THE Founding Fathers Thread of All Founding Fathers Threads

Gary K

New member
Banned
May I recommend to you the wonderful two-volume biography of George Whitefield, by Arnold Dallimore and originally published by Banner of Truth (a UK, evangelical publisher). They also publish Whitefield's letters and journal. Both contain the personal correspondence between Franklin and Whitefield.

Franklin was amazed by Whitefield's extraordinary oratory skills and power over his audience and he also found him to be a very nice chap (Which he was. Whitefield had few enemies and was a generous ecumenical peacemaker) Franklin devised a method to help calculate the number of people attending Whitefield's open air meetings (which on more than one occasion numbered over 10,000), and attended these impromptu sermons on numerous occasions. But one thing is clear from Whitefield's journal entries: he regarded Franklin as brilliant but ultimately LOST. He made warm appeals for Franklin's soul, but the elder statesman would have none of that born again "enthusiasm".

Franklin also published Whitefield's sermons and tracts. In fact they became close personal friends. So, to say that Whitefield was without personal influence with the founders, just because Franklin never saw the need for rebirth is ludicrous.

From Ben Franklin's autobiography:

In 1739 arrived among us from Ireland the Reverend Mr. Whitefield,[79] who had made himself remarkable there as an itinerant preacher. He was at first permitted to preach in some of our churches; but the clergy, taking a dislike to him, soon refus’d him their pulpits, and he was oblig’d to preach in the fields. The multitudes of all sects and denominations that attended his sermons were enormous, and it was matter of speculation to me, who was one of the number, to observe the extraordinary influence of his oratory on his hearers, and how much they admir’d and respected him, notwithstanding his common abuse of them, by assuring them they were naturally half beasts and half devils. It was wonderful to see the change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seem’d as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk thro’ the town in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street.

And it being found inconvenient to assemble in the open air, subject to its inclemencies, the building of a house to meet in was no sooner propos’d, and persons appointed to receive contributions, but sufficient sums were soon receiv’d to procure the ground and erect the building, which was one hundred feet long and seventy broad, about the size of Westminster Hall;[80] and the work was carried on with such spirit as to be finished in a much shorter time than could have been expected. Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.

Mr. Whitefield, in leaving us, went preaching all the way thro’ the colonies to Georgia. The settlement of that province had lately been begun, but, instead of being made with hardy, industrious husbandmen, accustomed to labour, the only people fit for such an enterprise, it was with families of broken shop-keepers and other insolvent debtors, many of indolent and idle habits, taken out of the jails, who, being set down in the woods, unqualified for clearing land, and unable to endure the hardships of a new settlement, perished in numbers, leaving many helpless children unprovided for. The sight of their miserable situation inspir’d the benevolent heart of Mr. Whitefield with the idea of building an Orphan House there, in which they might be supported and educated. Returning northward, he preach’d up this charity, and made large collections, for his eloquence had a wonderful power over the hearts and purses of his hearers, of which I myself was an instance.

I did not disapprove of the design, but, as Georgia was then destitute of materials and workmen, and it was proposed to send them from Philadelphia at a great expense, I thought it would have been better to have built the house here, and brought the children to it. This I advis’d; but he was resolute in his first project, rejected my counsel, and I therefore refus’d to contribute. I happened soon after to attend one of his sermons, in the course of which I perceived he intended to finish with a collection, and I silently resolved he should get nothing from me. I had in my pocket a handful of copper money, three or four silver dollars, and five pistoles in gold. As he proceeded I began to soften, and concluded to give the coppers. Another stroke of his oratory made me asham’d of that, and determin’d me to give the silver; and he finish’d so admirably, that I empty’d my pocket wholly into the collector’s dish, gold and all. At this sermon there was also one of our club, who, being of my sentiments respecting the building in Georgia, and suspecting a collection might be intended, had, by precaution, emptied his pockets before he came from home. Towards the conclusion of the discourse, however, he felt a strong desire to give, and apply’d to a neighbour who stood near him, to borrow some money for the purpose. The application was unfortunately [made] to perhaps the only man in the company who had the firmness not to be affected by the preacher. His answer was, “At any other time, Friend Hopkinson, I would lend to thee freely; but not now, for thee seems to be out of thy right senses.

