America Was Founded On Christian Principles

[jzyehoshua]

Sadly to some it does.

Actually the Ku Klux Klan began as a Democrat organization. The first anti-slavery group in the United States was started by the Quakers, a Christian denomination, and churches were heavily involved in the Underground Railroad. Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, which played a huge role in anti-slavery sentiment, was a Christian. The GOP voted in higher percentages for every civil rights bill from the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments in the 1860s to the 19th Amendment to the 1957 Civil Rights Act, 1964 Civil Rights Act, and 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Furthermore Hitler's Nazis were socialists, in fact Nazism comes from the German word Nationalsozialismus which translates as National Socialist Party. Nazism is based on the concept of Social Darwinism, and Nazi Germany was dominated by secular atheists and Bible critics such as Nietzsche, Marx, and Julius Welhausen (originator of the Documentary Hypothesis) for centuries before Hitler.

Racism in modern times has been more closely linked to atheistic socialism than to Christianity.

 

[morningstar2651]

But that is the point, isn't it? The USA is different because it is based upon CHRISTIAN principles... not Islamism, or another god... Christ's redeeming power as Son of God, God as a Trinity....i.e.

The US government is founded upon secular principles. These principles are things such as freedom of religion - which is contradictory to the first commandment. Our nation's foundation was focused on the rights of the people (not a focus of the Bible - the Biblical laws focus on what people shouldn't do rather than the things that they have a right to do) - murder is illegal because it deprives someone of their right to life. Theft is illegal because it violates someone's right to property.

The government isn't anti-religious - it's just non-religious. The founding fathers had seen what mixing religion with politics had done in Europe and were displeased with the results, which is why they decided that the best course of action would be to place a wall of separation between religion and government.

 

[morningstar2651]

OK. I realize you're just ignoring everything I say, so just consider this repeated again for lurkers:

Principle: All Men Are Created Equal

Deuteronomy 1:16-17, Leviticus 19:15Acts 10:34, and Galatians 3:28

Principle: All Rights Come From God

Genesis 1:27 - 28

Principle: Government authority by Consent of the Governed
Judeo-Christian Roots

Deuteronomy 16:18 and Deuteronomy 1:13-15

Principle: Sanctity of Contract

Numbers 30:2

Principle: Two Witnesses

Deuteronomy 17:6

Principle: No Corruption of Blood

Deut. 24:6

Principle: Sabbath Day Excepted

Exodus 20:8-10

Principle: Separation of Church and State

Luke 20:25



First, why does there have to be a mention of the Bible or Christ in the Constitution? It's a legal document. And why would it mention redemption, when it's not a religious document?

Second, why limit it to the Constitution, when there are hundreds of documents in our founding history? And don't you think it's just a wee bit hypocritical of you to demand that we limit our argument to the Constitution, when you routinely cite extra-Constitutional sources such as the Treaty of Tripoli?



While it's true that we live in a post-Christian culture, our republic is founded on Christian principles, as evidenced by the examples I have repeatedly shown you and which you have repeatedly ignored.



Exodus 20. You know, the passage I've cited for you repeatedly that you insist on ignoring.

Cool. Should I repost my post where I rebutted this already in case you ignored it?

 

[morningstar2651]

I'll take the lack of objections to my post as tacit acceptance of this point - freedom of religion is a secular principle rather than a Christian principle.

I turn your attention now to more allegedly Christian principles:

This is a clear contradiction with Christian principles.

Christian Principle: Slaves are Property - Exodus 21:20-21
Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.​

Christian Principle: Men are superior to women - Leviticus 27:1-6
The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, 3 set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels[a] of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; 4 for a female, set her value at thirty shekels[c]; 5 for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels[d] and of a female at ten shekels[e]; 6 for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels[f] of silver and that of a female at three shekels[g] of silver;​

The Framers' intentions for this clause were twofold: to prevent a society of nobility from being established in the United States, and to protect the republican forms of government from being influenced by other governments. In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton stated, "One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption." Therefore, to counter this "foreign corruption" the delegates at the Constitutional Convention worded the clause in such a way as to act as a catch-all for any attempts by foreign governments to influence state or municipal policies through gifts or titles.

This was not religiously motivated, nor is it a Christian principle.

Just because the word God is in the sentence doesn't make it a Christian principle. In fact, there is no such teaching within Christianity that people have rights.
Does the Bible teach that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Leviticus 27 is about ritual human sacrifice... Which totally flies in the face of that right to life, since all first-born sons are to be sacrificed to God a week after their birth.

Exodus 22:29-30
29 “Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats.

“You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.​

(Note: Granaries and vats are probably euphemisms for genitalia in this context...)


This is a clear contradiction with Christian principles.

Christian Principle: Government by consent of God - Romans 13:1-7
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.​

This says nothing about contracts being sacred or sanctified...just that you shouldn't break them. Also, our country wasn't founded on this principle.

