Evangelicals and Trump

[PoliticalChic]

In the final analysis it matters not if some people call America a Christian Nation. What I want to know is if Jesus thinks America is a Christian Nation.

America was not founded to be a Christian only nation.
It was never meant to be a theocracy.

But it was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible....which was the single most quoted document by the Founders, and points to Jesus Christ in the text of the Constitution. Segments of our founding documents come directly from the Bible.


That religion and that book were always seen as the guidance that would form the basis of our morality.

It is the neo-Marxist influence of government school that has corrupted your view and deprived you of the truth. I doubt you will ever recover from said intellectual abuse.



And, of course, it is true.

Still didn't answer my question. I'll rephrase it. How does Jesus feel when people attach His Name to an earthly political entity? No one besides me bothered to see what He had to say about His followers wielding worldly political power, and I'd have to say He considers it to be blasphemous.

Political?


There are two political entities in this nation.

Your job is to decide which is closer to the morality of the Bible, the basis for Western Civilization.

That's the answer to your question.

My point is that a Christian America means as much to Him as a Hindu India, Buddhist Thailand, Muslim Saudi Arabia or an Atheist China. I doubt you're scoring any points with Him with your Christian America.

I've seen your posts.

With minimal effort, you've become our best source of greenhouse gases.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

. I doubt you're scoring any points with Him with your Christian America.

I doubt ding @PoliticalChicb and Correll will bother to read this but it explains the fallacies of their ways. There was evidently at least a decent sized majority of the founders that saw Christianity, in any state of “organized” sense, was not morally worthy of influencing the new Republic on its way to breaking ground with the new concept of religious freedom and even freedom from religion if so chosen by a free individual. Religious volunteerism.



Leaving Christendom Behind: The Historiographic Roots of American Religious Freedom
Responding to: Religious Freedom Research Project Summer 2017 Fellowship Reports
By: Paul Gutacker
July 21, 2017

In his famous 1785 petition, Memorial and Remonstrance, James Madison argued against a proposed law in Virginia that would fund preachers with tax assessments. As part of his extended case for disestablishment, the statesman turned to history, arguing that “ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.” Madison encouraged readers to look to the past and trace what “almost fifteen centuries” of religious establishment had produced in the Christian church: “pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” He concluded that theologians of every Christian denomination were in agreement on one point: the Christian faith “appeared in its greatest lustre” in the primitive age before it was joined to the state.
Madison’s appeal to the Christian past hints at a previously unnoticed element of American disestablishment. While scholars have traced disestablishment to Lockean liberalism, republican ideology, and the experience of religious dissenters, the literature has neglected church history as a key source for American religious freedom. However, as my research for the Religious Freedom Research Project’s summer fellowship finds, eighteenth-century Protestant accounts of the history of Christianity contributed to revolutionary era debates over religious disestablishment. The historiography prescribed in American seminaries and colleges—especially the accounts written by Johann Lorenz von Mosheim, David Hume, Edward Gibbon, and Joseph Priestley—also enjoyed a reputation among the statesmen who advocated for disestablishment. While these widely-read accounts varied in their historical and theological interpretations of the Christian past, they agreed on several points crucial for the debate over religious establishment: first, these historians all argued that a “pure” primitive Christianity was corrupted by the post-Constantinian alliance between civil and ecclesiastical power; and second, they narrated the subsequent history of this alliance in Christendom as producing false religion, intolerance, and violent persecution.
The importance of these narratives for American disestablishment is evidenced by the ways in which leading advocates for religious freedom recommended these historical works and reproduced their interpretations of church history. Thomas Jefferson, for example, repeatedly recommended the reading of Mosheim, Hume, Gibbon, and Priestley, while James Madison selected these historians for inclusion in the Congressional Library. When Jefferson and Madison wrote against established religion in the 1780s, they frequently invoked the narratives embedded in this historiography, as evidenced in Madison’s 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance. Not only statesmen, but also ministers used church history to demonstrate the evils of religious establishment. Sermons by William Tennent, John Leland, Isaac Backus, and other revolutionary era ministers trumpeted the corruption and coercion that resulted from Constantine’s conversion and the subsequent alliance between church and state. In other words, church history provided a crucial point of congruence between religious dissenters and political leaders who otherwise did not share their evangelical theology. The compelling historical narrative that the Baptists shared with Jefferson and Madison strengthened their cooperation against religious establishment.
Further, during the early decades of the nineteenth century, as the disestablishment of state churches continued, church history continued to play an important role in denominational competition. In Massachusetts, for example, Baptists and Congregationalists exchanged sermons and published treatises claiming each to be the inheritors of early Christian practice. Dozens of Baptist publications reproduced sections of Gibbon, Hume, and Mosheim, arguing that the established Congregational church continued the corrupt and oppressive legacy of post-Constantinian Christianity (or, rather, “antichristianity”). Massachusetts’ Congregational ministers responded with their own historical arguments, citing the church fathers, asserting their own apostolic pedigree, and seeking to discredit Baptists’ reading of Christian history. Other inter-denominational arguments in the early republic—over church polity, Trinitarian theology, Calvinism, Restorationism, and more—saw American Protestants arguing over the meaning of the Christian past. As disestablishment continued and Americans began to negotiate the religious free market, they found tradition and historical precedent all the more useful in justifying their own denominational particularity.
Historical discourse surrounding religious freedom, in sum, shows that leading eighteenth-century historical narratives contributed to the separation of church and state in America. The most cutting-edge historiography presented the Christian past as a story of decline from primitive purity into medieval intolerance, violence, and superstition, and blamed this largely, if not exclusively, on religious establishment. These accounts of Christian history that predominated in the early republic, in other words, funded the American experiment in religious voluntarism.

