Were Most Of America's Founding Fathers - Christians

[peach174]

He (Barton), has no evidence of a bible printed by congress because there is no such thing.

Barton never said Congress printed a Bible.
Congress has never had a printing press.
What Barton has always said was that the Aitken Bible was the only Bible to receive Congressional approval.


From The Manhattan Rare Book Company
Aitken Bible

"The Bible of the American Revolution":
First Edition of the Extraordinarily Scarce Aitken Bible,
The First American Bible, of Profound Importance in Defining the Freedom and Identity of America

The Aitken Bible: Rare 1782 First Edition

As long as the United States remained under British rule, the British government forbade the printing of Bibles in America. When the Colonies declared their independence, the importation of Bibles became restricted and by 1777 there was a severe shortage of Bibles in America. On September 11, 1777, this shortage of Bibles was brought to the attention of the Continental Congress by its chaplain, Dr. Patrick Allison. He said in his report that Bibles were urgently needed because, “the use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great” and on Dr. Allison’s advice, Congress passed a resolution to make every attempt to import 20,000 Bibles in English “from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the Union.” The importation of Bibles soon proved to be nearly impossible and the Continental Congress had to search for another alternative to supply the population with their most important book.

On January 21, 1781, the noted colonial printer Robert Aitken petitioned Congress for both sanction and support for the production of a complete Bible for the American people and a committee was immediately formed to determine if Aitken were qualified to produce a book of such significance. Aitken’s impressive credentials (he had, among other things, been the publisher of the Journals of Congress for the first Congress and published numerous articles by Thomas Paine) convinced the committee and on September 10, 1782, a Congressional Resolution was adopted granting Aitken permission and financial support for the printing of the first edition of the first American Bible.

Why would other countries ban the Bible to be imported? They knew it was the driving force of this country, I feel.

Other Countries had their Bibles printed in their own languages, most people in America only knew how to read English because they came from Britain and were ruled under the Crown.
British government forbade the printing of Bibles in America because only the King's Religion was allowed. The Colonists wanted freedom to worship as they wanted to and this was against the British Crown, which the colonists were still a part of.
King George III put an embargo of imported English goods due to the Revolutionary War.
That included Bibles.

 

[kjw47]

Who actually believes that a group of Christians would create a new nation from the ground up so that 240 later their posterity would be attacked as "loonies" who believe in an invisible, non-existent god? Does anyone truly believe that that was the intent of the Christian Founders?

Christan founders would practice Jesus' teachings---like to pay to caeser --caesers things--taxes--not start a war so as not to pay the taxes--one has to throw Jesus teaching in the garbage to do that--then turn and murder 10 million Indians, enslave blackmen, treat yellow man like dogs---0 Christian started the usa.

 

[emilynghiem]

Who actually believes that a group of Christians would create a new nation from the ground up so that 240 later their posterity would be attacked as "loonies" who believe in an invisible, non-existent god? Does anyone truly believe that that was the intent of the Christian Founders?

Christan founders would practice Jesus' teachings---like to pay to caeser --caesers things--taxes--not start a war so as not to pay the taxes--one has to throw Jesus teaching in the garbage to do that--then turn and murder 10 million Indians, enslave blackmen, treat yellow man like dogs---0 Christian started the usa.

Dear KJW: To be Christian is to adopt the laws by conscience, the same way the people/church become one with the laws, the people and government are one by the laws.

To receive Jesus is to receive Justice.

Now even when we do this, we go through a "process" of realizing justice in our relations and in the world around us.

We do not control or know everything; so the laws of karma, cause and effect, and justice that are influencing events in life, we are subject to and not always in control.

So we will see wars, we will go through reformations, trials and tribulations.
We will make mistakes, and either learn from them or repeat them until we do.
As human beings, we are all in this together whether we recognize it or not.

Christian or not, we will experience these things and not always be able to change them.
We will carry these things on our conscience, individually and collectively, until we work out all the debts and corrections to bring about lasting justice.

