America Founded as a Christian Nation

[Porter Rockwell]

Bezukhov wants to revisit questions he's already asked. I found some correlation to my original posts at the beginning of this thread and I showed Bezukhov that many various denominations are still in line with the founders concept of America. Bezukhov refuses to access links and ignore the answers to his questions. This is how I replied to him back in post # 68 (IIRC):

You should try reading the thread. Here are some of our stopping points:

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

That is the most important link on this thread and it was in the first two posts. You didn't even read that far??? Here are some more:

The Old Jerusalem is Not the New JerUSAlem

http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf

Founders Online: To George Washington from the Members of the New Jerusalem Chu …

https://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44517596.pdf

Apocalypticism Explained | Apocalypse! FRONTLINE | PBS

Our Father's Kingdom of America: America the New Jerusalem

New Jerusalem

Full text of "Sheldon Emry-The Marks Of Israel"

The premise of this thread is to show that America was founded as a Christian nation. The above links show that premise to be accurate and that the belief that not only were we founded on Christian principles, but America was the New Jerusalem.

Now, can we return to the OP? You really aren't even going to click on the links anyway.

(Bezukhov didn't... just as I said he wouldn't. He just sees an opportunity for leftists to jump on his bandwagon. His philosophy, unless I missed the cue, is that the enemy of his enemy is his friend. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

None of those links answered this question: "Where did Jesus instruct His followers to set up earthly political nations, where they can lord over and dominate everyone else?"
If it was so damn important that Christians seize and wield worldly political power why didn't Jesus set them up when He was walking on earth?

Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales; he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust.
(Isaiah 40:15)

14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
(Revelation 16: 14-16)
( Notice it didn't say "Except for Amurica"~~Bez)

I can explain it to you; I cannot understand it for you. The answer was very simple: Our nation was not set up to dominate other nations. We were to be a shining city on a hill.

You haven't read the links, so we're wasting each other's time. You are asking a straw man question and after three times of responding to you, in depth, it's cluster xxx waste of time to reason with someone too lazy to read.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

NOTFOOLEDBYW'S FINAL RESPONSE

This thread is now 805 posts long as I begin this response. Of those, NOTFOOLEDBYW has made a total of 155 posts. They are posts # 78, 80, 111, 113, 118, 126, 140, 154, 157, 158, 159, 162, 172, 174, 179, 189, 192, 195, 196, 197, 203, 204, 205, 212, 220, 224, 225, 232, 233, 234, 235, 240, 240, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247, 254, 255, 256, 267, 279, 280, 285, 290, 296, 297, 302, 307, 309, 318, 321, 328, 330, 335, 339, 340, 341, 345, 347, 350, 350, 351, 352, 367, 370, 373, 381, 393, 394, 399, 401, 404, 411, 412, 413, 420, 421, 425, 426, 429, 430, 431, 432, 468, 485, 500, 504, 508, 512, 516, 519, 525, 527, 537, 539, 541, 546, 549, 551, 554, 557, 559, 561, 563, 565, 566, 569, 570, 574, 577, 581, 582, 587, 589, 606, 607, 610, 626, 630, 636, 642, 644, 646, 684, 688, 699, 700, 703, 704, 707, 708, 709, 715, 716, 718, 724, 725, 730, 740, 744, 746, 747, 750, 753, 754, 755, 761, 762, 769, 774, 782, 7998, 800, ... that is 155 posts out of 805

In virtually every post NOTFOOLEDBYW has insulted posters, called them liars, misrepresented people, and NOBODY has defended his positions.


By contrast, NOTFOOLEDBYW has been challenged by numerous posters to whom NOTFOOLEDBYW has called liars, fools, morons, and accused them of all manner of wrongdoing. Those posters responded a total of 126 times in posts: #120, 130, 134, 167, 169,174, 176, 175, 176, 180, 185, 206, 207, 250, 282, 299, 346, 346, 354, 396, 397, 403, 405, 406, 407, 414, 415, 416, 424, 427, 428, 433, 434, 438, 439, 440, 445, 446, 447, 448, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 460, 461, 464, 465, 466, 467, 469, 470, 472, 474, 476, 483, 484, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 496, 497, 498, 499, 501, 502, 517, 518, 521, 526, 528, 531, 558, 562, 564, 567, 568, 571, 573, 576, 578, 579, 588, 591, 593, 594, 595, 596, 598, 599, 600, 603, 608, 612, 613, 615, 618, 627, 628, 629, 633, 645, 648, 653, 658, 665, 668, 698, 701, 705, 706, 711, 722, 723, 726, 751, 764, 765, 779

I have been obliged to respond to NOTFOOLEDBYW a total of 85 times personally. That is a total of 366 posts that have revolved around this one poster.