Some of Mr. Whitefield’s enemies affected to suppose that he would apply these collections to his own private emolument; but I, who was intimately acquainted with him (being employed in printing his Sermons and Journals, etc.), never had the least suspicion of his integrity, but am to this day decidedly of opinion that he was in all his conduct a perfectly honest man; and methinks my testimony in his favour ought to have the more weight, as we had no religious connection. He us’d, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard. Ours was a mere civil friendship, sincere on both sides, and lasted to his death.

The following instance will show something of the terms on which we stood. Upon one of his arrivals from England at Boston, he wrote to me that he should come soon to Philadelphia, but knew not where he could lodge when there, as he understood his old friend and host, Mr. Benezet was removed to Germantown. My answer was, “You know my house; if you can make shift with its scanty accommodations, you will be most heartily welcome.” He reply’d, that if I made that kind offer for Christ’s sake, I should not miss of a reward. And I returned, “Don’t let me be mistaken; it was not for Christ’s sake, but for your sake.” One of our common acquaintance jocosely remark’d, that, knowing it to be the custom of the saints, when they received any favour, to shift the burden of the obligation from off their own shoulders, and place it in heaven, I had contriv’d to fix it on earth.

Whitefield's detractors were the Tories of the day.
 

McCoy

New member
My apologies, as I was only trying to get the ground rules straight. Evidently one has to have a college degree as an historian in order to write about the Founding Fathers, but doesn't need that degree to refute the information.

Oh please. Quit playing games.

None of the Barton critics you have cited are claiming to be historians. Barton is not an actual historian either. Anyone with access to a library or the internet can refute David Barton's fabricated BS.

Since you are such a rabid identity politics player, here are some Conservative Christian writers who take issue with Barton:

Tom Gilson, with Chuck Colson's Break Point Ministries: "“With a bit of care, any of us could have known of the serious questions that have surrounded Barton’s work for a long time. These recent revelations are nothing new, except in the degree to which conservative Christian scholars are involved in calling him to account. But the ideology defense is no help when it’s conservative Christians making a case against Barton – especially when it’s a case as verifiable as this is proving to be. It’s not political opinion that’s stacking up against him now. It’s well-documented facts.”

Joel McDurmon, American Vision: "In short, when we create a false reality of what a Christian and biblical society is or may be, we blind ourselves to the real changes and sacrifices we need to make. And in stretching the facts to create that false reality, we discredit ourselves and hand power and opportunity over to liberals to have free reign. But in the end, we have no one to blame but ourselves, because we have deceived ourselves, lied, and become complacent in the first place.

This is why I wish to offer an overview and partial critique of the important factual errors in Barton’s book. It is important that Christians see and understand the depth of these so they can have a true foundation from which to plan and to move forward".


Jay W. Richards, Discovery Institute (has shared a speaking platform with Barton in the past): "Barton's books and videos are filled with embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims.”

Greg Forster, Trinity International University: "[Barton's] article contains a number of incidental factual errors that don’t even advance his thesis, indicating that his inability to write reliable history stretches beyond ideological cheerleading and into outright incompetence". Full article on Barton's most egregious Locke errors , here.

Glenn Moots, Northwood University: "The Jefferson Lies is so eager to portray Jefferson as sympathetic to Christianity that he misses or omits obvious signs that Jefferson stood outside ‘orthodox, creedal, confessional Christianity... It doesn’t help any of us if the story isn’t told in an accurate manner.”

On and on, I could go... Gregg Frazer, Glenn Sunshine, et al...

Oh but wait. This is all a left wing, homo, satanic conspiracy to throw God's anointed history "expert" in a critical light-- right?
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
John Adams, in his autobiography, calls George Whitefield the 'great Whitefield". This is another measure of the respect with which the founders had for Whitefield and the influence he had in the colonies.
 

McCoy

New member
Franklin also published Whitefield's sermons and tracts. In fact they became close personal friends. So, to say that Whitefield was without personal influence with the founders, just because Franklin never saw the need for rebirth is ludicrous.

Friendship does not equal "influence". There is no evidence whatsoever that Whitefield's theological beliefs influenced Franklin's political or philosophical positions
 

McCoy

New member
John Adams, in his autobiography, calls George Whitefield the 'great Whitefield". This is another measure of the respect with which the founders had for Whitefield and the influence he had in the colonies.

Again, I highly recommend Dallimore's massive biography on Whitefield. The evangelist was, in the truest sense of the word, a celebrity in America. He was a compelling and widely-embraced public figure who could attract tens of thousands of people just by standing on a wall in a field outside of town and lifting his voice. Shops closed when he started speaking. Among religious personalities in 18th century America, he had no equal.

