Kevin Scheunemann on July 4, 2016 at 10:58 am Greatest Christian nation in human history…that is, if we remain vigilant from threats.
Greatest Christian nation in human history…that is, if we remain vigilant from threats.
From the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
Hope you are having a great 4th.
According to Thomas Jefferson:
“In an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he wrote:
“ Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, thus building a wall of separation between church and State”.
Nord…my favorite subject,
James Madison, writer of first amendment:
1785 in Virgina assembly introduced bill for “days of public fasting and thanksgiving”. And a bill for punishing “disturbers of religious worship” and “Sabbath breakers”.
1789 in first session of Congress he introduced first amendment as writer.
While president in 1812 and 1813 he proclaimed a “National Day of Public humiliation and prayer”
In 1814 he proclaimed a “National Day of Thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God” for winning the war.
In his inaugural address he acknowledges, “that Almighty Being whose power regates the destiny of nations.”
He argued when passing religious liberty act in Virginia… We don’t want to require people to be Christian. But wanted to insure people are freed up to be Christian. Madison wanted to make sure unbelievers would come to Virginia so they could be evangelized, he argued, we don’t want to “inhibit the diffusion of the light of Christianity” to those “under the dominion of false religions”.
The writer of First Amendment was openly Christian and openly said everything else was “false religion” ! However, he correctly, asserted no one can be forced to Christianity, but firmly, and undisbutedly held Christianity is the only true religion.
(If liberals in Madison knew this, they might change name of our WI State Capitol.)
50 state Constitutions acknowledge God. WI State Constitution: Article 1
1.) acknowledges “Almighty God” exists
2.) God singular, montheistic
3.) you have choice how to worship him.
Let’s get to Jefferson:
Jefferson did say that. However, he held the Madison view on Christianity. He wanted people free to be Christian, but also viewed other religions as false.
Modern Day liberals take his letter out of context on “separation of church and state”. Jefferson wanted Christian denominations not to be interfered with by other Christian denomination like what was happening in Europe through monarchs.
He did not mean godless liberalism ro be the religion of the State and oppress public displays of Christianity, which is how that phrase is used today by unbelievers.
Jefferson would be rolling in his grave if he knew how his freedom of Christian denominations letter articulating freedom from government interference was being used to justify Christian public expression censorship today under “separation of church and state”.
” Religion ruins everything ”
Last time I checked , the settlers and the British worshipped the same Christian God
( Deists , Theists and Even Catholics ( who were confined / given their own state ( Maryland )
The American Revolution had nothing to do with religion other than the same God allowing one set of believers to suppress another set of believers ( with both sides claiming the high ground morally )
Both sides quoted biblical phrases for the righteousness of their cause yet the losing side had eliminated slavery for 100 years while the winning side condoned it for almost 100 years
Some Designer huh ?
You have a Christian to thank for 1st Amendment.
(Even though liberals seem to hate it worse than 2nd Amendment these days.)
It would seem that Madison was concerned about the dominance of one faith or denomination being more powerful than any other. He certainly was in favor of freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. And he certainly did not intend the United States to be a Christian nation. While Madison may have been some flavor of Christian, he did not espouse any particular denomination, nor did other greats like Franklin, Washington or Jefferson.
From James Laconte at the Heritage Foundation in an essay about Madison:
” He voices concern that the misuse of religion would lead to “an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.” He reasons that government support would “weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author.” He recalls that ecclesiastical establishments of the past have done great damage to the “purity and efficacy” of religion.”
Madison would pick up the fight again during the drafting of the First Amendment. As chairman of the House conference committee on the Bill of Rights, Madison’s original draft was among the most ambitious: “the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship…nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed….” . “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” –clearly bears the Madison stamp.
The point is that, thanks largely to Madison, free exercise replaced toleration as the national standard for protecting religious liberty, a standard he first raised in Virginia and sustained throughout his political career.