Is this even a principle? I doubt this was a sticking point between our founding fathers and the English when they declared their independence from England.

This is a clear contradiction of Christian principles. The idea that descendants are not guilty of the crimes of their ancestors contradicts original sin, as well as a large number of other sections of the bible.

Christian Principle: Corruption of Blood - Deuteronomy 23:3-8
3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim[c] to pronounce a curse on you. 5 However, the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live.

7 Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites are related to you. Do not despise an Egyptian, because you resided as foreigners in their country. 8 The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord.​

Even though Saturday is the Sabbath...how is this one sentence a principle our nation was founded upon? The Americans got so fed up with the English including Sundays in 10 day deadlines that they declared their independence?

Well, apart from my previous 1st commandment example, there is this:

Christian Principle: Kill non-believers: Deuteronomy 13:13-17
13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely,[a] both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, 17 and none of the condemned things are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors—
​

How is this even a Christian principle?

Since South Bound re-posted these arguments without addressing the rebuttals I posted, I guess he missed them, so in response here is a link to the rebuttal.

 

[jzyehoshua]

Per my points on slavery at my website:

1. Slavers were to be put to death, Biblically. (Exodus 21:16)

2. Escaped slaves were to be protected from their owners. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)

3. Slaves harmed over so much as loss of a tooth were to be freed. (Exodus 21:27)

4. All slaves/indentured servants were to be freed every 50 years and all debts pardoned. (Leviticus 25:10) Nor was this just for Israelites, as their Jubile was every 7 years. (Exodus 21:2)

5. Paul wrote the whole book of Philemon urging a slaveowner to free his slave and treat him as a Christian brother, offering to pay anything that was owed by the slave.

6. Dark skin was specifically stated Biblically to be caused by the sun, and the Bible urges not to discriminate based on it. (Song of Solomon 1:5-6)

 

[jzyehoshua]

Also the Deuteronomy passage in context involved pagan nations that were teaching Israelites to adopt the horrid practice of child sacrifice to Baal and Molech. God wanted those evil nations wiped out to stop the horrible practice of child sacrifice. (Leviticus 18:21-24, Deuteronomy 18:10-12, Leviticus 20:1-5, Deuteronomy 12:30-31) Israelites did not completely destroy the evil people committing this cannibalistic murder of children, and did end up adopting the wicked practice, which was partly why God sent them into the Babylonian captivity. (Psalms 106:28-40, Jeremiah 32:34-35, Ezekiel 16:20-21, Jeremiah 7:30-34)

It was not just a case of "destroy all unbelievers" though. It was specifically to stop cannibalistic child sacrifice from spreading to Israel and other nations.

 

[South Bound]

Christian Principle: Slaves are Property - Exodus 21:20-21
Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Actually, this is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is not telling us that slaves are to be considered property, but acknowledging that, in that culture, slaves are considered property.

Christian Principle: Men are superior to women - Leviticus 27:1-6
The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, 3 set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels[a] of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; 4 for a female, set her value at thirty shekels[c]; 5 for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels[d] and of a female at ten shekels[e]; 6 for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels[f] of silver and that of a female at three shekels[g] of silver;

Actually, this passage has nothing to do with men being superior to women. It is assigning a value to people's sacrifices based on what they, in that culture, can be reasonably expected to give. How do you reconcile your eisegesis with Galatians 3:28?

This was not religiously motivated, nor is it a Christian principle.

See: Deuteronomy 1:16-17, Leviticus 19:15, Acts 10:34, and Galatians 3:28.

In fact, there is no such teaching within Christianity that people have rights.

If you really believe that, then you should read Rutherford's Lex, Rex, which is a very detailed study of the Biblical basis of the rights of man.

In any event, I don't believe one needs to look any further than Genesis 1:27-28 to see the rights of man.

Leviticus 27 is about ritual human sacrifice... Which totally flies in the face of that right to life, since all first-born sons are to be sacrificed to God a week after their birth.

Not sure where you got that idea. Nothing in the text says that first born sons are sacrificed, only that they are consecrated to God.

Exodus 22:29-30
29 “Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats.

“You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.

Sorry, but nothing here says anything about sacrificing humans. The only things sacrificed here are oxen and sheep.

This says nothing about contracts being sacred or sanctified...just that you shouldn't break them. Also, our country wasn't founded on this principle.

First of all, why do contracts have to be sacred or sanctified? And if this isn't a principle of our Republic, why is it included in the Constitution?

This is a clear contradiction of Christian principles.

How can it not be a Christian principle, when it's taught in Deuteronomy 16:18 and Deuteronomy 1:13-15?

Is this even a principle?

Apparently, the Founders thought it was enough of a principle to include it in the Constitution.

This is a clear contradiction of Christian principles. The idea that descendants are not guilty of the crimes of their ancestors contradicts original sin, as well as a large number of other sections of the bible.

First of all, original sin teaches that we inherited a sin nature from Adam, not that we are culpable for someone else's sin.

