United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Let me ask all of you some questions:
Source:
www.ChristianPatriot.com
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 22, 2015
Author: Pastor Bob Celeste ACP
Post Date: 2015-04-22 14:58:34 by BobCeleste
Keywords: ACP
Views: 13500
Comments: 102
Let me ask all of you some questions: 1. Do you think today’s preachers are smarter, as smart or not as Scripturally smart as Preachers in the 1770's? 2. Do you think today’s politicians are smarter, as smart, or not as smart Constitutionally as politicians in the 1770's and the first days of our Republic? 3. If Revolution were legal, acceptable and encourage by both the politicians of the colonies and the preachers of the colonies in the 1770's, why is it unacceptable, and discouraged by both the preachers and the politicians today? 4. If Romans chapter 13 was not a problem to Christians revolting against the crown in the 1770's why is it today?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Shortly I am going to do an in-depth study of Romans 13:1-7. Romans 13:1-7 is what the leftist preachers, the leftist politicians, newspapers and preachers who are to lazy to do a real study claim forces Christians to accept the likes of Roosevelt, Clinton, Carter, Obama and the infamous Bush family. these questions are a precursor to the thought.
ping
Define smarter.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
No, because Protestant preachers are accursed heretics and thus inherintly stupid.
1. Do you think today’s preachers are smarter, as smart or not as Scripturally smart as Preachers in the 1770's? Some are some are not. What's the difference? Back then pastors were not bombarded with leftist agendas and legalization of murder and immorality. The challenge of the 'today' pastor facing these challenges in abundance in their own churches puts them on the defensive often. That's how I see it. 2. Do you think today’s politicians are smarter, as smart, or not as smart Constitutionally as politicians in the 1770's and the first days of our Republic? No comparison hands down. The politicians in colonial America staked their philosophy with their families, lives and properties. They knew what they wanted and fought for it. Today they are ruled by special interests left and right. 3. If Revolution were legal, acceptable and encourage by both the politicians of the colonies and the preachers of the colonies in the 1770's, why is it unacceptable, and discouraged by both the preachers and the politicians today? Our founders used every measure to entreat the British crown and parliament as to their greivances. For preachers today the question is 'have we gone the extra 50 miles the founders did to address our grievances?' Preachers today also saw a civil colonial government rise up against the crown. Not churches. We had 13 duly elected legislatures which rebelled against the crown. Not a group of Presbetarian preachers rebelling against the crown. 4. If Romans chapter 13 was not a problem to Christians revolting against the crown in the 1770's why is it today? In the 1770s it was not churches which rebelled against the crown but properly elected colonial governments. Once their duly elected governments separated from the crown, Christians defended their homes. Big difference. The American Revolution was not a Christian insurrection. There were Christians under the crown and Christians who fought with the colonial army/navy/militia.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
these questions are a precursor to the thought. The key piece to Romans 13:1-7 is earthly government enforcing laws for the good against evil. When government sanctions evil against God's law, then the resistence seen in Daniel chapter 3 is expected of the believer. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego put their faith in God to deliver them...And He did.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
Forret Gump has a few one liners for you... Oh you might want to use spell check for your post above. It's "inherently." Usually I give a pass on errors like that, but since you were asserting Protestants are stupid, I just thought I'd mention it. I know you were using a Pruteestent speele zchyker.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
#1 -- I have no idea... #2 -- The Constitution wasn't penned until the late 1780s, so during the 1770s everybody was Constitutionally clueless. #3 -- The Revolution only became "legal" and acceptable after our Founding Fathers won... Prior to that, they were considered to be treasonous outlaws. #4 -- Many of our Founding Fathers were actually Deists and not overly "Christian" as we understand today. Perhaps the God-fearing Christians tended more to be the Tories who were "conservative" and loyal to the Crown. And our Founding Fathers were at best Deists... or perhaps godless merchants who despised paying taxes.
Isn't he Greek Orthodox?
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Very good, very good indeed.
You started out pretty good, but your number four is pure bull, never ever print, as fact, what you learned in the public indoctrination centers called schools.
In the 1770's the Constitution did not exist. It was ratified in 1789. With regard to the system of government intended by the Founders and Framers of that era, the Founders and Framers were a great deal more observant of what some may now refer to as original intent. The centuries of politicians that followed have undermined, hollowed out, and interpreted much of the original intent into extinction. Assuming the Framers intended to create a Constitution which would prevent an all-powerful Federal government, in a perverse way, I guess the politicians that followed proved they were smarter and/or more devious and unscrupulous and corrupt than the Framers. The Hamiltonians have prevailed. In the 1770's, the "right" to revolution was recognized as such by those who desired to overthrow existing power and seize that power for themselves. Such "right" was not recognized in the 1770's by those who were in power. Such right is not recognized by those in power today. Those in power call it treason. Had the Founders lost the Revolutionary War, they would be in the history books as traitors who were hanged for their great crime. Lincoln was all for the right of revolution (as a congressman) until he was against it (as President). Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. I, pp. 438-439, Speech in United States House of Representatives: The War with Mexico. [emphasis as in original] The Bible and all else is useful when it supports what someone wants, or if they can bend it or misrepresent it to support what they want, or oppose what they do not want.
Politicians have had a facility to stand the Constitution on its head when it suited their purposes. It does not necessarily indicate whether they were smart or not. What politicians say, or do, does not necessarily indicate what they believe to be correct. They frequently say or do what is politically expedient. Here is a progression of interpretation of State Sovereignty. - - - - - Articles II and III of the Articles of Confederation provided, III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. - - - - - Article VII of the Constitution provided, - - - - - The 10th Amendment provided: - - - - - And some interesting interpretations from Lincoln to a European to Reagan. Who is smartest? I should think Reagan was the most accurate. - - - - - - - - - - This theoretical definition does not apply in practice, at least not without some alterations, to any existing confederation of states in the world today. It applies the least to the American Union of States. Most of these individual states never possessed any sovereignty whatsoever. They were gradually brought into the framework of the union as a whole. Therefore. the various states of the American Union constitute, in most instances smaller or larger territories that were formed for technical administrative reasons and their borders were frequently drawn with a ruler. These states never possessed any previous sovereignty of their own because that would have been impossible. These states did not come together to create the Union, but it was the Union that created these so-called states. The extensive rights of independence that were relinquished, or rather rights that were granted, to the different territories are in harmony with the whole character of this confederation of states and with the vastness of its area and overall size which is almost as large as a continent. So, in referring to the states of the American Union, one cannot speak of their state soverignty, but only of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which we could more accurately designate as privileges. - - - - - - - - - -
You won't get any straight answers to this one. Apparently, it was fine for the Founders to become traitorous rebels and depose the rule of their lawful king but it is unthinkable to dispose of some puny temporary mediocrity like the (generally loathsome) presidents of the last half-century.
Wikipedia excerpt: Deism in the United States That's quite a few Founding Fathers who were either "deists" or had deist tendencies, Bob. I concede that Wikipedia isn't always the most accurate source of such information. But you'll have to cite a more reputable source if you want to claim that these men were strictly God-fearing Christians and not Deists.
For the American revolution, the issue was always representation. Apparently a ruler can be horrible as long as he taxes you via your elected representatives. With that said, redleghunter's response is pretty much defensible from a both a secular and religious (civilizational Christian) point of view of a just war. Also, they were Protestant heathens - to quote the Godfather "They're animals anyway, so let them lose their souls". :)
Inherintly stupid? Lmao
And the Black Regiment? Without those Calvinistic Presbyterians, there would have been no Revolution and no America.
Might explain English as a third language.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
No they were not.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
Three don't even come close to a dozen. How many times must I post here the church affiliations of the founders? Leftists love to trot out Jefferson and Franklin as if they were the only founders. Also selectively quoting them. Over 90% of the founders were practicing Christians of Trinitarian denominations. The First Great Awakening was the major faith influence in colonial America. The Enlightenment swept Western European nations but had little impact in the American colonies. The revolution influenced by the Enlightenment was the French Revolution not the American revolution. In nations where the Enlightenment flourished, churches diminished. Fewer pews were occupied. In colonial America the Christian faith flourished and church membership grew. Call your alma mater and get your money back.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
Which their duly elected officials broke ties with the crown.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
You haven't provided any evidence Protestants are heathens. Other than they don't submit to the Pharisees in funny hats who worship statues and pictures. What's the second commandment again?
