Latin persuasion
Republicans hope popular Hispanic conservatives will help party win voters
FULL STORY
Signs and Wonders 05.16: Deconstructing DOMA, Silence of the shepherds, Obama & the pastors, & more @WarrenColeSmith
Eye of the storm: Israelis contemplate possible war against Iran with little worry but knowledge of what's at stake
RT @TWERadio: Churches in Charlotte work together to reach 20-somethings, Methodists turn back attempt to change sexuality doctrine http ...
Good morning!
On this day in 1960: John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon took part in the first-ever televised presidential debate.
Welcome to our daily (except Sundays) open thread, where you, the commenters, choose the topics of conversation.
Copyright © 2012 God's World Publications. All rights reserved.
Articles may not be reproduced without permission.
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top189 Comments to “Whirled Views 9.26”
Charisma came to the fore. But I suppose it has always been so. Someone once said; “Life is just a stage…” so let’s get on with the play. MARANATHA!
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
Y’all behave now. I don’t want to hear any bad reports when I return.
Report comment to moderator
The Lord bless you, Roger. And a good morning to all!
Yea, “new every morning,” though we may awake,
Our hearts with old sorrow beginning to ache;
With old work unfinished when night stayed our hand,
When new duties waiting, unknown and unplanned;
With old care still pressing, to fret and to vex,
With new problems rising our minds to perplex;
In ways long familiar, in paths yet untrod,
Oh, new every morning the mercies of God!
His faithfulness fails not; it meets each new day
With guidance for every new step of the way,
New grace for new trials, new trust for old fears,
New patience for bearing the wrongs of the years,
New strength for new burdens, new courage for old,
New faith for whatever the day may unfold;
As fresh for each need as the dew on the sod;
Oh, new every morning the mercies of God!
~ Annie Johnson Flint
Report comment to moderator
Chas, if you’re not gone yet — have a great time, even at the reception!
Report comment to moderator
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend’s were.
Each man’s death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
Report comment to moderator
RANDOM: I agree that “Each man’s death diminishes me,” Death is the last evil that shall be done awat with.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
I called my friend yesterday. When she heard my voice she started crying. She had finally had enough and asked him for a divorce Wednesday morning. She said she sent him over the edge. I told her to stop and not buy into that. She wasn’t the cause she was the convenient excuse. Her mother and brother are here with her until Sunday afternoon. She took her children to see him Thursday afternoon after they pulled the tubes out. She said the children were relieved to see that he was OK. The son is worried about going back to school and people talking about it. I told her “as the child of an alcoholic” that the son needs to realize HE is not the problem. His dad is sick. The father did agree to go into a treatment facility in a city that is close to here but is in another state, where they can invoke the Baker Act and hold him involuntarily for 72 hours. He begged not to go, that he would see a therapist every day but she told him he didn’t have a choice. His parents haven’t responded. They haven’t come to check on their son or to make sure their grandchildren are OK.
The drama part of this is over, but now the real work will begin. I am sure if they knew I had requsted prayer they would appreciate it. Perhaps with inpatient care they can get his emotions balanced.
Report comment to moderator
“away”
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
John Donne was a great poet, and the ideas expressed here are commendable.
However, in the end, we are alone, and we all die alone, and probably cease to exist.
Yesterday was church day for Muslims. Today is church day for Jewish people. [My parents were confused about their religious beliefs and made me go to a synagogue for a while when I was ten years old. It did not make much sense to me and I stopped going as soon as I could get them to stop insisting that I go.]
Tomorrow will be church day for most of you. It’s probably good for most of you, though it’s unfortunate that it seems to fill your heads with so much nonsense about Muslims and homosexuals and atheists.
I go to church on Wednesdays. I haven’t gone for quite a while because of my cataract surgery, but I am healed enough to engage in vigorous physical exercise again, so I will join the church volunteers when the cut and split wood as a charitable activity, and afterward I will join them at their church for a bit for cookies and coffee and social networking.
They are nice people and not nearly as agitated and full of prejudice and hostility as many of the people who participate here. I am sure they would like me to join their church and come to their services, but they have a lot of self-control and maturity so they don’t pester me about it and they don’t whine about not being respected as many of you do. As they behave themselves and don’t constantly try to convert me or denigrate people who don’t believe as they do or worship as they do, I am comfortable in networking with them a bit and I don’t make sarcastic comments to them about their religious beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
RANDOM: A serious question. Are the people you do charitable work with Christians? I would assume they are. And if so do you smear and jeer their faith and all things Godly to their face, or do you reserve that type of behavior for us?
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
Roger,
A serious answer.
The people I do charitable work with are Christians. They belong to a large, mainstream Protestant church.
They do not smear and jeer Muslims, homosexuals, liberals, etc. as many people at worldmagblog do. If I heard them talking or behaving in that way, I would tell them I disagree with them and probably stop associating with them.
Many of the people at worldmagblog “dish it out” all the time, as far as insulting people who do not believe as they do, but some of them become very agitated when some of the people they dish at dish at them.
Many of them seem to think if they use words such as “love” and “Jesus loves you,” they are not full of hostility and resentment.
I don’t know what is in anybody else’s heart, but I have great doubts that much of the time you really feel as much “love” as you say you do.
On the other hand, people here at worldmagblog are frequently telling me they really know what is in my heart.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s look at the campaign songs of the two candidates involved in the 1960 presidential debate.
Kennedy’s campaign song was High Hopes, a popular song from the Frank Capra movie “A Hole in the Head”. Written by Jimmy Van Heusen and Sammy Kahn it was famously sung by Frank Sinatra.
High Hopes – Kennedy Campaign Version
Nixon’s campaign song was “Buckle Down With Nixon”. Based on the Hugh Martin/Ralph Blane song “Buckle Down Winsocki”, from the early 1940s play and movie “Best Foot Forward”.
Buckle Down With Nixon
Report comment to moderator
Random: Have a nice time at church this Wednesday. I get to go to three today. First I vote on a bond issue for the schools. Then I go (maybe) to a memorial service. Then my grandson’s 2nd birthday party.
Report comment to moderator
Our neighbors in the country are serious Christians. We are going to have dinner with them tonight at their house. They will probably say grace and my wife and I will politely bow our heads.
When we have them over for dinner, my wife and I do not say grace. They do not seem perturbed.
Mr. Friendly Neighbor invited me to participate in the charitable activity and I accepted.
Mr. Friendly Neighbor is very active in the church, and the pastor often consults with him about church matters. At the pastor’s request, for example, he wrote an employee handbook for their church.
At one of the church sessions he talked about how he and his wife had belonged to a church in Portland at one time that had been riven by controversy and conflict. He said that this seems to happen from time to time in churches.
I am not sure what this was about. I am very curious. However, I probably will not bug him about it.
One of my daughter’s best friends is a female Episcopalian pastor. She has been assigned as a junior pastor to several different churches. She always seems to be unhappy with her current church and supervisors. I have never made sarcastic comments to her about her frustration with her church.
Another of my daughter’s school friends is Catholic. When she stayed with us over Christmas vacation years ago, my daughter went to Christmas mass with her.
Again, as I have frequently asked at worldmagblog, the world is full of people with different religious beliefs…how are we supposed to live with each other? The evangelical Christian answer seems to be, convert everyone to become Christians.
You and many other people here seem to feel that your main task and purpose in life and the main solution to the conflicts and difficulties of the world is to convert non-Christians to become Christians. You constantly pester me about how I should accept Jesus. I figure hearing this is natural if I participate at a Christian web site, but as long as this web site posts how much it believes in free speech and expression of different opinions, it is likely to get people such as me who consider many of your beliefs ridiculous and say so. Why are you surprised? Why are you offended?
Report comment to moderator
In the future everyone will have the same haircut and the same clothes.
In the future everyone will be very fat from the stachy diet.
In the future everyone will be very thin from not having enough to eat.
In the future it will be next to impossible to tell girls from boys, even in bed.
In the future men will be ’super masculine’ and women will be ‘ultra-feminine’.
In the future half of us will be ‘mentally ill’.
In the future there will be no religion or spirtualism of any sort.
In the future the ‘psychic arts’ will be put to practical use.
In the future we will not think that ‘nature’ is beautiful.
In the future the weather will always be the same.
In the future no one will fight with anyone else.
In the future there will be an atomic war.
In the future water will be expensive.
In the future all material items will be free.
In the future everyone’s house will be like a little fortress.
In the future everyone’s house will be a total entertainment centre.
In the future everyone but the wealthy will be very happy.
In the future everyone but the wealthy will be very filthy.
In the future everyone but the wealthy will be very heathly.
In the future TV will be so good that the printed word will function as an artform only.
In the future people with boring jobs will take pills to relieve the boredom.
In the future that no one will live in cities.
In the future there will be mini-wars going on everywhere.
In the future everyone will think about love all the time.
In the future political and other decisions will be based completely on opinion polls.
In the future there will be machines which will produce a religious experience in the user.
In the future there will be groups of wild people, living in the wilderness.
In the future there will only be paper money which will be personalised.
In the future there will be a classless society.
In the future everyone will only get to go home once a year.
In the future everyone will stay home all the time.
In the future we will not have time for leisure activities.
In the future we will only ‘work’ one day a week.
In the future our bodies will be shrivelled up but our brains will be bigger.
In the future there will be starving people everywhere.
In the future people will live in space.
In the future no one will be able to afford TV.
In the future the helpless will be killed.
In the future everyone will have their own style of way-out clothes
In the future we will make love to anything, anytime, anywhere
In the future there will be so much going on that no one will be able to keep track of it.
Report comment to moderator
As individuals many humans deny they will die.
As a species, we refuse to accept that our species may destroy ourselves.
In the future, the rats and the cockroaches and starlings may inherit the earth. Given how humans behave, being Fallen and all, this change may be an improvement.
Report comment to moderator
On those rare occasions when I do attend a religious service I do what I can do not to participate. I can remember the first time I did this and can remember how embarrassed I felt remaining sitting while everyone else knelt. But it also gave me a sense of how mechanical and strange the whole process is.
Voted, now off to church. Or at least the reception…
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, I rarely if ever post to you, but your Post 17 bothered me. Why would you do such a thing? Haven’t you heard about when in Rome do as the Romans do? Random, at least bows his head when he is in his friends home. That doesn’t mean he is participating and praying to God. It is just a sign of respect for being in these peoples home.
I would rather see you never darken the doors of a church again than be rude once you get there. Would you do this if you were visiting a friends home? I doubt it.
I personally was very hurt by Christianity growing up, but I reached my peace and have come back to God. I don’t know what could have possibly happened to you in regards to Christians, but whatever it was don’t hold it against the rest of us.
Peace to you.
Kim
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, thank you for your comments.
Roger, I am not sure how Arcadia would label herself.
SteveG has said that he has become a Christian again. I am not sure how he would define what he believes, but I get the impression that many people here would say he is not a “real Christian.”
When I type comments I usually capitalize words such as “God” when I refer to the Judeo-Christian deity and usually do not when I refer to other religions gods.
This seems very polite to me, and I suspect many people here would be very offended if I did not. However, why should I?
A few years back, a Danish newspaper published some cartoons making fun of Muhammad. Muslims became very offended, rioted, and made serious threats. Christians at worldmagblog criticized Muslims for being so sensitive and thin-skinned.
