America Founded as a Christian Nation

[rightwinger]

the early origins of the abolition movement started in Christian churches .

Some

Other Christians defended slavery and quoted parts of the Bible about slaves loyally serving their masters

I have questioned the motives of the critics of this thread. When confronted with facts they cannot refute, they make bogus arguments much like what you've been doing.

Jumping into a discussion and trying to insinuate lies that were already refuted to be the truth and only truth was a damn stupid approach. What you are now saying narrows down your real problem. You are in a discussion that is over your head.

There are NO moral implications regarding slavery. For the left, the atheists, non-believers, or anyone else to keep arguing over slavery is dishonest, disingenuous, and complete idiocy that you'd have to have an IQ less than your shoe size to accept.

"rightwinger," You can put a little bit of lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig. NOBODY on this board, including you, has a problem with slavery. The only problem is how we dress it up. Right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican, EVERYBODY supports slavery. It is biblical and it is normal. I'd like to give you a few examples.

Thomas Jefferson once said, " Take not from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." Yet, knowing that, the Republicans illegally ratified the 16th Amendment and today everybody is comfortable with the income tax. The income tax is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto and nothing, from an economics point of view is more indicative of slavery than communism. Nobody in this country respects the tax resister.

The Declaration of Independence lists Liberty is an unalienable Right. Yet it is the "right wing" that pushes the notion that one must become a citizen in order to work in the United States. Of course, those advocating are getting their wish and will soon be pushed into oblivion as the left increases in numbers. Yet, to deny people an unalienable Right is slavery.

The Democrats and leftists want to force those who produce to pay for those who do not produce. Putting your hand in my pocket to take money to give to someone I don't want to pay for is robbery. And our example here is simple:

The state of California wants to have sanctuary cities to protect the undocumented foreigners in their state. I'm okay with that. It's legal. But, the state wants the federal government to help fund the undocumented foreigners it invited. Forcing a man in Georgia to pay for the guests in California that they invited is a form of economic slavery. That is the same principle with Obamacare and socialized medicine.

The Democrats and atheists (most of which vote for Democrats) wail about slavery, but the Democrats were the ones who perpetuated slavery in this country. The hue of the skin has changed since democracy is all about majority rule. They just put a little lipstick on that pig and keep making emotion laden buzz word arguments to stay in control. Soooo,... when both sides of the political spectrum are comfortable with their forms of slavery, they are absolute hypocrites to use it as an issue ESPECIALLY when it does not even apply.

Slavery was a Christian institution

"Slavery was practiced in every ancient Middle Eastern society: Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman and Israelite. Slavery was an integral part of ancient commerce, taxation, and temple religion..."

Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia

but abolition still had its roots in the Christian church.

Quakers were the first
Baptist’s were the last

 

[Bezukhov]

In the final analysis what is the difference between Christian and non Christian nations? Both types throughout history rob, pillage and kill their own people, then they take those ill gotten gains to raise armies and invade their neighbors so they can rob, pillage and kill those poor sods.

 

[yidnar]

The early origins of the abolition movement started in Christian churches .

While in other Christian Churches it was preached that slavery was God's Ordained Plan for the Black Race.

they were wrong !

 

[yidnar]

In the final analysis what is the difference between Christian and non Christian nations? Both types throughout history rob, pillage and kill their own people, then they take those ill gotten gains to raise armies and invade their neighbors so they can rob, pillage and kill those poor sods.

people that rob and kill and mistreat others are not Christians no matter what they claim to be . for example if you are in need the local Christian church is one of the first to help if you ask them for help.

 

[Bezukhov]

In the final analysis what is the difference between Christian and non Christian nations? Both types throughout history rob, pillage and kill their own people, then they take those ill gotten gains to raise armies and invade their neighbors so they can rob, pillage and kill those poor sods.

people that rob and kill and mistreat others are not Christians no matter what they claim to be . for example if you are in need the local Christian church is one of the first to help if you ask them for help.

America has robbed and killed and mistreated a lot of people in its sordid history. Does that mean America isn't a Christian nation?

 

[yidnar]

In the final analysis what is the difference between Christian and non Christian nations? Both types throughout history rob, pillage and kill their own people, then they take those ill gotten gains to raise armies and invade their neighbors so they can rob, pillage and kill those poor sods.

people that rob and kill and mistreat others are not Christians no matter what they claim to be . for example if you are in need the local Christian church is one of the first to help if you ask them for help.

America has robbed and killed and mistreated a lot of people in its sordid history. Does that mean America isn't a Christian nation?

i never said that America has not done bad things ... weve had bad leaders but America has done much good and Christianity and the belief in God has guided many of the good things America has done .

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The Enlightenment philosopher credited with works regarding the separation of powers in our system of government had his books banned by the powerful Christian Church because they were dangerous to the faith or morals of Roman Catholics.

See exactly why the Enlightenment had so much to do with the founders and the founding of America. See why Rockwell is wrong to declare that America was founded as a Christian Nation.

Porter Rockwell, post: 23861832

Bottom line: America was founded as a Christian nation.

My impression is that Rockwell makes his conclusion because the original thirteen colonies were populated by a majority of practicing Christians who demanded their original state political representatives to swear to an oath such as to this:

” I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

Most scholars and historians bring up Enlightenment Philosophers and Aristotle when discussing who intellectually drove our founding fathers to come up with the system of government that we have maintained for over two centuries and three decades.

Another Enlightenment Philosopher was Montesquieu.

He wrote:

*Spirit of the Laws (1748)
A criticism of political structure. This book describes three types of government and the forces that keep them stable: republics, monarchies, and despotisms. It calls for a separation of powers, religious toleration, and the importance of adherence to civil laws.

We get our separation of powers in our system of government from thinkers like Montesquieu. We didn’t get that from any Orthodox Christian mind or from Jesus of Nazareth.

