Skip to main content

Hi to all my Forum Friends,

When our atheist Friend, Robust, posted his discussion titled "The X Commandments" in his futile effort to denigrate God, the Bible, and all Christians, I posted some of the material shown below.  Of course, the only sources or web sites which Robust and his atheist cohorts will accept as their sacred texts are the "Liars For Jesus" web site -- with the subtitle: "Help Fight the Scourge of Christian Nationalism" and the extremely liberal Huffington Post.

To counter the comments posted by fellow atheists/secularists in support of Robust's discussion, I posted the discussion titled "Did The Continental Congress Fund 20,000 Bibles?"   And, of course, our atheist and other non-believing Friends replied with retorts taken from their sacred texts -- Liars For Jesus and Huffington Post.

Secularist, atheists, liberals, and those vanilla-flavored non-believers who want to deny God -- will fight tooth and nail to either totally deny God -- or to deny the historicity of the book of Genesis.  If these folks can convince you that Genesis is not a history book; but, instead, is just a book of myths, allegories, metaphors, and feel good stories to read to children in Sunday School -- they have gained in their attempt to destroyed our Christian faith.

If Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is not true -- then, how can we trust any of the Bible to be  true?   If John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" is not true -- then, how can Christianity be true?   Do you see how the enemies of God will attack the foundation -- for, if the foundation can be weakened or destroyed -- how can the home stand?  And, that, in a nutshell, is the goal of the secular/atheist world.

And, then, we do have Christian Friends who prefer to compromise and be in agreement with non-believers, with the world -- rather than make the effort to defend our faith.  If I, or any other Christian, have a misconception regarding our faith, and I know it is a misconception -- I will not attempt to defend it against detractors.  However, when I know and/or have very strong reason to believe -- I will defend our faith.  I will not compromise our faith, just to be friends with or to ease the conscience of atheists, secularists, non-believers, or liberals.

You and I know that the Bible is the Holy Spirit inspired (man written, from the mind of God), Holy Spirit inerrant (God does not make mistakes), literal (God says what He means, and He means what He says) Written Word of God.

And, as Christian Americans, it is imperative that we stand up and defend our faith in the founding of our Christian nation -- for over 200 years the "beacon on the hill" for a hurting world.  Therefore, I present these excerpts shown below from the Library of Congress web site, as well as from the Wheaton College Archives, Koinonia Christian Ministries, and Probe Ministries web sites.

This post may be a wee bit long; but, is your Christian faith worth the effort?  Yes, you can sluff it off or delete it -- playing into the hands of those secularists and atheists who do not want you to know the truth of America's Christian heritage.  Or, you can read and archive this information so that the next time -- and it will happen unless you lock yourself in a closet -- an atheist, secularist, or just a plain old vanilla-flavored non-believer tells you America is not, and never was, a Christian nation -- you can show them the  truth.

Most likely they will ignore it and you -- but, you have done your duty for God and country.  If they ignore you or attempt to argue with you -- it is their loss.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS -- Religion & Philosophy
http://www.loc.gov/topics/content.php?cat=8

VI.  RELIGION AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html


In response to widespread sentiment that to survive the United States needed a stronger federal government, a convention met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and on September 17 adopted the Constitution of the United States.  Aside from Article VI, which stated that "no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification" for federal office holders, the Constitution said little about religion.  Its reserve troubled two groups of Americans -- those who wanted the new instrument of government to give faith a larger role -- and those who feared that it would do so.   

This latter group, worried that the Constitution did not prohibit the kind of state supported religion that had flourished in some colonies, exerted pressure on the members of the First Federal Congress.  In September 1789 the Congress adopted the First Amendment to the Constitution, which, when ratified by the required number of states in December 1791, forbade Congress to make any law "respecting an establishment of religion."

The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion -- George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal."  Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion.  In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams  claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles  upon which Freedom can securely stand."   

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence presented in this section shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.


RELIGION AND THE CONSTITUTION

 

When the Constitution was submitted to the American public, "many pious people" complained that the document had slighted God, for it contained "no recognition of His mercies to us . . . or even of His existence."   The Constitution was reticent about religion for two reasons: first, many delegates were committed federalists, who believed that the power to legislate on religion, if it existed at all, lay within the domain of the state, not the national, governments; second, the delegates believed that it would be a tactical mistake to introduce such a politically controversial issue as religion into the Constitution.   

The only "religious clause" in the document -- the proscription of religious tests as qualifications for federal office in Article Six -- was intended to defuse controversy by disarming potential critics who might claim religious discrimination in eligibility for public office.

That religion was not otherwise addressed in the Constitution did not make it an "irreligious" document any more than the Articles of Confederation was an "irreligious" document.  The Constitution dealt with the church precisely as the Articles had, thereby maintaining, at the national level, the religious status quo.  In neither document did the people yield any explicit power to act in the field of religion.  But the absence of expressed powers did not prevent either the Continental-Confederation Congress or the Congress under the Constitution from sponsoring a program to support general, nonsectarian religion.


RELIGION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS


Many Americans were disappointed that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights that would explicitly enumerate the rights of American citizens and enable courts and public opinion to protect these rights from an oppressive government.  Supporters of a bill of rights permitted the Constitution to be adopted with the understanding that the first Congress under the new government would attempt to add a bill of rights.