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
Apparently, it was fine for the Founders to become traitorous rebels and depose the rule of their lawful king but it is unthinkable to dispose of some puny temporary mediocrity like the (generally loathsome) presidents of the last half-century. Part of military strategy is the feasibility of military success. That is also a tenet of the just war theory. I'm sure our founders kept this in mind. Would our founders have declared independence from the crown if the colonies were as close as say Whales or Ireland? Probably not as they knew the history surely of crushed Irish rebellions. Declaring independence was bold and the DoI a bold document. However there was the possibility the crown would capitulate to some of the grievances and spare a cross Atlantic war. The colonies had interior lines. As long as they had local support they could stay fighting. As long as the will was there England would have to keep sending men and supplies constantly over a large body of water. The founders knew this and knew independence was high risk but quite feasible. Pastors knew this as well. They had congregations mixed with Tories and Patriots. They knew that the tenet of feasibility was there given for the same reasons above. Where the founders took most of the risk was with Acceptability. Most historians put support for independence at just over 30%, indifference and crown support gaining the majority view. They took risk in thinking they could garner the undecided or indifferent populace. Seemed to work out. Suitability was never a concern as the colonial legislatures voted for independence.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
It is self evident that all men are created equal and Protestants are heretics.
You sure you aren't Catholic? You know the other One True Church the Orthodox are in rebellion against. Like the Highlander movie "there can only be one." The Orthodox were the first Protestants.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
BTW, the actual Exodus 20 second commandment is: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; So there is that. Many churches violate the second commandment. Some bury it.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
You know the other One True Church the Orthodox are in rebellion against. Like the Highlander movie "there can only be one." The Orthodox were the first Protestants. The so called Catholics aka Latins left the Orthodox. The Orthodox only call themselves that to not confuse westerners. The Orthodox still calls itself the Catholic church (Catholic being a common Greek word for universal) and to further confuse you ill educated westerners - the Orthodox Church considers itself thee Roman Catholic Church (Byzantine empire = Roman empire).
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; So there is that. Many churches violate the second commandment. Some bury it. The reason was that God could not be seen to be represented. Then Jesus was born and could be seen and touched. Also, the Arc had craven images of Angels. Also, you Protestants forget that Jesus came along and ended the Old Covenant. Do you circumcise your male children in a religious ceremony? Do you keep Kosher?
Unfortunately, the colonial legislatures were only empowered to deal with minor issues of home rule. They never had the authority to vote themselves independence.
Leftists love to trot out Jefferson and Franklin as if they were the only founders. Also selectively quoting them. Until they give up on their propaganda, which will be a long time. You know I wonder how many of the monarchs in the past just up and seized power for themselves?? And it's funny you never ever hear the Leftys complain about that, only that freedom seeking men overthrew the monarchs. Wasn't George the 3rd a Protestant himself??
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
The Bible and all else is useful when it supports what someone wants, or if they can bend it or misrepresent it to support what they want, or oppose what they do not want. So, tell me your take on Romans 3, feel free to go into as much detail as you can.
Apparently, it was fine for the Founders to become traitorous rebels and depose the rule of their lawful king but it is unthinkable to dispose of some puny temporary mediocrity like the (generally loathsome) presidents of the last half-century. I'm afraid that I am starting to agree with you.
It's one of those arguments where you can be right and your opponents know that you're right but they'll do anything and everything to distract from that or to drag the discussion away from the central question. You can see it right here on this thread. Gee, and the Right wonders why we can't win anything any more when the GOP willingly creates a more and more powerful government at the behest of the big banking interests and the usual slobs at the CoC and the think tanks.
If you posted it 7 times a day, it would not be enough, perhaps 7 times 70 a day might start to reach some after 10 or 20 years, if they actually read first and post second. If you go to the search page of ChristianPatriot.com and put in the word "homosexual" without the quotation marks, you will find that I have been consistent since ACP's conception, yet the other day I got an email condemning me for my support of the homosexual life style. Some only read the heading and then post or email a condemnation.
Graven.
If you have one, I've never seen it, so a comprehensive list would be interesting. In addition to Jefferson & Franklin, the excerpt I posted names Madison, Hamilton, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, Hugh Williamson, Elihu Palmer and even to some degree, George Washington. Don't forget: prior to the Revolution and our Constitution & Bill of Rights, religious tolerance was inconsistant in the Colonies. In fact, many colonies had official State religions and participation in politics/government was prohibited unless individuals were members of the officially established state religion. So many of the founding fathers that you claim were "Christian" may have been "Christian in name only"... practicing Public Christianity for political purposes while actually practicing Deism in private... (or perhaps even non-religious agnostics.) Why? I didn't waste my money on some worthless liberal arts degree in history, political science, philosophy or whatever... My background is Engineering Economics & Business, and has served me quite well over the years.
Apparently, it was fine for the Founders to become traitorous rebels and depose the rule of their lawful king but it is unthinkable to dispose of some puny temporary mediocrity like the (generally loathsome) presidents of the last half-century. Well, Too, you know that if I give an answer, it will be very straight. You can probably write it yourself for me. Taking the question as phrased "IF Romans chapter 13 was not a problem to Christians..." The answer is that it should have been a problem for them, but it should only have been a very minor problem. Paul is not God. But what Jesus had to say about doing unto others, turning the other cheek, paying taxes and not killing, and what YHWH and the Elohiym had to say about not killing, should have all come together to have presented a great big showstopping problem to the Christians of the 1770s. Having proceeded out onto the very thin ice of "Here are too swords!", they then fell through that ice when they didn't "Do unto others as they would have done unto them" by freeing their slaves. The American Revolution is morally indefensible, and most of those who killed in its name ended up in Gehenna on account of it.
States continued to have Established Religions under the Constitution until the 1820s. The First Amendment doesn't prevent states from establishing an official religion and making everybody in the state pay taxes to support it (or rather, didn't, now it does); it merely prevent(ed) the federal government from doing so. Of course the Supreme Court has changed that by its decisions.
I don't have your obvious talent with rhetoric and prose style. However: the Revolution was completed prior to any writing of the Constitution. You want to judge the Founders' performance as a whole over decades. The question, as you well know, was the legitimacy of revolt against a lawful king as seen through the lens of Romans 13. So the legitimacy of the Revolution does not depend on other acts of the Founders or the Constitution/BoR they wrote years later. So all of that business about freeing their slaves is an anachronistic editorializing on subsequent history, not the revolt itself. The Founders were relying more on the footnotes from Isaiah in the Geneva bible, the version carried by most colonists (especially rascally Presbyterians) that caused King James to produce the Authorized Version. James' one demand: no footnotes! He was right but he was too late to turn that Presbyterian tide of rebellion in the American colonies.