Second, how can it be a contradiction of Christian principles when it's found in Deuteronomy 24: 6, 2 Kings 14:6, 2 Chronicles 25:4, Jeremiah 31:29-30, and Ezekiel 18:20?

Even though Saturday is the Sabbath...how is this one sentence a principle our nation was founded upon? The Americans got so fed up with the English including Sundays in 10 day deadlines that they declared their independence?

I'm afraid you're going to have to take that one up with the Founders. They're the ones who chose to include it in the Constitution, not me.

Well, apart from my previous 1st commandment example, there is this:

Christian Principle: Kill non-believers: Deuteronomy 13:13-17[/B]
13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely,[a] both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, 17 and none of the condemned things are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors—

How is that a Christian principle?

How is this even a Christian principle?

See: Isaiah 33:22.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I've heard that sentiment for most of my life. But, what does it really mean? What are the principles, which are exclusive to Christianity, on which America was founded?

I think it's important to know the actions that were focused upon by the founders in order to really understand what principles they had that were either exclusive or non-exclusive to Christianity. It's a very complicated mater..

If I may say...

There are many good things that the Founding Fathers were about when it came to the development of our nation's history. Other scholars like David Barton have spoken on that before and I am glad for it:

Glenn Beck -5-28-2010- Founders' Fridays- Black American Founders​

I remembered where I checked out some of Barton's material before since we had to study it in highschool....specifically his book "Original Intent." The Founding Fathers were often noted for being FAR from representing the people since many times the people were outright ignored. Especially with slavery. Granted, there were indeed those who were Black Founding Fathers and even that much has often not been represented in history the way it was......despite what was present in the history of the nation. - as other scholars like David Barton speaking in-depth on the matter.

With Barton's interview, some of the other things I really enjoyed hearing from the man were near the end when it came to him noting why believers need to be involved in the Civil Arena in light of what Christ said in Luke 19:13 on learning to occupy till He comes. ...and showing the Founding Fathers who supported it. Moreover, there were plenty of nations around the world using Christian language since it was the national religion of many countries (i.e British Empire), even though what was done in the name of Christ (as with imperialism and colonialism, etc) was not godly.

Furthermore, one of the main things I had some serious concern with was the reality of where the Founding Fathers were clearly into a lot of things, despite all Christian references, that were not Biblical...and in showing Biblical references in what they did, I thought it'd be beneficial to show everything else at some point of where many things did contaminate much of what they did. Specifically, their focus on FreeMasonry and the other issues done such as mistreatment of American Indians in a myriad of cruel ways. I don't think there's ever any way that such things can be white-washed away as being less than evil/condemning....

Additionally, the treatment of Native Americans is something that can never be taken lightly when it comes to the ways that they were often dismissed/not respected or represented well (more here and here).


I have noted the same before to one of my friends when he was talking on how the U.S was originally "Christian" - and I have sharply disagreed for a myriad of ways that one cannot be historically honest/ignore the ways that a lot of history with the Founding Fathers was not godly (more shared in #75, #27 , #56 , #61 #63 and #110 ).



From the beginning of our nation's history, what has been occurring is others realizing what has been practiced within the world of Christianity has really been a combination of Christian concepts and other Non-Christian ideas. More so Moralistic Therapeutic Deism

In our times, there does seem to be a return to Deism by many and it's not surprising in light of how often those in the history of the U.S have been propped up by others as examples of Christianity when they were in fact opposite of that.

For reference:

• "Mystical Sites - U.S Captitol / Vigiliant Citizen" ( )
• "Educate Yourself /Vigiliant Citizen"
• THOUSAND LIES - THE NATIVE AMERICAN
• Sins against Native Americans - PoliticsInHeaven"
• -"The Hidden Hand that Shaped History | The Vigilant "( )
• Monumental Myth « The Centrality and Supremacy of Jesus Christ

Psywar: The Real Battlefield is the Mind

The Hidden Faith of The Founding Fathers 2010 - YouTube

George Washington was a freemason and a deist. He wouldn’t take communion with his wife. ...and he was also what's known as a Unitarian ..and due to his Unitarian views, held stances that supported both Christian principles and non-Christian beliefs such as Deism and other things. For reference:

• Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington.
• George Washington, David Barton and Unitarianism
• American Revolution: "I Think, Therefore I Am...a Unitarian"

One can also go here and here. John Adams spoke harshly at times about Christianity and religion in general in his private correspondence. He was a Christian Unitarian that believed the church service was good for everyone because it promoted morals and values among the masses. Thomas Jefferson, as a Diest, went so far to deny the divinity of Christ. He even created his own compilation of Jesus’ life from the gospels, which he entitled, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.” He removed all evidence of the “supernatural” for a presentation of Jesus as a good moral teacher who is only to be admired, not worshipped. And there are other examples of where things they did/began were FAR from being what the Lord had in mind with Biblical laws​

In example, there are pictures showing the Founding Fathers as gods..which is not surprising seeing that most of the Founding Fathers were very much into Freemasonry. There was one statue I remember seeing of George Washington IN D.C that had him in the form of a Greek GOD when I was visiting the place back in 2009. Seemed like they were trying to express the regal nature the president seemed to have and take it to another level, just as others have done often..

