The Rightful Constitutional Christian Ownership of America

reply to post by iIuminaIi


there's no such thing as Islamophobia

reply to post by redneck13

Nature's God

Sounds pagan to me. Had they meant Abraham's God, or David's God, or Jesus's Dad/Self, they probably would have said that.

It's odd, that's the only reference to any sort of god in any of the founding documents. And aren't your types into strict interpretation of the constitution and such?

Have another argument to use other than that?

Also your comment above is so funny, it's to become my new signature.

reply to post by Anonymous404


Yes, I have
Read the Declaration of the US it is not in the constitution
Then tell me this country has not been founded on the belief of GOD

reply to post by redneck13


Stupid is the word

reply to post by redneck13


This country has not been founded on the belief in Jesus, if that's what you're implying.

And I'm telling you that, because history says it's true. Also you never answered my question of if you've ever read any of the founding fathers' writing about religion.

Originally posted by redneck13
reply to post by iIuminaIi

 

there's no such thing as Islamophobia

100% Hypocrite

Islamophobia

www.ushistory.org...

BTW, that's our actual Declaration of Independence. Y'know, the final draft.

It even has biographies to the men who signed it! Very informative.

Jesus said "MY Kingdom is not of THIS world"...

And if no servant is greater than his Master then Christians have no claim to anything in THIS world.. We are merely diplomats in a strange land...

reply to post by redneck13

The declaration of Independence is acknowledgment of the Christian covenant with God.

No it isn't. Jefferson was not a Christian, he rejected the divinity of Christ, he was a deist. The God of the Declaration is never identified specifically as the Christian God and the wall of Separation Jefferson later intended for the first amendment would, at any rate, erase any endorsement of religion the Declaration implied (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it did).

The Declaration does mention a God, that much is true, but then the document has no binding legal power. No one is going to deny that many of the founders were religious and that religious principles influenced them to an extent, but when you compare the founding scriptures of Christianity (the Bible) with the Founding documents of America the parallels are FAR outweighed by the contradictions.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


the expounding of proper interpretation of the law, based on principle rather than rule

Correct, the declaration is a document that states we are free from England and we are founding a new nation based on the belief in God
The Catholic church of the time is the power of injustice that had these people leaving their native land. We don’t think of the church or Christianity in the same way that the founding fathers did. They wanted to be sure that the church would be unable to rise to a political power and by correctness it should not since its main concern is for the afterlife and that is subject to each individual’s interpretations. There is no physical proof of what school of religious thought is true so they chose not include any spiritual belief in particular, that is why it’s called faith. However, they did want to indicate “a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence”. This implies that the nation belongs to God and we rely on his protection.
If you look to the Bible and not many here do, (just because we legally swear our legal oaths of truth on it means nothing,) for the new Christian covenant we find the other part of our agreement with God.

en.wikipedia.org...(biblical)

Text

Peter speaks to the wondering crowd. He says they are the children of the covenant God made with their fathers and quotes the promise to Abraham, "And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Peter tells them that God has sent the resurrected Jesus first to them to bless them and forgive them of their sins. He proclaims Jesus to be the covenant "seed" promised to Abraham.[16]

Epistle to the Romans: Paul addresses God's covenantal relationship with the Jewish people.[17] He states emphatically that God has not rejected the Jewish people. To drive home his point, he recalls the time when Elijah felt all alone in his service to God. God assured Elijah that he wasn't alone, that there were 7000 that had not bowed the knee to Baal.[18] Paul says that the Jewish people's rejection of Christ was a stumbling but not a falling.[19] He writes that the Jewish rejection has opened the way for the Gentiles to be saved. Paul considers this turn of events to be a great blessing for the Gentiles. He then asks, if this Jewish failure to accept Christ brought such blessings to the world, what greater blessings will come when the Jewish people finally join the fellowship.[20]


Behold, days are coming - the word of HASHEM - when I will seal a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the Lord. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

This prophet's word refers to the birth of Jesus Christ and his atonement on the cross (Matthew 26:28), as well as the expounding of proper interpretation of the law, based on principle rather than rule (Matthew 21-48).

reply to post by redneck13


I'm guessing you're still not going to answer my question of if you've ever read any religious writings of the founding fathers. You can do it online, you know. It's not dangerous.

reply to post by redneck13

we are founding a new nation based on the belief in God

The Declaration appeals to the protection of a divine being and mentions that we are endowed with natural rights. It does not, however, establish that our nation is going to be "based on the belief in God". The very phrase doesn't make any sense, a nation cannot be "based on a belief in God".