Here is what Madison thought about PoliticalChic ‘s high Bible induced morals

From “almost fifteen centuries” of religious establishment.....

Madison, not me Biblical religious establishment, had produced in the Christian church: “pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”


PC Needs To cut the bullshit with her high Christian moral ground and specifically when it relates to what the men of our founding believed.

I suspect Madison reading her religious verses today woukd lump her in with that ignorance and servility in the laity mob

 

[ding]

. I doubt you're scoring any points with Him with your Christian America.

I doubt ding @PoliticalChicb and Correll will bother to read this but for it explains the fallacies if their ways because there was evidently at least a decent sized majority of the founders that Christianity in any state or organized sense was not morally worthy of influencing the new Republic on its way to breaking ground with the new concept of religious freedom and even freedom from religion if so chosen by a free individual.



Leaving Christendom Behind: The Historiographic Roots of American Religious Freedom
Responding to: Religious Freedom Research Project Summer 2017 Fellowship Reports
By: Paul Gutacker
July 21, 2017

In his famous 1785 petition, Memorial and Remonstrance, James Madison argued against a proposed law in Virginia that would fund preachers with tax assessments. As part of his extended case for disestablishment, the statesman turned to history, arguing that “ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.” Madison encouraged readers to look to the past and trace what “almost fifteen centuries” of religious establishment had produced in the Christian church: “pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” He concluded that theologians of every Christian denomination were in agreement on one point: the Christian faith “appeared in its greatest lustre” in the primitive age before it was joined to the state.
Madison’s appeal to the Christian past hints at a previously unnoticed element of American disestablishment. While scholars have traced disestablishment to Lockean liberalism, republican ideology, and the experience of religious dissenters, the literature has neglected church history as a key source for American religious freedom. However, as my research for the Religious Freedom Research Project’s summer fellowship finds, eighteenth-century Protestant accounts of the history of Christianity contributed to revolutionary era debates over religious disestablishment. The historiography prescribed in American seminaries and colleges—especially the accounts written by Johann Lorenz von Mosheim, David Hume, Edward Gibbon, and Joseph Priestley—also enjoyed a reputation among the statesmen who advocated for disestablishment. While these widely-read accounts varied in their historical and theological interpretations of the Christian past, they agreed on several points crucial for the debate over religious establishment: first, these historians all argued that a “pure” primitive Christianity was corrupted by the post-Constantinian alliance between civil and ecclesiastical power; and second, they narrated the subsequent history of this alliance in Christendom as producing false religion, intolerance, and violent persecution.
The importance of these narratives for American disestablishment is evidenced by the ways in which leading advocates for religious freedom recommended these historical works and reproduced their interpretations of church history. Thomas Jefferson, for example, repeatedly recommended the reading of Mosheim, Hume, Gibbon, and Priestley, while James Madison selected these historians for inclusion in the Congressional Library. When Jefferson and Madison wrote against established religion in the 1780s, they frequently invoked the narratives embedded in this historiography, as evidenced in Madison’s 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance. Not only statesmen, but also ministers used church history to demonstrate the evils of religious establishment. Sermons by William Tennent, John Leland, Isaac Backus, and other revolutionary era ministers trumpeted the corruption and coercion that resulted from Constantine’s conversion and the subsequent alliance between church and state. In other words, church history provided a crucial point of congruence between religious dissenters and political leaders who otherwise did not share their evangelical theology. The compelling historical narrative that the Baptists shared with Jefferson and Madison strengthened their cooperation against religious establishment.
