Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JerryNumbers

Angry Ron Paul Defends Ground Zero Mosque

Recommended Posts




Read your KJB and you'll learn there is not a difference in matters of church and matters of state when it comes to being a Christian and living according to the Word of God.

Also, if you read the writings and speeches of the Founders you will learn their main purpose for the First Amendment was for the free excercise of Christianity without any denomination having dominion or government support over the others. In their writings they often used the term religion interchangably with Christianity.


John, I've said it before, I'll say it again, many there be that feel the Christians behavior is different within the church than it is in the world, that is they walk by one set of rules in church, leaving them at the door as they exit church, them abide by a different set of rules.

That is much like a member of the churches of Christ stated, "The Bible is for church and home, we are to leave it in our church and home, and not carry its way into the world as we leave our church & or home. I have come to notice on thing about those who feel this way, they are real friendly with the world, that is seem more concerned about matters of the world than matter of God.

2Ti 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Lu 8:14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.

2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

Mt 13:22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

Jas 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Yes, many there be that entangled them self in the cares of this world.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Read your KJB and you'll learn there is not a difference in matters of church and matters of state when it comes to being a Christian and living according to the Word of God.

Also, if you read the writings and speeches of the Founders you will learn their main purpose for the First Amendment was for the free excercise of Christianity without any denomination having dominion or government support over the others. In their writings they often used the term religion interchangably with Christianity.


I do read my Bible - a few versions actually.

And I've read and studied the writings of the founders. The thing is they were pretty smart and had a way with words. They knew how things were across the pond and if they had wanted to say Christianity they would have. If they had wanted to make this country a haven for Christians of different denominations they would have said that. But they didn't. They chose to advocate for religious freedom because they realized how terrible it is to be persecuted for a religious belief no matter what that belief is. This isn't a theocracy. Original intent won't hold water here.


John, I've said it before, I'll say it again, many there be that feel the Christians behavior is different within the church than it is in the world, that is they walk by one set of rules in church, leaving them at the door as they exit church, them abide by a different set of rules.

That is much like a member of the churches of Christ stated, "The Bible is for church and home, we are to leave it in our church and home, and not carry its way into the world as we leave our church & or home. I have come to notice on thing about those who feel this way, they are real friendly with the world, that is seem more concerned about matters of the world than matter of God.

2Ti 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Lu 8:14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.

2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

Mt 13:22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

Jas 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Yes, many there be that entangled them self in the cares of this world.


My behavior isn't different in church than it is elsewhere. Also, I don't abide by a set of "rules" I abide by God's grace.

The reason I say that church and state are different is because they are. The government is not a church. I am not going to use the government to force my religion or my religious beliefs and preferences on people. That is neither biblical, reasonable, or acceptable. People who want to use the government to oppose the building of a mosque are doing just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a sad truth Jerry. I've heard many professing Christians say Christianity is for Sunday and church, not for the workplace or voting booth or when going out to have fun.

Scripture does indeed teach otherwise. We are to give up our whole lives to Christ. In fact, we are told to die to self.

American Christians especially seem to want to have everything their own way, including their religion. They don't want the Jesus of the Bible, they want a Jesus that will make sure they get to heaven but won't bother them with however they want to live their lives now.

We would do well to remember that Scripture says FEW will be saved while MANY will spend eternity in Hell.

If one is unwilling to truly make Christ Lord of their lives then they would be wise to study the Word to see if they are even saved or not.

The old words, "better safe than sorry", could apply no more importantly anywhere than here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



My behavior isn't different in church than it is elsewhere. Also, I don't abide by a set of "rules" I abide by God's grace.




We are saved by grace and the proof of our salvation is that we have accepted Christ as Lord and OBey His Word. We are commanded to abide in His Word. It's His Word that gives us the commands Christ says we are to keep and that if we do indeed love Him, we will keep His commandments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CPR is correct, church and government are two different things. But this country has historically abided by Biblical principles...

Most people are not opposing the building of the mosque. They are opposed to the LOCATION. If the mosque were moved I doubt there would be any outcry (and that would be a shame considering that it will be funded by terrorists in large part...which removes any Constitutional protection). But they don't want to move it - they aren't truly interested in fosterting good will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Church and government are different entities but Christians are to be consistent in their walk with Christ whether in matters dealing with government, church or otherwise.

