The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[Christopher]

It seems that many of the same points are being repeated in this thread.

 

[AllieBaba]

you think?

 

[Gadawg73]

The founding fathers if America were a deeply repligious people. The separation that they fought for was that the government would NOT be able to interfere with our religious freesoms. I don't think that can be denied with any intelligence.

From where this great nation began, to where she is today is a shameful disgrace to the founding fathers.

In the current state of affairs of this nation, God certainly is not being allowed to have any part, if the government has it's way. That is the opposite of what the founders intended. Look at the monuments, and rich religious history of the nation just once with an open mind. You will see that all religions were acknowledged, but the Christian faith is engraved deeply in these monuments, and our history.

Today God is being dishonored by our government. Our founders prayed whil doing government tasks and writing laws. Our founders made God a part of what they were doing, and depended upon Him to guide them (for the most part).

The founders never wanted a theocracy, and I know of no Christians who are seeking to establich one, at lease no Christians who have the support of mainstream Christianity. A few radicals maybe. There are a few radicals who want the Muslims to be the power in America, among them is our so called president.

Yes, God was with us as this nation was being birthed. God has blessed this nation for 200 years. Now He doesn't belong, and I believe His mighty hand of protection has been lifted. We Christians need to get back toi the task at hand. That is to seek the face of God, repent and turn from our wicked ways, and allow God to move in us in His mighty power to restore America to the status of the blessed.

Hog wash.
Your one paragraph is correct as I also believe that we Christians do not want a theocracy.
Where do you live? There are more churches around here than fast food restaurants.
Talk to God about the deficit, terrorism and education. Ask him to fix all three and get back to me.
God has no place in government. If so, who's God?

 

[Intense]

51. A Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke (1689) — Classic statement of the case for toleration of those holding different views.

-so long as they were neoxitans, too

52. Second Treatise on Government, John Locke (1690) — Principal proponent of the social contract theory which forms the basis for modern constitutional republican government.

Exactly- We the People = the social contract. This is mutually exclusive with xtianity (specifically 1 Peter 2:13-17)

Locke is regarded as one of the major formers of the ideology of Liberalism, and it was upon these Liberal principles, rather than on Christian teachings, that the nation was founded and its form moulded.

Hence the nation was not founded upon Christianity, but upon Liberalism.

Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their faith — for everyone is orthodox to himself — these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ. Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself. "The kings of the Gentiles exercise leadership over them," said our Saviour to his disciples, "but ye shall not be so."[1] The business of true religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion, nor to the exercising of compulsive force, but to the regulating of men's lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety. Whosoever will list himself under the banner of Christ, must, in the first place and above all things, make war upon his own lusts and vices. It is in vain for any man to unsurp the name of Christian, without holiness of life, purity of manners, benignity and meekness of spirit. "Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity."[2] "Thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren," said our Lord to Peter.[3] It would, indeed, be very hard for one that appears careless about his own salvation to persuade me that he were extremely concerned for mine. -John Locke

John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration

 

[Gadawg73]

51. A Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke (1689) — Classic statement of the case for toleration of those holding different views.

-so long as they were neoxitans, too

52. Second Treatise on Government, John Locke (1690) — Principal proponent of the social contract theory which forms the basis for modern constitutional republican government.

Exactly- We the People = the social contract. This is mutually exclusive with xtianity (specifically 1 Peter 2:13-17)

Locke is regarded as one of the major formers of the ideology of Liberalism, and it was upon these Liberal principles, rather than on Christian teachings, that the nation was founded and its form moulded.

Hence the nation was not founded upon Christianity, but upon Liberalism.

Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their faith — for everyone is orthodox to himself — these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ. Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself. "The kings of the Gentiles exercise leadership over them," said our Saviour to his disciples, "but ye shall not be so."[1] The business of true religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion, nor to the exercising of compulsive force, but to the regulating of men's lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety. Whosoever will list himself under the banner of Christ, must, in the first place and above all things, make war upon his own lusts and vices. It is in vain for any man to unsurp the name of Christian, without holiness of life, purity of manners, benignity and meekness of spirit. "Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity."[2] "Thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren," said our Lord to Peter.[3] It would, indeed, be very hard for one that appears careless about his own salvation to persuade me that he were extremely concerned for mine. -John Locke

John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration

Locke was truly the first maverick of the time in the world of Christian theology of his day. Toleration was not part of any religous or monarchial circle or more of his time yet he stood for what he believed was his vision of leading his life in a Christlike manner.
I believe the Founders were the same. However, that toleration of their time included tolerating those that wanted NO influence of religion in government and The Constitution reflects that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's use our heads, folks. Nobody is putting God out of anything. Sheesh, what a stupid ass belief. However, the law does put the religious entity and organization, the church, out of the school, etc. That is most appropriate.

Many of the Foundes, including Jefferson and Washington and Adams and Madison, would be quite satisfied with the separation of church and state today. John Jay and Patrick Henry would not be happy with this.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The United States Constitution is a completely secular political document. It begins "We the people," and contains no mention of "God," "Jesus," or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as the "no religious test" clause (Article VI), and "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (First Amendment)

The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a Bible (Article II, Section 1). The words "under God" did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Similarly, "In God we Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956, though it did appear on some coins. The original U.S. motto, written by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is "E Pluribus Unum" ("Of Many, One") celebrating plurality and diversity.

In 1797, America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

 

[bodecea]

-so long as they were neoxitans, too




Exactly- We the People = the social contract. This is mutually exclusive with xtianity (specifically 1 Peter 2:13-17)

Locke is regarded as one of the major formers of the ideology of Liberalism, and it was upon these Liberal principles, rather than on Christian teachings, that the nation was founded and its form moulded.