The more we can "forgive", the more we can align in peace with the process, and take more steps toward peace and justice for all, and away from war, abuse and oppression.

Just because we accept the commitment to justice by Conscience or Christ,
doesn't mean we won't go through ups and down, rises and falls, success and failures.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, I suppose that most of them were Christians. They were also slave owners. George Washington produced the most whiskey in the colonies, and a large part of it went to the Indians. He also became rich by marrying money, and taking advantage of his employers by buying land that they sent him to survey. Jefferson enslaved his own children. Washington was also an adulterer with his married neighbor's wife. Aaron Burr was an opportunist and a traitor, as well as a murderer. Even the other founders considered Patrick Henry a lose cannon, and would not have anything to do with him. Adams came to despise Franklin when working with him in France. Franklin got Adams fired from the French diplomatic mission and sent to the Dutch to raise money, just to get rid of him. Adams and Jefferson didn't speak for at least 10 years, probably much more. Adams was so furious with Jefferson that he left Washington D.C. the day before the inauguration just so he would not have to attend. Jefferson made a lot of money selling nails, which were manufactured by slave children, not old enough to work in the fields.

They were all a swell bunch of fellas...

Yeah ... the founders who died for your freedom were just awful. Not nearly as virtuous as you are, I'm sure.

how many of the founding fathers died for my freedom? I'll make it easy for you. How many of the delegates to the Continental Congress AND who signed the Constitution were killed as a result of the revolutionary war?

If you want to talk of war veterans, you are on the wrong thread.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, I suppose that most of them were Christians. They were also slave owners. George Washington produced the most whiskey in the colonies, and a large part of it went to the Indians. He also became rich by marrying money, and taking advantage of his employers by buying land that they sent him to survey. Jefferson enslaved his own children. Washington was also an adulterer with his married neighbor's wife. Aaron Burr was an opportunist and a traitor, as well as a murderer. Even the other founders considered Patrick Henry a lose cannon, and would not have anything to do with him. Adams came to despise Franklin when working with him in France. Franklin got Adams fired from the French diplomatic mission and sent to the Dutch to raise money, just to get rid of him. Adams and Jefferson didn't speak for at least 10 years, probably much more. Adams was so furious with Jefferson that he left Washington D.C. the day before the inauguration just so he would not have to attend. Jefferson made a lot of money selling nails, which were manufactured by slave children, not old enough to work in the fields.

They were all a swell bunch of fellas...

It was explained to me that slaves were not directly owned but mortgaged through banks and paid off along with the property.

The same way homeowners today cannot just give away their homes to others
because they are still paying for them, people back then could not just free their slaves.

The same criticisms you have of founding Americans
still apply to Americans today.

We depend on slave labor from other countries.
We could not afford to buy our cell phones and other amenities were it not for
cheap Chinese labor.

How many of us are working full time to try to replace slave labor with equitable wages?

How many of us criticize founding slave owners for taking advantage of the labor of others, used to support themselves, while working on "long term plans" to change the system?

Aren't we all relying on slave labor still until we change the system?

I think that I can say with a certain amount of sincerity that I have more scruples than to condemn my own children to a lifetime of slavery, like Jefferson did. And as for the argument that the plantation owners mortgaged the slaves, BS. They BRED their slaves.

 

[DriftingSand]

Well, I suppose that most of them were Christians. They were also slave owners. George Washington produced the most whiskey in the colonies, and a large part of it went to the Indians. He also became rich by marrying money, and taking advantage of his employers by buying land that they sent him to survey. Jefferson enslaved his own children. Washington was also an adulterer with his married neighbor's wife. Aaron Burr was an opportunist and a traitor, as well as a murderer. Even the other founders considered Patrick Henry a lose cannon, and would not have anything to do with him. Adams came to despise Franklin when working with him in France. Franklin got Adams fired from the French diplomatic mission and sent to the Dutch to raise money, just to get rid of him. Adams and Jefferson didn't speak for at least 10 years, probably much more. Adams was so furious with Jefferson that he left Washington D.C. the day before the inauguration just so he would not have to attend. Jefferson made a lot of money selling nails, which were manufactured by slave children, not old enough to work in the fields.

