jump to last post 1-50 of 54 discussions (78 posts)

America was founded as a Christian Nation

  1. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    Is it reasonable to assume that 13 different Christian Chartered Colonies, would send to a convention in Philadelphia a group of men - to make a Constitution - that allowed their way of life to end? Is it further reasonable to believe that those Christians picked only Deists to go represent them? Isn't it rather more reasonable to believe that they intended the new nation to be founded on their own Christian principles - but that no particular DENOMINATION of Christian believers have advantage? Of course it is.

    1. Inspirepub profile image80
      Inspirepubposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      See the error in the logic now, Prophecy Teacher?

  2. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    Conversely, would it be reasonable today to believe 13 million atheists - in 13 different states - would select 55 Christians, Agnostics, Muslims, Buhddists or Deists - to represent them in forming rules of their new country? Not hardly.

  3. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    I do see your error. The Constitutional Congress was deciding the future of the United Christian Colonies - as a harmonized country. It wrestled with many issues that went unresolved including slavery.

    But on the issue they all had in common - their Christianity - they found an agreement they could vote on. You will notice at the bottom of the page - that it was this very Christianity that helped ultimately bring the slavery issue to a head.

    The colonies had Christianity in common and found agreement - they didn't have Slavery in common and found disagreement. We were neither a slave nation nor an abolitionist nation - we were a Christian Nation, and that's the point.

    You are mixing apples with oranges and we are talking about bananas. smile

    ************
    Wikipedia

    (At the Congress)...many questions remained unresolved. Among the most important were the controversial issues surrounding slavery. Slaves accounted for about one-fifth of the population in the American colonies.[6] Most of them lived in the Southern colonies, where slaves made up 40 percent of the population.[6] Whether slavery was to be permitted and continued under the new Constitution was a matter of conflict between the North and South, with several Southern states refusing to join the Union if slavery were not allowed.

    One of the most contentious slavery-related issue was the question of whether slaves would be counted as part of the population in determining representation in Congress or considered property not entitled to representation.[6] Delegates from states with a large population of slaves argued that slaves should be considered persons in determining representation but as property if the new government were to levy taxes on the states on the basis of population.[6] Delegates from states where slavery had disappeared or almost disappeared argued that slaves should be included in taxation but not in determining representation.[6]

    Finally, delegate James Wilson proposed the Three-Fifths Compromise.[3] This was eventually adopted by the convention.

    Another issue at the Convention was what should be done about the slave trade. Ten states had already outlawed it.[6] Many delegates heatedly denounced it, but the three states, Georgia and the two Carolinas, that allowed it threatened to leave the convention if the trade were banned.[6] In effect they postponed the decision on the slave trade because of its contentious nature. The delegates to the Convention did not want its ratification to fail because of the conflict over slavery.[6] Therefore, a special committee worked out another compromise: Congress would have the power to ban the slave trade, but not until at least 20 years had passed, in 1808.[3]

    After 1830, a religious movement led by William Lloyd Garrison declared slavery to be a personal sin and demanded the owners repent immediately and start the process of emancipation. The movement was highly controversial and was a factor in causing the American Civil War.

    Source: Wikipedia

    1. profile image0
      Zarm Nefilinposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      There are always those amongst the clergy that were against slavery, but it is not the minority of preachers and priests that get their way, it is the majority that get their way.  The majority of priests and preachers/ministers supported slavery pre-civil war.

      And yes I do damn the whole lot of them, as this phenomenon I have seen repeat itself throughout the pages of history, where the minority of preachers/priests/witch doctors/medicine men/ministers/practitioners of priestcraft that object to things like slavery are upheld to justify the code or morality of their religion, when the reality is they are the exception and not the norm.

  4. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 9 years ago

    lol

    I knew this was where you were going smile Politics/Religion=same thing lolo

    Quite right - the bible is a political tool. As for America being a "christian" nation - I guess actions speak louder than words and you certainly behave in the christian fashion.

    Although, if you think christian morality had anything to do with the abolition of slavery lolo

    http://markpknowles.com/wp-content/gallery/funny2/1170191653865.jpg

  5. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    Who does not admit that this unparalleled growth in prosperity and renown is the result, under Providence, of the union of these States under a general Constitution which guarantees to each State, a Republican form of Government, and to every man the enjoyment of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, free from civil tyranny or the threat of ecclesiastical domination.""

    Daniel Webster 1851
    ****

    Mark,  I am not "free from civil tyranny" but you are clearly free of "ecclesiastical domination"  -

    So when you feebly attempt to suppose that Christians do not have the right for political rectification - under the ridiculous notion that politics and religion do not mix - you show a disregard for history and misunderstand from whence your own rights descend. By defending mine I am not usurping yours. I have neither shown malice towards you nor approached you in any way contrary to the "laws of nature and nature's God" - as our Founding Fathers said so often; but you have shown disgust and disdain at every turn. Are we Christians that much of a threat to your freedoms?

    I don't care if you are atheist. But you clearly care that I'm Christian. It's sport for you. How did you come about in your life to enjoy this kind of entertainment? It is enjoyable right? And by the way - I don't know the girl in your article. I disagree wholeheartedly with what she wrote. If she were here, I'd be the first to correct her. She can not defend her rights by ending yours.

    smile

    1. profile image0
      Zarm Nefilinposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      I think you are seeing a bit too much of what you want to see in Marks statements.

      Mark is saying the Bible is a political tool.  Far from saying that P&R don't mix he is saying that your Religion is the source of your Politics and your Bible is the manual you use to wage political warfare.  He is saying that your Politics and Religion DO MIX, because they MUST MIX.  Now, I am sure it would make him feel better if they didn't mix, but I doubt that is his point.

      He is quite right, and I agree with him.

      As far as this country being a "Christian Nation", I would say it is as much a "Christian
      Nation" now as it was back when it started.  A nation where the majority of people are Christian and practice their Christianity in some form or another.

      I don't think it is any coincidence that Jefferson and Franklin and others were Deists and made the First amendment that said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      So, I would agree with you that America is indeed a Christian Nation in the sense that the majority of it's constituents are practicing Christians influence the civic life of their country.

      However I would not agree that dogmas and doctrines should be allowed to inform public policy (even though they have and still do), as in a secular republic (as America is), science needs to be used to inform things such as public health policy.  By and large I would say this has been the case, a case where things like economics have been used to understand money matters rather than the words of ministers who are clearly not qualified to speak on the subject with the same authority.

  6. SparklingJewel profile image61
    SparklingJewelposted 9 years ago

    Personally,  I believe that the Founding Fathers understood more "spiritually" what being a Christian meant. Whereas,  the many denominations, obviously can't agree on its whole and complete meaning. IT is still being sorted out; as far as I can see, understanding what being the "Christ" means and the human actions that attempt to become that "Christ" haven't quite matched His footsteps. But I am glad we do have common ground and believe that we could find more.
    My belief is that all and any people, regardless of religion or philosophy, can find common ground, and work on becoming like Christ. But I don't think one has to relinquish a particular religion or philosophy as long as it is basically good and holy (then again what does holy mean! to some), but I do know that "understanding Christ" within one's self is paramount.

    So, as far as America being founded a Christian nation, that I do believe...becoming like Christ is still misunderstood/misrepresented.

  7. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 9 years ago

    Can't find a dinitive authoritative source on this, but there is the premise that many of the key founding fathers were
    Freemasons.

    1. SparklingJewel profile image61
      SparklingJewelposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      Yes that is what I have read as well. I haven't read enough about Freemasonry to find parallel with Christianity and my sense of the "Christ". But I found that parallel in Judaism and Hinduism as well as Buddhism, even Native American.   Right understanding of the "Christ" is the missing link that I believe will bring all humanity together  big_smile

      1. SparklingJewel profile image61
        SparklingJewelposted 9 years ago in reply to this

        It is also my intuition that Freemasonry is akin to the ancient mystery schools. But I also get the sense that they were a meeting of minds and spirits for a higher purpose than even the individual member's own church religion or philosophy. The belief in a Supreme Diety as requirement.

