Liberty News Forum
Political News Forum - Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. Not for wimps!
Political Opinion Page - Recent Posts - LNF Forums LNF in the Age of Empowerment!
Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Entertainment - Sports Forum
Military - A1 News Page - Computers Tech - Financial News - Bunker - Presidential Tracking Poll
The House - Off the Wall News - Page 2 - Rasmussen Reports Polls - Chat Room
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HereChristian Forum › Jesus on Money
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Jesus on Money (Read 930 times)
Seawolf
LNF Moderator
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 20,588
Joined: Oct 31st, 2011
Gender: Male
Re: Jesus on Money
Reply #20 - Jul 16th, 2017 at 2:42pm
Print Post  
Washington was by no means Gnostic as was claimed and was a devout follower.  I think you may be a bit deceived in what I am saying, no one was perfect in their walk but one.  Washington was viewed as a Godly man and VERY, VERY humble as was evident in his final speech and refusal to turn the Presidency into some sort of Monarch.  He believed in Divine Providence and tell me, who would not based on his experience on the field of battle.

  He witnessed time and time again God's intervention.  Looking at it from a rag tag force going against the world's most powerful military force and winning, he understood it was by Divine Providence.  His life was a testament to this.  There simply is no other way to understand how they accomplished such a fantastic feat.  He had no desire to be a leader of a nation but felt compelled to lead the people and that is what sets Washington apart from so many other great leaders, he was humble.

  This is what I have learned in reading about the man and boy if we could not use someone in the Presidency who had these qualities.  It was not taught to me as a child and to me that is the tragedy of our culture today.  If I recall correctly, 50 of the 55 signers were professed Christians and yes, there were some who would not believers but it was not many.  After all, the reason many were here was to flee the religious persecution.
« Last Edit: Jul 16th, 2017 at 2:48pm by Seawolf »  


"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Charles Carroll, signer of the DOI
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Seawolf
LNF Moderator
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 20,588
Joined: Oct 31st, 2011
Gender: Male
Re: Jesus on Money
Reply #21 - Jul 16th, 2017 at 2:50pm
Print Post  
Let's be honest Elmer, there is absolutely nothing to be ashamed about, having Godly men who felt compelled to establish a form of government that protected our God given rights.  They wanted to maximize our freedoms while honoring God, understand that their culture and faith was far more different then ours is today.  You and I did not have to live under the rule of tyranny as they did so it's hard for both of us to fully grasp where we came from and what was accomplished. I am aware of just how fortunate I am to live in a nation that offers me such freedoms, even if it is diminishing now.
  


"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Charles Carroll, signer of the DOI
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EF
LNF House Leader
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
****
Offline


Posts: 8,065
Joined: Jan 21st, 2012
Re: Jesus on Money
Reply #22 - Jul 16th, 2017 at 7:08pm
Print Post  
Seawolf wrote on Jul 16th, 2017 at 2:50pm:
Let's be honest Elmer, there is absolutely nothing to be ashamed about, having Godly men who felt compelled to establish a form of government that protected our God given rights.  They wanted to maximize our freedoms while honoring God, understand that their culture and faith was far more different then ours is today.  You and I did not have to live under the rule of tyranny as they did so it's hard for both of us to fully grasp where we came from and what was accomplished. I am aware of just how fortunate I am to live in a nation that offers me such freedoms, even if it is diminishing now.


I cannot believe you think I am ashamed about "having Godly men who felt compelled to establish a form of government that protected our God given rights."  Nor am I ashamed that maybe some non-Godly men were involved in it.  But I would offer these additional comments:

1.  Being Godly is not the same as being a Christian.  There are many men whose actions and thoughts are Godly by the definition of mankind who are not Christian. 
2.   I think you are "looking through a glass darkly" with this comment: "I am aware of how fortunate I am to live in a nation that offers me such freedoms, even if it's diminishing now." It betrays your once almost-devotion to all things Glenn Beck. Quit listening to button pushers on talk radio!
3.   It's true that the people who came here first did so to escape religious persecution.  But the flip side of that was they didn't want to do away with it - they just wanted to be on the dishing out side rather than the receiving side.
4.   Many (if not a majority) of people professing to be Christians are not.  Thomas Jefferson, for example.  He said he considered himself a Christian in the only sense that mattered (attempting to follow Jesus's teachings) but expressed serious doubts about His divinity.  I would say the Book clearly says that doubting His divinity means you ain't one no matter what you say otherwise. 
5.   But if, as you say, 50 of 55 were professing Christians, that only reinforces the point I am making - they were NOT founding a "Christian nation."  They debated that very topic and rejected it, for crying out loud! 
6.   And there is a 1797 treaty, approved by the Senate (which included people who were founders) that has this sentence:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


  

non sumus stulti
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Seawolf
LNF Moderator
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 20,588
Joined: Oct 31st, 2011
Gender: Male
Re: Jesus on Money
Reply #23 - Jul 17th, 2017 at 6:38am
Print Post  
EF wrote on Jul 16th, 2017 at 7:08pm:
 
6.   And there is a 1797 treaty, approved by the Senate (which included people who were founders) that has this sentence:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.




In an attempt to secure a release of the kidnapped seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate terms with those Muslim nations. 6 They reached several treaties of “Peace and Amity” with the Muslim Barbary 7 powers to ensure “protection” of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean, 8 but because America had no navy and no threat of any power against the Muslims, the terms of the treaties were particularly unfavorable for America. Sometimes she was required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (tens of millions in today’s money) of “tribute” (i.e., official extortion) to each Muslim country to receive a “guarantee” of no attacks. Sometimes the Muslims also demanded additional “considerations” – such as building and providing a warship as a “gift” to Tripoli, 9 a “gift” frigate to Algiers, 10 paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, 11 etc.

In those treaties, America inserted various declarations attempting to convince the Muslims that as Christians, we were not pursuing a “jihad” against them – that we were engaged in a war on the basis of our religion or theirs. For example, in the 1784 treaty negotiated by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that eventually ended Moroccan hostilities against the United States, three separate clauses acknowledged the conflict as being one between Muslim and Christian powers; 12 and the 1795 Treaty with Algiers contained similar acknowledgments. 13 In fact, a subsequent treaty with Algiers even stipulated what would occur if captured America (or European) Christian seamen escaped from Algiers and found refuge on any of our ships:

    If . . . any Christians whatsoever, captives in Algiers, make their escape and take refuge on board any of the ships of war, they shall not be required back again nor shall the consul of the United States or commanders of said ships be required to pay anything for the said Christians. As the government of America has, in itself, no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of any nation, and as the said states have never entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility except in defense of their just rights on the high seas, it is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two nations; and the consuls and agents of both nations hall have liberty to celebrate the rites of their respective religions in their own houses. 14

America regularly attempted to assure the Muslims that as Christians, we had no religious hatred of them – that we had “no enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility” of the Muslims, and that our substantial differences of “religious opinions shall [n]ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two nations.” Furthermore, we inserted specific clauses into the treaties to ensure that our Christian diplomats in their Muslim nations could practice their Christian faith, just as their Muslim diplomats in America could practice their Muslim faith. 15 Very simply, using multiple clauses, we attempted to reassure them that we were not like the Period II Christian nations that had attacked them simply because they were Muslims; America was not – and never had been – a party to any such religious war.