Further, during the early decades of the nineteenth century, as the disestablishment of state churches continued, church history continued to play an important role in denominational competition. In Massachusetts, for example, Baptists and Congregationalists exchanged sermons and published treatises claiming each to be the inheritors of early Christian practice. Dozens of Baptist publications reproduced sections of Gibbon, Hume, and Mosheim, arguing that the established Congregational church continued the corrupt and oppressive legacy of post-Constantinian Christianity (or, rather, “antichristianity”). Massachusetts’ Congregational ministers responded with their own historical arguments, citing the church fathers, asserting their own apostolic pedigree, and seeking to discredit Baptists’ reading of Christian history. Other inter-denominational arguments in the early republic—over church polity, Trinitarian theology, Calvinism, Restorationism, and more—saw American Protestants arguing over the meaning of the Christian past. As disestablishment continued and Americans began to negotiate the religious free market, they found tradition and historical precedent all the more useful in justifying their own denominational particularity.
Historical discourse surrounding religious freedom, in sum, shows that leading eighteenth-century historical narratives contributed to the separation of church and state in America. The most cutting-edge historiography presented the Christian past as a story of decline from primitive purity into medieval intolerance, violence, and superstition, and blamed this largely, if not exclusively, on religious establishment. These accounts of Christian history that predominated in the early republic, in other words, funded the American experiment in religious voluntarism.

Here is what Madison thought about PoliticalChic ‘s high Bible induced morals

From “almost fifteen centuries” of religious establishment.....

Madison, not me Biblical religious establishment, had produced in the Christian church: “pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”


PC Needs To cut the bullshit with her high Christian moral ground and specifically when it relates to what the men of our founding believed.

I suspect Madison reading her religious verses today woukd lump her in with that ignorance and servility in the laity mob

What are my beliefs that are wrong?

 

[Correll]

#612 reply to #609

The question of intent of the men who founded this nation, over two hundred years ago, is not relevant to any current day issues, and does not infringe on anyone's religious freedoms.

Who were the men that founded America based upon the principle of religious freedom? Did they or did they not put their Intent in writing in a document called the Constitution?

You have decided, based on nothing written in the Constitution by those men, to declare a universal truth of your own making that those original writers of the Constitution founded a Christian Nation.

And now you tell us in Post #609 that “The question of intent of the men who founded this nation, over two hundred years ago, is not relevant to any current day issues”. Yes, you just write that.

Where did you get the universal truth that America was founded as a Christian Nation? Do you have Divine Inspiration?

There is no conflict between religious freedom and being a Christian nation.

.

There is no conflict between religious freedom and being a Christian nation.

.
you are a fraud ...
.
"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." 2 John 1:9-11
.
the christian bible is a book of forgeries and fallacies, deliberately written to insure loyalty or the wrath the religion legitimizes against any that do not adhere to its corrupted teachings. the roman empire. coral - chick - chemical - the crucifiers.

You did not make a point. YOu cited a bible verse and then attacked your own source.

What is your mental health diagnosis?

.

You did not make a point. YOu cited a bible verse and then attacked your own source.

What is your mental health diagnosis?

.
there is no source for the christian bible -

that is the point, correll your salivating over the verse must have excited your senses ...

I was clearly discussing how YOU used the bible as a source. The bible certainly exists and you did just use it as a source.


To make that little jab of a "point", you had to pretend to be really, really stupid.


That is all you did there. Was pretend to be stupid.


