Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Angry Ron Paul Defends Ground Zero Mosque


Recommended Posts

  • Administrators



Ok, it is not for you to say if someone is saved or a good Christian or not. If they say they are Christians, and attend a church, then they are for the Lord to judge, not you. What you are really saying is not they weren't Christians, but they were apostates and heretics. I would say the country is founded on Christian principles by men that knowlingly followed the bible as documented in actual history *1 Oh, I can't say if someone is saved or not, but you can claim someone must be lost because they might support a statement Ron Paul made? That's pretty hypocritical, Max. No, what I was really saying is that they weren't all born again. Unitarians are not born again. John Adams and John Quincy Adams were Unitarians. Your denial of it doesn't change the fact. Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. No Christian can leave Christ in the tomb. Your dislike of admitting that, and blowing smoke about judging cannot change that. Franklin was a whoremonger. That is fact. You cannot change that.

All of these men were Christians. And I didn't say just the drafters. All the signers, every one, was a Christian, including the secretary, and a good perchantage were preachers as well. No, all of the signers were not Christians (and you said those who wrote the Declaration...siging their name isn't the same as writing the document - that's why I named the 5 I did). Some were, some weren't. You stating they were because that's how you want to view it doesn't make it so.

Jefferson was a Christian, attended church all his life, and was responsible for some of the church services on the capital. He quoted part of the bible in some of the laws that he drafted in 1776. I specifically mentioned him because he has an atheist nephew that raped one of the slaves, squandered the family wealth, and released post humerously letters from Jefferson for money, some of which now are known to have been edited heavily. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. (thomas jefferson); from his autOBiography: "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." Oh, but let's hear his testimony of salvation: "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."

Roger Williams, who you didn't mention at all, wrote religious charters and letters all the time, was well known for Christian writing, and was a deacon at his church.Roger Williams had nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence, having died many years before it was ever conceived. I didn't mention him because he wasn't part of your post. Sorry. Wrote religious charters all the time? I don't think so! He wasn't even the one who OBtained the charter for RI - John Clarke did. Williams worked hard for religious tolerance, that is true. And his life had a big impact on this country.

Ron Paul? I have far less of a reason to believe Ron Paul is a Christian then anyone you mention. His followers frequently attack the founders of this country as not being Christian, his press secretary was a new age witch (and I saved her posts), and another one on his campaign was apparently a homosexual. He also came out in favor of homosexuality in a video last year that WND linked.Well, here you go saying someone is possibly not a Christian - and someone who actively claims to be one at that! How interesting....Actually he is not in favor of homosexuality. But he does not support an amendment to the Constitution against it because he believes that (and, actually rightly so) it belongs to the states...

Ron Paul is a Christian? Judge not least you be judged. All his followers say that the founders weren't Christian. I'd rather believe the founders. And God. I have no idea what his followers say about the founders. And you'd best not judge yourself, Max. You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth and that loses credibility awful quickly. If you'd rather believe the founders (and that's fine) you'd best read more of what they say, because you aren't getting it somewhere!

*1 I do believe in one God, the Creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

Pennsylvania Constitution, 1776, Signed by Benjamin Franklin, president. This is not a testament to salvation. But it is exactly what deists believe... You can't have a lawful assembly without the Bible as the sole rule of faith and government. ? This statement is so bogus and anti what our founders stood for it's not even to be taken seriously.

As to Jeffeson's Bible (which I have read) - it doesn't matter what he wrote it for - leaving Christ in the tomb is heresy. Take that however you want, but Jefferson was not enamored of Christianity. He just wasn't. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

As to Jeffeson's Bible (which I have read) - it doesn't matter what he wrote it for - leaving Christ in the tomb is heresy. Take that however you want, but Jefferson was not enamored of Christianity. He just wasn't. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so.

You shouldn't judge another man's servant. A substantial amount of what you are saying is wrong factually, and the reason for all this rewrite in the first place is to attack America's founding document and one of the author's of it. Its a way of taking away the worship America gave God in 1776, and they did give it to the God of the Old and New Testament and none other. God Bless America!

And I feel it is my duty to disagre when you claim Ron Paul is a Christian, and if so, he ought to repent for some of the things he is doing. He's been rebuked, but I haven't seen him take it back like a public figure ought to.

Being 'gay' a sin? Ron Paul can't say
Congressman on God condemning homosexuality: 'I have trouble with that'

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=88600 Edited by MaxKennedy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Being "enamored" doesn't make you saved, it just makes you religious. But Thomas Jeffererson was certainly "enamored", and
judging if someone else is saved or not is not our jOB.