James Madison took the lead in steering such a bill through the First Federal Congress, which convened in the spring of 1789.  The Virginia Ratifying Convention and Madison's constituents, among whom were large numbers of Baptists who wanted freedom of religion secured, expected him to push for a bill of rights.  On September 28, 1789, both houses of Congress voted to send twelve amendments to the states.  In December 1791, those ratified by the requisite three fourths of the states became the first ten  amendments to the Constitution.   

Religion was addressed in the First Amendment in the following familiar words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  In notes for his June 8, 1789, speech introducing the Bill of Rights, Madison indicated his opposition to a "national" religion.  Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick  out one religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support.


THE RHETORICAL SUPPORT OF RELIGION:    WASHINGTON AND ADAMS

 

The country's first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, were firm believers in the importance of religion for republican government.  As citizens of Virginia and Massachusetts, both were sympathetic to general religious taxes being paid by the citizens of their respective states to the churches of their choice.  However both statesmen would have discouraged such a measure at the national level because of its divisiveness. They confined themselves to promoting religion rhetorically, offering frequent testimonials to its importance in building the moral character of American citizens, that, they believed, undergirded public order and successful popular government.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++


THE STATE BECOMES THE CHURCH:  JEFFERSON AND MADISON
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html


It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church.  Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives.  Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four.

Worship services in the House -- a practice that continued until after the Civil War -- were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary.  Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared.  Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.   As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson,  Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience."   Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in  executive branch buildingsThe Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state."   In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion.   In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support  to religion as a prop for republican government.


The Old House of Representatives


Church services were held in what is now called Statuary Hall from 1807 to 1857.  The first services in the Capitol, held when the government moved to Washington in the fall of 1800, were conducted in the "hall" of the House in the north wing of the building.  In 1801 the House moved to temporary quarters in the south wing, called the "Oven," which it vacated in 1804, returning to the north wing for three years.  Services were conducted in the House until after the Civil WarThe Speaker's podium was used as the  preacher's pulpit.

 

A Millennialist Sermon Preached in Congress


A Sermon on the Second Coming of Christ, and on the Last Judgment.   A Millennialist Sermon Preached in Congress.  This sermon on the millennium was preached by the Baltimore Swedenborgian minister, John Hargrove (1750-1839) in the House of Representatives.  One of the earliest millennialist sermons preached before Congress was offered on July 4, 1801, by the Reverend  David Austin (1759-1831), who at the time considered himself "struck in prophesy under the style of the Joshua of the American Temple."   

Having proclaimed to his Congressional audience the imminence of the Second Coming of Christ, Austin took up a collection on the floor of the House to support services at "Lady Washington's Chapel" in a nearby hotel where he was teaching that "the seed of the Millennial estate is found in the backbone of the American Revolution."


++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

The First English Language Bible Published In North America

Library of Congress Bible Collection

http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/B...dinNorthAmerica.aspx


The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the American colonies with the result that Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from “Scotland, Holland, or elsewhere.”

On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734–1802) petitioned Congress to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament that he was preparing at his own expense.  Congress passed a resolution endorsing Aitken’s Bible.

The first Bible printed in the English language in America.  Called “The Bible of the Revolution,” Robert Aitken’s little Bible was small enough to fit into the coat pocket of the Revolutionary War soldiers.  This Bible measures 7.25" tall by 4.75" wide by 1.5" thick.  The only Bible printing ever called for by an act of the United States Congress; this King James Version Bible helped meet the need for scriptures while England refused to allow their Bibles to be imported by the rebellious colonists, during the embargo of the  Revolutionary War.

As a curious side note: Robert Aitken’s daughter, Jane Aitken, went on to become the first woman in the history of the world to ever print a Bible.  Jane published a translation into English done by the Secretary of the United States Congress, which was itself actually the first non-King James version English language Bible ever printed in America (or the Western Hemisphere for that  matter).


++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1782 Robert Aitken Bible -- The Bible of the Revolutionary War Patriots
The Bible Commissioned By The United States Congress
http://www.vendio.com/stores/K...le-facsi/lid=6942593

 

History behind The Aitken Bible and the Commissioning of this volume by the United States Congress:

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.

George Washington, one of the greatest supporters of the Aitken Bible, was so pleased with the result that he regretted that the Revolutionary troops had been disbanded before he could provide them with such an appropriate symbol of his gratitude.  Writing to a friend, Washington lamented, "It would have pleased me well, if Congress had been pleased to make such an important present (a copy of the Aitken Bible) to the brave fellows, who have done so much for the security of their Country's rights and establishment."

The printing of the new Bible marked a significant moment in the history of the United States.  More American versions of the Bible soon followed and, no longer subject to British editions of the Bible, the United States was, for the first time, able to fully express the freedom of religion held so dearly by the population.  The Aitken Bible was championed by the people and symbolized a dramatic release from British, and indeed government control, over their right and ability to worship.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A Revolutionary Bible…

Wheaton College Archives & Special Collections
By David Malone | February 25, 2011
http://recollections.liblog.wh...revolutionary-bible/


The early history of publishing English bibles in America was not one of success as a monopoly existed in England and that control extended to her colonies.  The “crown” would not allow that monopoly to be breached by giving permission for bibles to be printed in the colonies.  In the colonial period bibles were shipped from Holland and England.  However, when the war for independence began embargoes began and bibles were one commodity that fell into short supply.

In 1777 the chaplain of the Continental Congress, Patrick Allison, asked its leadership to address this great shortage.  In response Congress passed a resolution to import bibles from wherever they could be obtained, “from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere,”  however nothing was ever done.