My point stand. You have not actually made any points, other than to play stupid, to make little jabs at people you hate.


What is your position relevant to the topic.


Two sentences, and without any bullshit.


So, we have a chance at least, of understand what the fuck you are trying to say, if anything.

.

There is no conflict between religious freedom and being a Christian nation.

"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." 2 John 1:9-11

.

My point stand. You have not actually made any points, other than to play stupid, to make little jabs at people you hate.

.
you are still drunk reading one of your madeup verses ...

that verse among many other forgeries in your christian bible is the very reason this country was founded as a secular nation under its constitution as best could be accomplished at the time period it was written.

a forgery as no such verse would have been spoken in the 1st century as contrary to the very events taking place of liberation theology from political / religious suppression that verse represents and the form of argument exercised by 4th century christianity - correll.

I have no idea what point you are even trying to make. I think your thinking is disorganized, on a literally mental health issue level.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What are my beliefs that are wrong?

Just one that culminates in this statement. . That America was founded as a Christian Nation.

 

[Correll]

#639 reply to #597

YOU ARE LYING, when you pretend to think I am denying the existence of non-Christians or non-protestants, among the Founders.

Here is the path brings you to your Post #597 Lie that I pretend that you denying the existence of non-Christians or non-protestants, among the Founders.

In Post #597 you wrote that I ‘invented’ the difference between us.

#597

1. My claim is not "false", the difference between us is one you invented based on semantics, so that you have an excuse to attack me and others like me.

So I asked you to choose (A) or (B) in Post #601:

#601

Was America founded by (A) Christian white men or was it founded by (B)Christian, Deist and Unitarian white men.

Please answer (A) or (B).

So why not just answer (A) or (B) so this can be settled since the Constitution forbade all who followed the founders to establish any religion which includes forbidding establishing Christianity as the Nation’s religion.

Yet you continue to demand with an attitude that all other non-Christisns bow down to your and accept that we are lucky that Christians let us live in their Christian Nation that was founded as a Christian Nation over two centuries ago.

Because I am not going treat you like a moron who does not understand how generalizations work.


you are not retarded, you are just playing retarded to gin up a justification to attack Christians, to give a thin veneer of justification to your anti-Christian bigotry.

 

[ding]

What are my beliefs that are wrong?

Just one that culminates in this statement. . That America was founded as a Christian Nation.

And what did I tell you that means to me?

 

[ding]

 

[Bezukhov]

In the final analysis it matters not if some people call America a Christian Nation. What I want to know is if Jesus thinks America is a Christian Nation.

America was not founded to be a Christian only nation.
It was never meant to be a theocracy.

But it was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible....which was the single most quoted document by the Founders, and points to Jesus Christ in the text of the Constitution. Segments of our founding documents come directly from the Bible.


That religion and that book were always seen as the guidance that would form the basis of our morality.

It is the neo-Marxist influence of government school that has corrupted your view and deprived you of the truth. I doubt you will ever recover from said intellectual abuse.



And, of course, it is true.

Still didn't answer my question. I'll rephrase it. How does Jesus feel when people attach His Name to an earthly political entity? No one besides me bothered to see what He had to say about His followers wielding worldly political power, and I'd have to say He considers it to be blasphemous.

Political?


There are two political entities in this nation.

Your job is to decide which is closer to the morality of the Bible, the basis for Western Civilization.

That's the answer to your question.

My point is that a Christian America means as much to Him as a Hindu India, Buddhist Thailand, Muslim Saudi Arabia or an Atheist China. I doubt you're scoring any points with Him with your Christian America.

I've seen your posts.

With minimal effort, you've become our best source of greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gases? Because I'm wondering what Jesus is thinking when humans put His name and faith to worldly political units, like some sort of advertising slogan? Or inferring that they have His blessing and endorsement?

And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Daniel 2:44)

Again, it doesn't say "Except for America!"

 

[BreezeWood]

#612 reply to #609

The question of intent of the men who founded this nation, over two hundred years ago, is not relevant to any current day issues, and does not infringe on anyone's religious freedoms.

Who were the men that founded America based upon the principle of religious freedom? Did they or did they not put their Intent in writing in a document called the Constitution?

