Anyone feel like talking theology?

Hamster_Free

Public school never mentioned Founders and religion in the same breath and drove the interpretation of separation of church and state as absence of all religious practice in state function...not the interpretation that says you can practice whatever your conscience advises freely, and the state can't stop you from doing it. 

It's only through research and corroboration of many sources that I've reached the conclusion that they were indeed pious men, mostly Christian, but the more free thinkers were willing to test the creations of man (including scripture) with the fire of reason.  If it still held, they accepted it as divine truth. 

Natalie_Lorin

For what it's worth Jefferson had his own version of the Bible, and I believe that George Washington didn't come to church on the Sundays when Communion was served. I actually believe that a large number of the founding fathers were Deists rather than Christians - although I also believe that many others were Christians and that Christian morality was considered the foundation of civilization.

But that's the problem with our foundational documents. "One Nation under God." So is this a personally saving God ala the Triune God? Is this a divine omniscience who established the natural order and allowed it to run along by itself? It's hard to tell what they meant. Then you have people like the Puritan writer (Winthrop I believe?) who conceived of the settlements in America as an explicitly Christian "City on a Hill" that would serve as a beacon to all humanity. That's clear enough, but it's also not codified anywhere.

For what it's worth I do believe that the whole "separation of church and state" thing has gotten beyond ridiculous. The political/cultural context at the time was that England (among other nations) had seen religious differences turn into epic power struggles. On one hand they didn't want it to be the Anglicans vs the Catholics again, on the other hand we now have a two party system imbued with religious levels and fanaticism and rancor. Good job avoiding that folks! Anyway, it does seem silly the extent to which they've taken religious separation.

Blakfyre

BoneDaddyJive said:

@notelrac I will concede your premise but not your conclusion. Ontological arguments often degenerate into semantics. Sin is:

Noun

An immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Which causes a quandary for me. I do not believe in the supernatural, so there is no divinity against which to transgress.

Please forgive my Sunday school level understanding of Christianity, but the Old Testament pretty clearly says "thou shalt not kill". The New Testament pretty clearly says "love your enemies". Assuming that those two statements are expressions of divine law, isn't killing always a sin, if not always a felony?

He also states that he who fails to protect his family is better off with a millstone hung around his neck and thrown in the sea.  And he ordered the israelites to war on plenty of occasions.  The issue isn't the action of killing, necessarily, the issue is, like all other christian thought-crimes, intent.  Did you go into your self-defense situation having provoked the other man because he cut you off on the highway, or did you go into your self-defense situation scared out of your mind for your family and doing what you needed to in order to defend them?

Personally, and I have a rather medieval view of Christianity in general, I feel like bringing someone to Judgement a little faster isn't that big a deal.  Jesus says in Matt 5:21,22 that the unjustified anger is the sin, not the murder itself.  The Old Covenant is all about what you do, where the New Covenant is all about what you think.  In the Old Covenant, it was enough to say that "This result is wrong" but the new covenant refines that to be "This cause for this result is wrong" when the cause and the result are two parts of the same action.

If I've got someone breaking into my house, I'll have no qualms about ending him, and I don't think Jesus will bat an eye, any more than if someone accidentally ends me on the highway, or if I am in general ended by illness or another act of God.  The lightning bolt that strikes me down, or the other driver who loses control of his car, aren't intent on murder, but my death is a result that arises in spite of their lack of unreasonable anger.

Athol_Kay

Natalie_Lorin said:

But that's the problem with our foundational documents. "One Nation under God." So is this a personally saving God ala the Triune God? Is this a divine omniscience who established the natural order and allowed it to run along by itself? It's hard to tell what they meant. Then you have people like the Puritan writer (Winthrop I believe?) who conceived of the settlements in America as an explicitly Christian "City on a Hill" that would serve as a beacon to all humanity. That's clear enough, but it's also not codified anywhere.

"One nation under God" wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_.22under_God.22

 

Hamster_Free

If it's hard to tell what they meant, I think you just need to do a little more reading.  If they were talking just for show, they sure loved a good audience, cause they sure talked a lot..

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

~ George Washington, General Orders (May 2, 1778)

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!"

~ Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Q.XVIII (1782) (he was referring to slavery as the incitement of God's wrath)

"From a view of the profligate and wicked lives of many in the community, it appears that some laws to restrain vice and encourage virtue are of the highest importance to the welfare of the State; it being certain that almost all the evils of government originate from men of corrupt principles and abandoned manners.

"In addition, therefore, to wholesome laws restraining vice, every encouragement ought to be given to introduce religion, and learned clergy to perform divine worship in honor to God, and to cultivate principles of religion and virtue among our citizens."

~ Dr. Lyman Hall, Address to the legislature of Georgia (July 8, 1783)

"I've lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth — That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, — and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages."

~ Benjamin Franklin

“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God, to obey His will to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”

— George Washington

I do not consider myself a Christian...I just really dislike that there's a growing movement to characterize these men as anything other than what they were.  Whatever their individual interpretations, they were still devout and pious, typically with a generally Christian flavor.  So many of them are quoted as saying something to the theme that self-government can not function without the moral code of religion.  These men pledged their lives, liberty and sacred honor, and many lost the first two because they didn't lose the third.  Honor was kind of a big deal.  I don't think they were expressing piety just to get elected.

Hamster_Free

@natalie, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the interpretation of separation of church and state.  Rather than banning religious expression on government ground, it would be more correct in keeping with the whole "Freedom of Religion" idea to have a general purpose place of worship/solemnity to let all address their consciences as they see fit.