Thomas Jefferson regularly attended church, help design and build (and donated) for his own home church when they were rebuilding it, was a deacon, started worship services in Washington DC, etc etc. You can look at wallbuilders - but some of the sources I directly linked below. Let me know if anything is missing. I'll try to get you started on the right track. God bless America.

Examples:

President Jefferson attend public worship services in the U.S. Capitol building, something he did throughout his two terms in office. And why did he authorize the use of the War Office and the Treasury building for church services in Washington, D.C.?

St. Anne’s Episcopal Church in Charlottesville, Virginia, and served on its vestry

-----

Jefferson at Church in the Capitol
In his diary, Manasseh Cutler (1742-1823), a Federalist Congressman from Massachusetts and Congregational minister, notes that on Sunday, January 3, 1802, John Leland preached a sermon on the text "Behold a greater than Solomon is here. Jefferson was present." Thomas Jefferson attended this church service in Congress, just two days after issuing the Danbury Baptist letter. Leland, a celebrated Baptist minister, had moved from Orange County, Virginia, and was serving a congregation in Cheshire, Massachusetts, from which he had delivered to Jefferson a gift of a "mammoth cheese," weighing 1235 pounds.


In this letter Manasseh Cutler informs Joseph Torrey that Thomas Jefferson "and his family
have constantly attended public worship in the Hall" of the House of Representatives.
Manuscript letter
Charles Deering McCormick Library of Special Collections, Northwestern University Library (165)


Reserved Seats at Capitol Services
Here is a description, by an early Washington "insider," Margaret Bayard Smith (1778-1844), a writer and social critic and wife of Samuel Harrison Smith, publisher of the National Intelligencer, of Jefferson's attendance at church services in the House of Representatives: "Jefferson during his whole administration was a most regular attendant. The seat he chose the first day sabbath, and the adjoining one, which his private secretary occupied, were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him."



Incident at Congressional Church Services
In this letter Catherine Mitchill, wife of New York senator Samuel Latham Mitchill, describes stepping on Jefferson's toes at the conclusion of a church service in the House of Representatives. She was "so prodigiously frighten'd," she told her sister, "that I could not stop to make an apology, but got out of the way as quick as I could."


http://books.google.com/books?id=azhxn4rhO48C&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=ardent+zeal+brought+him+through+the+rain+and+on+horseback&source=bl&ots=ZgGE2Pbv-O&sig=Kmc1QoJ0Gaa__UgdciJEFfEcJ_I&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA118,M1

Washington, Jan. 3, 1803. To Dr. Joseph Torrey.

My Dear Sir:—Your last favor, of December 11, should have received an earlier answer, had not my leisure time been wholly occupied in transacting some private business which required immediate attention. In answer to your inquiries respecting Paine, I hear very little said about him here. You see by his fourth letter that his " useful labors " are to be suspended during the session. I have not heard of his being at the President's since the commencement of the session, and it is believed that Mr. Jefferson sensibly feels the severe, though just, remarks which have been made on his in
viting him to this country. You see by the Message, that courting popularity is his darling OBject, but we have convincing proof that his caressing of Paine has excited his fears. He and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall. On the first Sabbath before the Chaplains were elected, and when few members had arrived. Dr. Gant proposed, on Saturday, to preach the next day, when the President, his daughter and grandson, and Mr. Lewis, attended. On the third Sabbath, it was very rainy, but his ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall. Although this is no kind of evidence of any regard to religion, it goes far to prove that the idea of bearing down and overturning, our religious institutions, which, I believe, has been a favorite OBject, is now given up. The political necessity of paying some respect to the religion of the country is felt. Paine's venom against the character of the great Washington was occasioned by his not interfering on his behalf when he was confined in France, and any affront from Mr. Jefferson would induce the same kind of treatment. I can not believe it will be in the power of this degraded wretch to do much mischief. It is certain the more sensible Democrats here view him with contempt, and there are very few so abandoned as openly to associate with him. He lives at Lovell's hotel, who has many lodgers. The members who are there are not willing to acknowledge they have any society with him. He dines at the public table, and, as a show, is as profitable to Lovell as an Ourarig Outang, for many strangers who come to the city feel a curiosity to see the creature. They go to Lovell's and call for the show—even some members of Congress have done it. I have not yet seen him, nor shall I go out of my way for the sight. He has not, I believe, been in the Hall.

