Revisionists Want to Take Christ out of American History

[boxcar]

I believe, as countless others do, that this nation was settled primarily by people of the Christian Faith. In other words, the dominant religion was Christianity, as believed and practiced by many different sects or denominations. And, as we shall see, these different sects were primarily monotheistic, not deisitic in their beliefs.

However, no one should infer from the above that infidels, apostates, or pagans, or agnostics, or atheists, rationalists, or deists didn't arrive here in to settle in our colonies. Of course they did. But this does not alter the fact that the dominant religion in America was Christianity, as believed and practiced by monotheists (which would also include Trinitarians who believe in only one God.)

From time to time, I will post the words of some of our Founding Fathers and other famous statesman to demonstrate the truthfulness of the above statements.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

"The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but the God of Israel is He that giveth strength and power unto His people. Trust in Him at all times, ye people, pour out your hearts before him; God is a refuge for us.

"Charleston is laid in ashes. The battle began upon our entrenchments upon Bunker's Hill, Saturday morning about 3 o'clock, and has not ceased yet, and it is now three o'clock Sabbath afternoon. It is expected they will come out over the Neck tonight, and a dreadful battle must ensue. Almighty God, cover the heads of our countrymen, and be a shield to our dear friends..."

"A patriot without religion in my estimation is as great a paradox as an honest Man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom no moral obligations bind, can have any real Good Will towards Men? Can he be a patriot who, by an openly vicious conduct, is undermining the very bonds of Society?....The Scriptures tell us "righteousness exalteth a Nation."

It's obvious Abagail was no deist. She prays to a personal God. She quotes from the bible (from his Special Revelation). And she certainly believed that God intervenes in the affairs of men and "giveth strength unto HIS people".

Boxcar

[boxcar]

July 4, 1774
"We went to meeting at Wells and had the pleasure of hearing my friend upon "Be not partakers in other men's sins. Keep yourselves pure.

"We...took our horses to the meeting in the afternoon and heard the minister again upon "Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." There is great pleasure in hearing sermons so serious, so clear, so sensible and instructive as these ...."

Evidently, Adams took great delight in listening to preacing from God's Special Revelation.

October 9, 1774
"This day I went to Dr. Allison's meeting in the afternoon, and heard the Dr. Francis Allison . . . give a good discourse upon the Lord's Supper .... I had rather go to Church. We have better sermons, better prayers, better speakers, softer, sweeter music, and genteeler company. And I must confess that the Episcopal church is quite as agreeable to my taste as the Presbyterian.... I like the Congregational way best, next to that the Independent...."

Sermons from the Word, prayers to a Personal God, and speakers who taught and preached from the bible. Sounds very "mainline" Protestant to me.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

On March 6, 1799, President John Adams called for a National Fast Day.

"As no truth is more clearly taught in the Volume of Inspiration, nor any more fully demonstrated by the experience of all ages, than that a deep sense and a due acknowledgement of the growing providence of a Supreme Being and of the accountableness of men to Him as the searcher of hearts and righteous distributer of rewards and punishments are conducive equally to the happiness ofindividuals and to the well-being of communities....

"I have thought proper to recommend, and I hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the twenty-fifth day of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to his righteous requisitions in time to come; that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind; that He would make us deeply sensible that "righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34)"

This man was not only not a Deist, but he appears to have been a Trinitarian. He refers to a "Supreme Being" (God the Father), the "Mediator and Reedemer" (God the Son) and to the "Holy Spirit" (the 3rd Person of the Godhead).

Boxcar

[boxcar]

In a letter dated November 4, 1816, John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

"The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion..."

December 27, 1816

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation."

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have...a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the character and conduct of their rulers."

Not a deistic bone in this man's body.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

September, 1811, in a letter to his son:

"I have myself, for many years, made it a practice to read through the Bible once ever year.... My custom is, to read four to five chapters every morning immediately after rising from my bed. I employs about an hour of my time...."

Spoken like a true bible-believin' Christian!

July 4, 1821

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.

"From the day of the Declaration...they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct."

Orthodox Christians believe the "rule of faith and conduct" are contained only in the bible.

July 4, 1837

"Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day. Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday ofthe 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 ofthe Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Saviour and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets 600 years before."

"I speak as a man of the world to men of the world; and I say to you, Search the Scriptures! The Bible is the book of all others, to be read at all ages, and in all conditions of human life; not to be read in small portions of one or two chapters every day, and never to be intermitted, unless by some overruling necessity."

A true biblicist!

February 27, 1844

"The Bible carries with it the history of the creation, the fall and redemption of man, and discloses to him, in the infant born at Bethlehem, the Legislator and Savior of the world."

The "redemption of man" which can only be learned from God's miraculous Special Revelation.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

"The rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institution of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament." (From The Rights of Colonists, 1772)

How novel? "The Great Law Giver" the "Head" of a institution in this world? I thought he didn't concern himself with such mundane matters?

As the Declaration of Independence was being signed, 1776, Samuel Adams declared:

"We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come."

"He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of this country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man....The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people."

"He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections." --in a letter to James Warren, Nov. 4, 1775--

"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Now this inspires me to dig out my six-shooter and polish her her up. :)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

(Author of the First Amendment)

"Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble....In no Book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant, and by teaching all the same they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith."

This chap doesn't sound very deistic either.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

(Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law was the recognized authority on the law for well over a century after 1776)

"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being....And, consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will...this will of his Maker is called the law of nature. These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil...This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this...

So...man is an "entirely dependent being"? He supposed to depend on a God who does not interact with man? Who cares nothing about his creatures who supposedly are autonomous and free from divine restraints and intervention?

"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures...[and] are found upon comparison to be really part of the original law of nature. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.

Wow! Another biblicist!

"Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying his being or providence, or uttering contumelious reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished, at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land.

Heavy duty statement coming from such a law scholar.

"If [the legislature] will positively enact a thing to be done, the judges are not at liberty to reject it, for that were to set the judicial power above that of the legislature, which should be subversive of all government."

"The preservation of Christianity as a national religion is abstracted from its own intrinsic truth, of the utmost consequence to the civil state, which a single instance will sufficiently demonstrate.

Geesh...if this fella lived today, he'd be quartered and hung out to bleed by the ACLU, Freedom From Religion.Org, etc....not to mention the 9th Circus Court.

"The belief of a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining just ideas of the main attributes ofthe Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life (all which are revealed in the doctrines of our Savior, Christ), these are the grand foundations of all judicial oaths, which call God to witness the truth of those facts which perhaps may be only known to Him and the party attesting; all moral evidences, therefore, all confidence in human veracity, must be weakened by apostasy, and overthrown by total infidelity.

"Wherefore, all affronts to Christianity, or endeavors to depreciate its efficacy, in those who have once professed it, are highly deserving of censure."

Harsh action indeed! Censure!

This guy definitely isn't a candidate for Deism either.

Boxcar

[Equineer]

Boxcar,

You elected to start your diatribe by focusing on John Adams, our second President.

Adams was a Freemason who was known to frequent Unitarian discussion groups and congregations. He expressed his broadly tolerant philosophy in this letter to a fellow Freemason:

"We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power, we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society."
-- John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785

BTW, in my post on Revolutionay leaders, that is how I characterized Adams, notwithstanding how you have seemingly misundertood what I said.

Moreover, you need not persist beyond Adams since you have clearly taken the path of deceit and perfidy. :)

=====>

Here is a perfect example of how snake oil peddlers operate to distort history.

From your post... you quote Adams out of context:

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation."

But here is where Adams actually made that statement in proper and truthful context:

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
-- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

=====>

Is there anything less ambiguous about the secular convictions of our Revolutionary leaders than language found in our earliest international treaties?

"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams

=====>

You also deceitfully ignore Adams' unambiguous statements in his letters to Jefferson. Just a few examples...

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?

"Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?"

"Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires."

=====>

More quotes from Adams:

"When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."

"The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests."

=====>
Here again is John Adams, obviously aroused by wingnuts like you (:))...

The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate a free inquiry? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes.
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

=====>

Now, there is no contesting that Adams was an elitist who worried that the ignorant masses might create a world of bedlam were it not for the moral codes embedded in mainstream religions.

So although he made many concessionary statements about Christianity, there is no credible evidence that he personally accepted the Trinity or that Christ was the Son of God.

=====>

Finally, you make a fool of yourself by citing Adams' Proclamation of a National Day of Prayer and Fasting, which was merely a concession to the most zealous clerics among orthodox Christians.