  8. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    Many of them were Christians, Masons, and Deists - of that there can be no doubt. But usually, when an Atheist attempts to make the point that these men had no personal relationship with God - their points fall apart. If you are lucky enough to get accurate quotes in context - you can deduce these things yourself. Hardly any of these men believed in an impersonal, distant and unknowable God. And almost all of them believed they would face Him at their death - otherwise their personal spiritual virtue was meaningless to them.

    Notice below that it is the "CREED" of the various churches Paine disagreed with - as so do I.

    A typical argument goes like this.....

    (Taken from a Secular Humanist medium)

    "The Christian right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States as part of its campaign to force its religion on others. They try to depict the founding fathers as pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.

    This is patently untrue. The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments.

    Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestos encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the war of Independence:
    I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."

    From:
    The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)


    Sounds great huh? Except it's out of context and quoted from a book written about the horror of the French Reveloution. What did Paine really believe?

        "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life."

        "The moral duty of man consists in imitating the moral goodness and beneficence of God manifested in the creation toward all his creatures. That seeing, as we daily do, the goodness of God to all men, it is an example calling upon all men to practice the same toward each other."

        "I trouble not myself about the manner of future existence. I content myself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that gave me existence is able to continue it in any form and manner he pleases, either with or without this body" (Age of Reason).

        "I consider myself in the hands of my Creator, and that he will dispose of me after this life consistently with his justice and goodness" (Private Thoughts on a Future State)

        "We believe in the existence of a God, and in the immortality of the soul."

        "Were man impressed as fully and as strongly as he ought to be with the belief of a God, his moral life would be regulated by the force of that belief; he would stand in awe of God and of himself, and would not do the thing that could not be concealed from either. ... This is Deism."

  9. Misha profile image74
    Mishaposted 9 years ago

    Can't really get your point PT. Do you want to baptize all atheists, Buddhists and Muslims alike? And drive out of the country those who refuse? Like in this paper article Mark posted?

  10. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    Not at all Misha -

    My point is the opposite. I think the girl in the article is wrong (as I stated). She can not defend her right:

    from being overly oppressed by an (increasingly secular atheistic) government
    By oppressing others' rights with an ecclesiastical theocracy.

    The harmony of the two positions is the point. Atheists can not mindlessly attempt to show that the Fathers weren't Christians - in any sense of the word; when reams of extant writings by 1000's of men of stature - show in their day, in their context, in casual writings the opposite conclusion.
    On the other hand,

    Christians in any denomination and belief, can not mindlessly state that the country was founded as a Christian Theocracy. It wasn't. But it was clearly founded as a moral nation in a Covenant with God. That covenant left the non-Christians - physically free - but it held them in that state while in a condition under the Creator God who endowed them with their rights - even if they don't believe in GOD or disagree as to who He is.

    The Declaration's God is a Creator which endows.

    Here's the line in the Declaration,

    "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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

    men are CREATED
    Endowed by their CREATOR
    with UNALIENABLE rights
    that to SECURE these rights
    Governments are INSTITUTED
    from the CONSENT of the governed.

    So what was the CONSENT of the governed in those days??? (I show it in the next post)

    Truth has a moral foundation. That is implicit in the word truth. We hold these truths to be self evident - meant that there were truths that superseded man's existence. By placing these self evident truths in a declaration - and making that compact under God - means that whether we like it or not - our truths are under God in a Covenant. Our founding Fathers put us in that state when they formed the Union.

    And that was the consent of the governed. How did the governed consent to this if there were men who didn't agree?

    John Quincy Adams - states it very clearly. He was the son of John Adams and the 6th President. Washington was his father's friend and appointed Quincy ambassador. He knew many of the founding fathers personally - and his youth and early adulthood was filled with the fellowship of the best. He was Harvard educated. He was a Senator for 6yrs and a Congressman for 13. In his day, he was the pre-eminent speaker for the ideals ensconced in t he Declaration and the Constitution.

    In the next post I'll give you his incisive logic on what actually took place that day. It's long but it's instructive. The post contains excerpts from two different 4th of July speeches he gave - one 2 yrs before he became President and the other 4 years after. (1821&1831)

  11. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American union, and of its constituent states, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians, in a state of nature, but not of anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct. They were bound by the principles which they themselves had proclaimed in the declaration. They were bound by all those tender and endearing sympathies, the absence of which, in the British government and nation, towards them, was the primary cause of the distressing conflict in which they had been precipitated by the headlong rashness and unfeeling insolence of their oppressors. They were bound by all the beneficent laws and institutions, which their forefathers had brought with them from their mother country, not as servitudes but as rights. They were bound by habits of hardy industry, by frugal and hospitable manners, by the general sentiments of social equality, by pure and virtuous morals; and lastly they were bound by the grappling-hooks of common suffering under the scourge of oppression.
    (pg 28-29)

    (America's) glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of mind. She has a spear and a shield; but the motto upon her shield is Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice. My countrymen, fellow-citizens, and friends; could that Spirit, which dictated the Declaration we have this day read, that Spirit, which " prefers before all temples the upright heart and pure," at this moment descend from his habitation in the skies, and within this hall, in language audible to mortal ears, address each one of us, here assembled, our beloved country, Britannia ruler of the waves, and every individual among the sceptered lords of humankind; his words would be, " Go thou and do likewise !" (pg34)

    Source: Anniversary of Independence, at the city of Washington on the fourth Of July 1821. (four years before being elected the 6th President)

    ***********

    The Declaration of Independence was a manifesto issued to the world, by the delegates of thirteen distinct, but UNITED colonies of Great Britain, in the name and behalf of their people. It was a united declaration. Their union preceded their independence; nor was their independence, nor has it ever since, been separable from their union. Their language is, "We the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, do, in the name and by the authority of the good PEOPLE of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies, are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States." It was the act of one people. The Colonies are not named; their number is not designated; nor in the original Declaration, does it appear from which of the Colonies any one of the fifty-six Delegates by whom it was signed, had been deputed. They announced their constituents to the world as one people, and unitedly declared the Colonies to which they respectively belonged, united, free and independent states. The Declaration of Independence, therefore, was a proclamation to the world, not merely that the United Colonies had ceased to be dependencies of Great Britain, but that their people had bound themselves, before GOD, to a primitive social compact of union, freedom and independence. (pg 6-7)

    The body politic of the United States was formed by the voluntary association of the people of the United Colonies. The Declaration of Independence was a social compact, by which the whole people covenanted with each citizen of the United Colonies, and each citizen with the whole people, that the United Colonies were, and of right ought to be, free and independent states. To this compact, union was as vital as freedom or independence. From the hour of that Declaration, no one of the States whose people were parties to it, could, without violation of that primitive compact, secede or separate from the rest. Each was pledged to all, and all were pledged to each by a concert of souls, without limitation of time, in the presence of Almighty God, and proclaimed to all mankind. (pg 17-18)

    ****

    The Declaration of Independence was not a declaration of liberty newly acquired, nor was it a form of government. The people of the Colonies were already free, and their forms of government were various. They were all Colonies of a monarchy. The king of Great Britain was their common sovereign. Their internal administrations presented great varieties of form. The proprietary governments were hereditary monarchies in miniature. New York and Virginia were feudal aristocracies. Massachusetts Bay was an approximation to the complex government of the parent state. Connecticut and Rhode Island were little remote from democracies. But as in the course of our recent war with Great Britain, her gallant naval warriors made the discovery that the frigates of the United States were line of battle ships in disguise, so the ministers of George III., when they brought their king and country into collision with these transatlantic dependencies, soon found to their astonishment, that the United American Colonies were republics in disguise. The spirit of the people, throughout the Union, was republican; and the absurdity of a foreign and a royal head to societies of men thus constituted, had remained unperceived, only because until then that head had been seldom brought into action.

    The Declaration of Independence announced the severance of the thirteen United Colonies from the rest of the British Empire, and the existence of their people from that day forth as an independent nation. The people of all the Colonies, speaking by their representatives, constituted themselves one moral person before the face of their fellow men.