This is a huge problem for Rockwell’s conclusion because Montesquieu was raised Catholic but became enlightened and ended up spiritually described thusly:

Montesquieu believes in a mighty God who created the universe, but allows it to run on its own. Governments are established to keep order, but that order should be flexible to a variety of factors including population size, cultural customs, religion, and how people tend to make their livelihood.
Major Works - Montesquieu

Rockwell counts the majority and tyranny of orthodox Christians present in the states when the Constitution was being constructed as evidence that America was founded as a Christian nation.

i object and Rockwell hit the ignore button so he won’t have to deal with an argument that it was enlightened thinkers that contributed to our system of government. It was not so much produced by little thinking but faithful believers in the divinity of Christ, original sin, Virgin Birth and the Holy Trinity.

in fact Montesquieu’s book referenced above was about separation of powers and civil law was banned by the Church as “dangerous to the faith or morals of Roman Catholics.“

Index Librorum Prohibitorum, (Latin: “Index of Forbidden Books”), list of books once forbidden by Roman Catholic church authority as dangerous to the faith or morals of Roman Catholics. Publication of the list ceased in 1966, and it was relegated to the status of a historic document.

Britannica.com › topic › Index-Libr...
Index Librorum Prohibitorum | Roman Catholicism | Britannica

 

[deorro 1]

Due to popular request I am starting a thread covering the fact that America was begun as a Christian nation. Be forewarned, I will not respond to posts that are more than twelve or so paragraphs. If we are going to discuss the issue, it has to be a few things at a time. Bottom line: America was founded as a Christian nation.

As soon as one says that the atheists and other non-believers will start with their lies and straw man arguments. They will tell you that I just said America was founded as a theocracy. AMERICA WAS NOT FOUNDED AS A THEOCRACY. IT WAS FOUNDED AS A REPUBLIC BASED UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES.

Politics is nothing more than religion in action. Our sense of right and wrong are all predicated on moral values and we got from biblical precepts. The very first governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact. It states:

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 “advancements of the Christian faith”

Okay, I’m well aware that St. Augustine is the oldest city in the U.S, the Spaniards were there before the colonists and that other colonists preceded those on the Mayflower. That Mayflower Compact was the first GOVERNING document of the New World. Colonization and founding are synonymous.

The First Charter of Virginia of 1606 stated:

“We greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, to a settled and quiet government.”

Similar language attesting to our Christian roots during this period would be the Second Charter of Virginia of 1609, Third Charter of Virginia 1611 – 1612, The Charter of New England 1620, Ordinances For Virginia, July 24, 1621, The Charter of Massachusetts Bay 1629, and I will add more to the chorological order each time I post.

In 1630, John Winthrop delivered a sermon aboard the Arbella as it sailed toward the New World. That sermon has been cited by U.S. statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. It defines WHO the colonists were and what their objective was in the New World. Any sermon being quoted by American politicians 300 years later deserves to be examined. Here is a link to it and it is a must read if you want to add intelligent commentary to this thread:

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

Thank you so much.

I have wanted to share a finding I ran across by accident.

Upon googling America population, I received this as a page option..

List of countries in the Americas by population - Wikipedia


I did NOT have knowledge that America had 55 COUNTRIES.


United Sates is number 1 followed by Brazil as far as population.

Now everytime I hear any 'law changer' say America, I wonder if he/she knows about this..

Was all/each 55 Countries 'started' upon any Religious foundation even if it was their own 'worship' system.?.. Brazil had many indigeneous persons within it even when Brazil became a Constitutional Country but were they all without 'religion' before this?

So what could be any difference between Christianity's moral 'system', per se, and their own moral system if both speak against 'injustices'??

So is the question, was this or that Country founded upon Christian principles', really asking, 'was this or that Country really as 'judicial' as this or that Country might be NOW'??

The Legal 'system'(s) within this or that Country...

Executive
Legislative
Judicial

Was smoking 'weed' really 'taboo' in all of The Country's 'history'.

So, America... Was smoking 'weed' really taboo in Brazil when it wrote its own Constitution? Was it really taboo to smoke 'weed' in The United States when it wrote its??

Persons were sent to 'jail' if found smoking a cigarette on Sunday's in public, in certain 'states', even post George Washington's crossing The Delaware River.

And this could have been 1 reason why the Native Indians sided with the British Loyalists rather than the British Separatists; in the Civil war; George Washington, etc... Maybe more freedom and less restrictions.

The person(s) such as Thomas Pain, who later changed his last name to Paine was born a British citizen but it was Mr. Pain(e) himself who wrote 'Common Sense' which gave the Separatists motivation and justification(s) to go to armed battle against their very own British blooded brothers.

It couldnt have been too much about the exactness of the tea tax coming from The British side, though, right? The Separatists were much more 'strict' than the ones they hoped to 'get away' from; The British 'army'..

And if so, would The U.S have had more morals and value system than the torn/being torn apart, England they were abandoning or seeking peace and quiet from??

Remember that England was being murmured against by their own Church community; hence The Separatists. The ones murmuring were the ones that paid, I'm pretty sure, to jump on the private charter ship, The Mayflower, to get themselves away as far as comfortably possible, it would seem, to even go that extreme.

America founded upon Christian principles or is the question about The United States??

Why did this occur?

Jamestown was founded in 1607? The King James Bible was completed in 1609? The Separatists began leaving England in...???

Jamestown was a colony belonging to England and hence the name Jamestown. Well, even then, in 1607, I'm sure King James did not refer to himself as James but rather, Iames... no?

So where could the upheaval in England have started? Maybe with its King Iames Editioned Cambridge or another editioned Bible??

And today we have...

The King James, not edition, but version.


King James version of what? The King James Cambridge Edition Bible?

I wonder if The Cambridge Edition ever used the name Iames to refer to the King of England?? Or if the name Iames was still on the streets in greetings, etc...