At the time, the "fervently orthodox minority" among Christians were widely criticized and sometimes persecuted as Sunday slackers. However, Adams agreed to recognize a single date (4/25/1799) so "that the citizens on that day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public and in private."

Many of Adams' contemporaries fretted that his proclamation would embolden Christian zealots who sought to make Sundays a full day of hedonism and escape from the virtues of labor in agriculture, industry, and commerce. For this very reason, Adams designated a Thursday rather than a Sunday in his proclamation.

[boxcar]

Equineer

Boxcar,

You elected to start your diatribe by focusing on John Adams, our second President.

Adams was a Freemason who was known to frequent Unitarian discussion groups and congregations. He expressed his broadly tolerant philosophy in this letter to a fellow Freemason:

"We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power, we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society."
-- John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785

I, as a Christian, share his exact sentiments! And so do many other Christians I know. Christians believe that all people should freely exercise the religion of their choice! Does this make me a "Freemason"? Your objection is pointless, therefore.

BTW, in my post on Revolutionay leaders, that is how I characterized Adams, notwithstanding how you have seemingly misundertood what I said.

Moreover, you need not persist beyond Adams since you have clearly taken the path of deceit and perfidy. :)

Perfidy indeed! A subject with which you have had a long and personal and intimate relation.

Oh...but I will persist. I have many more examples from other leading historical figures to post. Adams is but one Postrevelotionary leader. And whether Adams was a Freemason or not (something, btw,you have not proved) does not change the fact that this man truly believed that religion and morality (in this order per several of his remarks) play a crucial role in society. Whatever else this fella may have been, he was not a Human Secularist or a Deist.

=====>

Here is a perfect example of how snake oil peddlers operate to distort history.

From your post... you quote Adams out of context:

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation."

But here is where Adams actually made that statement in proper and truthful context:

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
-- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

I will address the above quote momentarily.

Is there anything less ambiguous about the secular convictions of our Revolutionary leaders than language found in our earliest international treaties?

"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams


Ahh...now who's peddling snake oil!? I was wondering when you'd get around to this treaty. Trust me. I will address this later in its full context in a different post.

You also deceitfully ignore Adams' unambiguous statements in his letters to Jefferson. Just a few examples...

Oh...I can't cherry-pick like you do!? Ironically, sir, these very letters will condemn your own revisionist views, as we shall see!

Adams wrote:

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?

"Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?"

"Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires."

"When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.

"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."

"The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests."

Here again is John Adams, obviously aroused by wingnuts like you (:))...

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate a free inquiry? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814

You call me deceitful!? In the contexts of all these quotes, it is abundantly clear that Adams was very much Anti-Catholic --first and foremost. He was railing against and vehemently objecting to the fables, tales and legends that essentially originated with apostate Judiaism of the Post-Babylonian Exile era and that was expanded upon and added to and continually propagated by, arguably, the most perverse and corrupt religion ever conceived by the unregenerate mind of man, i.e. Roman Catholicism. (I don't wish to offend anyone's sensibilites on this forum, but I have to call the shots the way I see them -- speak the truth as I know it to be.)

Adams also objected to the "fictitious miracles" propagated by the Catholic Church and foisted upon the minds of the superstitious and ignorant masses. Adam's appeal to reason is quite understandable, as was his very obvious distrust of ecclesiastical authorities or figures. But you're trying to broad brush Adams as though he was antiChristian or even antiBible which is the farthest thing from the truth.

Even in this quote:

"When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.

We cannot definitively ascertain from this quote alone that he was talking about "prophecies" or "miracles" as revealed in the 66 Books of the Bible. The context of this particular quote is not sufficient to reach such a concrete conclusion. But what is clear is that since he was so anti-Catholic it's quite likely that he could well have been referring to the "prophecies" and "miracles" contained in the books that the Roman Catholic Church added to the Canon of Scripture (those 66 Books), which would account for the phrase "no subsequent revelation". Whatever else Adams was, it seems clear from other words of his that he most likely wasn't anti-bible. -- anti-biblcial revelation.

Now, there is no contesting that Adams was an elitist who worried that the ignorant masses might create a world of bedlam were it not for the moral codes embedded in mainstream religions.

So although he made many concessionary statements about Christianity, there is no credible evidence that he personally accepted the Trinity or that Christ was the Son of God.

Perhaps not. However, we cannot dispute the fact that in his day of fast proclamation he mentions the three persons in the Godhead, allthough he never specifically named Jesus Christ. However, the bible is very clear on who the "Mediator" between God and man is, and who is the "Redeemer" of God's people. It's none other than Jesus Christ. Therefore, I would not be surprised at all, if Admas was in fact a Trinitarian -- even if a "nominal" one.

Also, Adams' very inclusion of the Triune Godhead in that proclamation could only have been known from Special Revelation. Neither Natural Revelation or Reason would be able to reveal or deduce, respectivelty, what he stated in that proclamation. This reinforces my contention that Adams was most probably not anti-biblical revelation -- just anti-perverted, catholic revelation.

Finally, you make a fool of yourself by citing Adams' Proclamation of a National Day of Prayer and Fasting, which was merely a concession to the most zealous clerics among orthodox Christians.

I make a fool of myself!? You have offered no proof or even any evidence at Adams caved in to pressure from a small minority of orthodox Christians. Why would he do that and risk political repercussions from an offended majority? Methinks this is more wishful thinking on your part.

Did your parents ever teach you how not to spin?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Congressional Congress, 1787

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God Governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

If our Kite Flyer Extradorinaire was a Deist, he was a very confused one -- either that or a deist in name only!

As I showed yesterday on another thread, Desim does not believe that "God governs the affairs of men". In Deism, God transcends his creation and does not interfere with it or intervene in it or communicate to us via Special Revelation; for in Deism this type of revelation is unnecessary.

However, Franklin not only believed that God does interact with mankind, but appeals to the authority of Special Revelation to support and emphasise his point by alluding to this passage:

Matt 10:29-31
29 "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 "Therefore do not fear; you are of more value than many sparrows.
NAS

What Jesus is teaching here is that not even a small sparrow can fall to the ground and die apart from the Sovereign King of the Universe ordaining it!

Ben continued with:

"We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

"I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."

Franklin, this time, alludes to the OT passage that gives us the account of Bable.

More on Franklin and his religion later...

Boxcar

[kenwoodallpromos]

We just don't want no darned State Religion. Nothing wrong with a higher power like in Gamblers Anonymous.

[Equineer]

Boxcar,

Arrogant balderdash! A travesty, a sham, a mockery... a verbal caldron brewing travshamockery! :)

Next you will probably try to peddle the "Great Awakening" to us.

Below is the dour and mean-spirited countenance of Rev. Jonathan Edwards, America's resident leader of the "Great Awakening" and counterpart to the lascivious English deceiver, Rev. George Whitefield.

Edwards' "Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God" was a frightening "hellfire" rant aimed at stampeding weak minds into his evangelical paddock.

This portrait suggests that you would not want to be judged by Edwards, and indeed, unless you surrendered both your heart and mind to his oppressive movement, you were branded as an infidel and consigned as cargo to cross the river Styx.

C'mon, Boxcar... although Edwards was certainly pious and virtuous compared to the notorious Whitefield, you must admit that it certainly appears as if "not getting his share" of secular pleasures caused contentment to elude him. ;) :)

[boxcar]

In 1748, as Pennsylvania's Governor, Benjamin Franklin proposed Pennsylvania's first Fast Day:

"It is the duty of mankind on all suitable occasions to acknowledge their dependence on the Divine Being... [that] Almighty God would mercifully interpose and still the rage of war among the nations...[and that] He would take this province under his protection, confound the designs and defeat the attempts of its enemies, and unite our hearts and strengthen our hands in every undertaking that may be for the public good, and for our defense and security in this time of danger."

"I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that he made the world, and governed it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded either here or hereafter.

So, while Einstein was not able to fathom God's justice, it appears that this truth did not pose any problem for Franklin. Every single sentiment Franklin expresses here is thoroughly biblical! It seems to me that Franklin probably had more than a cursory acquaintance with Holy Writ.

Franklin continued with:

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.

"The pleasures of this world are rather from God's goodness than our own merit."

I have to think that at minimum Franklin, in the last sentence, had God's common grace to mankind on his mind. When he used the term "pleasures", he means all the good things of this world. He might have had this passage in mind when he penned this:

Matt 5:45
45 in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
NAS

Let's continue:

Benjamin Franklin, in July of 1776, was appointed part of a committee to draft a seal for the newly united states which would characterize the spirit of this new nation. He proposed:

"Moses lifting up his wand, and dividing the Red Sea, and Pharaoh in his chariot overwhelmed with the waters. This motto: 'Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."

