toldailytopic: Christian nation. Did America's founding fathers intend for the USA to

Status
Not open for further replies.

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
In your opinion, how does justice work?
:think: Tough question. I'd say it's easier to note what it doesn't work: injustice.
Seems quite possible that the Jews who persecuted Jesus Christ and aided his crucifixion may have suffered the Holocaust (a real big pay back), under grace of God, because Jesus was the son of God.
If you're a card carrying Brown Shirt, or have recently had a significant head injury, sure. Otherwise, you'd have to be a full bore loon to even walk by the neighborhood of the suggestion that God would deliver millions of Jews to horrific deaths as punishment for their part in Jesus doing exactly what he was sent to do, up to and including the cross.

:plain: Some things are ambiguous, like the definition of fair and balanced or what politicians of any stripe won't do for a Klondike bar shaped like public opinion. Some things really aren't.
Although it may appear that man or a man was responsible, and such a man will be held accountable, is it not possible that, that event was in fact justice under divine decree, for people who esteem 'thou shall not kill'?
No. Christ said to forgive them. Is God divided?
With respect to Muslims, although they may be suffering under action by men, is it not also possible that they may simply be receiving justice under 'an eye for an eye' for converting non-Muslims at the point of the sword and killing and raping others who refused to be converted? One who live by the sword must, it seems, also die by the sword.
This sounds a great deal like instant karma. :guitar: Great song/poor system of moral equity.
Is it not possible that God may simply be looking the other way with respect to these events simply to balance out justice?
It's possible if God isn't actually just, if God is merely a very powerful and flawed being with time to kill. :nono:
I am just supposing.
There's a thin line between that word and proposing. In the right light they look like twins.
Also if one's doctrines are correct and one's actions correct. How is it possible for one's God to fail one?
Presumes a rather singular either/or without establishing the validity of the assumption
If a people were in and are in righteousness with God, how is possible for their God to let supposed bad things befall them?
When it rains who gets wet? :rain:
The only explanation seems to be that those who receive these supposedly bad things were not in righteousness with God.
Still asserting that singularity.
Seems that in any religion or spiritual tradition, if one's ideas, beliefs and interests are in accordance with the will of God and one obey these (execute them) unconditionally, then, it is literally impossible for one to suffer injustice at the hands of any man or beast or any force or other thing.
Seems to whom?
Seems that there is no need to whine and cry now, seem that one must take one's licks like a man, trusting in and believing in, the same God who one claimed justify one's past actions. Where is one's God now, one should ask?
You know you're a half step short of a caste system, don't you...:plain:
I am just supposing.
There's another thin line between entertaining and what entertains us. :e4e:
 

WandererInFog

New member
A shout among a chorus isn't going to draw much attention. A brush fire next to a conflagration is similarly lost. Haven't heard of the Messianic Jew problem. Given the large Christian network and sensitivity to Christian persecution I'm disinclined absent some substantiation to believe it much of a problem.

While there's nothing else in your post I'd disagree, I've gotta single this bit out for just a second. There a decent bit of persecution of Christians that goes on in Israel, but the reason it doesn't get much play in the US isn't because it's Israel but rather because the Christians involved are Eastern Orthodox rather than Evangelical or Roman Catholic and the lack of significant Eastern Orthodox voice in the West means that persecutions of Orthodox Christians receive comparatively little attention compared to when one of the other two groups are involved. Similarly the plight of Christians in Iraq following the US invasion has been largely ignored until relatively recently.
 

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
Barton's a revisionist more brazen in his dishonesty than most...
I couldn't wait for the ad hominem. :rolleyes:

Too bad you did not listen to the whole discussion (I'm sure you have bat heads to bite off).

When he turned to the back of the book that the secular authors had written--they had no sources! They did away with that pesky task.

It is their hope that readers will believe what their revisionist history because they are too lazy to check up on their work.

If all you want to do is indulge in a quote war...


