Does Christ Stand Behind US Gov't?

[rocknanchor]

I understand what the definition of political is

Then you disagree with the inclusion of def #2,

", ,characteristic of political parties or politicians

noun​

1. A feature that helps to identify, tell apart, or describe recognizably; a distinguishing mark or trait.

The question you failed to answer is how it applies to Jesus standing or not standing behind the US government.

Our Constitution was made only for a, , religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ​

- John Adams​

President Adams would have been the first to tell us the ONLY religious significance in America was Christianity that welcomes plurality, but, Christianity knows in no uncertain terms the singularity of "In God We Trust", for Christ, who is God shares his entity with no one!

 

[JustOneWay]

Then you disagree with the inclusion of def #2,

noun​

1. A feature that helps to identify, tell apart, or describe recognizably; a distinguishing mark or trait.

Our Constitution was made only for a, , religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ​

- John Adams​

President Adams would have been the first to tell us the ONLY religious significance in America was Christianity that welcomes plurality, but, Christianity knows in no uncertain terms the singularity of "In God We Trust", for Christ, who is God shares his entity with no one!

This semantic explanation not convincing.

John Adams was just one man. Thomas Jefferson saw it differently. Their opinions are irrelevant to whatever this discussion is.
Either way, it is not a political discussion.

What is your point here?

 

[rocknanchor]

What is your point here?

I honestly don't think any further definition nor justification is required here, anyone else who lacks, you're quite welcome.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Our Constitution was made only for a, , religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ​

- John Adams​

President Adams would have been the first to tell us the ONLY religious significance in America was Christianity that welcomes plurality, but, Christianity knows in no uncertain terms the singularity of "In God We Trust", for Christ, who is God shares his entity with no one!

I doubt he would have told you that, much less to be the first to do so.

He didn't seem to have much use for the Trinity, like many of the more deistic founding fathers.

On September 14 1813, John Adams continues to write to Thomas Jefferson about religion.

The Bill in Parliament for the relief of Antitrinitarians is a great Event; and will form an Epoch in Ecclesiastical History. The Motion was made by my Friend Smith of Clapham, a Friend of the Belshams. I Should be very happy to hear, that the Bill is passed.

The human Understanding is a revelation from its Maker which can never be disputed or doubted. ... This revelation has made it certain that two and one make three; and that one is not three; nor can three be one. We can never be So certain of any Prophecy, or the fullfillment of any Prophecy; or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle as We are, from the revelation of nature i.e. natures God1 that two and two are equal to four. Miracles or Prophecies might frighten Us out of our Witts; might Scare us to death; might induce Us to lie; to Say that We believe that 2 and 2 make 5. But We Should not believe it. We Should know the contrary.

Had you and I, been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai and admitted to behold, the divine Shekinah, and there told that one was three and three, one: We might not have had courage to deny it; but We could not have believed it.

...Howl, Snarl, bite, ye Calvinistick? ye Athanasian Divines, if you will. ye will Say, I am no Christian: I Say ye are no Christians: and there the Account is ballanced. yet I believe all the honest men among you, are Christians in my Sense of the Word.

[He also casually dismissed the idea of hell and a 6,000 year old creation in the letter.]

 

[ViaCrucis]

Since Christ conquered the 'cosmic powers' that plagued man, is there some truth to that same support being behind "In God We Trust"?

America is one of the "kingdoms of this world", and like all temporal powers will fade into non-existence. Christ is no more behind the US gov. than He is behind the Chinese, Canadian, British, Cambodian, or Iranian governments.

"In God We Trust" isn't a meaningful statement about faith in Jesus Christ, it was created as part of American political propaganda in the mid-20th century as part of its anti-Communist policies. Basically, Stalinist Russia was officially atheistic; so to paint America in stark contrast, we adopted this phrase as a way to say we aren't like the Soviets. The problem, of course, is that the phrase doesn't really mean anything beyond being an American propaganda tool; the First Amendment doesn't permit it to mean anything more than that. Since the First Amendment's non-establishment clause forbids the US from a state-sanctioned religion. So in order to defend the wording on our currency, the argument makes the phrase meaningless--"God" can mean anything because to say it is God (i.e. the Abrahamic God) would violate the non-establishment clause.