One poster or another has successfully defeated each and every argument he brings to the table. He is now remaining, claiming I lied about Thomas Jefferson - as if that would change the balance of this discussion. Here is my position:

1) When other posters began discussing this as a conversation rather than a point by point, let's prove everything, I got conversational. I quoted Thomas Jefferson from an unnamed source in an online general conversation.

2) NOTFOOLEDBYW seized upon that accusing me of posting a lie; even claiming that I edited my source. I did not. I did, however, look at where my source got their material and I quoted where it could be found. I did not lie

3) Regardless of how that material reads, the bottom line is Thomas Jefferson said he was a Christian and I took him at his word as his early life indicates such. Jefferson states, and it was quoted on this thread, that his life experiences changed his outlook. Nothing has changed what Jefferson said at that point in his life

4) Regardless of how many times founders did or said one thing or another, I look at the bottom line and if over half the posts here are either one man arguing against those points compared to the scores of posts disagreeing with him, there is no point to prove. If this matters to you and you want to wade through who said what, you have each post - minus my own (which is unnecessary since all those people who agreed with me either quoted the relevant parts and / or the post itself. My point here is I did not lie and every time that troll posts, I will simply cut and paste this response (that took some hours to research just for him.)

If he still wants to call me a liar, he can do it to my face. Otherwise, he has been successfully defeated by other posters to the point that nothing I have to say would be relevant anyway. IF there are any other points to be addressed, I will be happy to entertain them, just not by the resident troll. The dumb ass needs to read. This post refutes his account of what happened.. I know because I'm the one who did it. I copied and pasted the fucking quote as it appeared and no amount of political jockeying will change that. It's over dumbass.

 

[Bezukhov]

Bezukhov wants to revisit questions he's already asked. I found some correlation to my original posts at the beginning of this thread and I showed Bezukhov that many various denominations are still in line with the founders concept of America. Bezukhov refuses to access links and ignore the answers to his questions. This is how I replied to him back in post # 68 (IIRC):

You should try reading the thread. Here are some of our stopping points:

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

That is the most important link on this thread and it was in the first two posts. You didn't even read that far??? Here are some more:

The Old Jerusalem is Not the New JerUSAlem

http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf

Founders Online: To George Washington from the Members of the New Jerusalem Chu …

https://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44517596.pdf

Apocalypticism Explained | Apocalypse! FRONTLINE | PBS

Our Father's Kingdom of America: America the New Jerusalem

New Jerusalem

Full text of "Sheldon Emry-The Marks Of Israel"

The premise of this thread is to show that America was founded as a Christian nation. The above links show that premise to be accurate and that the belief that not only were we founded on Christian principles, but America was the New Jerusalem.

Now, can we return to the OP? You really aren't even going to click on the links anyway.

(Bezukhov didn't... just as I said he wouldn't. He just sees an opportunity for leftists to jump on his bandwagon. His philosophy, unless I missed the cue, is that the enemy of his enemy is his friend. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

None of those links answered this question: "Where did Jesus instruct His followers to set up earthly political nations, where they can lord over and dominate everyone else?"
If it was so damn important that Christians seize and wield worldly political power why didn't Jesus set them up when He was walking on earth?

Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales; he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust.
(Isaiah 40:15)

14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
(Revelation 16: 14-16)
( Notice it didn't say "Except for Amurica"~~Bez)

I can explain it to you; I cannot understand it for you. The answer was very simple: Our nation was not set up to dominate other nations. We were to be a shining city on a hill.

You haven't read the links, so we're wasting each other's time. You are asking a straw man question and after three times of responding to you, in depth, it's cluster xxx waste of time to reason with someone too lazy to read.

I read those links. I also read the Bible from cover to cover, so I can say with a great deal of confidence those links were a load of manure.