Liberals make Madison into an anti-religious rationalist, determined to quarantine the republic from the disruptive influence of faith. Conservatives, when not trying to Christianize him, invoke Madison’s faith-friendly rhetoric to justify the latest attempt to reinsert religion in the public square. The truth is more complicated. What is nearly indisputable is that his religious instincts fueled much of his political activity.
In the fight to pass the Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty, he shamed Christian conservatives–who tried to insert the words “Jesus Christ” in an amended preamble–with these words: “The better proof of reverence for that holy name would be not to profane it by making it a topic of legislative discussion….” In 1795, during a congressional debate over naturalization, he bluntly repelled anti-Catholic prejudices: “In their religion there was nothing inconsistent with the purest Republicanism.” At age 65, in retirement at his estate in Virginia, Madison praised the separation of church and state because, by it, “the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased….”
Other quotes from Madison:
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect”.
James Madison, letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774
“That Religion or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, being under the direction of reason and conviction only, not of violence or compulsion, all men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise of it according to the dictates of Conscience”.
James Madison, Amendments to the Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 1776
“The civil rights of none, shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed”.
The fact that any amendments were needed shows that our Founders were not divinely inspired by any particular God ( otherwise they would have gotten it 100% correct on their first attempt )
I thank all the founders for their attempt to try something new but never ascribed a certain religion for them having done so
We were breaking away from a decidedly Christian country in order to allow people of all faiths
( or no faith ) to live their own lives .
And to tell people who know what their God thinks ( and that he doesn’t approve of me )
“No thank you and quit bothering me with your magical Bronze Age thinking ”
And that’s what makes America Great
Madison was all those things, but he never advocated”freedom from religion” the way its advocated today.
He still advocated public professions of christian faith, especially while President.
“Freedom from religion” in Madison’s eyes never, ever, meant that Christians would be unable to evangelize the gospel simply because the godless are offended.
As long as we are clear on that.
I agree Christianity cannot be compulsion.
We just need to make sure godless liberalism is not the state religious compulsion today….for exact reasons Madison noted about Christianity.
I have to say, best July 4 discussion ever.
“but he never advocated”freedom from religion” the way its advocated today”.
” “Freedom from religion” in Madison’s eyes never, ever, meant that Christians would be unable to evangelize the gospel simply because the godless are offended”
Opinion or fact? If you want to pose those comments as fact, provid a source.
When you weigh the aggregate of 50 state constitutions acknowledging existence of a single monotheistic God, and they all allow freedom to worship as people see fit….it was a debate among Christian denominations at time how worship best took place. He wanted Christians, and unbelievers, free to choose style of worship. That is evident from his comments.
Madison also appointed one of the most openly Christian Supreme Court justices in history.
It is difficult to derive any other conclusion from his comments. Madison would not even dream of the Christian hostility from liberalism today.
He’d be against anything that diminished, or curbed, Christian evangelism from individuals in public square flowing from the Holy Spirit.
OK, I’ll take that as strictly your opinion.
That’s OK, I take any position that supports oppression of Christian speech in public square as “godless liberal chanting”.
How do you rationalize all the contradictions in your claims ?
“He wanted Christians, and unbelievers, free to choose style of worship. That is evident from his comments”.
Yet you openly declare war on a religion ?
In your opinion. The billions of non-christians around the world would call your version of religion false as well.
Then all 50 State Constitutions are wrong?
Declaration of Independence is wrong?
They all acknowledge one God and Creator. I have the right to say that Christianity is the universal truth.
None of those documents acknowledge poly-theism or atheism.
Most don’t even mention “christianity” at all.
Certainly you have the right, but that doesn’t make you right.
But they don’t exclude other beliefs as well.
Mono-theistic God is acknowledged in all those documents.
If you say it’s poly-theism or atheism acknoledged in those documents, you would be wrong.
It may be of some interest to you that:
In 34 states the term “Almighty God” is used in the constitution.
In nine states the term “God” is used alone.
Other states use terms like, “Supreme Ruler of the Universe”, “Divine Goodness”, “Sovereign Ruler of Nations”, “Divine Guidance”, or “Preserver of the Universe”. My favorite is “Legislator of the Universe”.