You have decided, based on nothing written in the Constitution by those men, to declare a universal truth of your own making that those original writers of the Constitution founded a Christian Nation.

And now you tell us in Post #609 that “The question of intent of the men who founded this nation, over two hundred years ago, is not relevant to any current day issues”. Yes, you just write that.

Where did you get the universal truth that America was founded as a Christian Nation? Do you have Divine Inspiration?

There is no conflict between religious freedom and being a Christian nation.

.

There is no conflict between religious freedom and being a Christian nation.

.
you are a fraud ...
.
"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." 2 John 1:9-11
.
the christian bible is a book of forgeries and fallacies, deliberately written to insure loyalty or the wrath the religion legitimizes against any that do not adhere to its corrupted teachings. the roman empire. coral - chick - chemical - the crucifiers.

You did not make a point. YOu cited a bible verse and then attacked your own source.

What is your mental health diagnosis?

.

You did not make a point. YOu cited a bible verse and then attacked your own source.

What is your mental health diagnosis?

.
there is no source for the christian bible -

that is the point, correll your salivating over the verse must have excited your senses ...

I was clearly discussing how YOU used the bible as a source. The bible certainly exists and you did just use it as a source.


To make that little jab of a "point", you had to pretend to be really, really stupid.


That is all you did there. Was pretend to be stupid.


My point stand. You have not actually made any points, other than to play stupid, to make little jabs at people you hate.


What is your position relevant to the topic.


Two sentences, and without any bullshit.


So, we have a chance at least, of understand what the fuck you are trying to say, if anything.

.

There is no conflict between religious freedom and being a Christian nation.

"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." 2 John 1:9-11

.

My point stand. You have not actually made any points, other than to play stupid, to make little jabs at people you hate.

.
you are still drunk reading one of your madeup verses ...

that verse among many other forgeries in your christian bible is the very reason this country was founded as a secular nation under its constitution as best could be accomplished at the time period it was written.

a forgery as no such verse would have been spoken in the 1st century as contrary to the very events taking place of liberation theology from political / religious suppression that verse represents and the form of argument exercised by 4th century christianity - correll.

I have no idea what point you are even trying to make. I think your thinking is disorganized, on a literally mental health issue level.

.

I have no idea what point you are even trying to make. I think your thinking is disorganized, on a literally mental health issue level.

.
I'll give you a second chance why christianity was purposely prevented a role in the u s constitution ... exp.
.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

.
the christian bible written in the 4th century has no bearing on the true events of the 1st century and is rather a draconian political document disguised as a religion as proven by the above forgery instilling servitude over freedom. the very opposite the foundation of this country was established and the reason for its secular heritage.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

# reply to #

And what did I tell you that means to me?

I’m not looking for what lying and ignoring facts means to you. More interested in an explanation why America, having been founded on crucial ideas and principles not found in the Christian Bible and religion, and founded by men who were Christians alongside men who were not Christians, and founded by religious men on record being opposed to establishing a national religion, we must not accept the white evangelical Christian demands to accept their illusion the Anerica was founded as a Christian nation.

Youve never answered that question. Year of our Lord doesn’t count. That is not a Biblical or governing principle anything more than the date the Constitution was signed by Deists, Unitarians and Protestants.

 

[zaangalewa]

Trump has shown some amazing things about religion in America ...

Thats true. Even for an atheist his knowledge about religion - specially about the Christian rebound in god - is extremely low. But when he used tear gas to get a free way to be able to fight with a bible in the hand for a civil war in the United States - then he looked indeed like a Mephistophilis - like a "mefir" (destroyer) and "tophel" (liar). Could be interesting to hear what Gulliver would report about the very special self-made conflicts within the United States of Liliput.

 

[Correll]

#612 reply to #609

The question of intent of the men who founded this nation, over two hundred years ago, is not relevant to any current day issues, and does not infringe on anyone's religious freedoms.

Who were the men that founded America based upon the principle of religious freedom? Did they or did they not put their Intent in writing in a document called the Constitution?

You have decided, based on nothing written in the Constitution by those men, to declare a universal truth of your own making that those original writers of the Constitution founded a Christian Nation.

And now you tell us in Post #609 that “The question of intent of the men who founded this nation, over two hundred years ago, is not relevant to any current day issues”. Yes, you just write that.