While people like Adams or Franklin were appreciators of his gift and the phenomena that accompanied his open air preaching, there is no evidence of any political or ideological influence in the drafting of the nation's founding documents.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Oh please. Quit playing games.

None of the Barton critics you have cited are claiming to be historians. Barton is not an actual historian either. Anyone with access to a library or the internet can refute David Barton's fabricated BS.

Since you are such a rabid identity politics player, here are some Conservative Christian writers who take issue with Barton:

Even experts on subjects have critics and yes, even experts on this subject have made errors in their speeches and/or writings. Secular humanist boogeyman David Barton is no different.

Since you appear to be using David Barton as a tool to discredit the Founding Father's intention of making the United States a Christian nation, let's continue on with my questions (which thus far have gone unanswered by you)

"Why would a secular nation do this?

David Barton (#3 on the secular humanist HATE list) mentioned in his Capitol Tour video the Aitken Bible.

Here in the Wallbuilders website he talks more about it:

Prior to the American Revolution, the only English Bibles in the colonies were imported either from Europe or England. Publication of the Bible was regulated by the British government, and required a special license. Robert Aitken’s Bible was the first known English-language Bible to be printed in America, and also the only Bible to receive Congressional approval. Aitken’s Bible, sometimes referred to as “The Bible of the Revolution,” is one of the rarest books in the world, with few copies still in existence today.

On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken presented a “memorial”
[petition] to Congress offering to print “a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures
for the use of schools.” This is the text of that memorial:...

After appointing a committee to study the project, Congress acted on September 12, 1782, by “highly approv[ing of] the pious and laudable
undertaking of Mr. Aitken.” The endorsement by Congress was printed in the Aitken Bible:

The endorsement was signed by Charles Thomson, who was Secretary
of the Continental Congress. Thomson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence,
is also famous for “Thomson’s Bible,” the first American translation
of the Greek Septuagint, published in 1808 (Thomson was an accomplished theologian,
publishing such works as “A Regular History of the Conception, Birth, Doctrine,
Miracles, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ.”)

Robert Aitken printed three documents in the front of his Bible,
the report of the committee established to review his memorial; the report of
the Congressional Chaplains; and Congresses endorsement. Below is the text of
these documents:
https://wallbuilders.com/aitken-bible/

Why would a secular nation do this?

Now run over to "the library" and see what Warren Throckmorton, Chris Rodda, Mikey Weinstein or the communist founded ACLU has to say about this article, as surely Barton didn't cross a t or dot an I somewhere in the article.

 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Friendship does not equal "influence". There is no evidence whatsoever that Whitefield's theological beliefs influenced Franklin's political or philosophical positions

That's quite a statement. Friendship is influence. There is no doubt about it. Love for, and from, another person influences our heart, the seat of all our actions. It helps shape our attitudes, our ideas, our very thoughts and actions.

So you call the following a lack of influence on Franklin's thinking. Ironic isn't it, that Franklin himself disagrees with you? He wrote the following to show that Whitefield did influence him.

I did not disapprove of the design, but, as Georgia was then destitute of materials and workmen, and it was proposed to send them from Philadelphia at a great expense, I thought it would have been better to have built the house here, and brought the children to it. This I advis’d; but he was resolute in his first project, rejected my counsel, and I therefore refus’d to contribute. I happened soon after to attend one of his sermons, in the course of which I perceived he intended to finish with a collection, and I silently resolved he should get nothing from me. I had in my pocket a handful of copper money, three or four silver dollars, and five pistoles in gold. As he proceeded I began to soften, and concluded to give the coppers. Another stroke of his oratory made me asham’d of that, and determin’d me to give the silver; and he finish’d so admirably, that I empty’d my pocket wholly into the collector’s dish, gold and all.

We also find the germ of the following quote in the sum and substance of Whitefield's sermons:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Whitefield taught that man's first duty was to God and that God was the source of true liberty. That you cannot find any evidence of that thinking in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is simply amazing to me.

Without Whitefield's ministry the Revolution may not have even come to be, and if it had it would have most likely failed. His influence and the spiritual awakening he brought with his preaching and his theology bound the American colonists together in a way they had never been bound together before. He united them in way they had not been united before.
 

