Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).
“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)
In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,
"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."
John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.
Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.
Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,
“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).
According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:
“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)
Falling Stars and Damnable Heresy
Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.
Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:
"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)
In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.
As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.
Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:
“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)
The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,
“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)
The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.
With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)
This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,
“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)
As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)
In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.
Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.
Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.
Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:
“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)
None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:
“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)
Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,
“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)
Pouring more contempt on them he asked,
“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)
Concerning Matthew 19:5:
“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)
And concerning Cor. 15:21-22:
“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)
After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,
“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)
The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.
From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,
“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15
Sorry, FRiend, but the Roman plaque, "The King of the Jews" on Jesus' cross proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Romans did not crucify Jesus for blasphemy.
The Romans couldn't care less about such things.
Then you accept that historical account? The same historical accounts prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Sanhedrin asked Jesus to be put to death for blasphemy.
“In fact, there is no — zero, zip, nada — “Judeo-Christian tradition” of constitutionally limited republics, guaranteeing freedom of religion, speech, press, etc.”
Spirited: Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
“We the people” are “persons” because created as the Triune God’s spiritual image-bearers. The term ‘person’ originated in Christian theologies developmental struggle to comprehend the nature and experience of the transcendent, personal Triune God:
“The derivative concept of human personhood is a gift of the Christian faith to culture…” (Stephen P. Stratton, Chapter 14, p. 247, The Self, Paul Vitz & Susan M. Felch, Editors)
Personhood is historically unique. Pantheist and materialist systems cannot account for nor even provide for personhood let alone life and consciousness. For these reasons the Founders turned against Paine as soon as he suggested that a religion of pantheism replace America’s Christian foundations.
As well, the injection of evolution into the Bible supplants creation ex nihilo thereby destroying personhood. Ideas have consequences.
As for Free Masonry, its large outside circle is but a fraternity, a social club, while it’s inner circle is a modern Mystery Religion constructed of elements from Buddhism, ancient Egyptian Hermetic magic, and Gnostic paganism resulting in the elevation of Lucifer. Yes, BroJoeK, this does mean that Masonic Mystery Religionists are Luciferians.
In “The Meaning of Masonry,” (1927) Mason W.L. Wilmhurst admits that Masonry is a modern Mystery Religion. An initiate,
“....begins his Masonic career as the natural man; he ends it by becoming through its discipline, a regenerated man... This the evolution of man into superman—was always the purpose of the ancient Mysteries, and the real purpose of modern Masonry is, not the social and charitable purposes to which so much attention is paid, but the expediting of the spiritual evolution of those who aspire to perfect their own nature and transform it into a more god-like quality” (p. 4)
Do yourself a favor BroJoeK: Please stop pretending to know what you obviously do not know.
I beg to differ: There is one constitutionally limited republic guaranteeing the freedoms you cite: It is our constitutional republic, the United States of America. It is constitutionally limited to prevent the State from trespassing on the unalienable rights of persons, vested in them as the free gifts of God Creator. We are (or at least were) a "people under God," not a people under the State. And the God whose people we are "under" is the God revealed in the Holy Scriptures.
The reasons given for political acts are often just rationalizations, and the real reasons not admitted. Historical accounts are subject to selective omission or outright revisionism. Ultimately, no one knows for sure.
You mean personally? Or by simple casual observation?
Studied incomprehension. The four D’s in action . . . ducking, dancing, dodging, and discharging (great gaseous displays).
people claiming to be “more conservative than thou”.
Who dat? You personify that tendency more than anyone I know. Politically, I come closer to being a Jeffersonian liberal than anything (the difference usually is not worth the explanation). Principally, of course, I am a Christian.
I began this present thread by writing, “I would like for someone to explain to me the allegorical meaning of “In the beginning” or “Thou shalt not steal.” (post #4) I have, yet, to receive a response. Would you care to get in front of that parade?
“am a great fan of conservative talk show hosts -- Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Beck, Wilkow”
Getting out in front . . . pretending to lead the parade. Another display of the four D’s.
“iirc, wasn't it you YHAOS who told me theology was called the “Queen of sciences”?
Don’t recall ever using that expression.