The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was just one of the many treaties in which each country recognized the religion of the other, and in which America invoked rhetoric designed to prevent a “Holy War” between Christians and Muslims. 16 Article XI of that treaty therefore stated:

    As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. 17

Critics end the sentence after the words “Christian religion,” thus placing a period in the middle of a sentence where no punctuation currently exists, stopping the sentence in mid-thought. However, when Article XI is read in its entirety and its thought concluded where the punctuation so indicates, then the article simply assures Tripoli that we were not one of the Christian nations with an inherent hostility against Muslims and that we would not allow differences in our “religious opinions” to lead to hostility.



https://
« Last Edit: Jul 17th, 2017 at 7:01am by Seawolf »  


"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Charles Carroll, signer of the DOI
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Seawolf
LNF Moderator
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 20,588
Joined: Oct 31st, 2011
Gender: Male
Re: Jesus on Money
Reply #24 - Jul 17th, 2017 at 6:46am
Print Post  
EF wrote on Jul 16th, 2017 at 7:08pm:
I cannot believe you think I am ashamed about "having Godly men who felt compelled to establish a form of government that protected our God given rights."  Nor am I ashamed that maybe some non-Godly men were involved in it.  But I would offer these additional comments:

1.  Being Godly is not the same as being a Christian.  There are many men whose actions and thoughts are Godly by the definition of mankind who are not Christian. 
2.   I think you are "looking through a glass darkly" with this comment: "I am aware of how fortunate I am to live in a nation that offers me such freedoms, even if it's diminishing now." It betrays your once almost-devotion to all things Glenn Beck. Quit listening to button pushers on talk radio!
3.   It's true that the people who came here first did so to escape religious persecution.  But the flip side of that was they didn't want to do away with it - they just wanted to be on the dishing out side rather than the receiving side.
4.   Many (if not a majority) of people professing to be Christians are not.  Thomas Jefferson, for example.  He said he considered himself a Christian in the only sense that mattered (attempting to follow Jesus's teachings) but expressed serious doubts about His divinity.  I would say the Book clearly says that doubting His divinity means you ain't one no matter what you say otherwise. 
5.   But if, as you say, 50 of 55 were professing Christians, that only reinforces the point I am making - they were NOT founding a "Christian nation."  They debated that very topic and rejected it, for crying out loud! 
6.   And there is a 1797 treaty, approved by the Senate (which included people who were founders) that has this sentence:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.




They debated and rejected it?  Rejected what, that they would not be led by Christian principals or that we would not be a theocracy?  Do you have some quotes to clarify your remarks?  I have already cited off the top of my head three signers and their opinions regarding the blessing of God on our nation and the importance of Christian morals in our government.  Take for instance the whole argument regarding Jefferson and his letter to the Danburry church where some argue he was defining that church has no place in our governing.

  The problem with that scenario is the context of the letter and who instigated the conversation, which then clarifies which party had what concern.  The letter was instigated by the church, so what was their fear or concern?  Well, if you read the letter they were concerned that the government would be involved in their private affairs, not the other way around as too many today believe.  Up till over 50 years ago that letter was frequently used by the courts to defend the church against the Federal intrusion.  So what changed 50 years ago to alter the intent of the letter?  Similar to your point regarding the treaty of 1797 context is important.
  


"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Charles Carroll, signer of the DOI
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EF
LNF House Leader
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
****
Offline


Posts: 8,065
Joined: Jan 21st, 2012
Re: Jesus on Money
Reply #25 - Jul 18th, 2017 at 11:36am
Print Post  
Seawolf wrote on Jul 17th, 2017 at 6:46am:
They debated and rejected it?  Rejected what, that they would not be led by Christian principals or that we would not be a theocracy?  Do you have some quotes to clarify your remarks?  I have already cited off the top of my head three signers and their opinions regarding the blessing of God on our nation and the importance of Christian morals in our government.  Take for instance the whole argument regarding Jefferson and his letter to the Danburry church where some argue he was defining that church has no place in our governing.

  The problem with that scenario is the context of the letter and who instigated the conversation, which then clarifies which party had what concern.  The letter was instigated by the church, so what was their fear or concern?  Well, if you read the letter they were concerned that the government would be involved in their private affairs, not the other way around as too many today believe.  Up till over 50 years ago that letter was frequently used by the courts to defend the church against the Federal intrusion.  So what changed 50 years ago to alter the intent of the letter?  Similar to your point regarding the treaty of 1797 context is important.