McCoy

New member
Since you appear to be using David Barton as a tool to discredit the Founding Father's intention of making the United States a Christian nation, let's continue on with my questions (which thus far have gone unanswered by you)

"Why would a secular nation do this?

You're aware that there are objective definitions for terms like "Christian State"/"Christian Nation", aren't you?

Since I have already presented that objective definition to you-- from a dictionary no less-- and you have rejected it claiming something to the effect this actual definition "wasn't what you meant", then perhaps (just out of curiosity) you can tell me exactly--
1) what your subjective/personalized definition of "Christian Nation" IS and
2) how your definition comports with historical facts and stated goals of historical figures.

Important stuff, rent boy.

Also helpful would be how you define the word "Christian"-- because, as I have previously pointed out to you-- there is plenty of evidence that one of Barton's favorite primary Founders, gave every indication of rejecting most of the main tenets of orthodox Christianity.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
You're aware that there are objective definitions for terms like "Christian State"/"Christian Nation", aren't you?

Since I have already presented that objective definition to you-- from a dictionary no less-- and you have rejected it claiming something to the effect this actual definition "wasn't what you meant", then perhaps (just out of curiosity) you can tell me exactly--
1) what your subjective/personalized definition of "Christian Nation" IS and
2) how your definition comports with historical facts and stated goals of historical figures.

Important stuff, rent boy.

Also helpful would be how you define the word "Christian"-- because, as I have previously pointed out to you-- there is plenty of evidence that one of Barton's favorite primary Founders, gave every indication of rejecting most of the main tenets of orthodox Christianity.

good luck with that - it's a typical ploy of his, and he'll probably sidestep answering your questions, even as he continues pretending that you haven't answered his
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
... the Founding Father's intention of making the United States a Christian nation ...


as opposed to making it a Mohammedean nation?
Or a Jewish nation?
Or a nation of satan-worshippers?

The "Founding Fathers" intention was to create a nation from a collection of disparate British colonies, which, due to their British heritage, had populations that overwhelmingly identified as "Christian".

So yes, they intended to create a "Christian" nation, in that the nation they were creating was comprised almost entirely of Christians.

Good for you, Acw! You actually got one right! :first:

Help yourself to a cookie!
 

McCoy

New member
Whitefield taught that man's first duty was to God and that God was the source of true liberty. That you cannot find any evidence of that thinking in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is simply amazing to me.

That you seem to think this over-arching Enlightenment idea was popularized solely by Whitefield in early American culture, is even more amazing to me. That you seem to lack any historical framework around which to interpret Jefferson's words (and by extension, Franklin's addendum), is also amazing-- but I can't say all that surprising.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Thomas Jefferson carried enormous influence in Virginia. That he did not hold to all Christian beliefs does not mean he was against Christian beliefs and ideas. Jefferson's, along with James Madison's, influence in creating the Declaration of Rights for the state of Virginia was very significant. Here is #18 on that list:
18. That Religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence: and therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished, and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless under colour of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of Society. And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.

At the same time, to combat the arguments of acw, here are the arguments given by the same group of legislators against a bill that was introduced creating a government funded program for teachers to teach Christianity. Now that would have been against the Constitution by directly funding what would have become a specific denomination following what the kids were taught theologically. The Virginia legislators came up with a total of 15 objections to the bill. I will give just the first three.

By the way, the following quotes come from the collected works of James Madison's writings volume 2.

Here is the preamble to their objections to a bil creating a religion funded by governmentl.

We, the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” and conceiving [184] that the same, if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State, to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

Here is argument #1:
1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the Manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”1 The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable; because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also; because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims [185] of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true, that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Here is objection #2:
2. Because if religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power may be invariably maintained; but more especially, that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves, nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Here is objection #3:
3. Because, it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of [the] noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the [186] principle. We revere this lesson too much, soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Whitefield taught that man's first duty was to God and that God was the source of true liberty. That you cannot find any evidence of that thinking in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is simply amazing to me.

Whitefield is a new character to me, one that I don't remember being exposed to before. I've been studying him and his influence the past couple days - thank you. My own personal interest in the history of the period lies in the pre-Revolutionary period, especially the French and Indian War (and the similar wars that preceded it)

My education taught that the founding fathers were primarily influenced by French Enlightenment thinkers (most of whom I rejected forty years ago, for reasons I won't go into here) and that their emphasis on "natural rights" was synonymous with "God-given" rights
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Prior to the American Revolution, the only English Bibles in the colonies were imported either from Europe or England. Publication of the Bible was regulated by the British government, and required a special license. Robert Aitken’s Bible was the first known English-language Bible to be printed in America, and also the only Bible to receive Congressional approval. Aitken’s Bible, sometimes referred to as “The Bible of the Revolution,” is one of the rarest books in the world, with few copies still in existence today.