They were all a swell bunch of fellas...

It was explained to me that slaves were not directly owned but mortgaged through banks and paid off along with the property.

The same way homeowners today cannot just give away their homes to others
because they are still paying for them, people back then could not just free their slaves.

The same criticisms you have of founding Americans
still apply to Americans today.

We depend on slave labor from other countries.
We could not afford to buy our cell phones and other amenities were it not for
cheap Chinese labor.

How many of us are working full time to try to replace slave labor with equitable wages?

How many of us criticize founding slave owners for taking advantage of the labor of others, used to support themselves, while working on "long term plans" to change the system?

Aren't we all relying on slave labor still until we change the system?

My earliest ancestor arrived in America (pre-America) in the mid 1600s as a white slave. He worked his way out of slavery in what became the state of Pennsylvania. He later started a nail factory.

 

[kjw47]

Who actually believes that a group of Christians would create a new nation from the ground up so that 240 later their posterity would be attacked as "loonies" who believe in an invisible, non-existent god? Does anyone truly believe that that was the intent of the Christian Founders?

Christan founders would practice Jesus' teachings---like to pay to caeser --caesers things--taxes--not start a war so as not to pay the taxes--one has to throw Jesus teaching in the garbage to do that--then turn and murder 10 million Indians, enslave blackmen, treat yellow man like dogs---0 Christian started the usa.

Dear KJW: To be Christian is to adopt the laws by conscience, the same way the people/church become one with the laws, the people and government are one by the laws.

To receive Jesus is to receive Justice.

Now even when we do this, we go through a "process" of realizing justice in our relations and in the world around us.

We do not control or know everything; so the laws of karma, cause and effect, and justice that are influencing events in life, we are subject to and not always in control.

So we will see wars, we will go through reformations, trials and tribulations.
We will make mistakes, and either learn from them or repeat them until we do.
As human beings, we are all in this together whether we recognize it or not.

Christian or not, we will experience these things and not always be able to change them.
We will carry these things on our conscience, individually and collectively, until we work out all the debts and corrections to bring about lasting justice.

The more we can "forgive", the more we can align in peace with the process, and take more steps toward peace and justice for all, and away from war, abuse and oppression.

Just because we accept the commitment to justice by Conscience or Christ,
doesn't mean we won't go through ups and down, rises and falls, success and failures.

No matter what one does--if they throw Jesus' truths away when the chips are down.--they will lose-Matt 7:21-23

The reality of what started the usa--2 Peter 2:19

 

[emilynghiem]

No matter what one does--if they throw Jesus' truths away when the chips are down.--they will lose-Matt 7:21-23

The reality of what started the usa--2 Peter 2:19

The more you forgive, the more you receive.
Why are you worried about what other people do.
What affects your standing with the law is what you do.
Do you expect to compel people to forgive and correct things by the law
if all you want to do is point out reasons to judge, condemn and reject?

By the laws of justice, what you do unto others comes back to you.
So if you judge and reject, instead of forgive and receive,
then you are judged and rejected. So both sides lose that way, you included.

Other people are responsible for their own reactions and consequences.
What determines YOURS is how you respond, not them!
Why are you focused on others?

 

[kjw47]

No matter what one does--if they throw Jesus' truths away when the chips are down.--they will lose-Matt 7:21-23

The reality of what started the usa--2 Peter 2:19

The more you forgive, the more you receive.
Why are you worried about what other people do.
What affects your standing with the law is what you do.
Do you expect to compel people to forgive and correct things by the law
if all you want to do is point out reasons to judge, condemn and reject?

By the laws of justice, what you do unto others comes back to you.
So if you judge and reject, instead of forgive and receive,
then you are judged and rejected. So both sides lose that way, you included.

Other people are responsible for their own reactions and consequences.
What determines YOURS is how you respond, not them!
Why are you focused on others?

