again you could ask a hundred people and get a hundred answers. And is " natures" God a God or is it The Goddess?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   
To add a bit of clarification to the difference between a law and a statute, A law is passed by congress and gets past the president's desk. Something like a commercial code (65mph speed limit), was never a bill, and never made into a "law".
Furthermore, a few decades ago the USSC made it clear that any law that is not constitutional, the courts are not obligated to enforce and the citizen is not obligated to follow.

It as said that ignorance of a law is no excuse. True. A law will coincide with your conscience; you do not have to read the words of a law to know that murder or theft is wrong. That was engineered into your being by the same Creator or Founding Fathers spoke of. The same is not true about a statute or code.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   
I think those who came to this country to start a nation did hold religion, and God as important aspects of life. But, they also knew that there were just a few errors in the Church doctrine of the time, and many had parents or grandparents, or maybe they themselves had felt the sting of these religious institutions' power in their homelands...this is one of the reasons they were here. I have a book of old newspaper clippings...all poetry that is over a hundred years old, there's too many mentions of God within those pages to deny the importance faith played in times past. but...well....

What is a christian? Does a christian need to go to church? Do they really need to be baptised to be a christian? to be baptized, does one really have to be submersed, or can a little sprinkling on the head be enough? What about those unrepentent divorcees...are they really christian? and well, if if only christians should be elected to office, who gets to be the ones to answer these questions?? The churches?? or maybe a few of the most upstanding members of these various congregations? Who is to decide what upholds those christian values, or what is a danger to them? The churches, or a select few of their members? Just what is the percentage of regular churchgoers in this nation....I know it's alot less than what is being touted as the percentage "professing to be christian"!!

Our government was designed to represent ALL OF IT'S CITIZENS.....not just one small group. So to say that we should be trying to elect only christians into office would be incorrect....maybe if you're a christian, well your religion might kind of tell you this, but to claim that it is somehow a civic duty isn't correct.

And, well, let's look a little closer at this one......a nation upholding the christian values, electing only christian MEN into office.....
since it is upholding christian values, well it would be wrong for it to allow any women into a position of leadership, or in any position where they are instructing men in any way!! so well, there would more than likely be very few women elected into office....women would not be represented in this government, as well as the non-christians....am I right here??

a quote I took off this thread....
----------

""Take note, those of you who say that ours is not a Christian nation, born of Christians; if you win, and God is thrown out, guess who that means gave you those rights....the government! If that be the case, who has authority to take them away? You guessed it. If you were smart, you'd change your position no matter what you believe! "

----------

is one of those christian values that of "the head of the man is God, and the head of the women is man"??

Numbers 30

"2 If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth;
4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.
6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul;
7 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her.
9 But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.
10 And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath;
11 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
12 But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her.
13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.
14 But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them.
15 But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity.
16 These are the statutes, which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father's house. "

if so, then I see it as placing man in between me and God!! and, there's one thing I know for sure.....there's no government on this earth that has that power!!!!

like I said, there was a few errors that the founding fathers saw in the institutional religions, still are, that is why there's so many people professing to be christians, but then, not bothering going to church....
by separating the power of government from the power of the religions, well, they gave us room to grow and evolve...
Going backwards isn't evolving!



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
A law will coincide with your conscience; you do not have to read the words of a law to know that murder or theft is wrong. That was engineered into your being by the same Creator or Founding Fathers spoke of. The same is not true about a statute or code.


Yes, there is clearly a difference between a law and a statute. I'm not sure of the significance of this. Are you saying that a law (like murder and theft) comes from God and is therefore more important than the statute and codes? And is that the reason our laws should come from Christian values? Is that your line of thinking? (I'm not trying to be dense, just trying to understand your complete thought)

But ignorance of a statute or code is no excuse, either. We are required to obey the laws and statutes as well. I have been speaking of The Law as the complete set of rules under which a peaceful society operates. I don't see the significance of separating out the different types of law for the purpose of this discussion. I'm sure I'm missing something...

The 'natural laws' against murder or theft are acts I know are wrong without having read the words of the law. However, if one doesn't believe in God or practices a religion other than Christianity, he may not agree with you and the founding fathers that these laws came from the Creator.

The founding fathers were not infallible. They said the laws came from the creator, but that's their religious dogma speaking. There is no law or statute (yet) that we must believe in and follow everything the founding fathers said. Just the laws of the land. In fact, they made certain that each of us is free to practice a religion different than theirs or none at all.

dawnstar - You have made some very good points. I was raised in a very, very strict Christian home and and was baptized in a Baptist church. One thing my mother instilled into me is that we must never judge whether another person is a Christian or not. That is not our place. We cannot know a man's heart and when we judge, we are trying to do God's job. It is an affront to God.