Additionally, the dome of the Capitol features in its occulus an incredibly significant painting that reveals the philosophical, spiritual and political aims of the Founding Fathers. Right in the very centre of the cast iron dome in the U.S Capitol is a painting of George Washington, ascended to the pantheon of ancient greek deities.

​

Astonishingly poor theology for 'one nation under God', but evidence of the high esteem George was held in by his 19th century successors. The building was completed (from memory) in the 1820s.

And there are many others besides that.

It's not hidden. I'm surprised many more don't talk on the ways the Founding Fathers were often deified multiple times and no one said anything on it for centuries. I'd wager that many don't tend to look for it due to assumptions they've already accepted on the Founding Fathers being fully dedicated believers and soldiers for Christ as has often been said by others in the Religious Right and others who had an idea of Christianity in mind which they supported/felt the FOunders did as well ( with the use of Biblical Language/scripture in their speeches being what influences others to see the history of the nation as being Christian in origin ), thus causing confirmation bias and people seeing what they have already been trained to see/zoom in on....even when the other darker aspects of what were present in the nation's founding/consistently growing are out in the open...from the monuments of our capitol to the things presidents swear into before taking office (like Bohemian Grove, if not aware of it - very dark reality )...and a lot of other mess.

But all of that is noted to say that what was advocated as 'Christianity' in the history of our nation - and still is by certain camps in the Religious Right - is now being revealed for what it always was when it comes to the many ways it went counter to Christ - and how those claiming to practice Christianity are being revealed for what they have always practiced...​

 

[jzyehoshua]

Jefferson helped found the Virginia Bible Society and created the Jefferson Bible to help evangelize Native Americans. Jefferson was a Jewish deist who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus though, and study of his ancestry has revealed his Jewish heritage. Nonetheless, he was atypical of the founders, who were overwhelmingly Christian.

 

[South Bound]

I think it's important to know the actions that were focused upon by the founders in order to really understand what principles they had that were either exclusive or non-exclusive to Christianity. It's a very complicated mater..

If I may say...

There are many good things that the Founding Fathers were about when it came to the development of our nation's history. Other scholars like David Barton have spoken on that before and I am glad for it:

Glenn Beck -5-28-2010- Founders' Fridays- Black American Founders​

I remembered where I checked out some of Barton's material before since we had to study it in highschool....specifically his book "Original Intent." The Founding Fathers were often noted for being FAR from representing the people since many times the people were outright ignored. Especially with slavery. Granted, there were indeed those who were Black Founding Fathers and even that much has often not been represented in history the way it was......despite what was present in the history of the nation. - as other scholars like David Barton speaking in-depth on the matter.

With Barton's interview, some of the other things I really enjoyed hearing from the man were near the end when it came to him noting why believers need to be involved in the Civil Arena in light of what Christ said in Luke 19:13 on learning to occupy till He comes. ...and showing the Founding Fathers who supported it. Moreover, there were plenty of nations around the world using Christian language since it was the national religion of many countries (i.e British Empire), even though what was done in the name of Christ (as with imperialism and colonialism, etc) was not godly.

Furthermore, one of the main things I had some serious concern with was the reality of where the Founding Fathers were clearly into a lot of things, despite all Christian references, that were not Biblical...and in showing Biblical references in what they did, I thought it'd be beneficial to show everything else at some point of where many things did contaminate much of what they did. Specifically, their focus on FreeMasonry and the other issues done such as mistreatment of American Indians in a myriad of cruel ways. I don't think there's ever any way that such things can be white-washed away as being less than evil/condemning....

Additionally, the treatment of Native Americans is something that can never be taken lightly when it comes to the ways that they were often dismissed/not respected or represented well (more here and here).


I have noted the same before to one of my friends when he was talking on how the U.S was originally "Christian" - and I have sharply disagreed for a myriad of ways that one cannot be historically honest/ignore the ways that a lot of history with the Founding Fathers was not godly (more shared in #75, #27 , #56 , #61 #63 and #110 ).



From the beginning of our nation's history, what has been occurring is others realizing what has been practiced within the world of Christianity has really been a combination of Christian concepts and other Non-Christian ideas. More so Moralistic Therapeutic Deism

In our times, there does seem to be a return to Deism by many and it's not surprising in light of how often those in the history of the U.S have been propped up by others as examples of Christianity when they were in fact opposite of that.

