Jul
4
2011
Well, I couldn’t think of a better time to post this. As an American who loves his country, but acknowledges the true history of it, this subject has been one of concern for me for some time. While opinions on history can vary on the margins, and the influence of various events can be debated, we shouldn’t allow people to deliberately twist history with impunity. Creating and/or believing in a false history because you think it helps “your side” is morally wrong no matter how you slice it, and it is also a sure-fire way to tie the noose that will eventually hang your credibility. This is such a case.
This controversy has been ongoing for some years now. It strikes at the very foundation of what it means to be Christian, and what the response should be to those who reject its basic doctrines, and those who wrongly label rejectors of these doctrines…Christians.
The controversy is this – refering to the Founding Fathers as Christians, and therefore, because of this, they intended to found the United States as a particularly Christian nation. The reason this is an important issue today is because of the rise in what can be called “Patriotic Ecumenicalism”. The propegators of this religious/political movement are a mixture of Christians and those who call themselves that. (AKA, wolves in sheeps clothing, Acts 20:29, or tares among the wheat, Matthew 13: 24-30)
As a Christian, I believe that in order to be labled one (in the Biblical sense), one must adhere to the doctrines found therein.
The Founding Fathers wrote a plethora of material we can compare to the Bible, and there were Christians back then who wrote about the fact that these men were aberrant in that sense. The virgin birth, Jesus’ death on the cross as attonement for sin, the Resurrection, miracles, the triune nature of God, salvation by grace through faith, are all basic Biblical fundamental doctrines which a Christian cannot equivocate on. To do so makes one something other than “Christian”, in the Biblical sense.
The confusion is in part due to the fact that one can hold to Biblical morality and not be Christian, (many if not most Americans believe this way). Being a Christian is a transformational (inside-out) experience brought about by the living Christ indwelling a person (John 15:1-10, Ephesians 2:8,9, Romans 8:1-8). It IS NOT a mental ascent to a set of principles, as is often believed. What is so disappointing to me is that so many professing Christians are willing to slap the “Christian” label on those who clearly aren’t, as in the case of the Founding Fathers.
Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Paine, Washington, (the main Founders) clearly stated they DID NOT believe the basic Biblical doctrines defining what it means to be Christian, or refused to make a public confession, as in the case of Washington. It’s pretty clear that although they believed in “God”, Providence, natures god, the creator of the universe, the great architect of the universe (the masonic GAOTU), Jesus as a great teacher, the Bible as a good book (although they thought it contained myths and embellishments), the 10 commandments, etc. etc., they did not believe the (fundamental) doctrines above. Their “god” was a deistic, masonic, ecumentical “god”, and their writings and actions prove it. Although they held to a form of godliness, they denied its power. (2 Timothy 3:5)
Here are some of their quotes (there are many more):
Thomas Paine
“I do not believe in the creed professed by……..any church that I know of. My mind is my own church.” (Age of Reason)
“…in truth there is no such thing as redemption — that it is fabulous.”
“the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married”
Thomas Jefferson
“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.” (Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823)
On his editing the Bible (The Jefferson Bible), Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.” (October 13, 1813)
It’s clear, according to Jefferson, the Bible was the dunghill.
John Adams
“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”
“Where is to be found theology more orthodox, or philosophy more profound, than in the introduction to the Shasta?” (Letter to Jefferson, December 25, 1813)
Since when does Brahmin (Hindu) theology have any union with Biblical theology?
“God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy (the incarnation / deification of Jesus) is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world. ” (Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1825)
Benjamin Franklin
“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. (March 9, 1790)
George Washington
While Washington was not in any way vocal in his opposition to Biblical doctrine, he never made a public declaration of faith in Jesus Christ.
Thomas Jefferson said this of him:
“Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green (chaplain of the House of Representatives 1792 – 1800) that when the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion and they thot they should so pen their address as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However he observed the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rush observes he never did say a word on the subject in any of his public papers except in his valedictory letter to the Governors of the states when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of the benign influence of the Christian religion. “I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets & believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system than he himself did.”
Washington’s so called ”Prayer book” was “discovered” nearly a century after his death and claimed to be in his handwriting as young man, is almost certainly not related to GW. Claiming the (copied) prayers as those of GW during his youth, and then making the leap that they expressed Washington’s mature faith is a streatch, because the sentiments of the prayers in no way are expressed in any of his writings as an adult.
In the absence of any recorded statements from Washington himself concerning his religious belief, the most conclusive evidence that can be presented is the admissions of his clerical acquaintances. Among these are preserved the testimony of his pastors – Bishop White, Rev. Dr. Abercromble, and Rev. Dr. Bird Wilson:
“I do not believe that any degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation…” ~ Bishop White (memoir pg. 193)
“Sir, Washington was a Deist.”~ Dr. Abercromble
“I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more.” ~ Dr. Wilson
“Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man. But he was not a professing Christian” ~ Dr. Wilson
Dr. Wilson also believed that nearly all the Founders were not professing Christians. He went on to say of the Constitution:
“When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and, after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it.”