Go ask The Philippines about US domination. Go ahead, I'll wait.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I'd like to point something out before dismissing Bezukhov as a serious poster.

In post #530 Bezukhov asked:

'What I really want to know is what do you want from us non Christians? Are we to have a daily ritual where we bow down and kiss your Christian ass?"

I responded in post # 533

In post # 734, Bezukhov asked:

"Porter, is it true that Jesus only loves white people?"

I responded in post # 739

In post # 771, Bezukhov asks:

"Porter, do you think Jesus wants Christians to be segregated on the basis of race? Are interracial marriages a sin?"

I responded in post # 775, asking some questions of my own. Bezukhov refused to answer at all.

A pattern emerges. Those posts don't have anything to do with the OP; all are calculated to exact an emotional response; never does this individual have the common courtesy of responding. His questions are insulting, off topic, and divisive by any metric. Now, he's admitting that he does not understand the responses.

If Bezukhov trolls me once more, I will not indulge him with any more answers. I don't owe him anything and he will be respectful of this thread OR he will be the second poster whose posts I will not bother reading, but simply post this as a reply so that posters just joining can see why I'm not interested in one way conversations that are way the Hell off topic; that amount to nothing more than trolling; posts that are silly, irrelevant, and designed to start side arguments. Due to that one guy with 366 whiny ass posts that were defeated by numerous posters where he laced his troll posts with straw man arguments, insults, name calling, and outrageous lies. I won't be lured in by this poster. So, if his next post is like the others, this is the response you will see from here, on out. I don't even waste a moment reading the posts of trolls once they have been told.

Since I was typing when he made his last post, I'll ignore it for the moment. Let me remind everyone that America was founded as a Christian nation. What happened in the Philippines or anywhere else AFTER the founding period should be examined and rectified when determined to be inconsistent with our founding principles.

 

[BreezeWood]

Let me remind everyone that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances -

only in your dreams ... not to mention christianity is a political agenda disguised as a religion.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Let me remind everyone that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances -

only in your dreams ... not to mention christianity is a political agenda disguised as a religion.

It would be nice if some of you illiterate political propaganda prostitutes would do me the courtesy of READING at least the first two posts and the links. Otherwise, this is democrat nonsense disguised as a reply. Let's help the newest troll out.

Post # 17

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BIBLE

In post # 2, I cited the state constitutions requiring one to be a Christian in order to hold elective office and in the ending paragraph, we discussed Article VI Paragraph III of the U.S. Constitution which requires all U.S. Senators and Representatives to be bound by an Oath or Affirmation. This is an oath, NOT a test (which would be prohibited.)

It seems pretty clear that the framers had no objection to the states requiring their politicians to be Christians. The other question is, can we find implications that the Constitution has biblical connections therein?

If you look at the early state constitutions Maryland had a tax "for the support of the Christian religion." Funny thing, THAT was not attacked by the framers in the Constitution, so there is lot to be said about what is NOT in the Constitution. NOTHING in the Constitution hampers the states from requiring their politicians to be Christians NOR taxing the people to educate the people regarding the Christian religion.

In a letter to Rev. Jasper Adams in 1833 regarding the "relations" Christianity has with the social, civil, and political "institutions" of America, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote:

"No person, I believe questions in importance of religion to the happiness of man even during the existence of this world... The American population is entirely Christian & with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed if, with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity & did not refer to it exhibit relations with it"

I mention that because it is one man's opinion (just as Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was a private letter, neither of which are mandatory or even persuasive authority in a court of law.) BTW, Jefferson's separation of church and state means 180 degrees opposite of what the left claims.

Somewhere in the middle is the answer and I will continue to point these things out. There will be more posts on the biblical references in the Constitution.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

A continuation of posts # 1 , 2, 7, 17, and 35 (plus others)

If we start with some of America's founding documents, we begin to get a picture of what we mean when we say America was founded as Christian nation. In the Declaration of Independence, we find these words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If America could be summed up in one word, it would be Liberty. It was the battle cry that, after much debate, stirred the colonists up to the point that 56 men were willing to sign onto the Declaration of Independence, pledging to each other their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor. Imagine trying to get 56 men today to sign a document like that in support of Liberty today!

