Please do not judge all Christians by Bill's statements. I wholeheartedly disagree with his last post.
Religious beliefs are a personal thing. It's up to the individual to figure out what they believe on their own. Pushing those beliefs onto others like Bill wants to do is wrong.
We have the right to freely express our beliefs and opinions, but we do not have the right to force others to agree with us. That's why our founding fathers wrote the 1st amendment the way they did by combining freedom of religion and expression together. It prevents an oppressive theocracy while allowing everyone to say and believe what they want.
If I wished to live in a theocracy, I would apply for citizenship in the Vatican. A bit stuffy, but the scenerary is nice and they don't stone you for quaffing a bit of wine.
Hi Nash,
You say, "Please do not judge all Christians by Bill's statements. I wholeheartedly disagree with his last post."
Do you disagree with the teaching of the Millennial Kingdom of Jesus Christ -- a world theocracy which will last for 1000 years?
If so, you disagree with the church you say you attend. Why do you attend, if you disagree with what your church teaches? You tell us it is a great church -- yet, you do not believe in their teaching. Am I missing something here?
Or, are you?
You can coddle and cuddle with the atheists, scoffers, and non-believers all you want. But, what does this say about your Christian walk with Jesus Christ?
I don't see you trying to tell the Truth to the non-believers; rather, I see you slamming other Christians and holding hands with the atheists.
If you will reread Matthew 29:10-20 and Acts 1:8 -- I am sure you will find that is not what Jesus is instructing Christian believers to do in His Great Commission.
But, first, why not read and study the Biblical Doctrinal Beliefs of your newly adopted church. You just might learn something.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
You say, "Please do not judge all Christians by Bill's statements. I wholeheartedly disagree with his last post."
Do you disagree with the teaching of the Millennial Kingdom of Jesus Christ -- a world theocracy which will last for 1000 years?
If so, you disagree with the church you say you attend. Why do you attend, if you disagree with what your church teaches? You tell us it is a great church -- yet, you do not believe in their teaching. Am I missing something here?
Or, are you?
You can coddle and cuddle with the atheists, scoffers, and non-believers all you want. But, what does this say about your Christian walk with Jesus Christ?
I don't see you trying to tell the Truth to the non-believers; rather, I see you slamming other Christians and holding hands with the atheists.
If you will reread Matthew 29:10-20 and Acts 1:8 -- I am sure you will find that is not what Jesus is instructing Christian believers to do in His Great Commission.
But, first, why not read and study the Biblical Doctrinal Beliefs of your newly adopted church. You just might learn something.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
never fear, Nash,
I would never taint you with the wicked brush of Mr. Bill.
DF
I would never taint you with the wicked brush of Mr. Bill.
DF
quote:If you will reread Matthew 29:10-20
Matthew only has 28 chapters, there is no Matthew 29.
Acts 1:8 says "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth"
What does that have to do with a theocracy?
If you believe in God, then you know He gave us free will. There cannot be free will in a theocracy, therefore to say He will rule us as a theocracy contradicts the gift of free will that He gave us.
Just because I reject the radical fundamentalism form of Christianity, doesn't mean I'm not a Christian. It means I read and research on my own, which is the whole intent of having a Bible. It's to make sure no preacher is BS'ing anyone, which happens quite often in my experience.
nasher,
good point. Wouldn't a theocracy be the ultimate admission of insecurity?
If you have to force adherance to a religion, the religion must not be very compelling, eh?
DF
good point. Wouldn't a theocracy be the ultimate admission of insecurity?
If you have to force adherance to a religion, the religion must not be very compelling, eh?
DF
Hi Nash,
You caught me in a typo: Actually, I meant Matthew 28:18-20 -- but, I am sure you knew that.
You ask, "What does that have to do with a theocracy?"
Nothing that I know of; but, then we both know that I was responding to your comment, "Please do not judge all Christians by Bill's statements. I wholeheartedly disagree with his last post."
And, I challenged you to read the Doctrinal Beliefs of your own church -- which agree with me 100%. If you disagree with me on matters of Christian faith -- then you disagree with your own church. If so, then why do you attend this church? Or, do you?
And, I see Deep standing on the sidelines, giggling gleefully. I do believe he thinks he has found a closet atheist in you; since you disagree with all things Christian.
Y'all come back now, ya heah?
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
You caught me in a typo: Actually, I meant Matthew 28:18-20 -- but, I am sure you knew that.
You ask, "What does that have to do with a theocracy?"
Nothing that I know of; but, then we both know that I was responding to your comment, "Please do not judge all Christians by Bill's statements. I wholeheartedly disagree with his last post."
And, I challenged you to read the Doctrinal Beliefs of your own church -- which agree with me 100%. If you disagree with me on matters of Christian faith -- then you disagree with your own church. If so, then why do you attend this church? Or, do you?
And, I see Deep standing on the sidelines, giggling gleefully. I do believe he thinks he has found a closet atheist in you; since you disagree with all things Christian.
Y'all come back now, ya heah?
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
DF,
You've hit on the basic insecurity of islam. If one tries to change, they kill you.
You've hit on the basic insecurity of islam. If one tries to change, they kill you.
And they have so much about which to be insecure.
DF
DF
quote:You can coddle and cuddle with the atheists, scoffers, and non-believers all you want. But, what does this say about your Christian walk with Jesus Christ?
Well, Jesus hung around prostitutes, beggars, lepers, tax collectors, and some of the most looked down upon people in that society. So the fact that I can "coddle and cuddle" with anyone no matter what they believe says I'm doing exactly what Jesus wants me to.
Besides, I'm not a member of any church, although I've recently attended one I really like. I checked their doctrine, nothing about a 1000 year theocracy. So they do not agree with you 100%. That might be why I like going there, kind of a haven for those who believe but are dissatisfied with fundamentalism..
quote:Originally posted by Howard Roark:
There's more danger of a government that denies persons their beliefs, than a christian theocracy. The US has had leaders with strong to weak religious beliefs with no danger.
Most of the alarmism comes from the fevered imaiginations of leftists. Its not the CofCers or the Baptists that chopping off heads, indulging in honor killings of innocent women, or blowing themselves and innocents to hell and gone.
Most of the alarmism comes from what we see in the middle east today. I do believe were still at war with the theocracy that was ruling Afganistan at the time of 9-11. Some of the alarmism also come from the memory of why our forefathers came to this country in the first place. They were escaping religious oppression from theocrats who were telling them where and how to worship.
quote:They were escaping religious oppression from theocrats who were telling them where and how to worship.
Hip,
I am ashamed and embarrassed that this precise thought did not enter my mind at the beginning of this thread.
The people who founded this country, Jefferson and Franklin's grandparents, came here for religious freedom. At the time, religion was causing much havoc in Europe, the Reformation hardly 120 years old. Our earliest settlers here only wanted to be left alone in their religion.
I only want to be left alone in my religious thoughts, as well, but it's not that easy. And to think that anyone here could actually support a theocracy makes my blood boil in patriotic resentment.
The Pat Robertsons and the late, unlamented Jerry Falwells, and the Hagees, and the Swaggarts who are too cowardly to support a Constitutional theocracy but who actively support a de facto test of Christianity for public office are cancers on the Republic.
That anyone could envision a theocracy, official or not, in America is despicable and shameful. And I am happy in my fight against them.
DF
Between the Hundred Years War and Lord Cromwell, the founders were sick of religious conflict.
Neal, that was quite a bit of drivel for a fellow with my ADD, but the main point I derived from it was that you are smart and I am not, despite the fact that you know nothing of my studies of the Bible. And in your hast to point out your superior intelligence you completely killed it all when you mentioned "contradictions" of the Bible. There are no contradictions. Each book, chapter, and verse of the Bible must be read with common sense to derive the context of that passage. For you to cast off Genesis Exodus and Leviticus as "primitive" veiws of God is ridiculous and absurd and doesnt even deserve a response. That just further shows your lack of understanding or acceptance of God, or God's power, or God's lessons left for us. I'm not "making the Bible my fetish"(whatever the crap that means). I read the Bible and do my best to gather the facts. What the context of what I'm reading, and what lessons I am to learn from it. The Bible is a guide...not every law from it is applicable today, but even from reading of those laws we learn valuable lessons of how to live in a society. Morals and sins of the heart we also learn about. And most important, THE only way to Heaven is thru the blood of Jesus.