The United States isn't, nor has it ever been, a Christian nation. The founding fathers and framers of the Constitution explicitly made the American republic a secular one, in stark contrast to European monarchies which had state churches and laws permitting or forbidding certain forms of religion or non-religion. That means that, as far as official statements go, "God" can never be anything more than a nebulous concept, a philosophical one, involving ideas of providence or nature rooted in 18th century philosophy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[rocknanchor]

Goodness, is the forum asleep at the wheel for the eerily insignificant inclusion of J Adam’s first quote? That was your golden opportunity to drag into question using Adam’s statement with my (end paragraph) religious/political commentary in post #21.

Adam’s comment as well as the American motto, IGWT (In God We Trust) origins are irrelevant. Though related, his comment doesn’t address it. Sorry for any one's trouble.

The strongest comment he might have used here is,

“I might indeed employ a stronger word, and call it a right, and the first right of mankind, to worship God, ,” – John Adams 1786 (51 yrs old)​

Closer, but still falls short. What didn’t fall short, is comment #21 that the current wrangling and sweeping under the rug going on over IGWT still bears repeating,

"In God We Trust", for Christ who is God, shares his entity with no one!”​

It’s a simple modern-day living contention to see as any other: those who foment objection to the connection of the *insurmountable Christian faith having any effect (past or present) on governing vs those who support it. For the living, everyday use a contention lives on and shall continue even if they overturn it.

Since the First Amendment's non-establishment clause forbids the US from a state-sanctioned religion. So in order to defend the wording on our currency, the argument makes the phrase meaningless--"God" can mean anything because to say it is God (i.e. the Abrahamic God) would violate the non-establishment clause.

You need to bulk up a bit, that is for Christian sectarianism which T.Jefferson addressed later, never attempting to quell sound Christian influence, contrary to popular opinion, solidly another thread.

* Only after God’s confirming approval, (1 Corinthians 3:22, 1 Corinthians 4:8)

 

[wing2000]

He might as well be. He is the oldest living American Centenarian who was there at her founding, which for those founders, was “touched with the feeling of [their] infirmities”(Heb 4:15).

Goodness, is the forum asleep at the wheel for the eerily insignificant inclusion of J Adam’s first quote?

Eh, I noticed you ignored the quote of Jesus Christ. "My Kingdom is not of this world..."

 

[Desk trauma]

Goodness, is the forum asleep at the wheel for the eerily insignificant inclusion of J Adam’s first quote?

No, you're ignoring the response to it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

“I might indeed employ a stronger word, and call it a right, and the first right of mankind, to worship God, ,” – John Adams 1786 (51 yrs old)​

It is indeed a right, but it is not a duty.

To continue the sentence, he speaks of the right to worship God "according to their Consciences".

The right of Conscience is inalienable. Government can't know what you're thinking, and they have no power to change it, or legitimate right to change it. As Jefferson pithily put it:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Goodness, is the forum asleep at the wheel for the eerily insignificant inclusion of J Adam’s first quote? That was your golden opportunity to drag into question using Adam’s statement with my (end paragraph) religious/political commentary in post #21.

Adam’s comment as well as the American motto, IGWT (In God We Trust) origins are irrelevant. Though related, his comment doesn’t address it. Sorry for any one's trouble.

The strongest comment he might have used here is,

“I might indeed employ a stronger word, and call it a right, and the first right of mankind, to worship God, ,” – John Adams 1786 (51 yrs old)​

Closer, but still falls short. What didn’t fall short, is comment #21 that the current wrangling and sweeping under the rug going on over IGWT still bears repeating,

"In God We Trust", for Christ who is God, shares his entity with no one!”​

It’s a simple modern-day living contention to see as any other: those who foment objection to the connection of the *insurmountable Christian faith having any effect (past or present) on governing vs those who support it. For the living, everyday use a contention lives on and shall continue even if they overturn it.

You need to bulk up a bit, that is for Christian sectarianism which T.Jefferson addressed later, never attempting to quell sound Christian influence, contrary to popular opinion, solidly another thread.

* Only after God’s confirming approval, (1 Corinthians 3:22, 1 Corinthians 4:8)

"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 tranquility 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." - Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The articles of the Treaty were written up by officials appointed by George Washington when he was president. And were ratified under John Adams' presidency by the US Senate.