The most important things to consider about the Declaration of Independence:

1) The Declaration of Independence starts out with a presupposition that we have a Creator. This is just an observation, but those are the words of Thomas Jefferson penned. That simply does not sound too secular to me

2) This Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) bestowed upon you, at birth, unalienable Rights (of which the secularists helped to abolish recently.) Those Rights were God given, inherent, natural, absolute, irrevocable, unalienable and above the law (see
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859) ) as one example

3) Among those Rights was Liberty. Liberty was a concept that Jefferson understood from a Christian perspective. Jefferson stated:

"...nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." Letter to John Cartwright 5 June 1824)

Secularism cannot accept that premise, so to pretend Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian is laughable. Liberty is an unalienable Right. If that Right is given by a Creator, then you have to believe in a God in order to make such an assertion. And THAT should have as much authority as an out of context statement Jefferson made to the Danbury Baptists - that means 180 degrees of what unbelievers think - IF you read that letter in its full context.

II Corinthians 3 : 17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Year of the Bible - The Proclamation


111th Congress, 1st Session, H. Con. Res. 121
Encouraging the President of the United States to designate 2010 as
“The National Year of the Bible”
In the House of Representatives --- May 7, 2009

Mr. BROUN (for himself, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. FORBES, Mr. PENCE, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. FRANKS, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. WAMP, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. AKIN, Mr. CARTER, Mr. MARCHANT, and Mr. MCGOVERN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Whereas the Bible has had a profound impact in shaping America into a great nation;

Whereas deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testament of the Bible have inspired Americans from all walks of life, especially the early settlers, whose faith, spiritual courage, and moral strength enabled them to endure intense hardships in this new land;

Whereas many of our Presidents have recognized the importance of God and the Bible, including George Washington; Franklin D. Roosevelt; Harry Truman; John F. Kennedy; Ronald Reagan, who declared 1983 as “The National Year of the Bible”; and especially Abraham Lincoln, whose 200th Birthday Celebration in 2009 highlighted freedom for the slaves;

Whereas shared Biblical beliefs unified the colonists and gave our early leaders the wisdom to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, both of which recognized the inherent worth, dignity, and inalienable rights of each individual, thus unifying a diverse people with the right to vote, and the freedoms of speech and vast religious freedoms, which inspired courageous men like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to lead the Civil Rights Movement;

Whereas the Bible has been the world’s best selling book since it was first published in English in 1526, and has influenced more people than any other book;

Whereas the Bible has been a cornerstone in the development of Western civilization, influencing the nations in the areas of history, law, politics, culture, music, literature, art, drama, and especially moral philosophy;

Whereas the Bible, used as a moral guide, has inspired compassion, love for our neighbor, and the preciousness of life and marriage, and has stimulated many benevolent, faith-based community initiatives and neighborhood partnerships that have healed and blessed our families, communities, and our entire Nation, especially in times of war, tragedy, and economic and social crisis;

Whereas the Bible has inspired acts of patriotism that have unified Americans, commemorated through shared celebrations such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas; and

Whereas 2010 is an appropriate year to designate as “The National Year of the Bible”: Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the President is encouraged—
(1) to designate an appropriate year as “The National Year of the Bible”; and
(2) to issue a proclamation calling upon citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture which has profoundly influenced and shaped the United States and its great democratic form of government, as well as its rich spiritual heritage, and which has unified, healed and strengthened its people for over 200 years.

While I do not agree with all of the above, it is on the right track. You should not have holidays honoring communists or pagan holidays in a Christian nation. But, to each his own.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

AMERICA IS STILL A CHRISTIAN NATION

This is a continuation of posts 1 , 2, 7, 17, 35, 39, and 56

After suffering ignorant people (of whom I have little patience with - ESPECIALLY when they make assumptions and never ask questions) I got a little off track.

The founders / framers of the Constitution were mortal men. They were sinners - even those who were dedicated Christians. Throughout their lives they would have varying views on the Bible. You have probably gone through some of it yourselves. We don't believe; someone convinces you differently so you believe; a radical change in our lives (like a bad experience with a religious group or a dramatically change in life like a death or major health issue) and people change their views again.

People like Jefferson, Washington, etc., etc. were also politicians. So, it becomes hard to deduce what they were really about at varying stages of their lives. That is why I used the law - statutes, Compacts, Charters, and references within our system to show where we developed our cultural values from.

America uses the common law to interpret our laws. That system is based on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence.