To add even more insult to injury to such "enlightened" minds of "Cap & Eq, for example, it appears that Franklin took a good deal of the bible literally! Horror of Horrors! And this guy is supposed to have been a product of the "Age of Enlightment" that produced the self-defeating philosophy of Deism!?

Franklin continues:

"A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district--all studied and appreciated as they merit--are the principal support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty."

A "Bible...in every house"!? What a Deist (not!).

Then we have this:

Ben Franklin wrote a pamphlet called, "Information to Those who would Remove to America." It was intended to be a guide for Europeans who were thinking of relocating in America. In it he said:

(Bear in mind this pamphlet was written in Europe, probably in France.)

"Hence bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced.

Hmmm...well, according to Eq's twisted logic, this guy had to have been a Freemason to have believed tolerance of religions.

"Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel."

Atheism was no more PC than was Deism in Bens' day! It is also very noteworthy that many of the dictionaries of his day equated a Deist with an Infidel! The term "deism" was in fact synonymous with "atheism" and "infidel". Franklin's take on early America's religious environment differes signifcantly from Eq's, doesn't it?

Franklin continued:

"And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness with which the different sects treat each other; by the remarkable prosperity with which he has been pleased to favor the whole country."

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That he ought to be worshipped."

A deist believes that God actually governs the universe?
We'll have to see how Eq spins all this.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

you guys owe me a new mouse wheel.................

[Equineer]

Boxcar,

But did the "Great Awakening" transform all Plums into Prunes as it seems to have in the case of Edwards?

Definitely not! Many of the 18th century evangelists remind us of scandalized modern TV evangelists. :)

Here is Jonathan Edwards English counterpart, the notorious "whoremaster" among "Great Awakening" evangelists, the Rev. George Whitefield.

Whitefield sensationally toured America seven different times, reportedly leaving a trail of debauchery and outraging America's civic leaders and moral spokesmen.

America's press and men of letters nicknamed Whitefield as Dr. Squintum, perhaps alleging his eye disease was a symptom of syphilis. In the contemporary print, the Imp pouring inspiration in Whitefield's ear and a grotesque Fame, listening on the other side through an ear trumpet, symbolize two accusations that have dogged evangelists to the present day: exploitative sex and avarice. And the inclusion of a devil, raking in money below the podium, asserts that Whitefield was enriching himself by his ministry. At the lower left, Whitefield's followers proposition a prostitute, reflecting the popular charge that "their Hearts to lewd Whoring extend."

[Equineer]

Originally posted by JustRalph
you guys owe me a new mouse wheel................. I'm done and toasted in this thread... after a while, even having great fun with formidable Boxcar gets wearisome. :)

[boxcar]

Equineer

Boxcar,

Arrogant balderdash! A travesty, a sham, a mockery... a verbal caldron brewing travshamockery! :)

Wow! Sometimes I underestimate myself. :) I thought in the first round I just bloodied your nose a bit, but from your little tantrum, it appears I might have been closer to a TKO -- at least!

So then...I take it, Eq, that you regret you posted all those quotations from Adam, eh? All those quotes provided too much context -- too much insight into Adams' mind? Like Einstein, you just can't handle the truth, can you?

But why? Just look at the historical backdrop against which Europeans (especially the English) came over here to settle. They were fleeing religious persecution and intolerance. The were seeking freedom from religious opression from both the Church of England and the Church in Rome. It's no wonder at all that John Adams, and undoubtedly innumerable multitudes of other relgious folks, had such a critical and low view of these two religious institutions. Both were entirely apostate institutions that promulgated their fables, myths and tales and phony miracles (e.g. Lady of Lourdes, Lady of Fatima, etc., etc.) all designed to keep the masses ignorant and to stir up their superstitious passions.

Next you will probably try to peddle the "Great Awakening" to us.

Hmm...not a bad idea. Maybe if I can find some time... Thanks for the suggestion.

Below is the dour and mean-spirited countenance of Rev. Jonathan Edwards, America's resident leader of the "Great Awakening" and counterpart to the lascivious English deceiver, Rev. George Whitefield.

I take it that by this red herring tactic that you weren't able to drum up any evidence to support your theory that John Adams was a Freemason?

Edwards' "Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God" was a frightening "hellfire" rant aimed at stampeding weak minds into his evangelical paddock.

Well...there are portions of scripture that are designed to stir up fear of an Angry, Wrathful God. Would you walk into a jungle unarmed without any fear of the wild animals that may be lying in wait? Rational Fear is a healthy mindset and emotion!

This portrait suggests that you would not want to be judged by Edwards, and indeed, unless you surrendered both your heart and mind to his oppressive movement, you were branded as an infidel and consigned as cargo to cross the river Styx.

Au contraire! I do not fear man, but I do fear God! Evidently, you have not read:

Matt 10:28
28 "And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
NAS

I'll give you ten guesses as to the "Him" is, and the first nine won't count!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

JustRalph wrote:

you guys owe me a new mouse wheel.................

Have you tried switching to the Page Up and Page Down buttons? ;)

Boxcar
P.S. You could also try updating your old mouse to a wheeless model. They are superior in every respect.

[boxcar]

Equineer wrote:

I'm done and toasted in this thread...

Geesh...I haven't even broken a sweat -- and you're waving the white flag already!?

after a while, even having great fun with formidable Boxcar gets wearisome. :)

"Wearisome"? I have barely started.

But somehow...methinks you'll be back here. ;)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

(Co-Author of the Federalist Papers)


"I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. second: The support of the United States.

Hamilton had his priorities straight.

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.

Wow! Pretty forceful words. This fella might have been some apologist for the Christian Faith.

Boxcar

[Pace Cap'n]

Boxcar--moving like a tremendous machine...

[boxcar]

April 15, 1775

"In circumstances dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that, whilst every prudent Measure should be taken to ward off the impending Judgements....All confidence must be withheld from the Means we use; and reposed only on that GOD who rules in the Armies of Heaven, and without whose Blessing the best human Counsels are but Foolishness--and all created Power Vanity;

"It is the Happiness of his Church that, when the Powers of Earth and Hell combine against it...that the Throne of Grace is of the easiest access--and its Appeal thither is graciously invited by the Father of Mercies, who has assured it, that when his Children ask Bread he will not give them a Stone....

Hancok must have been a bible reader, also; for he is alluding to this text in the bible:

Matt 7:8-11
9 "Or what man is there among you, when his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone? 10 "Or if he shall ask for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? 11 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!
NAS

Hancock continues:

"RESOLVED, That it be, and hereby is recommended to the good People of this Colony of all Denominations, that THURSDAY the Eleventh Day of May next be set apart as a Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer...to confess the sins...to implore the Forgiveness of all our Transgression...and a blessing on the Husbandry, Manufactures, and other lawful Employments of this People; and especially that the union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights (for hitherto we desire to thank Almighty GOD) may be preserved and confirmed....And that AMERICA may soon behold a gracious Interposition of Heaven."
By Order of the [Massachusetts] Provincial
Congress, John Hancock, President.

I suppose we'll be told that this was another guy who caved into pressure by that "minority" of orthodox Christians.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Pace Cap'n wrote:

Boxcar--moving like a tremendous machine...

See what happens in Deism when Master Machine Maker winds someone up and can't or won't intervene to shut him down?

Just one more reason to shun this ill-conceived philosophy.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

March 23, 1775

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased a the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

How very different it is today with ever-so-intolerant Liberals and Human Secularists who want to abolish all forms of Christian expression -- who would remove Christ from every vestige society, if given the chance.

More Henry:

"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed."

Evidently, another biblicist!

Henry:

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom."

"It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains."

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."

I gotta run now. I'm goin' out to buy me some more guns for my collection as Christmas gifts for myself. :)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

(America's first Supreme Court Chief Justice and Co-Author of the Federalist Papers)

October 12, 1816

"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.

In his Last Will and Testament, John Jay wrote:

"Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His merciful and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by his beloved Son."

From this language, it appears that Jay was a true Christian who recognized that salvation comes by God's grace only (i.e. "unmerited blessings"). This is one of the unique biblical doctrines that differs Christianity from all other religions in the world. (The other two great distinctions, incidentially, are the Trinity and the Resurrection of Christ.)

Boxcar

[Equineer]

JustRalph,

After Libertarians demanded a recant, here I am again. :)

Boxcar,

You are not a Freemason and are not privy to Lodge records. You must simply trust that your best interests are always being quietly served. :)

Zealous biblicists like yourself err by superimposing your definitions and interpretations onto others.

