Then I guess you and I will simply disagree. The brittish had every access to god as the rebels. It was not in the name of god that they rebelled but it was a commonly held phrase to talk about their "god given right to freedom" but really it was propaganda against taxation of our nations wealth and natural resources. That was the reason for the revolution. And as far as I am concerned wealth and buisiness are secular aspects not religious ones.
I don't know what this is. I did not say anything about who had access to what. I said:
1. The British government slowly monopolized the Christian Church.
2. It became a one size fits all and sole authority on everything institution.
3. It became the same yoke that people keep throwing off at great expense.
4. The Romans began this horrific idea of force fitting everyone into one cookie cutter called Christianity by force.
5. Over and over, either from within or without this kind of do it my way or suffer produces those who rebel.
6. The migration to the US was just one of these episodes, the same as dozens of reformations had already occurred.
7. They did not want to be forced to worship their God the way a Kind, Pope, or any other said they had to especially when those that are dictating how are point blank violating the faith.
What your talking about is only one aspect in a later event where those that escaped England finally had so much they stood up to fight them at the risk to everything. It is not why they came here to begin with and not what I was talking about. I was talking about why we left, your talking about why we went to war. However lets take the evolution. You might think the founding document that declared to the world why we rebelled "irrelevant" since it does not support your view but has no impact on it actually being the most relevant evidence possible.
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
for the rectitude of our intentions … ” —Declaration of Independence (This was taken from Judges 11:27.)
John Locke referred to a biblical account (Judg. 11) to support the proposition that only God could judge man when in the state of war. An appeal to God as judge could not have been made had America’s founders subscribed to deism.
“With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence
, we mutually pledge to each other our lives…” —Declaration of Independence
“Divine Providence” was one of the oldest cornerstones of Christian teaching—it represented the heart of their belief in God, namely, that God was the ever-active, moment-by-moment governor of the universe.
God is Jehovah Jireh, meaning "the Lord shall provide" (Gen. 22:14).
The Four Principles That Anchor the Declaration of Independence
1. Rights come from God.
2. The purpose of civil government is to secure those rights.
3. The power of civil government is given by the consent of the governed, each of whom is fully entitled to rule.
4. The right to govern is forfeited by a tyrant to lower civil magistrates in order to restore the rule of law.
All four of these principles are Christian.
Jefferson’s early draft of the Declaration had the word derived
. Benjamin Franklin and John Adams replaced that with the phrase endowed by their creator.
By replacing derived
with endowed by their Creator,
the Declaration rested upon rights as God had given them, not as man understood them to be. Thus, America’s founders chose to establish the new nation upon the laws of nature and of nature’s God, not upon natural law.
Later, Congress inserted the adjective certain
in the place of Jefferson’s inherent
. The word inherent
means “existing in something else, so as to be inseparable from it.” The word was appropriate if man was certain about the existence of the rights being relied upon but uncertain of their exact content. Once God was identified as the giver of those rights, however, then the word certain
became appropriate, because whatever God had given to mankind was “sure, true, undoubted, unquestionable, existing in fact and truth” (the definition of certain
When the words endowed
are coupled with unalienable,
then the Declaration makes a most remarkable claim: What God has given for the benefit of all mankind cannot be given away by the recipient or taken away by the donor (Numb. 23:19; 2 Chron. 19:7).
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” —Declaration of Independence
It is most instructive that the Declaration’s authors did not make the same claim about governments as they had about unalienable rights. God endowed mankind with rights, but governments are “instituted” among men. The Bible is the source of this distinction: Biblically, a king was under the law of God, not above it. (See Deuteronomy 17:14-19, Exodus 18, 1 Samuel 8, and Romans 13:1, 4.)
Biblically, a change of leadership was not fully implemented until ratified by the people (1 Sam. 10:17, 24).
Exactly how much Christian doctrine has to be in the most relevant document from the most central figures about the most relevant issue before you agree it is not secular, it would only require one appeal to the divine?
And it still stands that countries that are poor and distraught are far more religious than countries that are not. Then after that the moral fabric of that society is inversely proportional when mapped out.
