Florida Principal, Athletic Director Could Go to Jail for Prayer Before Lunch

Yeah donnA, when will you take a class in the worldly virtues? Like MG says, it is simply that they didn't do what the government wanted them to do, hence they are in trouble. It was a SETTLEMENT. A SETTLEMENT! You know...... the earthly things that man does to get around Christ? My gosh,....the sooner you realize,.... that this world has more power over you than Our Lord and God the better. WHEN will you take a class in reading comprehension? The fact that they PRAYED and were in VIOLATION of the SETTLEMENT is of no consequence. Don't you know that this worldly government knows better than you....and God? Shame on you.

---The previous entry is a satire, and no way reflects the beliefs of true believers.----AFTTDBGFYS

 

I stand by my original post in this thread. The Apostle Paul respected the laws of man, but he never let them stand in the way of his worship of the one true God. Peter in Acts 5:29 "We ought to obey God rather than men." God has commanded us to pray. Christ, when he chastised the hypocrites for their public prayers, was not chastising them because they "prayed" in public, but bcause they made a great show of "praying". It was not true prayer, else He would not have criticized them. Christ in Luke 18:1 "And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray and not to faint:" (emphasis added). We are to ask God's blessing on all we do. If that be true, and it is, then we cannot allow man's law or "settlement" or any other judicial proceeding to stop our prayers, whether they be in on our knees in private or quietly with head bowed in a public gathering, or aloud in a setting such as asking His blessing on the food we are about to eat.

 

There were a few deists in the bunch.

But the sentence I highlighted shows a massive flaw in your thinking.

You cannot assume that a Congregationalist or Anglican of the 1770's is the same as today. They're not even remotely similar in beliefs.

Come on, you know that.

That would be like claiming Harvard is a Christian college, simply because it was in the 17th century.

 

Looks we have folks on the BB who would have helped chuck Daniel into the den of lions.

Sad.

 

Easy there, I agree completely. Many don't, and imo, they'd be wrong.

 

That's where you're flat out wrong. Washington was definitely a deist, and his writings indicate so. The rector of the chuch which Martha Washington attended attested to the fact that Washington was simply a deist.

 

Not only would they have chucked him into the lion's den, they would have tried to prevent God from rescuing him.

 

Marshall's and Eustis' input is certainly noteworthy, but when compared to numerous other accounts of those close to the family, and especially when compared to the whole body of Washington's writings, his writings don't reflect any personal belief in Christ. In fact, he only references Christ in one letter, in a response to a letter from indians who were inquiring about the value of sendng their children to be trained by Christians missionaries (replied that they would find value in learning the "religion of Jesus Christ"). No where in any of his thousands of volumes of writing (including the aforementione farewell letter) does he ever reference Christ, not even his private writings. The minister of his wife's church, as well as an associate minister with that church, asstested very matter-of-factually that "Washington was a deist, nothing more", as have numerous others who were of a personal faith in God, and knew Washington well. That, plus his writings, attest to the notion that Washington was a deist. The argument that Washington was a Christian is weak at best.

 

I will post a few quotes from Washington and let people decide whether or not he was a deist.

"It is impossible to govern the world without God. He must be worse than an infidel that has not gratitude to acknowledge his obligation."

"We can have but little hope of the blessing of God if we insult Him by our blasphemies."

"All would have been lost but for that bountiful Providence which has never failed us in the hour of distress."

"Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue?"

Note: Providence is spoken of twice in these quotations. The Declaration states that they placed a "firm reliance on the protection of divine providence." Deist don't believe God is personally involved in the lives of men, they don't believe in providence. They believe everything moves along according to the laws of nature.

 

That's untrue. Thomas Jefferson was a deist and not a Christian. Yet his writings are likewise filled with references to divine providence. Men like Jefferson and Washington were indeed great men of devout personal faith and devotion to God. That is indisputable. But they were not Christians, and their upstanding character is not deminished by that.

 

See above. Nonchristian deists like Jefferson wrote similarly about providence, which debunks that.

Christ is not referenced in that line. That's actually a form of refernce to God which espousers of the Enlightement movement frequently used (Washington was an Enlightenment advocate). It's also similar to the way Freemasons referenced God (Washington was a dedicated Freemason). It's certainly general enough to be taken as a reference to Christ by a Christian, indeed. But that in and of itself is not evidentiary support for the notion that Washington was a Christian.

Yet, in his THOUSANDS of private and personal writings, is there not a single reference to faith in Christ, but numerous references to God.

 

Yes it is. Washington's references to providence carry the same context as the writings of other Enlightenment deists of the day.

That's objective fact. In Washington's thousands of private and personal writings, there is not a single reference to faith in Christ, but numerous references to God.

 

If one believes in providence then that one is not a deist. The deist does not beleive that God intervenes in a supernatural way in the lives of men. The idea that the Continental Congress was going to rely on the protection of divine providence and committ their cause to God to judge whether right or wrong shows one of two things: a) either they were entirely confused about what deism is and therefore weren't very good deists (not likely) or b) the documents upon which this nation was founded are not based on a deist view of God but rather a view of God that appears very Christian.

 

Jefferson believed in providence, and he was clearly a deist. However, let's assume you're correct. Simply believing in providence does not in and itself support the notion that a person is a Christian. Billy Graham believes in providence, yet there are quite a few people here who would dispute the notion that he's a Christian. Yet some of those same people whould use the issue of belief in prodience alone as support for the idea that Washington was a Christian.

 

He did not speak of Christ often. Of his 20,000 pages of George Washington's public and private writings, there is one recorded mention of the phrase “Jesus Christ”. That is in a letter to the Delaware Indians. In none of his private writings does he mention Christ at all. There are hundreds of times he references God, however.