=====>

Here is Al Dager's objective, authoritative, and orthodox Christian explanation of your dilemma....

Ignoring, and even twisting the facts of history, "Christian" dominionists quote some of the founding fathers whose words seem to indicate faith in Jesus Christ. But many quoted were Freemasons who highly regarded Jesus as a man who attained the highest degree of moral enlightenment.

The words of many Freemasons might lead the uninformed to believe that they are true brethren in Christ. An example is this statement from a Masonic publication:

God may have other words for other worlds, but His supreme Word for this world, yesterday, today, forever, is Christ! He is the central Figure of the Bible, its crown, its glory, its glow-point of vision and revelation. Take Him away and its light grows dim. He fulfilled the whole Book, its history, its poetry, its prophecy, its ritual, even as He fulfills our deepest yearning and our highest hope. Ages have come and gone, but He abides-abides because He is real, because he is unexhausted, because He is needed. Little is left today save Christ-Himself smitten and afflicted, bruised of God and wounded-but He is all we need. If we hear Him, follow Him, obey Him, we shall walk together in a new world wherein dwelleth righteousness and love - He is the Word of God (Joseph Fort Newton, "The Great Light in Masonry," Little Masonic Library, Vol. 3, p. 177).

Unless we recognize that the theosophical philosophy of Freemasonry attributes its own definitions to Biblical language, we won't understand the author's meaning. We might welcome him as one of our own.

Only the most naive would not know that many who claim to be Christians do not meet the required criteria. Such is the case with Freemasons. While Freemasonry has an outward show of religious faith, the tenets of Freemasonry preclude any truly born-again believer from belonging.

Space doesn't allow for a full treatise on Freemasonry's religious philosophy, but true Christians will recognize from another statement in the same publication that the Faith is not compatible with Freemasonry:

Into Freemasonry have been poured the irradiations of the mystical schools of antiquity. Particularly is this so in the higher degrees of the Order, such as the Scottish Rite, where undeniable traces of Cabalism, neo-Platonism, Rosicrucianism, and other mystical cults are plainly discernible. I do personally contend that Freemasonry is the direct descendent of the Mysteries, but that our ritual makers of the higher degrees have copied the ancient ceremonies of initiation so far as the knowledge of those ceremonies exists (Henry R. Evans, A History of the York and Scottish Rites of Freemasonry, p. 8).

Because most Christians today are unaware of the manner in which Christianity was melded with the esoteric philosophies of theosophy and Jewish Cabalism to produce a hybrid mystery religion known as Freemasonry, they offer quotes from many of our founding fathers as evidence that they were Christians. Indeed, some were even clerics. But just as one of today's most famous clerics, Norman Vincent Peale, was a Freemason (prelate of the Grand Encampment of the Knights Templar of the United States), many of the nation's founding fathers were also Freemasons who used peculiar definitions of Biblical language in asserting their beliefs.

This is not to say that they were not noble men. Freemasons pride themselves in their noble attitudes and adherence to strict moral codes. These are not "evil" men in the classical sense. But they are blinded to the true revelation of God's Word, and their religious philosophy embraces all religions as valid. To be a Freemason, one must believe in a supreme being, but he need not be a Christian.

Based upon the evidence of Masonic influences in the establishment of this nation, there is no doubt that the criteria necessary to classify the United States as a Christian nation were not met. An objective study of the Masonic affiliations of the founding fathers must cause Christians to reevaluate their own political philosophy. For if the United States is not a Christian nation then we must choose to whom we will commit "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" -- our Lord or our country.

======>

Dager summarizes his orthodox views with this exhortation to fellow Christians:

Even if the initiators of the Revolution had been Christians, the fact remains that the Revolutionary War and the nation's government were structured by the tenets of Freemasonry, not God's Word. It was an unholy alliance at best.

Scripture tells us that God has made one nation of all: the Church. It is the Church that is our "Christian nation," not the social and political institutions of the world.

We can thank our heavenly Father that we enjoy the freedoms that this republic grants us. But as citizens of Heaven, our allegiance is first to our brethren in foreign countries. Otherwise, we may find ourselves killing true Christians for political causes.

We must be vigilant to the dangers of becoming embroiled in political and social causes in the name of Christ. Else we will find ourselves unequally yoked, storing up for ourselves wood, hay, and stubble for the day of judgment.

======>

Boxcar, take personally (and privately with my blessings) what you will from your bible, but don't interpret others through your own isolated prism!

[Equineer]

JustRalph,

Of particular interest in these uncertain times were Dager's following assertions about Christianity:

"For if the United States is not a Christian nation then we must choose to whom we will commit "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" -- our Lord or our country."

"Scripture tells us that God has made one nation of all: the Church. It is the Church that is our "Christian nation," not the social and political institutions of the world."

"We can thank our heavenly Father that we enjoy the freedoms that this republic grants us. But as citizens of Heaven, our allegiance is first to our brethren in foreign countries. Otherwise, we may find ourselves killing true Christians for political causes."

Do these theosophical statements explain President Bush's compassion for tens of millions of present and future Mexican immigrants, whether legal or illegal but indisputably Christian? :)

[boxcar]

In a letter to Don Valentine de Feronda, 1809

"The only foundation for useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion."

Amazing, isn't it? Look how many of our early statesmen believed that religion or the bible should or even must be taught in schools! Can you imaginethe outrcry from Liberals that would pierce the ears of the Almighty himself if a politician dared today to suggest such a thing? Yes...the Founding Fathers believed in the "wall of separation" between church and state -- but not to keep the church out of the state, nor out of the public arena, nor out of public shools. No! God forbid! But to keep the state out of the church; for this is primarily why so many fled England -- due to that nation's state-run religion!

Jefferson continues:

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others..."

Like John Adams, Jefferson was clearly opposed to the corruptions which had seeped into the Church over the centuries. He probably had foremost in mind the corruptions of the Church of England, and then the Church of Rome.

Jefferson:

"I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invented..."

No doubt alluding to the doctrinal and moral perversions promulgated by the Church of England and of Rome.

In a letter to Horatio G. Spafford, dated March 17, 1814, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian; that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

No way of telling what he was alluding to in the above statement. Probably something out of the bible, though.

"I have always said, I always will say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands."

Here one would have to think that this self-proclaimed "disciple of Jesus" was alluding to Holy Writ.

Jefferson:

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Great reason! He had a very healthy distrust of government. Now I gotta get myself to the gun range...

Jefferson's "separation of church & state letter written to the Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut on January 1, 1802

"Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, of prohibiting the free excercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."

The intent for the legislation is crystal clear here: Congress shall make no laws respecting religion, and this restriction would ensure the free exercise of religion as every person sees fit! The whole purpose behind the "wall of separation" was to prohibit America from becoming like England, i.e. from having a state-run religion! For in England there was no free excercise of religion! It was the state's way or the way of the stake! There were no other alternatives.

In closing, If Jefferson was a deist, it appears he held to a mild form of it -- perhaps similar to Herbert of Cherbury's (The Father of English Deism). I say this because he professed Jesus, held the bible in high regard, and believed in the wrath and justice of God. From what I've been able to glean about Jefferson he might have been a red letter bible-type Christian, perhaps believing that Jesus' words (in red letters) were more authorative than the balance of God's revelation.

Boxcar

[Equineer]

Boxcar,

Your views are pathetically narrow and biased! :(

Jefferson on Christ and Christmas:

"You can preach the gospel of that jive turkey all you want, but I still won't let no bell-ringing Santa pester every one of our dry cleaning customers!"
-- Episode 49, The Jeffersons

[Tom]

Originally posted by Pace Cap'n
Boxcar--moving like a tremendous machine...

LOL!

[boxcar]

Equineer foolishly writes:

JustRalph,

After Libertarians demanded a recant, here I am again. :)

[B]Boxcar,

You are not a Freemason and are not privy to Lodge records. You must simply trust that your best interests are always being quietly served. :)

Zealous biblicists like yourself err by superimposing your definitions and interpretations onto others.

Oh...you mean like that "orthodox Christian" Dager?

So...I (we) aren't privy to Lodge records, so this means that many or most or 99% of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons because you say so? Or because heretics like Dager say so? Nothing like having authoritative sources!
(I take it, then, that you can't find anything to substantiate that John Adams was tuned in to FM?)


Here is Al Dager's objective, authoritative, and orthodox Christian explanation of your dilemma....

From what I've read about Dager and what small excerpts I've read by him about his own "Kingdom Theology", I have concluded that this guy is an outright heretic or a WhackJob in need of some serious help. In either case, due to his doctrinal beliefs, he's anything but an "orthodox Christian"! But he's certainly skilled at blaspheming the most High God with his skillful pen!