Where did you get the universal truth that America was founded as a Christian Nation? Do you have Divine Inspiration?

There is no conflict between religious freedom and being a Christian nation.

.

There is no conflict between religious freedom and being a Christian nation.

.
you are a fraud ...
.
"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." 2 John 1:9-11
.
the christian bible is a book of forgeries and fallacies, deliberately written to insure loyalty or the wrath the religion legitimizes against any that do not adhere to its corrupted teachings. the roman empire. coral - chick - chemical - the crucifiers.

You did not make a point. YOu cited a bible verse and then attacked your own source.

What is your mental health diagnosis?

.

You did not make a point. YOu cited a bible verse and then attacked your own source.

What is your mental health diagnosis?

.
there is no source for the christian bible -

that is the point, correll your salivating over the verse must have excited your senses ...

I was clearly discussing how YOU used the bible as a source. The bible certainly exists and you did just use it as a source.


To make that little jab of a "point", you had to pretend to be really, really stupid.


That is all you did there. Was pretend to be stupid.


My point stand. You have not actually made any points, other than to play stupid, to make little jabs at people you hate.


What is your position relevant to the topic.


Two sentences, and without any bullshit.


So, we have a chance at least, of understand what the fuck you are trying to say, if anything.

.

There is no conflict between religious freedom and being a Christian nation.

"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." 2 John 1:9-11

.

My point stand. You have not actually made any points, other than to play stupid, to make little jabs at people you hate.

.
you are still drunk reading one of your madeup verses ...

that verse among many other forgeries in your christian bible is the very reason this country was founded as a secular nation under its constitution as best could be accomplished at the time period it was written.

a forgery as no such verse would have been spoken in the 1st century as contrary to the very events taking place of liberation theology from political / religious suppression that verse represents and the form of argument exercised by 4th century christianity - correll.

I have no idea what point you are even trying to make. I think your thinking is disorganized, on a literally mental health issue level.

.

I have no idea what point you are even trying to make. I think your thinking is disorganized, on a literally mental health issue level.

.
I'll give you a second chance why christianity was purposely prevented a role in the u s constitution ... exp.
.
...

The rest of your post made no sense, but this is a clear question.


Answer: Because the Founders did not want to support an Established State Church.


Which we have been discussing in this thread for days. Your level of understanding is... very much that of a young child.


That can't read very well.

 

[ding]

# reply to #

And what did I tell you that means to me?

I’m not looking for what lying and ignoring facts means to you. More interested in an explanation why America, having been founded on crucial ideas and principles not found in the Christian Bible and religion, and founded by men who were Christians alongside men who were not Christians, and founded by religious men on record being opposed to establishing a national religion, we must not accept the white evangelical Christian demands to accept their illusion the Anerica was founded as a Christian nation.

Youve never answered that question. Year of our Lord doesn’t count. That is not a Biblical or governing principle anything more than the date the Constitution was signed by Deists, Unitarians and Protestants.

You keep misrepresenting what I say. What did I tell you that means to me?

 

[ding]

Busted

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the final analysis it matters not if some people call America a Christian Nation. What I want to know is if Jesus thinks America is a Christian Nation.

America was not founded to be a Christian only nation.
It was never meant to be a theocracy.

But it was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible....which was the single most quoted document by the Founders, and points to Jesus Christ in the text of the Constitution. Segments of our founding documents come directly from the Bible.


That religion and that book were always seen as the guidance that would form the basis of our morality.

It is the neo-Marxist influence of government school that has corrupted your view and deprived you of the truth. I doubt you will ever recover from said intellectual abuse.



And, of course, it is true.

Still didn't answer my question. I'll rephrase it. How does Jesus feel when people attach His Name to an earthly political entity? No one besides me bothered to see what He had to say about His followers wielding worldly political power, and I'd have to say He considers it to be blasphemous.

Political?


There are two political entities in this nation.

Your job is to decide which is closer to the morality of the Bible, the basis for Western Civilization.

That's the answer to your question.

My point is that a Christian America means as much to Him as a Hindu India, Buddhist Thailand, Muslim Saudi Arabia or an Atheist China. I doubt you're scoring any points with Him with your Christian America.