This failure of action spurred on the work Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken.  This Quaker native of Scotland had only been in the colonies since 1769.  He was the publisher of the Philadelphia Magazine along with Benjamin Franklin’s son-in-law Richard Bache.   It was Aitken that the newly formed Congress engaged to publish its journals and proceedings.   

During the war resources were scarce, but Aitken took it upon himself to gather the resources necessary to produce a small  “duodecimo” New Testament.  Due to the great demand the 1777 volume was reprinted in 1778, 1779 and 1781.  Seeing the desire the people had for copies of the bible Aitken sought the support of Congress to produce a complete bible.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THE DECLARATION AND CONSTITUTION:  THEIR CHRISTIAN ROOTS
By Kerby Anderson, Probe Ministries
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fd..._Christian_Roots.htm

 

The Declaration of Independence:

Many are unaware of the writings and documents that preceded these great works and the influence of biblical ideas in their formation.  In the first two sections of this article, I would like to examine the Declaration of Independence.  Following this, we'll look at the Constitution.

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution to the Continental Congress calling for a formal declaration of independence.  However, even at that late date, there was significant opposition to the resolution.  So, Congress recessed for three  weeks to allow delegates to return home and discuss the proposition with their constituents while a committee was appointed to xpress the Congressional sentiments.  The task of composing the Declaration fell to Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson's initial draft left God out of the manuscript entirely except for a vague reference to "the laws of nature and of nature's God."   Yet, even this phrase makes an implicit reference to the laws of God.

The phrase "laws of nature" had a fixed meaning in 18th century England and America.  It was a direct reference to the laws of God in a created order as described in John Locke's "Second Treatise on Civil Government" and William Blackstone's "Commentaries on  the Laws of England."


Locke explained that the "law of nature" is God's general revelation of law in creation -- which God also supernaturally writes on the hearts of men.  Locke drew the idea from the New Testament in Romans 1 and 2.  In contrast, he spoke of the "law of God" or the "positive law of God" as God's eternal moral law specially revealed and published in Scripture.  (Gary Amos, Defending the Declaration)


What Jefferson was content to leave implicit, however, was made more explicit by the other members of the committee.  They  changed the language to read that all men are "endowed by their Creator" with these rights.

 

The Constitution:


The influence of the Bible on the Constitution was profound but often not appreciated by secular historians and political theorists.  Two decades ago, Constitutional scholars and political historians (including one of my professors at Georgetown University) assembled 15,000 writings from the Founding Era (1760-1805).  They counted 3154 citations in these writings, and found that the book most frequently cited in that literature was the Bible.  The writers from the Foundering Era quoted from the Bible 34 percent of the time.  Even more interesting was that about three-fourths of all references to the Bible came from reprinted sermons from that era.  (Gary Amos, Defending the Declaration)

Professor M.E. Bradford shows in his book, "A Worthy Company," that fifty of the fifty-five men who signed the Constitution were church members who endorsed the Christian faith.  (M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution)

The Bible and biblical principles were important in the framing of the Constitution.  In particular, the framers started with a biblical view of human nature.  James Madison argued in Federalist #51 that government must be based upon a realistic view of human  nature.

James Madison's solution to governmental tyranny includes both federalism as well as the separation of powers.  Federalism can be found at the very heart of the United States Constitution.  In fact, without federalism, there was no practical reason for the framers to abandon the Articles of Confederation and draft the Constitution.

Federalism comes from foedus, Latin for covenant. "The tribes of Israel shared a covenant that made them a nation.  American federalism originated at least in part in the dissenting Protestants' familiarity with the Bible."  (Donald S. Lutz, The Origins of  American Constitutionalism)

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++


These excerpts, and their associated web sites, should lay to rest any question regarding the Christian origin of America, our founding fathers, and our founding documents.  America was founded as a Christian nation -- the "Beacon Light On The Hill" for all the  world.  And, in spite of all the efforts of secularist, atheists, liberals, and all others who are determined to remove God and the Bible from America and our heritage -- America was formed as a Christian nation -- and America is still a Christian nation.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

1 - USA_Flag-Map_Cross-Hands_1d

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1 - USA_Flag-Map_Cross-Hands_1d
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Like it or not,

the REALITY today is that Americans have diversity in religious beliefs.   Even if the nation had a monolithic make-up from centuries ago, TODAY our fellow Americans are not only Christian but also Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Baha'i, etc, etc, etc, etc....Can we not stand TOGETHER?

 

God is good and would have us love ALL of them and be FAIR to ALL of them.  Praise be God.

 

In my opinion, in this modern age, with the integration of all the cultures and peoples of this planet of God's creation, there should be NO SUCH THING as a Christian Nation, a Jewish State, an Islamic Republic, or Atheist Country.   A Government would be WRONG for treating any religious group as a secondary, second-class component of its nation.

 

My trust is in God is in my HEART, and I am in no need of government regulation of my personal religious beliefs.   I think it's sad that there are others who feel that Government must do this.  God is strong, not weak.   To me, an opposition to the separation of Church and State is a belief that God is weak and is in need of Government to have an influence.  I trust that God is All-Powerful and All-Loving.

 

Thank you.   May God bless the Whole Wide World and ALL the Human Family

Hi Corn,

You tell us, "Like it or not, the REALITY today is that Americans have diversity in religious beliefs.   Even if the nation had a  monolithic make-up from centuries ago, TODAY our fellow Americans are not only Christian but also Jewish, Muslim, Atheist,  Buddhist, Hindu, Baha'i, etc, etc, etc, etc....Can we not stand TOGETHER?"

