A Christian nation: the inescapable paradox must be resolved.

If US adopted the 10 commandments in their constitution (Thou shalt not kill) then 1/2 million children under age of 4 (UN figure) that died in Iraq, over WMD that didn't exist, would be alive today. It seems to me that most governments this world have a satanical bent, life is worth nothing, power and wealth everything. Although I don't agree with combining religion and politics, I don't see how it could be any worse than today, the leaders of our societies have created a hell on earth.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: Stuyvesant

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Our founding fathers didn't define "under god or in god we trust" as they were not added to the pledge of allegiance or our currency till 1954 and 1956 respectively.

So your talk of the founding fathers opinions on these phrases are incorrect.

Exactly. As I said in my previous post, many people don't actually know the history of the US beyond 8th grade social studies books. And the Religious Right continues to attempt to rewrite American history in their image.

I agree with what you wrote, that the US wasn't founded exclusively on Christianity.

Also, I don't know what it is, but every time I see Chuck Norris I not only cannot take him seriously but he bugs the sh%t out of me, lol.

originally posted by: johndeere2020

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
The topic here is the idea that the USA was founded "under God" in a literal sense. It seems beyond debate that the predominant language and cultural context of the time was Protestant Christian. I accept that as fact.

Not the Christian God I'm afraid.

At the very least, USA is founded under the Jewish god (in Orthodox Judaism) who is not the same as the Christian God (just as much as the god of the Muslims is not the same)

Because Freemasons who are highly represented among the founders have a ritualized set of beliefs in Freemasonry which has quite many references to Judaism. The hexagram-like Freemason symbol doesn't help setting them apart from Zionism

The USA was founded by Secret Societies and Not Christianity.

You are not the only "One" there are a surprisingly large number of us. Dropping the name Jesus and accepting the possibility of "messiah". (Perhaps a consciousness)
Too many ways to describe what is going on, what is about to happen too many ways to validate the secular nature of the constitution and the founders.

To 3 people. Asked to profess a belief in a higher power. One could believe in a Christ, One could believe in Allah or one could have faith In Buddha. (If all of this is left out and they are asked to answer whether they believe in a higher power WITHOUT elaborating any further) We have to assume that all three are right, all three or wrong, or any combination of 2 being wrong and 1 being right are our only acceptable outcomes. They can't be "partially" right on something that cannot be proven (individual to individual) based on the fact that most humans cannot share minds. (The true purpose of God and the "idea" that is "AMERICA".

To agree to disagree. To respectfully disagree. To co-exist. To live as 1 (1 nation under (God-Your definition and belief) was the intended message.
The church has subverted the message and many fly out in droves. The real army of God, his real Church is INVISIBLE.

The message of Christ conveys the notion to disregard all of these structures that we bind ourselves with and live by the law of our fellow man. To some degree you could use this as a basis for claiming the Constitution is secular but there are many similar philosophies ABOUND. And were at the time! TO live with an open mind. To accept the "unknown" and "invisible" of God and to respect IT as much as you want it to respect YOU and to respect OTHERS as you would have them RESPECT YOU.

The Christians are the only thing keeping the apocalypse from happening. Once they begin to fight it will all be said and done.

It will be up to the true (Invisible) believers to salvage what is left behind. (perhaps some of these might also be known as atheists) Understanding a deeper level of understanding of our place and what we are here for. There is nothing special.
There is no Jew, no Christian, No Muslim. There is no "chosen" people. We are all chosen. We are here. And the time (as we observe it with our clocks) is NOW.

Divide and conquer thousands of years in the making and it has been subverted and perverted and changed over and over, disguised, redressed and re-broadcast, shape shifting-propaganda. It is the same old story. It began with 1 word. And that word was good.

Unfortunately for us most since then have been bad.

A little food for thought: From (NOT JUST A CHRISTIAN BOOK) The Bible.

2 Timothy 3 New King James Version (NKJV)
Perilous Times and Perilous Men

3 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

The time of sitting back and watching is almost over.