None of the 50 states use the term “Christianity”, nor do any of the states define which or whose God, or which denomination, they are referencing.
Also of note:
“It may surprise you (or perhaps not) to learn that some state constitutions specifically deny certain civil privileges to non-believers. The restrictions include both denial to hold office and denial to serve as a witness in a trial. The ability of the state to deny elected office to a non-believer, be that person an atheist, agnostic, Humanist, Buddhist, Hindu, or any number of non-Abrahamic religions, is questionable from a national constitutional aspect”.
Source: U.S. Constitution On-Line
Kev is agnostic to any other religion except his own, as are most folks who interpret literally any Bronze Age Book
( with the exception of Mormons who follow an Americanized Version of Bronze Age books )
This is a Tempest in a man made teapot
If you are a Christian and hold out that something else other than Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life….one has not only failed miserably at being a Christian, one has rejected their Christianity.
Every Christian should understand everything else is false religion.
This should be no surprise to anyone.
But why does the truth have to be your version of the truth? You have no more proof of that truth than anyone else, yet you continue to exclude everyone that doesn’t exactly agree with you from christianity. That doesn’t seem very christian of you.
1 Corinthians 13:6 indicates Christian love rejoices in the truth.
If a Christian rejects the truth, how can they “rejoice in the truth?”
But it truth know only to you. What about the truth known by a Jew or Hindu? Or are they excluded from the afterlife by guardians like yourself?
It is not truth known only to me, it is known to all by truth through the free gift of the Holy Spirit.
You are free to reject that that gift. Those that do, it has eternal consequence.
Jews accept Old Testament, but generally reject Gospel of Jesus as redeemer. Jews try to gain eternal life by keeping the Law. Problem is: no one can do that. That’s why one needs Christ’s grace to cover our sins. Does Christ’s grace reach some Jews? It is possible. The constant internal question to those living under Old Testament covenant in Jewish tradition, “Am I good enough to go to heaven?” can spark the work of Holy Spirit and the good news of the New Testament covenant.
No one is “excluded” from afterlife. It’s about destination.
Hindus and all other false religions have one thing in common: They all teach that one can earn heaven through some form of good works or good deeds. That is always the sign of false religion. Only Evangelical Christianity teaches you that your sins are covered by Christ’s grace, good works are your thank offering for living in grace and light of Christ….not as a means of keeping score, or as obligation…an outward sign of how healthy one’s faith in Christ is.
if I stood here and rejected, or refused to testify about the truth of the light of Christ, do I stand with The Gospel, or against it?
If anyone embraces a Gospel other than Christ crucified and rose again as Redeemer, they reject the truth of the Gospel.
I still hold out hope for you.
Once again you claim to be the sole arbiter of truth. It must be a tremendous responsibility having that burden on your shoulders alone.
Don’t bother wasting any prayers on me, because at the end of the day you and I will be in the same place. I’ll just get there without having to place judgement on billions of other good people.
Christians prefer “joy” to “burden”.
So same place? I’m willing to say where.
Are you sure where you will be?
Weren’t the first Christians all Jewish ? Didn’t they follow both Jewish and Christian practices for centuries?
I know you aren’t Catholic, but the Second Vatican Council explicitly taught respect for those of other faiths, including those of non-Christian faiths. So the Pope isn’t a true Christian in your mind?
Very First Christians were mostly all Jews realizing the promised Old Testament fulfillment by Christ as Savior. Many first Christians were personal witnesses of crucifixion and resurrection, and ascension, like the apostles. (All remaining apostles went on to be martyred in gruesome fashion without recanting their faith in Christ, except John, who suffered exile and died in his 90s in exile.)
Gentiles (non-Jews) were largely converted when Saul, who was a Jew savagely persecuting Christians, was suddenly converted by Jesus appearing to him and became Paul the great missionary and whose letters largely making up New Testament. His missionary journeys were largely a Gentile audience.
Respect for other religions? Meaning what? We should evangelize them and not let them think their false teaching is the truth. I agree there is no need to not live the golden rule to other members of other religions unless their evil threatens the innocent.