Yes, that is true -- and God loves every single one of us.  That is why He sent His Son to die -- so that every single person will have the opportunity to gain salvation, eternal life, by grace, through faith in Him.  Jesus Christ died so that everyone can have eternal life; but, not all will have eternal life.

So, who will have eternal life?  Those who, by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ -- will believe and receive His "free gift" of eternal life (Ephesians 2:8-9, John 1:12).  He has already "paid in full" our pardon.  Yet, if we do not get up and follow Him out of the prison cell of the world -- we forfeit His "paid in full" pardon.

Then, you tell us, "God is good and would have us love ALL of them and be FAIR to ALL of them.  Praise be God."

Yes, He most certainly does want us to love all mankind.  But, He wants us to love them enough to tell them when they are on the wrong path.

Matthew 7:13-14, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.  For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

When Jesus Christ told us in Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:8, and Mark 16:15 to be His witnesses to the world -- He is telling us to go, disciple, and teach those who are still on the broad path toward destruction -- that we may help guide them toward the narrow path which leads to eternal life in Christ.  This is the level of love He has for us -- and this is the level of love He wants us to share with the world.

Next, you declare, "In my opinion, in this modern age, with the integration of all the cultures and peoples of this planet of God's  creation, there should be NO SUCH THING as a Christian Nation, a Jewish State, an Islamic Republic, or Atheist Country.   A  Government would be WRONG for treating any religious group as a secondary, second-class component of its nation."

You are correct that our government should not discriminate between the different religions.  However, we who are Christian MUST at least recognize the differences and that fact that those still mired in world religions, in atheist/secularist religions, in occult and cultic religions, and other false religions -- do need to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  For, it is ONLY through Jesus Christ that a person can have eternal life -- and, He, Jesus Christ, will not be found in any of those religions.

God wants us to be ecumenical within the ranks of our Christian faith, within the ranks of our Christian fellowships -- and He wants us to tear down the barriers which men have built through the many different denominations.  We are one body of Christ, one body of believers -- with one Jesus Christ, revealed to us through one Bible.  We should not be having all the denominational differences.   But, since we are human, with human frailties, this will continue until He comes again to establish His Millennial Kingdom.

But, God does not want the Christian church to join ecumenical movements which include non-Christian religions.  He does not want us worshiping with those who worship other gods.  He made this very clear in Exodus 20:3, the First Commandment, "You shall have no other gods before Me."   And, in Exodus 20:4, the Second Commandment, "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth."  

We, as Christians, must witness to and share Jesus Christ with those religions -- but, we are not to join them in ecumenical worship services where we each worship our own, individual gods.

Christian ecumenism -- yes.  World religions ecumenism -- no.

You declare, "My trust is in God is in my HEART, and I am in no need of government regulation of my personal religious beliefs.   I  think it's sad that there are others who feel that Government must do this."

No one, especially me, wants government to have control of religion.  That is why the First Amendment tells us, "Congress shall make  no law respecting an establishment of religion -- or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."    In other words, Congress shall not promote any one religion above others as the national religion.  This is what drove believers to leave England when they came to America to settle the new country -- a country where each person is free to worship, or not to worship, as he/she desires.

The First Amendment protects the church from government intrusion -- it does not declare that there will be no Christian influence within government.  That would be going against Article VI, which stated that "no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification" for federal office holders.  This article says that no religious test will be given -- neither for religious beliefs, nor against religious beliefs.

But, the secularists/atheists want to impose a "religious test" which will keep Christians OUT of the government.  And, this is what most Christians are fighting against.

You tell us, "God is strong, not weak.   To me, an opposition to the separation of Church and State is a belief that God is weak and is in need of Government to have an influence.  I trust that God is All-Powerful and All-Loving."

Yes, our God is omnipotent; there is nothing He cannot do.  However, for reasons only He knows -- He has asked we weak humans to be His "feet on the street."   While God can heal anyone -- He gives healing powers to doctors.  While God can bring anyone to faith in Christ -- He asks us to be His witnesses and His partners in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  And, while God can rule any nation -- He, for his own reasons, leaves the ruling to we weak, frail humans.

And, when the secularists/atheists begin to push their "separation of church and state" -- for the sole purpose of keeping ALL Christian influence out of government -- we Christians MUST do our best to make sure that our government does indeed have a fair share of Christian faith, Christian influence, within its ranks.

Finally, you tell us, "Thank you.   May God bless the Whole Wide World and ALL the Human Family."

Corn, I could not agree with you more.  I pray that God will continue to bless the whole world -- and that He will continue to raise up dedicated missionaries who will take His Word to the far reaches of our world.  For we are told, in Matthew 24:14, "This Gospel of  the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come."

So, the sooner the Gospel is taken to the whole world, the sooner the last person who will be saved, is saved -- then, the blessed Rapture will occur.  Praise God!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Thank you for finding the common points of agreement.  It is very much appreciated, and your compassion for the matter is impressive.