There has been an evident change in the conduct of Mr. Jefferson with respect to the Federal party in Congress. His first public attentions were paid to them. I happened myself to be one of the first party invited publicly to dine, and I believe most of the Federalists were invited before any of the Democrats, in the usual way. His dress has been quite decent, and, to me, he has appeared to exert himself in socia
Loading...Loading...bility. But he has shown a marked neglect to Mr. Griswold and Mr. Rutledge. It is a great OBject with the party to get them out of Congress, but Mr. Griswold will remain two years longer, and the elections in South Carolina have not yet taken place.

We have done very little business. Many members have gone to spend the holidays with their friends. On these days the Virginians do no business. Of course, nothing can be done by Congress. It is expected most of them will return in the course of this week. We shall then know something, for at present we know very little of what is to be done this session. The discriminating duties on foreign ships is to be taken off, and the Mint destroyed. There is. also a bill for revising the impost laws, and it is suspected the OBject is to gain popularity by lowering the duties on Salt, Brown Sugar, Tea, C.offee, and increase them upon other articles. With cordial affection and esteem,

Your affectionate parent,

M. Cutler.



-----

Approved, Speaker of House
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=010/llac010.db&recNum=396


--------------------------------

The House in 1828, passed a resolution to prohibit the use of its Chamber for any other purpose than the public business of Congress. A motion to except religious services from the prohibition was defeated.


Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1827-1828

SATURDAY, March 1, 1828.

Mr. Van Rensselaer, from the Committee on the Public Buildings, reported the following resolution, viz:

Resolved, That the use of the Hall of the House of Reprentatives [unless specially granted by order of the House] be prohibited for any other purpose than the public business of Congress, and religious service on Sunday.

This resolution was read: When,

A motion was made by Mr. Bartlett, to amend the same by striking out the words, "and religious service on Sunday:"

And the question being put,

It passed in the affirmative.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://books.google.com/books?id=efw0AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=%22I+have+called+these+Sunday+assemblies+in+the+capitol%22&source=web&ots=-8th4IiOWI&sig=MZY9b0h6dC9d7a3tybnD-o68hrk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA17,M1

The First Forty Years of Washington Society By Margaret Bayard Smith, Gaillard Hunt


At this time the only place for public worship in our new-city was a small, a very small frame building at the bottom of Capitol-hill. It had been a tOBacco-house belonging to Daniel Carrol1 and was purchased by a few Episcopalians for a mere trifle and fitted up as a church in the plainest and rudest manner. During the first winter, Mr. Jefferson regularly attended service on the sabbath-day in the humble church. The congregation seldom exceeded 5o or 6o, but generally consisted of about a score of hearers. He could have had no motive for this regular attendance, but that of respect for public worship, choice of place or preacher he had not, as this, with the exception of a little Catholic chapel was the only church in the new city. The custom of preaching in the Hall of Representatives had not then been attempted, though after it was established Mr. Jefferson during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant. The seat he chose the first sabbath, and the adjoining one, which his private secretary occupied, -were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary. I have called these Sunday assemblies in the capitol, a congregation, but the almost exclusive appropriation of that word to religious assemblies, prevents its being a descriptive term as applied in the present case, since the gay company who thronged the H. R. looked very little like a religious assembly. The occasion presented for display was not only a novel, but a favourable one for the youth, beauty and fashion of the city,Georgetown and environs. The members of Congress, gladly gave up their seats for such fair auditors, and either lounged in the lOBbies, or round the fire places, or stood beside the ladies of their acquaintance. This sabbath- day-resort became so fashionable, that the floor of the house offered insufficient space, the platform behind the Speaker's chair, and every spot where a chair could be wedged in was crowded with ladies in their gayest costume and their attendant beaux and who led them to their seats with the same gallantry as is exhibited in a ball room. Smiles, nods, whispers, nay sometimes tittering marked their recognition of each other, and beguiled the tedium of the service. Often, when cold, a lady would leave her seat and led by her attending beau would make her way through the crowd to one of the fire-places where she could laugh and talk at her ease. One of the officers of the house, followed by his attendant with a great bag over his shoulder, precisely at 12 o'clock, would make his way through the hall to the depository of letters to put them in the mail-bag, which sometimes had a most ludicrous effect, and always diverted attention from the preacher. The musick was as little in union with devotional feelings, as the place. The marine-band, were the performers. Their scarlet uniform, their various instruments, made quite a dazzling appearance in the gallery. The marches they played were good and inspiring, but in their attempts to accompany the psalm-singing of the congregation, they completely failed and after a while, the practice was discontinued,—it was too ridiculous.