What does what you said have to do with the reality I posted? you need to read rev 16 and try to understand it.

 

[Newby]

The article I posted from TFM does that. Go back and read it.

No, actually it does not, I did read it. All it does is make unfounded accusations about a text book that he wrote without one sentence or fact that refuted anything specific, and no details as to why anything that was in the text book was inaccurate or incorrect. Actually very similar to what you do on this forum, no surprises there.

It does the opposite. Have you read the gentleman's careful and objective rebuttal to Barton? Of course not.

Your type of attitude we dealt with at the school board in this manner: respectfully and dismissively.

If you want pseudo-history taught to your children, send them to a far right social conservative school.

Why yes, Jake, I did read it. Why don't you give one example of any 'objective rebuttal' in the article?

You're a waste of O2, You have no credibility on this board, and you'll never respond to this, just like you never respond to any question posted to you that makes you look like a fool. What makes me a 'fundamentalist' Jake? Question too difficult for you?

 

[emilynghiem]

What does what you said have to do with the reality I posted? you need to read rev 16 and try to understand it.

With all your references to judgment, and whether we follow the law or go against
it,

what I mean is how this applies to you and me
is how WE follow it or not.

I thought you were trying to focus on "whether other people" are following or falling out.

It seems very common for people to judge by judging and condemning others, excluding and rejecting, when in fact, what we do unto others, that is the judgment we get.

So when I read these passages, I do not read it so much as "this is the law that will come down on people" according to how we see what is right or wrong by the law and impose THAT on others.

I read it as whatever we judge or enforce by laws, we are judged by our own
words; so if we were open to correction, then others will be open to us when our views and actions are judged. if we were condemning and rejecting, then we get judged as such.

Do you see what I mean?

I look at the SPIRIT of the law and interpretation to see where someone is coming from.

I apologize if I misunderstood you; I thought you were imposing or passing judgment itself, instead of interpreting the law as giving everyone the same justice back we give out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, actually it does not, I did read it. All it does is make unfounded accusations about a text book that he wrote without one sentence or fact that refuted anything specific, and no details as to why anything that was in the text book was inaccurate or incorrect. Actually very similar to what you do on this forum, no surprises there.

It does the opposite. Have you read the gentleman's careful and objective rebuttal to Barton? Of course not.

Your type of attitude we dealt with at the school board in this manner: respectfully and dismissively.

If you want pseudo-history taught to your children, send them to a far right social conservative school.

Why yes, Jake, I did read it. Why don't you give one example of any 'objective rebuttal' in the article?

You're a waste of O2, You have no credibility on this board, and you'll never respond to this, just like you never respond to any question posted to you that makes you look like a fool. What makes me a 'fundamentalist' Jake? Question too difficult for you?

Newby, you talking about cred is similar to Judas talking about loyalty. We know you did not read it.

The questions have been answer credibly over and over: Barton is a plagiarist, a hack, and a selective cherry picker.

That is why so many school districts in East Texas do not permit his work, while many far right Christian private schools do.

Send your child to Grace Academy, but you won't tell the public schools how to teach and what the books will be. You do not know enough, one, and, your are prejudiced, two.

 

[emilynghiem]

But not fundamentalist propaganda of today.

The documents clearly teach that the Founders were afraid of organized religion being a part of government.

That's why the Constitution is secular.

That's why the states got rid of established churches.

That's why modern Christians are not going to let fundamentlist dogma into our history books.

Provide some examples of what you would define as 'fundamentalist dogma'?

Actually, since you are a fundamentalist, give us some examples yourself.

1. The defense of marriage act is arguably biased "one way" to impose beliefs to exclude
others unconstitutionally, while the forced recognition by states of gay marriage is biased the other way. Both are arguably abuse of the govt to impose beliefs on the public not shared by all, but decidedly biased for and against opposing beliefs.

2. Prolife arguments against abortion that rely on "faith based" beliefs would violate religious freedom of those who do not believe the same and who require scientific proof and agreement to avoid religious or faith-based imposition.