The game, may about to begin.

There are other "One's" too.

We all see it, we just don't see it through the religious paradigm.

We are all Apostles.

Apostasy- the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.

Nowhere does it say we are unmoral people and unfit for society.

That would be their words. Deluded to themselves over their existence. Shared by many, revered by more.

a reply to: glend

If US adopted the 10 commandments in their constitution (Thou shalt not kill) then 1/2 million children under age of 4 (UN figure) that died in Iraq, over WMD that didn't exist, would be alive today.

Not necessarily.

Remember that after the Ten Commandments were passed down G-d still gave a lot of orders to decimate, kill to the last man, enslave, burn, rape, etc, etc, etc.

(Exodus 32: 25-29 NIV)
25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. 26 So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, “Whoever is for the Lord, come to me.” And all the Levites rallied to him.

27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”

(Numbers 31: 13-15 NIV)
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

(Joshua 8: 24-27 NIV)
24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed[a] all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the Lord had instructed Joshua.

(Joshua 10: 28-40 NIV)
28 That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho.

29 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Makkedah to Libnah and attacked it. 30 The Lord also gave that city and its king into Israel’s hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho.

31 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Libnah to Lachish; he took up positions against it and attacked it. 32 The Lord gave Lachish into Israel’s hands, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. 33 Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army—until no survivors were left.

34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish.

36 Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. 37 They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it.

38 Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir. 39 They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron.

40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded. 41 Joshua subdued them from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza and from the whole region of Goshen to Gibeon. 42 All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the Lord, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.

43 Then Joshua returned with all Israel to the camp at Gilgal.

This is of course, just a small sample showing that 'Thou shalt not murder' doesn't apply to women and children killed in G-d's name.

Putting the "10 Commandments" into the Constitution is much more likely to end up in slaughter and bloodshed like the world has not seen seen since the days of Joshua.

a reply to: rnaa

You put an end to my argument real quick

May I ask why you wrote G-d, I thought it a title, not name, so ok to use in full.

a reply to: adjensen

Given that secular humanism tends to be anti-religious, why would that be surprising? People generally don't support movements that are contrary to their own beliefs.

Beliefs don't have much to do with the truth.

Absolutely not, some of them were deists, which means they don't believe in Christianity or any other mainstream religion. If they wanted a Christian nation they would have written it into the constitution or at least the Declaration of independence. The fact that they said creator instead of god, and made no other mention of anything religious proves it.

They never said God, Jesus, Christianity, Bible or any other christian references in either document.

This country is founded on the principle of freedom. Mainly the colonies came into being from persecuted religious factions that needed to be away from all the anti laws against them. There follows the Founding Fathers who documented to the best of their abilities the threats of the time and future that they foresaw with protections for our rights to continue to live in freedom. Their only mistake as I see it was that they figured that we would be logical enough to continue their vision.

STM

ETA: I would pay big time to be front row and center to a discourse of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in regards to our current situation. And wouldn't it be great to hear Tocqueville's viewpoint?

a reply to: adjensen

Given that secular humanism tends to be anti-religious, why would that be surprising? People generally don't support movements that are contrary to their own beliefs.

Can you tell me why they are incompatible?
Secular humanism cares about everyone, and strives to bring the entire human "race" to a peaceful balance.

Why does that contradict your beliefs?

a reply to: rnaa:

We will have to agree to disagree. I think the historical record is clear on the Deism that the founding fathers ascribed to, and it was basically a deviation of Christianity that minimized the supernatural aspects of the Christian faith. Hence my use of the word 'heresy.'

You say that Christianity and Deism are antithetical. How is that different from my stating that a deviant Christianity (one that incorporates Deist and/or materialist thought and rejects the supernatural nature of Christianity, rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, etc.) is heresy? I think we're saying the same thing but using different words.