This implies that the nation belongs to God and we rely on his protection.

It does not imply that the nation "belongs" to God, but rather to the people that God has created and endowed with rights. These rights were seen as having been trampled on by the British crown and government. It does outright state that the nation looks for divine protection, but then the Declaration is not a legal document, it is not binding, if it were we wouldn't have needed a war to truly establish our independence.

The word covenant does not appear in the declaration and I don't see any correlation between the new and old covenant of Christianity and Judaism and the founding of America.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

That is not true - there are manuscripts around of much of het new testament that date before Constantine.

Well, there was one....

The Q source (also Q document, Q Gospel, Q Sayings Gospel, or Q) is a hypothetical collection of sayings of Jesus, assumed to be one of two written sources behind the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. Q (short for the German Quelle, or "source") is defined as the "common" material found in Matthew and Luke but not in their other written source, the Gospel of Mark. This ancient text supposedly contained logia or quotations from Jesus.

Along with Markan priority, Q was hypothesized by 1900, and it is one of the foundations of modern gospel scholarship. B. H. Streeter formulated a widely accepted view of Q: that it was a written document (not an oral tradition) composed in Greek; that almost all of its contents appear in Matthew, in Luke, or in both; and that Luke more often preserves the original order of the text than Matthew. In the two-source hypothesis, Matthew and Luke both used Mark and Q as sources. Some scholars have postulated that Q is actually a plurality of sources, some written and some oral. Others have attempted to determine the stages in which Q was composed.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the sixteenth century the Greek New Testament was published for the first time in printed form. The great Dutch philologist Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam had established a text from a handful of manuscripts dating from the later Middle Ages. Unfortunately he used only manuscripts of inferior quality for his edition of 1516. A few verses from the Apocalypse were lacking in the manuscripts at his disposal. He simply re-translated them from the current Latin version! Erasmus' intention with his edition was to provide a basis for a new Latin translation of the New Testament. The Reformers used it to produce vernacular translations of their own.
least free from the accretions of a later age. We had to wait, however, until the 70's and 80's of the nineteenth century for new critical editions of the New Testament.

Tischendorf himself and the British scholars Westcott and Hort produced two rival editions of the Greek text. They believed that their text reflected the original as well as possible, even if it was based on manuscripts dating from at least three centuries after the New Testament was written. Gradually the new critical texts replaced Erasmus' text, which has not received much attention from serious scholars anymore. Thousands more ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have become known in the past 100 years. Monastery libraries in countries around the Mediterranean have yielded most of the manuscripts. The textual critics of the Greek New Testament have been able to come to terms with only a few of them. Most of them are not very old manuscripts anyhow, and in textual criticism it is age and quality that counts, not mere quantity.

source
I would say that is the oldest copies, the Q Source, and it isn't much to go on.

God anything older that talks about your Godman?

Originally posted by redneck13
reply to post by iIuminaIi

 

The American Christian terrorist listed in your wiki page is the KKK types. Racism and bigotry are not Christian values, although people may claim these organizations to be Christian they most certainly are not as any normal Christian would attest as such.
This is not the Muslim bashing thread, this is the thread where we bash Christians for thinking they have something to do with the founding of the United States so please lets continue,

The Israelites were to be like the sand of the sea.
Where do you think the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob put them?
Jesus came for the lost (dispersed) sheep of the House of Israel.
Which nations in THIS WORLD have been predominantly Christian in population?
It takes a head buried in the sand to not see the obvious.
The end times: vast falling away, Satan coming against Israel, the grandkids and great grandkids of millions of Christians now look to extraterrestrials as their creators and saviours.....never once thinking that the God of the forefathers is the real Creator and Saviour....
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will confirm all. Just sees seek Him.

reply to post by redneck13


I guess since we're relying on your God's protection we should just disband the military, since they're doing what your God isn't, or can't.

Actually, they're doing exactly as our forefathers believed they should (modern military engagements notwithstanding). Because our forefathers believed in a grand architect, not a grand landlord.

