Formo
15 years ago

... That doesn't mean the country wasn't founded on those principles, though.

"Wade" wrote:



The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

As far as "In God we Trust", that did not appear on any US coinage until the Civil War (1864), or on any paper currency until 1957.

"In God we Trust" did not become the official motto of the USA until 1956.

The motto E Pluribus Unum (Latin for "One from many" or "One from many parts.") was approved for use on the Great Seal of the United States in 1782. It still appears on coins and currency, and was widely considered the national motto de facto until 1956.

"Formo" wrote:



PRINCIPLES.

Hence the Second sentence you read when reading the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Those words, my friend, weren't written by an atheist.

I guess the days of prayer and fasting prior to finally all agreeing on the Declaration of Independence had nothing to do with how this country was founded..

::roll:

"vikesrule" wrote:



Ah. But saying that the founders were believers is not the same thing as saying that the US system of government is based on Christian religion.

The first statement I agree with. IMO the "deism" argument is a simplistic one foisted upon us by sloppy academics who don't understand the difference between a "religion" and a "belief", and, often, between a belief in a particular conceptualization of God and a belief in God. Or between belief in the existence of God and trusting in God in a particular way.

But the second I cannot. I'm not sure what it means to say the Constitution is based on " Christian religion." Beliefs of those thinking themselves "Christian", yes. "Christian belief" even, yes. "Christian religion, no. The first two are positions of faith, positions that we are guided by a desire to serve God first. But the last is saying "we know what God wants of society and what God doesn't want of society.

If anything would violate Matthew 7, I think that would be it.

"Formo" wrote:



I'm not arguing that the country was based on the Christian religion. I'm saying it was based on Christian principles.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
15 years ago
But are they truly "Christian" principles?

What about that bit about giving to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God's?

Now God may well ordain US-style federalism and separation powers as his ideal form of government. I have no clue what God ordains.

But I do think God would have trouble with even Washington and Madison, or Luther and Calvin, much less Pat Robertson, D James Kennedy, ordaining their constitutional vision as His.

Do I think the founders thought they were doing God's will? Yes, and I'd quote the Declaration just as you have for that proposition.

Do I personally think much of the American system is consistent with "Christian principles" in a way that the alternatives are not? Yes, again.

Do I think that said consistency is one of the big reasons I consider the Madison/Jefferson/Washington vision the best system of governance ever put into practice, perhaps the biggest reason? Yes, a third time.

But I also think that when we argue about how "Christian" the basis for the original vision was or was not, we miss Christ's main point. His desire for us is not to come up with the best government system in this world. His desire for us is even less for us to choose our government because of whether our forefathers, who we admire, believed in him or not.

His desire for us is to cast off our need for governments and other non-divine institutions, to trust in him first, last, and always. His desire is to listen to Him and listen for his guidance. We should not base our decisions or beliefs about proper government on "our" principles, but on His.

The question isn't whether American government should be based on "Christian" principles. It's whether it should be based on Christ's principles.

These are *not* the same thing.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Formo
15 years ago

But are they truly "Christian" principles?

What about that bit about giving to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God's?

Now God may well ordain US-style federalism and separation powers as his ideal form of government. I have no clue what God ordains.

But I do think God would have trouble with even Washington and Madison, or Luther and Calvin, much less Pat Robertson, D James Kennedy, ordaining their constitutional vision as His.

Do I think the founders thought they were doing God's will? Yes, and I'd quote the Declaration just as you have for that proposition.

Do I personally think much of the American system is consistent with "Christian principles" in a way that the alternatives are not? Yes, again.

Do I think that said consistency is one of the big reasons I consider the Madison/Jefferson/Washington vision the best system of governance ever put into practice, perhaps the biggest reason? Yes, a third time.

But I also think that when we argue about how "Christian" the basis for the original vision was or was not, we miss Christ's main point. His desire for us is not to come up with the best government system in this world. His desire for us is even less for us to choose our government because of whether our forefathers, who we admire, believed in him or not.

His desire for us is to cast off our need for governments and other non-divine institutions, to trust in him first, last, and always. His desire is to listen to Him and listen for his guidance. We should not base our decisions or beliefs about proper government on "our" principles, but on His.