Roger, I do not understand how your offense with me and my comments is different from the offended Muslims and their anger at the Danish cartoons. Can you explain in a coherent way and point to specific comments I have made and explain why I should not post such comments?
Report comment to moderator
Has anyone in Worldblogland read the book, Train the Brain to Pay Attention the Write Way, &/or used it’s program?
I ran across a website about this while I was looking around for various info. It is a program that uses “therapeutic” music & handwriting exercises to retrain the brain to be more focused & attentive. Supposedly, it is very helpful for people (kids mostly) with ADHD/ADD, Asperger’s syndrome, etc.
Report comment to moderator
When I worked for Catholics I often went to mass. Sometimes as part of my job, sometimes for friend’s wedding and funerals. I stood and sat when I was suppose to but there were times when I didn’t feel like I should kneel. So I sat with my elbows on the pew in front of me. No one ever said anything to me or tried to embarrass me. Much of my family is Pentecostal. Sometimes I go to church with them. They speak in tongues, I don’t. No one has ever said anything to me or tried to embarrass me. Sometimes at my church we invite people to the alter or kneel at our pews or stand to sing. Sometimes visitors don’t want to do this. No one ever said anything to them or tried to embarrass them. Christians are not a tyrannical as some would have us to think, even in our own houses of worship.
Report comment to moderator
“Roger, I do not understand how your offense with me and my comments is different from the offended Muslims and their anger at the Danish cartoons.”
As far as I know Roger didn’t riot or threaten to kill you.
Report comment to moderator
As long as we are asking for advice, has anyone heard of a program called Maximized Living and what if any have your experiences been. I have a friend who is very involved in it and has invited me several times to their informational dinners. I went a couple of weeks ago and they offered a free health screening. Turns out I have scoliosis and will need about 100 chiropractic adjustments to even begin to correct it.
I have been screened for scoliosis several times in my life. No doctor has ever mentioned it to me and even back in the early part of the summer when I hurt my neck and arm and went to a chiropractor he x- rayed me anbd told me that everything looked good and he could fix my problem in about 5 adjustments spread over a period of time. Which he did. (He is a chiropractor with a degree in sports medicine).
My friend goes to the chiropractor two or three times a week, takes her 3 year old for adjustments and on their recommendation has never had him vaccinated for anything. She was so excited about me going and asked how it went. I wasn’t real nice about it, what with having this 40% curvature in my spine and all it is a wonder I can walk around without a cane.
Report comment to moderator
Strikes me as odd when the whole focus is on acknowledging the existence of God while demonstrating the foolishness of those who deny Him.
Report comment to moderator
As far as I know Roger didn’t riot or threaten to kill you.
He didn’t even tell me to “go away,” as Peter Leavitt used to.
Even so, don’t his comments strike you as peculiar and excessive? Or do you feel the same way as he does? Are you offended by my comments?
For that matter, I am not sure what comments I have made so offend Roger.
Roger, can you be more specific, and quote the exact comments that so upset you? And explain what is wrong with them?
Report comment to moderator
Roger just asked you a question, which you didn’t answer BTW. So, no it done snot strike me as peculiar and excessive? I am also curious as what your friends would do if you said some of the things you say here to them.
Report comment to moderator
Hey, for all you you writers out there. I have a 10 minute speech to give Wednesday about myself and my business. How many words should I aim for as I am writing it out? As much as I love to be the center of attention on my own terms I really do crawl in a shell when the spot light is focused on me. I will probably fall way short of the 10 minute limit unless I have this well planned.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells – I don’t mean to pick on you, but I think I’ll be giggling about “done snot” all day.
Report comment to moderator
Random – A good reason, non-religious, to capitalize “God” is because it is being used as a name. Names are always capitalized.
Report comment to moderator
Karen, those of us who are Spelling Impaired are as use to persecution as Christians, gays or Muslims. Many jobs such as teacher, secretary and journalist are closed to us and according to Will Farrel we may have trouble getting health insurance.
Report comment to moderator
RANDOM: My question can be answered with a simple yes or no. I believe your spinning and dancing to avoid a simple answer indicates that you do not have the courage to speak to them in the same manner, is that close to the mark? Yes or no? But of course anonymous blogging is safe place to vent your hatred of Christians and all things Godly is it not?
Peace.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
KBELLS at 30: Welcome to the club of “The Spelling Impaired” . There are more of us than there are of ‘them’. Let us rise up and take over the world!
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
32. Yes! We can march on Washington with misspelled signs!
Report comment to moderator
Friends,
Here again I reproduce p. 12 of Dr. Gregg Frazer (history/political philosophy at The Master’s College) PhD thesis from Claremont Graduate University where he takes all of the established churches in late 18th Cen. America (save the Quakers who had no creed) examines their creeds and forms a 10 point lowest common denominator among them as to what it means to be a “Christian.” Question: Has this test really changed at all? Is there anything you don’t agree with in this test?
http://tinyurl.com/nant34
I’ll recite the 10 points: 1) the Trinity; 2) God active in human affairs; 3) the deity of Christ; 4) original sin; 5) virgin birth; 6) atoning work of Christ/satisfaction for sins; 7) Resurrection;
eternal punishment for sin; 9) justification by faith; and 10) inspiration/authority of scripture (i.e., its infallibility).
His research shows that of the “key Founders” (Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris, Wilson, and Hamilton before his deathbed conversion to Christianity) they provably believed in one maybe two of these 10 points and hence were not “Christians” according to the late 18th Century understanding of the concept EVEN IF most of them presented their personal theology (which also happens to be America’s Founding political theology) under the auspices of “Christianity.”
I would note that one probably could disbelieve in points 4) (as the capital O Orthodox Church does)
(many Christians hope for a universal reconciliation) and 10) (many Christians also question whether the Bible is infallible even if they believe most of it was dictated by God) and still qualify as a “Christian.” However, the other 7 tenets (those found within the Nicene Creed) seem non-negotiable to Christianity’s historic dominant teachings.
Report comment to moderator
KBELLS: Your a hoot! Along with Chas and many others.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
Bad spellers of the world…. untie!
Report comment to moderator
K BELLS, the government is working hard to cover those pre-existing conditions!
Report comment to moderator
RANDOM at 15: “In the future the helpless will be killed”?
You future is taking place in baby killing clinics as I type.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
#29
OK, I will worship at the Church of Proper English Usage, whose Son is Grammar and whose mother is Punctuation. Spelling is in there somewhere, but the Church of Spelling has many sects.
For example, there are the holy triplets, to, two, and too.
Proper Pronunciation is in there, as well, but speaks with a lisp. Probably PP is kind of like “so gay,” you know what I mean?
Report comment to moderator
Roger just asked you a question, which you didn’t answer BTW. So, no it done snot strike me as peculiar and excessive? I am also curious as what your friends would do if you said some of the things you say here to them.
I didn’t answer Roger’s question because it referred to something I did not say, as Roger finally realized and admitted.
This is almost as good as the Abbott and Costello “Who’s On First” routine.
Here is what Roger said to me recently.
“If the two of you come here to sneer, smear and jeer at Christians and their faith, and all things Godly, I would suggest that you get a life. If this post gets me removed from partcipating, so be it. I have had enough of your hatefulness. You apparently have no understanding of what it means to lose children by spontaneous abortion. It is something that no woman would chose. Time for you both to get a real life. Nevertheless I pray that God’s Spirit open your eyes an d you recieve the Truth that will set you free.”
Blessings
Roger
Posted by Roger Patno
I added the bold. This is a quote from #28 from the thread “Abortion is a blessing” of September 25.
Also posted on that thread:
#35 “RANDOM: A rational and calm discussion never includes the right to inject smearing, ridiculing, and hateful comments about anothers belief. When you do that you lose all credibility. Time to come down of your charger and get a life that has meaning. May God bless you as He has us who believe.
Blessings
Roger ”
Roger has had a terrible experience with his wife’s miscarriages. I have had experiences with miscarriages, as much as a man can. Roger has apparently ignored my comments in that respect. I am sorry that Roger had bad experiences, but we all have had bad experiences and grief.
An aunt of mine, a fine young woman, was murdered when she was in her twenties, a college student at UCLA. When I think about it, I am still sad. I am still sad about it when I think about it.
I am sad when I think about how my daughter’s partner lost two children before birth. My granddaughter told me that she had a sister who died before she was born. (I presume her mother gave her a simplified version of what happened.)
I don’t think Roger’s comments are threatening or hateful. I just think they are intemperate and don’t make much sense and are uncalled for. Once again, I ask Roger to quote specific comments I have made that offend him and explain how they offend him. Once again, I will point out that worldmagblog is a place where people “play rough” and people whose feelings are easily hurt and who are insecure and defensive about their religious beliefs should not participate. It might be best for them to just go to a church where others feel as they do and will not say things that make them upset.
If you come to worldmagblog and get upset when non-Christians make fun of Christianity, some of us will laugh at you. Nobody promised you a rose garden or a place where no one will laugh at you.
When I was a public school teacher, children often mocked and tormented children they saw as “gay” or even a little different. When I complained about this at worldmagblog, years ago, people here said 1) their children didn’t behave that way and 2 children need to toughen up.
Roger should either not post comments at worldmagblog or he should toughen up. Or he can continue as he has. I can point out the screen names of some other participants at wmb who apparently get their feelings hurt when Christians are criticized and are perfectly happy to criticize others and don’t think they are criticizing others. I just posted a comment in a thread where people are insulting Muslims. Apparently, that is OK. Roger, do you want to defend Muslims against getting insulted?
I didn’t think so.
Very weird.
Report comment to moderator
Random – Don’t forget there, their, & they’re.
“They’re over there, combing their hair.”
Report comment to moderator
So, basically, Random, you are offended because Roger is offended. All righty.
Report comment to moderator
Random (end of post 14),
No, our main purpose in life is not to convert others. It’s to worship God and enjoy Him forever. That’s what all of us were created for, and we like to see people do what they were created to do, not waste 60 or 70 or 90 years on trivialities and then die. And those of us who do know God do have another important purpose, of introducing people to Him.
Report comment to moderator
And Cheryl, since you showed up! How many words do I have to have in a 10 minute prepared speech. Right now I am at 897 and it isn’t long enough. I just timed myself.
Report comment to moderator
There, there.
Cheryl, I am glad you are not wasting time on your worldmagblog addition, as I am, although I am going to log off.
If the purpose is not to convert others, however, how come so many people at wmb constantly try to convert others. For the next week, let’s count the number of times people do.
Kim, it depends on how slow or fast you speak. A Southern drawl should help you draw it out longly.
Report comment to moderator
Since I’m a writer, not a speaker . . . Time how long it takes you to read, with feeling and humor, one page. Then multiple that times seven or eight. You will want to pause now and then, gauge the reaction of the crowd, wait for them to finish laughing, and to remind yourself to S P E A K S L O W L Y, so, I’d guess only seven pages of writing would be necessary.
Good luck. I love to talk.
And to correct other people’s spelling when I’m feeling snarky–after all, what else are English majors for?
Report comment to moderator
RANDOM: Once again, do you smear, mock, and ridicule the faith of the Christians you have coffee and donuts with in the same manner as you do to Christians on this blog? You only need post only a one word reply. Yes or no? How difficult could that be?Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
So, Kim, I just got my latest issue of Southern Living with the cover ad for the Christmas book. Only 9.95 plus shipping and handling. Looking forward….
