Where Americas Founders Deists or Christians or Something Else?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
38,393
13,768
113
#81

GWH

Groovy
Oct 19, 2024
2,971
675
113
#82
America is not just a melting pot of people, but also a melting pot of denominations - - this has been both good and bad: theology has been free to expand, but it's also been free to stray from orthodoxy into heresy and give rise to various cults
Yes, which topic is being presented on the KISSed HOB thread.
 

ThereRoseaLamb

Well-known member
Jan 17, 2023
5,326
2,325
113
#83
how many of mr. Washingtons private wishes actually matter with respect to american culture and the structure of her government?

i hereby dedicate Zanzibar to God.
have i affected anything?
Zanzibar, isn't that where they are Joe Bidens uncle?
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
62,584
31,441
113
#84
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' Preamble refers to "the supremacy of God".

The Canadian national anthem in both official languages refers to God.

 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
38,393
13,768
113
#85
Zanzibar, isn't that where they are Joe Bidens uncle?
Zanzibar, Zanzibar,
Zanzibar is very far
You can’t get there in a car
It’s too far to Zanzibar


Zanzibar, they don’t have tar
To put on roads to drive their cars
Men and women smoke cigars
There’s no tar in Zanzibar


In Zanzibar, they grow cloves
What they’re for, I don’t know
Maybe they put ‘em between their toes
In Zanzibar, they grow cloves


In Zanzibar, they grow ground nuts
People who grow them live in huts
In Zanzibar there’s sugar cane
To grow it they need lots of rain


In Zanzibar, they grow tea
Far away across the sea
Off the coast of Afriki
In Zanzibar, they grow tea


Zanzibar, Zanzibar,
Zanzibar is very far
You can’t get there in a car
It’s too far to Zanzibar


- Bill Harley
 

shittim

Senior Member
Dec 16, 2016
14,279
8,094
113
#86
how many of mr. Washingtons private wishes actually matter with respect to american culture and the structure of her government?

i hereby dedicate Zanzibar to God.
have i affected anything?[/QUOT
You haven't but a Godly might have.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
38,393
13,768
113
#87
we do well to remember the word of God, that He alone is who sanctifies, not men.

Isaiah 40:17​
All nations before Him [are] as nothing, And they are counted by Him less than nothing and worthless.
 

shittim

Senior Member
Dec 16, 2016
14,279
8,094
113
#88
old covenant, in Christ ALL things are new.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,678
3,791
113
#89
When the founders refer to "God" or "Providence," they're talking about a God of their understanding; not unlike in all the recovery programs. In those groups they refer to God constantly, it doesn't mean they know the true God or understand the gospel. I've been in recovery programs where they say it doesn't matter; the God of your understanding can be a lamp post, so long as it's your higher power.

The first arrivals in the "new world" were Christians; but they weren't the ones who ended up deciding how the new nation would be governed. Those people's ideas about God were all over the place; and they clearly had no intention of founding another nation ruled by a Christian monarch.
 

Aaron56

Well-known member
Jul 12, 2021
3,229
1,887
113
#90
When the founders refer to "God" or "Providence," they're talking about a God of their understanding; not unlike in all the recovery programs. In those groups they refer to God constantly, it doesn't mean they know the true God or understand the gospel. I've been in recovery programs where they say it doesn't matter; the God of your understanding can be a lamp post, so long as it's your higher power.

The first arrivals in the "new world" were Christians; but they weren't the ones who ended up deciding how the new nation would be governed. Those people's ideas about God were all over the place; and they clearly had no intention of founding another nation ruled by a Christian monarch.
This is so patently apparent only delusion can keep someone from seeing it. Perhaps it's because of the systematic conditioning in our currency, our patriotic songs, our education system and the myths of the beginning of our country.

Ironically, many US Christians equate democracy with Kingdom living, as if God awaits our input to govern. At the governmental foundation of the US is the rejection of the rule of a monarch. It's a wonder why US Bible do not forbid the word "king" to describe Christ.
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
10,049
4,407
113
mywebsite.us
#91
what do you mean by 'political correctness'?
that's a broad term which as i understand it, encompasses a general principle of choosing one's words in such a way not to be needlessly offensive.
It is my understanding that the term has been exponentially expanded into the realm of political ideology in general - i.e. - "not just about offensive words anymore"...

'political correctness' is the noun form
'politically correct' is the adjective form

From https://www.thefreedictionary.com/politically+correct (emphasis mine)

"Conforming to a particular sociopolitical ideology or point of view, especially to a liberal point of view concerned with promoting tolerance and avoiding offense in matters of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation."

Because people have different definitions of the phrase "Christian foundation."
There are times when discussing an opposing point-of-view of someone from their perspective may actually be useful in helping them to see the truth; however, it is never a good idea to kowtow to political correctness when determining a proper definition for the sake of the context of discussion - there can be only one definition - and, everyone involved needs to know it and understand it. Otherwise, you have nothing but chaos.