I have, more than once, observed:
“Science, as it has been developed by our Judeo-Christian Western Civilization is successful because it is of use. So useful, in fact, that I claim it to be Judeo-Christianity’s happiest inspiration.
“Some people have seized upon the readily observable phenomena of Natural Selection and have projected it into the religion of Darwinism; with “Evolution” as its most holy of sacraments. Like most religions, Darwinism is jealous of other religions. Unlike the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Darwinism has not learned to control its jealousy, so it seeks to drive Christianity not only from the public schools, but entirely from the public common.
“The prohibition against the establishment of religion is an onus that falls entirely on the state. Government may not establish a religion or prohibit its free exercise. The prohibition may not act on individuals or private institutions. The Constitution limits and defines the powers only of government.”
I have also declared Science to be the “handmaiden” of Philosophy (and that would include Christianity).
Your error surely.
Do you claim the many facets exhibited by Liberals in their quest to control our lives extends beyond their interest in controlling our backsides? Do you think their interest extends to our morale? Our souls? Our love for our dear ones? Our love of liberty and regard for freedom of speech and thought? Do you not think that they believe they can control us by controlling our backsides (being faithful adherents to the Darwinian religion)? Put your studied incomprehension to work here, and you surely can come up with something.
“. . . why the double negative and what's your point?”
What double negative? and which word didn’t you understand?
Studied incomprehension
“Better than what, exactly?
Which word didn’t you understand?
Studied incomprehension
“False, false & false.”
In his writing of The Age of Reason, Paine betrayed the primary reason why he was praised by the American People, his grounding of the American Revolution in the Judeo-Christian principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence. Paine died in poverty, unforgiven for his betrayal of the American People.
Studied incomprehension.
”Do you want to explain to us why, exactly, you so wish to gloat over the death and burial of a great British citizen supporter of the American Revolution?”
Would you like to explain your consistent use of propagandist terms to mischaracterize your protagonists’ expressions? why do you so studiously labor to distort their clearly expressed ideas and engage in such intense studied incomprehension?
Miz boop, spirited, kevmo, and several others have spent an inordinate amount of their valuable time (especially boop and spirited) explaining their ideas. Their reward has been your disrespect and contemptuous dismissal of their sincerity with studied incomprehension and deliberate misconstruction.
“What is your problem, exactly?”
The four D’s in action . . . ducking, dancing, dodging, and discharging (great gaseous displays).
I have no problem. What is yours (exactly)?
”The button” is for wimps. Why eliminate trolls and deny them the opportunity to expose their own ineptness? Sooner or later trolls become frustrated at their inability to dislodge people committed to the Judeo-Christian Tradition, so they turn to a forum Mod to assist them in committing self-immolation, all the while crying martyrdom.
You look to curb the discussion only to what you find comfortable. To quote a famous American icon, “That’ll be the day!”
You look to curb the discussion only to what you find comfortable. To quote a famous American icon, “That’ll be the day!”
I see.
I'm "curbing the discussion only to what I find comfortable", while you're "eliminatating trolls".
History is not a science. The study of religion and mythology, also not sciences.
Some time ago, I penned a little tome (which I characterized an Apple of Gold, taken after an expression by Abraham Lincoln, which he had, in turn, taken from the Holy Bible:
In part, & with a few additions:
Of The Constitution itself there is no “god” therein to be found . . . no religion, or denomination of a religion, may be established . . . no ecclesiastical dignitary is accorded, by right, a constitutional office, or other sinecure . . .
the Founding Fathers saw no need but to exercise minimum control over human behavior (their backsides, if you will), and to exercise no restraint over thought, being convinced that their charter of government should have nothing to do with issues of conscience.
The philosophy that impelled the creation of the Constitution, is found in our Declaration of Independence.
Abraham Lincoln, using a biblical reference (Proverbs 25:11), called The Declaration an “Apple of Gold” adorned by a frame of silver, the frame being the Union and the Constitution. (Abraham Lincoln, “Fragment on the Constitution and the Union,” January 1861, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 4, Roy P. Basler, ed., New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press).
