America's Christian Heritage - Great Quotes

[guno]

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Jefferson was a deist - that is, he believed in God, but he didn't believe in the 'miracles' described in the Bible. The quote you show is a result of a question from John Adams during his second term campaign.

"About his first Jesus book, "The Philosophy of Jesus," Jefferson wrote: "It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians." In a separate letter, he asserted again the authenticity of his faith: "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

Read more at Beliefnet Presents Separating Diamonds from the Dunghill Founding Faith Steven Waldman - Beliefnet.com

You are being intellectually dishonest to remove the quote from context and try to use it to, somehow, portray as a non-believer.

In spite of right-wing Christian attempts to rewrite history to make Jefferson into a Christian, little about his philosophy resembles that of Christianity. Although Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence wrote of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, there exists nothing in the Declaration about Christianity.

Thomas Jefferson quotes

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
Positive Atheism s Big List of John Adams Quotations

 

[Agit8r]

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Jefferson was a deist - that is, he believed in God, but he didn't believe in the 'miracles' described in the Bible. The quote you show is a result of a question from John Adams during his second term campaign.

"About his first Jesus book, "The Philosophy of Jesus," Jefferson wrote: "It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians." In a separate letter, he asserted again the authenticity of his faith: "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

Read more at Beliefnet Presents Separating Diamonds from the Dunghill Founding Faith Steven Waldman - Beliefnet.com

You are being intellectually dishonest to remove the quote from context and try to use it to, somehow, portray as a non-believer.

Can someone be a Christian without believing in the divinity of Jesus?

 

[guno]

35 Founding Father Quotes Conservative Christians Will Hate

35 Founding Father Quotes Conservative Christians Will Hate Addicting Info

 

[guno]

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Jefferson was a deist - that is, he believed in God, but he didn't believe in the 'miracles' described in the Bible. The quote you show is a result of a question from John Adams during his second term campaign.

"About his first Jesus book, "The Philosophy of Jesus," Jefferson wrote: "It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians." In a separate letter, he asserted again the authenticity of his faith: "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

Read more at Beliefnet Presents Separating Diamonds from the Dunghill Founding Faith Steven Waldman - Beliefnet.com

You are being intellectually dishonest to remove the quote from context and try to use it to, somehow, portray as a non-believer.

Can someone be a Christian without believing in the divinity of Jesus?

no, that's why christians are intelligently dishonest and retarded in the intellectual sense

 

[guno]

Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence.

Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity.

Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity.

 

[guno]

'Unlike some of the wackier positions taken by evangelicals—think Rapture—the claim that America was founded as a Christian nation has gone relatively mainstream. This is the case largely because the media-savvy Christian Right is good at getting across its message. A 2007 First Amendment Center poll revealed that 65 percent of Americans believe the founders intended the United States “to be a Christian nation”; over half of us think that this intention is actually spelled out somewhere in the Constitution. Conservative politicians sensitive to the way the wind blows are careful to echo the sentiment, or at least not to dispute it, even if they’re not particularly religious themselves. Recent GOP presidential aspirants Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry championed the claim with gusto. Even John McCain, who usually left the Bible-thumping to his Alaskan running mate, jumped on the bandwagon in his failed 2008 bid for the presidency by assuring a Beliefnet interviewer that “this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles” and that he personally would be disturbed if a non-Christian were elected to the highest office in the land.

So the notion that America was founded as a Christian nation is widespread. In the currency of ideas, it’s the ubiquitous penny. But like an actual penny, it doesn’t have a lot of value. That so many people think it does is largely because they don’t stop to consider what “founded as a Christian nation” might signify. Presumably the intended meaning is something like this: Christian principles are the bedrock of both our political system and founding documents because our founders were themselves Christians. Although wordier, this reformulation is just as perplexing because it’s not clear what’s meant by the term founders. Just who are we talking about here?"

The Truth About Religion in America The Founders Loathed Superstition and We Were Never a Christian Nation Alternet

 

[guno]

The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.

he Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey Citadel Press, 1983, p. 371). In a letter to Mrs. Harrison Smith, he wrote, "It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest" (August 6, 1816).

 

[Spare_change]

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Jefferson was a deist - that is, he believed in God, but he didn't believe in the 'miracles' described in the Bible. The quote you show is a result of a question from John Adams during his second term campaign.

"About his first Jesus book, "The Philosophy of Jesus," Jefferson wrote: "It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians." In a separate letter, he asserted again the authenticity of his faith: "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

Read more at Beliefnet Presents Separating Diamonds from the Dunghill Founding Faith Steven Waldman - Beliefnet.com

You are being intellectually dishonest to remove the quote from context and try to use it to, somehow, portray as a non-believer.