On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken presented a “memorial”
[petition] to Congress offering to print “a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures
for the use of schools.” This is the text of that memorial:...
After appointing a committee to study the project, Congress acted on September 12, 1782, by “highly approv[ing of] the pious and laudable
undertaking of Mr. Aitken.” The endorsement by Congress was printed in the Aitken Bible:




I'm missing the part where Congress funded its publication, or mandated its use in schools, or contributed to the project in any way other than by giving their "approval", which did not conflict with the language of the first amendment


it appears that "the Founding Father's intention of making the United States a Christian nation" was a matter of lip service
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Whitefield is a new character to me, one that I don't remember being exposed to before. I've been studying him and his influence the past couple days - thank you. My own personal interest in the history of the period lies in the pre-Revolutionary period, especially the French and Indian War (and the similar wars that preceded it)

My education taught that the founding fathers were primarily influenced by French Enlightenment thinkers (most of whom I rejected forty years ago, for reasons I won't go into here) and that their emphasis on "natural rights" was synonymous with "God-given" rights

You're welcome to the introduction to Whitefield. He was a very interesting man and a powerful influence for good in the colonies. He was 'the' great spiritual awakening in the colonies in the 1740s. The mainline denominations had become moribund, stale, and anything but Christ-centered, and he reintroduced Christ and a relationship with Him to the masses. A lot of the mainstream ministers hated him and slandered him because he presented truth honestly and in a Christ-centered way. His very message was a rebuke to the denominations at that time.

I don't know where your teachers got the idea that the founding fathers were followers of the French Enlightenment ideals of thought. They would have been total secularists and denied God as the Creator and any idea that man was responsible to God. Also they would have denied the Bible is the inspired word of God. and it is very obvious, by the Declaration of Independence that this is false.

Along with Christianity their other main source of political thought came from Greek thinkers as the vast majority of them could both read and write Greek, as well as French, German and Latin.

One of the very interesting things about the Revolutionary War period in this day and age of the cries of racism is heard so commonly is that there were several blacks that played significant roles in the Revolutionary War. Of course all of them came from the New England states, but they were very well-known and respected in their day. However it is pretty difficult to dig out information about them today. It's been buried pretty deeply.

Crispus Attucks was a black man, but I didn't know that for a long time. He was always just referred to as the man murdered by British soldiers. His race was never made a part of anything. Just think about it. Here was a black man murdered in a supposedly highly racist society and his murder became a leading cause in the struggle for independence. If racism was like it is claimed it is now the murder of a black man would have summoned up a yawn. Instead it summoned up a vast amount of outrage.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Whitefield is a new character to me, one that I don't remember being exposed to before. I've been studying him and his influence the past couple days - thank you. My own personal interest in the history of the period lies in the pre-Revolutionary period, especially the French and Indian War (and the similar wars that preceded it)

My education taught that the founding fathers were primarily influenced by French Enlightenment thinkers (most of whom I rejected forty years ago, for reasons I won't go into here) and that their emphasis on "natural rights" was synonymous with "God-given" rights

To respond to what I emphasized above, I also like studying that period. There were some very interesting characters that came out of that period. It's probably also why I really like James Fenimore Cooper's writings so much. His stories of Hawkeye have been favorites of mine for many decades. That period is also interesting because it shows where the majority of the antipathy between the settlers and Indians originated: British army commanding officers. Those guys were so arrogant they wouldn't listen to anyone and as a result they so antagonized the Indians that war between the Indians and the whites was inevitable because the Indians saw a white person as a white person. It didn't matter if the person messing with them was British or American. They were going to punish the closest whites for the abuse they suffered.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
McCoy

I'm replying to this response to your question to acw.
You're aware that there are objective definitions for terms like "Christian State"/"Christian Nation", aren't you?