As regards the quote you made of another poster:

Take note, those of you who say that ours is not a Christian nation, ... if you win, and God is thrown out, guess who that means gave you those rights....the government! If that be the case, who has authority to take them away? You guessed it. If you were smart, you'd change your position no matter what you believe!


I find this attitude extremely troubling in this country today. It's a divisive attitude, one exemplified by our president. "You're either with us or against us!" A very disturbing trend. This quote seems to be saying, "If you don't think this is a Christian Nation, you have thrown out God." That's quite an assumption! An incorrect one at that!

And then they seem to be saying that I (or people in general) should act out of integrity with what we believe to go along with the masses. That concept right there is SO against my own personal beliefs that I would never even consider it!



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
There are two "christian nations " that come to mind.

Vatican City and as i recall the Knights of Malta



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
BH, you have the ability to know the difference between what is right and wrong, not because you are a Christian, but because the Creator placed that ability within you. You don't have to be a Christian to be part of a Christian nation. Sounds contradictory, but this is not a theocracy, remember, so it is not a contradiction.
One cannot ignore a statute if one is not aware of it to ignore. What the governent will do is drag you into a maritime court so that they can get you to answer for the straw man they have created for you. That is our fault for not realizing, or ignoring, what the usurpers of power and authority have done to the Christian nation.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Thomas Crowne, just answer me this.


Do you think homosexuality (for example) should be outlawed because it is in direct violation of God's word and this is a Christian Nation and it should be run by God's Law?

Yes or no?




posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

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."

Take note, those of you who say that ours is not a Christian nation, born of Christians; if you win, and God is thrown out, guess who that means gave you those rights....the government! If that be the case, who has authority to take them away? You guessed it. If you were smart, you'd change your position no matter what you believe!



That is rediculous. I have heard this argument more and more lately. It sounds like a schoolyard arguement; 'Well, if it wasn't God that gave you the right to be free, then it was man, and he can take it away so you better say it was God!!' That is rediculous. I as a man do not need approval from God or you or anyone else to tell me that I am free. The fact that this argument is even taking place is rediculous. This country might have been started by men who were Christians or Masons (I lean more toward Masons) but this isn't a 'Christian' nation. Where do Christians get off thinking that they are the single shining bastion of morals & decency in the world. Who gave you the right to that monopoly?? That is one of the most conceded viewpoints I have ever heard. You dont need exposure to Christianity to have values or morals. You dont need to read a bible to know the difference between right and wrong.


And to the person who started this thread, I knew exactly what you were asking when you originated it. When people say this is a "Christian Nation" they - for the most part - are saying that our laws and infastructure should be based on that point. I personally don't believe this to be the case as the wording was chosen VERY carefully in the Dec of Independence & the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LogansRun
And to the person who started this thread, I knew exactly what you were asking when you originated it. When people say this is a "Christian Nation" they - for the most part - are saying that our laws and infastructure should be based on that point.

Thank you. I was beginning to think that my language skills must be suffering!!

I had a suspicion that that was at least one difinition, but I wanted to hear more, I wanted to see if there were other meanings or if people really knew what they meant when they said that.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Christian culture doesnt have much to do with religion though. Its just the moral structure of the society we're brought up in. For instance, as someone pointed out earlier, Christian culture does not condemn homosexuality, while most denominations do. The attitudes toward cruelty to animals we have are almost unique to Christian culture, yet mentioned nowhere specifically in Christian religion. Believers or not, thats the name of our particular set of morals we have in the west.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   
"Christian" nation can mean many things.

One possible interpretation would be a theocracy, such as many arab countries are. In that scenario, you would have a national religion. This would probably mean no other religions could be practiced there, or the government would fund only one of the religions, while others can be practiced but don't get government support. It could also contain, as a system of laws, the laws taken right from its holy book, in the case of a Christian nation, the Bible (hopefully from the new testament!
). It would really depend upon the level of freedoms presented.

However, when I talk about a Christian nation, I mean something different. It is a nation that is founded on the principles of that religion. A nation where the original code of laws was based on what is considered wrong according to the Bible -- New Testament style, Christianity style. Everything, from the inalienable rights granted us by God to the original exodus from England in the mid-1600s for religious persecution had God at its center. I'm sidetracking into America, but only because America is the only nation on the planet founded as a Christian nation, as I have just defined. It's also the world's only superpower. Related? Could be...



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Some others have tried to make this point but it doesn't seem to be getting across to some readers so, I'll take a turn and make it really simple:

Christianity = belief in God and the divinity of Jesus
Belief in God Christianity

The argument keeps going back and forth (in lots of other threads in here, too) that one must either be Christian or Atheist - not always spelled out like that but the meaning is quite clear. If you say to me, "if you are not a Christian then you must not believe in God", I will say to you "do you walk to school or bring your lunch?" Right! Neither of those sentences make any sense!