You should do yourself a favor, EQ: Stay silent on matters about which you're utterly ignorant.

Dager:

"Only the most naive would not know that many who claim to be Christians do not meet the required criteria. "

Great example of the pot calling the kettle!

Dager:

"Such is the case with Freemasons. While Freemasonry has an outward show of religious faith, the tenets of Freemasonry preclude any truly born-again believer from belonging"

Yup, you bet, Mr. Dager. FM, like Dager and his disciples, have devised a self-made religion and hold to a form of godliness, but lack the power thereof (Col 2:23; 2 Tim 3:5)

Space doesn't allow for a full treatise on Freemasonry's religious philosophy, but true Christians will recognize from another statement in the same publication that the Faith is not compatible with Freemasonry:

Gee, EQ, thanks for the heads up! How would I have ever known that FM is heretical if it weren't for you?

Dager summarizes his orthodox views with this exhortation to fellow Christians:

Don't make me gag! "Orthodox views"!


Dager:

"Scripture tells us that God has made one nation of all: the Church. It is the Church that is our "Christian nation," not the social and political institutions of the world."

Spoken like the true devil he is! State something that is a half truth, for it makes it easier for listeners to mistake it for the whole truth!

Boxcar, take personally (and privately with my blessings) what you will from your bible, but don't interpret others through your own isolated prism!

You mean like Dager has because his views of early American religion help support his heresies? And you have from his prism! Are you not resourceful enough to present your own arguments? Are you sorely lacking in original thought, and so blinded by the facts that you wouldn't recognize an "orthodox Christian" if one had the phrase tatooed on his forehead?

Ciao,
Boxcar

[boxcar]

February 22, 1812

"The patriot who feels himself in the service of God, who acknowledges Him in all his ways, has the promise of Almighty direction, and will find His Word in his greatest darkness, a lantern to his feet and a lamp unto his paths.' He will therefore seek to establish for his country in the eyes of the world, such a character as shall make her not unworthy of the name of a Christian nation...."

Hey, EQ, in your ever-not-so-humble opinion, was this fella tuned into FM?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

(Architect of the U.S. Constitution & Co-Author of the Federalist Papers)

"...it is indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst (against) the incapicity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate."

I just found out recently that Congress has the authority to remove unrighteous (or if this term is too moralistic -- "incompetent") federal jurists from the bench. The 9th Circus comes immediately to mind.

From Madison's notes"

"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

"Religion [is] the basis and Foundation of Government."

"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage....Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe."

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

Sounds Christian to me...but who knows? Not enough here to reach a rock solid conclusion one way or the other.
But he doesn't sound like a deist. An FM? Who can say? (Oh, yeah...EQ!)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God."

Another one who believed that the education system had a moral duty ("should") teach the precepts of religion.

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."

Amazing how silent all the Gun-Control WhackJobs have been! I can't get a rise out of any of them.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

"To the kindly influence of Christianity, we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoy. In proportion, as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of the nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom and approximate the miseries of complete despotism." (1799)

Anyone know who this guy is? :)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

(He was elected as a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1774, and was a 30-year-old pastor who preached on the Christian's responsibility to be involved in securing freedom for America. He was the son of Henry Muhlenberg, one of the founders of the Lutheran Church in America.)

Quote:
In 1775, after preaching a message on Ecclesiastes 3:1, "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven," John Peter Muhlenberg closed his message by saying:

"In the language of the Holy Writ, there is a time for all things. There is a time to preach and a time to fight."
Unquote

The highlighted sentence isn't in Holy Writ...but this preacher's and future stateman's point is well taken, nonetheless. It is written that there is a "time for war and a time for peace". Obviously, he knew how to tell when the time had arrived for war.

The commentary continues:

He then threw off his robes to reveal the uniform of a soldier in the Revolutionary Army. That afternoon, at the head of 300 men, he marched off to join General Washington's troops, becoming Colonel of the 8th Virginia Regiment. He served until the end of the war being promoted to the rank of Major-general. In 1785 he became the Vice-President of Pennsylvania and in 1790 was a member ofthe Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention. He then served as a U.S. Congressman from Pennsylvania and in 1801 was elected to the U. S. Senate.

Boxcar

[Equineer]

Boxcar,

Let's take a serious timeout. I am beginning to think you have something at stake here besides harmless fun and intellectual jousting on the Internet.

It is evident that quotations from 18th century public figures are as rife with contradictions as the bible that you cherish.

Let's get down to where the rubber meets the road.

Do you actually believe in the biblical account of creation, the immaculate conception of Jesus, and the posthumous resurrection of Jesus?

And if you do, how do you reason that others should or must believe likewise?

Moreover, why do you care what anyone else believes beyond the bounds of non-mystical moral and ethical questions.

There is plenty of moral and ethical common ground among the world's leading philosophers, prophets, and theologians. Toss out the grave differences that have precipitated centuries of divisiveness, and you are still left with the basic tenets of good fellowship among men.

How does a fervent belief in biblical creationism, immaculate conception, or posthumous resurrection help bolster our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

You seem to endorse the concept that there really is a Chosen People or a Sacred Religion... but such ideas have always been the fuel for oppression, inequity, and conflict. Lay down your biblicist's scepter and begin to exalt rather than assault universal goodwill among men of all creeds. The last thing this world needs is more of the aggressive proselytizing that always divides rather than unites.

[Equineer]

Boxcar,

But let me thank you for the impetus to dig up a lot of stuff that I didn't know. After his bout with sex abuse allegations, I am almost embarrassed to acknowledge that Bill O'Reilly is a Freemason. :)

[boxcar]

Equineer wrote:

Boxcar,

But let me thank you for the impetus to dig up a lot of stuff that I didn't know. After his bout with sex abuse allegations, I am almost embarrassed to acknowledge that Bill O'Reilly is a Freemason. :)

I'll never understand meatheads like you! Why do you post such drivel? This is just another red herring that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Your only reason for posting this irrelevant garbage is to try to derail the real issue -- to distract from the topic at hand.

And for your info, O'Reilly has publicly claimed over the airwaves that he's a "Catholic". But whether he is this or not, or a FM, or a Deist, or Buddhist, or whatever -- I have long perceived from listening carefully to his views on religion and Christ that he probably does not hold to many if not most of the orthodox Christian tenets.

So...I must ask: SO WHAT? This trash you post has about as much to do with the topic at hand, as it does with the decision of the Oil Cartel this week to cut its daily production of oil by 1 million barrels.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Equineer writes:

Boxcar,

Let's take a serious timeout.

"Scuse me!? You want us to take a "serious timeout"? Why? Because you're overmatched? Because you're on the ropes? Because I've been demonstrating that your foolish, unfounded, unsubstantiaed statements in the "A Soldier Under Duress" thread to the effect that early America was essentially settled and founded by deists!? Well, sir...YOU take the time out, if you feeling a bit groggy at this point. As for me...I feel great, thank you.

I am beginning to think you have something at stake here besides harmless fun and intellectual jousting on the Internet.

Such a complaint reminds me of these questions by Jesus:

Luke 7:24-27
24 And when the messengers of John had left, He began to speak to the multitudes about John, "What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? 25 "But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are splendidly clothed and live in luxury are found in royal palaces. 26 "But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and one who is more than a prophet. 27 "This is the one about whom it is written,
NAS

So, now you're disappointed? Puzzled? Even a little surprised, perhaps? You expected to have some "harmless fun"? Engage in a little "intellectual jousting"?
Whatever you expected, it certainly wasn't any "serious"
refutation to your premise, was it? The only "serious" thing you want to do now is call a "timeout"!

It is evident that quotations from 18th century public figures are as rife with contradictions as the bible that you cherish.

Yeah.. I guess those early colonists were still living in the Dark Ages. That "great light" from the Age of Englightment never did get to shine on them, did it? They were all confused. All over the map. Very sad state of affairs for such "enlightened" deists.

Let's get down to where the rubber meets the road.

Do you actually believe in the biblical account of creation, the immaculate conception of Jesus, and the posthumous resurrection of Jesus?

Ahh...yes, the ol' "where the rubber meets the road" quiz.
Another red herring that has nothing to do with the immediate topic at hand.

And if you do, how do you reason that others should or must believe likewise?

Soo...lemmee see if I have this straight: You seriously believe that in a few hundred words or less (a few posts), somone would be able to defend and "prove" the validity of the Christian Faith in a forum like this? Your ignorance in such matters is nothing less than astounding! Do you not know that there are volumes of good works available to honest inquiring minds dealing with all manner of inquiries relative to Christian Apologetics? In fact, you don't even have to spend a lot of money on books. The WWW itself contains a wealth of information -- all free for the taking. And then, of course, there's always that resource called the Holy Bible. It's there for you to critically analyze, if you should choose.