Report comment to moderator
Random,
Did you read my whole post? The Christian’s main purpose in life is not to convert others; it’s to worship God. But that’s also your main purpose in life, and you’re missing it. Furthermore, a secondary purpose for the Christian is to bring others to worship our Creator and Savior too. It isn’t our primary purpose, no, but it’s sure a ways above watching today’s ball game or mowing the lawn. We are to love God and love people, in that order. Everything else comes in below that.
Report comment to moderator
Kim, Michelle already said the only thing I’d be able to say (and said it better). That’s what I do when I’m going to speak, time myself . . . only I’ve learned from experience that I speak slower when I practice than when I speak for real, and also learned not to dare leave much time for questions (since you are then in trouble if nobody asks any!).
Report comment to moderator
I know it is hard for all of you to believe but I truly do hate speaking about myself. I have decided to focus on the “team” I bring with me. Now I can tell about David, Blake, and Patty who work with me.
David, once asked me what my sales strategy was… I told him I just convince the people what a knowlegable and professional commercial real estate agent he is and then send him in for the close.
I also emailed the speech to David and told him to comment, critique, tear apart, and rebuild it, after all I was representing HIS company.
Report comment to moderator
I believe that George Washington was indeed a true Christian. His adopted granddaughter Nelly Curtis-Lewis said in a letter that to question his Christianity was to question his Patriotism: Link: http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/youasked/060.htm
Report comment to moderator
Hey NJ.. We know that a fabulous Christmas begins about now. We need to get Donna J on the bandwagon. She was lamenting having no one to put up a tree with. Put up the tree, throw up the doors, and cook…they will come.
Report comment to moderator
open the door, don’t up them.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
I really do think that Dave (?) the poster yesterday had it right. There is a difference between being saved and being correct doctrinally.
In order to be saved, people only have to repent and put their full trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. That really isn’t a lot, and it covers a lot of doctrinal error.
So, when you’re talking about someone being a Christian, in the sense of being saved, there are going to be a LOT of people in Heaven that we probably weren’t expecting.
But, when you’re talking doctrine, then we do have Statements of Faith in order to try to keep people from drifting out to Pluto in their belief systems. The Nicene Creed and Apostle’s Creed are two of the most famous and reasonable.
Now-a-days, I get myself into a corner with some of my kids’ activities. Recently, for TeenPact and for a local debate class/club, I had to have my husband sign the Statements of Faith, because — if I did — I’d be lying. They insisted on adding belief in an “eternal conscious punishment” as one of their doctrinal requirements.
Now, can I ask what in the world that has to do with being a Christian? A number of the church Fathers believed in annihilation, and it really doesn’t have anything to do with being a Christian, but there you have it. Adding to the requirements.
Since my kids have participated in TeenPact before, and eternal destiny doesn’t really come up, I don’t see why it has to be a requirement for attending the class. Good thing that my husband doesn’t mind signing.
At any rate, bottom line is that, while doctrine is important, it is not a REQUIREMENT for being a saved Christian. But, there ARE requirements to be considered a doctrinally correct Christian, and to call one’s BELIEFS Christian.
Improper doctrine can definitely be WRONG, and it is important to try to be correct, but it really doesn’t define whether an individual is a Christian or not.
Doctrine can tell you whether a group qualifies or not to call itself “Christian,” but not whether an individual is saved or not.
Does that make any sense at all?
Report comment to moderator
So, George Washington, my grandmother (a oneness Pentecostal, who didn’t really believe in the Trinity), and me (who leans toward annihilation or some such, rather than eternal conscious torture for the unbeliever)…we all can be saved and be Christians.
But, our individual doctrinal beliefs (errors? lol) might not be considered standard orthodox Christianity.
We can still be Christians and consider ourselves Christians, though, and no one but our Savior has the right to tell us that we’re not.
Report comment to moderator
Interestingly, neither the Nicene Creed nor the Apostles Creed requires belief in “eternal conscious torture.”
I don’t understand why this is suddenly showing up in so many Statements of Faith. It didn’t used to do so.
“Judgment of the dead,” “punishment” (without the “eternal, conscious” part, Hell (without specifying length of time), and so on…these were common in the past. It has only been a recent thing to insist that it be “eternal conscious punishment.”
Sigh.
Report comment to moderator
You’re right, Kim. Christmas does start now! And surprise, surprise, there’s a planner right in the Southern Living book. The card is going in the mailbox with the bills on Monday. I’m going for a bigger tree this year.
TRS, it makes sense to me. Jesus didn’t make it hard. It’s hard for other reasons.
Report comment to moderator
Random,
You may not believe this, but, yes, there are definitely times that you come across as terribly hateful of Christians and Christianity.
No, I’m not going to go exploring the archives to find you specific samples. I suppose I could point it out as you’re doing it in the future, but I usually just start skimming you when you do it and figure that something “got your goat” and you’ll get over it. I don’t let it worry me too much. But, I think that Roger is right, if you were to speak that way (like the days you’re on a rampage), in front of your neighbors, they would probably be pretty offended.
Point is, though, that you don’t, anymore than we speak the same way we post around our atheist, gay, or agnostic friends.
And, I did explain to you the other day about our “gay” posts. You have yet to show me how our posts (from the vast majority) come anywhere near “hate.” You seem to equate disagreement and belief that the practice is a sin with hate, and that isn’t a just equation.
Report comment to moderator
KIM: Do you mean up-chuck?
Ugh. Bad joke.
Blessings Roger
PS: I’m in a mischievous right about now.
Report comment to moderator
I just read that Mrs. Savage gave birth to a baby boy which she is handing over to the biological parents after having been implanted with the wrong embryo. She never thought about having an abortion because she didn’t know if this baby was the only chance the other couple would have to have a child of their own. She has shown tremendous courage to carry a child, become attached to it, and be willing to give it up. She’s essentially been a surrogate, not by choice, when she really wanted to have a child of her own. What a gift she has given this other family. I suspect her feelings in the next few weeks will be all over the place, and I for one plan to pray for her. To me, she’s a real “person of the week.”
Report comment to moderator
On “real Christians….”
Do they follow the big two commandments? “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul, and your mind.” And, “love your neighbor as yourself.” Matt. 22:37-39
Romans says, “Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.” Romans 13:8
And, Romans 13:9 “For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if [there is] any other commandment, are [all] summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
And John says, “He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” 1 John 4:8
So, a “real” Christian must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and follow His commandments, the most important two being to love God and love one’s neighbor.
So, people who do not love ARE NOT CHRISTIANS, because the Bible says this plainly in passage after passage. (Seriously, I could have quoted many more passages than those above.)
So, “real” Christians do not torture, murder, thieve, or commit mass genocide. Period.
There you go.
Report comment to moderator
#61
Amen!
Report comment to moderator
TRS @ 55: When I get into a discussion of eternal torment as opposed to annihilation, I ask them to do an indepth study of the Hebrew and Greek words that we translate ‘hell’. It is an eye opener. A study of where we derive the word ‘hell’ from is also helpful. However it is one of those subjects that I will not argue about, but will hopefully agree to disagree on.
There is another good document from the very early church called the ‘Didache’ or ‘The teachings of the Apostles.’ I believe ever Christian should read it.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
Kim,
I don’t count the words when I’m preparing a speech, but I find when I’m practicing that it’s always longer than it’s supposed to be, and I have to cut stuff out. Then when I finally give the speech, it ends up shorter than when I was practicing, usually by about a minute. I’m not sure if that’s because I talk faster when the time comes, or because I leave something out that I didn’t mean to leave out.
I don’t read my speeches though, I memorize my outline and certain parts that I want to get right, then get up and talk with just a few notes – and I always end up forgetting at least one point. I keep the notes handy in case I need them, but I try not to look at them, so I’ll talk more naturally. I don’t think I’ve ever done ten minutes, only longer (15 to 18) or shorter (5 to 7). I would have guessed about four pages typed for 10 minutes, but it depends on the size font you use of course. (I do write out at least one version of what I want to say, to see how the whole thing flows, and to get a time estimate, I just don’t read from it except quotes that I want to get right.)
Report comment to moderator
Christ said, “for a tree is known by [its] fruit.” Matt. 12:33
And, what is the fruit that a Christian should be known for? (How do we identify the “tree” as a Christian? By what fruit do we know them?)
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” Gal. 5:22 & 23
So, a “real” Christian can be identified by his or her “fruit” which comes from the Holy Spirit.
I guess the point that I am trying to make is that defining a “real” Christian is not some cop-out that we run to when a person calling him or herself a Christian does something really bad, but rather we do have actual definitions.
Real Christians do sin and fall short of the love and the fruit that they are supposed to show, but — when they do — they are SORRY and they will REPENT.
No real Christian regularly fails to love and show evidence of the fruit of the Spirit.
The Bible says this plainly.
Report comment to moderator
I think speeches almost always end up being shorter when we actually give them, because most of us are a little nervous, and we always end up speaking faster than we expected.
Report comment to moderator
Re: misspelling words- use Vorrect Firday as your excuse!
Report comment to moderator
Out of curiosity, I just entered vorrect Firday into the Yahoo! search box on my Firefox, and there it was! Two entries from last week on the WV threads!
Report comment to moderator
PeterL, does that mean you’ve “arrived”????
I have just been informed that a Senator Bunning has introduced an amendment that the Baucus Health Care Bill should be posted on the internet 72 hours before voting, but that the Dems have voted this down. So much for the most transparent administration in history. So much for “the people.”
Report comment to moderator
I don’t give speeches. I say a few words, tell a story, and then ask what people want to know, open it up to questions. Kim, perhaps you could illustrate with a story about David or the others — some odd deal that worked out because of what he or they did.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – and this surprises you? The Democrats not wishing for the people to be able to see the bill they are going to ram down our throats no matter what we, the people, think? This shouldn’t surprise you at all…..the Progressives have been trying to get health care nationalized since the 1930’s and they have the perfect storm to do whatever they want. They now have their 60 in the Senate so there can be no filibuster and of course the Congress is lined with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. These people do not have any intention of being transparent. Their intention is to ram a bill down our throats and reap the rewards of being able to control yet another industry.
Report comment to moderator
No, I am not surprised. And let me make it clear that just as I don’t think the Repubs get, I am absolutely sure that the Dems are on a suicide mission. If after all of the protests they pull a fast one, how do you think people will react? I think both parties are underestimating the unrest in this country.
And no, I am not surprised that Obama’s administration is not transparent — never expected it to be! I will await their defense from our leftist friends.
IAF, I am as disgusted as I know you are.
Report comment to moderator
No, I am not surprised. And let me make it clear that just as I don’t think the Repubs get, I am absolutely sure that the Dems are on a suicide mission. If after all of the protests they pull a fast one, how do you think people will react? I think both parties are underestimating the unrest in this country.
And no, I am not surprised that Obama’s administration is not transparent — never expected it to be! I will await their defense from our leftist friends.
IAF, I am as disgusted as I know you are.
Report comment to moderator
No, I am not surprised. And let me make it clear that just as I don’t think the Repubs get, I am absolutely sure that the Dems are on a suicide mission. If after all of the protests they pull a fast one, how do you think people will react? I think both parties are underestimating the unrest in this country.
And no, I am not surprised that Obama’s administration is not transparent — never expected it to be! I will await their defense from our leftist friends.
IAF, I am as disgusted as I know you are.
Report comment to moderator
52,
I’ll admit GW’s exact religious beliefs are up for debate. However you have to look at the big picture.