    The Declaration of Independence was the crown with which the people of United America, rising in gigantic stature as one man, encircled their brows, and there it remains; there, so long as this globe shall be inhabited by human beings, may it remain, a crown of imperishable glory !

    The Declaration of Independence asserted the rights, and acknowledged the obligations of an independent nation. It recognized the laws of nations, as they were observed and practiced among Christian communities. (pg 19-20)

    ****

    In no delusion of national vanity, but with a feeling of profound gratitude to the God of our Fathers, let us indulge the cheering hope and belief, that our country and her people have been selected as instruments for preparing and maturing much of the good yet in reserve for the welfare and happiness of the human race. (pg 38)

    Source : Pamphlet Titled, "An oration addressed to the citizens of the town of Quincy, on the fourth of July, 1831" delivered by John Quincy Adams 2 yrs after his presidency ended.

  12. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    Of course, using this world view - and stating the facts of history like this - and making absurd observations of piousness, moral certainty, submission, and Christian principles, and the awareness of the Spirit of God in the writing of the Declaration - under God - it is unlikely that he could be elected President again - let alone get the nomination.

    And that is the essence of the point. It is not the nature of how a secular man today - perhaps atheist in his beliefs - has come to be burdened by the Christian world view; but rather - how that secular atheists' view has come about to create such changes so as to burden the religious man.

    The direction has been one sided - and that side swears that what we read here was never true -  and I think that is delusional.

  13. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    And finally, as "free men" even before the Declaration - what did we appeal to as our higher authority to give us the right to break from Britain? Common sense? The rights of man? The honor of Man? The intelligence of Man? The logic of Man? The reason of Man?

    No...

    We appeal to God as our authority....(as the following quote shows)

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;

    and it was in the NAME AND THE AUTHORITY of the people of the free colonies - which our representatives called the "consent of the governed" - in which we together as one nation - called on the Name Of God as the SUPREME Judge - to hear and witness and bind with us - in our righteous endeavor.

    We have - as one indivisible people - been submitted to this God - the God of our fathers - ever since. And all of us, Christian, Atheists, secular and religious - are to live in harmony under Him as moral and good men - none of us usurping the rights of the other - while living under the laws of nature and nature's God.

    1. SparklingJewel profile image61
      SparklingJewelposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      Many have lost, or never attained, the vision of "one indivisible people". I think that this is what is akin to the Christ in us all, it is the unifying point of our existence as one body of God. The Christ Mind is the mediator between human mind and God Mind. All forgiveness and yet able to discern when a soul is rebellious against her God and how she is rebellious and whether the soul needs forgiveness 70 x 7.

  14. Inspirepub profile image80
    Inspirepubposted 9 years ago

    Part 1

    It sounds to me, Prophecy Teacher, as though you want to imbue the United States of America with some kind of Divine Right like the Holy Roman Empire of old.

    In fact, it sounds as though you DO hold some kind of semi-religious awe about the USA and its founding fathers, because you are relying on the authority of their words and intentions as though those should hold some weight with atheists.

    I haven't seen anyone here trying to argue that the Founding Fathers were atheists, in fact the person who RAISED the subject of hte Founding Fathers was you, and any atheists in this forum have merely responded to your original posts.

    Nobody gives a fig what the Founding Fathers may or may not have intended, because the USA is NOT a church or religious authority or in any way affiliated with Higher Power - much though some of its citizens would like to believe that it is. It is a patch of dirt inhabited by a bunch of people who agree to follow certain laws and to accept their punishment should they break them. That is all it is. It has no Divine Blessing or authority. It's a country like any other.

    Part 2

    You utterly missed my point.

    There is no LOGIC to your Founding Fathers argument, because if you replace Christianity with any other strongly-held belief or habitual pattern of action, the argument is clearly nonsense.

    Replace slavery with male-dominated patriarchy, or eaters-of-unrefrigerated-pig-products, or anything else which the Founding Fathers undisputedly had in common and modern-day Americans do not have in common.

    However, I know that you were most likely educated in the USA, and logic is not a required part of the curriculum, so I don't really expect you to understand what I mean when I say that the STRUCTURE of your argument is flawed, and would be flawed no matter what word was used in it.

    Jenny

    1. SparklingJewel profile image61
      SparklingJewelposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      America was founded upon a Divine Right, a Holy purpose. As is any nation that believes in freedom for all souls, and the rights of humanity. I believe it has to do with the whole Christ understanding of things. In my understanding at this point in time, that it is humanities job, if you will, to use their free will to choose to seek higher/highest purpose for one's own life and country.
      I really like what PT has been saying about freedom and patriotism of the Founding Fathers of America, trying to pinpoint the diversity of their beliefs, but of the main point of their Christianity, belief in Christ...not the specifics of the denominations and how they act out their beliefs in what Christ is all about.

      I just believe that what I feel and think is Christianity is different than what he thinks of as Christianity in feelings/beliefs behind the words ( and I get that from reading his prophetic hubs, etc...). I can feel the "Spirit" in his words put forth when they are about the Founding Fathers...but not when I read his words about prophecy.

      To me, Jesus' main point in the records that were able to make it to this point in history of what he taught was that through Christ, all people know "God" and that the Christ is for everyone, "Jew and Gentile" and everyone, no matter what. But Jesus also showed that there is a point when the soul does reject any and all aspects of "God" that we are shown, and is "taken over" by what is not of "God"; though maybe ignorant of the choice, at some level the soul knows what it is doing and either wants to "get back into the Universal Order of things" and may need help doing so;  or the soul doesn't want to reunite with "God"

      So that is how I see Jesus; because he had accomplished the greatest "alignment with God's Order" that if we want to ask for help to "get back in alignment" we can ask Jesus' help, as the ultimate "Helper".

      To me it is like, if I had a dental problem, I would not go to see a pediatrist. I would go straight to the dentist.

      Now, I happen to believe that other saints and sages of various religions can help to, but some attained a greater alignment than others, and I happen to believe that Gautama Buddha and Jesus, personified the greatest Christ aspects of all that I have studied, so they are the ones I ask for help to bring my soul back to the Ultimate Love of God. Because Gautama came first, there was something he had to offer that only he could offer and that needed to be learned before I could fully appreciate what Jesus had to offer.

      Now we can almost be assured that PT's response to what I have just said will be that i am poorly guided, because he believes what he believes. But I have found a common ground with him...I feel that there is a commonality in our deep/highest soul understanding, but not in our outer human mind understanding.

      Words are power, just what kind of power is behind them is the question. smile I can accept that a soul can move to higher levels of God through study and prayer, meditation and praise, or fall into fanatic depression or some such abyss or any number of other states. The soul must be bonded to the Christ to be whole.

    2. profile image0
      Zarm Nefilinposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      This argument of Prophecy Teacher has a distinctly sort of, mainfest destiny ring to it.

      Almost a Neo-Manifest Destiny.


      I will quote someone who will perhaps make some here uncomfortable.

      This is from Age of Reason:

          "* Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

          * All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

      "Whenever we read the obscene stories the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon rather than the word of god. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it as I detest everything that is cruel."



      (End Quote)

      Those are the words of Thomas Paine, a deist and one of the most influential people that set out to help found America during the American Revolution.

      "
          * History is to ascribe the American Revolution to Thomas Paine.
                o John Adams (1776)

          * Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain.
                o John Adams

          * I consider Paine our greatest political thinker. As we have not advanced, and perhaps never shall advance, beyond the Declaration and Constitution, so Paine has had no successors who extended his principles.
                o Thomas Alva Edison
      "
      (End Quote)

      Sources taken from Wikipedia


      This man was neither Christian nor a part of organized religion and made no bones about it.
      He is one of the reasons I am able to type this today, and he convinced many many Christians to rise up against the British Empire and the tyranny he thought it represented in his day.

      He was a Deist, and I would say I think for all practical purposes a naturalist in a sense, as he deified nature.