Common law - The feudal land law

There is the general influence of the Bible through the medium of the Christian religion upon the law. It has been often said, indeed, that Christianity is part of the common law of England, and this is due in great measure to the authority of Sir Matthew Hale (King v. Taylor, i Vent. 293, 3 Keble 507), Blackstone and other writers, while Lord Mansfield held (Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767) that the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law.

The next time you want to know how the courts arrive at a decision, it is via the common law. So, in short, our system of interpreting the law is predicated upon the way the Bible is interpreted - Commandments, like statutes are given and the courts apply fact situations to the law in the same way the Bible explains the application of law.

More later if the people trolling can come back with a civil conversation.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

In NO DOCUMENT of our founding will you find any words to the effect that we were founded as a secular nation.

The First Amendment only applied to the federal Congress. The states, exercised their civil duties and responsibilities as Christians. Besides, all of that is wholly irrelevant.

We are talking about the founding of America. Funny there is no mention of anything that would lead an objective reader to believe that anything other than Christians approved of the founding documents. No secularist, atheist, non-believer would sign such documents.

 

[deanrd]

The "Chosen One", Donald Trump, proves that Republican Christians no longer follow traditional Christianity. Can you believe white evangelicals are following someone who calls himself "the chosen one"?

Christianity Today's split with Trump highlights deeper issue in white evangelical America

There has been a big drop-off in white evangelical church participation among adults under 40, and publications such as Christianity Today and religious leaders are struggling to engage “Gen Z,” or those born after 1996.

“One of the major factors is that the church is too tied up in right-wing politics,” said Greg Carey, a professor at Lancaster Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania. Evangelical activism against gay rights is particularly repellent to many members of a generation where “everyone has friends who are LGBTQ,” Carey said.

Trump’s presidency may make the age gap worse, some evangelical Christians believe. “Having to go out and defend this guy day after day, as many of these Trump evangelicals are doing, they’re just destroying their credibility,” said Napp Nazworth, who until Monday was politics editor of another publication, the Christian Post.

Younger evangelicals are put off by church leaders’ seemingly unconditional support for Trump despite his “cruel” treatment of migrants and deregulation that could damage the environment, said Marlena Graves, a Christian author on faith, culture and justice, who signed the petition.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Posts #872. FOR THE RECORD: The problem with Porter Rockwell’s style is that he posts pages upon pages of unneeded facts. They are needless because much of the time the facts themselves are not in dispute.

A great example being all the facts that show that all state public schools immediately following the founding had Protestant Christian / Biblical oriented textbooks. That is not in dispute.

For the record, in Post #204 I very civility posted this question; #204

How does that even come close to making a case that America was founded as a Christian nation.

And civilly made a following point:

#204

We are fortunate that Jefferson and many of the founding fathers either were not Christians themselves or put their personal Christian religion aside while tending to the business founding a nation that successfully kept the dominant Christian religion PERMANENTLY SEPARATED FROM THE NEW EMERGING NATION STATE.

As you can see I have reached a much more realistic and suitable conclusion that fits in with our continued state of living in a free and pluralistic society.

That is part of why I certainly believe Christian Nationalists are wrong to desire that we all believe that America was founded as a Christian.

America was founded while it was a Protestant’ paternalistic, white Christian male dominated society and has grown into something very much better.

 

[Correll]

I’m Reading a Sam Adams biography by Ira stoll.. Christianity was huge in his life and played a huge role in his determination for independence

Which is no surprise to ANYONE.

 

[Penelope]

Can anyone find a direct quote by Thomas Jefferson that reads this way in these exact words. If you do I will no longer post to this thread.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."

"Christianity" has gone down many paths over the centuries. Most have been complete bullshit by select interpretations of a quote or three of scripture

he is one of the demons. LOL Sweetheart, love your eyes, etc, he is in it for the money.

He is a very real devil. I can't listen to him any longer. He is so full of BS.

You are very funny. You couldn't make a rational argument and left, but came back at the urging of another poster to try and troll me at a personal level. That approach where you gang up on someone after the work has been done is unethical, at best. Then, to attack me and claim it's all about the money???? LMAO.