But because I perceive that there's not an honest bone in your body, this proverb comes to mind, which is why I have answered in the aforementioned manner:

Prov 26:4-5
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest you also be like him.
5 Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
Lest he be wise in his own eyes.
NAS

Now, back to the topic of this thread...

What I will do, however, is what I promised earlier, i.e. address the objection you raised vis-a-vis the Treaty of Tripoli, which does not say what you would have us believe it does.

Are you prepared for more pummelling? (Have you considered taking some steroid shots injected straight into the brain? Perhaps such a treament would produce a few moments of coherent, reasoned, truthful responses? Maybe?)

So...let me get started 'cause I see that your soul brother 'Cap has posted a response on that other thread. I must try to make it over there today to see what mischief he has fabricated.

Boxcar

[ljb]

I am impressed with Boxcars ability to avoid answering any questions here. Sorta like a preacher I heard a few weeks back. If they don't agree with you, just close the door and shut them out.
Boxcar, the last time the christians ruled the world they called it the dark ages.

[boxcar]

This was one of several treaties negotiated with several Muslim nations during the Barbary Powers Conflict. These nations were Tunis, Tripoli, Turkey, Morocco and Algiers, and were warring against the "Christian" nations of England, France, Spain, Denmark and the U.S. (In fact, Tripoli actually declared war on the U.S. in 1801, despite the Treaty signed a few years earlier. This declaration of war made it the first international conflict for the U.S. as an independent nation. )

This Treaty, and others also, were negotiated very shortly after the Revolutionary War and were in effect from the presidency of Washington through that of our fourth president Madison.

These five Barbary Powers would often launch attacks on U.S. merchant ships and not only plundered our cargoes, but took American seamen captive, since the Muslims perceived that America was a "Christian" nation. These Barbary Powers attacked our ships and seamen out of retaliation for what had been done to them in previous centuries in the Crusades in Europe and the Middle East, for example.

Because our government (or more specifically president Wahsington) wanted to try to secure the release of our merchant seamen, the president sent envoys to the Middle East to negotiate treaties with these Muslim Nations. These envoys managed to negotiate several treaties known as Peace and Amity Treaties. The great object of these treaties was to get all the warring factions to officially recognize the religion of the other in hopes of preventing another all-out outbreak of "Holy Wars" between "Christians and Muslims".

Within this historical context, let us now examine carefully
the language in Article XI of the Tripoli Treaty:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

There is nothing difficult to understand in this language. The language unambiguosly states that the "government...is not in any sense founded (i.e. established) on the Christian religion"! The subject of this long sentence is government. The phrase "of the United States of America" is a qualifying phrase -- describing which or what "government".

The languge of this treaty is perfectly consistent with the First Amendment, i.e. "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion...". The language in the treaty is simply saying that there is no national religion, certainly not one called "Christian". There is no government-sanctioned religion -- no government-ordained religion, as there was, for example, in Europe during the Middle Ages. And this admission in no way contradicts numerous statemen's sentiments that America was a "Christian nation". (I would remind all thinking readers of what the Law of Noncontradictioin states!).

The fact that this treaty doesn't mention any other religon, save for the "Christian" one is very easy to understand against the historical backdrop. Christians and Muslims had been warring against one another for centuries. All the treaty was trying to do was assure the Barbary Powers, generally, but Tripoli, specifically, that the government of the U.S. isn't like the European goverments. The U.S. government didn't officially sanction the establishment of the "Christian' relgion, the way Europeans did.

Having looked at the specific Article in the Tripoli Treaty, Congress' words in their historical context:

"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams

The phrase "The United States" is simply referring to the goverment of the U.S. Again, this language is consistent with the language of the First Amendment, i.e. "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment..."

Let's see how our resident Spinmeister Spins his Tale.

Boxcar

[Equineer]

Boxcar,

For all intents and purposes, this thread was laid to rest when I offered you Dagar's explanation of your dilemma.

You scoffed because you had only that as your recourse.

Dagar's "A Masonic History of America" is an authoritative Christian source for information about America's Freemason heritage.

Your response was no surprise because Dagar provides orthodox Christians with more truth than most can bear with good grace.

Freemason George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States by Robert Livingston, Grand Master of New York's Masonic Lodge. The Bible on which he took his oath was from Washington's own Masonic lodge. What you seem to deduce from such events is that Freemasons must be orthodox Christians, which is simply not true, although many Masons would claim to be Christian Masons who recognize Christ as a moral beacon.

Freemasons will find both profound truths and incredible hogwash in the Bible (as well as in other religious scriptures). Because of this, as Dagar noted, you cannot apply orthodox biblical exegesis to the words of Freemasons: "Unless we recognize that the theosophical philosophy of Freemasonry attributes its own definitions to Biblical language, we won't understand the author's meaning."

The religious philosophy of Freemasonry embraces all religions as valid insofar as to be a Freemason, one must believe in a supreme being, but he need not be "your" Christian supreme being.

Here is common sense food for thought about our American heritage from a devout Christian author, Rick Miesal:

Think about the "Christian America" myth for a moment: If America was truly founded as an explicitly Christian nation (as is continually proclaimed by "Christian" activists such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy, Chuck Colson, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, Bill Gothard, etc.), then why do we find no mention whatsoever of Jesus Christ in America's founding documents? -- not in The Declaration of Independence nor in The Constitution of the United States! In fact, the Constitution does not even make a single reference to God! And the reference to God in The Declaration of Independence is merely "Nature's God," a God that is vague and subordinated to natural laws that everyone should know through common sense, i.e., "self-evident" truths. Moreover, the Bible is never mentioned nor alluded to in either document! Strange stuff for a nation that some like to say was founded as "Christian." But myths die hard, if ever.

Also note that Miesal's statement of faith is staunchly Christian:

We believe the Scriptures -- both the Old and New Testaments -- to be the verbally inspired Word of God, written by men in God's control, inerrant and infallible, in the whole and in the part, in all areas (including creation, science, geography, chronology, history, and in all other matters in which it speaks), in the original manuscripts, and the complete and final authority in faith and life. We accept the grammatical-historical-literal system of interpretation of the Scriptures, and accept the historical record of the Bible as accurate and adequate.

Neither Dagar nor Miesal attempt to obscure the truth about America's heritage by quilting together literal biblical scraps to make the ridiculous argument that America was founded to be a Christian nation. It is impossible to take you seriously when you offer only a biblical interpretation of America's founders and their intent.

Stop the Bible babble for a moment, and explain why any good purpose is served by characterizing America as a Christian nation instead of a secular nation which offers religious freedom to Christians.

[boxcar]

ljb quips:

I am impressed with Boxcars ability to avoid answering any questions here. Sorta like a preacher I heard a few weeks back. If they don't agree with you, just close the door and shut them out.

You're "impressed", but I'm entirely unimpressed with your lack of ability to keep your word. I'm unimpressed with your lack of truthfulness. Your lack of veracity. Your general lack of character.

Why did you return after promising us that you wouldn't?

Boxcar, the last time the christians ruled the world they called it the dark ages.

Brush up on your history. It was the apostate Roman Church who ruled the day during the Dark Ages. When did you drop out of school? During your tender sandbox st[age]s?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Equineer Our Resident Religious Bigot posts:

Boxcar,

Your views are pathetically narrow and biased! :(

Oh, yes...and you, conversely, are so "unbiased" and "open-minded", aren't you? In fact, your mind is so open that it resembles the large open spaces of a landfill. It's no wonder at all that all we can out of you is foul smelling garbage.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by ljb
I am impressed with Boxcars ability to avoid answering any questions here. Sorta like a preacher I heard a few weeks back. If they don't agree with you, just close the door and shut them out.
Boxcar, the last time the christians ruled the world they called it the dark ages.

Are you a bigot?

[boxcar]

Originally posted by Equineer
Boxcar,

For all intents and purposes, this thread was laid to rest when I offered you Dagar's explanation of your dilemma.

You scoffed because you had only that as your recourse.

Dagar's "A Masonic History of America" is an authoritative Christian source for information about America's Freemason heritage.

Your response was no surprise because Dagar provides orthodox Christians with more truth than most can bear with good grace.

Freemason George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States by Robert Livingston, Grand Master of New York's Masonic Lodge. The Bible on which he took his oath was from Washington's own Masonic lodge. What you seem to deduce from such events is that Freemasons must be orthodox Christians, which is simply not true, although many Masons would claim to be Christian Masons who recognize Christ as a moral beacon.

