Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gregory]

Protestant government:  Maryland was Roman Catholic in its formation.

Franklin, Jefferson and Paine all appear to hold the beliefs of a Deist, which is hardly Protestant.

Washington, never claimed to be Christian and appointed John Murray, who was a Universalist to becom an Army Chaplain.

Ethan Allen denied the diety of Jesus Christ, stated that he was not a Christian and did not argue with those who said he was a Deist.

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate stated:  "The government of the United States is not in any way founded on the Christian  religion.  The Senate vote was unanimous--the third time in our history.

Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 32 were Episcopalian/Anglican.  Whether or not these were Protestant can be debated.  Five were Quaker, Unitarian, Universalist and Roman Catholic--none of which were Protestant.  Twenty-five were clearly Protestant.

There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation, of which 14 were Epicopalian/Angllican.

There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, of which 39 signed the Constitution of the U.S.  Of these 55, 31 were Episcopalian/Anglican.

In one list of 204 Founding Fathers, 32 were Episcopalian/Anglican.

[tinka]

Protestant government:  Maryland was Roman Catholic in its formation.

Franklin, Jefferson and Paine all appear to hold the beliefs of a Deist, which is hardly Protestant.

Washington, never claimed to be Christian and appointed John Murray, who was a Universalist to becom an Army Chaplain.

Ethan Allen denied the diety of Jesus Christ, stated that he was not a Christian and did not argue with those who said he was a Deist.

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate stated:  "The government of the United States is not in any way founded on the Christian  religion.  The Senate vote was unanimous--the third time in our history.

Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 32 were Episcopalian/Anglican.  Whether or not these were Protestant can be debated.  Five were Quaker, Unitarian, Universalist and Roman Catholic--none of which were Protestant.  Twenty-five were clearly Protestant.

There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation, of which 14 were Epicopalian/Angllican.

There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, of which 39 signed the Constitution of the U.S.  Of these 55, 31 were Episcopalian/Anglican.

In one list of 204 Founding Fathers, 32 were Episcopalian/Anglican.

I would say that religion is a lot different back with the forefathers then it is today as "progression as filtrated with anti Christ has not shown it's betterment in "glory".

I would not venture to try and disclose how God picked and chose the right men for His new country to show "freedom" for a while until his Commandments or 3rd angels message could be proclaimed throughout the world by His plans and not our ignorant surmising of how men thought and were back then. America knows that men were definitely inspired and picked by God to write as they did. Was it to last ..no it was a cry from the Son pleading the blood until all "was restored to truth" so Jesus could return.

[Bob Pickle]

Gregory,

Do you agree with me that the following statements from the pen of inspiration are more authoritative than the Treaty of Tripoli? Also, please take a look at http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html and explain what significance you see in the great majority of the 204 listed founding fathers of the U.S.A. being Protestant.

"They do not see that if a Protestant government sacrifices the principles that have made them a free, independent nation, and through legislation brings into the Constitution, principles that will propagate papal falsehood and papal delusion, they are plunging into the Roman horrors of the Dark Ages" (RH 12-11-88).

"If, in our land of boasted freedom, a Protestant government should sacrifice every principle which enters into its Constitution, and propagate papal falsehood and delusion, well may be plead, 'It is time for thee, Lord, to work, for they have made void thy law'" (RH 12-18-88).

"The Protestant government will reach a strange pass" (TSA 53). (If this one is referring to another country other than the U.S., I would be interested in suggestions as to what other country it is referring to.)

"And the lamb-like horns, emblems of innocence and gentleness, well represent the character of our government, as expressed in its two fundamental principles, Republicanism and Protestantism" (4SP 277).

"When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near" (5T 451).

"When our nation shall so abjure the principles of its government as to enact a Sunday law, Protestantism will in this act join hands with popery; it will be nothing else than giving life to the tyranny which has long been eagerly watching its opportunity to spring again into active despotism" (5T 711).

"The 'two horns like a lamb' well represent the character of the United States Government, as expressed in its two fundamental principles, Republicanism and Protestantism" (ST 11-01-99).

And there are others.