      This nation was not birthed in the mind of Christians or even Atheists, it was birthed in the mind of men like Thomas Paine, who refused to give into the tyranny of Great Britain and assisted a new country in forming itself into America, the country we have today.

      He was from England and believed in us more than he did in his own country.  That is saying something, and I for one think it is echoed in the sentiments of immigrants who come to our country saying how much better things are than where they came from.

      Freedom is founded  in blood, yes blood, at the cost of human lives.  It is not founded in any other way.  It may be built in other ways, but not founded.

  15. Misha profile image74
    Mishaposted 9 years ago

    You must be an American, Jewel smile
    Actually, I can compare this only to Soviet Union. Replace Christianity (or Divinity or Democracy for this matter) with Communism and Founding Fathers with Lenin, and you get exactly the kind of rhetoric we had back then over there smile

    1. talford profile image84
      talfordposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      I honestly don't know how you could say that. Communism had as it's moral and spiritual backbone the religion of atheism. With atheism freedom as it is framed in our Constitution does not exist. It is survival of the fittest. The ends always justifies the means in an atheist purely evolutionary view point of mans relationship with man.

      Unfortunately the very same mind set is capable through the dictatorship of a theocracy, as history has shown.

      The importance of the founding fathers Christian mind set is undeniable. Their strong desire not to be ruled by the whim of either a King, or religious leader, nor by the whim of the majority of people, is imperative for our individual rights.

      At the same time they acknowledge that even free men have to have laws in order to preserve those freedoms. They as a unit consented that these rights of freedom come from "Our Creator". If not it is merely the whim of those in power, the "benevolence" of kings that allow their freedom.  If so, than they could just as easily be take it away.

      1. Misha profile image74
        Mishaposted 9 years ago in reply to this

        I could say that cause I lived in Russia under communism, and I live in USA now - and could compare first-hand.

        So, you are saying that Christian mind set is a desire not to be ruled by religious leader? Interesting smile

        1. talford profile image84
          talfordposted 9 years ago in reply to this

          I am sure, having lived in Russia you have a unique perspective.

          Understand first, with each passing generation we have fallen farther and farther from the fundamental precepts of the Constitution.

          I was raised as a Catholic and am now a Protestant. I would not want a "religious leader" of either faith to rule. That is not to say, that I would object to someone who has strong religious convictions to be president. Do you understand the difference?

          When I was about eight years old John F. Kennedy was running for president. Being Catholic even at that age it was quite a topic of discussion. One of my first real memories of politics was (I am paraphrasing) how Kennedy was asked what authority the Pope would have in American politics. Kennedy's famous answer was how he would leave the religion to the Pope and that the Pope would have to leave the governing to him.

          (Again I apologize, I am obviously not giving an exact quote.) The point I am making is that even at eight years old, I was proud of Kennedy's answer. I didn't know of anyone that wanted Kennedy to relinquish power to the Pope in his decisions, yet we all wanted Kennedy to be elected because we knew he understood us, and (in theory) would uphold our values.

          The same applies now as a Protestant. I personally would probably never vote for a Jerry Farwell, but I would want someone elected who had high moral values.

          I will explain in another post if I haven't made myself clear.

  16. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 9 years ago

    Misha - you need to head west a few hundred miles and meet the rest of America smile

    Whole different world out there.

    A Holy purpose no less lol

  17. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    I regret that I have no figs to give for my country.

  18. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    But seriously "inspire" - being raised in America has nothing to do with reason or logic. There are a few good people here; we struggle. Pray for us. (oh, I'm sorry - think for us)

    smile

    I think you may have missed the points I've made. I no where advocate a Christian Country ruled by religous zealots - even as the father's wished. I am pointing out - in the words of the actual Declaration that all our rights extend from God.

    Surely you must realize the Fathers knew some people didn't or wouldn't believe in God. And surely you understand that when the word's "God of our Fathers" is commonly used in their ordinary language  - those father's from Europe had a "certain and specific" God - and they all knew His name and character. These fathers were all from England, as these were English Colonies - chartered by England for the expressed purpose of propagating RELIGION among other things.

    So if the Father's served the God of the Gospel - as they in many writings "and logic" require - then it is not a stretch of reason - to know which God is mentioned in the Declaration - from whom all our "rights"extend". And it is neither a stretch "for most Americans anyway" to understand why the founders "appealed" to Him as the one Who was to judge whether this Declaration was right - and if He deemed it so - protect them and guide them afterward. 

    In the clause:

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies,

    The founders
    A) appealed to the "Supreme God"
    B) for the "rectitude" of our intentions
    C) and did so "In the name of the people"
    D) who gave them "Authority" to do so

    "Inspire" - if America is just a piece of dirt - with merely legal status for it's rights - why was there a need to appeal to GOD - as the witness and decider as to whether that initial Legal Status - was Righteous?

    In the word "rectitude" - we are APPEALING TO GOD to decide. Why bring Him into the equation? Why not just appeal to REASON - or LOGIC? Or historical precedent - or nature - or the Universe. There certainly is no lack for sources to appeal to. (and many were suggested)

    The God being appealed to is both the Creator and Supreme - according to the document. I'm confident that with all this evidence - just but a drop - you can reason out the obvious and simple conclusion.

    Why the word Supreme? Isn't just "God" enough? Why must there - even - be a Supreme God in the document?

    I'll tell you. The God of their fathers was the Supreme God - even if others worshiped another and didn't acknowledge Him. They got their point across and they didn't overdo it. After all, there were civil rights that had to be contended with - once this Supreme God made His decision as to the rectitude of their hopes.

  19. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    Zarm, if I missed Mark's point, I apologize. It wasn't intentional.

  20. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    """And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."""

                """with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence"""

    That sentence from the last clause of the Declaration clearly shows that the authority the people granted to the writers in their name - was then submitted to God as the mediator - of the outcome - even if it meant death.

       Washington then goes on to say in numerous letters and statements - that this PROVIDENCE (whom we know to be the Supreme God) had done what they had hoped for - and in many miraculous and unusual ways. (I for one am grateful they appealed to Him instead of to Logic; it is highly doubtful logic would have come so swiftly to their rescue)

  21. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    As far as this country being a "Christian Nation", I would say it is as much a "Christian
    Nation" now as it was back when it started.  A nation where the majority of people are Christian and practice their Christianity in some form or another.  (Zarm)

    Zarm, I strongly disagree with this statement. It was nearly completely Christian as this 1821 July 4th speech by President John Quincy Adams shows.


    """From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American union, and of its constituent states, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians, in a state of nature, but not of anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.""""
    (My Source: Anniversary of Independence, at the city of Washington on the fourth Of July 1821. pg 28)

    He says they were either civilized or Christian - and then compares the two moral states this way:

    They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, (both civilized and Christian) and by the laws of the Gospel, (Christians) which they nearly all (Christians were nearly all the people) acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.

    This was a Christian nation. Pure and simple. They were not the majority - they were the virtual totality.

    I guess then - one would have to ask - how were the civilized men (the non-Christians) bound by the laws of God? What were those laws - and how come the founders mentioned them in the Declaration? They were the common laws from Christian England derived from their Christian Heritage - that made men civil.

    In the Constitution - it is the same "WE THE PEOPLE" from the Declaration that try to make a more perfect union. We the people - in near totality - Christian.

    So what is the point? Should we be a Christian Nation. No. Is my Bible my politics. Of course - as was it those men's in those days. Should my God rule? Yes - he did then too. Should my religion be ensconced in law so that it may rule over all citizens - NO.

    But neither should Atheism rule, nor secularism rule in it's many manifestations either. That is the point of Many Christians. I am not appealing to the Bible - (haven't used one scripture). I am appealing to history to show from how high an ideal we have fallen from - and comparing it to the depths and the perverseness into which we have fallen.

    I for one - merely want to keep that perverseness from encroaching on my family and my rights under the constitution. I do that by showing it's my rights that are being abused - not the atheists and secular humanists.

    1. profile image0
      Zarm Nefilinposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      Wrong.

      Completely denotes an absolute, and Thomas Paine was not a Christian, neither was Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson.