Then consider what they believed. Remember--you are no patriot (I wouldn't say that--the father of our country would):

George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens."

"[Washington] said anyone who tries to remove religion and morality from public life, I don't even let them call themselves a patriot because they are trying to destroy the country...(Barton)."

"Washington had a very clear confidence in God's providence. As they explain, "From his days as a 22-year-old lieutenant thrust into leadership on the western frontier, through his experiences as the commander in chief of a rag-tag but determined army facing the strongest army and largest navy of his time, Washington learned invaluable lessons about the character of men and the nature of God. These experiences proved to him that an intervening force was at work in American history and in his life. That knowledge sustained him..."

...In his private letters and public statements as commander in chief and president, Washington seldom missed an opportunity to give praise to Providence and to beg God to continue favoring this nation. In his farewell address, Washington considered his legacy to our young nation and wrote these words:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them."

Washington's religious behavior, especially as a public official, might displease those today who argue against religion in the public square. Yet it was his trust in Providence that allowed him to be the man that he was, and to achieve what he did. Washington's God, who is active in human affairs, was there at the darkest days of our founding...

...[W]e can take strength from Washington's certainty that God always favors liberty.

We are wise to avoid the rush to remake George Washington in our own image, whether ardent secularist or fervent evangelical Christian. Washington, like all of us, was a man of his times. His expressions of Christian belief must be placed within the context of his Anglican experience in Virginia -- a tradition not given to flowery expressions of personal belief.

This much is clear: Washington was no secularist, nor was he what we would now describe as an Evangelical believer. Most likely, he was a traditional Anglican believer whose trust in divine providence shaped every moment of his illustrious life. What George Washington believed about the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not fully clear. That Washington believed in a God who ruled over the nations and intervened in human affairs is clear -- and Washington was confident that God favored the cause of justice and liberty...

...Peter A. Lillback, President of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, argues that we should understand Washington as a devout Christian who embedded references to his personal faith in his many writings and public statements. In his article, "Why Have Scholars Downplayed George Washington's Faith?," Lillback argues:

Within this vast collection of Washington's own words and writings, we now have a remarkable ability to uncover what earlier scholars were unable to access. And when we let Washington's own words and deeds speak for his faith we get quite a different perspective than that of most recent modern historians. Washington referred to himself frequently using the words "ardent," "fervent," "pious," and "devout." There are over one hundred different prayers composed and written by Washington in his own hand, with his own words, in his writings. He described himself as one of the deepest men of faith of his day when he confessed to a clergyman, "No Man has a more perfect Reliance on the alwise, and powerful dispensations of the Supreme Being than I have nor thinks his aid more necessary."

Rather than avoid the word "God," on the very first national Thanksgiving under the U.S. Constitution, he said, "It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor." Although he never once used the word "Deist" in his voluminous writings, he often mentioned religion, Christianity, and the Gospel. He spoke of Christ as "the divine Author of our blessed religion." He encouraged missionaries who were seeking to "Christianize" the "aboriginals." He took an oath in a private letter, "on my honor and the faith of a Christian." He wrote of "the blessed religion revealed in the Word of God." He encouraged seekers to learn "the religion of Jesus Christ." He even said to his soldiers, "To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian." Not bad for a "lukewarm" Episcopalian!

Historians ought no longer be permitted to do the legerdemain of turning Washington into a Deist even if they found it necessary and acceptable to do so in the past. Simply put, it is time to let the words and writings of Washington's faith speak for themselves..." full text: George Washington’s God — Something Interesting for Presidents Day http://www.albertmohler.com/?cat=Blog&cid=878

" ...[Y]ou can glance at my signature for a taste of what some founders really thought."

Yes, John Adams (our second president) hated God. :rolleyes:

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: 'It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." President Adams, July 4, 1821

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were.... the general principles of Christianity." -- John Adams in letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry 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 from his Oct. 13, 1789 address to the military.