The question isn't whether American government should be based on "Christian" principles. It's whether it should be based on Christ's principles.

These are *not* the same thing.

"Wade" wrote:



What was the government based/founded on then? Christian principles or Christ's?
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
While there were no doubt devout Christians among the Founding Fathers (Witherspoon comes to mind), to quote the "endowed by their Creator" clause as evidence of "Christian principles" is to torture the phrase beyond its intended meaning. After all, I once attended an "alternative Thanksgiving celebration" hosted by a local American Indian tribe, and they prayed to the Creator before the meal, too -- but it was most assuredly not to the Christian God they were praying. "Creator" as used by Jefferson is a bland deistic platitude designed to mollify everyone and offend no one. "Creator" need not imply a personal God -- it can just as easily encompass an insentient universal force. Jefferson here is referring obliquely to the concept of "natural law" as enunciated by John Locke, et al., a political philosophy which was in vogue at the time. "Natural law" was "natural" in that it was woven into the fabric of the universe by the Creator, who/whatever he/it might be.

Now that phrase, "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion" can be misused and misinterpreted, of course. It is not intended to imply that the U.S. government is somehow neutral or inimical to the Christian religion. Rather, it is intended to allay fears of the "Mehomitan" (Islamic) rulers of Tripoli that the United States might wage a holy war or crusade against the Islamic states by stressing the fact that unlike these Islamic nations, the United States is not any way a theocracy and therefore its interest in waging war on the Tripoli pirates was purely economic and political, not religious. Indeed, the treaty goes on to say:

. . . as it [the government of the United States] has in itself no character or enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] -- and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.



Of course that treaty did not preclude the possibility of future wars (indeed, it broadly implies that hostilities could resume if the activities of the pirates were to recur), merely the possibility that the United States would wage war in the name of Christendom. George Bush the Lesser spat in the face of this pivotal doctrine when he foolishly labeled the Global War on Terrorism a "crusade," a word that inevitably brought to Islamic minds visions of the predations wrought upon their lands by the medieval Christian crusades. It was the perfect way to stoke fears that the United States might be attempting to position itself by force of military might as the religious arbiter of the world.

There are many Christians who believe that the solution to this nation's problems is to establish a de facto Christian theocracy in this land. This idea frightens me. There has never in the history of mankind been a theocratic state that was truly free. They have without exception been tyrannical and oppressive -- heck, read the Old Testament and see how well that idea worked out for Israel. As paradoxical as it might seem, the secular state is the guardian of religious liberty. The Founding Fathers knew this full well, and while they had every intention that men of Christian morals would guide this country, they were at great pains to ensure that no form of established religion would ever control the functions of the state. That is one of the primary reasons why our Constitution has endured relatively intact longer than any other voluntarily formed pact in the history of the world.

A couple of salient quotes:

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not. -- A Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785.

"James Madison" wrote:



History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. -- From a letter to Baron von Humboldt, 1813.

"Thomas Jefferson" wrote:



And a bit more obliquely:

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! -- From a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

"John Adams" wrote:


UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
15 years ago
Sorry Christians, but our Founding Fathers were not Christian, they were Deist. HUGE difference. If you knew some of the things our Founding Fathers said about religion, you'd be offended. For example, Thomas Jefferson straight up said that he took what Jesus said from the Bible and threw out the rest as the rest was garbage. That's straight from Thomas Jefferson, and no, don't ask me to find the quotes as I went through his letters back when I was in college before some of you were born. I remember them because I wrote a 25 page research paper on Jefferson (no exaggeration of the length).

Non is correct about "the Creator." It's a generic phrase and has as much to do with Christianity as it does with Native American beliefs. If I remember correctly, Ben Franklin was fascinated by Native American beliefs and a lot of today's Christians would take insult by the things he said.

I'm not going to state my personal religion. It's private. However, I believe history should be studied as is, not changed as to not offend people's delicate sensibilities.

Political correctness from ANY direction is wrong, and unfortunately, too many people when studying history want to see it with their side as right instead of what really happened.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Pack93z
15 years ago

For example, Thomas Jefferson straight up said that he took what Jesus said from the Bible and threw out the rest as the rest was garbage. .

