Featured Should Christians strongly support the SECOND AMENDMENT?

"We hold these truths...Creator" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Second, belief in God does not mean Christian. I know far more people who believe in God who absolutely not Christians. The Jews believe in God, they are NOT Christians.

Never was a Christian nation, to believe we ever were is to ignore facts.

 

It's always amazed me how many people label Lincoln as the greatest President our nation has ever had. (To completely skew history :type The guy raised an army to invade his own country, suspended civil liberties for many citizens, and completely demolished the economic standing of half his country.

I was a History minor in college and it's one of my favorite things to study. Most people only know the oversimplification of history, which is: "Stuff happened and people died."

 

You are joking right?

First, no one ever said they weren't "products of the Great Awakening."

Second, what I called bad history is where you said "the early Christians" founded the USA. The term "early Christians" usually refers to the first 300 years of church history, not people from the 1700s. Probably just a typo on your part, but I thought it was funny.

He is right. Never.

The First GA was most likely a great move of God, however I do not think the same can be said of the second. The 2nd GA gave us the Church of Christ, the Mormons, 7th Day Adventism and Charles Finney. Hardly a roaring success.

The term "Creator" in the DoI is almost certainly a reference to the deistic beliefs of the founders. If not then it is at least a vague term that almost any religion can apply to God. Clearly not uniquely Christian.

In God we Trust was not adopted as our motto or on our currency until the 1900s. Therefore it has nothing at all to do with the founders.

 

So you believe Church membership makes one a Christian? You obviously don't understand what part Church membership played in daily life during that period. Some States required that you be a member of a certain denomination to be able to be involved in society.

Take a look at this link and you will see, from State Constitutions, the requirements and why people would join a Church.

http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/state.html

 

Robert - The religious affiliation of the founders does not equate to the establishment of a Christian nation. After the battles with the Barbary Pirates, the United States, through President John Adams, signed the Treaty of Tripoli, which in one place stated:

"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 [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any [Mohammedan] 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."

 

:thumbsup::applause:
Thank you sir. This has become my favorite post of the day.

 

Is one morally obligated to assert one's moral rights?

 

Add to last comment: I am not too sure that they were not seeking a change in the government. Does Scripture speak to this?

 

No, I don't think so. Jesus' moral right was to a fair trial and vindication of all charges as he was the only sinless man. He instead was murdered, and went to the cross willingly never asserting his rights.

But again, this particular angle is not something I have thought extensively about.

I don't believe it ever indicates they tried to change the government. The turned the world upside down through the gospel, not civil activism. Whenever Paul appeared before the rulers, he never tried to persuade them to reform the government but instead preached Christ. In the epistles we are never told to reform our government either, but to submit to those in authority.

Now the early church did make appeals to the emperor in order to change policy toward Christians. But nothing that I'm aware of regarding changing the nature of the government. Of course I don't know everything the early church did or wrote either so I could be wrong.

 

That's a bunch of crap to be honest. The forefathers were primarily Deists, meaning they believe in a creator God but aren't really Christians, especially since they usually did not see the Bible as the infallible work of God.

Thomas Paine was extremely outspoken about this. Google "the age of reason".

Thomas Jefferson rewrote the New Testament, leaving out anything deemed as superstitious, which includes the virgin birth, the resurrection, and everything in between.

Any writings that our forefathers made official which mentioned God nearly always uses neutral Deist terms. The Creator for example.

George Washington heavily used Deist terms, such as the Grand Architect. He also mentioned Providence quite often which was popular among deists.

Benjamin Franklin wrote this to Ezra Stiles:
"Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children…. I think the System of Morals [devised by Jesus] and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity."

 

Yep. Good point.

Other than Simon being identified as a Zealot, I cannot think of any mention either way. I must wonder if there was an unmentioned element within the Church that resisted the early persecutions. I will need to add that to my list of questions to ask in Heaven.

 

IIRC, Zealot could also mean religious fervor, not just identification with the nationalists. Could also be that he was a Zealot pre-conversion, but the name stuck. I don't know.

By resist I assume you mean with violence? From what I've read of the early fathers writings (Now I admit that has been limited and I've read more 2nd hand writings discussing the ECFs) the overwhelming consensus was for nonviolent submission when possible, but firstly obedience to God. I was just reading Athenagoras' Plea (written C. 176) yesterday and he says this:

and

and

Tertullian, Clement, Justin, etc. say similar things.

Of course they could be exaggerating, we don't know for certain. But again the consensus seems to have been nonviolence as a way of life for a Christian, but willingness to disobey and die in order to obey Christ.

 

Absolutely