No, Too, the Bible was invoked. And when you invoke the Bible, you don't get to hide behind historicist and localist arguments about the petty motivations of locals. You stand before the Throne of God and are judged by his standards, which is perfection. If a man is not willing to insist upon God's standard of perfection, then when he quotes any line of the Bible to assert a partial agenda, he's not honest or truthful - he doesn't FEAR God enough to really be sincere about invoking him, he's just looking for some line from the book on which to hang an argument, in order to dupe the rubes. In the First Century Jesus gave a moral standard that had, as its effect, the eventual cessation of the cesspits of public torture and execution in the Roman Empire, and ultimately, the lack of slavery in medieval Europe, a tradition of serfdom, not slavery, in the Christian countries for a millennium, and a strong British tradition, among other places, of no slaves in England. The slave trade was not something happening in Europe in 1400. It was something that exploded on the scene with the discovery of the Americas and the want for labor to work this "brave new world", by monarchies who were already asserting their dominance over the Church. So, the notion that opposition to slavery was "anachronistic" in the 1770s is pure bullshit apologetics. It was illegal in England, and long had been, on Christian grounds. The people who opposed it, opposed it on Christian grounds. And the pure book, the Bible, on which the argument that wants to be born about why it's ok to kill people - the argument that I am smothering in its crib by denying the Founders any BIBLICAL legitimacy for their bloody revolution - has a letter regarding a slave that compels - on pain of the soul - the owner of a slave to remember that the slave is now his brother in Christ. Slavery is fundamental to the morality of the American Revolution. Just because the Americans were greedy and obtuse and chose to morally blind themselves to it does not mean that it isn't obvious, by the Biblical standard of perfection imposed by Jesus, that "all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator..." includes slaves. Paul and Jesus spoke of slaves as men. And THEREFORE no Founder who would invoke the Bible for anything has any right, or any intellectual defense, in pretending otherwise. Jesus said to pay taxes. He said to submit to leaders and turn the other cheek. He said not to treasure money but God and called for brotherhood and love. And he and his father all the way back to Noah and Cain forbade killing. So, what excuse did the Founders have? They were not REALLY fighting for any CHRISTIAN equality of man: they didn't free the slaves. For what, then? To not pay taxes. That's not a legitimate reason to kill people, according to Jesus. What's left? We want to govern ourselves? God never ever said "Do not kill, unless you want to run the show, THEN you can commit as much killing as you need to." There was no justification for the American Revolution. It was mass killing for evil motives. The only thing that COULD have ended up justifying it WOULD have been the freeing of slaves and establishing brotherhood among Americans. But nothing like that was remotely on the minds of the Founders. There was nothing Christian about the American Revolution. It was murderous rebellion for illegitimate, un-Christian reasons. The Founders killed for reasons that cannot be justified by Scriptures. Romans 13 applied to them, they ignored it, and they won their little war and damned themselves to hell in the process.
I am using auto writer on cell phone - I stopped using computers a while ago. It has its downsides.
Vic, as a Catholic you know there is a justification for just wars. The American rebels rebelled in a legalistic manner after attempting diplomacy, organized an army to fight in the manner prescribed by civilized Christian nations of that era and conducted themselves as a nation state with an army in the field. That is different from say the rebels of Syria who were and are chaotic, have no organizational structure between one militia and the other and produce worse atrocities than the regime they seek to overthrow.
Oooh, but they see that VERY differently. The Orthodox are not in submission to Peter's Chair. No Pope makes you guys Protestant. Welcome home.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
Also, the Arc had craven images of Angels. Also, you Protestants forget that Jesus came along and ended the Old Covenant. Do you circumcise your male children in a religious ceremony? Do you keep Kosher? I've heard some rationalizations before on omitting the 2nd Commandment, but the above tops them all. YHWH commanded HIS earthly Ark (abode) would have the same make up as His Heavenly abode. The 2nd command still applies and is not akin to eating shellfish. Did God command icons and statues to be commissioned in the Christian church? No. He said don't make them and DON'T bow down to them. It was the pagan Greek and Roman influence on apostate assemblies and the incorporation of the church into secular government which led to these pagan images and practices. No one can find any of your church decorations in the NT church. I don't remember an epistle from an apostle which said "you foolish Galatians, why do you soil the holy icons..."
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
They did appoint representatives to the Continental Congress. Those representatives brought forth the ideals and policies of the various 'state' or chartered legislative bodies. I know you are pointing to the Reformed worldview as a catalyst for the independence spirit. That would be correct, but I object to the notion the American Revolution was some kind of Presbyterian 'jihad.' The DoI points to the Reformation. I agree.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
Which would raise the inevitable questions:
Object all you want. It's still true.
The best cross-section we have of the recorded faiths or denominations of the founders comes from the Continental Congress: Religious Affiliation of the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence In addition to Jefferson & Franklin, the excerpt I posted names Madison, Hamilton, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, Hugh Williamson, Elihu Palmer and even to some degree, George Washington. Thomas Paine is easy. He was a deist. Franklin's beliefs developed over his long life. Modern historians see him more as a Unitarian and not a deist. There are too many works on Washington showing his belief in a Trinitarian God. A good reference if you are interested is "Sacred Fire" a tome on the faith of George Washington. The book covers his own writings on faith and books he used for Bible Study and prayer. So many of the founding fathers that you claim were "Christian" may have been "Christian in name only"... practicing Public Christianity for political purposes while actually practicing Deism in private... (or perhaps even non- religious agnostics.) The above is called historical revisionism. It is an attempt by leftist 'scholars' today trying to read back modern sentiments/thoughts/motivations into historical figures. Why? I didn't waste my money on some worthless liberal arts degree in history, political science, philosophy or whatever... My background is Engineering Economics & Business, and has served me quite well over the years. Yes I am sure such has served you well in your professional career in your area of expertise. No doubt you would call me on an Engineering matter if I posted an excerpt from wikipedia asserting a matter.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
Wasn't George the 3rd a Protestant himself?? You really know how to cut through the 'bull' very well:) Yeah all great points. Seems leftist are all for the 'rights of kings' now that they have their own emperor Zero.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
Graven. According to Pericles Prots are stupid...At least we can spell:)
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
That above is the slogan for TOS.:)
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
Is a crucifix a graven image? Can a cross be a graven image? Is a fish figure as an symbol of Christianity a graven image? Good questions. Especially a crucifix or cross with the suffering Christ image on it. It was His time of shame. I always wondered that even when I was Catholic. I said "My Christ is not still hanging on a cross...He is Risen and the tomb is empty." You will probably get quite a few answers to your questions. I think the important piece is what I mentioned...the 2nd Commandment. If one prays to, bows to or worships an image then it is an idol. Some churches kneel before statues of human beings...saints and icons. I see that as a violation of the 2nd commandment which is clear. Now is Christian art ok? I think so. I think art is like music a way to express faith and honor God. When the image becomes an element of the worship and is 'venerated' then that becomes a problem.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
I fully agree.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Wasn't George the 3rd a Protestant himself?? You really know how to cut through the 'bull' very well:) Yeah all great points. Seems leftist are all for the 'rights of kings' now that they have their own emperor Zero. Turned into a pretty interesting thread.... Excellent revelations and yes, great points, gents.
Object all you want. It's still true. So you are sticking with a Presbyterian 'jihad' with the Black Bde as a type of Mahdi army?
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
Is a crucifix a graven image? Can a cross be a graven image? Is a fish figure as an symbol of Christianity a graven image? Good questions. Especially a crucifix or cross with the suffering Christ image on it. It was His time of shame. I always wondered that even when I was Catholic. I said "My Christ is not still hanging on a cross...He is Risen and the tomb is empty." You will probably get quite a few answers to your questions. I think the important piece is what I mentioned...the 2nd Commandment. If one prays to, bows to or worships an image then it is an idol. Some churches kneel before statues of human beings...saints and icons. I see that as a violation of the 2nd commandment which is clear. I apologize for starting at the bottom on this thread, (more or less)... +100 on all your observations and points. Seemed every nook and cranny of my Roman Catholic church was festooned with statues, crossed, Mary holding Jesus, candles...with kneeling benches propped up before them. And think about *this* seemingly benign gesture: Doing the "sign of the cross" while walking or driving past the church. In that case has the church made itself an "Idol"? Not that it "hurts" anybody and may seem petty....it's just that isn't *it* a violation of the second commandment?
The history TC dug up on the Presbyterian influence and catalyst of the Revolution has not been widely circulated....but sure is interesting and thought-provoking. Instead of a "Jihad," I'd consider it more of a "Mosaic Movement" that led to our own promised land. ;-) The goal of the Reformed Prots wasn't to convert and turn America into a theocracy, but more to unshackle what was fast appearing to be a growing tyranny... Good thing that's nothing to worry about now.
As a Catholic, I am aware of the doctrine and of the history and of the various legalistic justifications. I am not, however, persuaded that there have in fact been many truly Just Wars before God. But if there have been, the American Revolution was not among them. Legalism does not convert wrongful killing into righteous killing, no matter who throws holy water at it.
I don't know where to start...
Oh you might want to use spell check for your post above. It's "inherently." Usually I give a pass on errors like that, but since you were asserting Protestants are stupid, I just thought I'd mention it. OUCH
I appreciate that you have indeed addressed and answered on of Bob's questions. Granted -- I understand where you're coming from. On a personal sovereignty level, at what point should one justify defending themselves? Is it when state/person confiscates/taxes our goods beyond what's considered "fair"? Should our house be confiscated without compensation, then what? I guess we could just find other shelter. What if we are extorted us for more than we could afford? Or are prevented from worship? Prevented from seeking the right medicine that heals us? And at what point should our family resist physical harm (without doing the same in kind?) Some are though calls....and maybe those questions are intended rhetorically.