Been out of pocket for a few days.  I was getting my stuff together to respond but then decided to follow some advice I have heard over the years, to wit:

1.  Discretion is the better part of valor,
2.  Never argue over theology or politics, and, my favorite,
3.  Not every ditch is worth dying in.

Obviously I don't always follow item 2.  If I did, there'd be no point to belonging to a forum like this. 

So will leave it at this: there is NO WAY context changes what this phrase, from the treaty to which I referred, means:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
  (emphasis added)


  

non sumus stulti
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BowHunter
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Online


Posts: 16,939
Location: America
Joined: Dec 5th, 2013
Gender: Male
Re: Jesus on Money
Reply #26 - Jul 18th, 2017 at 11:50am
Print Post  
EF wrote on Jul 18th, 2017 at 11:36am:
...
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
  (emphasis added)





That doesn't leave much room for ambiguity.
  

Non sequitur:

Rodney Your Teas Ready wrote on Mar 2nd, 2017 at 4:30am:
... that has less power than a hair dryer used by a eunuch.



Rabbit_Reborn wrote on Feb 5th, 2017 at 5:40pm:
...that makes me a moron.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EF
LNF House Leader
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
****
Offline


Posts: 8,065
Joined: Jan 21st, 2012
Re: Jesus on Money
Reply #27 - Jul 18th, 2017 at 1:19pm
Print Post  
BowHunter wrote on Jul 18th, 2017 at 11:50am:
That doesn't leave much room for ambiguity.


It doesn't leave any.  Yet, there it is.
  

non sumus stulti
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Seawolf
LNF Moderator
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 20,588
Joined: Oct 31st, 2011
Gender: Male
Re: Jesus on Money
Reply #28 - Jul 18th, 2017 at 7:12pm
Print Post  
EF wrote on Jul 18th, 2017 at 11:36am:
Been out of pocket for a few days.  I was getting my stuff together to respond but then decided to follow some advice I have heard over the years, to wit:

1.  Discretion is the better part of valor,
2.  Never argue over theology or politics, and, my favorite,
3.  Not every ditch is worth dying in.

Obviously I don't always follow item 2.  If I did, there'd be no point to belonging to a forum like this. 

So will leave it at this: there is NO WAY context changes what this phrase, from the treaty to which I referred, means:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
  (emphasis added)




You quoted half of the sentence which supports what the author points out.  If that was all it said you would be correct. 

I have  enjoyed our conversation, it has been a very long time since I have had this debate.  Anyway, we may have to disagree but is that rare?   Wink
  


"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Charles Carroll, signer of the DOI
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EF
LNF House Leader
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
****
Offline


Posts: 8,065
Joined: Jan 21st, 2012
Re: Jesus on Money
Reply #29 - Jul 19th, 2017 at 10:34am
Print Post  
Seawolf wrote on Jul 18th, 2017 at 7:12pm:
You quoted half of the sentence which supports what the author points out.  If that was all it said you would be correct. 

I have  enjoyed our conversation, it has been a very long time since I have had this debate.  Anyway, we may have to disagree but is that rare?   Wink


No, it's not rare that we'll disagree.  What the author to whom you are referring fails to recognize is the plain meaning of the phrase "in any sense."  It does not matter what comes before it or after it.  It still means what it says: "in any sense."  Another way to say that is "in no sense."  That leaves nothing on the table.

  

non sumus stulti
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
Send TopicPrint
 
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HereChristian Forum › Jesus on Money

LNF Home - Political Opinion Page
LNF Forums

Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Sports Forum - Entertainment - House
Military, History - Cooking and Crafts - Creative Writing
Off the Wall News - Science Forum - Tech Gadgets - Financial News - Humor
Bunker - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Chat Room





Drudge Report - News Max - Rush Limbaugh - FrontpageMag
Advertise on the LNF - Twitter LNF - LNF Archive - LNF News
LNF Blog
News and Political Links
Political Blogs
Add your website or blog
Political Columnists
Political Humor
News forum posting, privacy policy and member rules