In order for a Seventh-day Adventist to repudiate the idea that the U.S. government is a Protestant government, he or she would have to (a) reject the Spirit of Prophecy, and (b) revise Adventist beliefs about the two horns on the head of the second beast of Revelation 13.

[Gregory]

Bob, read carefully what I said, what EGW wrote and what you stated. 

1) If you read what EGW stated in context, it is clear that she believed the U.S. was a Protestant government due to the Constitution being based upon Protestant principles.  That is the reason that she gives multiple times and in several of your citations.

NOTE:  EGW also mkes such statements in relation to Sunday laws, which I did not address.

2) You will note that I never once spoke to that aspect of the issue--the Constitution, or Sunday laws.

3) I did two things:  I referenced the State of Maryland which was clearly founded on Roman Catholic principles and I referenced the religious beliefs of various people who could be called "founding fathers."  Your sole reference to a founding father was to Roger Williams.

4) Bob, you and I were talking about two different things.  We were neither agreeing nor disagreeing with each other.

5) Let us look closely again at what I said.  You will note that what I said gave substantial support for the idea that the majority of the founding fathers were Protestant.  I fully expected you to point that out, as you did, but not as strongly as I had expected you to do.

6) However, I also pointed out, without taking a personal position on it, that one could take the data that I presented and argue that to state that the founding fathers (which you did not state) were mainly Protestant, could be debated.

In summary Bob:
I spoke to the issue of the religious beliefs of  the founding fathers and pointed out that there were several ways of defineing who these might be.

EGW in references to the U.S. as a Protestant government defined it in the context of our Constitution aqnd Sunday laws, which I did not address.

One could argue that from the basis of the religious beleifs of the founding fathers our government was not Protestant and not reject what EGW said in regard to our Constitution.

Bob, why did I post what I said?  I simply, as I have been recently doing, posted historical data related to your comment.  People could use that data in part to formulate their personal belief.  Frankly, I expected that the majority would use it to agree with you while acknowledglilng that it was not 100% clear--Maryland and the Deists.

[tinka]

(Protestant government:  Maryland was Roman Catholic in its formation.
(are you declaring or intentionally disproving protestant gov ?)

Franklin, Jefferson and Paine all appear to hold the beliefs of a Deist, which is hardly Protestant.

This is intentional statement to disprove or give "superior documentation" against the mystery of God's intentions. Who are we to do this to give opposite effects.

Washington, never claimed to be Christian (Is this your direct statement of fact?? to mislead)  and appointed John Murray, who was a Universalist to becom an Army Chaplain.

History books rather do not claim all details other then the writers version.

Ethan Allen denied the diety of Jesus Christ, stated that he was not a Christian and did not argue with those who said he was a Deist.
But was he used of God???

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate stated:  "The government of the United States is not in any way founded on the Christian  religion.  The Senate vote was unanimous--the third time in our history.
Does this super seed what God prepared???

Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 32 were Episcopalian/Anglican.  Whether or not these were Protestant can be debated. Now that is a statement right up front of intentional attempts to disguise or question what God has done, A superior always wants debate man made loop holes to disprove what acts God chose or men to do his History. Five were Quaker, Unitarian, Universalist and Roman Catholic--none of which were Protestant.  Twenty-five were clearly Protestant. So how do you know or give opinions of debate that the 25 gave great influence to those who were not. Why not debate that?>?

There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation, of which 14 were Epicopalian/Angllican.

There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, of which 39 signed the Constitution of the U.S.  Of these 55, 31 were Episcopalian/Anglican.

In one list of 204 Founding Fathers, 32 were Episcopalian/Anglican.

Be careful for debating truth as the wisdom of Satan "is the great debater" as he knows how to use truth against truth. (It is written)

There was no need for these circles to intentionally present doubt for a lay person. and there is no doubt why it was presented then justified in a different sense as Bob and or I or anyone got the first drift of intentional remarks.  I cannot imagine spending time to find materials to debate SP unless a "superior" looks for superiority. 

[Gregory]

I cannot imagine spending time to find materials to debate SP unless a "superior" looks for superiority.

Tinka, I clearly stated that IL was not speaking to the issue that EGW raised.

I was not debating EGW at all.  I am not superior to EGW.