"zombieslayer" wrote:



That fits my stance almost to a tee.. the prophets were human and fell into the perception trap that many of us do. It was nothing more than their interpretation... that would be like giving Nonstop a clean slate to write a prophecy on how a marriage should work.

His interpretation doesn't make it the word for all.. sorry I challenge the bibles meaning all the time and it got me thrown out of Sunday school..

Anyway.. I think this story grew a wings along the way.. but I will believe that Tebow will have a rough go of it getting accumulated into an NFL locker room because of the fanfare he has been given already. He needs to go to a team where he can settle in and develop for a year or two and let this over hype nonsense to die down.

Personally I am rooting for the kid to become successful and carry his beliefs with him through it all.. sign of true strength.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Formo
15 years ago

Sorry Christians, but our Founding Fathers were not Christian, they were Deist. HUGE difference. If you knew some of the things our Founding Fathers said about religion, you'd be offended. For example, Thomas Jefferson straight up said that he took what Jesus said from the Bible and threw out the rest as the rest was garbage. That's straight from Thomas Jefferson, and no, don't ask me to find the quotes as I went through his letters back when I was in college before some of you were born. I remember them because I wrote a 25 page research paper on Jefferson (no exaggeration of the length).

Non is correct about "the Creator." It's a generic phrase and has as much to do with Christianity as it does with Native American beliefs. If I remember correctly, Ben Franklin was fascinated by Native American beliefs and a lot of today's Christians would take insult by the things he said.

I'm not going to state my personal religion. It's private. However, I believe history should be studied as is, not changed as to not offend people's delicate sensibilities.

Political correctness from ANY direction is wrong, and unfortunately, too many people when studying history want to see it with their side as right instead of what really happened.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Deist because your books said so? Or because you came to that conclusion when reading the original manuscripts?
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
In his so-called Jefferson Bible (entitled, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth), Thomas Jefferson didn't only throw out most of the New Testament narration -- he threw out anything he believed was falsely attributed to Jesus, keeping only those sayings he believed were authentically from Jesus. Jefferson's true intent with this book was to expurgate the New Testament of all supernatural references -- in particular, to eliminate references to Jesus' divinity. Jefferson sought to portray Jesus as nothing more than a wise moralist, a good teller of stories. Splicing together verses from the various gospels in chronological order, he recreates the story of Jesus' life as a human. Gone are the virgin birth, angels, prophecy, and Jesus' geneology, and certainly all miracles. What remains is a genteel collection of wise and moral aphorisms.
UserPostedImage
Rockmolder
15 years ago
According to Day of the Tentacle, Washington only chopped down cherry trees.
Formo
15 years ago

In his so-called Jefferson Bible (entitled, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth), Thomas Jefferson didn't only throw out most of the New Testament narration -- he threw out anything he believed was falsely attributed to Jesus, keeping only those sayings he believed were authentically from Jesus. Jefferson's true intent with this book was to expurgate the New Testament of all supernatural references -- in particular, to eliminate references to Jesus' divinity. Jefferson sought to portray Jesus as nothing more than a wise moralist, a good teller of stories. Splicing together verses from the various gospels in chronological order, he recreates the story of Jesus' life as a human. Gone are the virgin birth, angels, prophecy, and Jesus' geneology, and certainly all miracles. What remains is a genteel collection of wise and moral aphorisms.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



So, he created a translation of a translation of a translation by eliminating things he didn't believe to be true? Wouldn't that be kind of the same thing as a Creationist eliminating any sort of scientific psuedo-facts from a science book because he doesn't believe them to be true?