So Mr. Iames is all of a sudden is being called Mr. James. How about The Name of The Christ Messiah Whom King Iames so proudly hailed as his/the world's Most Glorious King. Iesus Christ to Whom belong ..... etc...

Notice how changing the I in Iesus is the same with Iames.

Iesus to Jesus
Iames to James.

When his son took to the throne, never once, I'm supposing, was he familiar with the name 'Iames'. He would be equivalent to today's youth who are unfamiliar with older technology, or lack of. So with a tossing away of the old and forging into the future, King James II could gave been with a lot less knowledge than his dad, King Iames I. And please do not keep out the Parliament's role during these lives, also.

So is Iames of Scottish lineage seeing King Iames was first King of Scotland prior to his rule in England?


Can you name this child?

Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia

Don't you find it strange how innocent babes turn out to be spited, worshiped, or even murdered?

Mr. Adolph Hitler was not even supposed to have become Bavarian from his Austria-Hungary lineage.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[Porter Rockwell]

the early origins of the abolition movement started in Christian churches .

Some

Other Christians defended slavery and quoted parts of the Bible about slaves loyally serving their masters

I have questioned the motives of the critics of this thread. When confronted with facts they cannot refute, they make bogus arguments much like what you've been doing.

Jumping into a discussion and trying to insinuate lies that were already refuted to be the truth and only truth was a damn stupid approach. What you are now saying narrows down your real problem. You are in a discussion that is over your head.

There are NO moral implications regarding slavery. For the left, the atheists, non-believers, or anyone else to keep arguing over slavery is dishonest, disingenuous, and complete idiocy that you'd have to have an IQ less than your shoe size to accept.

"rightwinger," You can put a little bit of lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig. NOBODY on this board, including you, has a problem with slavery. The only problem is how we dress it up. Right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican, EVERYBODY supports slavery. It is biblical and it is normal. I'd like to give you a few examples.

Thomas Jefferson once said, " Take not from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." Yet, knowing that, the Republicans illegally ratified the 16th Amendment and today everybody is comfortable with the income tax. The income tax is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto and nothing, from an economics point of view is more indicative of slavery than communism. Nobody in this country respects the tax resister.

The Declaration of Independence lists Liberty is an unalienable Right. Yet it is the "right wing" that pushes the notion that one must become a citizen in order to work in the United States. Of course, those advocating are getting their wish and will soon be pushed into oblivion as the left increases in numbers. Yet, to deny people an unalienable Right is slavery.

The Democrats and leftists want to force those who produce to pay for those who do not produce. Putting your hand in my pocket to take money to give to someone I don't want to pay for is robbery. And our example here is simple:

The state of California wants to have sanctuary cities to protect the undocumented foreigners in their state. I'm okay with that. It's legal. But, the state wants the federal government to help fund the undocumented foreigners it invited. Forcing a man in Georgia to pay for the guests in California that they invited is a form of economic slavery. That is the same principle with Obamacare and socialized medicine.

The Democrats and atheists (most of which vote for Democrats) wail about slavery, but the Democrats were the ones who perpetuated slavery in this country. The hue of the skin has changed since democracy is all about majority rule. They just put a little lipstick on that pig and keep making emotion laden buzz word arguments to stay in control. Soooo,... when both sides of the political spectrum are comfortable with their forms of slavery, they are absolute hypocrites to use it as an issue ESPECIALLY when it does not even apply.

Slavery was a Christian institution

"Slavery was practiced in every ancient Middle Eastern society: Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman and Israelite. Slavery was an integral part of ancient commerce, taxation, and temple religion..."

Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia

but abolition still had its roots in the Christian church.

the early origins of the abolition movement started in Christian churches .

Some

Other Christians defended slavery and quoted parts of the Bible about slaves loyally serving their masters

I have questioned the motives of the critics of this thread. When confronted with facts they cannot refute, they make bogus arguments much like what you've been doing.

Jumping into a discussion and trying to insinuate lies that were already refuted to be the truth and only truth was a damn stupid approach. What you are now saying narrows down your real problem. You are in a discussion that is over your head.

There are NO moral implications regarding slavery. For the left, the atheists, non-believers, or anyone else to keep arguing over slavery is dishonest, disingenuous, and complete idiocy that you'd have to have an IQ less than your shoe size to accept.

"rightwinger," You can put a little bit of lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig. NOBODY on this board, including you, has a problem with slavery. The only problem is how we dress it up. Right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican, EVERYBODY supports slavery. It is biblical and it is normal. I'd like to give you a few examples.

Thomas Jefferson once said, " Take not from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." Yet, knowing that, the Republicans illegally ratified the 16th Amendment and today everybody is comfortable with the income tax. The income tax is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto and nothing, from an economics point of view is more indicative of slavery than communism. Nobody in this country respects the tax resister.

The Declaration of Independence lists Liberty is an unalienable Right. Yet it is the "right wing" that pushes the notion that one must become a citizen in order to work in the United States. Of course, those advocating are getting their wish and will soon be pushed into oblivion as the left increases in numbers. Yet, to deny people an unalienable Right is slavery.

The Democrats and leftists want to force those who produce to pay for those who do not produce. Putting your hand in my pocket to take money to give to someone I don't want to pay for is robbery. And our example here is simple:

The state of California wants to have sanctuary cities to protect the undocumented foreigners in their state. I'm okay with that. It's legal. But, the state wants the federal government to help fund the undocumented foreigners it invited. Forcing a man in Georgia to pay for the guests in California that they invited is a form of economic slavery. That is the same principle with Obamacare and socialized medicine.

The Democrats and atheists (most of which vote for Democrats) wail about slavery, but the Democrats were the ones who perpetuated slavery in this country. The hue of the skin has changed since democracy is all about majority rule. They just put a little lipstick on that pig and keep making emotion laden buzz word arguments to stay in control. Soooo,... when both sides of the political spectrum are comfortable with their forms of slavery, they are absolute hypocrites to use it as an issue ESPECIALLY when it does not even apply.