      In fact, all three were deists and not Christians.

      So there are three men right there who were not Christians.  As far as being "completely christian".  If you want to dispute the difference between 99% and 77.1% go right ahead, do it, but you missed my point.

      Also, quite frankly you have not shown how your rights are being abused versus the rights of atheists and secular humanists. 

      Where are the atheist churches and all the secular humanist congregations that show emotional support and acceptance to all who supposedly "profess" secular humanism?

      There are not many, and indeed there are very few of them.  Most people who profess anything as drastic as atheism or secular humanism are usually on their own.  Persecution is what you talk of, but what about all the atheists and secular humanists who were vocal opponents to the Iraq War and felt muzzled for fear of being called a traitor by idiots like those that comprise the Fox News network or the Bush administration?  Who felt their very lives and well being at stake for opposing something which they sensed (and indeed many in our CIA contended before the fact), was bogus and unjustifiable?

      That is pure politics, no "God" there, yet people felt encroached upon.

      I have given you one example, and made it as clear as I could to you that you and your religious friends are not the only ones to feel muzzled at times.

      If you want to practice politics through your religion, then go right ahead as that is your right.  It is my right to also point out to you how your religion revolves around that and how I think it is not substantively emotive outside of that context.

      If the central activity in your religious belief revolves around political activity then if you take away that context, I cannot help but ask what your Religion will have left to offer?

      Spirituality?  What sort?

      1. profile image0
        Zarm Nefilinposted 9 years ago in reply to this

        ?

  22. Misha profile image74
    Mishaposted 9 years ago

    Don't really see how your rights are being abused more than, say, Guantanamo Muslim prisoner.
    Actually don't even see how any Christian's rights in USA are being abused more then any atheist's. Give me an example, please.

  23. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 9 years ago

    It's not atheism that rules it's allowing all religions and not allowing any one to have more rights than any other one. If you want religious education, you are free to have your own schools and not have to infringe on anyone else's education. Not having religious education in public schools is not saying that everyone must be an athiest.

    Do you ever think that the way the Constitution was written reflected the time it was written in? If they had mentioned that the earth was flat in the Constitution and was later proven not to be that we should all still be living under the belief that the earth was flat?

    1. Paraglider profile image88
      Paragliderposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly. We had the Magna Carta which was a great achievement for its time but, job done, it is now the stuff of history. Things move on.

  24. Inspirepub profile image80
    Inspirepubposted 9 years ago

    Prophecy Teacher, you are misrepresenting the Founding Fathers when you say things like "we know that PROVIDENCE is the Christian God".

    Based on the quotes from Thomas Paine, PROVIDENCE is anything but Christian.

    In fact, there IS logic and science to the workings of PROVIDENCE - and gradually, the logic of PROVIDENCE is being documented.

    Napoleon Hill was the first person I know to document its workings without reference to any supernatural deity. He certainly makes reference to "God", but it is not the capricious, judgemental God of the Christian texts.

    The God of PROVIDENCE follows one simple rule - whatever you focus upon, with sufficient emotion, beleiving you already have it, shall come to pass. Good or bad, desired or feared.

    Matthew mentions this and refers to it as prayer. Napoleon Hill mentions it and refers to it as "applied faith". Not faith in the traditional sense of "believing something for which I have no evidence or even in the face of conflicting evidence", but faith in the sense of trust in the workings of the Universe, that they are logical and predictable, and that by following due process one can perform miracles.

    And I can quote you many verses from wisdom literature of many cultures and religions which says the same thing.

    I myself profess no particular religion, yet I have manifested quite a few bona fide miracles simply by following and observed and replicable process - the very definition of science.

    So I assert that yes, actually, the PROVIDENCE to which Washington appealed was scientific, rational, logical, and in no way supernatural or claimable by Christianity as is proprietary property.

    Jenny

    P.S. A significant proportion of the workings of PROVIDENCE can be explained by the activity of a brain structure known as the reticular activating system.

    1. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
      Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      Providence meant different things to different groups but it always meant a higher power that we were accountable to. If you use the word in your arguments without the - "obligated to" part - your arguments fail because you miss the personal relationship.


      This is full of wonderful stuff about Deism - it will help you see the divergence of Paine before and after the Revolution. He was infatuated with the French Revolution and it lost him all his goodwill. Major mistake - ruined him.

      If you haven't read it - it should become a great reference for you. (IMHO)

      http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism.htm

  25. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    Zarm, I don't know what Deism you've been reading about - but it certainly isn't classical Deism. Paine didn't believe in a God that just disappeared. Atheist love to use Deist quotes as if that rectifies some kind of atheist dilemma about no one believing in God. In fact - everyone did. So when you say this:

    "Thomas Paine was not a Christian, neither was Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson.
    In fact, all three were deists and not Christians."

    What conclusion are we supposed to draw from that? Well, I guess the point that everyone posting here is trying to make is that these men weren't Godly they were just rational. They weren't stupid enough to actually believe in God like you Christians do. And the few that did - well - certainly Jesus wasn't in their thoughts. But that's just plain goofy. How can you reconcile the quotes being made here about Deism - with these quotes (you should have used) from the same person.
     
    Quoting Paine,

        "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life."

        "The moral duty of man consists in imitating the moral goodness and beneficence of God manifested in the creation toward all his creatures. That seeing, as we daily do, the goodness of God to all men, it is an example calling upon all men to practice the same toward each other."

        "I trouble not myself about the manner of future existence. I content myself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that gave me existence is able to continue it in any form and manner he pleases, either with or without this body" (Age of Reason).

        "I consider myself in the hands of my Creator, and that he will dispose of me after this life consistently with his justice and goodness" (Private Thoughts on a Future State)

        "We believe in the existence of a God, and in the immortality of the soul."

        "Were man impressed as fully and as strongly as he ought to be with the belief of a God, his moral life would be regulated by the force of that belief; he would stand in awe of God and of himself, and would not do the thing that could not be concealed from either. ... This is Deism."

    End quote.

      A well can not produce both sweet and bitter water (Jesus)

      Now please - notice the elephant in the middle of the message board. There's a personal, accountable God sitting there. Not some impersonal one atheists can use as a generic mindless pantheistic principle.


    pt

    1. profile image0
      Zarm Nefilinposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for putting words in my mouth.

      Again I ask:

      Spirituality?  What sort?

  26. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    "...and would not do the thing that could not be concealed from...God"

       Paine


       That means Personal and accountable morality based on a living God.


       Check out the Sullivan link I posted above....

  27. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    This is classical Deism defined by Lord Herbert of Cherbury (d. 1648) was one of the earliest proponents of Deism in England. In his book "De Veritate," (1624), he described the "Five Articles" of English Deists:

    1. belief in the existence of a single supreme God
    2. humanity's duty to revere God
    3. linkage of worship with practical morality
    4. God will forgive us if we repent and abandon our sins
    5. good works will be rewarded (and punishment for evil) both in life and after death.

  28. Inspirepub profile image80
    Inspirepubposted 9 years ago

    While I think it is pointless to debate the religious leanings of the Founding Fathers, mere fallible human beings that they were, I shall enter into the discussion for the sake of sport.

    I tender the following into evidence.

    A treaty between the United States of America and Tripoli, drafted by George Washington in 1796 and signed by John Adams in 1797.

    "As the Government of the United States Of America is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomiten [Mahommedan] 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."

    The salient point again - the Government of the United States Of America is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion - written by George Washington, signed by John Adams.

    I also tender into evidence this, from Thomas Jefferson.

    "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without fomenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence."

    Jefferson urged his nephew to apply Reason when considering such things, and advised "if it ends in a belief that there is no God,you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in this exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you."

    Jefferson clearly felt that a belief in God was not the only incentive to virtue, nor even a particularly worthwhile one.

    "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God .."

    Jenny

  29. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 9 years ago

    Nice one Jenny.

    So, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and John Adams said the USA is NOT founded on the christian religion - yet today, there are people who believe the opposite is true.

    Which rather sounds like the entire religion.