As LuAnne has rightly pointed out, Islam is not just some other religion. Islam is a political-religious entity which has as its stated goal the domination of every country, every people, of the entire earth. This goal is to be accomplished by every means, not only including by getting folks to voluntarily convert, but by means of deception and force of violence. Their means for accomplishing world domination include the mass murder of all who refuse to become Muslim.

Several former Muslims have come forth pointing out these facts yet the mainstream media doesn't want to give them air time.

If you were to start a religion called Org and had written in your "holy book" that everyone must become Orgites or be put to death and the ultimate aim of your religion is the total domination of the world, the overthrow of every non-Org nation and every non-Org government to be replaced by Org governance based upon Orgish law, would such be considered a valid religion or a threat to society, national security and world peace?

Meanwhile, people ignore the fact Islam teaches these very things. Islam teaches that every non-Muslim nation must be overthrown and made into a Muslim nation under Sharia law.

One Egyptian who was a former Muslim, now a follower of Christ by the grace of God, has pointed out just how militant Islam is and has declared Islam should be outlawed as a subversive threat to the nation.

Islam is not some peaceful religion seeking to help people find God. Islam is a militant political-religious entity determined to make the entire world Muslim using how ever much force and murder necessary, and is a far greater threat than ever was Nazism or Communism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The likes of this is happening across the land wherever Muslims become a large enough percentage they feel they can push.

Schools and businesses have been pressured to provide prayer rooms and give prayer time to Muslims and provide special accomodations for their Ramadan.

In some cities with high numbers of Muslims there is pressure being asserted to allow Muslims to live and be subject to a separate, local court system based upon Sharia law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is real revolt coming and most will never see it until it blindsides them.


Such is usually the case. Even when things seem to point to such, most people at the time think it won't happen yet. Typically when it does, it turns out to be much more widespread and worse than anyone anticipated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I've read and studied the writings of the founders. The thing is they were pretty smart and had a way with words. They knew how things were across the pond and if they had wanted to say Christianity they would have. If they had wanted to make this country a haven for Christians of different denominations they would have said that. But they didn't. They chose to advocate for religious freedom because they realized how terrible it is to be persecuted for a religious belief no matter what that belief is. This isn't a theocracy. Original intent won't hold water here.


All the writers of the Declaration of Independence where Christians, 6-7 at least were professional preachers, a lot more where raised and taught by family members who were preachers,and the secretary of that congress who took all the notes and is also on the Declaration later used his writing skills to put out one of the most preminent OT NT bibles of that time (1800).

Also, most of the Constitutions of the Independent States made during 1776 onwards required you to be a Christian, including the one in Philedelphia which was signed by Benjamin Franklin as president, so you are completely wrong. You couldn't even hold office unless you were a Christian.

You're confusing "non-denominational", which the founders were, with "non Christian". I don't doubt by reading the approved and edited reading of history, you would come to that conclusion - but our greatest enemey right now is Marxists. I've actually read a lot of the original documents at that time, and did not use ones that modern historians put in front of me.

You couldn't hold office in most if not all the states if you were not Christian. The revolution wasn't a marxist one. In the words of Samuel Adams, their forebears overthrew the popery of religion, and can you now overthrow the popery of politics (divine rights of Kings).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many court cases have further defined eminent domain, we could prOBably argue what was originally intended forever. What it was most certainly never intended to do was "keep the peace." Public benefit is the overarching principle. Let me assure you, if eminent domain is used in an attempt to put an end to this issue people will will not be happy for all kinds of reasons. Muslims, Constitutional scholars, Americans who know their country is better than that, New Yorkers, you name it they will be outraged. And rightfully so.


You're too argumentive about wordly issues, I think. I know God will bring peace to the issue, but not from unbelievers. One nation under God is the song I'm singing. God bless America - and fyi Jesus rules on His Father's throne right now. I'm not letting these messages interfere with my prayers, or think that other than "You and God are a majority" is true.

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Matthew 6:33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



All the writers of the Declaration of Independence where Christians, 6-7 at least were professional preachers, a lot more where raised and taught by family members who were preachers,and the secretary of that congress who took all the notes and is also on the Declaration later used his writing skills to put out one of the most preminent OT NT bibles of that time (1800).