Yes, Jefferson edited the New Testament - but he was still using the Christian scriptures. That's why I say he was in heresy. He did NOT "completely reject the Bible" (as you stated). He (and the other Deist founding fathers) were approaching religion from the angle of Christianity, not some other religion. They were immersed in Christian thought, but simply rejected the parts they didn't agree with.

I just don't think one can call them Deist in the strict sense of the word, and exclude the Christian worldview (albeit altered) from these guys.

I thought the Puritan comment was funny for a couple of reasons. First, the irony that the Puritans wanted out from under the confines of the Church of England, but were intolerant of those who didn't agree with their flavor of Protestantism. Second, because I have experienced plenty of "religious intolerance" from Protestant Christians myself - various divisions of Protestants who adamantly and even vehemently define "true Christianity" as their particular sect, and their sect only. I find all that kind of comic.

Don't you think Jefferson's comment about "nature's God" is a reference to the Creator of nature?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: teamcommander

a reply to: BuzzyWigs



Since the original question was about the supposed paradox of having a nation based upon one religion with out having other religions allowed, I think this would neither be a "truly Christian" nation nor a country in which I would care to live. With out a good measure of tolerance embodied within the laws which govern a nation, living there would not be worth the indignaties which would surely follow. There would just not be enough humane treatment of its populas to stand for very long without becoming intolerable.

Thats an interesting statement, was your nation founded on Christianity with the intention of excluding all other faiths, be interesting to see some evidence. Not doubting you, just find it hard to believe that Christians would act this way.



As for tolerance, wasnt that Christs teaching, very much all that He taught in relation to living with others, maybe not, Jesus didnt say tolerate, Jesus said love them unconditionally.



Interesting you live in a country founded by, for the most part Protestants and it had been for a very long time a world leader, world power and supporter of freedom. Seems to have slipped a little lately though, I wonder why.



Its also noteworthy that this horrible Christian foundation of a country (seriously a Christian country, who would want to live there)attracted so many people, you know with all the oppression.

So far I have read this response three times and can not decide if you are totally disagreeing with it or if I am mis-reading what you have said. I would hate to think we could be potentially arguing about an agreement.

I would ask you to re-read my statements and help me better understand yours.

a reply to: Stuyvesant

We will have to agree to disagree.

Sure. I don't expect to 'convert' you or anyone else.

I think the historical record is clear on the Deism that the founding fathers ascribed to, and it was basically a deviation of Christianity that minimized the supernatural aspects of the Christian faith. Hence my use of the word 'heresy.'

Deism as understood in the 18th Century didn't 'minimize' the supernatural aspects of the Christian faith. It absolutely rejected everything supernatural about ALL religions including Christianity and the Bible.

Agreeing that Jesus was a wise man and that there is a Creator God is not the same as agreeing that Jesus is the divine son of G-d and part of a triune Godhead. Finding wisdom in the Bible is not the same as agreeing that G-d stopped the sun or Jesus raised dead men from the grave.

If you do not believe that Jesus is the divine son of G-d then you are not a Christian. Islam holds Jesus to be an important and inspired prophet; I know of no one who would consider Islam a heretical form of Christianity.

Of course Deism has changed over time. Deism as the founders knew it has all but disappeared, but many of its concepts have been 'absorbed' or borrowed by other traditions. Jefferson is not alive today however, his understanding of Deism is that of the late 18th Century.

You say that Christianity and Deism are antithetical. How is that different from my stating that a deviant Christianity (one that incorporates Deist and/or materialist thought and rejects the supernatural nature of Christianity, rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, etc.) is heresy? I think we're saying the same thing but using different words.

No we aren't. As I said above, Deism rejects anything to do with the supernatural. It is absolutely fundamental to Christianity that Jesus died, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day, however, rising from the dead on the third day is a supernatural event that is absolutely incompatible with Deism. Full Stop.

Yes, Jefferson edited the New Testament - but he was still using the Christian scriptures. That's why I say he was in heresy. He did NOT "completely reject the Bible" (as you stated). He (and the other Deist founding fathers) were approaching religion from the angle of Christianity, not some other religion. They were immersed in Christian thought, but simply rejected the parts they didn't agree with.