Signed July 4, 1776 That was a full decade before The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was enacted into state law in 1786 and 15 years before our religious freedom was protected by the 1st Amendment to our Constitution. As I explained to you previously, many of the Founders at the Continental Congress were Christians for public/political purposes only, because they were prohibited from participating in politics if their religious beliefs did not conform to the official government religion.
Say Hey, Willie -- what *was* "the official government religion" at the time of the assembly of the Continental Congress? I ferget. Furthermore, THIS was you original assertion: Willie Green posted on 2015-04-22 15:45:19 ET How many "Deists" were only masquerading as Christians for "public/political purposes only," Willie? Got a head count? Or does Salon lack those stats? Let the record show that you've doubled down and wandered into BS territory here.
Don't think the founders were jumping ship based on a state law. Here are the denominations of the The Fifty Five Delegates to the Constitutional Convention: The Fifty Five Delegates to the Constitutional Convention Christian Denominations As I explained to you previously, many of the Founders at the Continental Congress were Christians for public/political purposes only, because they were prohibited from participating in politics if their religious beliefs did not conform to the official government religion. As I explained in response to you such is revisionist history. Trying to put modern ideas/culture/philosophy on 18th century people. What confirms my point is that AFTER the Constitution was ratified and the First Amendment in effect no one 'changed their faith' or expressed their lack of faith in the Christian God. There was no major historical event where people stopped going to church or the Christian faith was diminished. That came much later in American society with the rise of the socialist-progressive atheist humanist movement. This same movement exercised another tactic of historical revisionism by trying to invoke the few deists in colonial America as really atheists and like them. Which of course is bunk.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
All killing is wrong even in war. Orthodox are denied communion for three years as penance if they kill in a war - rightous killing though it may be.
Perfect sound when heretics roast at the stake.
This same movement exercised another tactic of historical revisionism by trying to invoke the few deists in colonial America as really atheists and like them. Which of course is bunk. +500 Q: WHAT has prompted this sudden rash of historical revisionism that denied America's Christian Founders' past? I'm not sure Willie can refute and recalibrate your above confirmed point(s). No one was compelled to "changed their faith" after the USCON was ratified. NONE whatsoever. And for some reason, he's not yet refuted you link to the Fifty Five Delegates to the Constitutional Convention who were comprised of various Christian Denominations. Go ahead, Willie. Link us back to a source that supports your assertion that "Deists" were only masquerading as Christians for "public/political purposes only." And specify and source which ones were Deist/Atheist as well. Thanks. P.S. -- If you can't, you're just engaging in propagandist rumor-mongering and wishful thinking, aren't you?
Is your church using voodoo dolls at the Greek weenie roast these days? Or just describing your post-mortem milieu? Sorry... I've made other plans :-)
Oh stop that. The GOs are not blood thirsty murderers like their western 'brothers.' You all have a less bloody history probably because the Muslims killed all the resistance early on.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
More on if the founders were 'phony' Christians.... John Langdon, a Congregationalist, was a founder and the first president of the New Hampshire Bible Society. While Governor of New Hampshire he issued an official Proclamation for a General Thanksgiving in which he said: "The munificent Father of Mercies, and Sovereign Disposer of Events, having been graciously pleased to relieve the United States of America from the Calamities of a long and dangerous war: through the whole course of which, he continued to smile on the Labours of our Husbandmen, thereby preventing Famine (the most inseparable Companion of War) from entering our Borders; - eventually restored to us the blessings of Peace, on Terms advantageous and honourable...." Rufus King, an Episcopalian, was a member of the Continental Congress, aide to General Sullivan in the War for Independence, minister to England, and a U.S. Senator. At a convention considering amendments to the New York Constitution in 1821 he said: "[In our laws...by the oath which they prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The Pagan world were and are without the mighty influence of this principle which is proclaimed in the Christian system - their morals were destitute of its powerful sanction while their oaths neither awakened the hopes nor fears which a belief in Christianity inspires." Nathaniel Gorham, a Congregationalist, helped write the Massachusetts's Constitution, which required: "Any person chosen governor, or lieutenant-governor, cousellor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, take, make, and subscribe the following declaration, viz. 'I, ____, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth.'" Such a religious test was Constitutional until 1947 when the Supreme Court rewrote the Constitution by making the First Amendment apply to the states, not just the federal government. Roger Sherman, a Congregationalist, was the only Founder to sign the Articles of Association, the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. He was a member of the committee that drafted the Declaration and the First Amendment. He also drafted the creed of the White Haven Congregationalist church, which he attended. Sherman, John Adams, and George Wythe drafted the instructions to American embassy to Roman Catholic Canada in 1776, which said: "You are further to declare that we hold sacred the rights of conscience, and may promise to the whole people, solemnly in our name, the free and undisturbed exercise of their religion. And...that all civil rights and the right to hold office were to be extended to persons of any Christian denomination." William Samuel Johnson, Episcopalian, son of Anglican (Episcopalian) minister Samuel Johnson and president of Columbia University from 1787-1800. In his remarks to the first graduating class at Columbia after the War for Independence he said: "You this day, gentlemen, assume new characters, enter into new relations, and consequently incur new duties. You have, by the favor of Providence and the attention of your friends, received a public education, the purpose whereof hath been to qualify you the better to serve your Creator and your country...." "Your first great duties, you are sensible, are those you owe to Heaven, to your Creator and Redeemer. Let these be ever present to your minds, and exemplified in your lives and conduct." "Imprint deep upon your minds the principles of piety towards God, and a reverence and fear of His holy name. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and its consummation is everlasting felicity. Possess yourselves of just and elevated notions of the Divine character, attributes, and administration, and of the end and dignity of your own immortal nature as it stands related to Him." "Reflect deeply and often upon those relations. Remember that it is in God you live and move and have your being, - that in the language of David He is about your bed and about your path and spieth out all your ways, - that there is not a thought in your hearts, nor a word upon your tongues, but lo! He knoweth them altogether, and that he will one day call you to a strict account for all your conduct in this mortal life." "Remember, too, that you are the redeemed of the Lord, that you are bought with a price, even the inestimable price of the precious blood of the Son of God. Adore Jehovah, therefore, as your God and your Judge. Love, fear, and serve Him as your Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. Acquaint yourselves with Him in His word and holy ordinances." "Make Him your friend and protector and your felicity is secured both here and hereafter. And with respect to particular duties to Him, it is your happiness that you are well assured that he best serves his Maker, who does most good to his country and to mankind." Alexander Hamilton, an Episcopalian, not only signed the Constitution but wrote 51 of the 85 Federalist Papers with Madison and Jay. He believed agreement on the Constitution could not have been obtained "without the finger of God." Although he agreed to duel with Burr, he told others that his duty as a Christian would prevent him from shooting and in his dying words claimed "a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ." When he was killed he was planning the creation of "The Christian Constitutional Society," as he explained in an 1802 letter to James Bayard: "I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States." William Paterson, a Presbyterian, was a state attorney general, Governor of New Jersey, and a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He studied law after attending the College of New Jersey, though, given his interests, if he was alive today he might have earned a criminal justice degree online. The town of Paterson, New Jersey was named in his honor. As a Supreme Court Justice, a newspaper account of his visit to the federal court in Portsmouth, New Hampshire shows he opened court in this fashion: "On Monday last the Circuit Court of the United States was opened in this town. The Hon. Judge Paterson presided. After the Jury were impaneled, the Judge delivered a most eloquent and appropriate charge....Religion and morality were pleasingly inculcated and enforced as being necessary to good government, good order, and good laws, for 'when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice [Proberbs 29:2].'