 

In some cases, I didn't find certain of your arguments backed by Biblical Scriptures, specifically,  The points regarding why you can't be standing in unity with those of other religious beliefs (Jesus certainly did this as he served the communities)  and the justification of interpreting the First Amendment as a one-way restriction of government on religion, instead of both ways while keeping in mind about Jesus's quotation regarding Cesar in Mark 12:17 and Matthew 21:22.    A Christian influence upon Government then justifies an Islamic influence upon Government, a Jewish influence upon Government, a Hindu influence upon Government, (etc) and then the next thing you know, there will be problems, especially as evidenced in other countries' Civil Wars borne out of competing religions seeking Power, which surely is NOT what God desires of all of his Followers.   Only a secular non-biased government can be fair to ALL of the religions.   We don't want an atheist government either, because an atheist government denies God and religion, but a secular government doesn't lean either way toward any particular bias, so as to best preserve Freedom of Religion.

 

Finally allow me to remind everyone that it is NOT true that Jesus, the Christ is found only in Christianity, and Christianity only.  This is a Error.  Also, it is very suspicious if the claim is made that there are people called secularists who desire to "keep Christians out of Government."   It would not seem logical for a secularist to ask any Candidate for his Religious identity (if this is what is meant by a "religious test")  because a Secularist would find church affiliation totally irrelevant as a criteria to serve the public.   The Fanatical do raise the question of religions affiliation of a candidate and make it a criteria for voting for or against the candidate.

 

Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts.

Hi Joshua,

You tell me, "Thank you for finding the common points of agreement.  It is very much appreciated, and your compassion for the  matter is impressive.  In some cases, I didn't find certain of your arguments backed by Biblical Scriptures, specifically.  The points regarding why you can't be standing in unity with those of other religious beliefs (Jesus certainly did this as he served the  communities)."

I do not say that I would not stand in unity with those of the world religions.  But, I do say that I will not worship with them.  How can Christians worship with those of other religions?  We do not worship the same deities.   Christians worship God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the God of the Bible.  We do not worship Allah of the Qur'an; nor do we worship the hundreds of thousands of Buddhas; nor do we worship animals, etc., as do many of the world pantheistic religions.

So, how are Christians to enter into a house of worship where people are worshiping false gods -- when we are told very clearly in Exodus 20:3, the First Commandment, "You shall have no other gods before Me."   And, the Second Commandment, in Exodus 20:4, "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth."

We, as Christians are to be in peaceful unity with all people of the world -- to the best of our abilities.  However, since they worship false gods, we are not to worship with them.  We witness to them, we tell them of Jesus Christ and what He has done to purchase, with His precious blood, eternal life for all who will follow Him.  But, we do not enter into worship of Allah, Buddha, or any other world religion gods.

Next, you continue, "and the justification of interpreting the First Amendment as a one-way restriction of government on religion, instead of both ways while keeping in mind about Jesus' quotation regarding Caesar in Mark 12:17 and Matthew 21:22."

What does the First Amendment say?  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion -- or prohibiting the free  exercise thereof."    What does this mean?  It means that Congress, the only body in the United States government authorized to make laws, shall make no law which gives preferential treatment to any one religion.  And, that includes all religions.

You ask about the religions of Islam, Buddhism, and other world religions.  At the time the Constitution and the First Amendment were written, they had no worry about these world religions -- there were none in their midst.  The founding fathers had mostly believers, some deists, and a couple of non-believers.  So, their concern was whether one Christian church or denomination would be given the religious monopoly in America -- as the Church of England, i.e., the Anglicans, had done in England.

So, they put the First Amendment in to assure that no one church, or denomination, could become the dominant one through support of the federal government.  And, the flip side of the First Amendment is that the federal government cannot interfere with a persons choice of where, or if, he/she is to worship.

The First Amendment was not intended to keep Christian influence out of government.  But, it was intended to keep government from interfering with Christian worship -- or any other religion.

Yet, it is very, very obvious from the excerpts I gave you in my initial post that the founding fathers believed that an infusion of Christian beliefs and Biblical morals were good for the America of 1789 -- as it is today.

Then, you tell us, "A Christian influence upon Government then justifies an Islamic influence upon Government, a Jewish influence upon Government, a Hindu influence upon Government, (etc) and then the next thing you know, there will be problems, especially as evidenced in other countries' Civil Wars borne out of competing religions seeking Power, which surely is NOT what God desires of all  of his Followers."

Actually, we do have several Muslims in Congress today.  And, I am sure we have some of the Middle Eastern influence in some of our elected officials.  Yet, I have been speaking of a Christian influence within government -- not a Christian controlled government.   The latter is a theocracy -- which no one should want or support.  One day we will have the perfect Theocracy -- when Jesus Christ  returns and establishes His Millennial Kingdom on earth.  Then, He will rule earth from the throne of David in Jerusalem -- and it will  be a perfect Theocracy.

But, other than His Theocracy -- there can be none that would not be as corrupt as any secular government.   The examples of the Iranian, the Saudis, and other Middle Eastern theocracies are living proof that man cannot control his human nature well enough to have a theocracy.  So, we will just wait for the Perfect Theocracy ruled by Jesus Christ.

You tell me, "Only a secular non-biased government can be fair to ALL of the religions.   We don't want an atheist government either, because an atheist government denies God and religion, but a secular government doesn't lean either way toward any particular bias, so as to best preserve Freedom of Religion.   Oh, I forgot to emphasize very strong that Secular is VERY DIFFERENT from Atheist.   I often worry when people confuse them or equate the 2 concepts to mean the same thing, and hopefully the visitors and readers have that keen understanding of how the concepts are different."

Secularism is typically looked at as being void of spiritual or religious content.  We read of Secularist; we read of Secular Humanist --  yet, I have never found a Secular Christian.  I have found Liberal Christians, which often can almost qualify.  And, I have met many who wear the Christian hat -- but, on Sundays only -- for their own agendas and will go along with anything or anyone the rest of the  week..