Slavery was a Christian institution

"Slavery was practiced in every ancient Middle Eastern society: Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman and Israelite. Slavery was an integral part of ancient commerce, taxation, and temple religion..."

Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia

but abolition still had its roots in the Christian church.

the early origins of the abolition movement started in Christian churches .

Some

Other Christians defended slavery and quoted parts of the Bible about slaves loyally serving their masters

I have questioned the motives of the critics of this thread. When confronted with facts they cannot refute, they make bogus arguments much like what you've been doing.

Jumping into a discussion and trying to insinuate lies that were already refuted to be the truth and only truth was a damn stupid approach. What you are now saying narrows down your real problem. You are in a discussion that is over your head.

There are NO moral implications regarding slavery. For the left, the atheists, non-believers, or anyone else to keep arguing over slavery is dishonest, disingenuous, and complete idiocy that you'd have to have an IQ less than your shoe size to accept.

"rightwinger," You can put a little bit of lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig. NOBODY on this board, including you, has a problem with slavery. The only problem is how we dress it up. Right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican, EVERYBODY supports slavery. It is biblical and it is normal. I'd like to give you a few examples.

Thomas Jefferson once said, " Take not from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." Yet, knowing that, the Republicans illegally ratified the 16th Amendment and today everybody is comfortable with the income tax. The income tax is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto and nothing, from an economics point of view is more indicative of slavery than communism. Nobody in this country respects the tax resister.

The Declaration of Independence lists Liberty is an unalienable Right. Yet it is the "right wing" that pushes the notion that one must become a citizen in order to work in the United States. Of course, those advocating are getting their wish and will soon be pushed into oblivion as the left increases in numbers. Yet, to deny people an unalienable Right is slavery.

The Democrats and leftists want to force those who produce to pay for those who do not produce. Putting your hand in my pocket to take money to give to someone I don't want to pay for is robbery. And our example here is simple:

The state of California wants to have sanctuary cities to protect the undocumented foreigners in their state. I'm okay with that. It's legal. But, the state wants the federal government to help fund the undocumented foreigners it invited. Forcing a man in Georgia to pay for the guests in California that they invited is a form of economic slavery. That is the same principle with Obamacare and socialized medicine.

The Democrats and atheists (most of which vote for Democrats) wail about slavery, but the Democrats were the ones who perpetuated slavery in this country. The hue of the skin has changed since democracy is all about majority rule. They just put a little lipstick on that pig and keep making emotion laden buzz word arguments to stay in control. Soooo,... when both sides of the political spectrum are comfortable with their forms of slavery, they are absolute hypocrites to use it as an issue ESPECIALLY when it does not even apply.

Slavery was a Christian institution

"Slavery was practiced in every ancient Middle Eastern society: Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman and Israelite. Slavery was an integral part of ancient commerce, taxation, and temple religion..."

Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia

but abolition still had its roots in the Christian church.

The poster's concern blames Christians for starting slavery. I was pointing out that there is no validity to that statement.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The Enlightenment philosopher credited with works regarding the separation of powers in our system of government had his books banned by the powerful Christian Church because they were dangerous to the faith or morals of Roman Catholics.

See exactly why the Enlightenment had so much to do with the founders and the founding of America. See why Rockwell is wrong to declare that America was founded as a Christian Nation.

Porter Rockwell, post: 23861832

Bottom line: America was founded as a Christian nation.

My impression is that Rockwell makes his conclusion because the original thirteen colonies were populated by a majority of practicing Christians who demanded their original state political representatives to swear to an oath such as to this:

” I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

Most scholars and historians bring up Enlightenment Philosophers and Aristotle when discussing who intellectually drove our founding fathers to come up with the system of government that we have maintained for over two centuries and three decades.

Another Enlightenment Philosopher was Montesquieu.

He wrote:

*Spirit of the Laws (1748)
A criticism of political structure. This book describes three types of government and the forces that keep them stable: republics, monarchies, and despotisms. It calls for a separation of powers, religious toleration, and the importance of adherence to civil laws.

We get our separation of powers in our system of government from thinkers like Montesquieu. We didn’t get that from any Orthodox Christian mind or from Jesus of Nazareth.

This is a huge problem for Rockwell’s conclusion because Montesquieu was raised Catholic but became enlightened and ended up spiritually described thusly:

Montesquieu believes in a mighty God who created the universe, but allows it to run on its own. Governments are established to keep order, but that order should be flexible to a variety of factors including population size, cultural customs, religion, and how people tend to make their livelihood.
Major Works - Montesquieu

Rockwell counts the majority and tyranny of orthodox Christians present in the states when the Constitution was being constructed as evidence that America was founded as a Christian nation.

i object and Rockwell hit the ignore button so he won’t have to deal with an argument that it was enlightened thinkers that contributed to our system of government. It was not so much produced by little thinking but faithful believers in the divinity of Christ, original sin, Virgin Birth and the Holy Trinity.

in fact Montesquieu’s book referenced above was about separation of powers and civil law was banned by the Church as “dangerous to the faith or morals of Roman Catholics.“

Index Librorum Prohibitorum, (Latin: “Index of Forbidden Books”), list of books once forbidden by Roman Catholic church authority as dangerous to the faith or morals of Roman Catholics. Publication of the list ceased in 1966, and it was relegated to the status of a historic document.
View attachment 300790
Britannica.com › topic › Index-Libr...
Index Librorum Prohibitorum | Roman Catholicism | Britannica

You are wrong; a liar and a hypocrite. Do not presume to speak for me. It's too late to try doing research to refute my position when I've told you that, given the insults I will not discuss this any further with you.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Due to popular request I am starting a thread covering the fact that America was begun as a Christian nation. Be forewarned, I will not respond to posts that are more than twelve or so paragraphs. If we are going to discuss the issue, it has to be a few things at a time. Bottom line: America was founded as a Christian nation.