1) In the Custis letter she admits that, as close as she was to him, she had uncertainties (”I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them….He communed with his God in secret.”)
2) She admits in that letter that GW avoided communion in the Anglican Church, which is evidence of his unorthodoxy; and
3) The definition of “Christian” which Custis may be operating under is likewise not specified or understood in Custis’ letter. GW clearly wasn’t an atheist or a strict Deist. Custis could have been arguing for GW’s “Christianity” in that broader sense of the term. Indeed, her correspondent, another on the “GW was a ‘Christian’” side, Rev. Jared Sparks (former President of Harvard), was himself a Unitarian and his understanding of “Christianity” doesn’t pass the “orthodox” test.
If you step back and look at the big picture — and I have; I have looked at all of GW’s correspondence and public and private writings — you see in 20,000 pages of private correspondence, while GW talks about God/Providence all the time, he never once mentions Jesus Christ by name or person, suggest he had NO PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with Him.
In GW’s public writings you see Jesus Christ mentioned by name only once (in an address to Del. Indians who had already converted to Christianity), and by example one other time (in the 1783 Circular to the states). Those two addresses were, by the way, written by aides (not by GW) but signed by GW.
Report comment to moderator
55 & 56,
Thanks. That is interesting. Though I would say you are theologically liberal for an evangelical; but since most Christians are not “evangelical/fundamentalist” you come off as a theological moderate. You remind me a bit of my friend and co-blogger Jim Babka’s moderate evangelicalism.
I have seen various orthodox evangelicals assert Arianism and Socinianism (two very common heresies believed in by America’s key Founders and the theologians and philosophers they followed) are soul damning heresies which disqualify one from being a “Christian.”
By the way, when discussing this issue with a political and theologically liberal Christian — a distinguished professor of politics at Princeton University — he told me he understood a “Christian” as anyone who thought Jesus was something divinely special in a “savior” or “messiah” sense. Arians, Socinians, Mormons, JWs, all were “Christians” as it were, as probably Jefferson, J. Adams, Franklin and the other key Founders as well.
It all depends on where the goalpost is. God may be the ultimate one in charge of where that goalpost will be; but I suppose we’ll have to ask God that question when we meet Him (or Her).
Report comment to moderator
I will accept the title “theological moderate” although I do consider myself to take the Bible pretty seriously. Still, because I take it seriously, I refuse to condemn others for their doctrine…even when I’m absolutely sure that they are wrong.
“Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.” Romans 14:4
and
“There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?” James 4:12
We are called to be discerning. And, we are called to look at another’s fruit.
But, we simply cannot judge another person’s salvation. That is for his or her Master to judge.
I know it is a fine line sometimes. But, Christians are supposed to be known for our love: both for each other and for our neighbors. The fact that we often are not, and that we use the excuses we do, is really very sad.
There are probably 20 verses to one in favor of loving vs. hating sin.
It is GOD’S job to hate sin. It is our job to love God and love our neighbors.
Report comment to moderator
I feel that I CAN condemn poor doctrine, but I cannot condemn another to Hell. That simply isn’t my place, or that of any Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Just because Washington didn’t go to church doesn’t mean he wasn’t a Christian or that he wasn’t “orthodox.” Maybe he just didn’t want to sit on a hard bench. You simply cannot step back and make conclusions about what a man said to his God in private and be fair to him. You can never know his heart. Any conclusions you come to only fit your agenda. And that’s offensive, Jon Rowe.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
GW actually did go to church, about once a month. What he did was 1) refuse to kneel when praying in said church (which was the custom) — okay, not a big deal, and 2) systematically avoided communion — a very BIG DEAL.
Here is how GW’s own minister reacted to GW’s avoiding communion:
“That Washington was a professing Christian is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace.”
While GW never explained why he avoided communion, the deistical and unitarian minded Anglicans did so because they didn’t believe in what the act symbolized: Christ’s Atonement.
Report comment to moderator
I’d also caution those of us to step back. My purpose is NOT to examine someone’s heart and view their conscience with God or damn anyone to Hell. Personally I am a theological universalist and believe that all people eventually get into Heaven or at least they have an eternal chance to seek that road.
Rather I am making an HISTORICAL INQUIRY. What did late 18th Century America teach about “Christianity” and what is it that the key Founding Fathers believed? What happens on the other side is up to God and is a totally separate concern re my FFs & religion inquiry.
Report comment to moderator
Update.
My “cousin” had all of his lung removed. They kept removing the diseased parts, but then the lung kept bleeding from somewhere else, so they just took the whole thing. He came through the operation ok, but that’s the last thing I heard. I’m not sure how he’s doing right now.
Thanks for your prayers.
Report comment to moderator
The Founding Fathers made many references as to their beliefs, it is little man who works feverishly to convince himself he has the right to dispel those words rather than letting them stand.
I tend to agree with NJLawyer who makes the point in her last three sentences, post #80.
Report comment to moderator
84: I’ve marshaled “evidence” on these threads re the topic at hand; you’ve contributed nothing.
Report comment to moderator
Jon: I don’t envy God His job there.
If you’re saved, you’re saved: theology makes little difference to the simple question of salvation. And I think what so many trigger-happy Christians forget is that it is a sin to judge others like that. Whoops: so much for the moral high ground.
Random: If I may, I think you touched a nerve there, with Roger. Yes, he may have overreacted, but it’s understandable, as overreactions go, so I’d counsel you to just apologize and let it go. Plus, I got the impression that he was mainly talking to Scroop Moth, and threw you in as a sort of afterthought. I’ve done that before (with Victoria, actually): I only realized later that it might not seem that way to her.
Incidentally, I’ve actually usually appreciated the relative not-hatefulness (yay English!
) of your posts that I’ve seen. I don’t really know why you’re getting the “hateful” response, (maybe people are holding a grudge for something I don’t know about?), but it seems to me that you don’t have to look far to find actual hate, and you don’t look much like it. 
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 85
You haven’t contributed anything other than your agenda – I’ve proven in the past (more than twice) what John Adams wrote, by leaving important parts from the letters OUT, therefore making what you posted to appear as his beliefs, when in fact it was distorted by those parts which WERE LEFT OUT by you.
I have wondered for some time what YOUR agenda is, why you are determined to direct the beliefs of the Founding Fathers in a direction other than what they either wrote in their letters, or said aloud.
In THIS CASE, your posting something over and over and over again doesn’t make it fact. It might work in an elementary school or a group of kids who never paid attention in H.S., or even some lazy kids in college, but it doesn’t work when people are educated regarding a subject.
Report comment to moderator
#78: exactly! This is why, while I’m not going to say, for example, that I agree with SteveG’s politics, I’m not going to cast aspersions on his salvation. I use that as an example because I’ve seen some do just that, and it bothers me. I see no reason to believe that he is not a Christian brother, whatever his politics.
I mean, I don’t even feel comfortable saying absolutely that someone like *shudder* Fred Phelps isn’t *gulp* saved, although I am pretty absolutely sure (don’t you love using qualifiers with absolutes?) that he’ll have a lot to answer for, if he is saved.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
You didn’t post anything on John Adams that I didn’t already know and you just nitpicked. You didn’t prove that I misrepresented the essential point that I was trying to make — at all.
As far as a track record on the matter is concerned, that’s my name on the back of a book published by Princeton University Press and by a scholar who happens to be the chief of the manuscript div. at the Library of Congress, AND someone very well respected by religious conservatives.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8013.html
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 89
The strange thing is…. you could NOT have made a point if you had posted the important part, which of course you didn’t – you left it out – which gave an entirely different view to the unsuspecting. It was not a so called “nitpicked” –
As for the book you mention, it was written as you know by J. H. Hudson – what is given on the back of the book with your name on it has nothing to do with your work, now does it? You give a blurb on the back which reads: “The book . . . represents, with great balance, the Founders’ differing religious viewpoints. . . . All in all, this is the most balanced collection of quotations representing the Founders’ religious views published thus far.”–Jonathan Rowe, First Things”
Jon, I do not hold every individual in awe because they are connected with well known universities, nor does it matter to me the books they write or the beliefs they are trying to instill. You may feel delighted as to your beliefs, telling me that “AND someone very well respected by religious conservatives.” – but that does not include everyone or myself. That isn’t a BLANKET rating for everything written.
Many universities today work very hard to instill left-wing ideas to the point of miss-construing historical facts, Biblical history, American history, etc. – these ideas, no matter how cleverly they are produced either in lecture, books are not going to sway those who have read more and disagree because of what they have learned.
Report comment to moderator
It’s “Hutson” Victoria.
If you want to put our past incident on trial, go ahead.
Re why you disagree, it has little if anything to do with your knowledge of the historical record, and EVERYthing to do with the fact that you don’t like the message or the source giving you the message. IN other words, you commit the genetic fallacy.
If I come across too strong, I apologize. I don’t have that many fora in which I “test” my ideas. I come here because I want a widely read, widely commented audience of smart conservative evangelicals in forum that demands rules of civil discourse.
Report comment to moderator
Kim: Assuming that for reasons of family or friendship obligations or just want to mark the death of someone I respect, I go into a church, would you really have me a)actually pray to a god which I believe does not exist, or b)just pretend to do so?
I think (a) makes no sense and (b) is in some way dishonest.
If you felt you had to go into a Muslim house of worship, what would you do? Would Allah’s name pass your lips or would you prostrate youself? Or would you sit respectfully and quietly?
As I have said before all relgious are atheists with respect to other (and even other’s) religion.
Incidentally, I do sing if it is a hymn I know and like. That’s just fun.
And today, at the last minute, other arrangements were made and I did not have to be at the service. I put in a brief appearance at the reception, just in time to have a minister lead a brief prayer…
Anyway, the birthday party later was great fun, the whole family with all of its quirks and love was there and it was a good day. Even the German contingent checked in by phone.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
I commit no genetic fallacy by disagreeing with you – I have proven my point many times.
Hutson it is – at least you’ve corrected me on something of great importance, it should give you comfort in knowing you’ve made some sort of headway at last -
Report comment to moderator
The problem, Victoria, is that you don’t even know what the genetic fallacy is.
Report comment to moderator
I actually agree with Arcadia here.
When I’ve gone to Catholic functions, I don’t kneel when they do. I sit respectfully in the pew. (I differ from Arcadia in that I do pray, I just don’t kneel.)
I think that — as long as the person isn’t drawing undue attention to him or herself, and as long as they are being respectful — I cannot expect them to pretend to be doing something just because everyone else is.
Report comment to moderator
#88
I would have to say that it is unlikely that Phelps is saved, because he does not show the fruits of the Spirit or the love that the Bible demands.
It is highly unlikely that he is a real Christian. If you use Biblical criteria for finding the genuine article, he doesn’t seem to fit.
That is the best that I can do, and the closest that I could come to making a claim about his salvation status.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – A genetic fallacy is one that is genetically inherited from one or both parents. Right?
Report comment to moderator
Karen,
Ha!
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
You flatter yourself, thinking that I don’t know what “genetic fallacy” is.
In order to be precise I will give the dictionary meaning which should settle the issue:
It’s pathetic when anyone believes they are the only one, OR part of a very few who understand how “genetic fallacy” is defined. LOL
Report comment to moderator
Congrats Victoria,
You know how to look something up in a dictionary that you don’t understand. Maybe you should thank me for serving as a catalyst for your now newly acquired knowledge of the genetic fallacy (I’ll wait).