So, one would have to take Secularism as a body or group being totally void of any spiritual, Christian, or religious influence.

If we were to take all spiritual influence from government and call it secular -- what is the difference between that and an atheist government?  If fact, if you take God out of all government -- you are left with an atheist government.  Yes, I realize that not all secularist are atheists; some are smarter.  But, all atheists are secularists.

I still believe it was the intent of our founding fathers to have a government, not run by Christians, not controlled by Christians -- but, with a good taste of Christian influence within its bodies.

You say, "Also, it is very suspicious if the claim is made that there are people called secularists who desire to "keep Christians out  of Government."   It would not seem logical for a secularist to ask any Candidate for his Religious identity (if this is what is meant by  a "religious test") because a Secularist would find church affiliation totally irrelevant as a criteria to serve the public.   The Fanatical do raise the question of religions affiliation of a candidate and make it a criteria for voting for or against the candidate."

Joshua, name some secularists in the political arena who are not atheists.  Ask our Forum Friends, Deep, Uno, Robust, Fish (I  know, I repeat myself), Jennifer, etc. -- if they want to see Christians in the White House, Congress, the Senate, the Supreme Court  -- and what do you suppose they will answer? 

 

The same answer we get when we talk about God in public schools; the same answer we get every year at Christmas -- take Christ out of Christmas; the same answer we get every year at Easter.  They want no  part of God in any aspect or any part of our society -- be it government, education, or whatever.  And, they are ALL secularists!

Finally, Joshua, you tell us, "Finally allow me to remind everyone that it is NOT true that Jesus, the Christ is found only in Christianity, and Christianity only.  This is a Error."

The name Christian means "Christ Follower" or "Little Christ" and was given, in Antioch, to believers who were followers of Jesus Christ.  It was meant as a name to defame believers -- but, very quickly believers came to see it as a badge of honor.  You will find this name ONLY in the Christian faith.

Joshua, please tell me even ONE religion where Jesus is part of it.  Yes, Islam recognizes Him as a great prophet, one level below  Muhammed.  Yes, the Mormon church has someone they call Jesus Christ -- but, this one is a created being who is the spirit  brother of Lucifer/Satan -- and is not deity. 

 

Yes, the Jehovah's Witnesses have a Jesus, but, he is not God -- before the JWs' Jesus  came to earth He was the archangel, Michael.  To the Buddhist, most do not even recognize Jesus at all -- but, those who do see  Him as only a gifted teacher.

So, Joshua, please give us one example of a Jesus Christ, the preexisting deity of John 1:1 -- in any faith except the Christian faith.   Jesus Christ is not only in the Christian faith -- He IS the Christian faith. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and  that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast"  (Ephesians 2:8-9).  That saving faith is faith in Jesus Christ.

"I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6).  That WAY is Jesus Christ.

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we  must be saved (Acts 4:12)  That name is Jesus Christ.

No, Joshua, my Friend -- there is only one Jesus Christ -- and He is found ONLY in the Christian faith.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Originally Posted by Joshua Cornfelder:

Oh, I forgot to emphasize very strong that  Secular is VERY DIFFERENT from Atheist.   I often worry when people confuse them or equate the 2 concepts to mean the same thing, and hopefully the visitors and readers have that keen understanding of how the concepts are different.


Very good point, Joshua.  Unfortunately, it will not be understood by those who were trying to educate.

quote:    Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

Bill, your first post is typical.  Regarding the printing of Bibles by Congress: your links don't go with the text that you print.  Smoke and mirrors, lies and distortions.  That's all you've posted. 


Hi Crusty,

 

You are always huffing and puffing -- declaring that something I, or another, wrote is wrong.  But, you NEVER show us where it is wrong or give us the correct information.  All you want to do is imitate the school yard trouble maker -- making a lot of noise -- but, doing nothing which is constructive.

 

If you have it -- show it.  If not, please be polite and tone down your huffing and puffing to what they should be -- little whimpers.

 

By the way, you keep telling me that YOUR JESUS is not the same as my Jesus Christ -- but, for whatever reason, you refuse to tell us who your Jesus is or where we can find him.  More huffing and puffing?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bill's been given the correct information but just like gb he figures if he keeps pretending over and over that he doesn't see it or understand it, that it will be "not so". Deny you see it, pretend not to understand it, ask them over and over again and maybe it will go away is their mindset. They need to learn life doesn't work that way.

Bill see my post in the other thread where I addressed the matter.  It was at least my third time to prove you wrong.  Unlike yourself, I don't feel it necessary to continue to address your lies over and over and over this week.  But in a few months, when you pull this lie out again, I'll refute it again.

 

The only thing I can figure is that your alzheimers has gotten so bad that you keep forgetting that you have already posted the lie, and that it has been refuted. 

 

As to your other question, you know the conditions under which I will answer.  This is now the 6th time I've addressed that.

Originally Posted by Jennifer:

Bill's been given the correct information but just like gb he figures if he keeps pretending over and over that he doesn't see it or understand it, that it will be "not so". Deny you see it, pretend not to understand it, ask them over and over again and maybe it will go away is their mindset. They need to learn life doesn't work that way.

Yeah, and he says we are the ones huffing and puffing.  Ridiculous as usual.