For reference:

• "Mystical Sites - U.S Captitol / Vigiliant Citizen" ( )
• "Educate Yourself /Vigiliant Citizen"
• THOUSAND LIES - THE NATIVE AMERICAN
• Sins against Native Americans - PoliticsInHeaven"
• -"The Hidden Hand that Shaped History | The Vigilant "( )
• Monumental Myth « The Centrality and Supremacy of Jesus Christ

Psywar: The Real Battlefield is the Mind

The Hidden Faith of The Founding Fathers 2010 - YouTube

George Washington was a freemason and a deist. He wouldn’t take communion with his wife. ...and he was also what's known as a Unitarian ..and due to his Unitarian views, held stances that supported both Christian principles and non-Christian beliefs such as Deism and other things. For reference:

• Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington.
• George Washington, David Barton and Unitarianism
• American Revolution: "I Think, Therefore I Am...a Unitarian"

One can also go here and here. John Adams spoke harshly at times about Christianity and religion in general in his private correspondence. He was a Christian Unitarian that believed the church service was good for everyone because it promoted morals and values among the masses. Thomas Jefferson, as a Diest, went so far to deny the divinity of Christ. He even created his own compilation of Jesus’ life from the gospels, which he entitled, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.” He removed all evidence of the “supernatural” for a presentation of Jesus as a good moral teacher who is only to be admired, not worshipped. And there are other examples of where things they did/began were FAR from being what the Lord had in mind with Biblical laws​

In example, there are pictures showing the Founding Fathers as gods..which is not surprising seeing that most of the Founding Fathers were very much into Freemasonry. There was one statue I remember seeing of George Washington IN D.C that had him in the form of a Greek GOD when I was visiting the place back in 2009. Seemed like they were trying to express the regal nature the president seemed to have and take it to another level, just as others have done often..

Additionally, the dome of the Capitol features in its occulus an incredibly significant painting that reveals the philosophical, spiritual and political aims of the Founding Fathers. Right in the very centre of the cast iron dome in the U.S Capitol is a painting of George Washington, ascended to the pantheon of ancient greek deities.

​

Astonishingly poor theology for 'one nation under God', but evidence of the high esteem George was held in by his 19th century successors. The building was completed (from memory) in the 1820s.

And there are many others besides that.

It's not hidden. I'm surprised many more don't talk on the ways the Founding Fathers were often deified multiple times and no one said anything on it for centuries. I'd wager that many don't tend to look for it due to assumptions they've already accepted on the Founding Fathers being fully dedicated believers and soldiers for Christ as has often been said by others in the Religious Right and others who had an idea of Christianity in mind which they supported/felt the FOunders did as well ( with the use of Biblical Language/scripture in their speeches being what influences others to see the history of the nation as being Christian in origin ), thus causing confirmation bias and people seeing what they have already been trained to see/zoom in on....even when the other darker aspects of what were present in the nation's founding/consistently growing are out in the open...from the monuments of our capitol to the things presidents swear into before taking office (like Bohemian Grove, if not aware of it - very dark reality )...and a lot of other mess.

But all of that is noted to say that what was advocated as 'Christianity' in the history of our nation - and still is by certain camps in the Religious Right - is now being revealed for what it always was when it comes to the many ways it went counter to Christ - and how those claiming to practice Christianity are being revealed for what they have always practiced...​

How did you come to the conclusion that Washington was a Deist, when he was very consistent in calling on God's providence and protection? A Deist does not believe those things.​

 

[Queller]

Per my points on slavery at my website:

1. Slavers were to be put to death, Biblically. (Exodus 21:16)

OK, now reconcile that with the rest of Exodus 21 which describes exactly who can be bought as slaves. Also, reconcile it with Leviticus 25 which describes how foreigners who are bought as slaves can be treated as chattel.

3. Slaves harmed over so much as loss of a tooth were to be freed. (Exodus 21:27)

Or not,

Exodus 21:20-21 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

4. All slaves/indentured servants were to be freed every 50 years and all debts pardoned. (Leviticus 25:10) Nor was this just for Israelites, as their Jubile was every 7 years. (Exodus 21:2)

That passage makes no mention of slaves being free and non-Israelite slaves were considered property, they didn't have property or clans to return to.

5. Paul wrote the whole book of Philemon urging a slaveowner to free his slave and treat him as a Christian brother, offering to pay anything that was owed by the slave.

Paul was speaking of one particular slave, Onesimus, whom he regarded as a son/convert to Christ, not all slaves in general.

6. Dark skin was specifically stated Biblically to be caused by the sun, and the Bible urges not to discriminate based on it. (Song of Solomon 1:5-6)

Two problems. One, that verse is specifically stated by Solomon's wife and does not automatically extend to all "dark" people.

Two, "dark" people were not the only people who were slaves, Irish, Asians, and others were slaves as well.

 

[jzyehoshua]

OK, now reconcile that with the rest of Exodus 21 which describes exactly who can be bought as slaves. Also, reconcile it with Leviticus 25 which describes how foreigners who are bought as slaves can be treated as chattel.

It was arguably the best system for destroying slavery in the ancient world, allowing Israelites to purchase slaves from neighboring countries and then requiring the slaves to be freed every 50 years. The 7 year Jubile of Exodus 21:1-6 did not free everyone and applied to Hebrews only, the 50 year Jubile of Leviticus 25:8-22 did free everyone including their families. Again, enslaving others was specifically forbidden, only purchasing from other countries was allowed. Thus it was a system to keep buying slaves and eventually freeing them as they essentially purchased their freedom.

Or not,

Exodus 21:20-21 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

Most do not translate the Hebrew word 'amad there as "survives." It appears to have referred just to a bruise. In fact the word 'amad is typically translated as stood, not survives, in the KJV.

The NIV for example translates the phrase as "if the slave recovers after a day or two" and the KJV as "if he continue a day or two." I think that is a wrong translation you are using.

That passage makes no mention of slaves being free and non-Israelite slaves were considered property, they didn't have property or clans to return to.

The passage clearly states in Leviticus 25:10 "ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family."

There is no difference stated between Hebrew and foreigner and the inference is to all slaves.

Paul was speaking of one particular slave, Onesimus, whom he regarded as a son/convert to Christ, not all slaves in general.

Except that Paul elsewhere urges slaves to be free if they can (1 Corinthians 7:21) and states that all are equal in Jesus, regardless of whether they are slave or free. (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11, Ephesians 6:8) Paul removed the basis of discrimination and stated all were one together.

Two problems. One, that verse is specifically stated by Solomon's wife and does not automatically extend to all "dark" people.

Two, "dark" people were not the only people who were slaves, Irish, Asians, and others were slaves as well.

True, the Barbary Wars involved African Muslims enslaving caucasian Americans. I'm just pointing out the Bible does in those verses state that dark skin is caused by the sun, and involves a case of a woman with skin "black... like the curtains of Solomon" telling others not to look differently at her because of her skin pigment. And considering that's over 2,000 years old, that's a pretty extraordinary statement against racism.

 

[Queller]

Actually, this is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is not telling us that slaves are to be considered property, but acknowledging that, in that culture, slaves are considered property.

Leviticus 25 specifically states that the Hebrews can treat slaves from foreign nations as property.

In any event, I don't believe one needs to look any further than Genesis 1:27-28 to see the rights of man.

How do you see those verses having to do with the rights enumerated in the Constitution.

How can it not be a Christian principle, when it's taught in Deuteronomy 16:18 and Deuteronomy 1:13-15?

Deut. 1:13-15 states that Moses chose the rulers.

First of all, original sin teaches that we inherited a sin nature from Adam, not that we are culpable for someone else's sin.

What? We are sinful and deserve punishment because Adam sinned. How is that not being punished for someone else's sin?

See: Isaiah 33:22.

As you have been told before, Isaiah 33:22 refers to the same entity being lawgiver, judge, and king. Completely the opposite of what we have in the US.

Plus you have given no evidence from the writings of the founders that they considered any of these things to be influenced by Christianity. Just picking random things from the Bible and saying "this is similar to something we have" is not evidence that the US was founded on those principles because they were Christian principles.

Please respond in a separate post. I'm not going to waste my time rereading the thread to see if you changed a post from two or three days ago to respond to my post from today.

 

[tulc]

How did you come to the conclusion that Washington was a Deist, when he was very consistent in calling on God's providence and protection? A Deist does not believe those things.

uhmmm...actually that's totally how a Deist would speak. You might want to (as it would appear you haven't) read some of the 17-18th Deist writings (not people speaking against them, the actual writings) I suspect you'll be pretty shocked at the things they say and how they say them.
tulc(knows he was)

 

[Queller]

It was arguably the best system for destroying slavery in the ancient world, allowing Israelites to purchase slaves from neighboring countries and then requiring the slaves to be freed every 50 years. The 7 year Jubile of Exodus 21:1-6 did not free everyone and applied to Hebrews only, the 50 year Jubile of Leviticus 25:8-22 did free everyone including their families. Again, enslaving others was specifically forbidden, only purchasing from other countries was allowed. Thus it was a system to keep buying slaves and eventually freeing them as they essentially purchased their freedom.

No, arguably the best system would be to buy the slave and immediately free him.

Most do not translate the Hebrew word 'amad there as "survives." It appears to have referred just to a bruise. In fact the word 'amad is typically translated as stood, not survives, in the KJV.

The NIV for example translates the phrase as "if the slave recovers after a day or two" and the KJV as "if he continue a day or two." I think that is a wrong translation you are using.

I don't see a difference between the basic idea in verse 21 when it is contrasted with verse 20 regardless of the translation.

The passage clearly states in Leviticus 25:10 "ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family."

There is no difference stated between Hebrew and foreigner and the inference is to all slaves.

This claim contradicts Levitcus 25:46 (speaking of foreigners bought as slaves)

"And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

Except that Paul elsewhere urges slaves to be free if they can (1 Corinthians 7:21) and states that all are equal in Jesus, regardless of whether they are slave or free. (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11, Ephesians 6:8) Paul removed the basis of discrimination and stated all were one together.