3. currently, beliefs in certain Constitutional principles are now being argued as denied to people by federal laws contested on the basis of religious liberty imposed on by federal mandates and regulations.

Since people do not agree that "religious liberty" and "Constitutional limits on govt apply to health care" which some people believe trump Constitutional defenses,
that is where I argue that Constitutional principles, IN THEMSELVES constitution a religiously held belief system (as do the opposing views in freedom to change govt and to impose govt health care as a universal right) so that neither views should be imposed by federal govt at the unequal exclusion of the other, but both should be equally free options.

 

[DriftingSand]

It does the opposite. Have you read the gentleman's careful and objective rebuttal to Barton? Of course not.

Your type of attitude we dealt with at the school board in this manner: respectfully and dismissively.

If you want pseudo-history taught to your children, send them to a far right social conservative school.

Why yes, Jake, I did read it. Why don't you give one example of any 'objective rebuttal' in the article?

You're a waste of O2, You have no credibility on this board, and you'll never respond to this, just like you never respond to any question posted to you that makes you look like a fool. What makes me a 'fundamentalist' Jake? Question too difficult for you?

Newby, you talking about cred is similar to Judas talking about loyalty. We know you did not read it.

The questions have been answer credibly over and over: Barton is a plagiarist, a hack, and a selective cherry picker.

That is why so many school districts in East Texas do not permit his work, while many far right Christian private schools do.

Send your child to Grace Academy, but you won't tell the public schools how to teach and what the books will be. You do not know enough, one, and, your are prejudiced, two.

I'd lay $100.00 and bet that nobody could prove 98% of Barton's findings incorrect. They jump all of that 2% that they PERCEIVE to be incorrect and slobber all over themselves screeching that they've "proven" that he's not credible. Typical libtard idiocy.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Why yes, Jake, I did read it. Why don't you give one example of any 'objective rebuttal' in the article?

You're a waste of O2, You have no credibility on this board, and you'll never respond to this, just like you never respond to any question posted to you that makes you look like a fool. What makes me a 'fundamentalist' Jake? Question too difficult for you?

Newby, you talking about cred is similar to Judas talking about loyalty. We know you did not read it.

The questions have been answer credibly over and over: Barton is a plagiarist, a hack, and a selective cherry picker.

That is why so many school districts in East Texas do not permit his work, while many far right Christian private schools do.

Send your child to Grace Academy, but you won't tell the public schools how to teach and what the books will be. You do not know enough, one, and, your are prejudiced, two.

I'd lay $100.00 and bet that nobody could prove 98% of Barton's findings incorrect. They jump all of that 2% that they PERCEIVE to be incorrect and slobber all over themselves screeching that they've "proven" that he's not credible. Typical libtard idiocy.

It was conservatives who pulled his book from the shelves.
Your continuing to defend this farce is truly embarrassing.

 

[Political Junky]

Who cares?

It makes us a nation founded by Christians but not a Christian nation

Exactly, as much as some would like the US to be a theocracy, it's not.

 

[DriftingSand]

Newby, you talking about cred is similar to Judas talking about loyalty. We know you did not read it.

The questions have been answer credibly over and over: Barton is a plagiarist, a hack, and a selective cherry picker.

That is why so many school districts in East Texas do not permit his work, while many far right Christian private schools do.

Send your child to Grace Academy, but you won't tell the public schools how to teach and what the books will be. You do not know enough, one, and, your are prejudiced, two.

I'd lay $100.00 and bet that nobody could prove 98% of Barton's findings incorrect. They jump all of that 2% that they PERCEIVE to be incorrect and slobber all over themselves screeching that they've "proven" that he's not credible. Typical libtard idiocy.

It was conservatives who pulled his book from the shelves.
Your continuing to defend this farce is truly embarrassing.

Sorry you're embarrassed but there really isn't much I can do about that. I'm in another profession.