Bill's modus operandi is to post things that are not true, and to ignore actual facts when presented with them, and then leave the topic. Just as with his and gb's claim that congress funded/bought bibles. When confronted with the facts they both dropped it, but somewhere down the road it will be back for discussion and bill's claim will be he has already proven congress bought the bibles and do his fake "wondering" about why it was brought up again.

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Yes, my Friends,

 

It has been proven, over and over, that America was founded as a Christian nation -- and, today, over 250 years later -- America is still a Christian nation.  Praise God!

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Nowhere in the Constitution is Christ mentioned, nor are there any provisions for establishing a religious state of any kind - quite the contrary.

 

Have another blissed day, Bill.

Hi all,

 

Regardless of how much our atheist and secularist Friends huff and puff -- there is an amazing amount of proof that the solid foundation upon which America was built -- and the solid foundation upon which America stands today -- is none other than Jesus Christ, personal Lord and Savior of all Christian believers.

 

Yes, Virginia, AMERICA WAS AND IS -- A CHRISTIAN NATION!   Praise God!

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bro bill, by inference these poor atheistic have at one time or another claimed you as being the reason they have not become born-again Christianist. To test their claims why don’t you declare a moratorium on this particular forum for a season. Go ye into other forums. I think they[, the atheistic], have spent enough time getting familiar with their ignorance so this could be a test to see if they are lying about you.

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi all,

 

Regardless of how much our atheist and secularist Friends huff and puff -- there is an amazing amount of proof that the solid foundation upon which America was built -- and the solid foundation upon which America stands today -- is none other than Jesus Christ, personal Lord and Savior of all Christian believers.

 

Yes, Virginia, AMERICA WAS AND IS -- A CHRISTIAN NATION!   Praise God!

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Yeah you just keep tellin' yerself that....

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi all,

 

Regardless of how much our atheist and secularist Friends huff and puff -- there is an amazing amount of proof that the solid foundation upon which America was built -- and the solid foundation upon which America stands today -- is none other than Jesus Christ, personal Lord and Savior of all Christian believers.

 

Yes, Virginia, AMERICA WAS AND IS -- A CHRISTIAN NATION!   Praise God!

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Hi all,

 

Regardless of how much my senile Friend huffs and puffs -- there is an amazing amount of proof that the solid foundation upon which America was built -- and the solid foundation upon which America stands today -- is none other than the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

Regardless of how the delusional, fanatic, cultist, Fundamental "Christians" try to change history, science, and even God's Word, they are the one's blowing smoke up everyone's asses.

Of the collecting of irrelevant anecdotal materials and the contriving of legally amateurish rationales in support of the Christian Nationist notions of Bill and other David Bartonites there is apparently no end.  Scarcely ever have I seen such an outpouring of incompetent guardhouse lawyering  in  attempted support of the insupportable!

 

The Christian Nationists'  crabbed and narrow interpretations of the First Amendment and the gross misapplications of Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter would be laughable if they were not so tragically incompetent.

 

Face it, Bill and Company--you will NEVER find the courts of this land vacating the CORRECT and CONSTITUTIONAL decisions they have rendered on matters of church and state.  In case you wonder what I am referring to, I mean such cases as those dealing with government-devised and government directed prayer in the public schools and the erection of such things as stand-alone 10 Commandments monuments in public buildings (e.g. Roy Moore's Folly).  This nation is long past the point where evangelical radicals, whether in a majority or not,  can have any chance of getting their way on matters like this.

Hi Head,

 

No problem, you can refuse to allow God in your schools.  But, I thank God often that my grandchildren are in a school which teaches God, which teaches the Bible, which teaches Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior -- and where the teachers, not only allow prayers in the school -- but, the teachers join in the prayers with the students.  Praise God!

 

To me, it is such a beautiful feeling when I attend Grandparent's Day at our school -- and am able to join in the joint prayers with teachers, students, and administrators -- all joining together to send prayers of praise and worship to our God.

 

But, hey, if you prefer Godless schools, such as we have had in the public sector since 1963 -- good luck.  Maybe you can join Obama and his pastor, Rev. Wright, in their worship and in their cursing America and God during their sermons.   But, for me, no thanks!

 

Head, maybe you have told us this before in your Beter life cycle -- but, I am curious.  I have attended a Baptist church for the last 24 years.  What church do you attend?   The reason I ask is that you seem to be both very legalistic and very liberal.  I am curious which church/denomination fosters such beliefs.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Crusty, my good Friend,

 

Thanks to your efforts -- my discussions are staying right on top of the Top Ten list.  Thank you for making them so visible to folks who come on the Religion Forum.  Yes, you are a good ministry partner.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

You've learned to cut and paste.  Good for you.

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Head,

 

No problem, you can refuse to allow God in your schools.  But, I thank God often that my grandchildren are in a school which teaches God, which teaches the Bible, which teaches Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior -- and where the teachers, not only allow prayers in the school -- but, the teachers join in the prayers with the students.  Praise God!

 

To me, it is such a beautiful feeling when I attend Grandparent's Day at our school -- and am able to join in the joint prayers with teachers, students, and administrators -- all joining together to send prayers of praise and worship to our God.

 

But, hey, if you prefer Godless schools, such as we have had in the public sector since 1963 -- good luck.  Maybe you can join Obama and his pastor, Rev. Wright, in their worship and in their cursing America and God during their sermons.   But, for me, no thanks!