Freemasons will find both profound truths and incredible hogwash in the Bible (as well as in other religious scriptures). Because of this, as Dagar noted, you cannot apply orthodox biblical exegesis to the words of Freemasons: "Unless we recognize that the theosophical philosophy of Freemasonry attributes its own definitions to Biblical language, we won't understand the author's meaning."

The religious philosophy of Freemasonry embraces all religions as valid insofar as to be a Freemason, one must believe in a supreme being, but he need not be "your" Christian supreme being.

Here is common sense food for thought about our American heritage from a devout Christian author, Rick Miesal:

Think about the "Christian America" myth for a moment: If America was truly founded as an explicitly Christian nation (as is continually proclaimed by "Christian" activists such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy, Chuck Colson, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, Bill Gothard, etc.), then why do we find no mention whatsoever of Jesus Christ in America's founding documents? -- not in The Declaration of Independence nor in The Constitution of the United States! In fact, the Constitution does not even make a single reference to God! And the reference to God in The Declaration of Independence is merely "Nature's God," a God that is vague and subordinated to natural laws that everyone should know through common sense, i.e., "self-evident" truths. Moreover, the Bible is never mentioned nor alluded to in either document! Strange stuff for a nation that some like to say was founded as "Christian." But myths die hard, if ever.

Also note that Miesal's statement of faith is staunchly Christian:

We believe the Scriptures -- both the Old and New Testaments -- to be the verbally inspired Word of God, written by men in God's control, inerrant and infallible, in the whole and in the part, in all areas (including creation, science, geography, chronology, history, and in all other matters in which it speaks), in the original manuscripts, and the complete and final authority in faith and life. We accept the grammatical-historical-literal system of interpretation of the Scriptures, and accept the historical record of the Bible as accurate and adequate.

Neither Dagar nor Miesal attempt to obscure the truth about America's heritage by quilting together literal biblical scraps to make the ridiculous argument that America was founded to be a Christian nation. It is impossible to take you seriously when you offer only a biblical interpretation of America's founders and their intent.

Stop the Bible babble for a moment, and explain why any good purpose is served by characterizing America as a Christian nation instead of a secular nation which offers religious freedom to Christians.

[ljb]

Boxcar,
Please show me where I said I was leaving never to return. Or Apoligise for calling me a liar.

[boxcar]

Our Resident Religious Bigot Writes:

For all intents and purposes, this thread was laid to rest when I offered you Dagar's explanation of your dilemma.

What unmitigated arrogance! What self-conceit! Only in your warped mind did you lay to rest this thread! This thread, like all others, will naturally extinquish itself -- not because you think your word is final and authoritative.

You scoffed because you had only that as your recourse.

Dagar's "A Masonic History of America" is an authoritative Christian source for information about America's Freemason heritage.

Your response was no surprise because Dagar provides orthodox Christians with more truth than most can bear with good grace.

Tell us, Bigot, when did you become such an authority on religion -- or, even more narrowly, the Christian religion? He's a "Christian source"? How do you know he's a Christian? Merely because he has attached the label
"Christian" to himself? How do you know he's not a bonafide heretic? Tell us, Mr. Bigot, how many hours a day or week do you spend reading and studying the bible? Oh...did I hear "none"? So, then, on what basis are you in any position to judge anyone's spirituality? On what authority? On your mere say-so...because you dug up someone who happens to share your views?

Well, what about all the professing Christians who don't share your views? Why do you go to the trouble to dig up stuff written by professing Christians who agree with your viewpoint? What does this prove? All it proves, meathead, is that not all professing Christians see eye-to-eye, the same way not all Repubs agree among themselves, or even all Dems.

Freemason George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States by Robert Livingston, Grand Master of New York's Masonic Lodge. The Bible on which he took his oath was from Washington's own Masonic lodge. What you seem to deduce from such events is that Freemasons must be orthodox Christians, which is simply not true, although many Masons would claim to be Christian Masons who recognize Christ as a moral beacon

I believe no such thing! FMy is thoroughly heretical. However, you can keep telling us to the cows come home that this FF was a FM, and this one was, and another one was, too -- but until you can substantiate such claims (from historical documents, for example), apart from looking into someone else's marred prism from their biased persepctives, then all such claims are merely spurious in nature.

Try advancing your arguments or premises apart from employing circular reason, i.e. something is "x", therefore it's "x". Otherwise, you will lose what little remaining credibility you may have with most of us here.

Here is common sense food for thought about our American heritage from a devout Christian author, Rick Miesal:

Looking into someone else's marred prism again, eh? Your theories are so wretchedly imporverished, you have to rely on quesionable, biased third-party sources. You are so pathetic.

Miesal:

Think about the "Christian America" myth for a moment: If America was truly founded as an explicitly Christian nation (as is continually proclaimed by "Christian" activists such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy, Chuck Colson, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, Bill Gothard, etc.), then why do we find no mention whatsoever of Jesus Christ in America's founding documents? -- not in The Declaration of Independence nor in The Constitution of the United States!

Whatever else this professing Christian is, I can tell you that such stupid question indicates this guy is probably a bit light in the ol' loafs (and I'll give another reason later for thinking this). And, for that matter, so are you for even presenting such a question! (Talk about blind guides leading the blind!)

The answer to this question can be found in my Tripoli Treaty post, so I'm not going to repeat myself here. Such a foolish question surely betrays Miesal's ignorance (and yours!) of the historical period out of which the early colonists came here to settle. Tell me, EQ: What part of this statement don't you understand?:

That due to the religous-political climate in Europe, the colonists, FF and early statemen who came to settle here rejected any idea of founding a church-state. What's so difficult in understanding this? But...having just said this, does this also mean that America wasn't primarily a "religious nation"? If you answer, "No", then it follows logically that this nation could basically be called and considered "Chrisitian" in another sense -- in a sense other than a political one -- in a sense other than a state-sanctioned or state-sponsored religion.

Also note that Miesal's statement of faith is staunchly Christian:

You're a joke! Doesn't take much to mislead the naieve or simple-minded, does it?

Also, meathead, there isn't enough data in the statement you posted to tell if his "faith is staunchly Christian".

Miesal:

We believe the Scriptures -- both the Old and New Testaments -- to be the verbally inspired Word of God, written by men in God's control, inerrant and infallible, in the whole and in the part, in all areas (including creation, science, geography, chronology, history, and in all other matters in which it speaks), in the original manuscripts, and the complete and final authority in faith and life. We accept the grammatical-historical-literal system of interpretation of the Scriptures, and accept the historical record of the Bible as accurate and adequate.

Being that this fella explictily states what kind of hermenutic his sect, church, cult, group or whatever subscribes to, we know immediately that this must be a very important part of their creed. As stated to 'Cap a few weeks ago, any extreme hermenutical system (whether it be on the literal side or the allegorical) tends to lead its ahderents into serious error.

Without researching this guy (who I have never heard of, btw), I'd say chances are good that he is probably a Hyper- Dispensationalist. Dispensationalism itself is an extreme form of Historical Premillenialism in the branch of theology known as Eschatology. Therefore, Hyper-Dispensationialism is totally off the map and fraught with numerous theological and doctrinal pitfalls.

Again, I don't know if this guy subscribes to Dispensationalism, but all Dispensationalits I know of personally and have read are "literalists". At any rate..."literalists" tend to take a very simplistic and narrow approach to interpretation, which is why I think this guy is probably not playing with a full deck.

Dagar, incidentially, swings the other way. He allegorizes large portions of scripture. This guy have very large Eschatological axe to grind, as probably does Miesal. A "Christian America" simply doesn't fit into their peculiar understanding of the Kingdom teachings in scripture.

Neither Dagar nor Miesal attempt to obscure the truth about America's heritage by quilting together literal biblical scraps to make the ridiculous argument that America was founded to be a Christian nation. It is impossible to take you seriously when you offer only a biblical interpretation of America's founders and their intent

"Biblical interpretation"!? Are you on drugs? The bible doesn't say a thing explicitly about America. So how can I offer you a "biblical interpretation" of what America is about? What I have offered, however, is quite a bit of evidence(with more to follow, I might add) in terms of direct quotes from FF, and early statemen and other prominent Americans who settled here.

Stop the Bible babble for a moment, and explain why any good purpose is served by characterizing America as a Christian nation instead of a secular nation which offers religious freedom to Christians.