This is why Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee and Samuel Adams (true professing Christians from all accounts), collectively said, “I smell a rat” at the ratification of the Constitution. They strenuously objected to it because they recognized the danger of establishing power - even ostensibly limited power in the hands of men apart from the possibility of recourse to God and Divine Law. The Constitution makes no mention of God, or God’s Law.
Back to our modern day……
At the heart of this (Founding Father) controversy is pop-historian David Barton, who wows naive Christian audiances nationwide with blatantly out-of-context presentations of the Founders words, making them heros of the Christian faith. Barton has recently been called to answer for his many discrepancies, even by his own friends, and has yet to answer adequately in writing or debate. His lame attempt to answer has been only to repeat the same baloney he’s been doing for years.
I can only attribute his deaf ear to the fact that now he’s making the big bucks by being linked with Glenn Beck, and the ecumenical-dominionist movement within the “Church”, which has money and high level political influence behind it.
On the other side of this controversy is Chris Pinto. Pinto is an independant researcher/filmmaker who has produced many works on the history of the America. His latest film strikes at the core of “Bartonian Logic” and is waking up many to Barton’s deceptive tactics. Here is that film:
Furthermore, we should look at the fruit of what these Founding Fathers produced during and after their time. The icons and symbols which they created and/or endorsed, in no way point to a Biblical Christian foundation. For example, the Great Seal of the United States, found today on the back of the Dollar bill, is a Masonic/Pagan symbol. It was designed and approved by the Founders above.
Also, the buildings, statues, and street layout of Washington D.C. are clearly a sign of Masonic/Pagan/Occult/Enlightenment influence. The scant use of Biblical passages and imagery is only a testament to the ecumenical nature of these men. The faith of the Founding Fathers was an ecumenical borrowing of all religions, including Reason, and wrapped in Christian phraseology. Not much has changed as we see the same thing today.
The bottom line for me is this:
Whether someone is “Christian” or not is ultimately between them and God, but we can judge their doctrinal fruit, and in fact, we are told to do so in scripture. I would not call someone a Christian, as many do, who openly rejects the basic tenants of the faith.
It seems to me that the Founders mentioned above, (which are the main ones), were not Christians as defined by the Bible. The totality of their writings show they were mostly influenced by the Enlightenment thinkers of Europe - men like Voltaire and Rousseau. They were influenced by the Bible insomuch as it agreed with Reason. They believed in the “morals” and “doctrines” of Jesus, but never called Him Divine, or Savior.
It is therefore logical to conclude that they did not intend America to be a particularly Christian nation, but a pluralistic and religiously open one. By their writings it is clear that they thought, as Jefferson said:
“these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding (Biblical doctrines), and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.”
It’s hard to imagine what they would think of so many people believing the Bartonian view of them, that they were similar to Bible believing Christians today. I imagine they would scoff at such a notion.
~ Bret Major
Jun
25
2011
…limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins, and everyone else is marginalised and made to seem as either a communist, a kook, some sort of disloyal person or a conspiracy theorist – Something that shouldn’t even be entertained for a minute that powerful people might get together and have a plan. DOESN’T HAPPEN. You’re a kook and a conspiracy buff. ~ George Carlin
I’ve participated in the blogosphere for some years now. For me it’s a great way to talk to a wide variety of people in order to satisfy my lifelong curiosity to understand what people believe and why, and to sharpen myself as well. Up until about a year ago, I would frequently jump into forums where I thought I could learn something, give my 2 cents, challenge something, or someone, I thought was off base. It’s been a fruitful exercise for the most part, but lately my participation has subsided considerably.
The reason for that primarily is this – that I’m sick and tired that the limits of debate are shoe-horned into a pre-defined “dialectic”. Unfortunately, many are ignorant of this reality. It’s very dis-heartening to be having an intelligent discussion, rare as that is, only to have some blowhard blog-troller ruin it by spewing the latest “approved” talking points smothered with ad homonym.
What has happened in our ”modern/advanced” society is that while knowledge has increased – wisdom and discernment have decreased. Information is derived almost entirely by second-hand accounts. News and other information is pre-digested and regurgitated out as slogans and platitudes.
In politics, the parameters of each issue are defined in terms of Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative, Democrat vs. Republican. If you don’t fit into the pre-defined dialectic, (like I don’t sometimes), you’re mis-cast, like George said above, as a kook, or a disloyal person. This mentality is more akin to sports fanatics, where you root for and defend “your team” no matter what – truth and logic be damned.
A political example of this is that there is not a dimes worth of difference on many important issues separating the Democrats and Republicans. In many ways we have a false paradigm. You must fit into either side and enjoy rooting for your favorite ”team” or prepare to be marginalised, ignored, or worse.
If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame. Proverbs 18:13
I have experienced this first hand in the blogosphere. Deficit spending, useless wars, over-regulation, onerous laws used to control the citizenry, bail-outs for those who create the problems, trade policies which favor global corporations, etc., are supported by BOTH parties. To stand on the principle that these are wrong WHOEVER supports them is a quick way to be thought of as a kook. Therefore the issues above, which to me are most important, are not dealt with in a constructive way, and those who pull the strings of the politicians and define the debate in the mass media, WIN.
