Protestantism

» pink101 - Judeo/Christian?.

In response to Some of the Christian principles... posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Judeo/Christian?
.
Uh uh. No way.
.
America was established on a distinct attitude of separation of church and state that had been a building since day one. There was a long build up from 1630 when the Puritans established the Massachusetts Bay Company until a hundred and forty-six years later when the colonists rebelled against taxes levied by the crown to pay off its war debts. They had been running their own affairs since the beginning and weren't about to be hustled into giving in to the crown's control over their existence.
.
But, the key in the founding document that gives us the answer that America was not founded on Christian principles is the term, inalienable rights. It's right out of Locke. We know that the founding concepts had to do with humanity in the state of nature. And, we know the God is Nature's God. It is very plain as well as explicit.
.
Here is a good link for anyone interested in understanding how Locke's influence was so strong in Jefferson's mind when he wrote the Declaration of Independence.
.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
.
Don't let anyone pull the wool over your eyes.
.
The colonists rejected the idea that the monarchy had a divine right to govern. It was more than a century and a half struggle over the ideas involved.
.
Am I saying that Christianity didn't play a major role in America's development and its establishment as a nation? No way. Christianity played almost the major role; but, I think secularism almost played the major role as well. The two sides were equally important.
.
It is the same today.
.
We're still at it.
.
We are, after all, Americans!
.

.
E Plurbis Unum
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Lesson In American History

.
I think we could use a lesson in American History here.
.
No offense intended; but, something very important is lacking.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Lesson In American History

In response to Lesson In American History posted by pink101:

I have studied this area of US history and the Civil War era more than any other period of US history. The fact that you and I disagree on how we understand and interpret the founding era, when it comes to the separation of church and state, does not mean that you're right and I'm wrong (or vice versa). And the fact that we disagree doesn't mean that I'm pulling the wool over someone's eyes (your phrase) or that I'm ignorant, misguided, or whatever.

I would also point out that you are seizing on certain phrases and terms that I've used - and ignoring or sidestepping the context or the overall points that I'm making.

» Brian Tubbs - Great Awakening

I recommend Roger Saunders' article on the Great Awakening...

http://colonial-america.suite101.com/art...

» pink101 - Lesson In American History

In response to Lesson In American History posted by BrianTubbs:

.
We shall see what we shall see.
.

.
Now, don't go getting bent out of shape just because some one is challenging your interpretation of American history.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Great Awakening

In response to Great Awakening posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Roger Saunders writes, "Occurring a full 35 years before the battles of Lexington and Concord, the aftershocks of this 'Great Awakening' tore open the floodgates whose waters were used for America's baptism in the Spirit of 76.".
.
Wrong! That is a highly questionable--if colorful--exaggeration plain and simple.
.
With no disrespect for Roger, to me his article seems to make things SOUND AS THOUGH it was the "Great Awakening" that brought about the Declaration of Independence.
.
But, maybe he should be in on this discussion before too much more is said? I sent him an email asking for his input.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Roger Saunders - The Great Awakening

In response to Great Awakening posted by pink101:

Well, well, boys! Looks like we have quite a row going on here! There is only one other question that can engender more controversy than whether or not America was founded on Christian principles.

That question is the religious argument between the Sovereignty of God and the free will of man. It is my humble opinion that many of the some pitfalls that have kept that argument going since Mr. Calvin first organized his beliefs are what I am observing in this present discussion.

Many times I have seen theologians argue this matter and it seems as if they are both vehemently agreeing with each other without knowing it. It all depends on perspective. The best solution I have ever heard to this theological dilemma was a Pastor who explained that it was absolutely true that God said that "those he forenew he predeistined to become the children of God" He also said that it is equally true that Jesus Christ Himself said that "whosoever will may come". Should we argue about who is right, if we believe that God's word is true? He postulated that it was probably not worth the effort, and that while the arguments raged on, the central message of the Bible, that Christ came to save sinners, was lost and so were a lot of sinners in the process!

Now whether you believe the Bible is true or not, that really puts theological arguments in perspective doesn't it!

So what we have here, I suspect, is the same issue.

For instance, Pink takes issue with my introduction to an article on "The Great Awakening" where i said,

"Occurring a full 35 years before the battles of Lexington and Concord, the aftershocks of this 'Great Awakening' tore open the floodgates whose waters were used for America's baptism in the Spirit of 76."

While, by itself, it may seem as if I was trying to say the the Great Awakening brought about the Declaration of Independence, I think a closer look will show that I specifically stated that,

"This was "ONE GREAT STEP" that lead to that giant leap in the dark when these colonists would find it "necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them."