Not only the chaplains, but the most distinguished clergymen who visited the city, preached in the Capitol. I remember hearing Mr. E. Everet, afterwards a member of Congress, deliver an eloquent and flowery discourse, to a most thronged and admiring audience. But as a political orator he afterwards became far more eloquent and admired. Preachers of every sect and denomination of christians were there admitted—Catholics, Unitarians, Quakers with every intervening diversity of sect. Even women were allowed to display their pulpit eloquence, in this national Hall.

When Frederick the Great commenced his reign, in order to enforce universal tolleration in religion, he formed a plan which he believed would promote harmony between the different and numerous religious sects. This was to erect a spacious Edefice, or temple, in which at different hours the public service of all, and each of the christian denominations might be performed. He discussed this subject with Voltair, who with some difficulty convinced him of its impracticability, and that the religious prejudices which divided christians, were too strong to be conquered by either reason or despotic power. In the Capitol the idea of this philosophic monarch has been realized, without coercion; without combination. As Congress is composed of christians of every persuasion, each denomination in its turn has supplied chaplains to the two houses of Congress, who preach alternately in the Hall of Representatives. Some opposition was made both to a Roman Catholic and Unitarian, but did not succeed. Clergymen, who during the session of Congress visited the city, were invited by the chaplains to preach; those of distinguished reputation attracted crowded audiences and were evidently gratified by having such an opportunity for the exercise of their talents and their zeal. The admission of female preachers, has been justly reprOBated: curiosity rather than piety attracted throngs on such occasions. The levity which characterized the sabbath-day assemblies in the capitol in former years, has long yielded to a more decorous and reverent demeanor. The attendance of the marine-band was soon discontinued, and various regulations made, which have secured a serious and uninterrupted attention to the religious services of the day.

For several years after the seat of government was fixed at Washington, there were but two small churches. The roman-catholic chapel in F. street, then a little frame building, and the Episcopalian church at the foot of Capitol-hill; both, very small and mean frame buildings. Now, in 1837 there are 22 churches of brick or stone. Sunday used to be the universal day for visits and entertainments. Only a few, very few of the gayest citizens now, either pay or receive visits. There was one sermon delivered by Mr. Breckenridge at the commencement of the war that was deemed quite prophetic—whether inspired or not, his predictions were certainly and accurately fulfilled. This pious and reverend preacher, made up in zeal and fidelity, what he lacked in natural talents or acquired knowledge, and in the plainest and boldest language of reprehension addressed the members of Congress and officers of government present on that occasion. The subject of his discourse was the OBservance of the Sabbath. After enlarging on its prescribed duties, he vehemently declaimed on the neglect of those duties, particularly by the higher classes and in this city, more especially by persons connected with the government. He unshrinkingly taxed those then listening to him, with a desecration of this holy day, by their devoting it to amusement—to visiting and parties, emphatically condemning the dinner-parties given at the white-house, then addressing himself to the members of Congress, accused them of violating the day, by laws they had made, particularly the carrying the mail on the sabbath; he en- numerated the men and horses employed for this purpose through the union and went into details striking and impressive.

"It is not the people who will suffer for these enormities," said he, "you, the law-givers, who are the cause of this crime, will in your public capacity suffer for it. Yes, it is the government that will be punished, and as, with Nineveh of old, it will not be the habitations of the people, but your temples and your palaces that will be burned to the ground; for it is by fire that this sin has usually been punished." He then gave many instances from scripture history in which destruction by fire of cities, dwellings and persons, had been the consequence of violating the Fourth commandment.

At the time this sermon was preached, the most remote apprehension did not exist of a British army ever reaching Washington, although war was impending. His predictions were verified. The Capitol, the President's House, and every building belonging to the government were destroyed and that by fire. Mrs. Madison told me that on her return to the city, after the British had left it, she was standing one day at her sister's door, for she had no house of her own, but until one was provided by the public, resided with her sister, and while there, looking on the devastation that spread around, saw Mr. Brecken- ridge passing along, she called to him and said, "I little thought, Sir, when I heard that threatening sermon of yours, that its denunciation would so soon be realized." "Oh, Madam," he replied, "I trust this chastening of the Lord, may not be in vain."

I am afraid the good man's hopes were never realized, for as far as I recollect, there was not for many, many years afterwards any change in the OBservance of the Sabbath.