Jefferson's edits removed everything that was supernaturally fundamental to Christianity. No virgin birth. No raising from the dead. No water into wine. No walking on water. No rising from the dead. Jesus was a man, a wise man, but not a supernatural being. The resultant document is NOT a Christian document anymore than Confucius or Descartes.

I just don't think one can call them Deist in the strict sense of the word, and exclude the Christian worldview (albeit altered) from these guys.

They are men of their day and men raised in the Christian community, sure. Their world view was formed by the people around them as they grew from children to men. Those people were, in general, Christians. It was also influenced by their readings, and they were by all accounts voracious readers.

I thought the Puritan comment was funny for a couple of reasons. First, the irony that the Puritans wanted out from under the confines of the Church of England, but were intolerant of those who didn't agree with their flavor of Protestantism. Second, because I have experienced plenty of "religious intolerance" from Protestant Christians myself - various divisions of Protestants who adamantly and even vehemently define "true Christianity" as their particular sect, and their sect only. I find all that kind of comic.

I think your emphasis is off a little bit. The Puritans didn't want "out from under the confines of the Church of England"; they wanted the Church of England to adopt their practices. An analogy: The TEA party doesn't want out from under the confines of the Republican Party; they want the Republicans to adopt their policies. The difference is that the C. of E. had much more success telling the Puritans to take a flying leap than the Republicans are having with the TEA Party.

Don't you think Jefferson's comment about "nature's God" is a reference to the Creator of nature?

Yes, of course it is, that is the point. I remind you of the summary of the key features of Deism from Sir Leslie Stephen's "English Thought in the Eighteenth Century"

(from Wikipedia article on Deism)
The concept of deism covers a wide variety of positions on a wide variety of religious issues. Sir Leslie Stephen's English Thought in the Eighteenth Century describes three features[17] constituting the core of deism:

* Rejection of religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.
* Rejection of religious dogma and demagogy.
* Skepticism of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries".

Constructive elements of deist thought included:

* God exists and created the universe.
* God gave humans the ability to reason.

originally posted by: seentoomuch
a reply to: borntowatch

If you don't get it, wow, it's clear to see. ETA: I was taught the meaning of this verse when I was 9 years old. Put it in context of any govt vs religion disagreement and it answers it. Christians are to follow the law of the land. If we don't agree with it I guess a vote would change it, but until it is changed it is the law and me must follow it.

STM

Note: Sorry for all the edits, it's a concise saying but difficult to explain.

Jesus held up an image of Caesar and said "render to Caesar what is Caesar.
Render to God what is Gods", Adam, humanity were created in Gods image, We are Gods image, we (Christians)are to render ourselves to God before the law of the land.
Gods law, love Him and each other

originally posted by: teamcommander


So far I have read this response three times and can not decide if you are totally disagreeing with it or if I am mis-reading what you have said. I would hate to think we could be potentially arguing about an agreement.

I would ask you to re-read my statements and help me better understand yours.

Touche

I reread your question/statement and I didnt really understand it either, silly me I suppose.
I didnt want to comment and make a fool of myself..so
lets work on the laws in the bible you spoke about.

"What I can't reconcile is the relative precedence of Biblical law and Constitutional law as applied by a "true believer" of the time. According to the Bible, no laws should come before the "law of God" or in this case, laws written by humans that seek to replicate God's thoughts and words.
"

What law are you talking about in the above quote, the OT law or Christ's law.

The Old testament laws applied to the Hebrew nation, applied to the world in general and is a benchmark of judgement for those outside of Christ today.
The New testament laws apply to those in Gods Kingdom under Christ.

I dont understand what your phrase "biblical law" represents, either one or both.
I cant answer the question with out understanding what law/s you are referring to.