So - when trying to determine a definition - you must determine the real actual contextual definition - not the many different definitions based on the many different perspectives of people - the real actual contextual definition must be properly understood in the mind of every person.
what do you mean by 'political correctness'?
that's a broad term which as i understand it, encompasses a general principle of choosing one's words in such a way not to be needlessly offensive.
I was making the point that "choosing one's definitions" is an invalid approach to obtaining a proper contextual understanding of 'Christian foundation'.

While being well-meaning - and, indeed, having some merit in a different context - maxwel's post took the 'political correctness' approach to defining what 'Christian foundation' meant - based on the various personal impressions of people - rather than being based on historical fact.

In effect, his explanation/suggestion allows for subjecting the definition of 'Christian foundation' to misdirection based on people's impressions.

I understand what maxwel was getting at concerning leading people's understanding to the proper conclusion. And, in this specific regard, it certainly has merit; however, with regard to the truth - people need to understand and accept the actual historical definition of 'Christian foundation' and draw proper conclusions from that - not try to achieve-by-manipulation a definition for 'Christian foundation' based on personal impressions - which is a 'politically correct' method.

In other words, 'political correctness' tries to wrap reality around the personal impressions and desires of an individual and has no direct relationship with objective truth. That is the 'method' of 'political correctness'.

Hopefully, this makes sense - at least enough for you to understand what I was trying to get across...
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
38,393
13,768
113
#92
with regard to the truth - people need to understand and accept the actual historical definition of 'Christian foundation' and draw proper conclusions from that - not try to achieve-by-manipulation a definition for 'Christian foundation' based on personal impressions - which is a 'politically correct' method.
well, i would say the right definition of 'a Christian foundation' is the one the Bible gives. trouble is, that isn't a Biblical term, and the Bible doesn't give any advice about establishing a wolrdly nation on the principles of the gospel. in fact, the very idea of a worldly nation is a bit antithetical to the gospel - which calls out a people from every nation to a kingdom, in which there is no earthly sovereign, but only our heavenly king, Christ Jesus.

but the Bible does talk about a foundation - and that foundation must be Christ, or else whatever is built on it will fall, because everything will bow to Him when He returns.

if we use this framework can we say america as a nation was designed with a foundation in Christ?
i'm gonna say no.

this is a very different question than whether or not some of the principal actors in designing the government of america were Christians.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
38,393
13,768
113
#93
In other words, 'political correctness' tries to wrap reality around the personal impressions and desires of an individual and has no direct relationship with objective truth. That is the 'method' of 'political correctness'.

Hopefully, this makes sense - at least enough for you to understand what I was trying to get across...
OK, yeah i understand what you mean by the term 'political correctness'

.. but i don't agree with your definition of it lol.

you say it had nothing to do with objective truth, but i don't think that's accurate. you also chose a definition that makes it seem like being 'politically correct' necessarily means identifying with current day american left-leaning political ideology, and I don't think hats accurate either.

for me, when i hear the term politically correct, what i understand is just what i put previously, that it means choosing one's words carefully so as to avoid unnecessary offense. that doesn't mean you need to set the truth aside, and that doesn't mean you necessarily have progressive political views that focus on freedom and tolerance, or any particular view of what kind of policies best benefit the general economy in the long run.

to me it just means that you take the forethought to say for example, "native american" instead of "indian" and recognize that it would be even worse if you say something like "redskin" - - because native american is accurate÷ these are the peoples who were here before the european invaded, destroyed their governments, slaughtered them, and took over all of their land. and because 'indians' is not accurate at all: it's a term that comes from the mistaken idea that when the continent was discovered by europe, they thought they had arrived in indo-china. and because saying something like redskin is racially offensive.

do i have to agree that homosexuality as an acceptable, non-sinful lifestyle in order to be 'politically correct'? do i need to actively promote it or support policies that encourage or facilitate it? absolutely not. i just need to have the common decency to say 'homosexuals' instead of some kind of slur like faggots and dikes.

i don't see any problem with political correctness. to me it's just common decency and respectful communication - - but i think we don't have a shared definition.

and that is the point @maxwel made; we need to establish common definitions otherwise any dialogue is going to be confused and we will be making arguments that sound like nonsense because we will be at some point talking about completely different things.
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
10,049
4,407
113
mywebsite.us
#94
Shot down, middle of thread. Ok, so now what do we talk about? Suggestions??
Shot down? Not totally...

Conclusion:
1. All we can talk about here is how the founders thought based on what they did and said... the historical data.
This has merit.

The true definition for 'Christian foundation' may/will be found in the historical record.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
38,393
13,768
113
#95
lol is it okay to say 'unsaved' or 'damned' or do we need to say 'soteriologically challenged'

:ROFL::ROFL::ROFL:
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
38,393
13,768
113
#96
The true definition for 'Christian foundation' may/will be found in the historical record.
which historical record? the recored of early american politics? that would be assuming the answer is yes and circularly defining the answer by the thing being questioned. not legitimate.

or does the definition come from scripture? then we need to ask, what does the NT say about how a worldly government should be structured in order to honor Jesus Christ - the King of Kings?