As soon as one says that the atheists and other non-believers will start with their lies and straw man arguments. They will tell you that I just said America was founded as a theocracy. AMERICA WAS NOT FOUNDED AS A THEOCRACY. IT WAS FOUNDED AS A REPUBLIC BASED UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES.

Politics is nothing more than religion in action. Our sense of right and wrong are all predicated on moral values and we got from biblical precepts. The very first governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact. It states:

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 “advancements of the Christian faith”

Okay, I’m well aware that St. Augustine is the oldest city in the U.S, the Spaniards were there before the colonists and that other colonists preceded those on the Mayflower. That Mayflower Compact was the first GOVERNING document of the New World. Colonization and founding are synonymous.

The First Charter of Virginia of 1606 stated:

“We greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, to a settled and quiet government.”

Similar language attesting to our Christian roots during this period would be the Second Charter of Virginia of 1609, Third Charter of Virginia 1611 – 1612, The Charter of New England 1620, Ordinances For Virginia, July 24, 1621, The Charter of Massachusetts Bay 1629, and I will add more to the chorological order each time I post.

In 1630, John Winthrop delivered a sermon aboard the Arbella as it sailed toward the New World. That sermon has been cited by U.S. statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. It defines WHO the colonists were and what their objective was in the New World. Any sermon being quoted by American politicians 300 years later deserves to be examined. Here is a link to it and it is a must read if you want to add intelligent commentary to this thread:

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

Thank you so much.

I have wanted to share a finding I ran across by accident.

Upon googling America population, I received this as a page option..

List of countries in the Americas by population - Wikipedia


I did NOT have knowledge that America had 55 COUNTRIES.


United Sates is number 1 followed by Brazil as far as population.

Now everytime I hear any 'law changer' say America, I wonder if he/she knows about this..

Was all/each 55 Countries 'started' upon any Religious foundation even if it was their own 'worship' system.?.. Brazil had many indigeneous persons within it even when Brazil became a Constitutional Country but were they all without 'religion' before this?

So what could be any difference between Christianity's moral 'system', per se, and their own moral system if both speak against 'injustices'??

So is the question, was this or that Country founded upon Christian principles', really asking, 'was this or that Country really as 'judicial' as this or that Country might be NOW'??

The Legal 'system'(s) within this or that Country...

Executive
Legislative
Judicial

Was smoking 'weed' really 'taboo' in all of The Country's 'history'.

So, America... Was smoking 'weed' really taboo in Brazil when it wrote its own Constitution? Was it really taboo to smoke 'weed' in The United States when it wrote its??

Persons were sent to 'jail' if found smoking a cigarette on Sunday's in public, in certain 'states', even post George Washington's crossing The Delaware River.

And this could have been 1 reason why the Native Indians sided with the British Loyalists rather than the British Separatists; in the Civil war; George Washington, etc... Maybe more freedom and less restrictions.

The person(s) such as Thomas Pain, who later changed his last name to Paine was born a British citizen but it was Mr. Pain(e) himself who wrote 'Common Sense' which gave the Separatists motivation and justification(s) to go to armed battle against their very own British blooded brothers.

It couldnt have been too much about the exactness of the tea tax coming from The British side, though, right? The Separatists were much more 'strict' than the ones they hoped to 'get away' from; The British 'army'..

And if so, would The U.S have had more morals and value system than the torn/being torn apart, England they were abandoning or seeking peace and quiet from??

Remember that England was being murmured against by their own Church community; hence The Separatists. The ones murmuring were the ones that paid, I'm pretty sure, to jump on the private charter ship, The Mayflower, to get themselves away as far as comfortably possible, it would seem, to even go that extreme.

America founded upon Christian principles or is the question about The United States??

Why did this occur?

Jamestown was founded in 1607? The King James Bible was completed in 1609? The Separatists began leaving England in...???

Jamestown was a colony belonging to England and hence the name Jamestown. Well, even then, in 1607, I'm sure King James did not refer to himself as James but rather, Iames... no?

So where could the upheaval in England have started? Maybe with its King Iames Editioned Cambridge or another editioned Bible??

And today we have...

The King James, not edition, but version.


King James version of what? The King James Cambridge Edition Bible?

I wonder if The Cambridge Edition ever used the name Iames to refer to the King of England?? Or if the name Iames was still on the streets in greetings, etc...

So Mr. Iames is all of a sudden is being called Mr. James. How about The Name of The Christ Messiah Whom King Iames so proudly hailed as his/the world's Most Glorious King. Iesus Christ to Whom belong ..... etc...

Notice how changing the I in Iesus is the same with Iames.

Iesus to Jesus
Iames to James.

When his son took to the throne, never once, I'm supposing, was he familiar with the name 'Iames'. He would be equivalent to today's youth who are unfamiliar with older technology, or lack of. So with a tossing away of the old and forging into the future, King James II could gave been with a lot less knowledge than his dad, King Iames I. And please do not keep out the Parliament's role during these lives, also.

So is Iames of Scottish lineage seeing King Iames was first King of Scotland prior to his rule in England?


Can you name this child?

Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia

Don't you find it strange how innocent babes turn out to be spited, worshiped, or even murdered?

Mr. Adolph Hitler was not even supposed to have become Bavarian from his Austria-Hungary lineage.

You've asked me so many questions that it would be impossible to formulate a coherent response. I know very little about the law in foreign governments. I had a hard enough time learning American law. Feel free to ask me something specific as a starting point and I'll share with you what I know (if anything.)

 

[Porter Rockwell]

View attachment 300796

Those quotes are about as worthless as tits on a boar hog since there is no verification mechanism (i.e. link; name of the speech, book, etc.)