But in any event, maybe you will admit that, indeed, your comments directed towards me, have committed this fallacy (and alas, I think, I will have to wait some more).
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
No one has to look anything up in a dictionary which you post,..LOL – because you have just learned what something means, doesn’t mean the rest of us haven’t known it much, much earlier – that does deserve an LOL, no, lets make that another one – LOL
Take care in the future when you play games -
Report comment to moderator
Thank you for the update, Make It Man! I was actually going to ask you, but you posted first. I appreciate the update, and you.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, perhaps I misunderstood your post. Perhaps I was raised differently. I bow my head for any type of prayer. I see that as a sign of respect. I am not saying you HAVE to pray. I would rather you be honest than try to hide it.
I have not had the opportunity to attend a Muslim or Buddhist service, but I would bow my head during their prayers and when I have attended the Catholic church I kneel and stand with them.
Although, now that I think about it, when I have attended non denominational or more charismatic services I have not raised my hands or danced to the music.
Report comment to moderator
Someone needs to write an ecumenical etiquette book, so people will know what to expect and what is expected of them when they visit an unfamiliar worship service. For example; at our wedding in a Baptist church someone brought a gift of champagne and then left in the lobby on a table. We could have lost our deposit. Many people don’t know that if you are not Catholic you do not take communion and if you find a communion wafer on the ground or in a seat you should give it to the priest rather than throw it away. I have never been to a Jewish or Muslim service but I I did I would want to know what was expected to do before I went.
Report comment to moderator
It would seem that if one is attending a house of worship other than one’s own, two rules would suffice:
1. If attending with a friend who is a member of that place of worship, they would know that you do not, therefore they would understand if you sat quietly and with reverance.
2. If you are attending alone, or with spouse and family, simply sit at the rear of the congregation, quietly and with reverence. If someone asks you to participate in an activity, IE partaking of communion, a simple smile and “No thank you” would suffice. I think we are often overly concerned of what people might think.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, I enjoyed your post at 90, paragraph 3 in particular. Jon Rowe really has a problem understanding that.
It is incomprehensible that anyone would question GW’s faith based on the fact that he didn’t want to kneel in church. So what? As per the other discussion going on here, I, like TRS, have attended the RCC and I don’t kneel either — because a) “we” don’t do that where I come from, and b) I would disrupt the Mass more because I have a bad knee and can’t resume sitting in the pew easily. Maybe GW had the same knee problems I have. He was a tall man and maybe there wasn’t sufficient space for his long legs. Who cares? With respect to communion, there have been times when I did not take communion because I didn’t feel right with God. Even if GW NEVER took communion, there is no way anyone can know what was in his heart. Absolutely no way. For all we know he did something somewhere that he felt was unforgivable. His minister’s comment quoted by Jon Rowe is just as judgmental as Jon Rowe’s conclusion and his quoting of it indicates to me that he does not comprehend the difference between a man’s opinion and God’s. It is not up to that minister or any of us to determine another’s relationship with God. Indeed, the comment was uncharitable. Appearances are often deceiving. There are people who do all the “right” things, go to church every service, etc., etc., but they do it with an impure heart. Jon Rowe seeks evidence he can never gather because he will never know GW’s — or any Founder’s — deepest secrets of the heart.
On another note, Obama stated at the UN that he says “without equivocation” that the US will no longer torture. As I recall, he reserved the right to do so, if necessary. You don’t tink he’s lying again, do you?
Report comment to moderator
My dad had a hostility towards church & born-again Christianity. When he would attend our church – usually for a children’s program his granddaughters were in – when the pastor would ask people to bow their heads for prayer or for the “invitation” to accept Christ, Dad would defiantly keep his head up straight & look at Pastor. Pastor, being the gracious man he is, would not say anything about it.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
I am merely following what more distinguished scholars (mainly historians) have already noted about GW.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwandreligion.htm
Your point about knowing someone’s heart MIGHT have some validity if GW went around calling himself a Christian and talking about Jesus; but he didn’t. Rather, as historian Dr. Peter Henriques of George Mason University put it:
The total and complete lack of the use of the words, Jesus Christ, or terms like saviour or redeemer in his personal correspondence is to me a remarkable fact. Every one arguing the close connection between GW and Christianity must surmount this staggering obstacle. The absence is so total that I cannot conclude other than that it is conscious – he does not even refer to Jesus as a great moral teacher or prophet. There is simply no reference to the person, Jesus, either implicit or explicit. GW “seems to have made a taboo of the word, Jesus Christ. In the congressional calls for days of confession, thanksgiving, they include things like “through the merits of JC’ GW slightly modifies as to not to use the word. Hughes, p. 292. IN John Adams proclamations, he uses words such as “Redeemer of the World, The Grace of His Holy Spirit, The Great Mediator and Redeemer. GW does not use such phrases.
Report comment to moderator
I guess where you are going Jon is to prove that George Washington was not a Christian? Or openly Christian maybe? If so, that is fine because not every signer of the Constitution was an open and declared follower of Jesus Christ. Many of them were but I don’t believe there is any evidence that shows that ALL of them were. Which is fine with me because the Constitution still points to words that are overtly Christian and so I think that still proves that our nation was founded on Judeo Christian beliefs.
Of course I may not be swimming in the same stream you are Jon as you are obviously one of the experts on this subject but I don’t think it is a point that needs to be made over and over.
After all, if we are truly living Phil 3:13 – “Forgetting the past I strive to the mark set for me by Jesus Christ”, we are moving on to the thing that Jesus would have us do today. This doesn’t put me into the list of the Progressives who seem to think the Constitution is a changeable document. It is a document that was well written and a challenge for us to live up to in our daily walk with Jesus Christ. Whether GW or John Adams or Joe Schmoe was an open Christian or not has little to do with how we are going to live out our responsibilities to our country today.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, ou missed Victoria’s point entirely: it doesn’t matter what you or scholars think about GW’s faith. That’s between him and God. You value the works of man. I get that. I don’t plan to walk up to God when my time comes, so to speak, and tell him, well, I have reasoned this or that and I have this law degree and yada yada yada. I don’t get that great appellate argument in the sky. It doesn’t exist.
But you can keep at it all you want. And we’ll keep telling you that you should go to the real source — the Bible, the Word. That’s what matters. What people say, what professors say — it’s irrelevant. The ONLY conclusion that matters is GOD’S conclusion. That’s what this is really about. But you have your agenda….. we get that, too.
You have this obsession for GW to use this word or that set of words about Jesus when all he is is the first president of the US, the first president of a secular government. Why did he have to discuss Jesus at all. I can deal with political issues and legal issues day after day and the name of Jesus isn’t in there.
I go through life every day surrounded by people who never know that I have a law degree. I have one. They just don’t know it. And that proves what? That I don’t have one? There are those here who can discuss all sorts of theological points that I can’t, but that doesn’t mean I’m not a Christian.
All you’re doing is comparing the language usage of different men. You cannot know their inmost heart. It is just laughable that you conclude ANYTHING from the fact that GW didn’t kneel in church.
Report comment to moderator
109:
I like that. I am trying to set the historical record straight. The folks here get sidetracked with salvation issue. That’s totally 100% not my concern re what the FFs believed in. Rather, WHAT they believed in IS my concern. For all we know God really is unitarian in His attributes just like the key Founders believed.
I’ve nailed Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin down. Washington, Madison and some others were more slippery characters. But as I add the pieces of the puzzle up, I see all 5 “key Founders” as being more or less agree on the basics: i.e., that there is an active personal Providence, that Jesus was not God (2nd person in the Trinity) but rather a “savior” of man through his perfect moral example, that men are saved thru works, not grace. That good people are rewarded with Heaven at death, the bad, temporarily punished eventually saved. That though the Bible contains “God’s Word,” it is not an inerrant, infallible book (it had “interpolations” as John Adams put it).
BTW, they presented this “creed” through the auspices of “Christianity,” and termed it “unitarian Christianity” or “rational Christianity.”
Report comment to moderator
110:
Re what’s “laughable,” tell that to David L. Holmes of William & Mary who pointed out in his book “The Faiths of the Founding Fathers” (published by Oxford University Press) that GW didn’t kneel was telling because it was custom in his Anglican Church: It shows he was more of a superficial or nominal Anglican, not one devoutly attached to its doctrines. And it also buttresses the point largely made by GW’s systematic avoidance of communion.
I also answered your chief criticism of me in 111: I am totally UNINTERESTED in salvation issue re where the key Founders’ souls reside in the afterlife. You guys keep on throwing this “the FFs’ faith is for God to judge” thing at me as though that were the point of my arguing here; it isn’t.
Rather I am concerned with WHAT they believed (i.e., does God intervene in the affairs of man or no? Is Jesus God, 2nd person in the Trinity, or something less? Is the Bible inerrant or infallible or no?). For all I know God welcomes theological unitarians who believe the Bible is NOT infallible (but that large parts of it are His Word) into Heaven with open arms.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, You are banging your head against a wall that just doesn’t matter. I doubt in 200 years there will be much evidence I was a Christian. I own a couple of Bibles that have my name in them. I have scribbled some notes in the margins of one of them. I have an Episcopal Book of Common Prayer in my nightstand that has my name in it and the name of the priest who presented it to me at confirmation. I write here that I am a Christian but in 200 years I doubt anyone can connect the dots from this blog to the Bibles I own.
It really doesn’t matter what the Founding Fathers believed or didn’t believe. I grew up hearing the story of George Washington and the cherry tree only to learn it was fabrication to make him sound better. I am sure that Honest Abe told a fib or two. Really with him if you dig deep enough he probably wouldn’t hold up to the light and be that great of a president. And not that I am wishing for Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg to die anytime soon, I do hope to outlive her, because there are papers in the Kennedy Library that Jackie has sealed and they cannot be opened until JFK’s last child is deceased.
Revisionists historians have already debunked everything that we were taught and believed to be true about our history anyway.
For that matter do you know if your grandfather or great-grandfather were really Christians or not? We really cannot know what is in the heart of people who have died long before we were born. I personally don’t sit around wondering about this. I just know the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States have a lot of words and phrases that sound to be as though they were based on Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Kim,
I respectfully disagree. In 200 years from now IF you are an important historical figure, historians will be able to search these archives and tell for the most part what it was that you believed. They will be able to figure out who exactly “Kim” was. That’s assuming history is interested in you in 200 years like history is interested in America’s early Presidents. (Who knows?
)
There are 20,000 pages of GW’s personal correspondence that exist. And there is lots and lots of evidence that he believed in Providence. Just little if any that he was a “Christian” in an orthodox Trinitarian sense.
Report comment to moderator
Then you have to step back and read it in context. Everyone was assumed to be Christian so you didn’t have to make a public confession of faith, beat the drums, and declare yourself to be Christian. I know a lot of people who are quiet Christians just plugging along through life.
Report comment to moderator
Everyone was presumed to be a “Christian” in an at least nominal minimalistic sense. And they were. (As someone who is baptized Roman Catholic, but who went no further, I might be able to meet a “minimal” definition of “Christian.”)
One study shows that the populace were more likely to be in taverns on Saturday nights than in church pews on Sunday mornings.
Report comment to moderator
So they were. They also didn’t have a dozen different churches to choose from with pastor’s of all sorts of different needs. I never will forget calling something or other Harvester Church in one of the Carolina’s and getting a voice mail tree…if this press 1, if that press 2 and so on until if you have expereinced a death and need pastoral care press 6. Cracked me up. A minister of death.