As for the "poof" creation...once again, you have no clue what I beleive here. But the fact remains that God created it. I don't know the exact method he used, or even the amount of time he used...but the fact remains that he did it. The scientific theories used by Godless men does not fill that unknow however...all those theories simply attempt to disprove God's existance, which is immpossible.
As for torture....paaaaaleeeeaaase!!! God is very clear on defending one's loved ones and country. God was more than ruthless many times in order to protect cities and countries. If an evil person has info that could save American lives then it is the duty of our gov't to do what it takes to get that info in order to protect us. To let us down by compromizing our safety to take a bogus "moral highground" is a sinful act. Using extreme measures to protect this country during wartime is not. Comparing harsh interogation methods on terrorists to the torture/death of Jesus is once again insanely ridiculous.
As for the "poof" creation...once again, you have no clue what I beleive here. But the fact remains that God created it. I don't know the exact method he used, or even the amount of time he used...but the fact remains that he did it. The scientific theories used by Godless men does not fill that unknow however...all those theories simply attempt to disprove God's existance, which is immpossible.
As for torture....paaaaaleeeeaaase!!! God is very clear on defending one's loved ones and country. God was more than ruthless many times in order to protect cities and countries. If an evil person has info that could save American lives then it is the duty of our gov't to do what it takes to get that info in order to protect us. To let us down by compromizing our safety to take a bogus "moral highground" is a sinful act. Using extreme measures to protect this country during wartime is not. Comparing harsh interogation methods on terrorists to the torture/death of Jesus is once again insanely ridiculous.
Hi Deep,
You say, "The people who founded this country, Jefferson and Franklin's grandparents, came here for religious freedom. At the time, religion was causing much havoc in Europe, the Reformation hardly 120 years old. Our earliest settlers here only wanted to be left alone in their religion."
Let's take a look at what the early settlers really wanted in this new land:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT (1620):
IN THE name of God, Amen.
We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the 11 of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domine 1620.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, Deep, it looks to me like these good folks wanted a government guided by God, blessed by God, and for the glory of God, i.e., a Christian values guided government.
That doesn't sound very secular to me; how about you?
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net
Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!
You say, "The people who founded this country, Jefferson and Franklin's grandparents, came here for religious freedom. At the time, religion was causing much havoc in Europe, the Reformation hardly 120 years old. Our earliest settlers here only wanted to be left alone in their religion."
Let's take a look at what the early settlers really wanted in this new land:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT (1620):
IN THE name of God, Amen.
We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the 11 of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domine 1620.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, Deep, it looks to me like these good folks wanted a government guided by God, blessed by God, and for the glory of God, i.e., a Christian values guided government.
That doesn't sound very secular to me; how about you?
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net
Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!
That's the Mayflower Compact. If you remember your history correctly, the puritans who created that document became even more oppressive than the English crown.
Read up on the Salem Witch Trials and tell me if that's a government blessed by God. It's proof that theocracies can't work. After just 72 years of living in a theocracy, the ruling bodies are murdering their own people in the name of God. That's also why our founding fathers gave us freedom of religion, to protect the country from falling back to that era.
Those in power in a theocracy can say they are doing God's work, those subjugated under them can't argue with that or it is considered blasphemy. Doctrine can be re-written at will and corruption is inevitable. Just look at the Catholic church during the middle ages for an example of that.
As I said, God gave us free will. Our constitution gave us that as well. We are free to worship in any way we want or not worship at all, that's called freedom and is impossible under a theocracy.
Read up on the Salem Witch Trials and tell me if that's a government blessed by God. It's proof that theocracies can't work. After just 72 years of living in a theocracy, the ruling bodies are murdering their own people in the name of God. That's also why our founding fathers gave us freedom of religion, to protect the country from falling back to that era.
Those in power in a theocracy can say they are doing God's work, those subjugated under them can't argue with that or it is considered blasphemy. Doctrine can be re-written at will and corruption is inevitable. Just look at the Catholic church during the middle ages for an example of that.
As I said, God gave us free will. Our constitution gave us that as well. We are free to worship in any way we want or not worship at all, that's called freedom and is impossible under a theocracy.
quote:Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Between the Hundred Years War and Lord Cromwell, the founders were sick of religious conflict.
And don't forget the religious wars about 100 years before when the Calvinist tried to take over in
France.
The US Constitution was the first, and remains one of the few, that precludes state involvement in religion. We should appreciate it more.
DF
DF
Hi Y'all,
We are reading such clamor about a theocracy and how destructive and horrible it is. Yet, most postings I have read have no idea how to define a theocracy.
What is a theocracy? It is a nation which has no president, no congress, no parliament, etc. It is a government ruled by a religious leader; as with the ayatollah in Iran. It is governed by this man.
What is a Christian governed nation? It is a nation with a democratically elected president and legislative body -- which is governed by Christian values. Do you really consider it a negative to be governed by leaders who hold positive moral values; leaders who truly believe and follow the commandments to love the Lord your God and to love your neighbors?
If you do, there is plenty of room on the plane to Iran.
And, by the way, one day the world will be a Theocracy. Yes, at the end of the seven year Tribulation, Jesus Christ will return to earth to establish His 1000 year Millennial Kingdom -- and it will be a Theocracy. And it will be ruled by the commandments: love the Lord your God and love your neighbors. And, there will be no atheism, no secularism. So, if you are currently wearing one or both of these hats -- you might want to shop for a new hat.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net
Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!
We are reading such clamor about a theocracy and how destructive and horrible it is. Yet, most postings I have read have no idea how to define a theocracy.
What is a theocracy? It is a nation which has no president, no congress, no parliament, etc. It is a government ruled by a religious leader; as with the ayatollah in Iran. It is governed by this man.
What is a Christian governed nation? It is a nation with a democratically elected president and legislative body -- which is governed by Christian values. Do you really consider it a negative to be governed by leaders who hold positive moral values; leaders who truly believe and follow the commandments to love the Lord your God and to love your neighbors?
If you do, there is plenty of room on the plane to Iran.
And, by the way, one day the world will be a Theocracy. Yes, at the end of the seven year Tribulation, Jesus Christ will return to earth to establish His 1000 year Millennial Kingdom -- and it will be a Theocracy. And it will be ruled by the commandments: love the Lord your God and love your neighbors. And, there will be no atheism, no secularism. So, if you are currently wearing one or both of these hats -- you might want to shop for a new hat.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net
Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!
theocracy
One entry found.
theocracy
Main Entry: the·oc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \thē-ˈä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·oc·ra·cies
Etymology: Greek theokratia, from the- + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1622
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy
One entry found.
theocracy
Main Entry: the·oc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \thē-ˈä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·oc·ra·cies
Etymology: Greek theokratia, from the- + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1622
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy
Interesting interview with Marc Hauser where he discusses human morality, its origin and how it relates to religious moral codes.
http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/podcast-interview-with-marc-hauser/
http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/podcast-interview-with-marc-hauser/
quote:Do you really consider it a negative to be governed by leaders who hold positive moral values; leaders who truly believe and follow the commandments to love the Lord your God and to love your neighbors?
What about a government that holds positive moral values, but isn't Christian?
Why not a Jewish government? They live by the 10 commandments as well.
Why not a Buddhist government? They believe in doing right by others and living peacefully. It's a very moral based religion. How would you feel living under a Buddhist government with Buddhist values?
The problem with all of those is that not everyone is Jewish, Buddhist, or Christian. When you have a country of many varying faiths, they only way they can truly be free to practice is with a secular government. That's why our first amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
To protect everyone's freedom, we keep religion out of government and government out of religion. We simply can't mix the two without creating a mess.
Thank goodness we are not under the Law anymore or all of us would be dead or missing limbs. There is freedom in Jesus and there is freedom in worship that is why it is so important to have freedom of worship and to spread the gospel. Satan is winning the battle right now and will continue to do so until Jesus returns and knocks him (satan) off his throne.
Hi Nash,
You say, "To protect everyone's freedom, we keep religion out of government and government out of religion. We simply can't mix the two without creating a mess."
The image which came to mind when I read your comment is that of a lovely pond with fish swimming, lily pads floating -- serene and content, peaceful. Here and there, we see a frog contentedly sitting on a lily pad. It is well balanced.
Imagine, if you will, what would happen if we pump all the water from that pond. We end up with an oozy, muddy bottom; fish gasping and dying in the sludge; frogs mired in the mud; while lily pads dry and crack. It becomes a swampy, murky hole -- where once it had been a water supported Garden of Eden.
What made the difference? We removed the water -- which sustained all the life in the pond.
The same happens when you remove Godly, Christian influence from a nation which was weaned on the teachings of the Bible.
We have great examples of this: the world in Noah's day, the people of Ninevah, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Roman Empire, Iran, North Korea, and the list could go on and on. Removing God removes Christian moral values; removing Christian moral values leaves you with a swampy, murky society.
Reading the Mayflower Compact, we find: ". . . having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia. . ."
We see in this one statement that these Pilgrims, these early Americans, came to these shores with the full intention of having a government which included both the secular (honor of our king and country) and the Christian (for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith).
It is only with the growth of Liberalism that anyone began the attempt, fraudulently and deceitfully, to separate the two.
Do you want to swim peacefully -- or wallow and flounder in the mud?
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net
Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!
You say, "To protect everyone's freedom, we keep religion out of government and government out of religion. We simply can't mix the two without creating a mess."
The image which came to mind when I read your comment is that of a lovely pond with fish swimming, lily pads floating -- serene and content, peaceful. Here and there, we see a frog contentedly sitting on a lily pad. It is well balanced.
Imagine, if you will, what would happen if we pump all the water from that pond. We end up with an oozy, muddy bottom; fish gasping and dying in the sludge; frogs mired in the mud; while lily pads dry and crack. It becomes a swampy, murky hole -- where once it had been a water supported Garden of Eden.
What made the difference? We removed the water -- which sustained all the life in the pond.
The same happens when you remove Godly, Christian influence from a nation which was weaned on the teachings of the Bible.
We have great examples of this: the world in Noah's day, the people of Ninevah, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Roman Empire, Iran, North Korea, and the list could go on and on. Removing God removes Christian moral values; removing Christian moral values leaves you with a swampy, murky society.
Reading the Mayflower Compact, we find: ". . . having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia. . ."
We see in this one statement that these Pilgrims, these early Americans, came to these shores with the full intention of having a government which included both the secular (honor of our king and country) and the Christian (for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith).
It is only with the growth of Liberalism that anyone began the attempt, fraudulently and deceitfully, to separate the two.
Do you want to swim peacefully -- or wallow and flounder in the mud?
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net
Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!
quote:The same happens when you remove Godly, Christian influence from a nation which was weaned on the teachings of the Bible.
This nation was never "weaned" on the Bible. Not all of the founding fathers were Christians. This country was "weaned" on the idea that freedom is a rare gift and should be protected from tyrannical rule. That's why we have freedom of religion, press, assembly, speech, and to petition the government.
quote:We see in this one statement that these Pilgrims, these early Americans, came to these shores with the full intention of having a government which included both the secular (honor of our king and country) and the Christian (for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith).
A few years later those same people were burning women at the stake, torturing people, and ruling the community through the church. People were accused of being witches and the population lived in total fear, not a fear of God but a fear of the leadership. That's what you want to go back to?
Puritanism was a theocracy and one of the most oppressive and corrupt periods in our country's history. Puritanism was a Christian based society and a complete and total failure. Theocracies do not work, and that's why our founding fathers made sure it would never happen again so that we all can remain free.
quote:We have great examples of this: the world in Noah's day, the people of Ninevah, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Roman Empire, Iran, North Korea, and the list could go on and on. Removing God removes Christian moral values; removing Christian moral values leaves you with a swampy, murky society.
Bill-
the Roman Empire fell after it became a Christian Theocracy (it was thriving under polytheism). Iran is a good example of what happens in a Theocracy. Not a pretty picture for our mothers, wives and daughters.
The Eastern Roman Empire fell because the people of Constatinople decided to pray rather than fight to defend their city. Haggia Sofia because a mosque and Constantinople became Istanbul.
Jello said it best: "God told me to skin you alive!"
Very few people came to the earliest colonies for religious freedom, the Puritans in NE, yes, the Anglicans in Virginia, decidedly not, and Virginia is the Mother of the United States. Penn later established PA for a haven for Quakers (they were whipping them in England and hanging them in New England and whipping in Virginia). Maryland was for Roman Catholics, but became Anglican with Catholics tolerated. New York and New Jersey were first Anglican after flirtations with Swedish Lutheran and Dutch Reformed, but tolerant. Rhode Island was the only completely tolerant colony, as to hold office or vote, most colonies required citizens to believe in a Triune God and swear the same. Rhode Island did not. SC and NC were also Anglican, and all of NE technically Anglican/Congregational (this changed so many times, even in parishes that one cannot but barely keep track).
The Mayflower Compact is no founding document at all. It is a small self-selected Separatist community's agreement upon arriving in Virginia (they got a little bit lost)/Mass.
The mess with the Puritan/Separatist govenments in the late 17th Century that even the royal governor's wife was imprisoned for witchcraft in Plymouth. The place was so rotten that the colony was dissolved and the royal colony of Massachusetts formed out of the various components there (same thing in New Haven, and on Long Island with them going away and to unified Connecticut and New York).
North Carolina was so irreligious that there were only a handful of churches in the entire colony/early state! And these were on the coast: Wilmington, New Bern, etc.
The Anglican Church could not flourish in America as the Americans refused the crown appointing a bishop in New York, it remained a missionary diosece of London. The clergy were those who could not get a curateship even anywhere in the C of E or C of I. The vestry performed all of the social court functions we have in probate/family court today as well as public welfare.
As the people moved westward from the Tidewater and Philadelphia, New York, and inward from the NE coast, the spread of the Bap****t, New Light Presbyterian, and Methodist Churches became very strong, yet the official churches remained up to the 1830s in Mass. Virginia was so decadent that a Baptist minister could be a vestryman or a judge, as he only had to attend a Church of England sermon once a year to meet the Test Act.
In short, the Established Churches were a farce and an instrument of oppression and were barely hanging on by a thread when the Revolution broke out. The Puritans and Separatists were among the worst type of religious fanatics: exclusive and forcing others to conform to matters personal or else face the lash, the noose, or the stocks.
We read nearly daily reports from our brave allies and terrible foes in Allahstan on a new gay kid getting hanged, a witch to be stoned or a convert to Bahai being sentenced to hang.
Think of the 40 Years War, the war between Croatia and Serbia, the Irish Troubles, all the slaughter in Tudor Times, and then think long and hard about a theocracy.
Still want one? Whose God? Whose religion? Pastafarianism? Roman Catholicism? Assemblies of God? Quakers? Mennonites? Reform Judaism? Coservative? Orthodox? Haredi? Shia or Sunni? Alewite? Zoroastorian? Hindu? Taoism? Bon?
Religion flourishes when it is left alone.
Very few people came to the earliest colonies for religious freedom, the Puritans in NE, yes, the Anglicans in Virginia, decidedly not, and Virginia is the Mother of the United States. Penn later established PA for a haven for Quakers (they were whipping them in England and hanging them in New England and whipping in Virginia). Maryland was for Roman Catholics, but became Anglican with Catholics tolerated. New York and New Jersey were first Anglican after flirtations with Swedish Lutheran and Dutch Reformed, but tolerant. Rhode Island was the only completely tolerant colony, as to hold office or vote, most colonies required citizens to believe in a Triune God and swear the same. Rhode Island did not. SC and NC were also Anglican, and all of NE technically Anglican/Congregational (this changed so many times, even in parishes that one cannot but barely keep track).
The Mayflower Compact is no founding document at all. It is a small self-selected Separatist community's agreement upon arriving in Virginia (they got a little bit lost)/Mass.
The mess with the Puritan/Separatist govenments in the late 17th Century that even the royal governor's wife was imprisoned for witchcraft in Plymouth. The place was so rotten that the colony was dissolved and the royal colony of Massachusetts formed out of the various components there (same thing in New Haven, and on Long Island with them going away and to unified Connecticut and New York).
North Carolina was so irreligious that there were only a handful of churches in the entire colony/early state! And these were on the coast: Wilmington, New Bern, etc.
The Anglican Church could not flourish in America as the Americans refused the crown appointing a bishop in New York, it remained a missionary diosece of London. The clergy were those who could not get a curateship even anywhere in the C of E or C of I. The vestry performed all of the social court functions we have in probate/family court today as well as public welfare.
As the people moved westward from the Tidewater and Philadelphia, New York, and inward from the NE coast, the spread of the Bap****t, New Light Presbyterian, and Methodist Churches became very strong, yet the official churches remained up to the 1830s in Mass. Virginia was so decadent that a Baptist minister could be a vestryman or a judge, as he only had to attend a Church of England sermon once a year to meet the Test Act.
In short, the Established Churches were a farce and an instrument of oppression and were barely hanging on by a thread when the Revolution broke out. The Puritans and Separatists were among the worst type of religious fanatics: exclusive and forcing others to conform to matters personal or else face the lash, the noose, or the stocks.
We read nearly daily reports from our brave allies and terrible foes in Allahstan on a new gay kid getting hanged, a witch to be stoned or a convert to Bahai being sentenced to hang.
Think of the 40 Years War, the war between Croatia and Serbia, the Irish Troubles, all the slaughter in Tudor Times, and then think long and hard about a theocracy.
Still want one? Whose God? Whose religion? Pastafarianism? Roman Catholicism? Assemblies of God? Quakers? Mennonites? Reform Judaism? Coservative? Orthodox? Haredi? Shia or Sunni? Alewite? Zoroastorian? Hindu? Taoism? Bon?
Religion flourishes when it is left alone.
Hi Nash,
To my statement, "The same happens when you remove Godly, Christian influence from a nation which was weaned on the teachings of the Bible."
You respond, "This nation was never 'weaned' on the Bible. Not all of the founding fathers were Christians."
I have given you the example of the Mayflower Compact. Now consider the fact that the First Continental Congress authorized funds to purchase 20,000 Bible from Europe to be distributed throughout the Thirteen Colonies. Then, this same congress supported the founding of a printing company in Philadelphia -- whose primary purpose was to print Bibles.
That would lead me to believe they placed great emphasis on the Bible. Why, when as you say, not all founding fathers were Christian? First, because most of them were Christians. And, second, even those who were not realized that the Bible was a good influence on the morals and lives of the people.
Now, on top of this -- in the early days of country, the federal buildings were used during the week as places of government business -- and on Sundays, as houses of worship. That sure does not sound like Separation of Church and State to me.
Nash, I have a question for you. When you attend your new church for worship and fellowship -- do you argue with your new pastor when he teaches your church's Biblical Doctrinal Beliefs? You have read them, haven't you? I would say it would behoove you to know what your church teaches.
And, I would venture a guess that your new pastor will tell you that Separation of Church and State is a Liberal-inspired, Liberal-originated, Liberal-spread conjecture, with no truth whatsoever to support it. Just my guess. Why don't you ask him.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net
Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!
To my statement, "The same happens when you remove Godly, Christian influence from a nation which was weaned on the teachings of the Bible."
You respond, "This nation was never 'weaned' on the Bible. Not all of the founding fathers were Christians."
I have given you the example of the Mayflower Compact. Now consider the fact that the First Continental Congress authorized funds to purchase 20,000 Bible from Europe to be distributed throughout the Thirteen Colonies. Then, this same congress supported the founding of a printing company in Philadelphia -- whose primary purpose was to print Bibles.
That would lead me to believe they placed great emphasis on the Bible. Why, when as you say, not all founding fathers were Christian? First, because most of them were Christians. And, second, even those who were not realized that the Bible was a good influence on the morals and lives of the people.
Now, on top of this -- in the early days of country, the federal buildings were used during the week as places of government business -- and on Sundays, as houses of worship. That sure does not sound like Separation of Church and State to me.
Nash, I have a question for you. When you attend your new church for worship and fellowship -- do you argue with your new pastor when he teaches your church's Biblical Doctrinal Beliefs? You have read them, haven't you? I would say it would behoove you to know what your church teaches.
And, I would venture a guess that your new pastor will tell you that Separation of Church and State is a Liberal-inspired, Liberal-originated, Liberal-spread conjecture, with no truth whatsoever to support it. Just my guess. Why don't you ask him.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net
Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!
There's a old rumor that Virginians bribed the Captain of the Mayflower to keep the Pilgrims well away from Virginia.
quote:I have given you the example of the Mayflower Compact. Now consider the fact that the First Continental Congress authorized funds to purchase 20,000 Bible from Europe to be distributed throughout the Thirteen Colonies. Then, this same congress supported the founding of a printing company in Philadelphia -- whose primary purpose was to print Bibles.
For the third time, how did the Puritans live after the Mayflower Compact? Those in power tortured and murdered people who were accused of witchcraft. Life after the Mayflower Compact under their theocracy was more oppressive than England.
At one time, the Federal government required farmers grow a certain amount of hemp. George Washington, the father of our country even grew hemp. So using your logic that our country was meant to be Christian because Bibles were handed out, our country was also meant to freely grow hemp. Are you cool with that?
You also failed to answer my questions, why not a Jewish government? There are quite a number of Jews in this country. They have similar morals, the 10 commandments, even Jesus Himself was a Jew. Are you opposed to a Jewish government?
No, the term "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. Yes, people used and still use public buildings for worship. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with forcing a belief onto others and living under an easily corruptible theocracy.
No, the pastors at the church I've visited did not say anything about a 1000 year theocracy in the future. It's not in the church doctrine either, I checked. I know what the church teaches and it's beliefs. It's nothing like the traditional judgmental fire & brimstone churches that I grew up in and you prefer. That's why I plan on attending again.
Again, freedom is not possible in a theocracy. A study of Puritanism is a good example of that.
Theocracy Rejected: Former Christian Right Leaders 'Fess up
Frank Schaeffer, John Whitehead and Cal Thomas have repudiated the theocratic movement they once led. Here’s why.
Frank Schaeffer spent several years making a good living writing books promoting the Religious Right's worldview and speaking before rapturous crowds of fundamentalist Christians.
Schaeffer, the son of evangelical guru Francis Schaeffer, was the closest thing to a rock star that politically conservative fundamentalism can offer. As the Religious Right soared in the 1980s, Schaeffer was there to ride the wave. Young, bright and charismatic, he could have founded his own Religious Right group or perhaps even launched a political career.
Twenty years have passed. What does Schaeffer think of the Religious Right today? He wouldn't touch it with the proverbial 10-foot pole -- and the feeling is mutual. A spiritual and professional crisis brought Schaeffer to the understanding that the Religious Right has it all wrong.
"My doubts really began when I realized that the people we were working with on the Religious Right were profoundly anti-American," Schaeffer said in a recent interview. "I began to get the same vibe from them I got from my friends on the far left during the Vietnam War. They seemed to be rooting for North Vietnam. When I was working with the Religious Right, they seemed be rooting for the failure of America. Bad news was good news for them."
Schaeffer isn't the only ex-Religious Right activist having second thoughts these days. About 30 years ago, a young lawyer named John W. Whitehead worked alongside people like Jerry Falwell to help birth the Religious Right. Hoping to give the movement an intellectual grounding, Whitehead penned a series of books attacking the separation of church and state and demanding a government based on Christian fundamentalism.
Whitehead's books -- The Separation Illusion, The Second American Revolution and The Stealing of America -- made him a popular figure in Religious Right circles. With the backing of Falwell and others, he helped found the Council for National Policy (CNP), a secretive and highly influential coalition of Religious Right groups. He also formed the Rutherford Institute, a legal group designed to promote conservative Christian causes.
Venturing into the farthest fringes of the Religious Right, Whitehead was for several years close to Rousas John Rushdoony, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement that seeks to replace America's secular republic with a theocracy based on the Old Testament's legal codes.
Whitehead repudiated theocracy years ago. It's unlikely he'd be welcome at a CNP meeting now.
"Politics," he said in a recent interview, "would never even figure into Jesus' mind. He was a homeless person. He was like Gandhi. It wasn't in the picture. Christianity was not founded on politics. It was founded on helping the less fortunate .... That's how you impact culture."
Schaeffer and Whitehead are two high-profile Religious Right apostates, but they aren't the only ones. Even Cal Thomas, who once served as vice president of the late Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, is critical of the Religious Right these days. Thomas in 2000 coauthored a book titled Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America.
In a column written shortly after Falwell's death in May, Thomas opined, "The flaw in the movement was the perception that the church had become an appendage to the Republican Party and one more special interest group to be pampered. If one examines the results of the Moral Majority's agenda, little was accomplished in the political arena and much was lost in the spiritual realm, as many came to believe that to be a Christian meant you also must be 'converted' to the Republican Party and adopt the GOP agenda and its tactics."
What's more, these critics aren't shy about speaking out. Schaeffer details his years in the Religious Right in his recently published book Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One Of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) Of It Back.
The tome is a frank tell-all loaded with broadsides against the Religious Right. Schaeffer does not hesitate to speak bluntly, as the following passages indicate:
"What I slowly realized was that the religious-right leaders we were helping to gain power were not 'conservatives' at all, in the old sense of the word. They were anti-American religious revolutionaries."
"Pat Robertson would have had a hard time finding work in any job where hearing voices is not a requirement."
"Long before Ralph Reed and his ilk came on the scene, Dad got sick of 'these idiots' as he often called people like Dobson in private. They were 'plastic,' Dad said, and 'power-hungry.'"
"There were three kinds of evangelical leaders: The dumb or idealistic ones who really believed. The out-and-out charlatans. And the smart ones who still believed -- sort of -- but knew that the evangelical world was sh*t, but who couldn't figure out any way to earn as good a living anywhere else."
Read More!
http://www.alternet.org/stories/78818/
Frank Schaeffer, John Whitehead and Cal Thomas have repudiated the theocratic movement they once led. Here’s why.
Frank Schaeffer spent several years making a good living writing books promoting the Religious Right's worldview and speaking before rapturous crowds of fundamentalist Christians.
Schaeffer, the son of evangelical guru Francis Schaeffer, was the closest thing to a rock star that politically conservative fundamentalism can offer. As the Religious Right soared in the 1980s, Schaeffer was there to ride the wave. Young, bright and charismatic, he could have founded his own Religious Right group or perhaps even launched a political career.
Twenty years have passed. What does Schaeffer think of the Religious Right today? He wouldn't touch it with the proverbial 10-foot pole -- and the feeling is mutual. A spiritual and professional crisis brought Schaeffer to the understanding that the Religious Right has it all wrong.
"My doubts really began when I realized that the people we were working with on the Religious Right were profoundly anti-American," Schaeffer said in a recent interview. "I began to get the same vibe from them I got from my friends on the far left during the Vietnam War. They seemed to be rooting for North Vietnam. When I was working with the Religious Right, they seemed be rooting for the failure of America. Bad news was good news for them."
Schaeffer isn't the only ex-Religious Right activist having second thoughts these days. About 30 years ago, a young lawyer named John W. Whitehead worked alongside people like Jerry Falwell to help birth the Religious Right. Hoping to give the movement an intellectual grounding, Whitehead penned a series of books attacking the separation of church and state and demanding a government based on Christian fundamentalism.
Whitehead's books -- The Separation Illusion, The Second American Revolution and The Stealing of America -- made him a popular figure in Religious Right circles. With the backing of Falwell and others, he helped found the Council for National Policy (CNP), a secretive and highly influential coalition of Religious Right groups. He also formed the Rutherford Institute, a legal group designed to promote conservative Christian causes.
Venturing into the farthest fringes of the Religious Right, Whitehead was for several years close to Rousas John Rushdoony, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement that seeks to replace America's secular republic with a theocracy based on the Old Testament's legal codes.
Whitehead repudiated theocracy years ago. It's unlikely he'd be welcome at a CNP meeting now.
"Politics," he said in a recent interview, "would never even figure into Jesus' mind. He was a homeless person. He was like Gandhi. It wasn't in the picture. Christianity was not founded on politics. It was founded on helping the less fortunate .... That's how you impact culture."
Schaeffer and Whitehead are two high-profile Religious Right apostates, but they aren't the only ones. Even Cal Thomas, who once served as vice president of the late Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, is critical of the Religious Right these days. Thomas in 2000 coauthored a book titled Blinded by Might: Why the Religious Right Can't Save America.
In a column written shortly after Falwell's death in May, Thomas opined, "The flaw in the movement was the perception that the church had become an appendage to the Republican Party and one more special interest group to be pampered. If one examines the results of the Moral Majority's agenda, little was accomplished in the political arena and much was lost in the spiritual realm, as many came to believe that to be a Christian meant you also must be 'converted' to the Republican Party and adopt the GOP agenda and its tactics."
What's more, these critics aren't shy about speaking out. Schaeffer details his years in the Religious Right in his recently published book Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One Of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) Of It Back.
The tome is a frank tell-all loaded with broadsides against the Religious Right. Schaeffer does not hesitate to speak bluntly, as the following passages indicate:
"What I slowly realized was that the religious-right leaders we were helping to gain power were not 'conservatives' at all, in the old sense of the word. They were anti-American religious revolutionaries."
"Pat Robertson would have had a hard time finding work in any job where hearing voices is not a requirement."
"Long before Ralph Reed and his ilk came on the scene, Dad got sick of 'these idiots' as he often called people like Dobson in private. They were 'plastic,' Dad said, and 'power-hungry.'"
"There were three kinds of evangelical leaders: The dumb or idealistic ones who really believed. The out-and-out charlatans. And the smart ones who still believed -- sort of -- but knew that the evangelical world was sh*t, but who couldn't figure out any way to earn as good a living anywhere else."
Read More!
http://www.alternet.org/stories/78818/
Hi Nash,
You declare, "For the third time, how did the Puritans live after the Mayflower Compact? Those in power tortured and murdered people who were accused of witchcraft. Life after the Mayflower Compact under their theocracy was more oppressive than England."
Since you seem so hung up on the Salem Witch Trials, let's take a closer look at this situation. It seems to me that this is something you must have read in your elementary school history class and find it a nice little rock to throw at the Christian faith. You did say you are Christian -- didn't you?
Yes, the Salem Witch Hunt did occur in 1692 -- but, not as bloody as you want to paint it. As a matter of fact, the Salem Witch Hunt reminds me very much of a similar event which happened in our recent American history: The Senator Joe McCarthy Red Witch Hunt, which occurred in the early 1950s -- when he used his power as a United States Senator and accused half of the country of being communist. McCarthy did not hang anyone -- but, his witch hunt destroyed many, many careers and lives.
So, yes, evil does occur when good people become obsessed with fear and uncertainty. A good example of fear driven evil is the Baptist pastor from Kansas who is making a mockery of himself and of Christianity today with his protest marches waving "God Hates ***s" signs. I detest what this man and his followers are doing. God does not hate homosexuals. God hates the homosexual lifestyle. God would love to see every single homosexual leave that lifestyle and live a Christian life. That pastor is wrong; he is a black eye on Christianity.
The following excerpts from "The Witchcraft Trials in Salem: A Commentary" give a clearer picture of what happened in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What happened in Salem?
From June through September of 1692, nineteen men and women, all having been convicted of witchcraft, were carted to Gallows Hill, a barren slope near Salem Village, for hanging. Another man of over eighty years was pressed to death under heavy stones for refusing to submit to a trial on witchcraft charges. Hundreds of others faced accusations of witchcraft. Dozens languished in jail for months without trials. Then, almost as soon as it had begun, the hysteria that swept through Puritan Massachusetts ended.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What caused the hysteria which drove the people of Salem to this extreme? What caused the good people of Salem to believe there was a witch, or witches, in their midst?
Sometime during February of the exceptionally cold winter of 1692, young Betty Parris became strangely ill. She dashed about, dove under furniture, contorted in pain, and complained of fever. The cause of her symptoms may have been some combination of stress, asthma, guilt, boredom, child abuse, epilepsy, and delusional psychosis. The symptoms also could have been caused, as Linda Caporael argued in a 1976 article in Science magazine, by a disease called "convulsive ergotism" brought on by injesting rye -- eaten as a cereal and as a common ingredient of bread -- infected with ergot. (Ergot is caused by a fungus which invades developing kernels of rye grain, especially under warm and damp conditions such as existed at the time of the previous rye harvest in Salem. Convulsive ergotism causes violent fits, a crawling sensation on the skin, vomiting, choking, and -- most interestingly -- hallucinations. The hallucinogenic drug LSD is a derivative of ergot.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, for a short time, the good people of Salem, Massachusetts did become hysterical and did foolish things. But, did that make them less Christian? Nash, have you ever done something foolish? I have -- things which have hurt others, things which could have caused great harm to me, things which I know God disdains. Am I a Christian? Yes. But, keep in mind that a Christian is only a forgiven sinner. I have done wrong; Nash has done wrong; the people of Salem did wrong -- but, God forgives upon repentance.
Does Nash forgive upon repentance -- or does he continue to use this past history to paint Christianity black?
Your new church says of itself: Our Identity: A diverse gathering of broken yet hopeful people, who believe JESUS CHRIST is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE. ( http://www.fbcrc.org/Default.aspx?tabid=72 )
Then, you say, "You also failed to answer my questions, why not a Jewish government? There are quite a number of Jews in this country. They have similar morals, the 10 commandments, even Jesus Himself was a Jew. Are you opposed to a Jewish government?"
America was not founded as a Jewish nation; but as a Christian nation. God already had declared the Holy Land as the homeland of the Jewish nation. If He had wanted America to be a Jewish nation; He would have sent people of the Jewish faith to plant a new nation. He did not; He sent Christians to America -- to plant a new Christian nation.
However, just as when one plants a new garden and even tends it well -- weeds will still attempt to grow in that garden. We have the "weeds of Liberalism" growing in America. But, we continue to weed and hoe our garden, we continue to tend our spiritual garden, and we will continue to see it grow as a Christian America. We Americans must all get our spiritual hoes and weed out the Liberal Untruth of "Separation of Church and State" -- because it persists in trying to choke out the Truth in our national garden.
You say, "No, the pastors at the church I've visited did not say anything about a 1000 year theocracy in the future. It's not in the church doctrine either, I checked. I know what the church teaches and it's beliefs. It's nothing like the traditional judgmental fire & brimstone churches that I grew up in and you prefer. That's why I plan on attending again."
First of all, like you, I initially went to a "fire and brimstone" pulpit-pounding church in Sheffield when I was young. Later, I started going to the First Baptist church -- but, the "fear of God" implanted in me by that first church stayed with me -- and, for that reason, I did not become a Christian until I was fifty years old.
That initial church taught fear. But, I believe the Bible teaches awe, respect, reverence of the Lord. Yes, those who will continue to deny and defy the Lord should fear Him -- for they condemn themselves. But, those who are His children do not fear Him. We love Him, we hold Him in awe, we respect Him, we hold Him in reverence.
Nash, you say, "That's why I plan on attending again."
That is wonderful. There is nothing I would wish more than for you to continue and become an active part of that fellowship; for, from reading their web site, I believe you have found a good Christian, Bible-teaching church.
But, I challenge you to ask your new pastor if he believes in the 1000 year Millennial Kingdom of Jesus Christ.
Your new church says in its Doctrinal Beliefs: "He will visibly return to the earth at the time set by His Father to consummate His kingdom and execute His righteous judgment. (Revelation 19:11-16)"
This is speaking of the 1000 year Millennial Kingdom. If you read on a bit further, in Revelation 20, you will read of Satan being bound in the abyss for 1000 years, during the Millennial Kingdom of Jesus Christ. Then after the 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ on earth, Satan will be released, and he will once again attempt to do battle against the Son of God -- and will be cast into the Lake of Fire, along with all his followers, for eternity.
Nash, trust me, America WAS founded on Christian principals; American leaders believed in the Bible enough to distribute them throughout the original Thirteen Colonies; American leaders believed in the Bible so much that they had a printing shop established in Philadelphia -- with its main purpose to print Bibles. America was founded as a Christian nation; America cannot survive without Christian influence in its leadership. That is not a theocracy; that is a Christian influenced nation. And, that kind of nation God will continue to bless.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net
Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!
You declare, "For the third time, how did the Puritans live after the Mayflower Compact? Those in power tortured and murdered people who were accused of witchcraft. Life after the Mayflower Compact under their theocracy was more oppressive than England."
Since you seem so hung up on the Salem Witch Trials, let's take a closer look at this situation. It seems to me that this is something you must have read in your elementary school history class and find it a nice little rock to throw at the Christian faith. You did say you are Christian -- didn't you?
Yes, the Salem Witch Hunt did occur in 1692 -- but, not as bloody as you want to paint it. As a matter of fact, the Salem Witch Hunt reminds me very much of a similar event which happened in our recent American history: The Senator Joe McCarthy Red Witch Hunt, which occurred in the early 1950s -- when he used his power as a United States Senator and accused half of the country of being communist. McCarthy did not hang anyone -- but, his witch hunt destroyed many, many careers and lives.
So, yes, evil does occur when good people become obsessed with fear and uncertainty. A good example of fear driven evil is the Baptist pastor from Kansas who is making a mockery of himself and of Christianity today with his protest marches waving "God Hates ***s" signs. I detest what this man and his followers are doing. God does not hate homosexuals. God hates the homosexual lifestyle. God would love to see every single homosexual leave that lifestyle and live a Christian life. That pastor is wrong; he is a black eye on Christianity.
The following excerpts from "The Witchcraft Trials in Salem: A Commentary" give a clearer picture of what happened in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What happened in Salem?
From June through September of 1692, nineteen men and women, all having been convicted of witchcraft, were carted to Gallows Hill, a barren slope near Salem Village, for hanging. Another man of over eighty years was pressed to death under heavy stones for refusing to submit to a trial on witchcraft charges. Hundreds of others faced accusations of witchcraft. Dozens languished in jail for months without trials. Then, almost as soon as it had begun, the hysteria that swept through Puritan Massachusetts ended.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What caused the hysteria which drove the people of Salem to this extreme? What caused the good people of Salem to believe there was a witch, or witches, in their midst?
Sometime during February of the exceptionally cold winter of 1692, young Betty Parris became strangely ill. She dashed about, dove under furniture, contorted in pain, and complained of fever. The cause of her symptoms may have been some combination of stress, asthma, guilt, boredom, child abuse, epilepsy, and delusional psychosis. The symptoms also could have been caused, as Linda Caporael argued in a 1976 article in Science magazine, by a disease called "convulsive ergotism" brought on by injesting rye -- eaten as a cereal and as a common ingredient of bread -- infected with ergot. (Ergot is caused by a fungus which invades developing kernels of rye grain, especially under warm and damp conditions such as existed at the time of the previous rye harvest in Salem. Convulsive ergotism causes violent fits, a crawling sensation on the skin, vomiting, choking, and -- most interestingly -- hallucinations. The hallucinogenic drug LSD is a derivative of ergot.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, for a short time, the good people of Salem, Massachusetts did become hysterical and did foolish things. But, did that make them less Christian? Nash, have you ever done something foolish? I have -- things which have hurt others, things which could have caused great harm to me, things which I know God disdains. Am I a Christian? Yes. But, keep in mind that a Christian is only a forgiven sinner. I have done wrong; Nash has done wrong; the people of Salem did wrong -- but, God forgives upon repentance.
Does Nash forgive upon repentance -- or does he continue to use this past history to paint Christianity black?
Your new church says of itself: Our Identity: A diverse gathering of broken yet hopeful people, who believe JESUS CHRIST is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE. ( http://www.fbcrc.org/Default.aspx?tabid=72 )
Then, you say, "You also failed to answer my questions, why not a Jewish government? There are quite a number of Jews in this country. They have similar morals, the 10 commandments, even Jesus Himself was a Jew. Are you opposed to a Jewish government?"
America was not founded as a Jewish nation; but as a Christian nation. God already had declared the Holy Land as the homeland of the Jewish nation. If He had wanted America to be a Jewish nation; He would have sent people of the Jewish faith to plant a new nation. He did not; He sent Christians to America -- to plant a new Christian nation.
However, just as when one plants a new garden and even tends it well -- weeds will still attempt to grow in that garden. We have the "weeds of Liberalism" growing in America. But, we continue to weed and hoe our garden, we continue to tend our spiritual garden, and we will continue to see it grow as a Christian America. We Americans must all get our spiritual hoes and weed out the Liberal Untruth of "Separation of Church and State" -- because it persists in trying to choke out the Truth in our national garden.
You say, "No, the pastors at the church I've visited did not say anything about a 1000 year theocracy in the future. It's not in the church doctrine either, I checked. I know what the church teaches and it's beliefs. It's nothing like the traditional judgmental fire & brimstone churches that I grew up in and you prefer. That's why I plan on attending again."
First of all, like you, I initially went to a "fire and brimstone" pulpit-pounding church in Sheffield when I was young. Later, I started going to the First Baptist church -- but, the "fear of God" implanted in me by that first church stayed with me -- and, for that reason, I did not become a Christian until I was fifty years old.
That initial church taught fear. But, I believe the Bible teaches awe, respect, reverence of the Lord. Yes, those who will continue to deny and defy the Lord should fear Him -- for they condemn themselves. But, those who are His children do not fear Him. We love Him, we hold Him in awe, we respect Him, we hold Him in reverence.
Nash, you say, "That's why I plan on attending again."
That is wonderful. There is nothing I would wish more than for you to continue and become an active part of that fellowship; for, from reading their web site, I believe you have found a good Christian, Bible-teaching church.
But, I challenge you to ask your new pastor if he believes in the 1000 year Millennial Kingdom of Jesus Christ.
Your new church says in its Doctrinal Beliefs: "He will visibly return to the earth at the time set by His Father to consummate His kingdom and execute His righteous judgment. (Revelation 19:11-16)"
This is speaking of the 1000 year Millennial Kingdom. If you read on a bit further, in Revelation 20, you will read of Satan being bound in the abyss for 1000 years, during the Millennial Kingdom of Jesus Christ. Then after the 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ on earth, Satan will be released, and he will once again attempt to do battle against the Son of God -- and will be cast into the Lake of Fire, along with all his followers, for eternity.
Nash, trust me, America WAS founded on Christian principals; American leaders believed in the Bible enough to distribute them throughout the original Thirteen Colonies; American leaders believed in the Bible so much that they had a printing shop established in Philadelphia -- with its main purpose to print Bibles. America was founded as a Christian nation; America cannot survive without Christian influence in its leadership. That is not a theocracy; that is a Christian influenced nation. And, that kind of nation God will continue to bless.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net
Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!
From Tom Paine, generally considered an intellectual father of our republic from his pamphlet [URL=http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm ]Age of Reason:[/URL]
"As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.
When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention."
--------------------------------------------
Hard to believe that one of the main instigators of the Revolution and a man greatly admired by Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison could print such "heresy" isn't it?
And yet he did.
"As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.
When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention."
--------------------------------------------
Hard to believe that one of the main instigators of the Revolution and a man greatly admired by Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison could print such "heresy" isn't it?
And yet he did.
quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
Read up on the Salem Witch Trials and tell me if that's a government blessed by God. It's proof that theocracies can't work. After just 72 years of living in a theocracy, the ruling bodies are murdering their own people in the name of God. That's also why our founding fathers gave us freedom of religion, to protect the country from falling back to that era.
Good stuff, Nash. Amen.
quote:Those in power in a theocracy can say they are doing God's work, those subjugated under them can't argue with that or it is considered blasphemy.
And, again, amen. If Bill and his ilk were in charge, I wonder who he would put in charge of the Department of Doctrine? How about Internal Tithing Service?
Would we go with a strict interpretation of the Laws of Moses and enforce the "eye for eye" system of punishment? Or perhaps something a little more liberal such as "cleansing" via evisceration? Can we start burning the Wiccans again? What about Buddhists? Do we buy them a one way ticket out of the country for not worshiping?
My gosh, the reasons we don't have a theocracy and why we don't allow things such as prayer in public school are so obvious to me. How is it possible that someone like Bill could live so long yet be so short sighted and so incredibly ignorant of our nation's history?
quote:Since you seem so hung up on the Salem Witch Trials, let's take a closer look at this situation. It seems to me that this is something you must have read in your elementary school history class and find it a nice little rock to throw at the Christian faith.
No, I studied pre-colonial and colonial America as part of my history degree. I also do not appreciate being talked down to.
The Salem Witch Trials is just one sample of torture and murder that occurred in Puritan settlements. Everything from slitting the nostrils, cropping the ears, to burning at the stake happened often and by order of the religious leaders. People were physically maimed, publicly humiliated, and killed for minor offenses such as "sassing" the leadership. Is that what you want?
Some of the original colonies such as New Jersey and Rhode Island began as havens for those fleeing the oppressive Puritan rule. That's theocracy in action. Not much different than the Taliban using soccer fields as a place to shoot women in the head for trying to educate themselves.
I'm not reading the rest of the post, way too long.
This country was not founded to be a Christian nation, it was founded to be a free nation. Our founding fathers realized that freedom was impossible to ensure under a theocracy, so they granted everyone the freedom to do as they wish while promising to stay out of religious affairs. That's how it is and that's how it should be.
Furthermore, I do not have to prove how "Christian" I am to you. My personal beliefs are none of your business. I've rejected the judgemental fundamentalist Christianity that you are fond of for a more open minded, academic faith. I don't care if you agree with it or not.
It was fundamentalism that led me to atheism. It was my desire to find the truth that led me to Christianity. No, they are not the same.
I don't mind taking advice from a clergyman; however, when it's elevated to the rule of law I believe it's gone way too far. We see what can happen with theocracies in islamic countries. I don't want the government doing all the stuff they're doing now; never mind them being concerned about religiosity.
quote:Yes, for a short time, the good people of Salem, Massachusetts did become hysterical and did foolish things. But, did that make them less Christian?
My word! That is like calling Stalin's "Jewish Doctor's Plot" and "Kulak War" "hysterical and foolish" but that it made him no less a wonderful antifascist and committed true fighter for the huddled masses of working Russians.
In fact, I have never seen anyone at any time defend the Salem witch hysteria -- many of the judges and prosecutors later recanted and publicly repented.
I guess their hunger drove them to do it. Odd that the Great Depression or the Old Confederacy under occupation did not drive the people into an orgy of specteral evidence, anonymous denoucements and such other hallmarks of the fine (soi disant) "Christian" people of Salem.