I went back to school and graduated a little over a year ago (and I was well over 60 when I graduated.) The first Bible College I went to and every church I've belonged to did not beg for money nor pass a collection plate. In the church exists a deposit box and if anyone is moved by the Holy Spirit, they could leave tithes there or send the money in. I don't pass collection plates nor ask for money.

I do visit the sick, help the disenfranchised get jobs, and help people in general with free counseling sessions, giving eulogies, performing weddings, etc. Never asked for a nickel.

At the beginning of last year I took a 96 year old woman into my home and had to care for her around the clock. Her own family wouldn't. My wife went to this woman's house to give her a bath and cockroaches fled from her rectum and bathrobe. And so, my wife brought her here, bathed her and I would help get her to the bathroom and to bed... and I made her breakfast and lunch while my wife made dinner in the evening. Unfortunately, she fell, broke her hip and passed away in the hospital. But, I never asked for nor was I offered anything by any member of her family (or anyone else for that matter) - and one of the sons goes on cruises while the other was having a pool put in his backyard during all of this.

After she passed, I did take one of her grandson's in as he was homeless. He didn't want to work and attacked me in my home. At the end of the fight, he had his wrist broken in two places and a fractured arm. So, he's gone. And, as fate would have it, my wife let some autistic kid sleep here last night after he had some kind of blow up with a family member. Now, I have to get involved in his life.

Having said all of that, if there is a way to turn my service into a money making proposition, by all means do share. When you help the needy, NOBODY has any money. I'd be most appreciative if you can explain how my efforts can translate into money. If not, your criticisms aren't worth much.

See my avatar, that is the pic of the Father (Emperor Vespasian) , the son (Emperor Titus) and the Holy Ghost (Emperor Domitian), the father and 2 sons.

Do you believe in the virgin birth?? Still??

Penelope,

Throughout this thread, my critics keep yapping about a "separation of church and state." Contradictory to their efforts to disprove the basis of my thread, they (including you) want to delve into denominational divisiveness. Don't you see your post as a bit hypocritical?

Week in and week out Christians and non-Christians alike are trying to make the decision for other individuals as to who does and who does not qualify as a Christian. They apply their own standards, set their own bars, and then if you don't agree with them, you're not a Christian.

If you believe in the Rapture you're a heathen; if you don't, you're a heathen. If you support the virgin birth you're which? What about whether a person observes the Sabbath on Saturday or vice versa? Will one or the other preclude you from being a Christian?

Our system of government was intended to put all Christians on equal footing, treating them the same... something you've tried to avoid since you think my views would not be up to your standards. There is no right answer as you seek to be judge, jury and executioner of anyone who does not meet your personal standards. But, for me, I do not have the luxury of judging any person's relationship with their God. Christians might be using terminology like Divine Providence, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, Jesus Christ... it makes no difference.

"13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" Matthew 16: 13 - 17

Isaiah 7:14 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.

Footnotes:

1. 7:14 Isaiah’s sign seeks to reassure Ahaz that he need not fear the invading armies of Syria and Israel in the light of God’s promise to David (2 Sm 7:12–16). The oracle follows a traditional announcement formula by which the birth and sometimes naming of a child is promised to particular individuals (Gn 16:11; Jgs 13:3). The young woman: Hebrew ‘almah designates a young woman of marriageable age without specific reference to virginity. The Septuagint translated the Hebrew term as parthenos, which normally does mean virgin, and this translation underlies Mt 1:23. Emmanuel: the name means “with us is God.” Since for the Christian the incarnation is the ultimate expression of God’s willingness to “be with us,” it is understandable that this text was interpreted to refer to the birth of Christ.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Above is a response to your quote

You can not have a freedom of religion and be a Christian nation at the same time?

 

[sparky]

You can not have a freedom of religion and be a Christian nation at the same time?

True

so many take freedom of religion as being free to impose it within governance

~S~

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The "Chosen One", Donald Trump, proves that Republican Christians no longer follow traditional Christianity. Can you believe white evangelicals are following someone who calls himself "the chosen one"?

Christianity Today's split with Trump highlights deeper issue in white evangelical America

There has been a big drop-off in white evangelical church participation among adults under 40, and publications such as Christianity Today and religious leaders are struggling to engage “Gen Z,” or those born after 1996.

“One of the major factors is that the church is too tied up in right-wing politics,” said Greg Carey, a professor at Lancaster Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania. Evangelical activism against gay rights is particularly repellent to many members of a generation where “everyone has friends who are LGBTQ,” Carey said.