Listen Jon, away from here I do not wear my faith on my sleeve. I grew up in a Christian school and you could always receive extra an extra point or two when you needed it, if you would lead the class in prayer. I guarantee you I was one of the best public pray-ers you have ever run across. When I came back to God I came back a different person. When asked to lead a group in prayer I politely decline. I do not pray over my meals in restaurants, etc. If I am with someone who wishes to do so, I politely bow my head and allow them to pray. I will whisper Amen. Who knows what happens in someones life to make them act the way they do. Perhaps Washington had something in his past.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
When you come to the point in your life that you judge your OWN heart, using the Bible as your only source for Salvation, then and only then will you have made any head-way. Your observed interest in others Salvation is notable to some degree, but it is now an obsession, which appears to haunt you to the point of distraction.
Sometimes when reading your posts, your apparent desire to dissolve any and all proof that the Founding Fathers were in fact Believers in Jesus Christ is astounding.
Your judgment of the Founding Fathers says more about you than it does them.
You Jon have made it clear you don’t believe homosexuality is a sin even when it is clearly made fact in the Bible – you toss that proof out as fast as it’s posted, yet you judge another man by not kneeling in church. Does the Bible say a man must kneel? What the Bible does say is one day every knee shall bow:
Report comment to moderator
#104 “Someone needs to write an ecumenical etiquette book, so people will know what to expect and what is expected of them when they visit an unfamiliar worship service.”
Someone did. It’s called How to Be a Perfect Stranger: The Essential Religious Etiquette Handbook, by Stuart M. Matlins and Arthur J. Magida. I haven’t read it myself, but I saw it at our local library last week when I was looking for something else.
Report comment to moderator
What the FF’s believed or didn’t believe can be relevant if one is attempting to interpret the “original intent” of the Constitution they wrote.
But the fact that they provided for a means to amend that Constitution weakens any such argument considerably. After all, the Christian god’s word is supposed to be immutable.
And, as Jon points out repeatedly, there is very, very little evidence from their contemporaneously, extensively observed and well-documented (and self-documented) lives, that most of them would be even be recognized as “Christians” by very many of today’s evangelical,fundamental or conservative Christians.
These were the learned men of their time. Washington, a surveyor and accumulator of vast estates, Franklin, a publisher, scientist and inventor, Jefferson,architect and possessor of the greatest library of the times, etc. They were all sceptics and challengers of “received authority” of any kind. They were true revolutionaries and undoubtedly profoundly suspicious of clerical authority.
The idea that these men would have turned over any significant power, or attached any real importance to spiritual doctrine or spiritual advisors in the running of their new country is really quite bizarre.
Report comment to moderator
When you come to the point in your life that you judge your OWN heart, using the Bible as your only source for Salvation, then and only then will you have made any head-way. Your observed interest in others Salvation is notable to some degree, but it is now an obsession, which appears to haunt you to the point of distraction.
Victoria,
How nice of you to take the words that I said in 111 and 112 and COMPLETELY TURN THEM ON THEIR HEAD as though I said my favorite color was red when in fact I said my favorite color was blue.
I said I am 100% TOTALLY UNINTERESTED IN THE FOUNDERS’ BELIEFS INSOFAR AS THEY RELATE TO THEIR OWN SALVATION, yet it’s a charge that you and some others repeatedly project upon me.
Report comment to moderator
#106: Perhaps he’s equivocating about the meaning of “equivocation?”
Report comment to moderator
IMO, after many years now on this forum, somewhere along the line Jon ran into some Christians who claimed that we began as an all-Christian nation, and so we should therefore now be a Christian nation, basing all our laws on the Bible.
I have heard this before myself.
So, he feels compelled to prove that some of our major Founding Fathers were not Christian as we would generally define Christian now-a-days, in order to prove that we were not really founded as an all-Christian nation.
However, I think most of us are aware that not all the Founding Fathers were necessarily orthodox Christians, but we still feel that our country (until very recently) was a country based to a great extent on a Judeo-Christian world view, and that there were many Christian ideas in our founding documents along with Enlightenment ideas.
The French revolution was almost entirely based on Enlightenment ideals, and look what it turned into. Ugh.
But, I would argue that — due to Christianity’s heavier influence here — our revolution did not go wildly astray as did France’s revolution. And, since the vast number of people in the U.S. held at least a minimally Judeo-Christian world view, it tempered how we formed our country amidst Enlightenment thinking.
To insist that all the FFs were orthodox Christians and that all our founding documents were strictly based on the Bible is silly. And, honestly, I think most Christians already know that and don’t need it “proved” to them.
However, there is a movement afoot to deny any Christian influence and to make all the FFs Deists. There is a desire to erase the Judeo-Christian influence and world view, and replace it entirely with a secular Enlightenment world view.
When Jon posts, he is seeing us as belonging to the group that thinks it was ALL-Christian, when most of us do not belong to that group.
And, when we post back, most of us are seeing Jon as someone trying to deny Christianity’s influence (although I don’t think that is true.)
So, both sides are framing their arguments for the wrong audience: Jon to the ALL-Christian-founding people and Victoria (for example) to the ALL-secular-Deist-Enlightenment group.
Report comment to moderator
IF this is true, than it would make perfect sense to stop trying to distort what the Founding Fathers believed according to Jon.
TRS (123): Nice post – excellent summary.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
124: You are just making things up about what I’ve written; there are too many things that you’ve made up about what I am trying to argue for me to even begin to touch that post.
I’ve got better things to do than argue with crackpots.
Report comment to moderator
I’m aware as well as others that NOT every Founding Father was a devout Christin Believer – However, having made that statement I don’t believe for one minute that all the hoopla which some individuals have made, trying to make a case against the FF’s and even President Bush (W) are valid – that is the snag – it isn’t truthful, it is only a way of trying to undermine the beginnings of our country OR to put doubt in the minds of those now, as to W’s beliefs because he didn’t kneel in church.
TRS, please don’t try and categorize my beliefs – I have never said that all the FF’s were true Believers, however I believe most of them were – there is NO reason to believe otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
You can’t argue with what I wrote regarding the Unitarian Church, nor can you wiggle out of your constant rant against the Founding Fathers – the vast majority being Believers in Jesus Christ.
When all else fails you have something better to do…. LOL, yes Jon we understand your distress.
Report comment to moderator
123: I think what you’ve said is quite reasonable and I have taken pains to present myself as not one of those “the FFs were all deists” types.
Likewise I recognize that many if not most of the posters here do not buy into the David Barton/Peter Marshal “just about all of the FFs were orthodox Christians” and “the DOI/Constitution is based on the Bible” line.
Report comment to moderator
Actually 128 I’ve answered every single claim you made elsewhere so I don’t feel like repeating myself for you, which would especially be a waste of time.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I do believe that you are misunderstanding Jon. His comment about Unitarianism was a side comment that doesn’t pertain to his main argument.
I think that he wants us to understand that many of the FFs were not orthodox Christians, and that their viewpoints were heavily influenced by the Enlightenment.
Their personal salvation is not really in question. Rather, he questions how their view of God influenced our country’s founding documents and philosophies.
Report comment to moderator
TRS: You get me exactly.
Of and course Victoria misunderstands what I write. I have noted over and over and over again that “unitarianism” as the FFs meant it was not modern day non-theist lets marry same sex couples Unitarian Universalism but simply disbelief in the Trinity, rather belief in the Arian and Socinian heresies. Jehovah’s Witnesses are theological unitarians in this sense.
Report comment to moderator
TRS – 131
I don’t agree with you – I’m more than capable of understanding and reading comprehension –
There has been a great effort to undermine the the very beginning of our nation, the fact that it was based on Christian Biblical standards – Many of the text books have been changed regarding American history.
Our Founding Fathers were not idiots who were unable to understand the Bible or Salvation through Jesus Christ. Reading endless excerpts from the FF’s and their dependence on GOD for direction is clear – they wouldn’t have sought HIS guidance if they hadn’t believed HE was GOD Almighty, and able to direct their paths.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 133
Anyone who disagrees with you AUTOMATICALLY misunderstands what you have written, that is par for the course in your mind.
Anyone who has Universalist/Unitarian leanings would agree with you, or lean heavily to your beliefs regarding the Founding Fathers.
Report comment to moderator
Once again proving that some people would gripe if you hung them with a new rope.
Report comment to moderator
TRS, I understand what you are trying to say and I agree with you.
Report comment to moderator
The Duel
by Eugene Field (1850-1895)
The gingham dog and the calico cat
Side by side on the table sat;
‘T was half-past twelve, and (what do you think!)
Nor one nor t’ other had slept a wink!
The old Dutch clock and the Chinese plate
Appeared to know as sure as fate
There was going to be a terrible spat.
(I was n’t there; I simply state
What was told to me by the Chinese plate!)
The gingham dog went “Bow-wow-wow!”
And the calico cat replied “Mee-ow!”
The air was littered, an hour or so,
With bits of gingham and calico,
While the old Dutch clock in the chimney-place
Up with its hands before its face,
For it always dreaded a family row!
(Now mind: I ‘m only telling you
What the old Dutch clock declares is true!)
The Chinese plate looked very blue,
And wailed, “Oh, dear! what shall we do!”
But the gingham dog and the calico cat
Wallowed this way and tumbled that,
Employing every tooth and claw
In the awfullest way you ever saw—
And, oh! how the gingham and calico flew!
(Don’t fancy I exaggerate—
I got my news from the Chinese plate!)
Next morning, where the two had sat
They found no trace of dog or cat;
And some folks think unto this day
That burglars stole that pair away!
But the truth about the cat and pup
Is this: they ate each other up!
Now what do you really think of that!
(The old Dutch clock it told me so,
And that is how I came to know.)
Report comment to moderator
#137
Report comment to moderator
Our Founding Fathers were not idiots who were unable to understand the Bible or Salvation through Jesus Christ. Reading endless excerpts from the FF’s and their dependence on GOD for direction is clear – they wouldn’t have sought HIS guidance if they hadn’t believed HE was GOD Almighty, and able to direct their paths.
What Victoria has actually read are cherry picked quotes, many of them false, presented by the Christian Nationalist historical revisionists like the late D. James Kennedy.
Here is John Adams on Jesus’ status as “God Almighty.”
“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.
I know what Victoria’s own standards for “Christianity”; she follows the late Walter Martin. According to Martin’s categorization methods, America’s key Founders belonged to a “non-Christian” cult (that’s how he defined non-Trinitarian “Christians”).
Report comment to moderator
Haven’t heard that one in years….. there was a guy who went to school in the south who came to some of the gatherings, he would drink enough beer to float himself, this was his fav comment for just about anything! LOL
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
My honest suggestion?
Post what you want. Answer whom you want, but don’t respond to Victoria.
Your posts to each other don’t really make either of you look all that good. And, if you take the high road, it will be better all around.
Report comment to moderator
TRS:
That’s a good suggestion.
Report comment to moderator
Poor Jon – 139
I’ve never read Dr. D.James Kennedy, I have no idea what he wrote about regarding the FF’s – I’ve never said anything about Walter Martin except that I respected him and also met him just before his death.
LOL -
Report comment to moderator
TRS – 141
My posts are just fine, they reflect the views of us who are weary of those who tirelessly work to REFORM and REVISE what the Founding Fathers believed.