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there contained! Every member would be obliged in conscience to temperance, frugality and industry: to justice, kindness and charity towards his fellow men: and to piety, love and reverence toward Almighty God....What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." John Adams diary entry Feb. 22., 1756.

"The Christian religion is, above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and Humanity. Let the Blackguard Paine say what he will; it is Resignation to God, it is Goodness itself to man." John Adams retorting to Thomas Paine in his diary, July 26, 1796.

"A patriot without religion, in my estimation, is as great a paradox as an honest man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom no moral obligations bind, can have any real Good Will towards Men? Can he be a patriot who, by an openly vicious conduct, is undermining the very bonds of Society? ...The Scriptures tell us righteousness exalteth a Nation." Abigal Adams, wife of President John Adams in letter to husband John Adams 1776.

"...a true American Patriot must be a religious man...He who neglects his duty to his maker, may well be expected to be deficient and insincere in his duty towards the public." Abigal Adams, wife of President John Adams in letter to husband John Adams 1776.

"The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but the God of Israel is He that giveth strength and power unto His people. Trust in Him at all times, ye people, pour out your hearts before Him; God is a refuge for us." Abigal Adams, wife of President John Adams in letter to husband John Adams 1776.

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, dated June 21, 1776.

"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity." John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813, The Adams-Jefferson Letters,ed. Lester J. Cappon (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), vol 2, pp. 339-40. http://www.errantskeptics.org/Quotes_by_Presidents.htm
 
Last edited:

Gurucam

Well-known member
you'd have to be a full bore loon to even walk by the neighborhood of the suggestion that God would deliver millions of Jews to horrific deaths as punishment for their part in Jesus doing exactly what he was sent to do, up to and including the cross.

The Jews did persecute and aided the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ. They were not under grace therefore they were not Christians. They were under laws and would be judged under law and receive 'eye for an eye' punishment under laws, like the 'thou shall not kill' law.

Did they not stone people for transgressing the Ten Commandments?

Isn't aiding the crucifixion of God's son an usually big violation of the 'thou shall not kill' commandment? How will they pay for their action? Even to this day Jews do not recognize Jesus. Supposed Jesus was actually their savior who was sent by God and they persecuted Him, aided His crucifixion and continue to deny Him, what is God to do? Is God supposed to continue to protect them from the likes of Hitler and similar others?

The least one can conclude is that God simply looked the other way and let the holocaust happen. Isn't this possible?

Fact is the holocaust happened to the Jews and the Jew were supposed to be 'God chosen people'.

How did the holocaust happened to supposed good people who were God's chosen people? If these people were good and in righteousness with God, are you suggesting that for a while back there Hitler got more powerful than the God of the Jews? Is this it?

At any event there is another reality, Jesus confirmed that many are called to Christianity but few chosen for God's kingdom of heaven.

Isn't God therefore allowing much more than millions to go to an end of perpetual suffering which is much worse than any holocaust on earth?

If so why would God not allow a holocaust to prevail, it can't be worse than allowing billions to go to hell?

What here is not a reasonable/logical suggestion?

Seems to me that one must be naive, even foolish to deny that this is possible.

I am indeed only supposing because real plenty people will err because they would not be able to imagine that some very obvious and possible things are possible. This can be one such possible thing which is possible.
 
Last edited:

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
The Jews did persecute and aided the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ. They were not under grace therefore they were not Christians. They were under laws and would be judged under law and receive 'eye for an eye' punishment under laws, like the 'thou shall not kill' law.
The men who designed the murder of millions of Jews along with many others weren't enforcing God's will. They had another agenda.
Isn't aiding the crucifixion of God's son an usually big violation of the 'thou shall not kill' commandment? How will they pay for their action?
Argue with Christ. He said what again from that very cross? Is God divided in His opinion? :nono:
The holocaust happened and the Jew were supposed to be 'God chosen people'.
You missed the whole :rain: question I set in and the scriptural reference then...go back. Your answer is in there.
How did the holocaust happened to supposed good people who were God's chosen people?
The same way breakfast happens.
If these people were good and in righteousness with God, are you suggesting that for a while back there Hitler got more powerful than the God of the Jews?
No, I'm suggesting you're a nut if you think you won't get wet in a rainstorm.
Isn't God...allowing much more than millions to go to an end of perpetual suffering which is much worse than any holocaust on earth?
You were suggesting the holocaust as punishment. Now you seem to suggest the absence of God's intervention, which is a very different thing.
What here is not a reasonable/logical suggestion?
For the reasons set out above and prior.

:e4e:
 

Gurucam

Well-known member
The men who designed the murder of millions of Jews along with many others weren't enforcing God's will. They had another agenda.

It can seem so, very clearly to humans. However how would you know this for sure?

At any event, men can and will do things for their reason and to accomplish their own intention. The results however is quite another thing. If one is under grace of God, i.e. if God is for one, no human, no devil, nothing can deliver to one that which God does not will for one. Therefore if one is under grace of God and a holocaust befalls one, then it must be that one deserved same under grace of God.

If, on the other hand, one is not under grace of God it seems that one's fellow human can and will do to one, any thing, God can or will offer one no protection, any which way.

At best, one who is not under grace of God, can be under the ideals and dictates of the Ten Commandments. Then if a holocaust befalls one who is under these law then it must be their deserving under these laws.


No, I'm suggesting you're a nut if you think you won't get wet in a rainstorm.

Isn't it held that in the rapture two people can and will be next to each other in identical environment and in that 'rainstorm', one person can and will get real wet and the other can and will remain very dry and protected, simply because the latter person is under grace of God?

Aren't we told that in the rainstorm of life (i.e. the onslaught of man's action) those under grace of God will some how not get wet, unless God will it for them, whiles others (who are not under grace of God) will not have this protection?

You were suggesting the holocaust as punishment.

If it was God's intention to deliver this punishment, is it not possible that this could be one way of delivering same?

Also isn't it true that God knows the intention of 'bad' men? And God will protest those who he will?

That is, God will protect those who do not deserve to suffer under the hands of 'bad' men 'and leave (i.e. not protect) others who deserve same?

Now you seem to suggest the absence of God's intervention, which is a very different thing.

Jesus' statement, 'let the dead bury their dead' seems to suggest that God will look the other way (or He will be otherwise preoccupied) and let unaware people do onto unaware people, what they will.

Seems that, according to N.T. revelations, the only way for 'the unawares' to come under protection of God is for them to be transformed from unawareness to spiritual awareness. That is, for them to loose the veil which covers their heart. That is, for them to become 'born again'. (The unawares' describes persons who have veils over their respective hearts or spirits.)

According to Paul, up to the time he was among the Jews, they still had veils over their hearts, i.e. they were not yet 'born again'. If this was their status when the holocaust befell them, then, according to revelations in the N.T., they could not be under grace of God. And if they were otherwise, righteous seeking people, they would at best be under the dictates of the Ten Commandments and therefore receiving justice under ideas and dictates of these laws.
 
Last edited:

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I couldn't wait for the ad hominem. :rolleyes:

Too bad you did not listen to the whole discussion (I'm sure you have bat heads to bite off).

When he turned to the back of the book that the secular authors had written--they had no sources! They did away with that pesky task.

It is their hope that readers will believe what their revisionist history because they are too lazy to check up on their work.




Then consider what they believed. Remember--you are no patriot (I wouldn't say that--the father of our country would):

George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens."

"[Washington] said anyone who tries to remove religion and morality from public life, I don't even let them call themselves a patriot because they are trying to destroy the country...(Barton)."

