Note to Liberals: America’s Founders Were Christians

[OzarkWoman]

When one resorts to name calling and other assorted ad hominem comments, it's a fair indication that one has run out of steam and reasonable responses...

Actually, that is an old statement and is not really true all of the time, but nice try. This timne it is meant as sick of seeing the same old...same old from Laz, who has not proven his point at all.

[joeb]

When one resorts to name calling and other assorted ad hominem comments, it's a fair indication that one has run out of steam and reasonable responses...

As for Ben Franklin, he was an odd Christian, one that doubted the divinity of Christ, rarely attended church, and rejected all religious dogma and doctrine, including the doctrine of salvation. He was indeed a great supporter of religion in general, seeing it as good for society, but he might be better described as a freethinker. He was most clearly a Diest, which really put him on the fringes of Christianity at best.

That anyone might place much credence in being labeled as a Christian, the meaning and relevance in the apparent context of this thread is best neutralized by legitimately invoking Godwin's law - Hitler was a Christian too.

First, Laz has earned the title of troll in this area. He constantly misrepresents positions, will not listen to anything said to him, and uses sarcasm and inuendo against those he disagrees with. So, if you want to call that an ad hominen attack, go right ahead. It will say more about you than me.

Second. Ahh, yes. Making Ben Franklin and Hitler equals. The man who gave away inventions for the public good even though he could have made a lot of money from them, who started our public library system, who supported many churches, the man who said live your life the way God wants you to because you're going to stand before Him on judgement day, is the same as the man who murdered millions.

I'll call Franklin a Christian any day of the week. I've studied his writings, and read many books about him. I'm a history buff, and he's one of my favorite historical figures, so don't think you can "educate" me on Ben Franklin, or any of the other founding fathers either. I've been reading books on these men since I was 10 years old.

[Guest]

Hitler and Ben Franklin? Really Tom??

Is this really where you want to be when Jesus comes back? Calling good evil, and evil good? Because I think there's something in the Bible about that.

[Guest]

First, Laz has earned the title of troll in this area. He constantly misrepresents positions, will not listen to anything said to him, and uses sarcasm and inuendo against those he disagrees with. So, if you want to call that an ad hominen attack, go right ahead. It will say more about you than me.

Second. Ahh, yes. Making Ben Franklin and Hitler equals. The man who gave away inventions for the public good even though he could have made a lot of money from them, who started our public library system, who supported many churches, the man who said live your life the way God wants you to because you're going to stand before Him on judgement day, is the same as the man who murdered millions.

Good post... Ditto!

[lazarus]

Joeb, you may have missed this in your reading.

Benjamin Franklin wrote in his autobiography,

"Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist. My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins and Ralph; but each of them having afterwards wrong'd me greatly without the least compunction, and recollecting Keith's conduct towards me (who was another freethinker) and my own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me great trouble, I began to suspect that this doctrine, tho' it might be true, was not very useful.

[Guest]

Joeb, you may have missed this in your reading.

Benjamin Franklin wrote in his autobiography,

"Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist. My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins and Ralph; but each of them having afterwards wrong'd me greatly without the least compunction, and recollecting Keith's conduct towards me (who was another freethinker) and my own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me great trouble, I began to suspect that this doctrine, tho' it might be true, was not very useful.

So Ben Franklin believed in God. That's good. Did his experience stop right there and proceed no further? You don't know. But whether it did or not is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if he were an athiest, it wouldn't change the fact that this country was founded on Christian principals by it's founders. Ben was just one man you see.

See thread title when confused.

[Tom Wetmore]

"Founded on Christian principles" and the "founders were Christians" are two quite different things. But regardless, the British Empire could as easily make the same claims. We apparently had some differences with them.

Why is this issue so important? What is the point or purpose of needing to make this an issue?

What does it prove or establish?

[lazarus]

But regardless, the British Empire could as easily make the same claims. We apparently had some differences with them.

Yes sir. We gave the world the King James Version of the Bible. Who can beat that?

[Guest]

"Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me."

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/626542.html#Post626542

[Tom Wetmore]

"Founded on Christian principles" and the "founders were Christians" are two quite different things. But regardless, the British Empire could as easily make the same claims. We apparently had some differences with them.

Why is this issue so important? What is the point or purpose of needing to make this an issue?

What does it prove or establish?

Still no answer to these questions?

If the intent was to form a Christian nation, why did we rebel against the most Christian empire of the 18th Century, the British Empire?

[bonnie]

Why is this issue so important? What is the point or purpose of needing to make this an issue?