Trump’s presidency may make the age gap worse, some evangelical Christians believe. “Having to go out and defend this guy day after day, as many of these Trump evangelicals are doing, they’re just destroying their credibility,” said Napp Nazworth, who until Monday was politics editor of another publication, the Christian Post.

Younger evangelicals are put off by church leaders’ seemingly unconditional support for Trump despite his “cruel” treatment of migrants and deregulation that could damage the environment, said Marlena Graves, a Christian author on faith, culture and justice, who signed the petition.

I concur that with Donald Trump trying to play the role of a demigod makes this a contentious subject. Many of Trump's ideas are based upon things that are clearly not Christian.

Bear in mind, in the latter days, good was to become evil and evil good. I think this is true regardless of whether we are discussing the inevitable cycles of history or the biblical end times.

The liberals who unfairly attack this thread do not have the critical thinking skills necessary to differentiate between modern churchianity (as differentiated from Christianity) and the Christian principles upon which the Republic rests. Donald Trump's views are counter to what Jesus taught. And, while the masses see this as a wide berth of difference between the left and the right, if you study it objectively, it is one hand washing the other with both sides traveling to the same destination by different paths, but many of their positions helping the other in the destruction of our nation.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"Christianity" has gone down many paths over the centuries. Most have been complete bullshit by select interpretations of a quote or three of scripture

he is one of the demons. LOL Sweetheart, love your eyes, etc, he is in it for the money.

He is a very real devil. I can't listen to him any longer. He is so full of BS.

You are very funny. You couldn't make a rational argument and left, but came back at the urging of another poster to try and troll me at a personal level. That approach where you gang up on someone after the work has been done is unethical, at best. Then, to attack me and claim it's all about the money???? LMAO.

I went back to school and graduated a little over a year ago (and I was well over 60 when I graduated.) The first Bible College I went to and every church I've belonged to did not beg for money nor pass a collection plate. In the church exists a deposit box and if anyone is moved by the Holy Spirit, they could leave tithes there or send the money in. I don't pass collection plates nor ask for money.

I do visit the sick, help the disenfranchised get jobs, and help people in general with free counseling sessions, giving eulogies, performing weddings, etc. Never asked for a nickel.

At the beginning of last year I took a 96 year old woman into my home and had to care for her around the clock. Her own family wouldn't. My wife went to this woman's house to give her a bath and cockroaches fled from her rectum and bathrobe. And so, my wife brought her here, bathed her and I would help get her to the bathroom and to bed... and I made her breakfast and lunch while my wife made dinner in the evening. Unfortunately, she fell, broke her hip and passed away in the hospital. But, I never asked for nor was I offered anything by any member of her family (or anyone else for that matter) - and one of the sons goes on cruises while the other was having a pool put in his backyard during all of this.

After she passed, I did take one of her grandson's in as he was homeless. He didn't want to work and attacked me in my home. At the end of the fight, he had his wrist broken in two places and a fractured arm. So, he's gone. And, as fate would have it, my wife let some autistic kid sleep here last night after he had some kind of blow up with a family member. Now, I have to get involved in his life.

Having said all of that, if there is a way to turn my service into a money making proposition, by all means do share. When you help the needy, NOBODY has any money. I'd be most appreciative if you can explain how my efforts can translate into money. If not, your criticisms aren't worth much.

See my avatar, that is the pic of the Father (Emperor Vespasian) , the son (Emperor Titus) and the Holy Ghost (Emperor Domitian), the father and 2 sons.

Do you believe in the virgin birth?? Still??

Penelope,

Throughout this thread, my critics keep yapping about a "separation of church and state." Contradictory to their efforts to disprove the basis of my thread, they (including you) want to delve into denominational divisiveness. Don't you see your post as a bit hypocritical?

Week in and week out Christians and non-Christians alike are trying to make the decision for other individuals as to who does and who does not qualify as a Christian. They apply their own standards, set their own bars, and then if you don't agree with them, you're not a Christian.

If you believe in the Rapture you're a heathen; if you don't, you're a heathen. If you support the virgin birth you're which? What about whether a person observes the Sabbath on Saturday or vice versa? Will one or the other preclude you from being a Christian?