The enemies of the Constitution declare many of our Founders to be Deists, not Christians, thereby obviating any “influence” the Judeo-Christian Tradition may have had on our nation. Whether anyone chooses to call the Founding Fathers “Deists” or not, approx 156 years of religious freedom and Judeo-Christian Tradition have proved sufficient to have brought forth the grandest government ever conceived by man.
If this present generation decides to pitch it all in the trashcan, be it upon their heads.
If Jefferson for example, as many claim, was a Deist, he was very unconventional, and in blatant defiance of all the usual characteristics defining the term.
Jefferson discusses the ancient philosophers as a contrast to his most favored; “Jesus of Nazareth,” making it difficult to dismiss Jefferson as merely a conventional Deist, in a letter to William Short, October 31, 1819, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson in 19 volumes, Memorial Edition, edited by Albert Ellery Burgh.
In another letter, Jefferson writes to his namesake, addressing to him several things that might have a favorable influence on the course of his life. Jefferson starts by naming the two great commandments of the Judeo-Christian belief, going on to refer to others of the Ten Commandments, and closes by quoting the body of a Christian hymn Lord, who's the happy man. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson Smith, February 21, 1825, Ibid.
Jefferson confirms his distaste for ‘Presbyterianism’ and equally his aversion to the teachings of Calvin. He then goes on to shatter the conventional understanding of his view of the ‘separation’ of church and state, by relating the sharing of a courthouse by various Christian sects, as a common temple of worship. What is surprising is not that different Christian sects proved to be willing to share in common worship, taking turns in leading the services, but that their place of common worship was the very seat of local government itself, the court-house, and that this event was reported, with equanimity, by none other than Thomas Jefferson, himself. He then goes on to confound us further by relating how he and his fellow Visitors (directors) of the University of Virginia provided space on the university grounds and the sharing of certain facilities for formal religious instruction by various Christian sects, all this in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, November 2, 1822, Ibid.
In yet another letter, Jefferson declares his faith only in Christ’s teachings of the early church. A letter to John Adams, October, 13 1813, Ibid.
And, finally, in yet another letter he declares, “To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian (emphasis mine), in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other. (Thomas Jefferson, to Doctor Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803, Ibid).
The letters and other documents of Jefferson fixes exactly the problem you and other pretenders face in attempting to deny a Christian influence on the making of America, including The Declaration itself. To tailor the charge of Deism to any of the Founding Fathers, the critics must redefine ‘Deist’ to fit the changing characteristics of the different Founders. Franklin proclaimed “God governs in the affairs of men.” Not a belief attributable to Deists. Jefferson, on the other hand, swore fealty to Jesus Christ (“the pure gospel of Jesus Christ”). And critics will find no comfort in examining the Christian values of any of the other Founders charged with drafting The Declaration Of Independence (see John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, dated June 28, 1813, Ibid). Nor any other Founder (Thomas Paine, for example).
Ever since that time Nihilists have sought to gain advantage of the Founders’ circumspection by insisting the documents are devoid of Judeo-Christian values (and will pitch a fit at any contrary understanding – go ahead – pitch a fit).
“Oh, we are weary pilgrims; to this wilderness we bring
A Church without a bishop, a State without a King.”
. . . . . anonymous poem, The Puritans’ Mistake, published by Oliver Ditson in 1844
deism noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. Compare with theism.
(from my MAC OSX dictionary)
To merely declare Jefferson, or any of the other Founders, a “Deist” without going into specifics, simply allows Christian Deniers (like you) the opportunity to declare that America was not founded on Judeo-Christian belief and principles.
We, of course, can address the same point to many of the “friends” of the Founding Fathers.
“I write with freedom, because while I claim a right to believe in one God, if so my reason tells me, I yield as freely to others that of believing in three. Both religions, I find, make honest men, and that is the only point society has any right to look to. Although this mutual freedom should produce mutual indulgence, yet I wish not to be brought in question before the public on this or any other subject, and I pray you to consider me as writing under that trust. I take no part in controversies, religious or political. At the age of eighty, tranquility is the greatest good of life, and the strongest of our desires that of dying in the good will of all mankind. And with the assurance of all my good will to Unitarian and Trinitarian, to Whig and Tory, accept for yourself that of my entire respect.”
. . . . . Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Smith, December 8, 1822
Misconstrue that, Pretender.
Do you recognize the following?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness . . .”
A Creator. A Christian name for God. The product of the KJV Bible of 1611, only recently completed before the founding of America.
It began with the Pilgrims (1620).
The pilgrims were English separatist Christians, fleeing Europe in order to escape religious persecution, and they literally began their stay in a new land with the words, “In the name of God, Amen.”
Determined to live their lives and govern themselves based on Biblical principles, but ignorant of the harsh conditions of a northern wilderness, the Pilgrims lost half their number the first winter when they attempted to install a communist-style system of resource allocation (see William Bradford).
When they overcame their initial mistake by following a more free enterprise form of resource allocation (see 2 Thessalonians 3:10-11), thanks to the judgment of that same William Bradford, the colonists, to celebrate their transition from severe want to a bountiful plenty, chose Leviticus 23:33-34 (The Feast of Tabernacles – see also Deuteronomy 16:13) as their guide. That celebration tradition continues today as Thanksgiving (although some would like to forget to Whom it is we are giving thanks).
The pilgrims were followed to New England by the Puritans, who likewise sought to establish bible-based commonwealths (New Haven and the Massachusetts Bay colonies). Roger Williams founded the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, based on the principle of freedom of conscience. Pennsylvania was established by William Penn as a Quaker colony. Maryland was a haven from Protestant England for Roman Catholics.
These commonwealths, and subsequent ones, practiced the same sort of representative government as their church covenants, and whether or not others can see the cause in the Bible and Christianity, they did see that cause. Those governmental covenants and compacts came to number more than 100, and were the foundation for our Constitution.
“Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage (emphasis mine), and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments:” Exodus 6:6 (see also Deut. 26:8).
Our American forebears likened their journey to the New World (“the land of their pilgrimage (emphasis mine), wherein they were strangers”) as unto Exodus and likened their distance from Britain to God’s deliverance of Israel from the Egyptians. They were very much adherents of the OT, fully as much as were they of the NT.
In the New World, being 150 years’ removed from King and homeland, they learned self-reliance and, more importantly, self-governance in their civil affairs and in their religious affairs, and acquired the ability to select their own leaders (leaders, not masters). Having a great measure of independence gave them a huge advantage over their cousins of a French Revolution, that started badly and ended worse.
Being left largely to their own devices, our forebears did not react well to kingly oppression or parliamentary arrogance when it did come down on them. Therefore was the powder keg of independence rather easily lit.
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” Galatians 5:1. “For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” Galatians 5:13. “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” John 8: 31-32.
“And he (Peter) said unto them, Ye know that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” Acts 10:28.
“Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof:” Leviticus 25:10 (deniers claim they don’t see the connection with our liberty, but the Founding Fathers saw enough connection to put the passage on our Liberty Bell).
“Blessed is every one that feareth the Lord; that walketh in his ways. For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands; happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee.” Psalm 128:1-2. “The labourer is worthy of his reward.” I Timothy 5:18. (These passages fairly cry out in every part of the Constitution).
“But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.” I Timothy 6:11. (A passage that surely must be detested by our Courageous Young President and all his acolytes).
In defiance of the “fact” that there is supposedly nothing in the Bible to show that God created all men equal, nevertheless, the Founding Fathers (and their forebears) saw themselves as equals in the sight of God. “Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.” Deuteronomy 1:17.
“Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God: for I am the Lord your God.” Leviticus 25:17. “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?” Malachi 2:10. “Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God.” Romans 2:9-11.
If anyone sees fit to question the Founding Fathers’ Biblical judgment in thinking themselves free men and equals, then they will otherwise have to question the Founders for the reasons. The questioners will need to pack for an extended trip. Start packing.
The plain fact is that the philosophy of government the Founding Fathers developed over some 150 years was inspired by their Christian values. What is it that Twenty First Century tyrants abhor? Justice? That as you sow, so shall you reap? Which word is it that they do not understand?