Your original example was of Paul specifically writing to a slave owner to free one slave. Now you are claiming something else. Do you have any examples of Paul entreating other slave owners to free their slaves?

True, the Barbary Wars involved African Muslims enslaving caucasian Americans. I'm just pointing out the Bible does in those verses state that dark skin is caused by the sun, and involves a case of a woman with skin "black... like the curtains of Solomon" telling others not to look differently at her because of her skin pigment. And considering that's over 2,000 years old, that's a pretty extraordinary statement against racism.

Again this is only an entreaty from Solomon's wife regarding her personally. You are extrapolating this to mean it applies to all dark/black people.

 

[South Bound]

uhmmm...actually that's totally how a Deist would speak.

No, it isn't. Diests believe that God is not involved in the affairs of men, but that He is only a distant observer.

You might want to read some of the 17-18th Deist writings

For example...?

 

[jzyehoshua]

No, arguably the best system would be to buy the slave and immediately free him.

Can you provide evidence that such a system existed 3,500 years ago? If not, then the Mosaic Law was the best system which existed at the time for freeing slaves.

I don't see a difference between the basic idea in verse 21 when it is contrasted with verse 20 regardless of the translation.

If translated as "recovers" rather than "survives" it doesn't involve killing the slave. If the slave were killed presumably the penalty mentioned in Exodus 21:20 would be death for the slaveowner per verse 23. Otherwise it would just involve a minor injury. After all any serious injury resulting in deformity was to result in freedom for slaves per verses 26-27.

This claim contradicts Levitcus 25:46 (speaking of foreigners bought as slaves)

"And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

Which doesn't necessarily mean the Jubile didn't also apply to them, and that they weren't as individuals freed during the Jubile. The inheritance could just refer to an occurrence until the Jubile. While those specific tribes could be bondmen for ever, I'm not convinced it meant the individuals.

That sojourners or foreigners were included in the Jubile seems apparent from these verses:

Leviticus 25:40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile:

Leviticus 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Your original example was of Paul specifically writing to a slave owner to free one slave. Now you are claiming something else. Do you have any examples of Paul entreating other slave owners to free their slaves?

Most of Paul's writings were not to individuals but churches. Romans was written to the churches of Rome, 1 and 2 Corinthians to the church in Corinth, Ephesians to the church of Ephesus, Galatians to the churches in Galatia, Colossians to the church in Colossia, Philippians to the church of Philippi, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians to the church of Thessalonica.

I know of only 4 of Paul's writings to individuals, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. The other 3 were to pastors. That Paul devoted an entire book of the Bible to urging a slaveowner to free a slave should not be lightly discounted. I'm not aware of another such individual case, but it still means an entire book of the Bible was written urging freedom for a slave and treating them as a brother in Christ - which at the time was a radical concept.

Again this is only an entreaty from Solomon's wife regarding her personally. You are extrapolating this to mean it applies to all dark/black people.

The principle itself, that dark skin comes from the sun and shouldn't result in looking differently at people, applies more broadly - ergo, the Bible does teach against pigment-based racism.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

uhmmm...actually that's totally how a Deist would speak. You might want to (as it would appear you haven't) read some of the 17-18th Deist writings (not people speaking against them, the actual writings) I suspect you'll be pretty shocked at the things they say and how they say them.
tulc(knows he was)

Indeed.

There are differing forms of Deism. Many Deists had no problem asking God for intervention or blessing - but as a whole, they did NOT look to God for guidance or intervention in the affairs of men, just as it is with others today depending on the level of deism present. The ideology of God as a distant observer is generally the immediate stereotype that people go to when they think of Deists.

With Washington, his appeals to Providence are rather more Greek and Roman than biblical - for in those cultures, you made appeals to the gods and fate to intervene. ...yet you lived life as if it depended on you. Others such as Fredrick Douglas were similar in outlook when it came to his faith in God/Christ.. (more here)

And I agree with other scholars such as David Holmes author of the book The Faiths of the Founding Fathers - David L. Holmes - Google Books ) who well point out that one can easily see Washington's behavior falling somewhere between that of an orthodox Christian and a strict deist. Although Washington was clearly not a communicant, was infrequent in his Church attendance and did not deem it necessary to participate in religious rites, one scholar references him as a Christian Deist due to his language calling upon God at times. Again, Washington attended church sometimes regularly - and he vigorously promoted religion among the soldiers of the Continental Army. Nonetheless, he was never confirmed, avoided communion and never prayed nor asked for a clergyman during his dying moments.

What others do not realize is that when he spoke or wrote of God, he favored words with decidedly deist and Masonic connotations: "Providence," "the Deity" and "the Grand Architect." There is more than enough basis for notin that Washington was a deist primarily concerned with morality and order, one who favored religion because of the useful role it played in society ...