In spite of right-wing Christian attempts to rewrite history to make Jefferson into a Christian, little about his philosophy resembles that of Christianity. Although Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence wrote of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, there exists nothing in the Declaration about Christianity.

Thomas Jefferson quotes

Amazing ... denial of historical reality as a debate device?? You are allowed your own conclusions, but not your own set of facts.

 

[Agit8r]

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Jefferson was a deist - that is, he believed in God, but he didn't believe in the 'miracles' described in the Bible. The quote you show is a result of a question from John Adams during his second term campaign.

"About his first Jesus book, "The Philosophy of Jesus," Jefferson wrote: "It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians." In a separate letter, he asserted again the authenticity of his faith: "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

Read more at Beliefnet Presents Separating Diamonds from the Dunghill Founding Faith Steven Waldman - Beliefnet.com

You are being intellectually dishonest to remove the quote from context and try to use it to, somehow, portray as a non-believer.

Can someone be a Christian without believing in the divinity of Jesus?

no, that's why christians are intelligently dishonest and retarded in the intellectual sense

Perhaps present day "Christianity" is not based on Christian principles. If indeed Jesus was a historical person and his philosophy were accurately portrayed in the Gospels, it is obvious that he did not support warmongering, or killing people in the streets, or blaming rape victims for the crimes they fell victim to, or GREED for that matter. Rather, these anti-christian principals are propagated by wolves in sheep's clothing, who licentiously invoke the name of an ancient deity for their own self-serving purposes.

 

[guno]

I give Quotes and historical source materials (historic letters and writings of the founding fathers) which are verifiable and what do i get from the Christians ? that i'm delusional, as if history should be discounted and is a ploy of their satan.

 

[guno]

Lying for jesus

Definition: when Christians deliberately spread misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, specious arguments, lies in order to further legitimize their religion or bring people to jesus.

Example; The Creation Museum is lying for jesus when they show that dinosaurs walked on earth with humans."

Or

"America was founded on Christianity"

 

[Spare_change]

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Jefferson was a deist - that is, he believed in God, but he didn't believe in the 'miracles' described in the Bible. The quote you show is a result of a question from John Adams during his second term campaign.

"About his first Jesus book, "The Philosophy of Jesus," Jefferson wrote: "It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians." In a separate letter, he asserted again the authenticity of his faith: "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

Read more at Beliefnet Presents Separating Diamonds from the Dunghill Founding Faith Steven Waldman - Beliefnet.com

You are being intellectually dishonest to remove the quote from context and try to use it to, somehow, portray as a non-believer.

Can someone be a Christian without believing in the divinity of Jesus?

no, that's why christians are intelligently dishonest and retarded in the intellectual sense

Perhaps present day "Christianity" is not based on Christian principles. If indeed Jesus was a historical person and his philosophy were accurately portrayed in the Gospels, it is obvious that he did not support warmongering, or killing people in the streets, or blaming rape victims for the crimes they fell victim to, or GREED for that matter. Rather, these anti-christian principals are propagated by wolves in sheep's clothing, who licentiously invoke the name of an ancient deity for their own self-serving purposes.

You, of course, have no idea how Jesus felt about war ... since it's clear you've never studied him.

Your ignorance, in fact, is demonstrated in your pathetic attempt to conflate the teaching of the Son of God with the actions of mortal man. It not only demeans Jesus, but it elevates man to a level not deserved.

Too bad, too bad ...

 

[Spare_change]

Lying for jesus

Definition: when Christians deliberately spread misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, specious arguments, lies in order to further legitimize their religion or bring people to jesus.

Example; The Creation Museum is lying for jesus when they show that dinosaurs walked on earth with humans."

Or

"America was founded on Christianity"

How conveniently you misinterpret, twist, and convolute ...

American was not founded on Christianity .... but it WAS founded on Christian principles.

Learn it, live it, love it.

 

[Agit8r]

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Jefferson was a deist - that is, he believed in God, but he didn't believe in the 'miracles' described in the Bible. The quote you show is a result of a question from John Adams during his second term campaign.

"About his first Jesus book, "The Philosophy of Jesus," Jefferson wrote: "It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians." In a separate letter, he asserted again the authenticity of his faith: "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

Read more at Beliefnet Presents Separating Diamonds from the Dunghill Founding Faith Steven Waldman - Beliefnet.com

You are being intellectually dishonest to remove the quote from context and try to use it to, somehow, portray as a non-believer.