I read the entire body of what has been written here - all the quotes, too. As I read through them, it occurred to me that almost (not quite all of them) could have easily been written/spoken by a Rabbi. Only in one or two places was any overt reference to Christianity. A whole lot of belief in God, the Almighty, the Creator, etc. is in there but, Jews and Muslims use those same terms to express those same beliefs. I know for a fact that Masons use those terms. So, out of all that, I get that one or two of those guys were Christian - I've no problem with that. In fact, they were probably under-represented in the body of "proof" presented, here.


Now, to my answer to the original question posed by BH:
I think folks throw around the term "Christian Nation" rather loosely and here's why I think it is so common. Most of our government is based on the rule of the majority. Clearly, Christians are in the majority in this country so, they are simply trying to apply the "majority rule" concept. It is an incorrect application but, let's face facts - most citizens of the US are pretty simple-minded and would really rather be watching American Idol than thinking about government or religion or philosophy...



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The US is a Christian Nation, so therefore...


it stands to reason this would explain why all presidents from day one have been Christians.


so therefore ... we should all learn to make our friends and loved ones and children fear us because that is what GOD has conveyed to us through the good book.

Fear GOD.

Love GOD.

Do not Hate GOD.

But, how can one truly hate any entity, unless they weren't first fearful that that entity had the potential to take someone, or something we love away from us.

Fear is only present if we stand to loose something we love.

Therefore fear is the opposite of love.
Therefore to fear GOD is to do the opposite of Loving GOD.

And this is the mentality that has just compliled 7,000 years of written/recorded history devoid of 1 week, just 7 days without war, killing, and destruction.

Think about it:

7,000 years of written/recorded history.
NOT 7 consecutive days without war, killing, and destruction.


The US is a Christian Nation, so therefore... we will continue to follow a paradigm that is consistant with the last 7,000 years of humanity and foster both fear and hate, instead of love and truth.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
... you have the ability to know the difference between what is right and wrong, not because you are a Christian, but because the Creator placed that ability within you.


If we are a Christian nation, then do we not have the ability to know the difference between what is right and wrong because Eve and Adam followed the teachings of some talking snake?



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Do you think homosexuality (for example) should be outlawed because it is in direct violation of God's word and this is a Christian Nation and it should be run by God's Law?



Personally, I know I'm a 33 year old man that doesn't buy the idea that it is a choice.

I can promise you this:

Even if every gun in the world was pointed at my head, I'm sure I could not "choose" to be sexually attracted to another man.

Perhaps the people who do believe it is a choice have some suppressed issues they need to come to terms with.

Or maybe it was just priests to came up with this whole concept of "homosexuality is a choice".

At any rate, I'm getting a little tired of people spending my tax dollars to try and dictate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Thank you, Logansrun, for calling the facts "rediculous" (sic) and adding nothing to the discussion. Speaking of school yard antics.

BH, As far as homosexuality is concerned, why do you suggest outlawing it, as that is not the cultural question at this time. The battle is waging because the homosexuals and those sympathetic to their cause is wanting to make homosexuality a recognized minority with special rights and privileges. If this continues, then, yes, it should be outlawed in order to protect society.

What would be a better course of action is for the courts to make it very clear that they have no more special rights as the adulterers, fornicators or any other sexually immoral folk do. We do not stone them, but they don't get taken to the head of the hiring line, either.

Has anyone noticed that this thread is in the wrong forum? Me either until now. I should've paid attention a long time ago! Someone should give me a warn or something!



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The battle is waging because the homosexuals and those sympathetic to their cause is wanting to make homosexuality a recognized minority with special rights and privileges.

Do you have a source on this? What special rights? I honestly am not aware that they are asking for special rights or minority status. I do not wish them to have special rights or minority status.



What would be a better course of action is for the courts to make it very clear that they have no more special rights as the adulterers, fornicators or any other sexually immoral folk do.

I agree that they should have no special rights. Adulterers and fornicators are allowed to love whomever they wish and get married, though, just like us regular moral folk do. That's the right in question in today's political environment.


Has anyone noticed that this thread is in the wrong forum? Me either until now. I should've paid attention a long time ago! Someone should give me a warn or something!


I apologize. I'm fairly new and hadn't made it to this part of this forum when I started this thread. It does belong here. Thank you for moving it to where it obviously should be.

I see that you're not going to answer my direct question, so pardon me if I assume incorrectly. But this is why I do have an issue with religion in government. Because if this were a "Christion Nation" by your definition, then morals could be dictated by law and one man's morals are against another man's natural laws.

[edit on 2-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

[edit on 2-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
OK, since this thread has been hijacked into a "wack a gay with your bible" thing, let me throw one out, as a question:

where is there any biblical/scriptural reference that condemns lesbians? Chapter and verse, please.

Thanks!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join