"Washington had a very clear confidence in God's providence. As they explain, "From his days as a 22-year-old lieutenant thrust into leadership on the western frontier, through his experiences as the commander in chief of a rag-tag but determined army facing the strongest army and largest navy of his time, Washington learned invaluable lessons about the character of men and the nature of God. These experiences proved to him that an intervening force was at work in American history and in his life. That knowledge sustained him..."

...In his private letters and public statements as commander in chief and president, Washington seldom missed an opportunity to give praise to Providence and to beg God to continue favoring this nation. In his farewell address, Washington considered his legacy to our young nation and wrote these words:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them."

Washington's religious behavior, especially as a public official, might displease those today who argue against religion in the public square. Yet it was his trust in Providence that allowed him to be the man that he was, and to achieve what he did. Washington's God, who is active in human affairs, was there at the darkest days of our founding...

...[W]e can take strength from Washington's certainty that God always favors liberty.

We are wise to avoid the rush to remake George Washington in our own image, whether ardent secularist or fervent evangelical Christian. Washington, like all of us, was a man of his times. His expressions of Christian belief must be placed within the context of his Anglican experience in Virginia -- a tradition not given to flowery expressions of personal belief.

This much is clear: Washington was no secularist, nor was he what we would now describe as an Evangelical believer. Most likely, he was a traditional Anglican believer whose trust in divine providence shaped every moment of his illustrious life. What George Washington believed about the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not fully clear. That Washington believed in a God who ruled over the nations and intervened in human affairs is clear -- and Washington was confident that God favored the cause of justice and liberty...

...Peter A. Lillback, President of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, argues that we should understand Washington as a devout Christian who embedded references to his personal faith in his many writings and public statements. In his article, "Why Have Scholars Downplayed George Washington's Faith?," Lillback argues:

Within this vast collection of Washington's own words and writings, we now have a remarkable ability to uncover what earlier scholars were unable to access. And when we let Washington's own words and deeds speak for his faith we get quite a different perspective than that of most recent modern historians. Washington referred to himself frequently using the words "ardent," "fervent," "pious," and "devout." There are over one hundred different prayers composed and written by Washington in his own hand, with his own words, in his writings. He described himself as one of the deepest men of faith of his day when he confessed to a clergyman, "No Man has a more perfect Reliance on the alwise, and powerful dispensations of the Supreme Being than I have nor thinks his aid more necessary."

Rather than avoid the word "God," on the very first national Thanksgiving under the U.S. Constitution, he said, "It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor." Although he never once used the word "Deist" in his voluminous writings, he often mentioned religion, Christianity, and the Gospel. He spoke of Christ as "the divine Author of our blessed religion." He encouraged missionaries who were seeking to "Christianize" the "aboriginals." He took an oath in a private letter, "on my honor and the faith of a Christian." He wrote of "the blessed religion revealed in the Word of God." He encouraged seekers to learn "the religion of Jesus Christ." He even said to his soldiers, "To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian." Not bad for a "lukewarm" Episcopalian!

Historians ought no longer be permitted to do the legerdemain of turning Washington into a Deist even if they found it necessary and acceptable to do so in the past. Simply put, it is time to let the words and writings of Washington's faith speak for themselves..." full text: George Washington’s God — Something Interesting for Presidents Day http://www.albertmohler.com/?cat=Blog&cid=878



Yes, John Adams (our second president) hated God. :rolleyes:

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: 'It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." President Adams, July 4, 1821

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were.... the general principles of Christianity." -- John Adams in letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry 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 from his Oct. 13, 1789 address to the military.

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there contained! Every member would be obliged in conscience to temperance, frugality and industry: to justice, kindness and charity towards his fellow men: and to piety, love and reverence toward Almighty God....What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." John Adams diary entry Feb. 22., 1756.

"The Christian religion is, above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and Humanity. Let the Blackguard Paine say what he will; it is Resignation to God, it is Goodness itself to man." John Adams retorting to Thomas Paine in his diary, July 26, 1796.