When are you going to get around to yanking that head of yours out of your rear end? Talk about someone living in the "Dark Ages"! Liberals and Human Secularists are doing all they can do to drive the "Christian right" underground -- even more than this out of the American consciousness! The ACLU and their ilk are anything but tolerant.

Finally, if you want to get a sense of why I think it's important that the truth be known, go back and read what some of the FF thought about Chrisitanity and tolerance.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Boxcar,
Please show me where I said I was leaving never to return. Or Apoligise for calling me a liar.


You told ME that. PA posted the link in another thread.
Now, apologize to Boxcar. Then go away. But answer PA's questio first. Are you a bigot?

[bettheoverlay]

So much Christian love being expressed in this pissing thread. "Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit the earth"

And the last time I spoke to Jesus, he told me I better stop this sinful gambling on horse races, or I might end up in Hell with a bunch of colonial Deists.

[RXB]

Reading this thread reminds me why religion alternately/concurrently baffles me, scares me, and makes me want to vomit. I feel stupid just for having scanned it.

If that gets me labelled an anti-religious bigot, too-- well, I figure that I could be called a whole lot worse.

Sincerely,

The Happy Agnostic (Bigot?)

"I bear no sick words, junk words, love words, or give words from Jesus"

[PaceAdvantage]

LJB's post two back struck me as a bit bigoted against Christians. I'm just asking if my interpretation was correct.

Sorry if that offended you. The world is indeed a baffling place, and it is becoming more so with each passing second.

[boxcar]

I would give worlds, if I had them, if The Age of Reason had never been published. O Lord, help! Stay with me! It is hell to be left alone.

Recently I alluded to this quote -- no doubt words uttered late in his life. In think in thesecond sentence, Paine is reflecting on all the controversey and all the influential detractors' harsh criticisms his work elicited.

I know I have some of those criticisms around here somewhere. Hopefully, I'll find them and post them when I do.

I die in perfect composure and resignation to the will of my Creator, God.

Gotta wonder how this radical deist knew what "the will...of.. God" was, apart from God's Special Revelation (bible).

Boxcar

[boxcar]

(Founder of Pennsylvania)

If thou wouldst rule well, thou must rule for God, and to do that, thou must be ruled by him....Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.

This fella doesn't sound very deistic either. In deism, God doesn't rule over anything.

If the godless Secular Humanists have their way, and eventually remove God from the American consciiousness, we now know to what we can look forward -- the rule of tyrants!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

By removing the Bible from schools we would be wasting so much time and money in punishing criminals and so little pains to prevent crime. Take the Bible out of our schools and there would be an explosion in crime.

Now this fella seemed to have it all together. Put the bibles in schools to keep people out of prisons!

I have alternately been called an Aristocrat and a Democrat. I am neither. I am a Christocrat.

My God, my God...where is a God-fearin' Christocrat when you need one?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

George Washington

The thing that separates the American Christian from every other person on earth is the fact that he would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees

Whatever else George might have been, he certainly wasn't a pacifist!

From Washington's First Inaugural address:

The General orders this day to be religiously observed by the forces under his Command, exactly in manner directed by the Continental Congress. It is therefore strictly enjoined on all officers and soldiers to attend Divine service, And it is expected that all those who go to worship do take their arms, ammunition and accoutrements, and are prepared for immediate action, if called upon.

I think I would have enjoyed serving under this guy -- even if he was an FM, which EQ hasn't proven to us, yet.

The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them.

Hey, 'Cap, are you out there? I gotta ask ya...what if we were faced today with very similar circumstances, and you had to make the kinds of choices the good General mentions. How would you choose? Freemen or slaves?
Ownership of property or the destruction of it? How would you choose?

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion.

One thing is fer certain...the General was a religious man.

To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian.

And he seemed to have subscribed to at least some form of the "Christian" religion. Certainly not Buddhism, or Izzlaam, or whatever.

In his Inaugural Speech, April 30, 1789,

...it would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes...."

Certainly doesn't sound like he was a deist, does it?

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States.

Say what? Conducts the affairs of men...!?

October 3, 1789, National Day of Thanksgiving

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor....

He believed in prayer. Why would a deist pray to disinterested god who is out in the cosmos somewhere chasing the skirts of beautiful goddesses? Who could care less about his creation?

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the twenty-sixth day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these United States...

"that we then may all unite unto him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection ofthe people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war;

More prayer...

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions...to promote the knowledge and practice of the true religion and virtue....

"Lord and Ruler of Nations"!? Methinks we can rule deism out.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3rd of October, A.D. 1789"

George Washington's personal prayer book, consisting of 24 pages in his field notebook, written in his own handwriting, reveal the depth of his character:

[b]SUNDAY MORNING....Almighty God, and most merciful Father, who didst command the children of Israel to offer a daily sacrifice to Thee, that thereby they might glorify and praise Thee for Thy protection both night and day, receive O Lord, my morning sacrifice which I now offer up to thee;

And he knew his bible too! Good grief...he even took the portion of it to which he alluded -- literally! Horror of Horrors!

The prayer continues:

I yield Thee humble and hearty thanks, that Thou hast preserved me from the dangers of the night past and brought me to the Light of this day, and the comfort thereof, a day which is consecrated to Thine own service and for Thine own honour

Thanks God again? Why would a deist do that? Prayer is pointless in deism.

Let my heart therefore gracious God be so affected with the glory and majesty of it, that I may not do mine own works but wait on Thee, and discharge those weighty duties Thou required of me: and since Thou art a God of pure eyes, and will be sanctified in all who draw nearer to Thee, who dost not regard the sacrifice of fools, nor hear sinners who tread in Thy courts, pardon I beseech Thee, my sins, remove them from Thy presence, as far as the east is from the west, and accept of me for the merits of Thy son Jesus Christ, that when I come into Thy temple and compass Thine altar, my prayer may come before Thee as incense, and as I desire Thou wouldst hear me calling upon Thee in my prayers, so give me peace to hear the calling on me in Thy word, that it may be wisdom, righteousness, reconciliation and peace to the saving of my soul in the day ofthe Lord Jesus.

This portion of his prayer is amazing! It is such a heart-felt prayer, and if it was prayed aloud in an assembly, it must have been very edifying. The reason I say ithis is that so many phrases in it are alluding to biblical passages. In other words, it wasn't a shallow, superficial prayer. It was thoroughly biblical! When a person prays like this, you know his mind and heart and soul is filled up and overflowing with God's Word.

Grant that I may hear it with reverence, receive it with meekness, mingle it with faith, and that it may accomplish in me gracious God, the good work for which Thou hast sent it.

"Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God and guide this day and forever for His sake, who lay down in the grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen

And there's every reason to believe he believed in the resurrection of Christ! Wow! The ol' General must have been one of those "wingnut literalists"!

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.

It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe, without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme Being.

Of all the dispositions and habits 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 of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens

Any doubt that George had a very high view of God and the Bible?

End of prayer.

Washington proclaimed firearms to be "the people's liberty teeth

A man after me own heart!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I managed to find this letter from Ben Franklin, who critiicized Paine for his heretical theories regarding "particular Providence". Many of you might recall that our resident Wannabe-Expert-On-Everything-Under-The Sun claimed that Franklin himself was a deist. This post plus what I posted earlier about Franklin should allay all doubts forever.

Boxcar

*****************************************

TO THOMAS PAINE.
[Date uncertain.]

DEAR SIR,
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.

But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it? I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,
B. Franklin

[boxcar]

"The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.”

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Sam stiffly rebukes Paine:


“[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.” 3

Did everyone catch this last part: "of so great a part of the citizens of the United States"?

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

If I am a believer in Shinto or Zoriastorism...what does it matter?? Free countrty is it not?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by boxcar
I managed to find this letter from Ben Franklin, who critiicized Paine for his heretical theories regarding "particular Providence". Many of you might recall that our resident Wannabe-Expert-On-Everything-Under-The Sun claimed that Franklin himself was a deist. This post plus what I posted earlier about Franklin should allay all doubts forever.

Boxcar



Box,

Just got back. But if you want to quote Ben Franklin on Deism you really should quote his own words from his autobiography.

"I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism
fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons
preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought
an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them;
for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted,
appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short,
I soon became a thorough Deist."

- Ben Franklin.

I don't know how much clearer it can get.

[RXB]

A 2000-year-old collection of legends, tall tales and loose historical memoirs, treated as if it were the perfectly assembled, direct words of some divine creator. I always wonder about us humans, but sometimes I REALLY REALLY wonder.

***********************************

"The sermon makes a lot more sense if you're stoned."

[Tom]

Ben Franklin...wasn't he the guy who flew a kite in a lightening storm? :confused: