I want Proof!

this is one of the most blatantly slanted takes on american history I've read in a long time.

"Conclusion
The evidence presented provides undeniable proof that Christians established the original colonies of America for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith."

Why? Because the the charters drawn up by the colonizers included "for the glory of god and Jesus christ" as a tag line?

The contracts of the slave traders ended on the same note. does anyone think that "spreading the Kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth" was their primary motivation?

"The Christian character of these colonies is seen in their churches, political covenants, civil laws, and perspective on religious liberty."

Where? Every law, statute, or for that matter, any reference to to anything biblical comes straight out of the old testament.

The only thing the law makers borrowed from the New testament is the name Jesus. that's it.

So how is any of this "Christian"?

"The true foundations of America were laid in the colonial period, and these foundations were Christian."

Only if you consider the religious right the "true" america and fundamentalists the only "true" americans.

Truth; Yes, Mass. was colonized by puritans who had left Europe to escape persecution, just as Rhode Island and Maryland were founded by people who had left Mass. to escape persecution by the Puritans, just as Pennsylvania was founded by the Quakers who didn't want to deal with any of the above.

Funny how modern apologists lump all these sects under the heading "Christian" when they obviously didn't see each other that way.

"It can hardly be said that the events of 1776-1787 constitute the original foundation when the colonies preceded these events by as much as 170 years, unless one means that a new kind of America was founded then."

Yes, it's called "The United States" and it wasn't founded on the ideology of the previously religiously devided states. Those foundations were ripped up and the debri carted away so something better could be built.

"This we believe is the case.
The Constitutional settlement of 1787 marked a significant departure from the explicitly Christian foundations of the colonial period. This is evident when one compares the U.S. Constitution to the political constitutions of the colonial era. The absence of any reference to God, Christ, or the Bible in the U.S. Constitution, the forbidding of any religious test for office, and the absence of any Christian elements in the oath of office required under the Constitution contrasts markedly with the Christian constitutions of the colonies."

This was intentional. While the writers of the Declaration of independance and the Constitution often awknowledge God, they took great pains to keep christian overtones out of the wording.

"It is true that the U.S. Constitution carries over many of the biblically based elements of the colonial constitutions;

The U.S. Constitution is a compromise document that incorporates biblically based elements of civil law inherited from the Christian constitutions and consensus of the colonial period into an Enlightenment, Christian natural law perspective on civil government."

Why? Because it echos some of the basic rights and ideals expressed in some of the earlier state constitutions? The same rights and ideals expressed in practically every other religion as well as all of secular philosophy?

You might as well say the Constitution was inspired by Shakespeare because some of the wording resembles Elisabethian english.

...the Constitution cuts itself off from the overt Christian commitments of those colonial constitutions that acknowledged the authority of God and His law as the only legitimate foundation for civil government."

Yeah well they kind of had to considerring how the puritans felt about democracy;

"Democracy, I do not concieve that ever God did ordain it as a fit goverment either for church or commonwealth.
As for monarchy, and aristocracy, they are both of them clearly approved, and directed in Scripture..."

--John Cotton, Puritan minister and American colonizer.

"The result is a Constitution devoid of any expressed allegiance to the King of kings, with no greater authority recognized than "We the People," and no higher purpose stated than that of securing "the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." The U.S. Constitution became the model for the individual state constitutions which have been revised over the years, in one degree or another, to conform to it. Thus, these United States of America have turned from the high purpose of the founders of the original colonies to establish a Christian nation. Do we think that God has not noticed? Do we believe that the Christian commitments made by our forefathers for themselves and their posterity mean nothing? We, the posterity of the courageous, committed Christian founders of America have become covenant breakers. We have broken the colonial covenant made with God and Christ to raise up in America a Christian nation that would be a light to the world in both church and state."

Which covenant with God and Christ would that be? the one made by the Quakers? the Puritans? the Angelicans? the Catholics?

Which one?

"We are now suffering the just curse of God upon covenant breakers, upon those who have repudiated the Lordship of Christ (Ps. 2:12). The solution is not an easy one, nor one that can be carried out in short order. We must "repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations" (Isa. 60:4), and return America to the colonial covenants of our forefathers. "Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls" (Jer. 7:16; cf. 18: 15)."

Yes, lets ignore 200 + years of unprecedented peace, freedom, security and prosperity and just look at the fact that gas is almost $3 a gallon.

Obviously those heathen founding fathers fucked up.

 

So based on the fact that your opinion differs from the facts that the site presents, you can only come up with that bullshit? Get it together!

 

First off, if you'll notice, I wasn't attacking the facts presented in the site I was demonstrating how and why the author's interpretation of what those facts added up to was flawed and slanted, hence the word Conclusion in my opening quote.

Secondly I wasn't offerring my "opinion" I was merely providing some facts that the author had convienantly ommited (here's a clue; if you want to come to a reasonable assesment of the facts in any instance, look at all of the facts, not just the ones that support your predrawn conclusions).

Third, how is what I wrote "bullshit"? How about giving me a point by point demonstration of the flaws in at least one or two of the points I made (you know, like I did with that bullshit site you provided) instead of just subjecting us to yet another of your famous hissy fits.

Dude, when you learn how to read and give all the facts a fair hearing (not just the ones that support your case) you can come and tell me to get it together.

 

Ha. I busted MrRee on that many times. I caught him misquoting websites, quoting poorly written websites, and the best thing, quoting websites that disagreed with what he claimed the quote meant (taking quotes out of context).

It's like he gets all excited when he sees one sentence on the website that looks like it supports his statement, then he doesn't read the rest of it.

Anyway, he will just keep on posting nonsense and misquoting websites. Then he will get really angry with you for pointing it out. Some people can't handle honest criticism...

 

well i know i cant.. hahha i dont really care either, but to each his own i suppose

 

Ha ha ~ no prizes for second.
You apologists are hilarious! really, you are! You can't even see that the things that you point out as argument faults are the very same technique faults that you use. Then you try to obfsucate your hypocrisy by thowing in biblical trash that is irrelevant to anything but the spin in your mind.
There's another idiot hereabouts who rates highly on the all-time "blocked poster" lists whose "argument" faults are invariably identical to those he accuses. There's no fame in failure, but you'll learn that soon enough I'm sure.
Every one of you apologists here are the same in your hypoctritcal bigotry, no variation. There's an old proverb about "pot's and kettle's" you might like to learn.
So ~
Why don't you provide a point by point critique of the site in question rather than post just so much unsubstantiated self-opinionation and irrelevant bible clap-trap?
THAT'S the point I made in my post. But obviously you're in over your head and can't see the obvious. Typical of apologetcs.

 

Holy shit! you don't even realise the site you posted is an apologist site do you?

Hello! the site you posted is a christain apologist site.

I was arguing against it!

Go back and read my post; the text in blue is from the site you provided.
My own words are in black.

Show me anything I've said anywhere in this thread that that could be even remotely interpreted to be pro christain right.

And for what, the 5th time now?...I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN!


Man, what the hell is the matter with you?

 

That's right you goose ~ the site is apologist. So now go read the post that opens the thread.
Then read your own posts, complete with biblical recitations, preferrably with the blinkers off!

 

Now you're just trying to cover your ass.

How about you show me where I did that instead of just running your big mouth?

the only post I made in here with any biblical reference is;

and I only posted that to show how bent these freaks were.

Here's a clue for you elwood, if you want to save face try taking your foot out of your mouth first.

 

Likewise

 

I'm still not seeing it.

 

Once again, The 'type' of Christians who you would have found establishing the USA and writing your Documents etc should not be refered to as:
Fundamentalists.

Once again, stupid misuse of this hot internet catch-all derogatory (intended) word 'fundamentalist' being applied to practically ANY Christian at all, any time, any place with no context spared.

Can I tell you why this is a problem - just in case you think its 'funny' or that its a great way to 'piss off Christians'?
Because it (im serious here) causes a problem for YOU and quite honestly even someone like Libertine or a critic should NOT WANT to keep fucking up with this.
Why?
Because you can end up confusing YOURSELF as much as confusing the audience and you might even screw up your own ability to properly CRITIQUE Christianity.

There are not always 'Definitive Categories' and words have different conotations depending on what region and time.
(Example: 18th Century Fundamentalists' are not the same as 1980s 'fundamentalists' even in the same USA Regions)
However
Your T.Jeffersons, Hancocks, and co are definately not 'Fundamentalists' ok for fucks sake?

Then you people wonder why you 'cant understand Christians' after just stupidly misapplying terms wherever you think it 'sounds good' or because you notice you 'get a rise' when you say it.

SERiously.

 

Anybody who doesn't believe christianity started as a hoax perputrated by evil lizardmen from mars must spend all their off time wearing a white sheet and bombing abortion clinics right?


Because we all know those are the only two kinds of people there are in the world.

 

Indeed. We can agree here... Many of the American Colonists came to the New World to *escape* Fundamentalism/Puritanism. As a matter of fact, many of the founders were Quakers, dedicated to the pursuit of spiritual knowledge, no matter where the seekers found their link to the Truth of Life.

After all, all human beings share one trait - We are all of free spirits; of free will. G-d formulates constraints set upon us; We are the ones who decide whether or not to live by those constraints.

*applauds* Glad someone has an objective opinion on this.

*grins with a wide ol' grin that stretches from ear to ear*

*HLS is nodding*

ROFLROFLROFL! No, I agree. The Ancient Fundies and the Modern Fundies aren't the same, and Jefferson, Hancock, and Franklin are definitely not fundies either. After all, Franklin said that "beer is evidence that G-d loves us, and has a sense of humor." This is not a Puritan attitude.

The only reason I'm jumping in here is because I agree, even though the person I'm quoting is *not* a Christian. I'd like to think of myself as a Christian, even though I'm neither a fundamentalist nor a literalist.

However, I apply the principles that Christ set forth for our daily lives. He let us know that the principle of the Law is much more important than the Letter of the Law, meaning that the actions delegated by doctrine are of significantly less importance than the principles backing those actions.

So, in essence, I'm claiming that, in order to defeat Christianity entirely, you must disprove and destroy the principles it was based on. Fundies will always melt under pressure - However, Christians with a strong taste for logical resolutions, and/or predicting logical outcomes of human struggles in altercation must also be at a loss for you to claim the victory.

How can we make a judgement call based on incomplete information? In light of that, how can we make a judgment call if we cannot attain any complete information on this situation, whatsoever?

In other words, does it make sense to place limitations upon people because they are not physically, mentally, or spiritually willing/capable of becoming a leader, even if the opposition is our own team?

 

That's exactly the point I was trying to make (for fucks sake). In fact I don't even think it's fair (to them) to call them christians. I thought the quotes I provided explained that.

Again;

...this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.

---John Adams, second president of the United States.



Question with boldness even the existence of God, because, if there is one, he must more approve of the hommage of reason than that of blind faith.

Paul was the great Coryphaeus, the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.

and the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter.

---Thomas Jefferson




I believe in god and no more.

I do not believe the creed proffesed by the jewuish church, by the roman church, by the turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church.

As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of atheisim; a sort of religious denial of God.

the adulterous connection of church and state...

---Thomas Paine.


Does any of this sound like an attempt to prove they were christians (Let alone "fundamentalists")?

 

Im not talking to you in particular.
Im ranting at those who need to know and know who they are.

My understanding is there was quite a variety in your original founding fathers, including some Masons, a Puritan or two and all-around Secular types.

Are you just refering to the Non-Christians?
They signed on to a Christian Notion at least.
What can ya do.

 

I agree to a certain extent. No modern day Christian can even come close to representing what Christ originally came here for, and in light of this, since they are not like Christ, they are not Christian.

But what of Spirituality...? Religion pertains to outward appearances; spirituality is an inward change of heart. Changing our "outward appearence" does as much good as changing our clothes. We enter an endeavor with a clean heart and mind, and slowly, due to my own weakness, I am changed... My mind is sharper, faster.... But my body lags in submission to it.

Agreed. Blind faith is what incites certain peoples to begin wars and what-not with other nations. The Blind Notion of "Hey, We Are G-d's People, and what our documents on Blind Faith say are superior to what other peoples/cultures have to say on the subject." Pretty gosh darn ignorant, if you ask me.

Well, of course - Jesus never laid out any doctrines! He knew that the Law was hung off of two commandments alone: 1) Love G-d more than anything else. 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. By helping society in this way, we lead more people down the path that eventually secures peace!

I loooove this quote, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. This is proof that ol' T.J. was not only a lover of "exotic women," but also a lover of Justice. Just not for Jesus or T.J., himself....

From ReligiousTolerance.com: Various polls have found that about 80% of American adults believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. This exceeds the total number of American adults who identify themselves as Christian or Muslim. In fact, 47% of non-Christian adults also believe in the virgin birth. Hans Küng, "On being a Christian," (Reprinted 1984). Page 456.

This has been a bone of contention, along with the inerrancy of the Bible; the inspiration of the Bible; the atonement, resurrection, and anticipated second coming of Jesus. All of the commonly used ancient church creeds have also mentioned it.

By contrast, this very world is my church, made up of the members of the Body of Christ... Both the familiar and unfamiliar teams will be assembled. It matters relatively little what I or the others think about G-d's choices. I can both read about them in the Bible or learn about them through the Talmud, which was the oral history of the Jews.

Paine does have a point. Are we not all endowed with the Gift of G-d's Revelations? If so, then how can we force another person who is not yet won to adhere to the rules of an ideology they don't yet recognize as the Truth...?

Christians, they may be perhaps... But Fundies... No Way!

Fundies believe in religion as a way of life, even though it's only an outward expression of our spiritual growth. Tell me, though. Should I put on a costume to fit in with the rest of the crowd? Of do I go "plain-clothes" and "plain-faced" to show how little G-d cares about outward appearances?

 

If Christians were actually being 'Fundamentalist' in the true meaning of the word then that would be the very best thing.
What we NOW KNOW as 'Fundamentalist' is a name a certain group of intellectually impaired and mislead fraction of Christians GAVE THEMSELVES.

Ok Scratch that.. Now, according to the Internet (and people who dont have a fuckn clue the other meaning) it now just means ALL CHRISTIANS.
Except:
Ones that conceed the Bible is 'more or less' inaccurate.
Idiots.

 

.................

 

Would you prefer that I remain so blindly devoted to words written on a page that I miss the principle and point entirely...? I thought that was half of the problem to begin with! I could be wrong though.