You're wasting bandwidth.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

AMERICA WAS FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION

This the EPILOGUE of the relevant posts # 1 , 2, 7, 17, 35, 39, 56, 91, 109 153, and 198 and 223:

America was founded as a Christian nation. To the atheists, non-believers, trolls, and dishonest people criticizing this, NONE of them had the courage to cite any fact presented and challenge it. They refused to even READ the relevant posts, so they live in their own little world.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants."

America was founded as a Christian nation. Does that mean it was founded as a theocracy? No. Does it mean it was required to be a Christian to be here? No. Do you have to believe in Christianity? No. So, what does it mean?

America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion. Whites founded the country. Founded it means that they established the form of government and wrote the rules when it began. The country was founded on Christianity. That means that our sense of right and wrong; good and bad were predicated upon biblical precepts.

Only Christians could hold elective office. Children were taught from Christian books. Our laws were consistent with the same standards of right and wrong as in the Bible. Even small things were consistent with the Bible. Our system of a just weights and measurements is consistent with the Bible. We have twelve people on a jury in commemoration of the Lord's supper. Our understanding of Liberty was consistent with the biblical definition.

Despite all the facts presented, the best the critics can do is that "separation of church and state" thing that appeared in a letter to the Danbury Baptists and it means 180 degrees opposite of what the atheists claim (went into depth on that one in one of my relevant posts on this thread.)

About six months after the ratification of the United States Constitution, Congress fulfilled their duty to pass an uniform Rule of Naturalization. They specified that only whites could be citizens. MILLIONS of non-whites came here anyway. They took advantage of opportunities willingly offered. THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE, SOLITARY, EXAMPLE OF OUR LAW TRYING TO CHANGE THOSE PEOPLE INTO CAUCASIANS. Likewise, we do not try and convert people to Christianity. Believe, don't believe... it's up to you.

When people come to America, if they are judged in our courts, it will be according to our culture. And our sense of right and wrong is based on the Bible. If we attempted to interpret our laws to be consistent with Sharia Law, atheism, Hinduism, humanism, Christianity, etc. it would be a giant (excuse the bluntness) one big clusterphuck. Ultimately man is ruled by God or by tyrants.

Those who hate Christianity wanted to take down Nativity scenes, remove the Ten Commandments from public display, and get rid of crosses,and eliminate the Pledge of Allegiance. Why? It was a reflection of who we are and those who waged that war, at all other times, claim to be about democracy - aka majority rule.

Those who hate Christianity have gone out of their way to maintain a lie. They tell us there is a wall of separation between church and state. But, if the Christian does not bow down to majoritarians, they can expect their church to be padlocked; their tax exempt status revoked. Yet our society is supposed to be tolerant of the atheist, the Muslim and anyone else with an ax to grind. The Muslim can wear their headgear in public; the Christian cannot wear their cross. Respecting the Muslim shows our tolerance and commitment to Religious Freedom while any displays of Christianity violates the separation of church and state.

The objective of the atheist and other non-believer is that they want control. Secular humanism is our unofficial state religion now and its implementation has been disastrous for this country. In 1947 the United States Supreme Court created that "separation of church and state out of thin air in the case of Everson v. Board of Education. I know of one source that measured the impact that decision on our country's culture:

The Supreme Court's Decisions on the Separation of Church and State Are Flawed | Encyclopedia.com
Due to the trolls - the Disclaimer - My views do not reflect all the positions taken by this one man. On the issue in question, he has researched a sufficient number of facts.

I'd like to say a lot more here, but over the last 75 years, the atheists and other non-believers have hijacked the Republic and we are not a Christian nation, but a reflection of what atheists, humanists and other non-Christians have instituted. We consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we have more people in prison than any nation on this planet - both in raw numbers and per capita. More of our children are diagnosed with phony emotional and psychological disorders than any other country (and IF such a disparate number of those conditions exist, it is attributable to the humanist / secularist control the atheists lobbied for - otherwise the rise would be world wide) Murder, rape, incest, pedophilia, burglary, infanticide, robbery, genocide, and other crimes and outrages have soared out of control since Christians acquiesced to the demands of these people.

There is much more I wanted to say, but if you read the relevant posts, you already know what is wrong in America and why our culture was founded on Christian precepts. The atheists don't want to discuss it; they only want control, but on this thread I am not giving it to them. So, I will only repeat the relevant posts each day. Thank you and God bless.

 

[Vandalshandle]

the early origins of the abolition movement started in Christian churches .

Some

Other Christians defended slavery and quoted parts of the Bible about slaves loyally serving their masters

I have questioned the motives of the critics of this thread. When confronted with facts they cannot refute, they make bogus arguments much like what you've been doing.

Jumping into a discussion and trying to insinuate lies that were already refuted to be the truth and only truth was a damn stupid approach. What you are now saying narrows down your real problem. You are in a discussion that is over your head.

There are NO moral implications regarding slavery. For the left, the atheists, non-believers, or anyone else to keep arguing over slavery is dishonest, disingenuous, and complete idiocy that you'd have to have an IQ less than your shoe size to accept.

"rightwinger," You can put a little bit of lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig. NOBODY on this board, including you, has a problem with slavery. The only problem is how we dress it up. Right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican, EVERYBODY supports slavery. It is biblical and it is normal. I'd like to give you a few examples.

Thomas Jefferson once said, " Take not from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." Yet, knowing that, the Republicans illegally ratified the 16th Amendment and today everybody is comfortable with the income tax. The income tax is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto and nothing, from an economics point of view is more indicative of slavery than communism. Nobody in this country respects the tax resister.

The Declaration of Independence lists Liberty is an unalienable Right. Yet it is the "right wing" that pushes the notion that one must become a citizen in order to work in the United States. Of course, those advocating are getting their wish and will soon be pushed into oblivion as the left increases in numbers. Yet, to deny people an unalienable Right is slavery.