... After the [jury] charge was delivered, the Rev. Mr. Alden addressed the Throne of Grace in an excellent and well adapted prayer." William Livingston, a Presbyterian, was a delegate to both Continental Congresses, the first Governor of New Jersey, and a Brigadier General in the militia. He published articles defending Christianity in The Independent Reflector and offered this resolution in Congress on March 16, 1776, passed without objection: "We earnestly recommend that Friday, the 17th day of May next, be observed by the colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer, that we may with united hearts confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life appease God's righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ obtain His pardon and forgiveness." David Brearly, an Episcopalian, served as a colonel in the War for Independence, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and was appointed to the federal bench by George Washington. He was a warden of St. Michael's Church, a delegate to the Episcopal General Convention in 1786, and helped compile the Protestant Episcopal Prayer Book. Benjamin Franklin, "I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- God Governs in the Affairs of Men, And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, Is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid? "Except the Lord build the house, They labor in vain who build it." "I firmly believe this." Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787 Constitutional Convention James Wilson, "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine....Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court In 1776 William Blount, a Presbyterian, helped draft the Tennessee Constitution which said: Article VIII, Section II: No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State. Article XI, Section IV: That no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State. The quotation shows the Founders did not consider a belief in God to be a "religious test," which in the history of England in the century before our Constitution meant allegiance to a particular denomination. Equally important, modern political scientists now understand that man's rights arise from the prohibition's of God's moral rules, and the branch of modern mathematics known as Game Theory has now proven that it is not rational to follow God's rules unless one believes in a God who can see into the hearts and in the existence of eternal rewards and punishments. Evidently our Founders understood these ideas innately, though our own science has only recently been able to demonstrate them rigorously. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
That's the reason why I ended up being an E7 for over 10 years, I wasn't PC. And when you have PC NCOs writing your performance reports you aint going any higher, they're scared you'll end up being their boss or you'll take their place.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Those Progressives within academia, politics, and the left-leaning media are concerned that religious ideas may receive too much attention or acceptance within the general culture. As William F. Buckley said "...what we're up against, and though the Academy and the judiciary, is a felt disappointment that the American Revolution was not the French Revolution, and a consequent attempt to Jacobinize the Constitution into religion and its influence are wholly vanished from our public life." This attempt to marginalize religion, or even exclude it from the public sphere is an unstated recognition that religious ideology has profound influence on the minds of people, ideas that might run counter to contemporary Progressive elitism.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
And when you have PC NCOs writing your performance reports you aint going any higher, they're scared you'll end up being their boss or you'll take their place. I survived my officer 'youth' because of NCOs like you in the Army. My godfather (Italian of course too:)) and father's best friend was an NCO in the Marine Corps during WWII in Pacific. When I was commissioned he told me there are good NCOs and bad NCOs and the test of a good junior officer is to listen to the good ones and take care of the men and the men will take care of you. Best advice and turned out to be the most solid advice I received.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
Yep, first order of business for progressive socialist humanists is to silence any opposing views. The Bolsheviks were good at this.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
I am in total disagreement with you, have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Did you see the list of instances where the crown broke the law? When the Potentate breaks the law, it is justification to revolt, according to Romans 13.
The thread writer wants to color the revolutionary war in religious terms and that ends with heretics being burned at the stake - as is proper.
I am in total disagreement with you, have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Did you see the list of instances where the crown broke the law? When the Potentate breaks the law, it is justification to revolt, according to Romans 13. Well, the quote is Vic's. If the reason the revolt back then was an unlawful regime, couldn't we also make that case for contemporary times? Maybe we're talking semantics here; Is "revolt" the same as waging a "just war" in this case? Or is it different? I can honestly see both the pro and con as it's pertains to Romans 13. Was the revolution fundamentally about self-defense or of an offensive nature? Was it about the oppressive evil and tyranny of a governance vs. negotiable quibbles? How *would* Jesus have handled it? (Just sayin.)
Is every Protestant a Salem Witch to you?
Exactly !!! Many Federal statist's would have you believe otherwise !!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Most Orthodox are safe from such 'burning at the stake' given they are under the 'protection' of Muslims. Just beheadings and other horrible deaths from the Muzzies
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
Better the turban of the Turk than the Tiara of the Pope is one famous saying. And I don't think any Orthodox would have wanted to live in Calvin's Protestant theocratic dictatorship.
Calvin's dead dude...News flash.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Deism, Atheism, and the Founders By Dave Miller, Ph.D. Popular propaganda spouted for half a century or more claims that the Founders and Framers of America were deists and largely irreligious men who sought to establish a secular society that celebrates all ideologies, religions, and philosophies as equally valid. This sinister “diversity” myth has inflicted untold damage on American society, bringing the nation literally to the brink of disaster. The failure of the average citizen to examine the facts and assess the gravity of the situation is inexcusable. In reality, the religious orientation of the architects of American civilization, and their view regarding its importance to the establishment and perpetuation of the Republic, is easily ascertainable. Rather than wade through the myriad pages and books that purport to depict American history accurately, all one need do is simply reread the organic utterances issued by the Founders as they orchestrated the founding. Though not including all those who rightly wear the appellation “Founder,” nevertheless, the Continental Congress comprised a substantial portion of those men, and they may clearly be designated quintessential Founders (see Miller, 2009, p. 3). They certainly constitute a representative cross section of the men who brought the Republic into existence. Consider one sample among many in which the Continental Congress en masse issued a proclamation to the entire population of the country on March 19, 1782: The United States in Congress assembled...think it their indispensable duty to call upon the several states, to set apart the last Thursday in April next, as a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer...that He would incline the hearts of all men to peace, and fill them with universal charity and benevolence, and that the religion of our Divine Redeemer, with all its benign influences, may cover the earth as the waters cover the seas (Journals of..., 22:137-138, emp. added). The “Divine Redeemer” is Jesus Christ. Calling for Christ’s religion to “cover the earth as the waters cover the seas” is a direct allusion to two Old Testament passages—Isaiah 11:9 and Habakkuk 2:14. The Founders insisted that the stability of the Republic depends on the Christian religion, with its moral principles and spiritual framework. They felt that though other religions may certainly be tolerated in America, the peculiar doctrines and practices of those religions must not be allowed to alter the laws and institutions of the nation. Nor must those doctrines and practices do any physical harm to Americans or violate Christian morality (e.g., polygamy, homosexuality, and abortion). The Founders would be horrified at the notion of “political correctness” and its corrosive, destructive influence. They would have difficulty believing that Americans would ever even consider allowing Sharia law to be included in our courts, schools, or government. The Founders never asked that Hinduism cover the Earth, nor Islam, Buddhism, or Atheism. Rather, they begged God to cover the Earth with the religion of Christ as thoroughly and completely as the waters cover the oceans of the world.b REFERENCES Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html. Miller, Dave (2009), Christ and the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
I didn't get the cheap sideswipe at Calvin either. I assume it's a slap at "Protestant work ethic".
Thought so too.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Calvin ran a totalitarian state.
Only American Protestants.
Calvin ran nothing. He was a writer and preacher.
Can't blame folks who get these wild ideas...It's the school system you know...
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Exactly !!! That was Reagan. As I said, he was the most accurate. The first two quotes were Lincoln. The third, in agreement with Lincoln, was Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf. For a good book on the framing and state sovereignty, see Republic of Republics, or American Federal Liberty, 4th Ed., 1881, by Bernard Janin Sage (originally pseudonyomous as P.C. Centz). Free download.
He was the Protestant Ayatollah of Geneva.
You don't like Calvin because he never wore outrageous hats: "The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
They look about the same to me.
Chyeah. It's "about the same." Except for your stylish guy's extra 10" of pumped-up black chef's hat and Bela Lugosi-like black cape. You'd never catch Jesus wearing a black get up.
The Orthodox head gear are a bit more "puffy."
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
What are they hiding under those hats anyway? Foot long Subway Philly cheesesteak?:)
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
It is better than a French beret with ear muffs.