What does it prove or establish? l no answer to these questions?

If the intent was to form a Christian nation, why did we rebel against the most Christian empire of the 18th Century, the British Empire?

The issue seems very important to a couple of you. The word "christian" seems to annoy you as it relates to the founding of this country.

For some of us it means the "rights" we have from God are reaffirmed,not the "rights" the government sees fit to grant.

When our constitution is made void as it surely will be,the attempt to strip those rights from God and replace them with the "rights" of government we will understand what we have lost.

Maybe you think a "christian nation" means a state religion or forcing all to claim to be "christian".

Whether the founders were all christian in the way each of us defines christian is really beside the point.

They understood true rights and personal freedoms were God given rights,not some manufactured rights a benevolent government decides to grant based on whim,votes or what is deemed "good for the country"

[Tom Wetmore]

Any annoyance is purely a construct in your mind. (As I have said, any tone or emotion in this form of communication is typically a matter of the readers perception. You are reading it in your own voice. If you read me as being annoyed, it is far more likely that would be drawn from your own state of mind, since I have given no indication of annoyance, and most certainly not over the word "christian".)

I am more interested in truth and accuracy when it comes to our history. You made a reference of their christian differences from us as being beside the point. Would not any religious beliefs they might have had, Christian or otherwise (such as Deism) also be likewise beside the point? That is the point of my questions. If one takes the core moral values of many non-Christian religions, one could as easily arrived at quite similar constitutional values. And as I keep saying, the very nation against which we rebelled was indeed very much a Christian empire, also built on decidedly God given rights articulated and emphasized more so than evn in our own constitution.

You still have not answered my questions.

[OzarkWoman]

If the intent was to form a Christian nation, why did we rebel against the most Christian empire of the 18th Century, the British Empire?

Come on...if you honestly don't know the answer to that question, then there is no hope.

[OzarkWoman]

And as I keep saying, the very nation against which we rebelled was indeed very much a Christian empire, also built on decidedly God given rights articulated and emphasized more so than evn in our own constitution.

You are not even close. The fact that you keep saying that you want the truth and all should make you use your computer and find out yourself. What you posted about them being so Christian is so very wrong and guess what, the regular people did not have rights like you are saying. Learn history before debating.

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

"Founded on Christian principles" and the "founders were Christians" are two quite different things. But regardless, the British Empire could as easily make the same claims. We apparently had some differences with them.

Why is this issue so important? What is the point or purpose of needing to make this an issue?

What does it prove or establish?

Still no answer to these questions?

If the intent was to form a Christian nation, why did we rebel against the most Christian empire of the 18th Century, the British Empire?

Just to throw into the discussion - I'll take a crack at your points there, Tom.

The closest the British Empire got to to being a "Christian nation" was in the monarch's attempt to hold power, first through the concept of "Divine right of Kings", then through being head of the Anglican church.

From all I have studied about this document, I do not see where the Magna Carta lays down anywhere that every person has endowed by God unalienable rights, nor does it subscribe to the concept government exists to preserve those God-given rights. It is, in fact, a political document establishing power boundaries between the monarchy and the feudal barons of that day. Interestingly, Pope Innocent III declared the Magna Carta null and void, as it was a "shameful, demeaning" thing to force upon a king.

Based on what I understand current definitions of a "Christian nation" are, I cannot accept the premise the British was a "Christian kingdom" early on. I have not seen that, as they went to a parliamentary style of government, they founded this on upon any document declaring man having rights by God. Like most European societies, Britain was very much caught up within the aristocratic concept of stratified classes - the lower the class, the fewer rights one had. The classes at the top had the blessings of God and society, while the lower classes weren't quite as blessed...or, indeed, cursed by God in their poverty.

As an aside - does this point sound familiar to societal outlooks of nations and peoples...we may have discussed in Sabbath School before as belonging to ancient societies?

What the American founders put on paper - that every man was endowed with unalienable rights by God - was very much a revolutionary idea found nowhere else on earth at that time, and not seen in history since Israel came out of Egypt*. This very concept started the Revolutionary War, and precipitated the Civil War nearly 90 years later.

America was not set up to be a "Christian nation"; I read it was a nation set up by men convicted by Christian principles, who in turn declared that the best government devised to watch over and safeguard these unalienable God-given rights, is a representative republic (with numerous checks and balances) run by people with deeply Judeo-Christian ethic and principles.

They were abhorrent of legislating Christianity; they saw the necessity, though, of Judeo-Christian ethic keeping this form of government in place as a successful means of protecting and enabling that which God has given to all people.