Did not the Lord bring the people of Israel out from Egypt and free them from the hand of Pharaoh? Whether Twenty First Century tyrants approve of their vision, or not, our forebears saw a precise parallel in the Israelites coming out of Egypt and the Pilgrims coming to America. And though they first wished to retain their loyalties to the king of their homeland, did they not see being freed from the hand of a tyrant king as the same as being freed from the hand of Pharaoh? Nor could they tolerate anymore the hands of the tyrant princes of the Church. Nor would they tolerate the oppression of the Twenty First Century tyrants if they were alive today.
“Oh, we are weary pilgrims; to this wilderness we bring
A Church without a bishop, a State without a King.”
“Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great;” (Deuteronomy 1:17)
“We know no King but Jesus.”
“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:26-29). See also Romans 8:17.
“Proclaim liberty through all the land and to all the inhabitants thereof”
“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” (Romans 8:16-17)
“And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
“Thou shat not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither that a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.” (Deuteronomy 16:19)
“A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if its roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.”
. . . . . Calvin Coolidge, “The Inspiration of the Declaration,” Speech at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 5, 1926.
“I told you before. I tell you again: “And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity (emphasis mine), in which all those sects were united; and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all these young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence.”
. . . . . John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, dated June 28, 1813, Ibid
“We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.”
”If this present generation does indeed decide to pitch it all in the trashcan, be it upon their heads.”
If this “present generation” does decide to throw off The Judeo-Christian Tradition and it’s most precious political offering, may they (and others of their ilk) oft be reminded of the words of Jacob Marley, as penned by Charles Dickens;
“I wear the chain I forged in life. I made it link by link and yard by yard.”
Do not suppose this is written for your benefit. Being an old pump jockey, I know the futility of drilling a dry hole. Any more than I think that boop & co. drill dry holes.
But were are here discussing one in which they are not.
Contrarily, I said I’m not eliminating trolls (just as I’m not “drilling dry holes”).
Pay attention, Poindexter.
???
Damnable Heresy
Pound sand, Precious.
The topic spirited introduced was that of Linda Kimball’s, which included in the title “Heresy,” besides “Falling Stars” and the “Spirit of Evolution”, upon which Miz Kimball used to launch a rather wide-ranging discussion, and upon which spirited then amplified. Linda also began her article with 1 John 2:22, so already we had a rather large smorgasbord from which to choose.
I will not speculate why you choose “Heresy” and not “Falling Stars” about which to argue, but I was responding to BroJoeK’s post (#1671), specifically his statement “In fact, there is no -- zero, zip, nada – “Judeo-Christian tradition” of constitutionally limited republics, guaranteeing freedom of religion, speech, press, etc. Virtually all of Christendom then remained under the rule of centralized monarchies in alliance with their official state religions, whether those were the Catholic Church, Orthodox or Protestant.”
Way back in post #19 I inquired “What are you talking about?” To which you responded in #20, “The article, which is supposedly the subject of discussion.” I can only conclude you mean but only that which you intend to control. That is not how we roll in JR’s shire.
I’ve already informed you I don’t look to “eliminate” trolls (I let them eliminate themselves). Likewise I don’t “pound sand” and I try not to drill dry holes. Which word did you not understand?
I understand them all. Some of the arrangements are a puzzlement. This, for instance:
I can only conclude you mean but only that which you intend to control. That is not how we roll in JR’s shire.
FRiend, we're actually dealing with three separate disciplines here:
Never-the-less, it does matter to many people of faith that the science and history underlying their beliefs at least do not contradict those beliefs.
So, for example, if a new ossuary is found and said to belong to James the brother of Jesus, then the whole believing world wants to know: is it for real, or just some modern forgery?
At that point the words "science", "history" and "religious faith" come together in search of truth...
Sure, but you seem to forget that Romans were the masters, and Jews their subjects.
There is no possible way -- zero, zip, nada -- that Romans would crucify anybody for the "crime" of blasphemy.
Therefore, Romans had to be convinced, and were convinced that Jesus was a political threat to them -- a threat such as represented by a new "King of the Jews".
FRiend, we are not debating facts of history here, only their interpretation.
Yes, I "get" that you wish to focus, focus, focus on the guilt of the Jews, but I don't see it that way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.