Can someone be a Christian without believing in the divinity of Jesus?

no, that's why christians are intelligently dishonest and retarded in the intellectual sense

Perhaps present day "Christianity" is not based on Christian principles. If indeed Jesus was a historical person and his philosophy were accurately portrayed in the Gospels, it is obvious that he did not support warmongering, or killing people in the streets, or blaming rape victims for the crimes they fell victim to, or GREED for that matter. Rather, these anti-christian principals are propagated by wolves in sheep's clothing, who licentiously invoke the name of an ancient deity for their own self-serving purposes.

You, of course, have no idea how Jesus felt about war ... since it's clear you've never studied him.

Your ignorance, in fact, is demonstrated in your pathetic attempt to conflate the teaching of the Son of God with the actions of mortal man. It not only demeans Jesus, but it elevates man to a level not deserved.

Too bad, too bad ...

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
-- Matthew 5:9

"Then Jesus told him, 'Put your sword back in its place because all who take up a sword will perish by a sword.'"
-- Matthew 26:52

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
-- Matthew 5:38

of course most Christians hold that the prophets predicted Jesus' character as well:

"But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
-- Michah 4:1-3

 

[Spare_change]

Jefferson was a deist - that is, he believed in God, but he didn't believe in the 'miracles' described in the Bible. The quote you show is a result of a question from John Adams during his second term campaign.

"About his first Jesus book, "The Philosophy of Jesus," Jefferson wrote: "It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians." In a separate letter, he asserted again the authenticity of his faith: "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

Read more at Beliefnet Presents Separating Diamonds from the Dunghill Founding Faith Steven Waldman - Beliefnet.com

You are being intellectually dishonest to remove the quote from context and try to use it to, somehow, portray as a non-believer.

Can someone be a Christian without believing in the divinity of Jesus?

no, that's why christians are intelligently dishonest and retarded in the intellectual sense

Perhaps present day "Christianity" is not based on Christian principles. If indeed Jesus was a historical person and his philosophy were accurately portrayed in the Gospels, it is obvious that he did not support warmongering, or killing people in the streets, or blaming rape victims for the crimes they fell victim to, or GREED for that matter. Rather, these anti-christian principals are propagated by wolves in sheep's clothing, who licentiously invoke the name of an ancient deity for their own self-serving purposes.

You, of course, have no idea how Jesus felt about war ... since it's clear you've never studied him.

Your ignorance, in fact, is demonstrated in your pathetic attempt to conflate the teaching of the Son of God with the actions of mortal man. It not only demeans Jesus, but it elevates man to a level not deserved.

Too bad, too bad ...

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
-- Matthew 5:9

"Then Jesus told him, 'Put your sword back in its place because all who take up a sword will perish by a sword.'"
-- Matthew 26:52

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
-- Matthew 5:38

of course most Christians hold that the prophets predicted Jesus' character as well:

"But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
-- Michah 4:1-3

I'm afraid your cursory and intemperate selection of specific verses of the bible do not reflect the bible, at all. Instead, I suspect that you do so intentionally, in order to mislead.

I'll quote a famous sermon:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. (Matthew 5:39-44)

Does Jesus' teaching that we should turn the other cheek and love our enemies mean that it is always wrong to go to war? Should the world have turned the other cheek to Hitler and tried to love him into surrender? When Osama Ben Laden ordered the attack on the World Trade Center, should the U.S. have responded by sending him the Sears Tower as well? Or does Jesus allow a place for both loving our enemies and yet, in certain situations, using force to restrain life-threatening wickedness?

What follows are some of the primary reasons we believe that it is right for the military (and Christians who are a part of the military) to engage in wars that have just cause--namely, self-defense, the restraint of life-threatening evil, and the punishment of nations and individuals who have committed unjust acts of war against one's country. This is called the just war theory. We will close by seeking to explain how this fits with the command to turn the other cheek, love our enemies, and not resist him who is evil.

Pacifism is harmful
To let someone murder when it is in your power to stop them is completely contrary to our moral sentiments. If a Hitler is on the move and seeking to bind the world in tyranny and destroy entire ethnic groups, it would seem very clearly wrong not to oppose him with force (which sometimes is the only effective method). It is true that war itself is harmful and tragic; but pacifism would result in even more harm to the world because it would give wicked people virtually free reign. We of course must be open to letting the Bible transform our moral sentiments, but this observation should at least cause us to pause and reflect more deeply before concluding that Jesus is intending to teach pacifism.