The claim that the non-establishmen clause only applies to differences of Christian denominations is objectively false. The architects of the Republic and framers of the Constitution intentionally wanted the United States to be a nation that did not discriminate on the basis of religion in any capacity. The new country wouldn't just not be Anglican (or Catholic, or Lutheran, or Prebyterian, etc); it wasn't Christian at all. It was secular. And was a nation for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Deists, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, and anyone else all alike.

I don't follow the David Barton school of historical revisionism. I think real history is far more interesting, and far more important.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Pommer]

Goodness, is the forum asleep at the wheel for the eerily insignificant inclusion of J Adam’s first quote? That was your golden opportunity to drag into question using Adam’s statement with my (end paragraph) religious/political commentary in post #21.

Adam’s comment as well as the American motto, IGWT (In God We Trust) origins are irrelevant. Though related, his comment doesn’t address it. Sorry for any one's trouble.

The strongest comment he might have used here is,

“I might indeed employ a stronger word, and call it a right, and the first right of mankind, to worship God, ,” – John Adams 1786 (51 yrs old)​

Closer, but still falls short. What didn’t fall short, is comment #21 that the current wrangling and sweeping under the rug going on over IGWT still bears repeating,

"In God We Trust", for Christ who is God, shares his entity with no one!”​

It’s a simple modern-day living contention to see as any other: those who foment objection to the connection of the *insurmountable Christian faith having any effect (past or present) on governing vs those who support it. For the living, everyday use a contention lives on and shall continue even if they overturn it.

You need to bulk up a bit, that is for Christian sectarianism which T.Jefferson addressed later, never attempting to quell sound Christian influence, contrary to popular opinion, solidly another thread.

* Only after God’s confirming approval, (1 Corinthians 3:22, 1 Corinthians 4:8)

Are you asserting that John Adams was a prophet?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Here is the Adam's quote which I've seen posted here:

"Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by <[. . .]> morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition <and> Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" - John Adams to the Massachusetts Militia, October 11th, 1798

Adams seems less interested in talking about being a Christian--holding to Christian tenets of faith and convictions--but more about morality and religion as cultural forces that instill integrity in a person. Adams doesn't say merely "religion" or "religious" but "morality and religion", "a moral and religious people".

Adams is expressing his view that good moral people are required for the government to be effective. For Adams that includes religion/religiosity of some kind.

But the claim made earlier in this thread that only Christianity embraces a plurality is a very bizarre one. In the history of the intersections of religion and politics there are multiple examples of officially Christian societies NOT embracing religious pluralism; and there are examples of non-Christian societies embracing (to various degrees) religious pluralism.

Religious toleration seems to have more to do with policy and the particular time and place we are looking at rather than the particular religion that holds sway. There are examples of Christian toleration and intolerance of other forms of religion; there are examples of Muslim toleration and intolerance of other forms of religion. Sometimes Muslim societies were tolerant, sometimes they were intolerant; sometimes Christian societies were tolerant, sometimes they were intolerant; sometimes Buddhist or Hindu or Pagan societies were tolerant and sometimes they were intolerant.

There is no objective measure that indicates that a society that identifies itself as Christian is intrinsically more tolerant than a society that doesn't identify itself as Christian.

A simple cursory examination of the history of Western Europe over the last 1500 years or so should quite easily dispel that notion as entirely spurious.

As a Christian I would love for there to be a wealth of evidence that those who claimed to be part of my religion have always behaved themselves well, demonstrated the virtues and values I believe should define Christianity as a religion; but history shows that some of the worst acts of human nature have been committed by those who call themselves Christians--and it would be disingenuous of me to pretend otherwise. The Christian response to this historical fact shouldn't be to become the proverbial ostrich with its head in the ground, but to recognize it for what it is; and seek to do better.

To try and make America a "Christian nation" is simply adding to that long history of Christian failure to "seek first the kingdom of God". This history of ours should humble us, and make us penitent, it should remind us just how easy it is for our sinful passions to assert themselves. Our hands are stained with innocent blood, and that shames the Cross of Jesus Christ; we bring the Gospel to dishonor if we fail to recognize our guilt, sin, and failure; if we fail to humbly bend our knees in penitential grief, and beseech God for His mercy. And to, in a spirit of repentance, reach out to our neighbor in love, as Christ so commanded His people to do.