The statements I made regarding Unitarian – Universalism must have hit a cord!
Report comment to moderator
I posted on rants and raves number, 55, that should have been posted here, concerning our FF’s and our Constitution.
Regrets.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
Do you always have to be so condescending?
Report comment to moderator
… or a “struck a chord” …
Report comment to moderator
Kim,
If your remark in post 146 was directed to my post 144, there was no condescension intended – I hadn’t heard it in years.
Report comment to moderator
Actually all, I think that Jon’s debate is simply that – it is a debate. In order for him to prove how intelligent he is and how ignorant everybody else is he is trying to get us to debate small points. This is a worthless endeavor and does neither party any good. Jon, if you are trying to prove that GW and the rest of the Founding Fathers of our great and free country were not Christians but Unitarians, good on you. Prove it on….write a couple of books, give some lectures and pursue it for all you are worth.
However, for those of us who believe that we are a Christian nation, that the majority of our founding documents were based upon the Word of God as interpreted by man and that the further we get away from the Word of God in our decisions the worse off our country becomes then good on you also. Keep at what you believe with everything you are worth.
And for all of us, what it really is going to come down to is simply this – one day we will all stand before God’s throne and hopefully He will say of us, “well done good and faithful servant”. To expect God to recognize our degrees, our accomplishments and adversely our failures is simply ridiculous because quite honestly all that stuff doesn’t matter to God. So, make it your daily pursuit to know God and to know who He has made you to be because in the end that is all that matters.
Report comment to moderator
What does not kneeling show about the man’s heart? Nothing except that he flouted custom. And that means what? Honestly, I am about to throw out the only pair of jeans I own. What do you conclude about my beliefs in Jesus Christ from that? There are lots of people who don’t do what everyone else does in church and it has absolutely NO bearing on their beliefs. I suppose, however, that some people need to pigeonhole….
You write: “Rather I am concerned with WHAT they believed ….”
You do not have a complete record of everything GW or any of the Founders — and I know you ONLY care about a few of them to foster your agenda — said or wrote. And you certainly don’t have any insight into GW’s heart of hearts. I go to work every day and I can go for weeks Jesus Christ coming up (which means I’m working), and I am not shy about my beliefs. I know of no requirement that a historical figure has to have written all of his thoughts and feelings down on a particular subject, so I make no conclusions about the language GW did or did not use regarding Jesus. Maybe he wasn’t theologically inclined. Many here can discuss theology with you and know which people have this or that thought, but I am not one of those. Nevertheless, I read the Word. GW may have been one of those or maybe not. We’ll never know the answer, but I’m sure you’ll conclude something, probably what you want to conclude.
Now, I know you’ve been to law school, so I know you’ve read the Constitution. You and I both know there are two places where religion comes into play — that there is no religious test to run for office and the clauses in the First Amendment. The amendment aside, the Constitution is an entirely secular document and why wouldn’t it be? It is the framework for a form of government, the basic rules, the nuts and bolts — not a church. And the reason for that is there were a lot of churches and they did’t want to “go there.” Many people worked on that Constitution and put their two cents in, despite the fact that one person was charged with writing the drafts. It was debated and redrafted over and over with input from a lot of people. I submit that whether it was your fave few or all the other founders that Christianity and theology was NOT what was on their minds when they were debating government. They weren’t concerned with it, it wasn’t the topic at hand. You can continue this obsession you have with a few men and what you and other scholars THINK about what they believed about Jesus, but what they were working on was a SIMPLE framework for a government. That’s all the Constitution is. It is so basic that it can be subverted and used by tyrants — if the people allow it, and I think you’re seeing the people rise up again lately. Now, I understand that you revere the Constitution the way we Christians here revere the Word, but it is NOTHING compared to the Word. Absolutely nothing. The Constitution is piddly stuff and deals with piddly stuff compared to the Word.
Quite frankly, the religious fews of your fave founders are irrelevant to the Constitution. You never acknowledge the other founders or their faith, you never acknowledge the people or their faith. You have a very skewed view of the founding of this country and you focus on only those things which support your agenda and deny the rest.
I don’t know what more to say to you, except that what GW or any of your faves or the others felt about Jesus has nothing to do with the Constitution. That document establishes a form of government with checks and balances. That’s all it does. That’s all the people wanted it to do. They came up with the Bill of Rights because they wanted to be sure that government would leave them alone — a fact that few remember and no one teaches anymore.
Report comment to moderator
149: I think you are being EXTREMELY unfair to me. I never tried to insinuate most posters here were “ignorant.” I’ll admit, I DO think I know more about this one particular issue than probably any poster here. So what, you all have your areas of expertise about which I don’t know.
And I’ve got news for you, the Christian religion in which you believe is a Hell of a lot bigger and more important than the United States and its Founding and the English language in which we are writing.
For you to believe “that we are a Christian nation, that the majority of our founding documents were based upon the Word of God as interpreted by man,” only drags down the purity of the Bible by adding things (all of the a-biblical ideas contained in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence) to the Bible that aren’t there.
In essence you Mormonize your faith by trying to write a new book — a book of “Americanism” — to the biblical canon.
Report comment to moderator
You do not have a complete record of everything GW or any of the Founders — and I know you ONLY care about a few of them to foster your agenda….
NJL, when you talk about “agendas” all you do is poison the well and commit the genetic fallacy. Instead of trying to smear me, why don’t you point out something I’ve said about George Washington that is false.
I admitted that GW didn’t kneel in Church (as was the custom) was a minor point. But noted that it BUTTRESSED THE LARGER POINT — that he systematically avoided communion which suggests he didn’t believe in what the act stood for: Christ’s Atonement.
And I DO have a “complete record” of EVERYTHING GW said that is AVAILABLE SO FAR. So do the rest of you: It’s called the Fitzpatrick Edition of GW’s writings.
http://etext.virginia.edu/washington/fitzpatrick/
There are certain things that we’ll probably never know: GW had his correspondence with Martha burned. In there he could have talked about how he was a good fundamentalist Christian like Victoria, or that he was a Satanist. But we’ll probably never know.
Re what’s available, it’s in the above link.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer – 150
That was one great post my friend.
As for the comments below your post, where once again we hear the “commit the genetic fallacy” routine, I too was accused in post #91 which I later explained in post 93 – but NAY Jon was sure that I had no clue (post 94) for which I then posted the dictionary definition to be accurate – however that didn’t satisfy him…… to think I would use a dictionary! LOL Post #100 is a hoot and a half, even a dictionary is off limits to help settle the issue.
Again, thanks for the great post NJL -
Report comment to moderator
What kind of fallacy is it called when someone belittles their opponent?
Report comment to moderator
ad hominem. And, alas, we too often fall into it, Karen.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, I’m going to get myself into trouble, but so be it.
I also think that Jon is getting a bum rap. He likes to discuss. He’s fine with people bringing in different points of view, but he does ask that you back them with something.
He’s said that he comes here to actually GIVE people the opportunity to find flaws in his arguments.
Victoria, your behavior to him is unChristian and unkind. It just is.
And, no, you don’t sound as if you understand what he is saying at all despite your really good reading ability. In fact, in your writing it sounds as if you’re about as confused about what Jon is trying to say as it is possible to be.
But, worse, you mock him and you run him down personally. Not Christian. Just isn’t.
Jon has explained, very thoroughly, that he is not interested in the PERSONAL faith of each of the FFs (i.e. whether they are saved in God’s eyes), but only in how their faith compares to accepted Christian teachings and how it may have influenced HOW they saw and interpreted the Constitution, and other founding documents. He is looking for clues and analyzing their words and their writings. Maybe he is wrong, but evidence is evidence, and you can’t just dismiss it because other evidence MIGHT have existed. Jon is usually pretty good about saying, “It seems” or “It appears,” which is the best one can do when the evidence points a particular way.
IMO, if anyone believes that all the FFs and all the founding documents were entirely Christian, then they simply haven’t studied them or the time period. However, I have argued with Jon myself, and I think he does sometimes go too far one way (and stick with a small number of FFs), but he is NOT, and I repeat is NOT, one of those people trying to scrub Christianity from the founding of our nation. He comes no where near it, and he tells you that he is not one of those people to boot (over and over again, for all the good it does him.)
As with many academics, he is CURIOUS about how much Christianity influenced things, and how other views might have colored the FF’s views. There is nothing wrong with that, and it is okay for him to wonder and to ask the questions. And, we may not agree with the answers he uncovers or the perspective he adds, but that doesn’t make him an enemy, and it doesn’t make him deserving of mockery or name calling or silencing.
If I were a non-Christian, your behavior on here to Jon today would have sent me running from Christians as mean-spirited, uneducated, unfriendly, and unkind people.
Does this mean that I agree with Jon on everything? I highly doubt it.
But, he’s far from our enemy, and he ought to be treated with the LOVE that he deserves for being the creation of our Father in Heaven.
You will know Christians by their LOVE (or at least you’re supposed to.)
Give people the benefit of the doubt. You don’t always have to jump to the worst possible interpretation of their behavior (or words) and then condemn them to stay there no matter what they do or say. This is especially true when they tell you over and over that they DO NOT BELIEVE what you are accusing them of.
And, for Heaven’s sake, stop implying that all the other Christians on this site are behind you. Stand for your own opinions, and speak them fairly. You don’t stand for mine in this case (although I know that we are often on the same side in other cases, and that’s fine).
Report comment to moderator
#154
You say it all in one sentence. Exactly.
Report comment to moderator
DJ – Oh yeah – ad hominem. I forgot about that. Thanks.
I remember hearing once (on a TV show, of all things) that one should never humiliate one’s enemy, or that enemy may become dangerous, more determined to vanquish you.
I wince when I read someone belittling or questioning the intelligence or education of another.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you TRS and you are not in trouble with me. While I find that sometimes Jon tends to “beat a dead horse” I have never found him to be offensive. I have tried many time to show that “they will know we are Christians by our love” but sometimes that just doesn’t play well around here. I love to win an argument as much as the next person, but I welcome anyone to call me out if I ever belittle someone and their views. I may just be a dumb hick southerner but I have always heard you “can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar”.
God did not make me anyones judge and jury.
Report comment to moderator
I have brought in proof many times and so have others. You have either missed these events or forgotten them. Because you don’t remember the exchanges that in itself may be what is confusing you.
When it comes to telling people off, you certainly have proven that you are up to it in the post above – that goes far beyond anything I have posted today – obviously you have not read the posts for months between this individual and myself – I hope your outburst has made you feel better, LOL –
I have no reason to defend myself to you – I don’t believe for one moment that everyone stands behind my posts, I’ve never said such a thing – I don’t care who’s side you are on, that was never the point of this discussion in the first place that you would agree with me. I don’t think about who will or won’t agree with me on ANY given subject. LOL -
For all the others who feel just as TRS – it is not un-Christian to stand up for what one believes – I don’t believe anyone knows the heart of President Bush, nor do they know the hearts of those who were the Founding Fathers. I agree with NJL’s posts – there was more than one which made the point.
Report comment to moderator
And by the same token none of us knows what is in the heart of Barak Obama. Actions don’t show him to be a Christian of my “ilk” but it doesn’t mean that to the best of his ability he isn’t a Christian…and in saying that I will reiterate that I don’t like him and didn’t vote for him. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF US KNOWS WHAT IS IN ANOTHERS HEART.
Report comment to moderator
When a man says he doesn’t want his daughters punished with a baby in regards to abortion, there is not one reason to believe he is a Christian Believer.