It was, in fact, only one great step. It was, as I tried to point out, a huge factor, especially in the New England Puritan churches, in changing the mindset of the populace's religious thinking from a "top down" authoritarian approach to a more "bottom up" Presbyterian approach to "church" government. Even more descriptively, the Great Awakening gave people a sense that they were responsible on an individual basis to God, before they were responsible to the church hierarchy. This had a great effect and, yes, was influenced by the enlightenment as well, in bringing about the Independent Spirit that bled over into practical political matters as well.

So, to bring us back to the point. The argument of whether America was founded as a Christian nation or a secular nation is really moot. This is because our government was founded, I believe, upon the moral principles taught by the bible in the Judeo-Christian tradition but it was also founded under the assumption that you could not allow any one religious organization or leader dictate what those principles were. We as a nation under the principles of republican government were given the freedom under the Constitution to determine for ourselves, through the vote, what our laws would be. It is without question that the civil laws of the 18th Century were much more inline with the teaching of the Bible than the are today.

I think the reason that this argument still lives today is that those who believe there is a spiritual component to the way this world is run, believe that of we do not adhere to moral principles that the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" (As George Washington referred to deity) will exert a force that humans may not want to experience to make sure that His moral laws are complied with. On the other hand those with a more secular bent might tend to key more on human responsibility to make sure that injustice does not prevail.

It is my opinion that while Secularists may disagree with those who espouse the authority of God over who actually establishes the "undeniable truth" of justice, most thinking people will agree that there is a system of justice that seems to work better than any other in the history of the world. That system is well represented by the Judeo-Christian principles that were the accepted religious teachings (aka moral principles) of the 18th Century thought that established the great political experiment called the United States of America. That said, there is also room for the teachings of The Enlightenment as founding principles of this country as well.

I think the real question is this (throwing out all the terminology pertaining to religion or philosophical thought).

Was the United States founded on the basis of the moral principles of equality, justice, and love for our fellow man?

The answer is a resounding Yes!

The argument is whether or not those morals were based on the principles of the Bible or the Philosophical notions of the enlightenment.

I do not think there is one clear cut answer if you look at the founders themselves because there were clearly people on both sides of that idealogical divide that participated in this country's founding.

I also don't think that anyone in this forum so far arguing that our Country was founded on "Christian principles" is arguing that we live in some kind of Theocracy or that any particular religion, Christian or otherwise, deserves some kind of special treatment.

The Constitution said it best in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The United States Constitution is full of principles that are straight out of the Judeo-Christian ethics of the Bible but it fully protects us from being tyrannized by any religious organization. However, individually, the Constitution also fully protects our right to freely exercise those same religious principles that the constitution espouses. I am NOT saying that the Constitution espouses any one Religion but it does respect the principles of religion enough to give us freedom to exercise it!

» pink101 - The Great Awakening

In response to The Great Awakening posted by rogerws76:

.
Your turn, Brian.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - The Great Awakening

In response to The Great Awakening posted by pink101:

I agree with pretty much everything Roger wrote. Don't know what more needs to be said.

» pink101 - Reponding To Roger

In response to The Great Awakening posted by rogerws76:
.
First off, I really appreciate your appearance here in this thread.
.
You have brought up the "Great Awakening" as though it were a major step toward the American Revolution. Unless, that is, that I totally misunderstand your drift here.
.
What was the Great Awakening and how did it come into being? I think that two part question holds some clues for us as we try to flesh this thing out.
.
The Great Awakening had some beginnings in European society. It was also related to the ideas of Calvinism in that if human beings were totally depraved, how could they possibly show any proof that they were right with God. Whitfield was the primary person who spread the awakening and while it was a popular event of the time, it was not universally accepted as a good thing among all Christians.
.
In those days there was a building attitude about what sort of authority a person must have to be accepted into any church. Each community generally had one church with one pastor and every person in the community was expected to attend services. The pastors were all learned me with formal educations.
.
One of the main reasons the Puritans broke away from the Church of England was the procedure that made a person "right with God" and, thereby, made a member of the Church of England. In England, every new born was christened/baptized into the church just as was done in Catholic countries.
.
In the colonies, persons were also christened/baptized into the local churches and congregations; but, there came to be a change in attitudes about that and people were required to show some public testimony with evidence that they had been made right with God--a display of Grace.
.
The Awakening was ALL ABOUT how a person was made right with God--nothing else.
.
Think about it! Whitfield gave his sermons and members of the congregations were filled with an enthusiasm that was accepted as a public testimony they had received God's Grace in their being. That's how we get the idea of being "filled with the Spirit". Generally, the "awakening of the Spirit" took place in colonists as young as four years of age. A great revival swept across the colonies and it was all about FEELINGS and not about intellectual understandings of the Gospel.
.
.

-- posted by pink101