I don't even know what you point was, and I'm just now realizing that I forgot my point. lol
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Fan Shout
wpr (18h) : It's all good.
beast (30-May) : Yeah, and I enjoyed your comments and just attempted to add to it. Sorry if I did it incorrectly.
wpr (30-May) : Beast I never said Henderson was the salt of the earth. Nor even that he was correct. Just quoting the guy.
Zero2Cool (29-May) : What did you do??
Zero2Cool (29-May) : Whoa
beast (29-May) : OMG the website is now all white, even some white on white text
beast (29-May) : Henderson, who admits to taking cocaine during the Super Bowl against the Steelers, might dislike Bradshaw as he lost two Superbowls to him
wpr (28-May) : Hollywood Henderson said Bradshaw “is so dumb, he couldn't spell 'cat' if you spotted him the C and an A.”
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : Cooper stock=BUY BUY BUY
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : Also notes he’s playing with more confidence.
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : @AndyHermanNFL MLF says there was a time last year where Cooper was at 220 pounds. Now he’s at 240 and still flying around.
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : And don't even get me started on Frank Caliendos "impersonations"
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : I got tired of them being circle jerks with them overlaughing at each others jokes.
Zero2Cool (28-May) : It used to be must watch TV for me. now it's "meh" maybe to hear injury update
Mucky Tundra (28-May) : I haven't watched the pregame shows in years and I don't feel like I've missed a thing
Zero2Cool (28-May) : Love says knee affected him all season, groin injury didn't help matters.
Zero2Cool (28-May) : I used to enjoy him on FOX Pregame. Now it's like a frat party of former Patriots.
Zero2Cool (28-May) : LaFleur on Watson: “Christian is doing outstanding. I would say he’s ahead of schedule.”
Martha Careful (28-May) : Bradshaw is a dumb ass cracker. I am so tired of his "aw shucks" diatribe. He should shrivel up and go away.
buckeyepackfan (28-May) : He wad all butt hurt because Aaron duped the media saying he was immunized.
buckeyepackfan (28-May) : Bradshaw needs to retire. He's been ripping on Rodgers ever since the covid crap. He was all hury
Zero2Cool (28-May) : Terry Bradshaw doesn't want Rodgers in Pittsburgh lol wow
Zero2Cool (27-May) : one day contract, which he also feels is pointless, but if Packers came to him, he would
packerfanoutwest (27-May) : Aaron Rodgers talks possibility of retiring with Packers, just another rumor
dfosterf (27-May) : Go watch 2001
Zero2Cool (26-May) : 1984
dfosterf (26-May) : That movie sent a chill through many. 1968.
dfosterf (26-May) : "Open the pod bay doors, HAL"
buckeyepackfan (25-May) : Haven't we all seen thus movie? It doesn't end well!! Lol
Zero2Cool (25-May) : lol Anthropic’s new AI model turns to blackmail when engineers try to take it offline
dfosterf (25-May) : Claude Opus 4
dfosterf (25-May) : AI system resorts to blackmail when its developers threaten to take it offline
beast (22-May) : Colts Owner Jim Irsay has passed away
Zero2Cool (21-May) : Well, emailing should work now. After not working for almost a year. Oops.
Zero2Cool (21-May) : Brotherly Shove did not get enough votes.
Zero2Cool (20-May) : lol our email hasn't worked in months. 7 pages of unverified users
Zero2Cool (20-May) : MySpace Screaming Lord Byron ... Brett Favre.
Zero2Cool (19-May) : Packers have signed first-round pick Matthew Golden, leaving second-round tackle Anthony Belton as their only unsigned draft pick
beast (19-May) : Supposedly he has to take his image, and name off of it... but otherwise could keep selling wine if he wanted to.
Zero2Cool (19-May) : he giving up his win business?
beast (19-May) : Speaking of Woodson, sounds like he'll be a minority owner (0.1%) of the Browns
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : Zero, regarding Woodson, that'd why I find the timing with Williams peculiar
dfosterf (15-May) : Ryan Hall y'all does a great job of tracking thesr
Zero2Cool (15-May) : Fear not!! I planned to do 33mi bike ride tomorrow morning, so ... yeah
Zero2Cool (15-May) : We got some dark clouds and nasty winds right bout now.
Zero2Cool (15-May) : Madison they had hail 4pm.
dfosterf (15-May) : Sure looks like these tornadoes are headed towards Green Bay
Zero2Cool (15-May) : Woodson of Charles fame was reluctant and then loved it. that didn't really come out until post career
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : IE "We bought into the Bears and they let us down, we have no choice to seek alternatives"
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : Or that Williams and his family are preparing an exit ramp if they don't like how things are going in a few years
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
29-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

27-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

27-May / Random Babble / Martha Careful

24-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

23-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / earthquake

22-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

21-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

21-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / earthquake

20-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.