Report comment to moderator
I know there are a lot of people who would be happy to be punished with one of those babies. Adoption.
Report comment to moderator
Oy veh! I come here on a Sunday evening to see what happened over the weekend, and yet another thread taken over by Jon Rowe discussing the only thing he ever discusses, and the usual “defenders of the FF’s faith” contradicting him. Man, I sure had a lot of scrolling to do tonight.
Thank you, Kim for #137. I believe that ditty describes what happens when people with nothing better to do bother to argue with Jon Rowe.
And Victoria- To me, anything you say is lost when you start tacking on the LOLs. You make great points, sometimes. But the LOL makes you seem less serious.
Report comment to moderator
Peter L.
I understand what you are saying Peter, I really do. I will keep it in mind, – however laughing is sometimes the only thing one can do when the discussion has become SO obtuse one throws it all out with laughter.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells, there are so many waiting to adopt any child which is unwanted – it makes me very sad and tearful.
The gift of a child is most precious as you and I know, it’s something which can’t be imagined unless you’re missing that little one in your arms.
Report comment to moderator
FOX-TV CHICAGO ORDERED NOT TO RUN ANTI-OLYMPICS STORY
Sun Sep 27 2009 21:56:11 ET
A local TV station that reported on Chicagoans NOT wanting the Olympics has been told NOT to run the report again, insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT!
The Chicago Olympic Committee told FOX Chicago that its broadcast “would harm Chicago’s chances” to be awarded the games.
The station’s news director ordered staff to hold fire after the report aired once last Thursday morning, claims a source.
Chicago, Madrid, Tokyo and Rio are mounting strong bids for the honor to host in 2016.
The International Olympic Committee makes its decision on Friday. First Lady Michelle Obama will lead the in-person push. http://www.drudgereport.com/flashocc.htm
Breitbart.tv » Report: Chicago Fox Station Ordered Not to Air Anti-Olympics Story
http://www.breitbart.tv/chicagoans-for-rio-not-everyone-in-illinois-wants-the-2016-olympics/
Report comment to moderator
Kim & TRS:
Thanks for your kind words they do not go unnoticed.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Jon Rowe can’t support his theory about GW with evidence he doesn’t have. It wouldn’t stand up in court and he knows it.
I haven’t smeared you by saying YOU DON’T KNOW — because you don’t. Lots of people do not take communion for lots of reasons. You are trying to fit GW into what you want to make him to be, and you have no proof. If you had a statement by GW that said “I don’t take communion because x, y, z, you’d have something. You have not presented that evidence. You even admit that evidence has been destroyed. All you have in the book you cited is what is still available. That’s it. It’s not a full record.
You may conclude whatever you choose to conclude, but no one has to buy the argument — and that’s all it is, an argument.
I will not give up saying that the Constitution is not the Word. I will not give up saying that your Fave Few Founders are NOT THE ONLY FOUNDERS.
I note you didn’t respond to the longest paragraph is my last post to you. That may poison your well, your agenda, but it’s closer to the truth than what you post.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
It’s not “A” book it’s a consensus of scholars trained in the area of history, NOT ATTORNEYS, but HISTORIANS who conclude GW systemetically avoided communion because he didn’t believe in what the act stood for.
I didn’t respond to your longest last paragraph because it came off as a rant.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
Do you think the people around GW and some of the other ‘unorthodox’ founders were considered to be Christians by the people of their day, or were they considered agnostics, or…? I have no special scholarship in this area, but I was just wondering.
Report comment to moderator
DJ,
TO the “orthodox” the beliefs of the key Founders were considered “heresy” at best “infidelity” at worst. The “orthodox” had a lot more social (and at the state and local level legal) power; that’s why the key FFs had to keep their heterodox beliefs on the down low and talk in more abtract generical philosophical titles for “God” as opposed to “Father, Son, Holy Spirit.”
The FFs tended to consider themselves “rational Christians.” This kind of Christianity was theologically unitarian and universalist and was very heavily naturalistic and rationalistic. The “orthodox” didn’t consider it “real Christianity” however.
Many folks considered the FFs “Christian” because they wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt; the FFs avoided controversy by not pushing the issue and keeping their heterodoxy secret.
Report comment to moderator
So basically they wouldn’t qualify as Christians by the evangelical standards of today, but by less orthodox standards even today some would indeed consider them Christian. I’m assuming that non of them were of completely different religions, (like Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) but do you know of any other major religious influences in our founding? I’ve never heard of any other direct religious influences.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – Since Peter L brought up the “LOLs”, I’ll add my 2 cents.
Often, though not always, I take your LOL to be laughing at the person, which is not nice.
I could be wrong about your intent; I’m just telling you how it seems to me.
Report comment to moderator
Not that anyone asked me, but in their context, Victoria’s LOL’s always struck me as the nervous laughter that accompanies weak arguments.
But Karen O’s observations also strike me as valid.
Report comment to moderator
NORTH ON WASHINGTON
Here’s my cut-and-pasted contribution re. George Washington’s religion, from p. 192 & ff. of conservative (as in “Bible-believing,” not “Republican-voting”) Christian historian Gary North’s Conspiracy in Philadelphia (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Dominion Educational Ministries, Inc., 2004) (free PDF book — footnotes omitted, italics in original):
Jon, I confess: I often scroll past your arguments for the nominal “Christianity” of many of America’s Founders, but I do so because I do not have a dog in that fight. That said, from what I have read in North’s Conspiracy in Philadelphia, I tend to agree with you generally.
I also believe that, since the Enlightenment was recent compared to Christianity, much of the vast influence of centuries of Christianity had its effect on the thinking of the majority of our Founders. I.e., although many/most of them were children of the Enlightenment, Christianity’s cultural impact upon even them cannot be denied. (Or to put it another way: Whatever good and true aspects there may be to Enlightenment thought, they are the manifestation of philosophical capital borrowed from the ultimate truth revealed to mankind by God in His scriptures.)
All that said, Jon, I have to ask: Have you ever read Conspiracy in Philadelphia? I have to imagine you would find it quite intriguing.
Report comment to moderator
Somet things strike me as strange about the church Washington attended:
1) I thought that congregations refusing to exercise lawful church discipline at the communion table was strictly a 20th century practice (or perhaps I should say a 20th century lack of practice).
2) North notes that GW “promised never again to attend the church on communion day.” IMV, “communion day” is every Sunday — the Lord’s Table should be a regular part of regular Sabbath worship. And again, I guess I thought that churches not celebrating regular weekly communion was mainly a 20th century thing.
Lastly, I wonder if Jesus’ words below have anything to say re. GW’s practice of staying away from church on communion day rather than than taking communion:
173: You got it.
You are right that Protestant Christianity influenced one key component to the key FFs’ religious creed. And indeed if we set the rung lower than orthodox Trinitarianism, GW, TJ, JM, BF, JA were all “Christians” in some broader sense. Thomas Jefferson even called Jesus a “savior” (albeit one who was 100% man and saved man through his superior moral example).
They often looked at other religions like Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Native American spirituality and “concluded” they all worshipped the same God. But my friend Tom Van Dyke notes, they squinted and “saw” the Judeo-Christian monotheistic God in other religions where He probably wasn’t there.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
Yes I have read and blogged about “Conspiracy in Philadelphia” many times. In fact, I consider it a key influence on my thinking on the matter. North has some pretty harsh personal views re his Reconstructionist theology. And on economics — even though I am a libertarian, who like Dr. North (and yourself) appreciates Ron Paul — I think North is a bit too much of a gloom and doomer. (Y2K didn’t lead to the sky come crashing down as North predicted it would.)
Still his research for “Conspiracy” is spot on and echoes what others in the academy have concluded re America’s founding political theology.
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
In 177, as far as I know from reading David L. Holmes of William & Mary, one of the foremost experts on 18th Century Anglicanism, communion was NOT held every Sunday but on a handful of Sundays every year in said church.
Holmes, btw, terms Washington a “Christian-Deist” in contrast to the “non-Christian Deism” of Thomas Paine. That meant GW had “deist like” beliefs, but supported organized religion and nominally worshipped in a Christian Church.
Report comment to moderator
JON ROWE (179): North has some pretty harsh personal views re his Reconstructionist theology.
Frank: F’rinstance?
JON ROWE (179): And on economics … I think North is a bit too much of a gloom and doomer.
Frank: On the contrary. North’s erroneous analysis re. Y2K notwithstanding, he’s a solid postmillennialist, thus he is very optimistic (4-page PDF) in the long, historical view. (I.e., over centuries and millennia.) His “doom and gloom” aspect only pertains to short-term cultural crashes which, in his view, a consistently biblical Christian culture should rise to the challenge to aid and to bless.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
I’m going to hit the hay. (Look forward to your f’rinstances re. North’s “harsh personal views,” but I’ll have to interact w/them later!)
Report comment to moderator
As far as I understand North’s first best world, he wants to impose the capital punishments as prescribed by the Old Testament (i.e, for adultery, incest, sodomy, bestiality, witchcraft, worshipping false gods, and even for children who curse their parents). And not just the death penalty, but the method as well — community stoning (not a public, professional executioner, but a community activity, like a square dance). I consider the Rushdoony/North/Christian Reconstructionism to be extremely harsh. But I agree with his views on downsizing the state in the meantime.
Report comment to moderator
Frank and Karen – your welcome to your opinions. I stated why I wrote LOL to Peter regarding his post #164 that should suffice, but apparently you both feel compelled to take it further which doesn’t change my answer in post #165 which was:
“I understand what you are saying Peter, I really do. I will keep it in mind, – however laughing is sometimes the only thing one can do when the discussion has become SO obtuse one throws it all out with laughter.”
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, I was a history major before I was a law school attendee. It’s all very interesting, but the bottom line is, historians are making “educated” guesses a lot of the time. I put “educated” in quotes because historians, like you, have agendas and biases.
I was not ranting. I was stating my position — and if someone challenges your position with another one, you ignore it and call it a rant. That’s because you have an agenda.
Report comment to moderator
“That’s because you have an agenda.”
Again, trying to poison the well and commit the genetic fallacy by dismissing what I write as “agenda” instead of dealing with the actual substance.
Yes, when there is not smoking gun evidence, historians make logical deductions and often do so via Occam’s Razor (the simplest explanation is likely the right one) which is exactly what historians have done with GW and his systematic avoidance of communion: The simplest, likelist and most rational explanation is that like the other deistical and unitarian minded Anglicans, he disbelieved in what the act stood for: Christ’s Atonement.
Report comment to moderator
My post #118 became the achilles heel for Jon –
Check out Jon’s post #121
My post #124
Jon’s post #126 – he doesn’t like my post, nor can he answer it, but instead hurls “crackpots” –
Jon doesn’t like to answer questions – just look back at NJL’s questions – they go un-answered too -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Keep living in your fantasy world. I’ve already chewed you up and spat you out (and it taste quite bad). I’m done with you.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, I had never known that about GW (his refusal to partake of communion). I have no doubt that he had his personal reasons for avoiding communion. Often before communion (the Lord’s Supper) is taken, people are encouraged to examine their hearts. Perhaps he harbored something that he was unwilling to let go of (thus making him not really ready to take communion). Of course, this is only speculation, but it’s a thought. It is interesting that when he was entreated/questioned, he did not submit to church authority, but chose not to attend on communion Sunday.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!