A Biblical lesson for those so interested: St. John in his Apocalypse writes concerning those who call themselves rich because of their comfort, possessions, and temporal glories, wherein Christ calls them lukewarm and worth only spitting out; and Christ pleads with them to buy from Him gold purified by fire, that He stands at the door and knocks awaiting for His people to let Him back in, that He might again sit at their table. The lesson of the Laodicean Church in the Apocalypse is that comfort, wealth, and ease can very easily cause us to forget our first and chief love, and we end up expelling Christ from His own Church. This is a deep, deep, deep wrong that requires true repentance--faking it won't accomplish anything.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[rocknanchor]

Eh, I noticed you ignored the quote of Jesus Christ. "My Kingdom is not of this world..."

Another thread might be appropriate for that if you don't mind.

 

[rocknanchor]

I don't follow the David Barton school of historical revisionism. I think real history is far more interesting, and far more important.

Myself, only in part. Arguably, said to hold one of the largest collection of founding documents.

 

[rocknanchor]

Are you asserting that John Adams was a prophet?

Interesting! Unfortunate that I could neither affirm nor deny that possiblity.

 

[jayem]

No. We should return to the original motto: "Out of many, one".

Absolutely. "E. Pluribus Unum." It's carved into the base of the Statue of Freedom on the Capitol dome.

It's also on the banner held in the eagle's beak on the front side of the Great Seal.

Let's not forget that the Pledge of Allegiance--written in the 1890s--made no mention of God. The phrase "under God' was added in 1954. The reason was to distinguish Americans' reverence for flag and country from godless communism.

 

[rocknanchor]

To try and make America a "Christian nation" is simply adding to that long history of Christian failure to "seek first the kingdom of God".

Problem is, it was born that way. You appear well-read. Do you remember what that Commander in Chief of the Continental Army; G.Washington said to the Delaware Nation in 1779?

I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your principal Chiefs to be educated with us. I am sure Congress will open the Arms of love to them—and will look upon them as their own Children and will have them educated accordingly. This is a great mark of your confidence and of your desire to preserve the friendship between the Two Nations to the end of time—and to become One people with your Brethren of the United States. My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life and above all—the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast—that nothing shall ever be able to loose it." - Above All, the Religion of Jesus Christ

Congress did not shirk these things, we can tell by listening to him. Not like today with so much vitriol for the appearance of religion and morality in the halls of government. Not till late in 1820 when by then, the illustrious statesman, Daniel Webster showed us how to bring the Christian faith out of vigilance and into lukewarmness:

"In the first place, Have the people a right, if in their judgment the security of their government and its due administration demand it, to require a declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qualification or condition of office? On this question, a majority of the committee held a decided opinion. They thought the people had such a right. By the fundamental principle of popular and elective governments, all office is in the free gift of the people. They may grant or they may withhold it at pleasure; and if it be for them, and them only, to decide whether they will grant office, it is for them to decide, also, on what terms and what conditions they will grant it. " - Christian Qualification for Public Office​

 

[rocknanchor]

Wondering, what will the prudent do with the above evidence of a timespan of 50-yrs of going from Congressional “intention”, to the statesman’s ‘preference’? Suppose it didn’t. Suppose George’s fruit remained? Couldn’t God’s confirming approval, (1 Corinthians 3:22, 1 Corinthians 4:8) to “reign” under the guidance of Romans-13, the ONLY preference of “God’s servants” of civil matters have sufficed, known by all to be held in GW’s pluralistic intent?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Congress did not shirk these things

Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but that was under the Articles of Confederation (though Maryland had not yet ratified it). That's not the government we have today.

Not till late in 1820 when by then, the illustrious statesman, Daniel Webster showed us how to bring the Christian faith out of vigilance and into lukewarmness:

In 1787, the Founders created the provision that there be No Religious Test for federal office in the US Constitution.

 

[jayem]

I’m going off- topic a bit. According to superstition, the number 13 is unlucky. But of course, in the context of American symbols and emblems, it refers to the original 13 colonies. The Great Seal of the United States, which I attached in post #36 has several references. There are 13 stars in the cloud over the eagle’s head. His left foot holds 13 arrows. The olive branch in his right foot has 13 leaves. There are 13 red and white stripes in the shield. And the motto, E Pluribus Unum, has 13 letters.