    "If I say it often enough and LOUD enough, eventually it will come true." big_smile

  30. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    Am very familiar with the treaty - and knew someone would eventually post it - they always do. Perhaps there's more than meets the eye. I have never argued that the Constitution was founded on the Christian religion which is the only document which founds us per se.' That document alone determines the meaning of the treaty. Never the less - one can not - as Americans disassociate all the other things we have talked about. Further, it's easy enough to go to any secular - atheist - or humanist site and just copy the 11th clause to the treaty and say - see!!!!!

    But the story is more than the clause. Consider a little more info......

    ***********************

    Has the United States ever engaged in a crusade against Islam? No, never. And, what's more, one of the country's earliest diplomatic documents rejects this very idea.

    Exactly 210 years ago this week, toward the end of George Washington's second presidential administration, a document was signed with the first of two Barbary Pirate states. Awkwardly titled the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 (3 Ramada I, A. H. 1211), and at Algiers January 3, 1797 (4 Rajab, A. H. 1211)," it contains an extraordinary statement of peaceful intent toward Islam.

    The agreement's 11th article (out of twelve) reads: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahomitan 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."

    In June 1797, the Senate unanimously ratified this treaty, which President John Adams immediately signed into law, making it an authoritative expression of American policy.

    In 2006, as voices increasingly present the "war on terror" as tantamount to a war on Islam or Muslims, it bears notice that several of the Founding Fathers publicly declared they had no enmity "against the laws, religion or tranquility" of Muslims. This antique treaty implicitly supports my argument that the United States is not fighting Islam the religion but radical Islam, a totalitarian ideology that did not even exist in 1796.

    Beyond shaping relations with Muslims, the statement that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" has for 210 years been used as a proof text by those who argue that, in the words of a 1995 article by Steven Morris, "The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians."
       
    But a curious story lies behind the remarkable 11th article. The official text of the signed treaty was in Arabic, not English; the English wording quoted above was provided by the famed diplomat who negotiated it, Joel Barlow (1754-1812), then the American consul-general in Algiers. The U.S. government has always treated his translation as its official text, reprinting it countless times.

    There are just two problems with it.

    First, as noted by David Hunter Miller (1875-1961), an expert on American treaties, "the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic." Second, the great Dutch orientalist Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje (1857-1936), reviewed the Arabic text in 1930, retranslated it, and found no 11th article. "The eleventh article of the Barlow translation has no equivalent whatever in the Arabic," he wrote. Rather, the Arabic text at this spot reprints a grandiloquent letter from the pasha of Algiers to the pasha of Tripoli.

    Snouck Hurgronje dismisses this letter as "nonsensical." It "gives notice of the treaty of peace concluded with the Americans and recommends its observation. Three fourths of the letter consists of an introduction, drawn up by a stupid secretary who just knew a certain number of bombastic words and expressions occurring in solemn documents, but entirely failed to catch their real meaning."

    These many years later, how such a major discrepancy came to be is cloaked in obscurity and it "seemingly must remain so," Hunter Miller wrote in 1931. "Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point."

    But the textual anomaly does have symbolic significance. For 210 long years, the American government has bound itself to a friendly attitude toward Islam, without Muslims having signed on to reciprocate, or without their even being aware of this promise. The seeming agreement by both parties not to let any "pretext arising from religious opinions" to interrupt harmonious relations, it turns out, is a purely unilateral American commitment.

    And this one-sided legacy continues to the present. The Bush administration responded to acts of unprovoked Muslim aggression not with hostility toward Islam but with offers of financial aid and attempts to build democracy in the Muslim world.

    Daniel Pipes -

  31. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    Yep - it was a nice one Mark...

    FURTHERMORE - John Adams and his son - thought just a little bit more about the Musselmans (Mohammedism) than we could gather from the supposed benevolent treaty with them.

    Perhaps this says it clearly enough what the Adams family really thought.

    "In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar (Mohammed), the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent god; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE...Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant...While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon the earth, and good will towards men"

    John Quincy Adams
    Sixth President of The United States of America
    1830

    Or, Jenny, as my daddy says - "the apple don't fall too far from the tree"

    ***

    In the modern era - we forget this history and believe that reason alone will end this conflict. But of course - both sides have to be reasonable. The Bible clearly predicts the EAST/WEST schism that eventually brings the world into Armageddon. Every detail of it is spelled out. I suppose when this final conflict overcomes us - the voices of reason will then be "submitting" to the Fundamentalist Muslims - how unreasonable they are - as their solution to the violence

  32. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 9 years ago

    'EAST/WEST schism', you-all are the same. If it were not for Israel and oil in the Middle East, there would be no need for
    solution to the violence.

  33. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    That schism was there long before oil and Israel were.

  34. Inspirepub profile image80
    Inspirepubposted 9 years ago

    Prophecy Teacher, this is a masterful attempt to divert the discussion from the point I was making to an analysis of 200+ years of US-Islam relations.

    I almost didn't quote past the first sentence for rfear of distracting people in just this way, but in the interests of fainess, I thought I waould.

    The treaty was drafted by George Washington. I doubt he spoke Arabic.

    It says quite clearly that the USA is IN NO SENSE founded on Christianity. Even if every single one of hte Founding Fathers WAS utterly, fanatically Christian, they explicitly did NOT allow that faith to be incorporated into the body politic.

    Subsequent politic events between the US and Islamic nations or organisations are irrelevent.

    Nice red herring. Not biting.

    John Quincy Adams knew exactly what he was signing. From a letter he wrote to George Washington:

    "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!"

    Sorry, but the "he didn't know what he was signing because it was in Arabic" argument simply won't wash. John Adams believed that Christianity caused untold grief, and he activiely worked to ensure that the USA would be independent of that "engine of grief".

    The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves to see the ignorant and arrogant theocracy into which their cherished secular nation has devolved.

    Jenny

    1. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
      Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      Adams believed organized Christianity caused grief. So do I.

      He knew exactly what he was signing - as per above.

  35. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 9 years ago

    Prophecy liar - Use your own arguments

    http://www.catholicexchange.com/2006/11/10/90294/

  36. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    Mark, I posted at the end of the article the source. Daniel Pipes.

    In 1796, U.S. Vowed Friendliness With Islam

    by Daniel Pipes
    New York Sun
    November 7, 2006

    ************************************


    You'll notice the article from the Catholic Review - you posted - is 3 days later than the original and gives the same credit. Daniel Pipes.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      lol

      OK, you did not just sign it in the same way many people sign their name. You said - I did not write this, this is where I took it from, these are not my words. I am not Daniel Pipes. lol

      But that is OK - you are a christian, and this is good christian behavior.

      1. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
        Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago in reply to this

        I apologize - Pipes is so well known I thought everyone knew who he was.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 9 years ago in reply to this

          lol No need to apologize - this is how christians behave. You can't help it.

          I forgive you lol

  37. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    Jenny, I think you missed entirely the point of the treaty post I made. There IS NO 11th clause in the original ARABIC treaty possessed by the Muslims. The US translated copy - adding an 11th clause - has it. There is no explanation of this.

    But stupid me - I love original source documents in context. But that's not the most glaring problem.

    If you read the translated 11th clause - from the American copy" you may notice the Non Christian Foundation section "relates" specifically to Islam. It clearly says....

    """""""As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,""""

       Notice the qualifier "as it has in itself no...enmity (hostility) toward Islam" (the statement is qualified - not open ended)

       This is not saying what you so masterfully - or rather - as atheists so masterfully imply. (since you didn't make the argument - you're merely using it)

    It seems like clever diplomacy with clever Muslim opponents - not denial.....

    Don't believe me? If the meaning of the non existent 11th clause was as you suggest, there would be a commensurate meaning in the Islamic version. In other words - it is unlikely a treaty would be signed where the Islamic nation would be in enmity against us as Christians.

    Have you read the original???? Mark, Jenny? Here's some unambiguous quotes - and then you can read the entirety.