 

Head, maybe you have told us this before in your Beter life cycle -- but, I am curious.  I have attended a Baptist church for the last 24 years.  What church do you attend?   The reason I ask is that you seem to be both very legalistic and very liberal.  I am curious which church/denomination fosters such beliefs.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

___

God is not banned from public schools, Bill. It IS unconstitutional for the operatives of civil government to devise  prayers or other religious observances and prescribe them to be undertaken by public school students.  You might be content to allow government to decide what your children or grandchildren are to pray about, when and where they are to pray,  to whom those prayers are to be directed and in whose name they are to be offered, but I am not.  I continue to be amazed that so many ultra-conservatives, who allege to want government to be the "least government possible" and who want government to stay out of the personal lives of themselves and their families, are so willing to allow government (and public school authorities ARE the government) to dictate the form and content of prescribed school prayers.

quote:   Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

The problem with bringing religion into public schools is that it also brings the ridiculous pseudo-science of creationism/intelligent design.  Here is more proof that ridiculous concepts like a 6000 year old earth are bogus, hack-science: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-skull_n_918094.html  


Hi Crusty,

 

You, my Friend, are a true enigma.  You declare that you are a Christian -- yet, you deny God, you deny His Creation, you deny all teachings of the Bible.   My Friend, that position is so far Left of the Liberal Left Theology -- that, if Liberal Theology were the Pentagon -- you would be standing in Maryland!

 

Then, for proof, you offer a writing from the Huffington Post -- which is even more Liberal Left than you, if that is possible.

 

Sorry, my Friend, but this attempt to prove your atheist influenced belief system is just more huffing and puffing.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Hi Head,

 

You still have not answered my question regarding your Christian affiliation.  Which church or denomination do you attend?  The reason I ask is that you seem to be very legalistic and yet you seem to be very liberal.  The two do not normally mix.   Normally, the legalistic churches tend to be almost fundamentalist -- while the liberals tend to stand on the other side of the room.

 

And, you seem to have a lot of anger.  Why?  We should be able to discuss God, Jesus Christ, the Bible -- even with non-believers without anger and personal attacks.  We should be able to have civil discussions -- even with those with whom we disagree. We should be able to show them, from Scripture, where their belief is wrong or where it strays from the Biblical teaching.  Yet, you seem to always allow anger to enter the discussion.  

 

I am sincerely curious why this happens.  Is it something personal within you -- or is this an attitude your church teaches?  This is why I have been asking about which church/denomination you attend.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote:   Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

The problem with bringing religion into public schools is that it also brings the ridiculous pseudo-science of creationism/intelligent design.  Here is more proof that ridiculous concepts like a 6000 year old earth are bogus, hack-science: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-skull_n_918094.html  


Hi Crusty,

 

You, my Friend, are a true enigma.  You declare that you are a Christian -- yet, you deny God, you deny His Creation, you deny all teachings of the Bible.   My Friend, that position is so far Left of the Liberal Left Theology -- that, if Liberal Theology were the Pentagon -- you would be standing in Maryland!

 

Then, for proof, you offer a writing from the Huffington Post -- which is even more Liberal Left than you, if that is possible.

 

Sorry, my Friend, but this attempt to prove your atheist influenced belief system is just more huffing and puffing.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

I don't deny God, Bill.  I don't deny all teachings of the Bible. I just don't embrace ridiculous twisting of Bible stories as science.  My faith won't fall apart simply because evolution is true. I DO deny your loony interpretations of many parts of the Bible.

 

You always want to put a label on things.  So here is how I label you:  Sad, sad, ignorant, right-wing, cultist, fanatic, wacko fundamentalist lunatic. 

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

The problem with bringing religion into public schools is that it also brings the ridiculous pseudo-science of creationism/intelligent design.  Here is more proof that ridiculous concepts like a 6000 year old earth are bogus, hack-science: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-skull_n_918094.html


========================

Old crust, it is clearly a 20 million year old baboon skull that has not evolved into a human. Dig up a crock-o-duck and I’ll take a hard look.

Crust wake up paleontology, archeology and geology are not a source for evolution Darwin type but actually a commentary against common ancestor. You keep hanging on to “old timey” science because you have never been out of your own back yard. Crust evolution has a taken quantum approach to the science of it. Grave robbers with rock hammers are proven to be just that. There is no fossil evidence of man-from-apes. The science is in the lab now on a quantum level where God’s finger prints reside.

The greatest effort to understand the greatness of the creator and science is incidental as it turns out to be is the Large Hadron Collider Experiment. The complexity and vastness of these experiments are understood by only a few of us.

I’m going to challenge you crust. Directors and scientist all over the world in an effort to expand understanding of the LHC are ,as we speak making available a series of lectures to aid in understanding the complexities, how it works and of what use is the data from it.

I will give you the link to what is currently going on “The Summer Student Lecture programme”

 

 

http://indico.cern.ch/scripts/SSLPdisplay.py?stdate=2011-06-27&nbweeks=8

 

 

Work your way through the lectures. When you have finished the series and understand them you will be somewhat qualified to be just as confused about the scientific understanding of the origin of the universe and its inhabitants as your future generations will be.

 

I don’t think you will accept my challenge because of not having the background to understand the math and language of the first lecture. And then there are those semantics that have to be dealt with.

 

Anyone who listens to the series has to be humbled by what science has uncovered as to the mystery of GOD THE CREATOR..

 

Crusty I’m simply saying and you just can’t get things in that hogg head.

Without the proper understanding of science your expository on these complicated subjects runs counter to efforts by science who must drag you all along with you constant lowing amongst the herd making nervous objections when a belief God is threatened.

 

P.S. Don't watch the lectures.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×