Hence the nation was not founded upon Christianity, but upon Liberalism.

Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their faith — for everyone is orthodox to himself — these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ. Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself. "The kings of the Gentiles exercise leadership over them," said our Saviour to his disciples, "but ye shall not be so."[1] The business of true religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion, nor to the exercising of compulsive force, but to the regulating of men's lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety. Whosoever will list himself under the banner of Christ, must, in the first place and above all things, make war upon his own lusts and vices. It is in vain for any man to unsurp the name of Christian, without holiness of life, purity of manners, benignity and meekness of spirit. "Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity."[2] "Thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren," said our Lord to Peter.[3] It would, indeed, be very hard for one that appears careless about his own salvation to persuade me that he were extremely concerned for mine. -John Locke

John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration

Locke was truly the first maverick of the time in the world of Christian theology of his day. Toleration was not part of any religous or monarchial circle or more of his time yet he stood for what he believed was his vision of leading his life in a Christlike manner.
I believe the Founders were the same. However, that toleration of their time included tolerating those that wanted NO influence of religion in government and The Constitution reflects that.

And let's not forget that John Locke had to be very, very careful in how he framed his arguments due to the possibilities that his own government could have censored him or worse. As it was, he tread a very fine line.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's not forget also that the U.S. was the first nation in the modern world to not have an established church. What a magnificient accomplishment!

 

[Sky Dancer]

Let's not forget also that the U.S. was the first nation in the modern world to not have an established church. What a magnificient accomplishment!

Thank God for that.

 

[Valerie]

Thank God for that.

What God???

 

[Sky Dancer]

Thank God for that.

What God???

It's a joke. I don't believe in God.

 

[Valerie]

Hence my laughter!

 

[AllieBaba]

The founding fathers if America were a deeply repligious people. The separation that they fought for was that the government would NOT be able to interfere with our religious freesoms. I don't think that can be denied with any intelligence.

From where this great nation began, to where she is today is a shameful disgrace to the founding fathers.

In the current state of affairs of this nation, God certainly is not being allowed to have any part, if the government has it's way. That is the opposite of what the founders intended. Look at the monuments, and rich religious history of the nation just once with an open mind. You will see that all religions were acknowledged, but the Christian faith is engraved deeply in these monuments, and our history.

Today God is being dishonored by our government. Our founders prayed whil doing government tasks and writing laws. Our founders made God a part of what they were doing, and depended upon Him to guide them (for the most part).

The founders never wanted a theocracy, and I know of no Christians who are seeking to establich one, at lease no Christians who have the support of mainstream Christianity. A few radicals maybe. There are a few radicals who want the Muslims to be the power in America, among them is our so called president.

Yes, God was with us as this nation was being birthed. God has blessed this nation for 200 years. Now He doesn't belong, and I believe His mighty hand of protection has been lifted. We Christians need to get back toi the task at hand. That is to seek the face of God, repent and turn from our wicked ways, and allow God to move in us in His mighty power to restore America to the status of the blessed.

Hog wash.
Your one paragraph is correct as I also believe that we Christians do not want a theocracy.
Where do you live? There are more churches around here than fast food restaurants.
Talk to God about the deficit, terrorism and education. Ask him to fix all three and get back to me.
God has no place in government. If so, who's God?

NOBODY HAS SAID WE WANT OR ARE A THEOCRACY

Dumbshit. This sort of persistent idiocy is why the same things get said over and over.

 

[AllieBaba]

Let's not forget also that the U.S. was the first nation in the modern world to not have an established church. What a magnificient accomplishment!

Thank goodness the Christians who founded the country understood that in order to protect religious freedom, they couldn't impose a state religion.

One of the more wonderful Chrsitian tenets. Free will and all that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Remember that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in deity, but that's fine, that's part of our secular law: to be free of religion and from religion.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, our law is made to protect people of faith. To allow them to worship as they please.

People without faith have never been persecuted. It's always been those who insist on adhering to a religion other than the state religion.

 

[JBeukema]

51. A Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke (1689) — Classic statement of the case for toleration of those holding different views.

-so long as they were neoxitans, too

52. Second Treatise on Government, John Locke (1690) — Principal proponent of the social contract theory which forms the basis for modern constitutional republican government.

Exactly- We the People = the social contract. This is mutually exclusive with xtianity (specifically 1 Peter 2:13-17)

Locke is regarded as one of the major formers of the ideology of Liberalism, and it was upon these Liberal principles, rather than on Christian teachings, that the nation was founded and its form moulded.

Hence the nation was not founded upon Christianity, but upon Liberalism.

Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their faith — for everyone is orthodox to himself — these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ. Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself. "The kings of the Gentiles exercise leadership over them," said our Saviour to his disciples, "but ye shall not be so."[1] The business of true religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion, nor to the exercising of compulsive force, but to the regulating of men's lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety. Whosoever will list himself under the banner of Christ, must, in the first place and above all things, make war upon his own lusts and vices. It is in vain for any man to unsurp the name of Christian, without holiness of life, purity of manners, benignity and meekness of spirit. "Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity."[2] "Thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren," said our Lord to Peter.[3] It would, indeed, be very hard for one that appears careless about his own salvation to persuade me that he were extremely concerned for mine. -John Locke

John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration

A revisionist perspective that, while fitting his overall ideology, is at odds with both Old and New testament teachings.

 

[JBeukema]

Let's not forget also that the U.S. was the first nation in the modern world to not have an established church. What a magnificient accomplishment!

Thank goodness the Christians who founded the country understood that in order to protect religious freedom, they couldn't impose a state religion.

One of the more wonderful Chrsitian tenets. Free will and all that.

Wait, so now secularism is a Christian tenet?

That's a stretch.

 

[JBeukema]

Remember that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in deity