"A patriot without religion, in my estimation, is as great a paradox as an honest man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom no moral obligations bind, can have any real Good Will towards Men? Can he be a patriot who, by an openly vicious conduct, is undermining the very bonds of Society? ...The Scriptures tell us righteousness exalteth a Nation." Abigal Adams, wife of President John Adams in letter to husband John Adams 1776.

"...a true American Patriot must be a religious man...He who neglects his duty to his maker, may well be expected to be deficient and insincere in his duty towards the public." Abigal Adams, wife of President John Adams in letter to husband John Adams 1776.

"The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but the God of Israel is He that giveth strength and power unto His people. Trust in Him at all times, ye people, pour out your hearts before Him; God is a refuge for us." Abigal Adams, wife of President John Adams in letter to husband John Adams 1776.

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, dated June 21, 1776.

"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity." John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813, The Adams-Jefferson Letters,ed. Lester J. Cappon (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), vol 2, pp. 339-40. http://www.errantskeptics.org/Quotes_by_Presidents.htm

SD, I don't give a good rip what someone like you makes of my patriotism. But considering we don't know each other, how about you keep comments like that to yourself? I don't impugn your love of country; I'd appreciate it if you managed to somehow find the maturity to return the favor.

Washington was a deist who never partook of communion and Adams was a Unitarian who denied the deity of Christ and the trinity. If you're ignorant of history, it's certainly not my problem.

The founders were a mixed bag composed of some actual Christian gentlemen, skeptics, deists, and outright non-believers. They founded a pluralistic republic and not a Christian nation. That's simply what happened. Even if the U.S. had been founded as a Christian nation...so what? That wouldn't entitle you people to a thing today, and guess what--countries change all the time.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
It can seem so, very clearly to humans. However how would you know this for sure?
It contradicts God's stated intention, unless you're one of those who denies the deity of Christ, in which case I can't help you. I nudged you with Christ on the cross a couple of times now. The harder nudge would be "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

That was the inference of the question do you think God is of a divided mind.
At any event, men can and will do things for their reason and to accomplish their own intention. The results however is quite another thing. If one is under grace of God, i.e. if God is for one, no human, no devil, nothing can deliver to one that which God does not will for one. Therefore if one is under grace of God and a holocaust befalls one, then it must be that one deserved same under grace of God.
Matthew 5:45 It is self apparently God's will that we make moral choices. We've had that ability by design since Adam. With moral choice comes consequence. It doesn't follow that God desires hard or negative consequences for us, only that He allows them. And again, don't go out in the rain without an umbrella or the sun without lotion for prolonged periods of time unless you want your faith shattered or you shake yourself free of that peculiar notion.
 

bybee

New member
I wonder

I wonder

It contradicts God's stated intention, unless you're one of those who denies the deity of Christ, in which case I can't help you. I nudged you with Christ on the cross a couple of times now. The harder nudge would be "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

That was the inference of the question do you think God is of a divided mind.

Matthew 5:45 It is self apparently God's will that we make moral choices. We've had that ability by design since Adam. With moral choice comes consequence. It doesn't follow that God desires hard or negative consequences for us, only that He allows them. And again, don't go out in the rain without an umbrella or the sun without lotion for prolonged periods of time unless you want your faith shattered or you shake yourself free of that peculiar notion.

Oh how the gnashing of heathenish teeth doth grate on the nerves! A sun burn! Consequence or punishment? Hmmmmm let me see. I've had a few. But only after foolishly overextending my exposure to the sun, contrary to my mother's explicit instructions! She said "Serves you right" I think God felt sorry for me! peace, bybee
 

Gurucam

Well-known member
It contradicts God's stated intention, unless you're one of those who denies the deity of Christ, in which case I can't help you. I nudged you with Christ on the cross a couple of times now. The harder nudge would be "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Seems clear that the intention of God and Jesus is to fill the world with only 'children of God' (both adopted and born 'children of God' and not at all any 'children of the flesh').