I know that you won't take time to watch this video but Barton defends his book AFTER the recall. So it now becomes his word against the words of his attackers. What most folks don't want to admit is that Barton has the legitimate data and documents to back up his original claims. Anyway, for anyone TRULY interested in the truth here's Barton defending himself and his credibility (fast forward to 13:55. The earlier portion is simply a long introduction). Barton is a good man who truly wants the truth to be known. I don't believe that he EVER intentionally mislead anyone:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SmYvKUKOv0]David Barton Defends His Recalled Book Thomas Jefferson Lies w/ Glenn Beck in GBTV Answering Critics - YouTube[/ame]

 

[thebrucebeat]

I'd lay $100.00 and bet that nobody could prove 98% of Barton's findings incorrect. They jump all of that 2% that they PERCEIVE to be incorrect and slobber all over themselves screeching that they've "proven" that he's not credible. Typical libtard idiocy.

It was conservatives who pulled his book from the shelves.
Your continuing to defend this farce is truly embarrassing.

Sorry you're embarrassed but there really isn't much I can do about that. I'm in another profession.

I know that you won't take time to watch this video but Barton defends his book AFTER the recall. So it now becomes his word against the words of his attackers. What most folks don't want to admit is that Barton has the legitimate data and documents to back up his original claims. Anyway, for anyone TRULY interested in the truth here's Barton defending himself and his credibility (fast forward to 13:55. The earlier portion is simply a long introduction). Barton is a good man who truly wants the truth to be known. I don't believe that he EVER intentionally mislead anyone:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SmYvKUKOv0]David Barton Defends His Recalled Book Thomas Jefferson Lies w/ Glenn Beck in GBTV Answering Critics - YouTube[/ame]

His "attackers" as you put it are conservative academics.
Stop already.
Please.
For your own sake.
Find a new hero.

 

[DriftingSand]

It was conservatives who pulled his book from the shelves.
Your continuing to defend this farce is truly embarrassing.

Sorry you're embarrassed but there really isn't much I can do about that. I'm in another profession.

I know that you won't take time to watch this video but Barton defends his book AFTER the recall. So it now becomes his word against the words of his attackers. What most folks don't want to admit is that Barton has the legitimate data and documents to back up his original claims. Anyway, for anyone TRULY interested in the truth here's Barton defending himself and his credibility (fast forward to 13:55. The earlier portion is simply a long introduction). Barton is a good man who truly wants the truth to be known. I don't believe that he EVER intentionally mislead anyone:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SmYvKUKOv0"]David Barton Defends His Recalled Book Thomas Jefferson Lies w/ Glenn Beck in GBTV Answering Critics - YouTube[/ame]

His "attackers" as you put it are conservative academics.
Stop already.
Please.
For your own sake.
Find a new hero.

I suppose you consider Karl Rove a "conservative" too. But aren't you one of those who routinely call conservatives "WRONG?" Which is it?

 

[MaxGrit]

I'd lay $100.00 and bet that nobody could prove 98% of Barton's findings incorrect. They jump all of that 2% that they PERCEIVE to be incorrect and slobber all over themselves screeching that they've "proven" that he's not credible. Typical libtard idiocy.

It was conservatives who pulled his book from the shelves.
Your continuing to defend this farce is truly embarrassing.

Sorry you're embarrassed but there really isn't much I can do about that. I'm in another profession.

I know that you won't take time to watch this video but Barton defends his book AFTER the recall. So it now becomes his word against the words of his attackers. What most folks don't want to admit is that Barton has the legitimate data and documents to back up his original claims. Anyway, for anyone TRULY interested in the truth here's Barton defending himself and his credibility (fast forward to 13:55. The earlier portion is simply a long introduction). Barton is a good man who truly wants the truth to be known. I don't believe that he EVER intentionally mislead anyone:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SmYvKUKOv0]David Barton Defends His Recalled Book Thomas Jefferson Lies w/ Glenn Beck in GBTV Answering Critics - YouTube[/ame]

Good video. A solid apology, full of evidence to support his scholarship about the claims in the book. He easily destroys the credibility of those subpar "academics".