I've been thinking about your definition of a "Christian nation". I reject it, because, as you agreed, a state controlled Christian church is not truly a Christian church. It is a bastardization of Christianity meaning not Christian in anything other than name. So, it doesn't matter if a dictionary says a Christian nation is if it accepts something that is not Christianity as Christianity. It's definition is based upon a lie. Therefore it cannot be true. That definition verifies acw's ideas of Christianity, and I stand wholly opposed to his ideas as you do. Only I oppose his ideas from a different point of view than you hold.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Even experts on subjects have critics and yes, even experts on this subject have made errors in their speeches and/or writings. Secular humanist boogeyman David Barton is no different.

Since you appear to be using David Barton as a tool to discredit the Founding Father's intention of making the United States a Christian nation, let's continue on with my questions (which thus far have gone unanswered by you)

"Why would a secular nation do this?

David Barton (#3 on the secular humanist HATE list) mentioned in his Capitol Tour video the Aitken Bible.

Here in the Wallbuilders website he talks more about it:
Prior to the American Revolution, the only English Bibles in the colonies were imported either from Europe or England. Publication of the Bible was regulated by the British government, and required a special license. Robert Aitken’s Bible was the first known English-language Bible to be printed in America, and also the only Bible to receive Congressional approval. Aitken’s Bible, sometimes referred to as “The Bible of the Revolution,” is one of the rarest books in the world, with few copies still in existence today.


On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken presented a “memorial”
[petition] to Congress offering to print “a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures
for the use of schools.” This is the text of that memorial:...
After appointing a committee to study the project, Congress acted on September 12, 1782, by “highly approv[ing of] the pious and laudable
undertaking of Mr. Aitken.” The endorsement by Congress was printed in the Aitken Bible:


The endorsement was signed by Charles Thomson, who was Secretary
of the Continental Congress. Thomson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence,
is also famous for “Thomson’s Bible,” the first American translation
of the Greek Septuagint, published in 1808 (Thomson was an accomplished theologian,
publishing such works as “A Regular History of the Conception, Birth, Doctrine,
Miracles, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ.”)

Robert Aitken printed three documents in the front of his Bible,
the report of the committee established to review his memorial; the report of
the Congressional Chaplains; and Congresses endorsement. Below is the text of
these documents:
https://wallbuilders.com/aitken-bible/

Why would a secular nation do this?

Now run over to "the library" and see what Warren Throckmorton, Chris Rodda, Mikey Weinstein or the communist founded ACLU has to say about this article, as surely Barton didn't cross a t or dot an I somewhere in the article.


Instead of going to Barton for your ideas why don't you go to the founders themselves? A good share of their writings are on line and can be quoted directly. Why use some else's interpretation of what they said when you can read the ideas directly from the pens of the founders themselves. Seems a whole lot safer to me, and a whole lot less likely to be corrupted. What you're doing is like taking the word of a preacher for what is in the Bible instead of studying the Bible for yourself. It's a sure way to get led astray as every error the Christian church has been led into has been instigated by it's theologians, priests, and ministers.
 

McCoy

New member
McCoy


I've been thinking about your definition of a "Christian nation". I reject it, because, as you agreed, a state controlled Christian church is not truly a Christian church. It is a bastardization of Christianity meaning not Christian in anything other than name. So, it doesn't matter if a dictionary says a Christian nation is if it accepts something that is not Christianity as Christianity. It's definition is based upon a lie. Therefore it cannot be true. That definition verifies acw's ideas of Christianity, and I stand wholly opposed to his ideas as you do. Only I oppose his ideas from a different point of view than you hold.

The fact remains that there are objective, real-world definitions for terms and objective, real-world examples of those terms. You disagreeing with the concept of a "Christian nation", based on your own particular theological disagreement, does not negate the fact that there exists an objective linguistic definition and plenty of modern, living examples of the term in practical example.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
The fact remains that there are objective, real-world definitions for terms and objective, real-world examples of those terms. You disagreeing with the concept of a "Christian nation", based on your own particular theological disagreement, does not negate the fact that there exists an objective linguistic definition and plenty of modern, living examples of the term in practical example.

So, the fact, as you agreed to, that a state controlled church is headed by a political entity rather than Christ, is to you meaningless. To be a Christian means, by definition, to be a follower of Christ. In a church controlled by a state those adherents to that church would then be followers of a state, not of Christ. All of this put together means you're willing to toss out the very definition of Christianity itself in favor of a man-made definition that denies the very meaning, the very essence of, Christianity.

I get it. You're a socialist troll. I've been watching to see you develop your position and you've developed it well enough to eliminate Christ as the head of the church and still call that entity "Christian".
 
Top