Seem that 'children of the flesh' will not inherit earth together with 'children of God', in the fullness of time when God's kingdom of heaven descends full here.

Seems that the intention of God and Jesus is to descend God's kingdom of heaven to earth. And only 'children of God' can and will enter God's kingdom of heaven.

Jesus confirmed that many will be called to Christianity but few will be chosen for God's kingdom of heaven. These few are 'children of God', not 'children of the flesh'.

Jesus showed disdain (and no concern) for 'children of the flesh' when He said, 'let the dead bury their dead'.

The entire aim of Christianity is founded in saving and delivering people into God kingdom of heaven.

Only children of God are Christians, only they are saved and delivered into God's kingdom of heaven.

'Children of the flesh' (i.e. 'the dead', the spiritually dead) seem destine to 'bury their dead'. 'Children of the flesh' are people with veils over their heart. The are 'dead within'. They are aware of only their flesh or physical side. They are not aware of their spirit or heart because it is covered by veils. They are 'the dead' mentioned by Jesus Christ when He said, 'let the dead bury their dead'. According to Jesus they do not go to heaven. One must loose the veil which is over one's heart or spirit in order to be alive, i.e. spiritually aware.

Only then can they search their individual hearts to know precisely what the Spirit of Jesus Christ has in mind for them. Then when they are led, unconditionally, into all their activities by precisely what the Spirit of Jesus Christ has in mind for them as discerned from within their own heart, in real time every time, they come under grace of God, become adopted children of God, enter God's kingdom of heaven and become Christians, simultaneously. This is the only path.

'Children of the flesh' cannot and would not know what the Spirit of Jesus Christ has in mind for them. They are 'dead' to their heart or spirit through which this discernment can be and is made. They cannot be led by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Therefore they cannot be and are not under grace of God. They cannot be and are not children of God. They cannot enter God's kingdom of heaven. They cannot be and are not saved and delivered.

That is, unless and until they become 'born again' (loose the veil over their individual hearts) so as to discern and then unconditionally obey, precisely what the Spirit of Jesus Christ has in mind for each of them as discerned individually by each of them from within their individual hearts.

This act of loosing the veil over one's heart is the critical passage which makes it all possible. This act of loosing the veil over one's heart is described as becoming 'born again' i.e. being born of spirit, i.e. awakening to one's spirit.

Only the 'born again' can come under grace of God, enter God's kingdom of heaven and/or become adopted children of God. Seems that 'children of the flesh' who do not become 'born again' in their life time, are dead in their waters, they are lost souls, they cannot and do not become 'children of God', they cannot and do not come under grace of God and they do not enter God's kingdom of heaven on earthy or any where else.

Most who come to Christianity will not make it. This is Jesus' prophesy. (i.e. many are called to Christianity but few are chosen)

As confirmed by Paul, it seems that at best, 'children of the flesh' can be under the Ten Commandments (they cannot be under grace of God) and it seems very certain (inevitable) that everyone falls short of the glory of God under that system and enter hell, not heaven.

Although many are called to Christianity, only a few will be saved and chosen for God's kingdom of heaven. And these few will be only 'children of God', no 'children of the flesh' will make it.

Seems clear that the aim of God and Jesus is to fill the world with only 'children of God'. Which is the same as bringing God's kingdom of heaven to earth.

How can this essential N.T. conclusion be wrong? Seem that to deny this Truth is to blasphemy God, Jesus Christ and Christianity.

Are you going to continue to deny that the aim of God and Jesus is to fill the earth with only 'children of God'?

Seems that children of the flesh are destine for hell where as children of God are few and destine for God's kingdom of heaven (here on earth and elsewhere). This is the purity of N.T. revelation, even though it may be very unpalatable to you.
 