If “respect” means we should lie or embrace their lie as the truth, that denies the gospel and rejects Christ.
The office of the papacy has been teaching a heretical gospel other than Christ as redeemer for our sins for quite some time. Unless the Pope embraces objective justification by Christ’s grace alone through faith, I would question his practice of Christianity. (If Pope did embrace that, roman Catholics would be united again with Protestant reformers. Pope only pays lip service to it….Roman Catholicism still preaches one can merit, Christ’s unmerited grace by your good works….that denies the true gospel.)
So in other words, in your opinion, the pope isn’t christian? Your hubris knows no bounds.
If the office of the papacy still preaches salvation can be found in anyone other than Christ, then I’m saying the office of the papacy denies the true gospel. This was the basis of the reformation.
Did you read the biblical references I attached to that last response?
That does not mean the true gospel does not shine through to many in the Roman Catholic church. It’s when the idea: that we can merit Christ’s grace by our own good works, it starts to deny the gospel.
Earning salvation by our merit is the tell tale mark of other false religions like buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism.
Hubris are those who think they can improve on the truth apart from absolute biblical truth.
BTW, you never answered where you think you will be when you die?
Everything claim you make revolves around your personal version of the truth. And on your personal interpretation of a work of fiction. I’m sure we could have a very spirited discourse on each of our interpretations of any other work of fiction. Why don’t we start with an equally important tome: The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy by Adams.
I have answered that many times in the past, so here goes again: in the dirt. Or as your book says, (from the English Standard Version),
“All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return”.
Now put your spin on that phrase.
I’m glad you recognize your work of fiction when it comes to your version of the truth. The interesting part about your version is, you have this superior moral notion that no one can be right or wrong about absolute truth, but you are convinced those that understand and embrace absolute truth are wrong. Don’t you violate your own, don’t offend others by telling people what is right and wrong, moral code by doing that?
Our bodies will be dust.
I was more interested in where you think your soul will be.
I believe an absolute truth such as 2 +2 = 4 because that can be proven. You believe in an absolute truth that is only explained by your personal interpretation of fiction. I respect your personal belief, but not your imposition of that personal belief on others, such as saying that the pope isn’t a christian. And Madison was of the same opinion.
At the end of the day, you and I, soul or not will be in the same spot. Prove otherwise.
Your personal beliefs are not an imposition on others? For instance, how about your inability to say something is evil or wrong? I look back when I asked you if calling child molesters “criminals”, and “evil”, was OK….you gave me a long winded answer that danced around the issue. Don’t you think that lack of moral clarity is an imposition on the victims of those criminals?
I never said the Pope was not Chrsitian. I said if the office of the Papacy still advocates a gospel other than Christ alone for salvation through faith, that denies the gospel.
I take it by your answer, you believe you have no soul. What a terrible way to go through life. So you wil go through life knowing you get same deal in the end as Hitler?
“So you wil go through life knowing you get same deal in the end as Hitler?”
There we go. Godwin’s law is whipped out to help rationalize a point of view.
Since Baldy seems to be advocating we are without an eternal soul, the consequence of his view is that we all end up in the same place.
I did not say he was Hitler, or imply he was as evil as Hitler in his viewpoints….which I think is more the issue of “Godwin’s law”….I was curious to know why he deserves the same result as what he believes happened to Hitler in the end. (and the follow-up: if Hitler did blink into nothingness, or without an eternal soul, don’t you think he got off easy for what he did?)
If you think I’m running afoul of Godwin’s Law, I could use another evil socialist butcher, like Stalin, Pol Pot, or Chairman Mao if you wish for the inquiry.
I won’t get into debating what Baldy says or means. He does ok on his own.
As for where evil people’s souls go when they die, I’d like to say they rot in hell, if there is one.
I do have a question for you. What do souls do when they go to heaven?
I don’t impose anything on anybody except the civil laws of the land. I was clear on that, you just can’t accept that as an answer. You however condemn all others that don’t believe as you do.