1 This was Daniel Carroll, of Duddington Manor; not Daniel Carroll of Upper Marlborough, who signed the constitution, was a member of the first congress and a commissioner of the District. Historians usually confound the two. Mrs. Smith's spelling of proper names and her other spelling also has been preserved in the text.

---------




http://books.google.com/books?id=-TQSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA49&dq=St.+Anne%27s+Episcopal+jefferson+vestry#PPA49,M1


The Rev. Charles Clay followed him. He was near relative of our statesman, Mr. Henry Clay,—prOBably first-cousin,—and inherited no little of his talents and decision of character. He was ordained by the Bishop of London in 1769, and on 22d OctOBer of the same year was received asminister of St. Anne's parish. The vestry-book opens in 1772 and closes in 1785, during all of which time, as well as the three preceding years, Mr. Clay was the minister, living at the glehe, somewhere in the Green Mountain neighbourhood, and preaching at the two churches,—Ballenger and The Forge,—and sometimes at the courthouse, and at various private houses in Albemarle; also, at the Barracks during the war, which was prOBably the place where the British prisoners under General Philips were kept, first by Colonel Bland, and afterward by General Wood. He also preached in Amherst and Chesterfield occasionally. The places of his preaching I ascertain from the notes on a number of his sermons, which have been submitted to my perusal. The sermons are sound, energetic, and evangelical beyond the character of the times. One of them, on the new birth, is most impressive and experimental. Another on the atonement, for Christmas -day, is very excellent as to doctrine, and concludes with a faithful warning against the profanation of that day by " fiddling, dancing, drinking, and such like things," which he said were so common among them.

In the year 1777, on the public fast-day, he preached a sermon to the minute-company at Charlottesville, in which his patriotic spirit was displayed. " Cursed be he (in the course of his sermon he said) who keepeth back his sword from blood in this war." He declared that the " cause of liberty was the cause of God,"—calls upon them to " plead the cause of their country before the Lord with their blood." And yet he said, " There might be some present who would rather bow their necks to the most abject slavery, than face a man in arms." It was at this time and under these circumstances that he became acquainted with Mr. Jefferson, who, having removed into this parish from Fredericksville, was now elected to the vestry of St. Anne's, though it does not appear that he ever acted. This intimacy was kept up until his death in Bedford county, in the year 1824, where he and Mr. Jefferson each had farms, and where, during the visits of the latter, there was much friendly intercourse. During the latter years of his ministry in St. Anne's parish, the connection of Mr. Clay with his vestry was very unhappy. The salary of one year was the occasion of it. There appears to have been some division in the vestry about it. The majority, however, was against Mr. Clay, and a law-suit was the result. The decision was not satisfactory to Mr. Clay, and he refused taking the amount offered, and told the vestry if they would not pay him what he considered right, he would receive none. The vestry ordered Mr. Fry, the collector, to lay it out in a land-warrant, Vol. II.—4

Edited by MaxKennedy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators


You shouldn't judge another man's servant. A substantial amount of what you are saying is wrong factually, and the reason for all this rewrite in the first place is to attack America's founding document and one of the author's of it. Its a way of taking away the worship America gave God in 1776, and they did give it to the God of the Old and New Testament and none other. God Bless America!

And I feel it is my duty to disagre when you claim Ron Paul is a Christian, and if so, he ought to repent for some of the things he is doing. He's been rebuked, but I haven't seen him take it back like a public figure ought to.

Being 'gay' a sin? Ron Paul can't say
Congressman on God condemning homosexuality: 'I have trouble with that'

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=88600

Actually, Max, what you have been saying is wrong factually. It is the result of Reconstructionists who are trying to re-cast our history in some ways. And it is wrong. You might want to be careful about that...

I in no way attack the Declaration, nor the Constitution, nor any of the authors or signers of either. I love both documents and read them. And the writings of the founders, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and even further back. My heritage goes back to the founding of religious liberty in this country. My 11 generations back ggrandfather was one of the first Baptist pastors in this country (before it actually was the US). I personally have a very rich heritage. And I love this country passionately. So - you can think what you want about my reasons, but you'll be wrong...

Judge another man's servant? Nope. Not doing that. I'm basing my knowledge on Jefferson's own writings. *shrugs* And I'm not judging him. Just stating fact. Interesting that you feel it's your duty to disagree (by judging another man's servant...) but I can't. Okay - whatever.