And as another noted best in http://oldlife.org/2010/09/george-washington-deistic-christian/ :

1) Although he was raised in the Anglican Church, Washington was never confirmed.

2) Washington appears to have consistently refused to take Holy Communion, the principle means by which, as Holmes notes, “Anglicans displayed a commitment to Jesus Christ.”

3) Washington was active in the Episcopal Church, serving as both a vestryman and churchwarden. He attended services with some regularity (about once a month). And

4) Washington consistently used Deistic language in reference to God. Although he often used such terms as “the Deity” and “the Supreme Being” in his correspondence he only uses the name Jesus Christ once (in a letter to an Indian tribe)

Holmes also provides a Christian scorecard for the founding generation of American magistrates:

Non-Christian Deists: Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen.

Deistic Christians/Unitarians: Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe.

Orthodox Christians: Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Elias Boudinot, John Witherspoon.​

More can be seen in George Washington Reconsidered - Google Books

 

[Queller]

Can you provide evidence that such a system existed 3,500 years ago? If not, then the Mosaic Law was the best system which existed at the time for freeing slaves.

I'm not arguing that such a system existed at the time. I refuting your claim that what the Hebrews practiced "was arguably the best system for destroying slavery in the ancient world." There are better ways to destroy slavery if that was their intention. It wasn't.

If translated as "recovers" rather than "survives" it doesn't involve killing the slave. If the slave were killed presumably the penalty mentioned in Exodus 21:20 would be death for the slaveowner per verse 23. Otherwise it would just involve a minor injury. After all any serious injury resulting in deformity was to result in freedom for slaves per verses 26-27.

What? Exodus 21:23; And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

is clearly referring to verse 22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

That is not referring to Exodus 21:20-21.

Regardless, the usual explanation I have seen for verses 20-21 is that if the owner beats the slave so badly that the slave dies immediately, the slave owner will be punished. However, if the slave dies after lingering (continuing) for a few days, then nothing will happen to the owner.

Which doesn't necessarily mean the Jubile didn't also apply to them, and that they weren't as individuals freed during the Jubile. The inheritance could just refer to an occurrence until the Jubile. While those specific tribes could be bondmen for ever, I'm not convinced it meant the individuals.

That sojourners or foreigners were included in the Jubile seems apparent from these verses:

Leviticus 25:40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile:

Leviticus 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Those two verses are clearly referring to fellow Hebrews as shown in Leviticus 25:39

And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:

Since when did the Hebrews call foreigners "brother"?

Most of Paul's writings were not to individuals but churches. Romans was written to the churches of Rome, 1 and 2 Corinthians to the church in Corinth, Ephesians to the church of Ephesus, Galatians to the churches in Galatia, Colossians to the church in Colossia, Philippians to the church of Philippi, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians to the church of Thessalonica.

I know of only 4 of Paul's writings to individuals, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. The other 3 were to pastors. That Paul devoted an entire book of the Bible to urging a slaveowner to free a slave should not be lightly discounted. I'm not aware of another such individual case, but it still means an entire book of the Bible was written urging freedom for a slave and treating them as a brother in Christ - which at the time was a radical concept.

First off, I doubt very seriously that Paul cared whether his letter to Philemon was "an entire book of the Bible". Viewed in its historical context, it is a letter, nothing more. And again, it was one letter written to encourage one specific slaveholder, Philemon, to release one specific slave, Onesimus, whom Paul looked on as a son. There is nothing in Paul's writing to suggest he thought all slaveholders should free all their slaves.

The principle itself, that dark skin comes from the sun and shouldn't result in looking differently at people, applies more broadly - ergo, the Bible does teach against pigment-based racism.

The principle "applies more broadly" because people choose to apply it more broadly, a choice I agree with. However, in the context in which it was written, it is an entreaty from a wife to her husband regarding herself.

 

[drjean]

[SIZE=+1]America’s Founding Fathers[/SIZE] Were the Founding Fathers Christians?
It can be easily demonstrated that a very high percentage – in fact, the overwhelming majority – of Founding Fathers were Christians, but certainly not all of them were. Today, citizens are regularly told about the lesser religious Founders (such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine), but hear nothing about the prominent Christians among the Founders (for example, 29 of the 56 signers of the Declaration held what are today considered seminary or Bible school degrees, and many others of the signers were bold and outspoken in their personal Christian faith).

Significantly, not one of the Founding Fathers was secular in his orientation; even Thomas Paine (certainly the least religious of the Founders) openly acknowledged God and announced his belief in his personal accountability to God, and he also directly advocated teaching creationism in the public school classroom (see “Thomas Paine Criticizes the Current Public School Science Curriculum”).

Over 250 individuals are historically considered Founding Fathers (e.g., the signers of the Declaration, the signers of the Constitution, the framers of the Bill of Rights, leading state governors and generals in the Revolution, etc.), but typically critics list only the handful of the least religious from among the 250 to claim that all the Founders were deists or secular.


for rest of information and links:

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Frequently Asked Questions