The Democrats and leftists want to force those who produce to pay for those who do not produce. Putting your hand in my pocket to take money to give to someone I don't want to pay for is robbery. And our example here is simple:

The state of California wants to have sanctuary cities to protect the undocumented foreigners in their state. I'm okay with that. It's legal. But, the state wants the federal government to help fund the undocumented foreigners it invited. Forcing a man in Georgia to pay for the guests in California that they invited is a form of economic slavery. That is the same principle with Obamacare and socialized medicine.

The Democrats and atheists (most of which vote for Democrats) wail about slavery, but the Democrats were the ones who perpetuated slavery in this country. The hue of the skin has changed since democracy is all about majority rule. They just put a little lipstick on that pig and keep making emotion laden buzz word arguments to stay in control. Soooo,... when both sides of the political spectrum are comfortable with their forms of slavery, they are absolute hypocrites to use it as an issue ESPECIALLY when it does not even apply.

Slavery was a Christian institution

"Slavery was practiced in every ancient Middle Eastern society: Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman and Israelite. Slavery was an integral part of ancient commerce, taxation, and temple religion..."

Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia

but abolition still had its roots in the Christian church.

Ironically, this is true, in a twisted way. The King and Queen of Spain, learning that Columbus's colony was enslaving Indians, and bowing to pressure from the Church, which maintained that nobody can enslave Christians (only non-believers) issued an edict that in the future, before Indians can be slaughtered, or enslaved, they had to have an opportunity to accept Christ. Thereafter, on every Spanish expedition, a priest always addressed the Indians when first met by the Spaniards, asking them if they accepted Jesus. Since they always asked this question in Latin, the Indians didn't know what the **** they were talking about. The Spaniards, getting no positive "yes", then proceeded to slaughter and enslave at will.

 

[yidnar]

Some

Other Christians defended slavery and quoted parts of the Bible about slaves loyally serving their masters

I have questioned the motives of the critics of this thread. When confronted with facts they cannot refute, they make bogus arguments much like what you've been doing.

Jumping into a discussion and trying to insinuate lies that were already refuted to be the truth and only truth was a damn stupid approach. What you are now saying narrows down your real problem. You are in a discussion that is over your head.

There are NO moral implications regarding slavery. For the left, the atheists, non-believers, or anyone else to keep arguing over slavery is dishonest, disingenuous, and complete idiocy that you'd have to have an IQ less than your shoe size to accept.

"rightwinger," You can put a little bit of lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig. NOBODY on this board, including you, has a problem with slavery. The only problem is how we dress it up. Right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican, EVERYBODY supports slavery. It is biblical and it is normal. I'd like to give you a few examples.

Thomas Jefferson once said, " Take not from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." Yet, knowing that, the Republicans illegally ratified the 16th Amendment and today everybody is comfortable with the income tax. The income tax is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto and nothing, from an economics point of view is more indicative of slavery than communism. Nobody in this country respects the tax resister.

The Declaration of Independence lists Liberty is an unalienable Right. Yet it is the "right wing" that pushes the notion that one must become a citizen in order to work in the United States. Of course, those advocating are getting their wish and will soon be pushed into oblivion as the left increases in numbers. Yet, to deny people an unalienable Right is slavery.

The Democrats and leftists want to force those who produce to pay for those who do not produce. Putting your hand in my pocket to take money to give to someone I don't want to pay for is robbery. And our example here is simple:

The state of California wants to have sanctuary cities to protect the undocumented foreigners in their state. I'm okay with that. It's legal. But, the state wants the federal government to help fund the undocumented foreigners it invited. Forcing a man in Georgia to pay for the guests in California that they invited is a form of economic slavery. That is the same principle with Obamacare and socialized medicine.

The Democrats and atheists (most of which vote for Democrats) wail about slavery, but the Democrats were the ones who perpetuated slavery in this country. The hue of the skin has changed since democracy is all about majority rule. They just put a little lipstick on that pig and keep making emotion laden buzz word arguments to stay in control. Soooo,... when both sides of the political spectrum are comfortable with their forms of slavery, they are absolute hypocrites to use it as an issue ESPECIALLY when it does not even apply.

Slavery was a Christian institution

"Slavery was practiced in every ancient Middle Eastern society: Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman and Israelite. Slavery was an integral part of ancient commerce, taxation, and temple religion..."

Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia

but abolition still had its roots in the Christian church.

Ironically, this is true, in a twisted way. The King and Queen of Spain, learning that Columbus's colony was enslaving Indians, and bowing to pressure from the Church, which maintained that nobody can enslave Christians (only non-believers) issued an edict that in the future, before Indians can be slaughtered, or enslaved, they had to have an opportunity to accept Christ. Thereafter, on every Spanish expedition, a priest always addressed the Indians when first met by the Spaniards, asking them if they accepted Jesus. Since they always asked this question in Latin, the Indians didn't know what the **** they were talking about. The Spaniards, getting no positive "yes", then proceeded to slaughter and enslave at will.

and the people that committed those actions would not be considered Christian today .

 

[Vandalshandle]

And I, personally, have difficulty with those Christians who look to Jefferson as a magnificent sort of semi-Christian (Diest) as any kind of a role model for the country, unless the Christians of today see no difficulty with Jefferson enslaving his own children, which he did.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

CHRISTIAN AMERICA VERSUS SECULAR AMERICA

I was asked what the differences were between A Christian nation and the current system we have (which, through mostly United States Supreme Court decisions is a secular Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by multinational corporations.

From the outset of our Republic, it was under attack. The Illuminati had begun developing their globalist agenda. From 1715 to about the time the Constitution was ratified, we had the period known as The Enlightenment. Things had not gone so well for the framers as they were divided between the Federalists and anti - Federalists when they debated the Constitution's ratification.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States was marginally united; near financial ruin by 1787. The major voice of the Federalists was James Madison along with Alexander Hamilton and the man who was the heart and soul of the Anti-Federalists was Patrick Henry.