I don't claim that Ron Paul is a Christian. I have said he claims to be. In fact, even though the link you provided says he doesn't claim a denomination, he used to claim to be Baptist. Now, he isn't basing his view of homosexuality on Scripture, and that is dead wrong. But, really, is it any worse than rewriting the Bible to end with Christ's death? Jefferson was dead set against homosexuality (he believed sodomites should be castrated and lesbians should have holes bored into their noses) and that is good. But he didn't believe in the resurrection. And THAT is what is a pre-requisite for salvation. Even homosexuals can come to the saving knowledge of Christ, but they first have to accept that He arose...(and don't go off and say I'm supporting sodomy 'cause I don't!!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Being "enamored" doesn't make you saved, it just makes you religious. But Thomas Jeffererson was certainly "enamored", and
judging if someone else is saved or not is not our jOB.

Oh, but you can say that someone who agrees with Ron Paul isn't saved because they agree with him. And you can claim that it is your duty to disagree that Ron Paul is saved. What hypocrisy again, Max.

And I'm VERY familiar with Wallbuilders. And I'm on the right track already, thank you very much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

FYI

A large contrast between Thomas Jeffererson and Ron Paul.

Not only did Thomas Jefferson know that sodomy was wrong, he wrote a law for punishing it:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html
1788
Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration,
if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.

Thomas Jefferson also included parts of the bible in bills he introduced, including:

Thomas Jefferson and Bills Number 82-86 of the Laws of Virginia, 1776-1786
• A Bill for Religious Freedom
• A Bill for Punishing Disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath Breakers
• A Bill for Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving
• A Bill Annulling Marriages Prohibited by the Levitical Law, and Appointing the Mode of Solemnizing Lawful Marriage

And on..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

FYI

A large contrast between Thomas Jeffererson and Ron Paul.

Not only did Thomas Jefferson know that sodomy was wrong, he wrote a law for punishing it:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html
1788
Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration,
if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.

Thomas Jefferson also included parts of the bible in bills he introduced, including:

Thomas Jefferson and Bills Number 82-86 of the Laws of Virginia, 1776-1786
• A Bill for Religious Freedom
• A Bill for Punishing Disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath Breakers
• A Bill for Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving
• A Bill Annulling Marriages Prohibited by the Levitical Law, and Appointing the Mode of Solemnizing Lawful Marriage

And on..

That doesn't make him a Christian...Don't get me wrong, he did a lot for this country. But you can't make a Christian out of a man who didn't believe Christ rose from the dead. You just cannot.

BTW - let's not cross threads, okay? I know the two have similarities, but let's keep to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Oh, but you can say that someone who agrees with Ron Paul isn't saved because they agree with him. And you can claim that it is your duty to disagree that Ron Paul is saved. What hypocrisy again, Max.

And I'm VERY familiar with Wallbuilders. And I'm on the right track already, thank you very much.


Hypocricy? I've personally argued with his press secretary, who said she was a new age gnostic witch. His campaign manager was a homosexual according to many, Ron Paul says he doesn't "know" that homosexuality is a sin - which is a curse, and I've been famular with the libertarian movement for a long time, and it is filled with those involved in witchcraft, atheists, scorners, and such. OF THOSE HAVE NO COMPANY.

I'm not talking to you anymore. I can see you are not someone I can trust. I am just keeping the warning going. Keep company with actual Christians who walk as such.

FYI - most of the documents I am posting are not from wallbuilders. I actually at this time have more source documents on my harddrive then available from them. HappyChristian, I'm not talking to you anymore. You broke friendship when you insulted me, but it was OBvious you were pushing for something before that - and that is sin, when we put things above actual love. Edited by MaxKennedy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators



Hypocricy? I've personally argued with his press secretary, who said she was a new age gnostic witch. His campaign manager was a homosexual according to many, Ron Paul says he doesn't "know" that homosexuality is a sin - which is a curse, and I've been famular with the libertarian movement for a long time, and it is filled with those involved in witchcraft, atheists, scorners, and such. OF THOSE HAVE NO COMPANY.

I'm not talking to you anymore. I can see you are not someone I can trust. I am just keeping the warning going. Keep company with actual Christians who walk as such.

FYI - most of the documents I am posting are not from wallbuilders. I actually at this time have more source documents on my harddrive then available from them. HappyChristian, I'm not talking to you anymore. You broke friendship when you insulted me, but it was OBvious you were pushing for something before that - and that is sin, when we put things above actual love.