What does that have to do with me or anything we have discussed. I am not defending the all faith position but the Christian position. I believe a wrong faith worse than no faith and would expect it to produce misery. Christian nations (or ones that have strong Christian traditions of roots) make up the most successful nations on earth, atheist countries have made up the most diabolical on earth, and false faiths make up the poorest and most backwards. There are exceptions but this is the trend and I do not know what this has to do with what I said. I gave you the life cycle of democracies, you replied with a generalization about all faiths.
Its because we have deemed teens to be too young to marry. In a way it is actually a progression of society. Girls are not having children younger but getting married later. Also it was blasphemous to have a child out of wedlock in the 50's. Now it is not so important. Neither are signs of degradation of morality but rather progress in the society with inadequate sexual education.
So your taking the fact that far more children are born without two parents these days and calling it progress? Teen marriage is not a moral issue. There is no reason to say 18 is morally worse than 20. The reason teen pregnancy has gone out of fashion is because we have become materialistic, which demands higher education, which demands personal freedom, which is facilitated by not having a family. Your taking a shift from family values to selfish commercialism and calling it progress which is exactly what I was talking about. Secularism changes priorities, and no matter how much damage they cause or how selfish their roots this is called progress. Who cares if we have more babies without two parent homes that is not important today, who cares if we are killing lives in the womb on an industrial scale we now have cell phones, who cares if families never eat together anymore we have two cars in the driveway.
With what? I take it for granted you disagree as you have an opposing viewpoint.
I will grant that there was some crazyness in the 50's but that was breaking the shackles of the previous social lines added to people. In almost every aspect it has resulted in far more good than bad.
Reminds me of a poem about secularism.
“Creed” on the World By Steve Turner
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin, We believe everything is OK, as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge. We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage. We believe in the therapy of sin. We believe that adultery is fun. We believe that sodomy’s OK. We believe that taboos are taboo. We believe that everything’s getting better despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated And you can prove anything with evidence. We believe there’s something in horoscopes UFO’s and bent spoons. Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves. He was a good moral teacher though we think His good morals were bad. We believe that all religions are basically the same-at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness.They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation. We believe that after death comes the Nothing Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing. If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn We believe in Masters and Johnson What’s selected is average. What’s average is normal. What’s normal is good. We believe in total disarmament. We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors . And the Russians would be sure to follow. We believe that man is essentially good. It’s only his behavior that lets him down
.This is the fault of society. Society is the fault of conditions. Conditions are the fault of society.We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth. We believe in the rejection of creeds, and the flowering of individual thought. If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky and when you hear State of Emergency! Sniper Kills Ten! Troops on Rampage! Whites go Looting! Bomb Blasts School! It is but the sound of man worshipping his maker.
Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God?
Divorce rates 1950 - 25%, 1985 - 50%.
Between 1950 and 2001 there was over a 400% increase in child pornography.
Since 1960 there has been an 800% increase in unmarried couples living together.
From 1967 - 1990 child abuse cases went from 65,000 to 3 million.
Between 1960 and 1990, there was a 41% decline in marriage
Between 1960 and 1990, the percentage of children living apart from their biological fathers more than doubled, from 17 percent to 36 percent
From 1970 to 1996 the number of "never married" persons increased from 21 million to 46 million in 1996
Since 1960 there has been over a 400% increase in illegitimate births
1960 there were 2 known Sexually Transmitted Diseases (syphilis and gonorrhea); today there are more than 25
43 percent of white male homosexuals estimate they have had sex with 500 or more different partners, and 28 percent report more than 1,000 partners.
Since abortion was legalized by our Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, more than 30 million babies have been killed. This now amounts to one eighth the population of the entire United States
Less than 1% of all Americans had used illegal drugs before 1960.
In 2002, 10% of 12th grade students reported using illicit drugs other than marijuana in the past month, 2005 saw a 212% increase in prescription drug abuse by US teens.
In 2003, more than 20% of students in the 12th grade reported using marijuana in the past 30 days.
Youth suicide rates skyrocketed 400 percent since 1950
I can do this all day. It is too depressing. Your looking at moral insanity on parade and calling it progress.