I also believe that the US constitution wasnt written for Christians, it was written for everyone.

irrespective the old Testament law is valid and effective. Tooth for tooth, restitution and death for death is an effective way to deal with criminals. Its an effective way to deal with crime.
Christians accept and understand they are a minority in the world so Christian laws of love and forgive just cant work.

That help.

a reply to: borntowatch

I do not remember making any statements about the biblical laws.
I was speaking of the "principals" which were voiced by Jesus in His sermon on the mount. This can be read in the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. It speaks of how a man should interact with other persons. These are what I have preceived as the "guide lines" one should follow if their aim is to be "Christ-like" the deffinition of being a Christian. I know these same ideas have been held by others for many years, it is just simpler to attribute them to someone everyone can easily identify.
As to my lack of desire to live in an "christian only nation"; it is the intolerance which comes out from any closed society which I would find unbearable. If you establish a nation within which only one faith is to be served you will soon end up back in the European Dark Ages where all religious desent is punishable by imprisonment or death. Remember the Inquisitions?
It is the very tolerance which Jesus preached which would be left out from such a nation.

It does seem to me we are largely in agreement on this issue. It is mostly a matter of miscommunications; likely on my part.

The founders created a new political system by challenging certain dearly held political viewpoints that were believed to be rooted in the bible for one reason or another. I am speaking politically here. What they held as Gods true relationship with human government and the rights of man as they related to the idea of 'the divine right of kings".

They believed that God was more sympathetic to political justice and determination that was born out of the higher idea of the "natural rights" granted by the Creator. They in effect turned centuries of political/theological doctrine on its head. That having power in any form did not certainly represent that the same came form God and that such power was subordinate to "unalienable rights endowed by the Creator".

That government was to be checked and that no official government form of church was to be established or recognized officially.

a reply to: Logarock

Bravo, incredible point and it always feels good to read someone who sees that. Star for you good sir.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
So what I can't understand is how the Christian founders, if they were indeed that, didn't explicitly state that the USA constitution is explicitly subordinate to Biblical law? It seems they may have actually codified conflicts with Biblical law or at least formalized a structure which could later subordinate Biblical law.

The founders were Protestants and they had grown tired of the Catholic Church revising law to suit their needs. In Europe the Clergy had almost as much power as the nobility, and were capable of collecting taxes (called tithes at the time), imprisoning people (under accusations of blasphemy), and executing them (if accused of witchcraft). Under the Inquisition, people lived in a constant state of fear as it was easy for someone who didn't like you to simply accuse you of blasphemy and then you would be thrown in a dungeon.

While things improved after the Protestant Revolution, the revolution was bloody and the Catholic Church still discriminated against protestants even at the time the founding fathers were crossing the ocean. Once they reached a point that they could start their own country and create their own set of laws, religious freedom and free speech were important requirements for them - so that they could practice their Protestant faiths. At the time they probably never thought that the United States would become a home to non-Christian religions.

You can see this by how they treated pagans. If they couldn't convert Native Americans, they would slaughter them. If you were accused of witchcraft, you still got burned or drowned. The Constitution was worded to give everyone religious freedom, but that wasn't how things actually worked early on in the United States. In the beginning it was intended to limit the power of the Catholic Church and protect the Protestants who were living here.

That's why you have "God" mentioned so many times in our founding documents, but also a Constitution that gives a right that protects many faiths. Maybe they could have chosen to explicitly protect the rights of Protestants rather than all faiths, but that would have then conflicted with our right to free speech. In order to both protect our right to practice any faith and protect our right to free speech they needed to word the Constitution the way they did.

Think about it - if they just protected the rights of Protestants to practice their faith, what would happen if someone publicly expressed non-Protestant views? They could end up being jailed just like the Protestants were under the Catholic Church in Europe. That's something that the founders wanted to avoid.

IMO when the founders wrote religious freedom into the Constitution they were thinking specifically of Protestants. Others may deny this, but it fits their own beliefs and many of their own writings. Of course in the modern day it won't be interpreted this way.