You know what? It's fine that you've talked to his press secretary and all the other. My point was that you keep saying that I am judging a man's salvation - based on his own writings - and that it's wrong, but you do the same thing regarding Ron Paul AND also a member on this forum. You have done what you have told me I shouldn't do. THAT is what my point about the hypocrisy was.

You can't trust me? Well, I'm sorry. But I'm not going to back down from the truth of our history because you want to believe things that aren't true.

Pushing for something? No - I was just having a conversation. Disagreement is part of conversation and learning sometimes. If I didn't care, I would just let you go on believing things that aren't true...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

...

That doesn't make him a Christian...Don't get me wrong, he did a lot for this country. But you can't make a Christian out of a man who didn't believe Christ rose from the dead. You just cannot.

BTW - let's not cross threads, okay? I know the two have similarities, but let's keep to them.


You don't "un" make him a Christian. Also, I think you are sinning unless you have something more in that he didn't believe
Christianity then taking a study list he wrote from Jesus's sermons out of context - because you didn't say he "said that",
you said "he did this with the study guide" and "it means that". But every time he attended church and prayed, he said the other,
so my belief is your judging where the bible says not to. I disagree with your statements, and think you are slandering a dead man.
If he was a religion, I would see some merit in talking about his doctrine if it is false, but what you are arguing about is whether an
individual person really believed what he said he believed. I think this is sin to judge.

A point missed on atheists, if I was arguing with atheists, is if you call yourself a Christian and you are not, does not make
you a deist, it makes you an apostate. A christian apostate, but not a deist. It saddens me that even on a Christian forum
we have the same destruction of our history taught.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You can't trust me? Well, I'm sorry. But I'm not going to back down from the truth of our history because you want to believe things that aren't true.


Truth of history? I'm teaching like it has always been taught all the way until 40 to 60 years ago. I am also not pushing Ron Paul, who I have found is the primary pusher of this rewrite of history among certain conservatives.

You called me a hyocrite. You broke faith right there with me, because I didn't call you any name. Since you don't see anything wrong with what Ron Paul does, I also see somewhat a reason for this. Let me reword that though - I have no interest in talking to you. The bible says to avoid vain discussions like this. If you see me post more on the topic, it isn't for you. I really am only interested in posting original sources. So apart from replying to your last posts - I am just posting for other members. Edited by MaxKennedy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My point was that you keep saying that I am judging a man's salvation - based on his own writings -


You judged that based not on anything he said, but because he wrote a study guide, originally intended for his own use, of all of Jesus's sermons, and because that didn't include Jesus Christ rising, he must not be saved. That isn't a fair judgement, because he didn't say that - you supposed unfairly from what you referenced, which was not suppose to be a copy of the bible.

I am not going to have this discusion with you if someone was "really saved" or not. Thomas Jefferson claimed he was, was in a regular mainstream church, and it is really beneath contempt to have such a discussion even if atheists have taught you can. The bible says we are not to. If anyone had the rule over that man, it was his own church, and he was in good standing. Jesus Christ will judge if Thomas Jefferson is really saved.

Also, I never said or meant to say that Ron Paul was not saved. I said, I had my doubts based on his fruit, and the bible says you will know them by their fruit. Wherever Ron Paul goes, I see a bunch of really apostate people who despise our countries Christian founding. He is certainly not a preacher, and he *is* in sin, because he sees nothing wrong with homosexuality or apparently new agers.

I have "doubts" that a lot of people behind pulpits are saved too. The bible says beware of wolves in sheeps clothing. But they just may be in error.

My take: Thomas Jefferson gets attacked because the evil one wants to take away from the worship America gave God in 1776. Attacking a drafter of the document is one way to do that. Edited by MaxKennedy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A Couple qualifiers for me.

1. I don't like Ron Paul and what he stands for.
2. I have not read this entire thread. Way too long for me.

With that said, I would recommend a big deep breath before posting again.

Max,
She didn't call you a hypocrite, she said there was hypocracy in your post.

I personally know a number of followers of Ron Paul who are most definitively saved. I think they are misguided by his positions, but nevertheless, they are still saved. Salvation is based on repentance and putting your faith in Christ Jesus alone. The only way to know if someone is truly saved is by the fruit they bare.

Pastor J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A Couple qualifiers for me.

1. I don't like Ron Paul and what he stands for.
2. I have not read this entire thread. Way too long for me.

With that said, I would recommend a big deep breath before posting again.

Max,
She didn't call you a hypocrite, she said there was hypocracy in your post.