Though the Federalists prevailed, the Anti-Federalists (of which Thomas Jefferson sided with) got a consolation prize: the addition of the Bill of Rights. During the Constitutional Convention Patrick Henry addressed the delegates:

"Twenty-three years ago was I supposed a traitor to my country," he said. "I may be thought suspicious when I say our privileges and rights are in danger...But, sir, suspicion is a virtue, as long as its object is the preservation of the public good."

Henry suspected that at least some of those behind the Constitution had an ulterior motive. "When the American spirit was in its youth...liberty...was then the primary object," he said. "But now...the American spirit...is about to convert this country Unit() a powerful and mighty empire....There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government."

Patrick Henry Smells a Rat | AMERICAN HERITAGE

Patrick Henry complained that he smelled a rat, but ended up embracing the Constitution as it was the best they could get (or so George Washington told Henry.)

So, here we are, 231 years later, our Constitution in ruins, the people divided, Liberty mocked and ridiculed and we have a debate upon what principles the Republic rests. The liberals like to claim that the leaders of The Enlightenment were the only people the framers relied on in creating the Constitution. They invoke names like C. L. J. de S. Montesquieu, D. Hume, and Adam Smith and J.-J. Rousseau. And, actually, truth be told, none of those guys were against Christianity; they simply thought one religion was as good as another (which is irrelevant to the Constitution.) The reality is:

"In a now-famous study published in the American Political Science Review on the influence of European writers on the political literature of the founding, Donald S. Lutz reported that the Bible was cited more frequently than any European writer or even any European school of thought. The Bible, he found, accounted for approximately one-third of the citations in the literature he surveyed. The book of Deuteronomy alone was the most frequently cited work, followed by Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, the most cited secular source. In fact, Deuteronomy was referenced nearly twice as often as Locke’s writings, and the Apostle Paul was mentioned about as frequently as Montesquieu."

The Bible in the Political Culture of the American Founding – SHEAR

I could do hundreds of examples of exactly how many of the framers felt, but one of the people who said it so unequivocally was when John Adams wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813 and said

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

I will have to finish this in parts as it looks like this will be lengthy if the subject is to covered so thorough that the atheists cannot refute it.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

(1001) NotfooledbyW, post: 2386893 (1001)

How many currently immersed and obsessed with Christianity today would have appreciated one if the greatest minds of all the founders declaring that the Christian Bible is full of political dung. Nice word for bullshit.

(1001) Porter Rockwell, post: 23869436

You certainly made no point there except for one of ignorance regarding any knowledge of the Bible. Had you read the thread, I proved you wrong about Jefferson as well. Ignorance is bliss, brother and you seem to enjoy it.

(1001)01You did not answer my question.

(1001)02 You declared that I made no point. Appointing yourself judge and jury.

(1001)03 You said I was ignorant regarding knowledge of the Bible. Let me ask you why must i have knowledge of the Bible when I have no obligation as a free thinking American to go anywhere near a book that Jefferson says is full of political dung. I’ve read enough of the Bible and read Thomas Paine’s critique of the Bible to accept Jefferson’s opinion of it to be true.

NotfooledbyW, post: 23868959 (2001)

John Winthrop was a settler not a founder. Jefferson was a founder and Jefferson was a Diest not a Christian.

(2001) 02 Porter Rockwell, post: 23869464

Jefferson was a Christian - just not a mainstream Christian. This is from the source you quoted, but omitted the link: "He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher."

Here you responded decently which bellies your previous insult that I made no point.

My point holds because you admit that Jefferson is distinct and distant from mainstream Christianity at the time and my point was that Jefferson is very very distant from mainstream Christianity today. See 2386893 (1001)

That point leads to my subsequent point that your evidence that America is a Christian Nation is primarily based upon the massive msjority of white mainstream Christians practicing their belief in the divinity of Christ at the time and the location of the founding of America.

Jefferson is not in that mainstream,

I regard Jefferson (there are many others you childish asshole to say I think otherwise) and his unique and rare Enlightenment guided mind to be much more essential to our nations founding than the multitude of minds that make up your Christianized white majority,

The Christian masses were doing rightfully what working class Americans do, They were not contemplating the value and meaning of Montesquieu’s separation of powers and protections from tyranny and freedom of religion.

Jefferson being the Deist/historical Christian that he was with an Enlightenment mind instead of a dogmatic religious soppy mass between his ears, pondered the ideas and thinking of great philosophers like Aristotle, Locke and of Montesquieu.

And as I pointed out. I say mass Christianity has no say in how Jefferson brought separation of power into our system of government because the Church banned Montesquieu’s books as a danger to the flock.

A book burning theology gets no credit for the establishment and founding of America in my mind.

America was founded as an Enlightened Nation with a strong ideal of separation of Church and state.


Porter Rockwell, post: 23880619,

It's too late to try doing research to refute my position when I've told you that, given the insults I will not discuss this any further with you.

There you go again with your bullshit whining and dogmatic rule setting as self appointed judge and juror.

The Muslim can wear their headgear in public; the Christian cannot wear their cross.

I call bullshit on that.

Show me were a Christian can’t wear his cross in public. But not until you give a genuine response to the above.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The Bible in the Political Culture of the American Founding – SHEAR

I could do hundreds of examples of exactly how many of the framers felt, but one of the people who said it so unequivocally was when John Adams wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813 and said

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

From your link:

• Drawing attention to the Bible’s contributions to the founding is not meant to diminish, much less dismiss, other intellectual influences on the founders.

But you, educated genius that you claim to be has reserved the right to dismiss all the other intellectual influences on the founders
In order to righteously and religiously declare that America was founded as a Christian nation, And anyone that disagrees with Professor Rockwell is an enemy of the Christian Faith.