There have been many comments about the morality of the Revolution. I am not enough of a scholar on that issue . However many people discussing the legitimacy of the revoltion fail to read what the founders said about their justifications . This was written after Lexington. They question if God grants to government “unbounded authority never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive” or is it “instituted to promote the welfare of mankind”? They make the claim that their cause is the right cause “in defence of the freedom that is our birthright ....for the protection of our property against violence actually offered" .They say “ We fight not for glory or for conquest”.They fought for self defense . They claimed that their self defense was proportionate,a last resort to “submission to tyranny” . They believed their revolt was consistent with the Just War Theory . http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/arms.asp As for Roman 13 ,the Divine Rights of Kings had already been consigned to the trash bin of history . The colonists were not anti-government . They were anti- tyranny . Maybe they were also reading Hebrews 11:24-35.They believed they were acting in good faith .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Very good and insightful tomder55. I thank you and count you as one of the very few who seem to understand that we are not forced, by the Christian Bible, to stand by and honor the likes of Clinton, Bush, Carter, obama and others who are clearly breakers of the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution. Note, Hebrews 11 is the By Faith chapter. tomder55 is correct in saying that the Founders also stepped out in faith.
My apologies for my delay. I am not steeped in the Bible as are you and some of your compatriots. I respect those who are true believers in Scripture being the inspired word of God, but I believe that such faith does not facilitate any real discussion between believers, doubters, and non-believers. The non-believer will not suddenly convert, the believer may get high blood pressure while affirming belief, and the doubter will still look at both of them wondering how either side could be so certain of something not verifiable. As for Romans 3, I doubt anyone is accepted or rejected at the pearly gates based on whether a moyal performed bris. Not to worry. My mother was Catholic, my father Protestant, and I may be one of few similarly situated to have had a moyal declare me an honorary member of the House of David. But I think you meant Romans 13 about obeying the government, paying taxes, etc. I do not believe I could give an honest, detailed response that could not be seen as being disrespectful to your (and others') sincerely held scriptural beliefs. Briefly, I would not attribute man's governments or laws to God. As for a need to read the words of scripture in the original languages used by man, I would prefer that we consult our consciences. Whatever its origin, and however it communicates, it is understood, even by those who are deaf and dumb and have never known any language of man.
Interesting, thank you.
#2. To: redleghunter, AKA Stoner (#0)
#3. To: BobCeleste (#1)
#4. To: BobCeleste (#0)
Do you think today’s preachers are smarter, as smart or not as Scripturally smart as Preachers in the 1770's?
#5. To: BobCeleste (#0)
#6. To: BobCeleste (#1)
Shortly I am going to do an in-depth study of Romans 13:1-7. Romans 13:1-7 is what the leftist preachers, the leftist politicians, newspapers and preachers who are to lazy to do a real study claim forces Christians to accept the likes of Roosevelt, Clinton, Carter, Obama and the infamous Bush family.
#7. To: Pericles, liberator (#4)
No, because Protestant preachers are accursed heretics and thus inherintly stupid.
#8. To: BobCeleste (#0)
#9. To: redleghunter (#7)
I know you were using a Pruteestent speele zchyker.
#10. To: redleghunter (#6)
The key piece to Romans 13:1-7 is earthly government enforcing laws for the good against evil. When government sanctions evil against God's law, then the resistance seen in Daniel chapter 3 is expected of the believer.
#11. To: Willie Green (#8)
#4 -- Many of our Founding Fathers were actually Deists and not overly "Christian" as we understand today. Perhaps the God-fearing Christians tended more to be the Tories who were "conservative" and loyal to the Crown. And our Founding Fathers were at best Deists... or perhaps godless merchants who despised paying taxes.
#12. To: BobCeleste (#0)
2. Do you think today’s politicians are smarter, as smart, or not as smart Constitutionally as politicians in the 1770's and the first days of our Republic?
3. If Revolution were legal, acceptable and encourage[d] by both the politicians of the colonies and the preachers of the colonies in the 1770's, why is it unacceptable, and discouraged by both the preachers and the politicians today?
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory (sic) as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.
4. If Romans chapter 13 was not a problem to Christians revolting against the crown in the 1770's why is it today?
#13. To: BobCeleste (#0)
2. Do you think today’s politicians are smarter, as smart, or not as smart Constitutionally as politicians in the 1770's and the first days of our Republic?
II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
What is the particular sacredness of a State? I speak not of that position which is given to a State in and by the Constitution of the United States, for that all of us agree to—we abide by; but that position assumed, that a State can carry with it out of the Union that which it holds in sacredness by virtue of its connection with the Union. I am speaking of that assumed right of a State, as a primary principle, that the Constitution should rule all that is less than itself, and ruin all that is bigger than itself. But, I ask, wherein does consist that right? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in the number of people, wherein is that State any better than the county?
The States have their status IN the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States.
What is a confederation of states? By a confederacy, we mean a group of sovereign states which come together of their own free will and, in virtue of their sovereignty, create a collective entity. In doing so, they assign selective sovereign rights to the national body that will allow it to safeguard the existence of the joint union.
All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.
#14. To: BobCeleste (#0)
4. If Romans chapter 13 was not a problem to Christians revolting against the crown in the 1770's why is it today?
#15. To: BobCeleste, tpaine (#11)
You started out pretty good, but your number four is pure bull, never ever print, as fact, what you learned in the public indoctrination centers called schools.
In the United States, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of religious freedom, expressed in Thomas Jefferson's letters and included in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence.
Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen,[44] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout the United States and Europe).
A major contributor was Elihu Palmer (1764–1806), who wrote the "Bible" of American deism in his Principles of Nature (1801) and attempted to organize deism by forming the "Deistical Society of New York" and other deistic societies from Maine to Georgia.[45]
In the United States there is controversy over whether the Founding Fathers were Christians, deists, or something in between.[46][47] Particularly heated is the debate over the beliefs of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington.[48][49][50]
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."[51][52] Franklin also wrote that "the Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produc'd in the Course of Nature, or by the Free Agency of Man.[53] He later stated, in the Constitutional Convention, that "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men."[54]
For his part, Thomas Jefferson is perhaps one of the Founding Fathers with the most outspoken of Deist tendencies, though he is not known to have called himself a deist, generally referring to himself as a Unitarian. In particular, his treatment of the Biblical gospels which he titled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, but which subsequently became more commonly known as the Jefferson Bible, exhibits a strong deist tendency of stripping away all supernatural and dogmatic references from the Christ story. However, Frazer, following the lead of Sydney Ahlstrom, characterizes Jefferson as not a Deist but a "theistic rationalist", because Jefferson believed in God's continuing activity in human affairs.[55][56] Frazer cites Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, where he wrote, "I tremble" at the thought that "God is just," and he warned of eventual "supernatural influence" to abolish the scourge of slavery
#16. To: TooConservative, BobCeleste, redleghunter (#14)
(Edited)
Apparently, it was fine for the Founders to become traitorous rebels and depose the rule of their lawful king but it is unthinkable to dispose of some puny temporary mediocrity like the (generally loathsome) presidents of the last half-century.
#17. To: Pericles (#4)
and thus inherintly stupid.
#18. To: redleghunter, BobCeleste (#5)
Preachers today also saw a civil colonial government rise up against the crown. Not churches. We had 13 duly elected legislatures which rebelled against the crown. Not a group of Presbetarian preachers rebelling against the crown.
The Presbyterian Rebellion
History; Posted on: 2008-11-11 12:47:07 by Harry Seabrook
It is estimated that two-thirds of the 3 million Americans at the time of the Revolutionary War were Reformed Protestants, and even that leaves out the many Episcopalians, who had a Reformed confession in the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the descendants of the French Huguenots. Presbyterians, above all, were responsible for convincing the colonists to revolt even though, prior to the war, about 40% of the population was pro-British.
"Whatever the cause, the Calvinists were the only fighting Protestants. It was they whose faith gave them courage to stand up for the Reformation. In England, Scotland, France, Holland, they, and they only, did the work, and but for them the Reformation would have been crushed... If it had not been for Calvinists, Huguenots, Puritans, and whatever you like to call them, the Pope and Philip would have won, and we should either be Papists or Socialists." ~ Sir John Skelton
Image: "Put Watts into 'em, boys! Give 'em Watts!" The Rev. James Caldwell and his famous hymnals.
"[Calvinists] are the true heroes of England. They founded England, in spite of the corruption of the Stuarts, by the exercise of duty, by the practice of justice, by obstinate toil, by vindication of right, by resistance to oppression, by the conquest of liberty, by the repression of vice. They founded Scotland; they founded the United States; at this day they are, by their descendants, founding Australia and colonizing the world." ~ French atheist Hippolyte Taine (1828 to 1893)
"Calvinism has been the chief source of republican government." ~ Lorraine Boettner
"In Calvinism lies the origin and guarantee of our constitutional liberties." ~ Goren van Prinsterer
Historian George Bancroft called Calvin "the father of America," and added, "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty."