    """"""Glory be to God! Declaration of the third article. We have agreed that if American Christians are traveling with a nation that is at war with the well-preserved Tripoli, and he [evidently the Tripolitan] takes [prisoners] from the Christian enemies and from the American Christians with whom we are at peace [the Arabic sentence is here most confused], then he sets him [sic] free; neither he nor his goods shall be taken. Likewise, the Americans, when they take [literally "bring"] ships of their enemies and there are on board people from Tripoli, they shall not take one of them nor their goods. Thus!

    If the ship has suffered any damage, she shall repair it and so forth, like all the other Christian nations. (other Christian nations Jenny?)

    Praise be to God! Declaration of the eighth article. We have agreed upon this matter from both the two [sic] sides. If there is an American ship in the neighborhood of the Tripoli shore, and an enemy of their own kind [I. e., a Christian enemy] encounters them and pursues them, trying to take them, then they shall be assisted from the side of the Moslems with guns from the forts of Tripoli for their defense [?], that they commit no hostility against them within gunshot.

    (((((((The eleventh article of the Barlow translation has no equivalent whatever in the Arabic. The Arabic text opposite that article is a letter from Hassan Pasha of Algiers to Yussuf Pasha of Tripoli. The letter gives notice of the treaty of peace concluded with the Americans and recommends its observation.)))))

    source: © 1996-2007 The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. (oops...liberal school)

    I submit for evidence the Full Arabic agreement.
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplo … r1796e.htm

  38. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    The ORIGINAL in English is missing:


    The Barlow translation of the treaty proper is that which has been printed in all official and unofficial treaty collections ever since it appeared in the Session Laws of the first session of the Fifth Congress, in 1797, and in The Laws of the United States, Folwell ea., IV, 44-8, printed in 1799; but in those treaty collections, as, for example, in 8 Statutes at Large, 154-56, the "receipt" and the "note" (there called "notice") are omitted; and the first source of the texts of those collections was clearly a now missing copy, as is shown by the fact that they include a certification of the text as a copy; that certification is signed by Joel Barlow under date of January 4, 1797, and it is neither in the original document nor in the Cathcart copy, which is particularly described below.

  39. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    But - I'm always open to a good argument well founded. So, in the sense of fairness...let me help you make your argument. The link below is about as good as it can get - never the less, you'll notice the 1804 agreement changed the article to state - America was founded with no particular state religion - and on that - I have no argument.

    Source: American's United for Separation of Church and State.


    http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/Treaty … ?docID=143

  40. talford profile image84
    talfordposted 9 years ago

    This has been a very good read. PT, As could be guessed, I think you arguments are strong and your quotes accurate.

    In particular, the fact that for the most part Christians of faith have never tried to stop atheists from believing their religion (atheism is a religion).

    What the founding fathers did not want was for any church, denomination, or religion to high jack our government and impose it's will or it's religious leaders upon the people, as the Church of England, and the Church of Rome had done in Europe. This religious domination had also happened in some of the early settlements of the New World.

    I loved the direct quotes from all sources. I am sure, I will not be able  to compete with the historical documentation from either side of this argument, but I will read and enjoy. smile

  41. Misha profile image74
    Mishaposted 9 years ago

    I see your point and agree to it - and think your original wording could have been better, cause I don't see the same point there. Also, I fail to see what this has to do with similarities between Russian (back then) and American (now) propaganda, what my post was all about. smile

    1. talford profile image84
      talfordposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      I am glad I was able to clarify my point. I did not really address the point about the similarities between early Russia and early United States except to say I don't understand that concept.

      I could see some similarities in the U.S. today but they still seem quite far apart. Can you explain?

  42. SparklingJewel profile image61
    SparklingJewelposted 9 years ago

    Wow, what great quotes and argument support PT! Jenny , as usual, it is great to know you have the same superior abilities...makes for an excellent argument.

    But I still can say in my simple way...that the main point for me is that the definition of what it means to be a Christian, and what it means to be the Christ, which Christianity is based upon, is still danced around...but, the content of these arguments always lends towards the enlightening the framework  of the "elusive" and "abstract" that is the meaning of the Christ...which is great! That is what is needed; for humanity to seek that understanding by undoing/revealing all that has been done to subvert and pervert the meaning of the Christ, and that Christ potential in all humanity, regardless of religious or non-religious affiliation.

    The more informed I become about our Founding Fathers, from argumants like this, the more impressed i am at their "inner guidance" and understanding of the mystical aspects of God and man.

    Thank you all for the best informative entertainment on the planet...! big_smile big_smile big_smile

  43. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    Talford, Sparkling Jewel - thank you for your comments.

    At the end of the day - and the conversation - the debate boils down to the fact that the Constitution does not found our Republic on any particular Religion or sect. And to that - I and Christians should say -no problem. That's correct!

    It could do so because the founding people WERE RELIGIOUS and no one ever imagined they would become non-religious. That is the only meaning that can harmonize all the views and take into account the voluminous words and historical documents - of which there is a plethora.

    The Declaration of Independence - took a free people - and with unanimous consent among their delegates - separated them from their mother Christian country and submitted itself to the God of their Fathers, and asked His assistance in the rectitude of their statements.

    According to many writers - He did in fact assist them in very specific and personal ways - and was deemed to be highly esteemed - as these several quotes reflect.

    """It is unalienable also; because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him; this duty is precedent, both in order of time, and in degree of obligation, to the claims of civil society. Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe:""" (James Madison - A MEMORIAL and REMONSTRANCE.) A very interesting read here:
    http://gunshowonthenet.com/writings/Mem … rance.html

    "It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution."
    James Madison, Federalist No. 37,  Jan. 11, 1788

    "The revolution, in having emancipated us from the shackles of Great Britain, has put the entire government in the hands of one order of people only--freemen; not of nobles and freemen. This is a peculiar trait in the character of this revolution. That this sacred deposit may be always retained there, is my most earnest wish and fervent prayer. That union is the first object for the security of our political happiness in the hands of gracious Providence, is well understood and universally admitted through all the United States."
    - James Monroe, June 10, 1788. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3]

    "...But the Arbiter of Events, the Sovereign of the World only knows, which Way the Torrent will be turned. Judging by Experience, by Probabilities, and by all Appearances, I conclude, it will roll on to Dominion and Glory, tho the Circumstances and Consequences may be bloody.

    "In such great Changes and Commotions, Individuals are but Atoms. It is scarcly worth while to consider what the Consequences will be to Us. What will be the Effects upon present and future Millions, and Millions of Millions, is a Question very interesting to Benevolence natural and Christian. God grant they may and I firmly believe they will be happy."
    - John Adams, Feb. 11, 1776 letter to Abigail Adams. [Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume: 3. Library of Congress - American Memory]


    """The old State House bell rang out its notes of gladness, and the first blush of morning was greeted with the booming of cannon. Congress assembled at an early hour, and the
    grave orators of that august body could hardly repress their huzzas.
    Secretary Thompson read the letter from Washington announcing the
    capitulation of Cornwallis. On motion of Edmund Randolph, Congress
    resolved to go in procession at two o'clock the same day, October 24th, to
    the Dutch Lutheran Church, "and return thanks to Almighty God for crowning
    the allied armies of the United States and France with success.""""
    ((Journals of the Continental Congress, Oct. 24, 1781))


    """Mr. President: The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other -- our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own wont of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their  Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

    In this situation of this Assembly groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.

    I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

    I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service."""""

    Benjamin Franklin - delivered Thursday, June 28, 1787, Philadelphia, PA - Constitutional Congress (among Franklin's papers in the Library of Congress) {The motion for prayer failed, but not because they thought it religious - it failed because they did not want to project to the public that they had reached such an impasse - as to require God's help. They were embarrassed.)
    ********

    These but a few - a 500 page book could not contain them all. Now, Mark, Jenny, Zarm, Misha etc - would say so what? They would not deny these quotes nor the others. To them the point is not the quotes or the reality that the early nation was devoutly religious. Instead, they rely upon a rational argument only - as to whether the Constitution - makes us a Christian Nation or not. That argument I believe is irrational. Of course it doesn't. Not in and of itself. But if virtually every word and every action surrounding the document - for 100 years on either side - is of a Christian nature - then what is to be said for their argument? They win the point but miss the argument.