You Triburapturists are more than free to enjoy the fruits of the Enlightenment such as free speech, assembly, and practice of religion, but please do not pervert young minds with your numbing parroting of the most fanciful ramblings a disturbed human mind could ever imagine. But I guess that God's chosen economic system defends your snake oil salesmen, peddlers of DVDs, movies, CDs, MP3s and other assorted odd lots of ahistorical, illogical, heterodox offal until the proverbial cows come home.
Once again, P.T. Barnum is vindicated in his trust of the American public: one truly is born every minute.
Now I understand that it is almost time for the Monday Night Coven and I am grand poobah tonight, and my familiar is chomping at her bit to get airborne to the crossroads on my broom. No, wait, I am reading an essay by Bill Moyers, a Baptist minister, by the way, on the dangers of fundamentalism. Probably not much difference in the eyes of many here.
Hi Zippadeedoodah,
You say, "I don't mind taking advice from a clergyman; however, when it's elevated to the rule of law I believe it's gone way too far. We see what can happen with theocracies in Islamic countries."
I agree with you 100 -- no, make that 1000%. I would never want to see any religion become the law of the nation in America. However, I would like to see more Christian INFLUENCE in our leadership and in the governing of our country.
Have I ever met or do I know a pastor or other clergyman I would like to see sitting in the Oval Office? No. I know many clergy who can give great spiritual advice and guidance. But, a president must have many skills and great knowledge which is not in the realm of a pastor.
However, a president with that experience, skills, and knowledge -- and combined with good Christian influence is a Win-Win situation for America. For that same president to be guided by Secular Humanistic Liberal influence is a formula for disaster in America. Already, since 1973 America has looked the other way as abortionists have murdered over 50 MILLION innocent babies. How many more innocent babies have to be sacrificed to the Liberal god Molech before we, as a nation, learn.
You say, "I don't want the government doing all the stuff they're doing now; never mind them being concerned about religiosity."
Again, I am not talking about the Bible becoming the law of the land; however, I surely would like to see more of its influence in our state and national capitals. On issues such as same-sex marriage, abortions, social indoctrination replacing academics in our schools, starting with Kindergarten. These Liberal ideas are happening right now. These are the areas where I would like to see more Christian influence in our leadership.
Am I for a clergyman being elected to the offices of president, senator, congressman, etc.? Only if he is qualified from an experience standpoint in performing these offices. Would I want a Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, or such person in the office of president? No. Because that is not their training; nor their sphere of influence. Would I like to find a strong Christian who has all the other qualifications for the office -- sitting in the Oval Office? You bet I would.
Having Christian Biblical influence in those offices is not the same as the Ayatollah in Iran; nor is it the same as the nut case Iran has for a president. That is a militant religious dictatorship.
There is no comparison between an Iranian dictatorship -- and an American democracy lead by and influenced by Christian leaders.
This is what I am advocating; not a theocracy. But, as I mentioned to Nash, one day, after the seven year Tribulation -- the world will be governed by a theocracy -- but, a really good one. Jesus Christ will return in glory at the end of the Tribulation -- and He will institute His 1000 year Millennial Reign on earth. And, all nations and all peoples will be subject to Him. But, without Satan's influence (he will be locked in the abyss for 1000 years), this will be a good thing, not a bad situation. The earth, during that time, will be a beautiful place to live.
Zip, our biggest concern right now is not a theocracy in America. It is the threat of having a Liberal sitting in the Oval Office working to implement his/her Liberal Social Programs. I promise you that both Liberals fighting to be president today -- would be a hundred times worse that Lyndon Johnson. And, I never thought anyone could beat him in that respect.
By the way, every time I see your posting name, Zippadeedoodah -- it makes me want to start singing. Song Of The South is one of my all time favorite Disney movies. And, I love reading the book to children. But, today, I can no longer find a copy. My daughter-in-law bought one for me a couple of years ago; but, it had been edited/censored to be politically correct. This book had Uncle Remus talking like a New York banker. So much for political correctness.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net
Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!
You say, "I don't mind taking advice from a clergyman; however, when it's elevated to the rule of law I believe it's gone way too far. We see what can happen with theocracies in Islamic countries."
I agree with you 100 -- no, make that 1000%. I would never want to see any religion become the law of the nation in America. However, I would like to see more Christian INFLUENCE in our leadership and in the governing of our country.
Have I ever met or do I know a pastor or other clergyman I would like to see sitting in the Oval Office? No. I know many clergy who can give great spiritual advice and guidance. But, a president must have many skills and great knowledge which is not in the realm of a pastor.
However, a president with that experience, skills, and knowledge -- and combined with good Christian influence is a Win-Win situation for America. For that same president to be guided by Secular Humanistic Liberal influence is a formula for disaster in America. Already, since 1973 America has looked the other way as abortionists have murdered over 50 MILLION innocent babies. How many more innocent babies have to be sacrificed to the Liberal god Molech before we, as a nation, learn.
You say, "I don't want the government doing all the stuff they're doing now; never mind them being concerned about religiosity."
Again, I am not talking about the Bible becoming the law of the land; however, I surely would like to see more of its influence in our state and national capitals. On issues such as same-sex marriage, abortions, social indoctrination replacing academics in our schools, starting with Kindergarten. These Liberal ideas are happening right now. These are the areas where I would like to see more Christian influence in our leadership.
Am I for a clergyman being elected to the offices of president, senator, congressman, etc.? Only if he is qualified from an experience standpoint in performing these offices. Would I want a Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, or such person in the office of president? No. Because that is not their training; nor their sphere of influence. Would I like to find a strong Christian who has all the other qualifications for the office -- sitting in the Oval Office? You bet I would.
Having Christian Biblical influence in those offices is not the same as the Ayatollah in Iran; nor is it the same as the nut case Iran has for a president. That is a militant religious dictatorship.
There is no comparison between an Iranian dictatorship -- and an American democracy lead by and influenced by Christian leaders.
This is what I am advocating; not a theocracy. But, as I mentioned to Nash, one day, after the seven year Tribulation -- the world will be governed by a theocracy -- but, a really good one. Jesus Christ will return in glory at the end of the Tribulation -- and He will institute His 1000 year Millennial Reign on earth. And, all nations and all peoples will be subject to Him. But, without Satan's influence (he will be locked in the abyss for 1000 years), this will be a good thing, not a bad situation. The earth, during that time, will be a beautiful place to live.
Zip, our biggest concern right now is not a theocracy in America. It is the threat of having a Liberal sitting in the Oval Office working to implement his/her Liberal Social Programs. I promise you that both Liberals fighting to be president today -- would be a hundred times worse that Lyndon Johnson. And, I never thought anyone could beat him in that respect.
By the way, every time I see your posting name, Zippadeedoodah -- it makes me want to start singing. Song Of The South is one of my all time favorite Disney movies. And, I love reading the book to children. But, today, I can no longer find a copy. My daughter-in-law bought one for me a couple of years ago; but, it had been edited/censored to be politically correct. This book had Uncle Remus talking like a New York banker. So much for political correctness.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net
Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!
Why lock up Satan for a mere thousand years? Why establish an earthly kingdom for only a thousand years? Could not a deity capable of rasising the dead have already done both? Could it be that "thousand years" is poetic and prophetic language, much like Sandburg's fog "creeping in on little cat's feet"? Does the fog actually creep in on a quadriped's lower ambulatory limbs?
"Liberal" equals anti-Christian, alongside Tribulapture are equally tired and no more than empty hucksters' slogans for lust for political and personal financial gain.
A parrot makes a much better pet than a fundamentalist: one can train it say anything you please like the pink haired woamn with the Viennese cat house TV set and the fat pink pork-faced preacher with the charts, yet they are longer-lived and take up less space and food.
"Liberal" equals anti-Christian, alongside Tribulapture are equally tired and no more than empty hucksters' slogans for lust for political and personal financial gain.
A parrot makes a much better pet than a fundamentalist: one can train it say anything you please like the pink haired woamn with the Viennese cat house TV set and the fat pink pork-faced preacher with the charts, yet they are longer-lived and take up less space and food.