The bible did nothing to stop slavery. It was stopped eventually when people's minds were changed enough. I think it is highly irrelevant that you think the bible doesn't support slavery. The bible was used to support slavery and to denounce it. If it can be used on both sides it can't claim any sort of credit as the source of its removal.
1. The bible is exactly what inspired our founders to declare all men equal. You cannot find justification for all men being equal in nature. Evolution never created two equal things in history.
2. A Christian said it was the bible that inspired him to fire the first shots against slavery.
3. The man more responsible for stopping slavery than any other said it was the bible that motivated him and justified his belief that all men are equal.
4. It was hundreds of thousands of Christians who died to free them. I would say about 90% of their personal correspondence that I could find listed biblical morality as among the primary reasons for their actions.
5. It was almost exclusively the bible that led the slaves to cry out for freedom and look for deliverance.
With the except of a pile of bibles falling on every slaveholders head I do not see how anything can be more involved. And it was the same bible that was primarily looked to when demanding equal rights later on. The leaders were Christian, their foundations were Christian, their principles Christian, their places of meeting Christian.
Where was the atheist John Brown, the humanist Martin Luther King, the Darwinian Lincoln? Where were the great secular battalions dying in the trenches of Petersburg to set other men free?
Alright. God never came down to free slaves. God sat by for tens of thousands of years and let slavery happen. It was only when we started to see people as people in a well understood sociological aspect of cultural change in history. It had absolutely nothing to do with god and in fact I personally believe that had religion not been involved from the start it would have been eradicated earlier.
How do you know that? God primarily acts through human agency, the majority of those agents claimed God motivated them, and the rest quoted principles only the bible properly grounds. We were talking about 19th century slavery. It is beyond the capacity of a post to comment on slavery as a whole and most of them did not look to God for deliverance. The ones we are discussing did and were freed. I have already shown it was a Christian effort almost entirely that ended slavery and speculation about what did not happen carry no weight.
Explain how it is relevant to proving the case that religion was the only source of morality that set up the end of slavery.
I did not say it was, I said it was the primary motivation by a huge margin.
Then respond to the rest of what I stated
I don't logically see how you can defend the assumption that Christianity freed slavery because Christianity was used to JUSTIFY slavery. You can take up your biblical argument with the Sourthern Christians of the days of old. But you cannot simply say it was the bible and be done with it.
If the bible says do not murder then they guy who murders in the name of God is full of crap, but the guy who stops a murder and claims to have done so based on his biblical faith is. It can't get any simpler.
New International Version
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free.
If I said that it was the English language that freed the slaves even though both sides spoke the English language wouldn't that simply not make any sense?
Of course not, language is not a moral entity or doctrine. God and the bible are.
I do hope you aren't talking about the puritans. Please please PLEASE make the ignorant claim that they came here for religious freedom.
No not them specifically but lets see about them.
In the early 17th century, thousands of English Puritans
settled in North America
, mainly in New England
. Puritans were generally members of the Church of England who believed the Church of England was insufficiently Reformed and who therefore opposed royal ecclesiastical policy under Elizabeth I of England, James I of England, and Charles I of England
History of the Puritans in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sounds word for word exactly what I said.
Puritanism was a religious reform movement that arose within the Church of England in the late sixteenth century. Under siege from church and crown, it sent an offshoot in the third and fourth decades of the seventeenth century to the northern English colonies in the New World–a migration that laid the foundation for the religious, intellectual, and social order of New England.
Puritanism - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
Again sounds exactly like what I said
Back in England, the Puritans had been people of means and political influence, but King Charles would not tolerate their attempts to reform the Church of England. Persecution mounted. To many there seemed no hope but to leave England. Perhaps in America they could establish a colony whose government, society, and church were all based upon the Bible. "New England" could become a light Old England could follow out of the darkness of corruption.
Timeline by 1601-1700Who Were The Puritans? – Church History
The Puritans who, in the 1560s, first began to be (contemptuously) referred to as such, were ardent reformers, seeking to bring the Church to a state of purity
that would match Christianity as it had been in the time of Christ. This reform was to involve, depending upon which Puritan one asked, varying degrees of stripping away practices seen as residual "popery"--vestments, ceremony, and the like.
Pilgrims and Puritans: Background