Also, most of the Constitutions of the Independent States made during 1776 onwards required you to be a Christian, including the one in Philedelphia which was signed by Benjamin Franklin as president, so you are completely wrong. You couldn't even hold office unless you were a Christian.

You're confusing "non-denominational", which the founders were, with "non Christian". I don't doubt by reading the approved and edited reading of history, you would come to that conclusion - but our greatest enemey right now is Marxists. I've actually read a lot of the original documents at that time, and did not use ones that modern historians put in front of me.

You couldn't hold office in most if not all the states if you were not Christian. The revolution wasn't a marxist one. In the words of Samuel Adams, their forebears overthrew the popery of religion, and can you now overthrow the popery of politics (divine rights of Kings).


I'm not completely wrong at all.

Some state Constitutions required office holders to profess a belief in God or a higher power (usually by swearing an oath of "so help me God"), but many of those didn't even require Christianity, they required a belief in God. Even so, the Constitution has a no religious test clause that states that there is no religious requirement for federal office.

Congrats on reading some original documents. Most people over high school age have. I spent a good part of college studying primary political documents, so I am am a little more well versed than a chapter in a random history book.

Oh, and many of the founders, most notably Benjamin Franklin, were Deists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not completely wrong at all.

Some state Constitutions required office holders to profess a belief in God or a higher power (usually by swearing an oath of "so help me God"), but many of those didn't even require Christianity, they required a belief in God. Even so, the Constitution has a no religious test clause that states that there is no religious requirement for federal office.

Congrats on reading some original documents. Most people over high school age have. I spent a good part of college studying primary political documents, so I am am a little more well versed than a chapter in a random history book.

Oh, and many of the founders, most notably Benjamin Franklin, were Deists.


Ok, since this is a Ron Paul thread, I'm guessing you are not a Christian, but a Ron Paulist. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. I'll post on it at some later time - at my leisure, and mostly for the actual Christians here who are my true brothers, but I have no time for the games of the world - I can repeat things too.

a) Benjamin Frankling wasn't a deist. He actually denounced it in autOBiography, because before he was saved in his youth, he was at one time. However, he was a regular church goer, gave advice to his daughter on attending church, has a number of faith based quotes made in his old age at the constitutional convention, and could not have held office under his *own* constitution, which required you to be a Christian and believe in the divine inspiration of the old and new testaments.

B) The constitutions of the states required a lot more than that. They required the old and new testament. They didn't require religious tests for certain denominations, that is true, but it is certainly untrue to claim they were deists, atheists, or any of the other bunk being pushed down American's throats. God forbid its forced on us much longer! Amen.

c) I am considerably above the high school level. Attacks on believers as being "stupid" are trite, especially here.

Friend, considering C, I'm asking you - which God are you really following? It seems to be the God of numbers and of this World. Does it really offend you so much that Godly men founded this country, and not ones like youself?

Let me quote Benjamin Franklin just once to consider something:

"In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have OBserved frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it prOBable that an empire can rise without his aid?

To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it prOBable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service-"

The men of the founding of this country knew that *they* didn't win the war, God did.

The bitternest I am seeing in your writing suggests to me that you don't know it. You don't seem confident that God answers prayers, and
that God rules, and are politically bitter. I am aware of how compelling the devil is in this area, but would not life be easier
for you to believe God and be at peace with yourself?

First and foremost in this country, the way many people in this country today are not like are founders is they do not get on their knees and pray to God. God is our hope and salvation.
If you will humble yourself in prayer, God will have mercy and answer you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I'm not completely wrong at all.

Some state Constitutions required office holders to profess a belief in God or a higher power (usually by swearing an oath of "so help me God"), but many of those didn't even require Christianity, they required a belief in God. Even so, the Constitution has a no religious test clause that states that there is no religious requirement for federal office.

Congrats on reading some original documents. Most people over high school age have. I spent a good part of college studying primary political documents, so I am am a little more well versed than a chapter in a random history book.

Oh, and many of the founders, most notably Benjamin Franklin, were Deists.


You should read the originals from the various States. They didn't require a belief in some generic god or "higher power", they outright required a professed faith in Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, there were only 5 writers of the Declaration - Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, R. Livingston and R. Sherman.

Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. Unless a Christian can ignore the resurrection of Christ? In the Bible Jefferson "wrote," he ended with the stone being rolled over the tomb.