Originally posted by redneck13
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

the expounding of proper interpretation of the law, based on principle rather than rule

Correct, the declaration is a document that states we are free from England and we are founding a new nation based on the belief in God
The Catholic church of the time is the power of injustice that had these people leaving their native land. We don’t think of the church or Christianity in the same way that the founding fathers did. They wanted to be sure that the church would be unable to rise to a political power and by correctness it should not since its main concern is for the afterlife and that is subject to each individual’s interpretations. There is no physical proof of what school of religious thought is true so they chose not include any spiritual belief in particular, that is why it’s called faith. However, they did want to indicate “a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence”. This implies that the nation belongs to God and we rely on his protection.
If you look to the Bible and not many here do, (just because we legally swear our legal oaths of truth on it means nothing,) for the new Christian covenant we find the other part of our agreement with God.

Ooops! One problem with this. England was not and had not been a Papist puppet state for a long time when America was founded.
I believe however their allies the French were. Sort of makes a mockery of your thinking really.
America was, and we can hope will be again, the grand experiment free from religious bias and european hatreds.
A nation built by men for all men. Men who would be free to worship (or not) in the manner of their choosing.

Sadly religion has managed to weasel its way into the equation and contaminate the outcome.

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

That is not true - there are manuscripts around of much of het new testament that date before Constantine.

Well, there was one....

God anything older that talks about your Godman?

What godman??

The Q source is not actually a manuscript - it is a hypothesised common source or link for the early gospels - it seems irrelevant to your idea that Constantine caused the gospels to be written??

However there are several new testament manuscripts dating to the late 2nd and 3rd centuries CE - see here - ie before Constantine.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

What godman??

I mean the man Christianity made into a God. And gave him an English name.

The Q source is not actually a manuscript - it is a hypothesised common source or link for the early gospels - it seems irrelevant to your idea that Constantine caused the gospels to be written??

I know this. The Q Source, and a few other manuscripts is all they had. Not a lot. That is why they had to made it up. Like a story, a good one, with Heroes, and a man everyone wound follow, a man who could cheat death. A Messiah. A Savour.

This was done by some very smart men, perhaps a secret society or order. Why? Money, and Power. Later came the mind control. Keep people thinking God was "out there" somewhere, and not "in here" with us. Strange Rituals, like Exorcism, Ordination, Confirmation, Sunday Services, Evangelism and Missions, Baptism, Communion, Pentecostal Speaking in Tongues, or Eucharist. Baptism and communion are considered sacraments, or sacred rituals. Symbols were authorized, Temples were built, and the Holy Church took power, an immense power that was even over Kings. One only has to read history to know what the all powerful church did next. Near a million people, mostly innocent, tortured, and murdered, and nearly every single text, book, or manuscript that dealt with religion, and the Church also had everything with the true name of Christ written on, or in it. For many years only the Church could read what was in the Bible, and when King James deemed to publish an English version, the Church out a hit on old James....
The Gunpowder Plot A ROMAN CATHOLIC ASSASINATION ATTEMPT ON KING JAMES I

However there are several new testament manuscripts dating to the late 2nd and 3rd centuries CE - see here - ie before Constantine.

Care to post links? And have you considered the Sumerian Texts? These are from c. 2100 BC. They tell a compelling story.

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

However there are several new testament manuscripts dating to the late 2nd and 3rd centuries CE - see here - ie before Constantine.

Care to post links? And have you considered the Sumerian Texts? These are from c. 2100 BC. They tell a compelling story.

There was a link in my post

Sumerian texts would also be before Constantine!!

Thank you, Anonymous404, for the suggestion that people read into the founding fathers. I have just started that and have found a few interesting things. I'll try to post more as I find them. I would like to make the distinction though, between their beliefs and what committees finally settled on as a finished product. Not that they're always contradictory, but that they provide a fuller picture. After all "Separation of Church and State" comes from a letter, not a law or constitution.

John Jay was president of the Continental Congress in 1778-79, first Chief Justice of the United States 1789-95, leader of the federalist party and Governor of New York from 1795 to 1801. He was certainly a founding father. Here is part of one of his decisions while on the Court:

“There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Com., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, ‘Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.”
— Supreme Court Decision, 1892 Church of the Holy Trinity Decision v United States

www.ask.com...

Jay believed that the most effective way of ensuring world peace was through propagation of the Christian gospel. In a letter addressed to Pennsylvania House of Representatives member John Murray, dated October 12, 1816, Jay wrote, "Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war. Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. 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."

As I said, as I find more I'll try to post it, (until it's not rewarding any longer) so thanks for the suggestion Anonymous404.

With respect,
Charles1952