Consistent pacifism would have to eliminate the police, not just the military
In fact, if we were to conclude that governments should always turn the other cheek and never resist evil, then we would be logically committing ourselves to getting rid of not only the armed forces, but also the police force and criminal justice system. For police officers arrest criminals, using force against them if necessary, and put them in jail. That is not turning the other cheek. Does Jesus intend his command to turn the other cheek to apply to the police? Surely not as their primary way of responding to evil. God does not want evil to run about in our society unchecked (cf. in the OT the numerous civil laws and in the NT Romans 13, to be discussed below). If one accepts the legitimacy of police using force in some instances, there can be no objection to the military using force in some instances, either.

Luke 3:14 allows military service
It is significant that John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers to leave the military when they asked him what it meant to repent: "And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, 'And what about us, what shall we do?' And he said to them, 'Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages'" (Luke 3:14). Since it is, therefore, possible to live a godly life and yet be in the military, it must be because engaging in war is not always sinful.

John 18:36 acknowledges the right of the sword to earthly kingdoms
In this passage, Jesus says: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." When Jesus says that if his kingdom were of this world his servants would be fighting, he implies that it is right for kingdoms of this world to fight when the cause is just and circumstances require it. As Christians, we are citizens of "two kingdoms"--our country on earth, and heaven. Jesus shows us that it is never right to fight for the sake of his spiritual kingdom, but that it is right to fight on behalf of earthly kingdoms (when necessary to counter evil and destruction).

Romans 13:3-4 grants governments the right to use force to restrain and punish evil
Paul writes: "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."

Here Paul affirms the government's right to use force in two ways. First, he says that it "does not bear the sword for nothing." Second, he states that government is a "minister of God" when it executes vengeance against evildoers.

Governments, of course, do not have the right to use force for any purpose whatsoever. They do not have the right to use force in order to lord it over their citizens and impose unnecessary restraints upon freedom. There are two purposes for which this text says the government is justified in using force: the restraint of evil and the punishment of evil. The purpose of force is not just to prevent further evil from happening, but to punish evil acts by bringing the perpetrators to justice. Government is acting as a "minister of God" when it serves as "an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."

Does the right of the sword in this text extend to the case of war? The immediate context does have in mind the use of physical force in regard to a government's own citizens. But by extension this also implies that if one nation commits an act of war against another nation, the offended nation has the right to engage in self-defense and to avenge the wrong. Would it be consistent to say that a nation has a right to restrain and punish evil committed against it by its own citizens, but not to restrain and punish evil committed against it by another nation? The mere fact that the civil offense was committed by another country does not remove their accountability to the country they attacked.

1 Peter 2:13-4 confirms the teaching of Romans 13:3-4
In 1 Peter 2:13-14, we are taught: "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right." Once again, the right of governments to punish evil is affirmed.

Is it right for a Christian to fight in a war?
Since the Scriptures teach that it is right for a nation to engage in a just war, it follows that it is therefore right for a Christian to fight in such a war. Some have argued that non-Christians may fight in wars but believers may not, but this distinction is not found in Scripture. Scripture teaches that it is not sin for a government to engage in a just war, and there is therefore nothing that forbids Christian from being involved in just wars.

Church and state must be distinguished
It is very important, however, to remember here the distinction between church and state. The Christian fights in a war not as an ambassador of the church or on behalf of the church, but as an ambassador of his country. The church is not to use violence (John 18:36), but the government at times may (John 18:36; Romans 13:3-4; etc.). So the Christian fights not as an agent of the church, but as an agent of the government of his country. Both are ultimately under the authority of God, but each has a distinct role."

Use not the tools of God for untoward purposes, but hold true to their meaning and their instruction.

 

[Spare_change]

Jefferson was a deist - that is, he believed in God, but he didn't believe in the 'miracles' described in the Bible. The quote you show is a result of a question from John Adams during his second term campaign.

"About his first Jesus book, "The Philosophy of Jesus," Jefferson wrote: "It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians." In a separate letter, he asserted again the authenticity of his faith: "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

Read more at Beliefnet Presents Separating Diamonds from the Dunghill Founding Faith Steven Waldman - Beliefnet.com

You are being intellectually dishonest to remove the quote from context and try to use it to, somehow, portray as a non-believer.

Can someone be a Christian without believing in the divinity of Jesus?

no, that's why christians are intelligently dishonest and retarded in the intellectual sense

Perhaps present day "Christianity" is not based on Christian principles. If indeed Jesus was a historical person and his philosophy were accurately portrayed in the Gospels, it is obvious that he did not support warmongering, or killing people in the streets, or blaming rape victims for the crimes they fell victim to, or GREED for that matter. Rather, these anti-christian principals are propagated by wolves in sheep's clothing, who licentiously invoke the name of an ancient deity for their own self-serving purposes.