I've seen your posts.

With minimal effort, you've become our best source of greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gases? Because I'm wondering what Jesus is thinking when humans put His name and faith to worldly political units, like some sort of advertising slogan? Or inferring that they have His blessing and endorsement?

And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Daniel 2:44)

Again, it doesn't say "Except for America!"

This is a description of you.....is that why you'd rather change the subject?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And what did I tell you that means to me?

I looked. Most of your responses look like this.

Apparently his world would stop turning if he had to acknowledge the truth of our Christian heritage.

So what is that truth about of our Christian

 

[Correll]

And what did I tell you that means to me?

I looked. Most of your responses look like this.

Apparently his world would stop turning if he had to acknowledge the truth of our Christian heritage.

So what is that truth about of our Christian

Dude. Give it up. You lost, and lost badly.


Are you a marxist? What is your vision of the future for America, that you have to be so dishonest in pursuing it?

 

[Bezukhov]

In the final analysis it matters not if some people call America a Christian Nation. What I want to know is if Jesus thinks America is a Christian Nation.

America was not founded to be a Christian only nation.
It was never meant to be a theocracy.

But it was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible....which was the single most quoted document by the Founders, and points to Jesus Christ in the text of the Constitution. Segments of our founding documents come directly from the Bible.


That religion and that book were always seen as the guidance that would form the basis of our morality.

It is the neo-Marxist influence of government school that has corrupted your view and deprived you of the truth. I doubt you will ever recover from said intellectual abuse.



And, of course, it is true.

Still didn't answer my question. I'll rephrase it. How does Jesus feel when people attach His Name to an earthly political entity? No one besides me bothered to see what He had to say about His followers wielding worldly political power, and I'd have to say He considers it to be blasphemous.

Political?


There are two political entities in this nation.

Your job is to decide which is closer to the morality of the Bible, the basis for Western Civilization.

That's the answer to your question.

My point is that a Christian America means as much to Him as a Hindu India, Buddhist Thailand, Muslim Saudi Arabia or an Atheist China. I doubt you're scoring any points with Him with your Christian America.

I've seen your posts.

With minimal effort, you've become our best source of greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gases? Because I'm wondering what Jesus is thinking when humans put His name and faith to worldly political units, like some sort of advertising slogan? Or inferring that they have His blessing and endorsement?

And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Daniel 2:44)

Again, it doesn't say "Except for America!"

This is a description of you.....is that why you'd rather change the subject?

The subject under discussion is whether or not America is a Christian Nation. Wondering what Jesus thinks of that is taboo?

 

[Correll]

In the final analysis it matters not if some people call America a Christian Nation. What I want to know is if Jesus thinks America is a Christian Nation.

America was not founded to be a Christian only nation.
It was never meant to be a theocracy.

But it was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible....which was the single most quoted document by the Founders, and points to Jesus Christ in the text of the Constitution. Segments of our founding documents come directly from the Bible.


That religion and that book were always seen as the guidance that would form the basis of our morality.

It is the neo-Marxist influence of government school that has corrupted your view and deprived you of the truth. I doubt you will ever recover from said intellectual abuse.



And, of course, it is true.

Still didn't answer my question. I'll rephrase it. How does Jesus feel when people attach His Name to an earthly political entity? No one besides me bothered to see what He had to say about His followers wielding worldly political power, and I'd have to say He considers it to be blasphemous.

Political?


There are two political entities in this nation.

Your job is to decide which is closer to the morality of the Bible, the basis for Western Civilization.

That's the answer to your question.

My point is that a Christian America means as much to Him as a Hindu India, Buddhist Thailand, Muslim Saudi Arabia or an Atheist China. I doubt you're scoring any points with Him with your Christian America.

I've seen your posts.

With minimal effort, you've become our best source of greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gases? Because I'm wondering what Jesus is thinking when humans put His name and faith to worldly political units, like some sort of advertising slogan? Or inferring that they have His blessing and endorsement?

And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Daniel 2:44)

Again, it doesn't say "Except for America!"

This is a description of you.....is that why you'd rather change the subject?

The subject under discussion is whether or not America is a Christian Nation. Wondering what Jesus thinks of that is taboo?

It is off topic.