Our system of government was intended to put all Christians on equal footing, treating them the same... something you've tried to avoid since you think my views would not be up to your standards. There is no right answer as you seek to be judge, jury and executioner of anyone who does not meet your personal standards. But, for me, I do not have the luxury of judging any person's relationship with their God. Christians might be using terminology like Divine Providence, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, Jesus Christ... it makes no difference.

"13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" Matthew 16: 13 - 17

Isaiah 7:14 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.

Footnotes:

1. 7:14 Isaiah’s sign seeks to reassure Ahaz that he need not fear the invading armies of Syria and Israel in the light of God’s promise to David (2 Sm 7:12–16). The oracle follows a traditional announcement formula by which the birth and sometimes naming of a child is promised to particular individuals (Gn 16:11; Jgs 13:3). The young woman: Hebrew ‘almah designates a young woman of marriageable age without specific reference to virginity. The Septuagint translated the Hebrew term as parthenos, which normally does mean virgin, and this translation underlies Mt 1:23. Emmanuel: the name means “with us is God.” Since for the Christian the incarnation is the ultimate expression of God’s willingness to “be with us,” it is understandable that this text was interpreted to refer to the birth of Christ.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Above is a response to your quote

You can not have a freedom of religion and be a Christian nation at the same time?

I didn't get much from your post, Penelope. I'm scratching my head, wondering what it has to do with this thread. Feel free to explain. All denominations are on an equal footing. What I think personally about your issue is wholly irrelevant. I do not see how it ties into our national view of principles or values.

 

[sparky]

Many of Trump's ideas are based upon things that are clearly not Christian.

methinks his ideas are merely motivated by what voter base he can assume

Bear in mind, in the latter days, good was to become evil and evil good. I think this is true regardless of whether we are discussing the inevitable cycles of history or the biblical end times.

I'll agree as far as false prophets

The liberals who unfairly attack this thread do not have the critical thinking skills necessary to differentiate between modern churchianity (as differentiated from Christianity) and the Christian principles upon which the Republic rests.

new term for me Porter....ergo....if you'll indulge me>>>>

Urban Dictionary: Churchianity

Churchianity
A term coined by Bible teacher Richard Pope during a sermon characterizing the condition of the modern-day Christian Church and how different it's teachings are from the original ideas and message of the historical Jesus.

now i suppose we could delve into semantical revisionism yet again, my take is the separation of religion from faith

two distinctions , one under R, the other under F


~S~

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You can not have a freedom of religion and be a Christian nation at the same time?

True

so many take freedom of religion as being free to impose it within governance

~S~

This is like being a rodent on a treadmill. What you believe about the Virgin Birth, what day to observe the Sabbath on, which books of the Bible are canonical or non-canonical have NOTHING to do with this subject.

Our determination of right versus wrong - the values and principles we hold; how we see our destiny; how we treat our fellow man (both as individuals and how we allow our leaders to treat other nations) are what is relevant. For example, it's kind of hard to read the statutory law of the Bible wherein it says Thou shalt not kill and then have laws of warfare to defend nations and laws that instruct us on personal responsibility. So, we look to the case law in the Bible to see when each applies and under what circumstances. We build our civil laws around those concepts.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Many of Trump's ideas are based upon things that are clearly not Christian.

methinks his ideas are merely motivated by what voter base he can assume

Bear in mind, in the latter days, good was to become evil and evil good. I think this is true regardless of whether we are discussing the inevitable cycles of history or the biblical end times.

I'll agree as far as false prophets

The liberals who unfairly attack this thread do not have the critical thinking skills necessary to differentiate between modern churchianity (as differentiated from Christianity) and the Christian principles upon which the Republic rests.

new term for me Porter....ergo....if you'll indulge me>>>>

Urban Dictionary: Churchianity

Churchianity
A term coined by Bible teacher Richard Pope during a sermon characterizing the condition of the modern-day Christian Church and how different it's teachings are from the original ideas and message of the historical Jesus.

now i suppose we could delve into semantical revisionism yet again, my take is the separation of religion from faith

two distinctions , one under R, the other under F


~S~

I don't do multi-quotes, but a man says he believes in God. He has religion. A man who walks into a stranger's house, pulls a kitchen chair from under the table and sits in it without checking its sturdiness has faith.