As I said, EGW stated that the U.S. Constitution made the United Stated a Protestant governlment.

I spoke to the relilgious backgrounds of our so-called founding fathers.  Ellen White and I were not speaking to the same subject.

[Bob Pickle]

Gregory,

I think that a predominately Catholic country can have a Protestant government if that government is based on Protestant principles. Thus, any government that promotes freedom of conscience would be Protestant at least in that area, regardless of what faith the majority of the citizens profess to adhere to.

Secondly, since one of the main points of Protestantism is the Bible being the ultimate authority, I wonder how that figures into the type of government the U.S. has or had.

[Gregory]

I think that a predominately Catholic country can have a Protestant government . . . .

I agree with the above.

[Murcielago]

Why would it make any difference whether our government was protestant or Catholic? Governments based on either side of that coin have an equally appalling history of oppression and violence against their own people. Claiming to have a government founded on Christianity is nothing to brag about, it is something to be ashamed of.

[Johann]

Churches Tread Lightly On Politics in 2012 Election

http://www.adventistreview.org/article/5394/archives/issue-2012-1515/15rns-churches-tread-lightly-on-politics-in-2012-election

[tinka]

Why would it make any difference whether our government was protestant or Catholic? Governments based on either side of that coin have an equally appalling history of oppression and violence against their own people. Claiming to have a government founded on Christianity is nothing to brag about, it is something to be ashamed of.

My big thought and question was why it ever was up for debate other then for one reason. Because it pertained to something that EGW wrote???so did it prove her wrong???   All I know is that this government was at first formed by higher power then our simple efforts to "disprove". no matter what history we read.  It was based on the word "freedom" and justice for all, but Miss Liberty does not have long life span as all things pass by the progression of human changes, disregard of spiritual truth, foothold of evil and,  greedy vanity disease. 

[Barrington]

Dear Friend, I have no problem voting for Obama.  There is no law against adultery.  Why are we not raising cain about that.  I am not a "supporter" of same-sex marriage, but from a civil right perspective, let them have it.   It is legal to have children out of wedlock, so why not make this okay.    We cannot legistlate morals.   Remember, as an Adventist we would not support a government law to close stores on Sabbath.  In fact we will vote for a law to keep them open on Saturday and Sunday. 


Recently, Obama came out in support of the right of Gay couples to marry. In an interview he sited many of the reasons his evolving opinion brought him to that point. First, that he believed after having talk to many gay couples, that despite his religious beliefs, that in keeping with "doing unto others what you would have them do unto you" it was the right thing to do. Secondly, it should lay to rest the contention that he is a Muslim, since I can tell you Muslim's absolutely hate Homosexuals. But in the truth of the Bible homosexuality and all its deviance is definitely a sin. Obviously the man is being attacked by demons and needs our prayers. Now I am left with a deli- ma, can't vote for Romney and can't vote for Obama, so who will I vote for?
[/quote]

[Barrington]

I believe Christians can vote for Obama because we believe is freedom of conscience and civil rights --completely.   Yes!  Completely.  For everyone.  Even the adulterer--who has a legal right to have sex outside of marriage.  ARe we rasing cain about that?  Certainly not.   

[tinka]

Dear Friend, I have no problem voting for Obama.  There is no law against adultery.  Why are we not raising cain about that.  I am not a "supporter" of same-sex marriage, but from a civil right perspective, let them have it.   It is legal to have children out of wedlock, so why not make this okay.    We cannot legistlate morals.   Remember, as an Adventist we would not support a government law to close stores on Sabbath.  In fact we will vote for a law to keep them open on Saturday and Sunday. 


Recently, Obama came out in support of the right of Gay couples to marry. In an interview he sited many of the reasons his evolving opinion brought him to that point. First, that he believed after having talk to many gay couples, that despite his religious beliefs, that in keeping with "doing unto others what you would have them do unto you" it was the right thing to do. Secondly, it should lay to rest the contention that he is a Muslim, since I can tell you Muslim's absolutely hate Homosexuals. But in the truth of the Bible homosexuality and all its deviance is definitely a sin. Obviously the man is being attacked by demons and needs our prayers. Now I am left with a deli- ma, can't vote for Romney and can't vote for Obama, so who will I vote for?