    I rather think that the atheist argument reduces the reality of the era - to whether the elephant is red or blue - but ignores completely the elephant exists.

    When Quincy Adams says, that Christianity has been at war with Islam for 1200 years (1400 now) - what is he really saying? In the argument he gave (in one of the earlier posts) he says that the religion was founded as the opposite of Christianity. He further deduces from history that the two religions can not coexist - in order for peace to reign on the earth. It is a religious battle that rages from generation to generation. Sometimes hot and sometimes cold. The battle now houses over 4 billion people - and the states of the religions are similar. There is disbelief in both and fervor among them. But the reality is that while Christianity is in decline by the assaults of atheism and modernity - Islam knows no such decline. It is exploding in fundamentalism and in demographics. 5 Muslims born for every 2 Christians. The entire Western world is in population decline. Brilliance is not required to see what is upon us. So let's talk about that. Is it necessary for Christianity to flourish in order to counterweight Islam? Or should we ignore the spiritual question - and concentrate only on the rational one? Will rationalism save us?

  44. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    The Bible says that at the end of days - two very opposite religions are going to clash and bring the world to Armageddon. The one religion will be very brutal and unmerciful - using beheadings as it's justice - for those who do not convert, and the other will be in a state of complete apostasy and sinfulness - utterly lacking it's earlier vigor and righteousness. The apostatized one - will be imminently sinful and - believe it or not - exceedingly prosperous and selfish. The selfish one will be in dependence on the brutal one. At that time - the brutal one attacks her.

    Sound familiar???

    I rather think that any true patriot - Christian or atheist -  would recognize the import of our times, and the very great danger that surrounds us - and unite against a common enemy. Not Islam, but that of our own intellectual blindness - which prevents us from seeing what so clearly lies before us.

    Islam is not going to correct itself and as a force is and will be increasing in strength and reach. The Western world has nothing in which to fight it with - because we have exchanged our moral force - for the force of reason. But Islam is unreasonable to Western precepts of Liberty. What pray tell, will stand against the force of Islam?

    Words surely will not do.

    The demographics of our cultures - assuredly guarantees - that within 40 years - Europe will be a colonized continent of Islam. While we abort our population, contraception our future heritage, and debate our morality in terms of relativity - the true enemy which doesn't suffer from these delusions - grows stronger and spreads.

    Atheists and Christians - as moral citizens - should be natural allies in this war. Instead - we are tearing each other apart for the sake of wining an argument that will soon prove to be meaningless.

    Oriana Fallaci - the great Italian Atheist writer - clearly understood the dangers of Islam and the weakness of post modernism as a moral force. The last great reward she received before her death - was the Italian Government indicting her for hate speech against Islam.

    I admire her and she was an atheist I believed in.

    (a few of her quotes)

    I am an atheist, and if an atheist and a pope think the same things, there must be something true. There must be some human truth that is beyond religion.

    I am known for a life spent in the struggle for freedom, and freedom includes the freedom of religion.

    The Muslims refuse our culture and try to impose their culture on us. I reject them, and this is not only my duty toward my culture-it is toward my values, my principles, my civilization.

    "Europe is no longer Europe, it is 'Eurabia,' a colony of Islam, where the Islamic invasion does not proceed only in a physical sense, but also in a mental and cultural sense. Servility to the invaders has poisoned democracy, with obvious consequences for the freedom of thought, and for the concept itself of liberty."

    "I do not believe the West will win."

    "And the West directs a hate towards itself. The West has lost its spirituality.It stands silent in the slander of Islam".
    (The censure of Europe)

    "WAKE UP WAKE UP. WE ARE AT WAR. WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED ON THE WEST AND WE MUST FIGHT. One or the other must perish."
    ************************************************************************


    Sorry, I digress. PT

  45. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 9 years ago

    'WAKE UP WAKE UP. WE ARE AT WAR. WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED ON THE WEST AND WE MUST FIGHT.'
    Sorry, I digest. How many has it been? Most estimates I read are a million Iraqis dead from your Christian president's war.
    'I admire her and she was an atheist I believed in.' So would guess you approve, Mr. Christian.

  46. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    She believed one or the other must perish in Europe and the West. That either Islam had to integrate into European/Western countries - or be expelled. That's not hard to digest.

    I presume your solution to the problem is to discuss it some more - I failed to see your solution detailed - so I am guessing.

    In the war in Iraq - you fail to mention that the OVERWHELMING majority of the violence has been Sunni against Shiite and Shiite against Sunni. That leads to a much broader question you rightfully avoid - I presume because - it would place the discussion in a religious context where it rightfully belongs.

    A context that is anathema to your atheist beliefs, and not the context you stated whereby a Christian president  loves annihilating Iraqi people - apparently for no reason at all - which rather reflects your prejudice on the subject. (oil? lol)

    You do hate Bush right??

    This dichotomy is what Oriana Fallaci was talking about. How we can skate circles around reality replacing it with every imagined element of anti-westernism - completely disregarding the evil force opposed against us as relevant. You wield your us against them - Atheist/Christian mindset - at every turn while Rome burns.

    Your passion is misplaced - imo - I am your ally not your enemy.

  47. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 9 years ago

    You presume much. Not interested in any solutions. Am not an atheist. Not sure am passionate. Not sure Bush a Christian. He is Skull & Bones. Don't hate bush - only what he does. It is not Rome burning it is Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia - all Bush minion wars. 'evil force opposed against us' These countries did not attack us. The US attacked them. Iraq and
    Pakistan are US occupied countries, and under the Geneva Conventions it is the US that is responsible, for all lawlessness under their occupation. Nothing personal - just an argument.

  48. Prophecy Teacher profile image76
    Prophecy Teacherposted 9 years ago

    You're right - I presumed too much, sorry. PT

  49. Thinkaboutit77 profile image71
    Thinkaboutit77posted 9 years ago

    If America was not founded on Christian principles then 1) the Declaration wouldn't say that our rights come from our Creator (i.e. God) and 2) America wouldn't have been the most prosperous, most free and most generous nation in history.

    Do you think that people would be this free in a Muslim country? A Bhuddist/Hindu country? An Atheistic/Communist country?

    In addition Israel, of whom through came the Bible is the most prosperous and free independent nation in the Middle East whereas the rest of the countries are Muslim or Communist dictatorships.

    I rest my case

    For a Biblical flipside perspective on some important issues in life and in eternity, see my articles.

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 9 years ago in reply to this

      I do not believe the founding fathers of this country where Christians.  For as liberal as they were, if they actually intended to use the word Creator, they would have used Creator.

      But they didn't.  Do you have an answer for that?  Also where in the declaration does it say our rights came from God? 

      It says our civil liberties are inherited in the nature of man.  That we have certain unaliable rights that cannot be taken, which "were", truth, justice and persuit of happiness. 

      we have the right to free speech, excuse me "had" the right to free speech.
      We "had" the freedom of choice, freedom to protect ourselves from danger, freedom to do a lot of things, but now we seemingly do not even have the right to remain silent without being tried for contempt. 

      Were is the justice in that. Our country has gone to crap by revoking our civil rights and being forced to cucumb to the will of those who have more money and can buy their rights back. 

      While the majority are having everything they have left pilfered from them/us and when and where we/they/us try to salvage what we can to sustain ourselves we are being raped.

  50. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 9 years ago

    Thinkabaoutit - I know you are not here to discuss, and will not respond, but dude!

    Creator - there is only one interpretation of this word, is that what you are saying? Only the christian god could be the creator?lol

    Most generous? lol

    The US consistently (along with other rich nations) fails to deliver it's promised aid assistance through the IMF, World Bank and UN.

    http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/ … assistance

    And you, like other christians (and I use the term loosely) seem to connect atheism with communism for some twisted reason.

    Why? Politics? Lies? Ignorance? Pick one.

    I rest my case.

 
working