I personally know a number of followers of Ron Paul who are most definitively saved. I think they are misguided by his positions, but nevertheless, they are still saved. Salvation is based on repentance and putting your faith in Christ Jesus alone. The only way to know if someone is truly saved is by the fruit they bare.

Pastor J.


Well, I'm not for going on with this thread. Its making me dizzy trying to read it and use the editor. There isn't any hypocricy in my posts, I think more is being read in them then should be.

I know Ron Paul pretty well. I voted for him in 1988, used to attend libertarian party meetings in two different cities, and gave an awful lot of money to him last election, and YES I went to his son's Rand Paul's meeting just last night. Seeing all that, I know there are saved people who follow him - maybe there shouldn't be!. I still help out as I feel appropiate DESPITE believing everything I said. I regret wasting as much of my God given talent as I did on that movement or type of it - but I still look in it to see what my pagan neighbors are doing - out of love. I'd be really careful on helping out too much, or it'll end up hurting your Christian goals.

What I did say is: - there are a lot - and I mean a LOT of new agers, occultists, atheists, etc following this man. I also said a couple of days ago it could be good fishing ground.

But politically, God will not bless this because the people doing it by and large are not saved. I had a huge discussion about this on one of their main forums two years ago, which is why I have so many documents about our founding fathers. The majority of them actually despise America's Christian foundings. This is suppose to help? I think not. John Hancock called for fasting and repentence all the time. THAT IS WHAT CAN HELP. That movement is leading people away from the only true source of government in the world. Jesus Christ who sits on his Father's throne.

Yes, his press secretary is a new age gnostic witch. Her last post on the subject was ironically "#666", and I kept it. This was in between the occult book wholesaler, and all the other reprOBates. This nation needs to repent and come to God - and that is what it needs politically too. And *this* isn't it.

FYI - the worldnetdaily link. I gave them the story which they printed. It was right after the other stuff, and I have yet to hear that Ron Paul knows that homosexuality is a sin. I gave them the link because this is a war, and when a leader is leading people astray and saying he doesn't know sodomy is a sin - that is antichrist. Maybe the man will repent, we war against principalities and powers. That is what I am OBjecting to - not the men, and not even the individual sin, but the spirit hovering over it - bitterness and not giving the glory to the Lord. Edited by MaxKennedy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Well, I'm not for going on with this thread. Its making me dizzy trying to read it and use the editor. There isn't any hypocricy in my posts, I think more is being read in them then should be.

I know Ron Paul pretty well. I voted for him in 1988, used to attend libertarian party meetings in two different cities, and gave an awful lot of money to him last election, and YES I went to his son's Rand Paul's meeting just last night. Seeing all that, I know there are saved people who follow him - maybe there shouldn't be!. I still help out as I feel appropiate DESPITE believing everything I said. I regret wasting as much of my God given talent as I did on that movement or type of it - but I still look in it to see what my pagan neighbors are doing - out of love. I'd be really careful on helping out too much, or it'll end up hurting your Christian goals.

What I did say is: - there are a lot - and I mean a LOT of new agers, occultists, atheists, etc following this man. I also said a couple of days ago it could be good fishing ground.

But politically, God will not bless this because the people doing it by and large are not saved. I had a huge discussion about this on one of their main forums two years ago, which is why I have so many documents about our founding fathers. The majority of them actually despise America's Christian foundings. This is suppose to help? I think not. John Hancock called for fasting and repentence all the time. THAT IS WHAT CAN HELP. That movement is leading people away from the only true source of government in the world. Jesus Christ who sits on his Father's throne.

Yes, his press secretary is a new age gnostic witch. Her last post on the subject was ironically "#666", and I kept it. This was in between the occult book wholesaler, and all the other reprOBates. This nation needs to repent and come to God - and that is what it needs politically too. And *this* isn't it.

FYI - the worldnetdaily link. I gave them the story which they printed. It was right after the other stuff, and I have yet to hear that Ron Paul knows that homosexuality is a sin. I gave them the link because this is a war, and when a leader is leading people astray and saying he doesn't know sodomy is a sin - that is antichrist. Maybe the man will repent, we war against principalities and powers. That is what I am OBjecting to - not the men, and not even the individual sin, but the spirit hovering over it - bitterness and not giving the glory to the Lord.


The religion of his press secretary has nothing to do with the religion of the Congressman or anyone who votes for him. You can't discriminate based on religion when hiring for govt jOBs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...