[/quote]

 

Well now Barrington, as simply as I know to ask,

Can you please answer what all that was about in Biblical history where God gave a few commands in the writing of Ordinances Of Moses for the people on how the morals needed to be dealt with if they dare do those immoral s??  We are not to mess either with the production organs of man or woman unless out of dire necessity. and what is the issue now that divides a nation. Am I missing something here that "changed" Now you got murdering full term babies.  It's okay thought that is "freedom of choice."  Just disregard this little human it don't know any better!! That is freedom of "evil".

Did you read anything about the destruction of Sodom or Gomorrah because people would not obey the morals that God so made very plain for cities or nations to live by that were in the category we are now in? 

No you cannot force people's will but you sure can have laws against the immoral (as we do now, or slowly disintegrating) to protect innocent from the deeds of immoral people.

and....do unto others as you would have them do unto you. How About one of the louses messing up a child for life that will taste or be immoral slavery minded? No laws uh?  No laws, no nation!!  There's a difference or a really big gap in this manner of thinking.

 What you really want is what the majority wants - a licence to do the immoral and Satan laughing in his horns to take as many as he can through these washing of Pilots hands --to take no responsibility or care what people's morals are when we should be trying to vote and do everything we can to help save souls or help them not to go that route with gov okays voted in under the cloak of overboard and far far reaching of what it really means "church and state from the pressure of the majority immoral views and their votes. They sure got fooled last time.

When a nation is built from respect of knowledge of God and then re routes you get just what is posted here.

 Freedom of individuals come from the laws provided as a nation as instructed from long ago. What changed this scenario?

The devils Frosting on the cake is Obama doing everything he can against what ever we had from beginning.   As a nation we must have moral laws.

 A vote for Obama is surly a vote for this new ally or road of "deceptive freedom" while our nation goes down as the pattern of immoral progression and belief now of Obama "change " when God does not change. True in the end the "power of using truth" will be the power that leads to the fate as told. either way ends. but for now "this power" that Mercilago talks about will buy a little time to bring in more souls while it can.

Obama has done many things to prove he is not Muslim so much that I believe he is tops in his abilities of conning.  He also ate a dog, a pig and makes very obvious of what he is not--that's why I don't believe him and the worse is he used racism for his own race to get the vote that he actually does not have them in mind.  He deceives the poor with his "charismatic character". I notice he does one thing that gives him away every time and he is not conscious that he does it. That makes me believe he has been or is Muslim from the very beginning that I started watching and listening.   It is habit that I detect. He is Muslim and has it in his gut or has been.

 No one can force what people do as sneaks or in the dark room but force or laws should be done when the "disease " is spread to innocent. Somebody has to stand like the one thief on the cross, someone has to believe what evil is.

Did you not hear that we are free from the law when we don't break it.. Funny how this means the same both in God's law or civil laws are.

All I know is before the end all will appear right that is wrong --and all wrong will appear right so this is not surprising views.

So before voting think of the damage it will do to someone else cause it is evident the only care of this attitude is self and let the freedom of evil take its toll for slavery and death .....  Can we worry only of our own salvation and enter the gates?? NO!!!  Then vote for the sake of morals that give real "freedom" of choice to all as a nation that God prepared under his laws. The decision of voting should be very simple--you vote against "freedom of evils" that are made law of the land to protect the innocent.  Roby v. Wade was one example. It is now "freedom of killing" and not one single liberal can do a thing about changing this fact of "killing". Satan has destroyed the very sense of "Thou shalt not kill to those who love "freedom of evil" to have killing on their mind for their immoral behavior and no choice for the little defenseless human.
 
 Man not only sought to change God's Law of the Sabbath but now is quite evident Man is changing them all. Especially marriage, birth, only thing not accomplished yet is ----the main religion of one by force!!! and that will be the opposite power that hands that over in the end.

In case you don't know it but there is a law against adultery...You can now get divorced because of it...  Wonder why that is???

[Gregory]

In case you don't know it but there is a law against adultery...You can now get divorced because of it...  Wonder why that is???

In the United States, one can get divorced from many reasons that are not against the law.

Yes, adultry is against the law in some places and it others it is not against the law.