"John Calvin was the virtual founder of America." ~ German historian Leopold von Ranke
"The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster." ~ George Bancroft
It is no wonder that King James I once said: "Presbytery agreeth with monarchy like God with the Devil." In England, our First War for Independence was referred to as the "Presbyterian Rebellion."
A Hessian captain (one of the 30,000 German mercenaries used by England) wrote in 1778, "Call this war by whatever name you may, only call it not an American rebellion; it is nothing more or less than a Scots-Irish Presbyterian rebellion."
Another monarchist wrote to King George III: "I fix all of the blame for these extraordinary proceedings on the Presbyterians. They have been the chief and principle instruments in all of these flaming measures. They always do and ever will act against government from that restless and turbulent anti-monarchical spirit which has always distinguished them everywhere."
In a letter from New York dated November 1776, the Earl of Dartmouth was informed by one of his representatives: "Presbyterianism is really at the bottom of this whole conspiracy, has supplied it with Vigour, and will never rest, till something is decided on it."
John D. Sergeant, a member of the Continental Congress from New Jersey, credited the Scots-Irish with being the main pillar of support for the Revolution in Pennsylvania. A New Englander, not supportive of the Presbyterians, agreed, calling the Scots-Irish "the most God-provoking democrats this side of Hell."
Prime Minister Horace Walpole rose in Parliament to say: "There is no use crying about it. Cousin America has eloped with a Presbyterian parson," referring to John Witherspoon, president of Princeton University (the "seminary of sedition"), and the only minister to sign the Declaration of Independence. Witherspoon was not only one of the founding fathers, he was the instructor of the founding fathers. Nine of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention had been students of Witherspoon's. In fact, David Barton notes that 87 of the 243 founding fathers graduated from Presbyterian Princeton, so it is hardly surprising that the founders created a republic.
"When Cornwallis was driven back to ultimate retreat and surrender at Yorktown, all of the colonels of the Colonial Army but one were Presbyterian elders. More than one-half of all the soldiers and officers of the American Army during the Revolution were Presbyterians." ~ J.R. Sizoo
"From 1706 to the opening of the revolutionary struggle, the only body in existence which stood for our present national political organization [republicanism] was the General Synod of the American Presbyterian Church... The Congregational Churches of New England had no connection with each other, and had no power apart from the civil government. The Episcopal Church was without organization in the colonies, was dependent for support and a ministry on the Established Church of England, and was filled with an intense loyalty to the British monarchy. The Reformed Dutch Church did not become an efficient and independent organization until 1771, and the German Reformed Church did not attain to that condition until 1793. The Baptist Churches were separate organizations, the Methodists were practically unknown, and the Quakers were non-combatants." ~ Dr. W.H. Roberts
Only the Presbyterian Church lined up solidly behind the colonists, and without them independence would not have been possible. Oh, and that Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson? It came along a full year after Scots-Irish Presbyterians in Charlotte, North Carolina, wrote their own declaration of independence. The Mecklenburg Declaration, written on May 20, 1775, "by unanimous resolution declared the people free and independent, and that all laws and commissions from the king were henceforth null and void," as Lorraine Boettner writes. Jefferson's biographer notes: "Everyone must be persuaded that one of these papers must have been borrowed from the other." George Bancroft observes that the Mecklenburg assembly consisted of "twenty-seven staunch Calvinists, one-third of whom were ruling elders in the Presbyterian church, including the President and Secretary, and one was a Presbyterian minister." Ephraim Brevard, who drafted the document, and after whom Brevard, NC, is named, was a Presbyterian ruling elder and a Princeton graduate. (Mecklenburg is far more desirable than anything inspired by John Locke. It is interesting to note that these Charlotte Presbyterians, who had been under the guidance of Alexander Craighead, later rejected the non-covenantal national Constitution.)
"[Patrick Henry's] mother drilled him in Presbyterian or Calvinistic theology, which provided the backbone for the American resistance to British tyranny. As one author has noted, Calvinism 'has been able to inspire and sustain the bravest efforts ever made by man to break the yoke of unjust authority...' It has 'borne ever an inflexible front to illusion and mendacity, and has preferred rather to be ground to powder, like flint, than to bend before violence, or melt under enervating temptation.' By the time of the American Revolution, approximately two-thirds of the colonial population had been 'trained in the school of Calvin.' Henry, through his mother, was a spiritual descendant of Calvin and represented the liberating element of a Reformed theology and world-view." ~ Isaac Backus
One example among many in the "Black Regiment" (of parsons) was the Rev. James Caldwell of the First Presbyterian Church of Elizabethtown, New Jersey. Caldwell also served as chaplain to the Continental Army. A Redcoat murdered his wife by firing into his home. Leaving his children in the care of the townsfolk, Caldwell rejoined the fight, which had moved to Springfield. When wadding for ammunition ran low, Caldwell ran to the First Presbyterian Church of Springfield and returned with as many hymnals as he could carry. Tearing out the pages, he yelled, "Put Watts into 'em, boys! Give 'em Watts!" He was killed in battle one year later.
This was a man who carried pistols with him to church and laid them on the pulpit before he began the sermon. One of the nine orphaned Caldwell children became a U.S. Supreme Court clerk and worked for the cause of African colonization. A town in Liberia is named Caldwell in his memory. War hero Lafayette, George Washington's close friend, and the man who incidentally was given the honor of naming a cousin of mine from 5 generations ago (Carolina Lafayette Seabrook), took another of the Caldwell children home with him to France.
During the feudal era, bishops rode to war at the head of armies. There was a time in America when this was still the case.
#19. To: CZ82 (#9)
#20. To: Willie Green (#8)
Many of our Founding Fathers were actually Deists
#21. To: Willie Green, GarySpFc, liberator, BobCeleste, CZ82 (#15)
Many of our Founding Fathers were actually Deists
#22. To: TooConservative (#18)
Without those Calvinistic Presbyterians, there would have been no Revolution and no America.
#23. To: Pericles (#16)
#24. To: TooConservative (#14)
You won't get any straight answers to this one.
#25. To: redleghunter (#23)
You haven't provided any evidence Protestants are heathens. Other than they don't submit to the Pharisees in funny hats who worship statues and pictures. What's the second commandment again?
#26. To: Pericles (#25)
#27. To: Pericles (#25)
#28. To: redleghunter (#26)
(Edited)
ou sure you aren't Catholic?
#29. To: redleghunter (#27)
(Edited)
TW, the actual Exodus 20 second commandment is:
#30. To: redleghunter (#24)
Suitability was never a concern as the colonial legislatures voted for independence.
#31. To: redleghunter (#21)
How many times must I post here the church affiliations of the founders?
#32. To: nolu chan (#12)
4. If Romans chapter 13 was not a problem to Christians revolting against the crown in the 1770's why is it today?
#33. To: TooConservative (#14)
You won't get any straight answers to this one.
#34. To: BobCeleste (#33)
#35. To: redleghunter (#21)
How many times must I post here the church affiliations of the founders?
#36. To: Pericles (#29)
Also, the Arc had craven images of Angels.
#37. To: redleghunter (#21)
How many times must I post here the church affiliations of the founders?
Leftists love to trot out Jefferson and Franklin as if they were the only founders.
Call your alma mater and get your money back.
#38. To: TooConservative (#14)
4. If Romans chapter 13 was not a problem to Christians revolting against the crown in the 1770's why is it today? You won't get any straight answers to this one.
#39. To: Willie Green (#37)
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
Well, Too, you know that if I give an answer, it will be very straight. You can probably write it yourself for me.
#41. To: TooConservative (#40)
(Edited)
The question, as you well know, was the legitimacy of revolt against a lawful king as seen through the lens of Romans 13. So the legitimacy of the Revolution does not depend on other acts of the Founders or the Constitution/BoR they wrote years later. So all of that business about freeing their slaves is an anachronistic editorializing on subsequent history, not the revolt itself.