A "Christian government", and a "government run by Christians", are not synonymous to me. The Founders abhorred the former, but desired the latter.

------*******-------

*I say this, due to the many times God declares in Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy how the foreign person, and the native born - no matter what their status is - is to have one law governing them all, as God is a respecter of no person. Contained in those books also is the outlaying of those things God considers people's "rights".

The concept of presumed innocence. No judgment before the evidence is in. Fair business practices. Self-defense of person and property. The right to inherit property and estate (men and women). The disadvantaged is to be taken care of, for the value of their right to life before God must not be callously cast aside. All of these and more I see plainly in the OT Law.

Did Israel live up to these? Goodness, no. But God did indeed put these concepts - these "rights" for lack of a better word - deep in the heart of His Law. All other nations were to be drawn to this "wisest of peoples" due to these very concepts being lived by His people. Any person or group could join Israel at any time (by accepting the sign of the covenant), becoming partakers of the promises.

------******-------

In the run-up to 1844, God brought these concepts back into the human experience, setting up a nation founded on them just as the "Great Awakening" was beginning to break over the world. Personally, I believe this "Great Awakening" culminated in the 3 Angels' messages and the Advent cry to 1844. God designed this to come together to prepare people for His kingdom - the way He runs things. America was set up to incubate the Remnant faith, having the setting to bring it to maturity.

As America gets more and more distant from this purpose, and refuses to both recognize God-given rights and to safeguard those rights, it will not matter who governs it - whether the Left of the so-called "Religious Right". Both would turn this nation into a monster serving the Sea Beast.

Blessings,

[Tom Wetmore]

I am not asking to get answers for myself. Nor am I much interested in finding out what others know or think they know by regurgitating what others have said.

I ask questions in what increasingly seems a futile exercise in getting people to think. You can usually tell by the answers you get how much thinking was involved. Ironically it usually requires more thought to ask the questions than show in the answers. When it comes to these issues this seems especially true.

Ted being an exception at the moment...

[Ted Oplinger]

I am not asking to get answers for myself. Nor am I much interested in finding out what others know or think they know by regurgitating what others have said.

I ask questions in what increasingly seems a futile exercise in getting people to think. You can usually tell by the answers you get how much thinking was involved. Ironically it usually requires more thought to ask the questions than show in the answers. When it comes to these issues this seems especially true.

Then I apologize for my thinking you wanted some sort of discussion of ideas. I misunderstood you. Just disregard my post above.

Blessings,

[Tom Wetmore]

Sorry too late... Our posts crossed in cyberspace. And even my revision (see above) seems to have missed....

You show thought and not mere partisan visceral reaction.

[bonnie]

The closest the British Empire got to to being a "Christian nation" was in the monarch's attempt to hold power, first through the concept of "Divine right of Kings", then through being head of the Anglican church.

*I say this, due to the many times God declares in Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy how the foreign person, and the native born - no matter what their status is - is to have one law governing them all, as God is a respecter of no person. Contained in those books also is the outlaying of those things God considers people's "rights".

[Ted Oplinger]

That's okay, Tom. You at least know now that much of what I believe is not a mere partisan difference, but a severe disagreement with all three major parties in how this country is set up to be run, and should be run today.

It is based upon looking in God's Word where our "rights" came from, then holding to those principles. I would venture a good many, when speaking of these "unalienable rights endowed by God", could not outline where God put these concepts in writing.

We are approaching fast 200 years since the Great Awakening climaxed in the Midnight Cry to prepare for our Lord's Return.

Will there be a Second Awakening, wherein the Remnant will given the space to give added emphasis to the next Midnight Cry? I don't know...

What I do know, it could not be a mere coincidence about the declaring of these rights at the beginning of this nation, the setting of just this kind of nation, and the Great Awakening and resulting Advent movement - all of these occurring within the correct span of time, in just the right order, to highlight one's accountability to God and His soon return.

Blessings,

[Guest]

I ask questions in what increasingly seems a futile exercise in getting people to think. You can usually tell by the answers you get how much thinking was involved. Ironically it usually requires more thought to ask the questions than show in the answers.

Awful nice of you to come and try to get us thinking. As futile as that is in your view.

[bonnie]

Awful nice of you to come and try to get us thinking. As futile as that is in your view.

Whatever would we do without a school master?

[Tom Wetmore]

You're welcome.

[Guest]

I've tried to get you to think before. But of course you never knew it.

[bonnie]

I've tried to get you to think before. But of course you never knew it.

Some have such a feeling of superiority there really isn't any reason to think.