You, of course, have no idea how Jesus felt about war ... since it's clear you've never studied him.

Your ignorance, in fact, is demonstrated in your pathetic attempt to conflate the teaching of the Son of God with the actions of mortal man. It not only demeans Jesus, but it elevates man to a level not deserved.

Too bad, too bad ...

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
-- Matthew 5:9

"Then Jesus told him, 'Put your sword back in its place because all who take up a sword will perish by a sword.'"
-- Matthew 26:52

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
-- Matthew 5:38

of course most Christians hold that the prophets predicted Jesus' character as well:

"But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
-- Michah 4:1-3

Perhaps this will help you to better understand the Word of God -

What does the Bible say about war

Many people make the mistake of reading what the Bible says in Exodus 20:13, “You shall not kill,” and then seeking to apply this command to war. However, the Hebrew word literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice; murder.” God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13). God ordered the death penalty for numerous crimes (Exodus 21:12, 15; 22:19; Leviticus 20:11). So, God is not against killing in all circumstances, but only murder. War is never a good thing, but sometimes it is a necessary thing. In a world filled with sinful people (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable. Sometimes the only way to keep sinful people from doing great harm to the innocent is by going to war.

In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to “take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites” (Numbers 31:2). Deuteronomy 20:16-17 declares, “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them…as the LORD your God has commanded you.” Also, 1 Samuel 15:18 says, “Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.” Obviously God is not against all war. Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God’s will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).

Jesus’ second coming will be exceedingly violent. Revelation 19:11-21 describes the ultimate war with Christ, the conquering commander who judges and makes war “with justice” (v. 11). It’s going to be bloody (v. 13) and gory. The birds will eat the flesh of all those who oppose Him (v. 17-18). He has no compassion upon His enemies, whom He will conquer completely and consign to a “fiery lake of burning sulfur” (v. 20).

It is an error to say that God never supports a war. Jesus is not a pacifist. In a world filled with evil people, sometimes war is necessary to prevent even greater evil. If Hitler had not been defeated by World War II, how many more millions would have been killed? If the American Civil War had not been fought, how much longer would African-Americans have had to suffer as slaves?

War is a terrible thing. Some wars are more “just” than others, but war is always the result of sin (Romans 3:10-18). At the same time, Ecclesiastes 3:8 declares, “There is…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” In a world filled with sin, hatred, and evil (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable. Christians should not desire war, but neither are Christians to oppose the government God has placed in authority over them (Romans 13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:17). The most important thing we can be doing in a time of war is to be praying for godly wisdom for our leaders, praying for the safety of our military, praying for quick resolution to conflicts, and praying for a minimum of casualties among civilians on both sides (Philippians 4:6-7).

Read more: What does the Bible say about war

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Jefferson was a deist - that is, he believed in God, but he didn't believe in the 'miracles' described in the Bible. The quote you show is a result of a question from John Adams during his second term campaign.

"About his first Jesus book, "The Philosophy of Jesus," Jefferson wrote: "It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians." In a separate letter, he asserted again the authenticity of his faith: "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

Read more at Beliefnet Presents Separating Diamonds from the Dunghill Founding Faith Steven Waldman - Beliefnet.com

You are being intellectually dishonest to remove the quote from context and try to use it to, somehow, portray as a non-believer.

Can someone be a Christian without believing in the divinity of Jesus?

no, that's why christians are intelligently dishonest and retarded in the intellectual sense

Perhaps present day "Christianity" is not based on Christian principles. If indeed Jesus was a historical person and his philosophy were accurately portrayed in the Gospels, it is obvious that he did not support warmongering, or killing people in the streets, or blaming rape victims for the crimes they fell victim to, or GREED for that matter. Rather, these anti-christian principals are propagated by wolves in sheep's clothing, who licentiously invoke the name of an ancient deity for their own self-serving purposes.

Christianity is based on the Bible and the Doctrine of Jesus Christ and there are still many Christians who hold fast to the teachings of the Bible and are not persuaded by wide road false teachers - false teachings that promote prosperity gospel and grace to sin false gospel preachers and all other false teachers such as they are, Agit8r. Yet, still this has nothing to do with the fact that America's Christian Heritage is proven in our history - our founding fathers - Christian men who openly professed their faith in Jesus Christ. There was nothing in the OP about war mongering, blaming rape victims, etc. and you are off topic here.

Stay on topic and please stop trying to derail the thread. Thank you.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

“If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.” ~ Ronald Reagan

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

 

[Book of Jeremiah]