#42. To: TooConservative (#36)
#43. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#41)
#44. To: Pericles, SOSO (#28)
The so called Catholics aka Latins left the Orthodox.
#45. To: Pericles (#29)
The reason was that God could not be seen to be represented. Then Jesus was born and could be seen and touched.
#46. To: TooConservative (#30)
Unfortunately, the colonial legislatures were only empowered to deal with minor issues of home rule. They never had the authority to vote themselves independence.
#47. To: redleghunter (#45)
Did God command icons and statues to be commissioned in the Christian church? No. He said don't make them and DON'T bow down to them. It was the pagan Greek and Roman influence on apostate assemblies and the incorporation of the church into secular government which led to these pagan images and practices. No one can find any of your church decorations in the NT church.
#48. To: redleghunter (#46)
That would be correct, but I object to the notion the American Revolution was some kind of Presbyterian 'jihad.'
#49. To: Willie Green, GarySpFc (#37)
If you have one, I've never seen it, so a comprehensive list would be interesting.
#50. To: CZ82, liberator, tomder55 (#31)
You know I wonder how many of the monarchs in the past just up and seized power for themselves?? And it's funny you never ever hear the Leftys complain about that, only that freedom seeking men overthrew the monarchs.
#51. To: TooConservative, Pericles (#36)
Also, the Arc had craven images of Angels.
#52. To: BobCeleste (#35)
Some only read the heading and then post or email a condemnation.
#53. To: TooConservative, GarySpFc (#47)
Which would raise the inevitable questions:
#54. To: redleghunter (#53)
Good questions. Especially a crucifix or cross with the suffering Christ image on it. It was His time of shame. I always wondered that even when I was Catholic. I said "My Christ is not still hanging on a cross...He is Risen and the tomb is empty."
#55. To: redleghunter, CZ82, Bob Celeste, tomder55 (#50)
You know I wonder how many of the monarchs in the past just up and seized power for themselves?? And it's funny you never ever hear the Leftys complain about that, only that freedom seeking men overthrew the monarchs.
#56. To: TooConservative, liberator (#48)
American Revolution was some kind of Presbyterian 'jihad.'
#57. To: redleghunter, TooConservative, GarySpFc (#53)
Which would raise the inevitable questions:
#58. To: redleghunter, TooConservative (#46)
I know you are pointing to the Reformed worldview as a catalyst for the independence spirit. That would be correct, but I object to the notion the American Revolution was some kind of Presbyterian 'jihad.'
#59. To: Pericles (#43)
Vic, as a Catholic you know there is a justification for just wars. The American rebels rebelled in a legalistic manner after attempting diplomacy, organized an army to fight in the manner prescribed by civilized Christian nations of that era and conducted themselves as a nation state with an army in the field.
#60. To: Pericles (#4)
Protestant preachers are accursed heretics and thus inherintly stupid.
#61. To: redleghunter, Pericles (#7)
Forret Gump has a few one liners for you...
#62. To: Vicomte13, BobCeleste (#59)
I am not, however, persuaded that there have in fact been many truly Just Wars before God. But if there have been, the American Revolution was not among them.
#63. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, GarySpFc (#49)
The best cross-section we have of the recorded faiths or denominations of the founders comes from the Continental Congress:
Religious Affiliation of the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence
Religious Affiliation of the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence
#64. To: Willie Green, redleghunter, Vicomte13, GarySpFc (#63)
As I explained to you previously, many of the Founders at the Continental Congress were Christians for public/political purposes only, because they were prohibited from participating in politics if their religious beliefs did not conform to the official government religion.
"Many of our Founding Fathers were actually Deists...our Founding Fathers were at best Deists... or perhaps godless merchants who despised paying taxes."
#65. To: Willie Green, liberator, BobCeleste, GarySpFc (#63)
That was a full decade before The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was enacted into state law in 1786 and 15 years before our religious freedom was protected by the 1st Amendment to our Constitution.
#66. To: Vicomte13 (#59)
Legalism does not convert wrongful killing into righteous killing, no matter who throws holy water at it.
#67. To: Liberator (#61)
OUCH
#68. To: redleghunter, Willie Green (#65)
What confirms my point is that AFTER the Constitution was ratified and the First Amendment in effect no one 'changed their faith' or expressed their lack of faith in the Christian God. There was no major historical event where people stopped going to church or the Christian faith was diminished. That came much later in American society with the rise of the socialist-progressive atheist humanist movement.
#69. To: Pericles (#67)
(Edited)
Perfect sound when heretics roast at the stake.
#70. To: Pericles, liberator (#67)
Perfect sound when heretics roast at the stake.
#71. To: Willie Green, GarySpFc, liberator, BobCeleste (#63)
As I explained to you previously, many of the Founders at the Continental Congress were Christians for public/political purposes only, because they were prohibited from participating in politics if their religious beliefs did not conform to the official government religion.
#72. To: redleghunter (#50)
You really know how to cut through the 'bull' very well:)
#73. To: All, redleghunter (#71)
#74. To: CZ82 (#72)
That's the reason why I ended up being an E7 for over 10 years, I wasn't PC.
#75. To: GarySpFC, BobCeleste, liberator, CZ82 (#73)
This attempt to marginalize religion, or even exclude it from the public sphere is an unstated recognition that religious ideology has profound influence on the minds of people, ideas that might run counter to contemporary Progressive elitism.
#76. To: Liberator, Vicomte13 (#62)
(Edited)
I am not, however, persuaded that there have in fact been many truly Just Wars before God. But if there have been, the American Revolution was not among them.
#77. To: redleghunter, liberator (#70)
#78. To: BobCeleste, Vicomte13 (#76)
I am not, however, persuaded that there have in fact been many truly Just Wars before God. But if there have been, the American Revolution was not among them.
#79. To: Pericles, BobCeleste, redleghunter, (#77)
The thread writer wants to color the revolutionary war in religious terms and that ends with heretics being burned at the stake - as is proper.
#80. To: nolu chan (#13)
" All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government. "
#81. To: Pericles (#77)
(Edited)
The thread writer wants to color the revolutionary war in religious terms and that ends with heretics being burned at the stake - as is proper.
#82. To: redleghunter (#81)
(Edited)
Most Orthodox are safe from such 'burning at the stake' given they are under the 'protection' of Muslims. Just beheadings and other horrible deaths from the Muzzies
#83. To: Pericles (#82)
And I don't think any Orthodox would have wanted to live in Calvin's Protestant theocratic dictatorship.
#84. To: Willie Green (#63)
#85. To: redleghunter (#83)
(Edited)
#86. To: TooConservative (#85)
I didn't get the cheap sideswipe at Calvin either. I assume it's a slap at "Protestant work ethic".
#87. To: TooConservative, redleghunter (#85)
didn't get the cheap sideswipe at Calvin either. I assume it's a slap at "Protestant work ethic".
#88. To: Liberator (#79)
Is every Protestant a Salem Witch to you?
#89. To: Pericles (#87)
Calvin ran a totalitarian state.
#90. To: TooConservative (#89)
Calvin ran nothing. He was a writer and preacher.
#91. To: Stoner (#80)
"All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government. "
#92. To: redleghunter, TooConservative (#90)
Calvin ran nothing. He was a writer and preacher.
#93. To: Pericles, TooConservative (#92)
#94. To: redleghunter (#93)
You don't like Calvin because he never wore outrageous hats:
#95. To: Pericles, redleghunter (#94)
They look about the same to me.
#96. To: Pericles (#94)
#97. To: Liberator (#95)
Chyeah. It's "about the same." Except for your stylish guy's extra 10" of pumped-up black chef's hat and Bela Lugosi-like black cape. You'd never catch Jesus wearing a black get up.
#98. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#97)
#99. To: BobCeleste, redleghunter (#0)
#100. To: tomder55 (#99)
As for Roman 13 ,the Divine Rights of Kings had already been consigned to the trash bin of history . The colonists were not anti-government . They were anti- tyranny . Maybe they were also reading Hebrews 11:24-35.They believed they were acting in good faith .
#101. To: BobCeleste (#32)
So, tell me your take on Romans 3, feel free to go into as much detail as you can.
#102. To: nolu chan (#101)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]