Last edited:

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Seems clear that the intention of God and Jesus is to fill the world with only 'children of God' (both adopted and born 'children of God' and not at all any 'children of the flesh')...
What in the land of Goshen does this have to do with any particular point we've been discussing? I omitted the rest because it is similarly unresponsive (and largely repetitive).

:think:
 

Gurucam

Well-known member
What in the land of Goshen does this have to do with any particular point we've been discussing? I omitted the rest because it is similarly unresponsive (and largely repetitive).

:think:


Indeed, "the land of Goshen" included. On earth generally and with respect to this tread, it seems that the U.S.A. constitution, unlike others, seems to founded on preserving and protecting the rights of 'children of God', as well as 'children of the flesh'.

Most other constitutions seem to be founded on protecting the rights of only, 'children of the flesh'.

'Children of God' have God given freedom, liberty, justification and glorification. 'Children of the flesh' do not. This God given rights of 'children of God' are seriously included in the tenants of the U.S.A. constitution.

Other constitutions seem absolutely centered on the likes and letter of Moses laws.

This makes the constitution of the U.S.A. essentially and unmistakeably Christian. And the others, essentially Moses-ian, which is to say, not Christian at all.
 
Last edited:

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame


Indeed, "the land of Goshen" included. On earth generally and with respect to this tread, it seems that the U.S.A. constitution, unlike others, seems to founded on preserving and protecting the rights of 'children of God', as well as 'children of the flesh'.

Most other constitutions seem to be founded on protecting the rights of only, 'children of the flesh'.

'Children of God' have God given freedom, liberty, justification and glorification. 'Children of the flesh' do not. This God given rights of 'children of God' are seriously included in the tenants of the U.S.A. constitution.

Other constitutions seem absolutely centered on the likes and letter of Moses laws.

This makes the constitution of the U.S.A. essentially and unmistakeably Christian. And the others, essentially Moses-ian, which is to say, not Christian at all.
If you were a wheel there'd be an axle somewhere wondering where you'd gotten off to...:plain:

:e4e:
 

Gurucam

Well-known member
If you were a wheel there'd be an axle somewhere wondering where you'd gotten off to...:plain:

:e4e:

Isn't the worse thing a wheel that is eternally constrained by an axle?

Or a car that takes petroleum for granted?

Or a citizen who takes his freedom, liberty and justification for granted?

It is good that an axle is left to wonder about its wheel, sometimes.

Seems that in this world, most all wheels (the very great majority) are held down by axles, indeed only a few, a chosen few, it seems, break away so as to actually know the Truth of freedom.

It is axles which keep wheels in slavery and deluded about its inherent capacity for freedom and Truth. However to the world generally, axles are esteemed and worshiped, either as the best thing since hops bread or gods. Only a few know of or value the axle-less wheel and its natural freedom, liberation and Truth.

Don't you see even a little value in a free, liberated, justified and glorified wheel? Must all wheel always be pinned down by axles? :)

An axle-less wheel may just be :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture:


:the_wave:​
 
Last edited:

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Isn't the worse thing a wheel that is eternally constrained by an axle?

Or a car that takes petroleum for granted?

Or a citizen who takes his freedom, liberty and justification for granted?

It is good that an axle is left to wonder about its wheel, sometimes.

Seems that in this world, most all wheels (the very great majority) are held down by axles, indeed only a few, a chosen few, it seems, break away so as to actually know the Truth of freedom.

It is axles which keep wheels in slavery and deluded about its inherent capacity for freedom and Truth. However to the world generally, axles are esteemed and worshiped, either as the best thing since hops bread or gods. Only a few know of or value the axle-less wheel and its natural freedom, liberation and Truth.

Don't you see even a little value in a free, liberated, justified and glorified wheel? Must all wheel always be pinned down by axles? :)

An axle-less wheel may just be :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture:


:the_wave:​
:chuckle: You're farther off the mark than a Fox News crowd estimate at a Tea Party rally. :shocked: :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top