John Adams was a Unitarian. The Adams' were moral people, but last I checked, Christians believe in a triune God (Unitarians don't accept Christ as the Son of God in the way the Bible teaches...)

I've never heard that Franklin was saved as a youngster. If he was, he was quite the backslidden womanizer...having more than one child out of wedlock, and affairs on both sides of the pond.

The drafters of the Constitution were a mixed bag of beliefs. There were many who were actually Christians (Geo. Wn. among them). Although they weren't all Christians, the atmosphere in this country at the time was one in which even the lost recognized the hand of God and His power.

The Constitution was not designed as a religious document. It was designed as a document to restrain federal government intrusion into state and personal matters. However, it was noted by many that some rights, being not enumerated, could be abused if the federal govt grew (like it has...and is ignoring those enumerated rights...). That was the reason for the Bill of Rights. #1 was pushed by the Baptists - not to ensure that the Baptist belief was the only one, but to ensure that the atmosphere of religious liberty remained.

The founders by and large believed that muslims were covered by that same religious liberty. And they are. My real disagreement with Ron Paul on this issue is the fact that, this being a political religion, there should be examination of the funding. The imam has been open about the fact that monies will be received from countries that harbor terrorists. As such, the federal government has a responsibility to the American people to investigate and stop the building of this mosque if there is terrorist money involved.

The mosque should also be moved to a different location. If this imam is truly interested in promoting goodwill, that is what he would do...

Let's stop, however, questioning a person's salvation because they think differently from us, okay? Unless they deny that Christ is the Son of God, crucified for our sins and resurrected in body (oh, kinda like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, etc...) there is no ground for questioning their salvation. Got it? Thanks.

(FWIW - Ron Paul is a Christian. He's actually a Baptist, too. He's also a completey strict Constitutionalist)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that so many people think they should have the freedom to do that which they want to?

There is no such thing in a country that has laws that its people will have the freedom to do as they please, many times the word no has to be said when one wants to do something in order to protect its citizens.

And this country cannot afford to give the Muslims a free reign, for they are not a religion of peace loving people, but a religion of forcing their religion on all & or murdering them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, there were only 5 writers of the Declaration - Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, R. Livingston and R. Sherman.

Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. Unless a Christian can ignore the resurrection of Christ? In the Bible Jefferson "wrote," he ended with the stone being rolled over the tomb.

John Adams was a Unitarian. The Adams' were moral people, but last I checked, Christians believe in a triune God (Unitarians don't accept Christ as the Son of God in the way the Bible teaches...)

I've never heard that Franklin was saved as a youngster. If he was, he was quite the backslidden womanizer...having more than one child out of wedlock, and affairs on both sides of the pond.

(FWIW - Ron Paul is a Christian. He's actually a Baptist, too. He's also a completey strict Constitutionalist)


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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*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. You can't have a lawful assembly without the Bible as the sole rule of faith and government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI - Thomas Jefferson's "bible" was originally intended as a bible aid *for himself* and I have read his own introduction saying as much. But it is interesting that the NIV does the same thing in Mark. The NIV deletes the gospel out of Mark, and it isn't intended as just a list of Jesus's sermons, but an actual bible for distribution.

You can repeat it as much as you want (but I will keep repeating too), but this is the number one reason I will not fellowship with the Ron Paul crowd. They distort American history as much as marxists, seeking to elimate all Christianity in it. Which is impossible, because God founded the country.

They were all heavily Christians, and the more I looked at the liar - who is Satan, and not the people who he may be blinding, the more I discovered how big the lie was. One of the men that served on our supreme court, for instance, was being slandered as a deist, and he wrote a legal history tracing our law right back to the Holy Bible. When you lie, lie big apparently. I have a copy of that book, you can get it off google books, and will post sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read the originals from the various States. They didn't require a belief in some generic god or "higher power", they outright required a professed faith in Jesus Christ.


I know. In fact, it is important to find brothers to talk about such with sometime, and not have unbelievers around, because there is *so much* that the founders believed and wrote, that you never talk about anything deep when you have scorners and mockers around.

I won't hang out with Ron Paul people because they relentlessly attack our Christian roots. Some of it is purposful, I suppose, with the occult or homosexual people being involved in their campaign. It reminds me a little bit of lying, like you have to believe marxists or us, but whichever you believe, you can't believe Jesus Christ, the one that rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 37 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...