The Hitler analogy is really a great example of your hypocrisy. You believe, and have stated numerous times that works done on earth have no bearing on entering heaven, then what if Hitler (or any of the others you listed), at the last instant before he died, committed himself mentally to your beliefs? He wasn’t a christian right up until he was.
“I never said the Pope was not Chrsitian”. Yes, you have, several times when condemning him for having a position in opposition to yours regarding evolution and climate change.
What I said was: if Pope embraces evolution he rejects the gospel.
I would question someone’s Christianity claim when they reject gospel openly.
If Hitler truly repented, which is unlikely because he went forward with sin of suicide, then it is possible. Is that your plan?
So the pope isn’t a christian in your mind. No doubt you are in a minority with that opinion.
And you finally admit it, your version of christianity is selective and instantaneous. So you can be a christian right up until you aren’t, OR be a non-believer right up until you decide you aren’t. What do you call that philosophy?
No suicide for me. I’ll probably be bored to death by a religious fanatic.
This all gets back what it means to be “Christian”.
If it means you need the grace of Christ as your redeemer from sin for salvation…then you need to question the Pope’s embrace of “evolution”.
The Creation account includes Genesis Chapter 3, the Fall of Mankind into sin. If you reject sin entering the world in Genesis Chapter 3, by embracing evolution, why do you need Christ as your redeemer from sin?
Evolution denies the problem of sin. If sin is not a problem, why do you need Christ?
If you are saying the Pope is “Christian” because he does good things, that may make him a good guy in your eyes, but that alone does not make him a Christian.
Remember, Christians rejoice in the truth. If you reject the very reason one needs the good news of the Gospel, is that rejoicing in the truth?
“And you finally admit it, your version of christianity is selective and instantaneous. So you can be a christian right up until you aren’t, OR be a non-believer right up until you decide you aren’t. What do you call that philosophy?”
You can reject the free gift of salvation at anytime. Happens all the time. Peope leave the faith, reject it, or just wander away from it.
Conversely, many are brought to faith by the Holy Spirit from their unbelief, or if they are lost from the faith are found again.
So, yes, in a sense, faith can be “selective” and “instantaneous” from the outside.
Wasn’t encouraging suicide, I was more implying that you were looking for deathbed repentance option.
I thought you didn’t use the OT? Or is that usage selective as well? And “Evolution denies the problem of sin” is utter nonsense from a real-world biological standpoint.
I’ll let all my catholic friends know that the pope isn’t christian. I’ll sure they will be amazed.
And so you agree, Stalin, Hitler et al could and probably will end up in the same place as you will since you can become a “true christian” in an instant.
I don’t need any repentance, at least not yet. But my catholic friends probably feel you will need a bunch of it.
So no I know all I need to regarding your “true beliefs”, and don’t need to continue this particular conversation.
That would be incorrect. I said, “The New Testament covenant replaces God’s Old Testament covenant”.
We still use and read the OT.
When you talk to your Catholic friends, ask them what it means to be Christian. Ask them, “Can you be Christian and reject Christ?” My bet is: (if they are good Catholics), they will say “No”. Then ask them the follow up: If faith in Christ as our redeemer from sin is what makes one Christian, can one reject the problem of sin and be Christian? Again, if they are good Catholics, they will acknowledge the problem of sin.
Then ask how sin entered the world? If they say Genesis 3? Ask them if embracing evolution rejects Genesis 3? (or ask them how sin came into being under the evolution scenario? and if world was perfect before sin, why would world need to evolve over millions of years? So does that mean sin entered world before man?)
Bet it will be an interesting conversation. Then insert the Pope’s comments and see what they say.
If they reject the biblical creation account in any way, it all falls apart in terms of needing Christ as your redeemer.
The Catholics I know do not embrace evolution.
I forgot, thanks for all the fish.
Least I can do for someone trying to find his way in the dark.
You were of no use at 300AM this morning. Is was still dark. Weren’t you saying the right prayers? We did get some fish, no thanks to your lights out policy.
It might be because I was reading this book:
Trudging through the muck, if you will.