Furthermore exacerbating the problem is that many people totally lack a basic understanding of logic when it comes to presenting and defending an idea. When confronted with the facts that the issues above are a result of the failure of BOTH sides, and the ignorance of the masses that allow it to happen, many resort to ad homonym and non sequitur attacks, and think nothing of it. The fall back position for most is what they heard on Hannity or Maddow the night before….two sides of the same coin most of the time.
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation. ~ Herbert Spencer
~ Bret Major
Jun
6
2011
May
31
2011
May
21
2011
Well, May 21st has come and gone with no earthquake, rapture, or any such event. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that this sort of thing happens every so often. That is, some charismatic Bible twister predicts something based on wishful thinking. There’s a huge difference between exegesis and eisegesis – Mr. Camping was clearly using the later to come up with his foolishness. It’s sad his followers had not read the Bible for themselves, or else they would have come across the many passages concerning end time events that are equated with deception and false prophets, Matthew 24:4, Matthew 24:11, etc. And, that we would never know the specific hour. Matthew 24:44.
So, what should we think of all this? For those who think it’s all balderdash to begin with, they will have a little chuckle and go back to the regular scheduled programming. The popular culture and media has made a nice “little” reality for the masses to wallow in, saturated with allowable memes. This hived mentality presents a false transcendant reality through religion, occult, end of the world, vampire, and alien themes to satisfy the God shaped void in the human soul, but it’s just a substitute for the real.
And the real is this – that the God of the Bible is real, and He’s proven it by giving us the future in advance through prophecy. About 1/3rd of the Book is prophetic, and about 1/2 of that has already come to pass, or is happening right now. What’s left of it deals with the end of the world as we know it.
Jesus himself fulfilled and made dozens of specific foretellings attested to by Biblical and non-Biblical sources. Including the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD (Matthew 24:2), and His own death and resurrection (Luke 18:33). Other Hebrew prophets made all kinds of predictions which have already been fulfilled. Predictions of kingdoms rising and falling, and prophecies surrounding Israel and her people have continued to be proven true over and over. In fact, the news today upholds and continues this trend.
The amalgamation of what will become the end time world kingdom is before us. A large portion of the visible ”Church” is apostatized, or compromised in some way. Much of it, its deceived leadership, and members, are seeking ecumenical unions with other “Churches”. Running parallel with that is a more secular one-world religion based on a re-packaging of the ancient babylonian mystery religion - the two will eventually link up and give their allegiance and power to a one world leader and government. Just a cursory look at history shows us that the combination of government and religion never works out well, yet this is exactly what the U.N., the mainline world religions, and other groups are working towards. The Bible says the masses will welcome it.
The New World Order, as it’s called now, has been in the works for 100 years or so, mostly behind the scenes, but more openly as of late. It’s not even news anymore that the nation state will eventually be history, although most Americans tend to ignore the inevitable. All it will take is the right event or set of events to implement the one world government and economy, all supported by a one world spirituality. It will happen, just as predicted.
This is what the Bible speaks to as the end-time scenario, and it’s what we are seeing, but you will never see it accurately attested to in secular culture and media. If you’re relying on that for truth, you are well set up for the deception. If that’s the case, I hope you will take the time to go through the links imbedded in this post and decide for yourself.
The worst thing that can happen to a person is to be ripped off spiritually. God has provided a way of salvation. Don’t let the gift of this life, His life, pass you by.
The ancient Hebrew prophets predictions are coming to pass, and at some point, it will all be finished. When that day is specifically is unknowable, but be assured the season is upon us.
~ Bret Major
May
20
2011
A very comprehensive video on this subject:
Mar
26
2011
Take a step back and look at the big picture.
Old-Thinker News | September 24, 2010
By Daniel Taylor
It’s easy to become cynical in today’s world, especially for those who follow current events and have a desire to stay informed. Too many people are blind or dulled to both the great evil and goodness in the world. I invite you to take a step back and look at the big picture; notice the beauty that still surrounds us. There is something behind that beauty that is rarely discussed, something that is in our very genetic code and the natural world that we inhabit.
“The genetic code is 3.6 billion years old. It’s time for a rewrite.” — Tom Knight, professor at MIT’s Artificial Intelligence Lab
Given the open statements announcing the intent to re-write the genetic code of the planet – and the release of genetically modified organisms into the biosphere – the question naturally arises: Do we really know what we are tampering with? Here is one example: So called “Junk DNA” – the 97% of our human genetic code that has been deemed to be meaningless – has been found to have “features of a language.” Science Magazine reported in 1994,
“Using statistical techniques borrowed from linguistics, [Physicist Eugene Stanley] says he and his colleges… from Harvard Medical School, ‘have shown fairly clearly that the ‘junk’ has all the features of a language.’
They… tried a test developed by information theorist Claude Shannon in the 1950′s to quantify the “redundancy” of any string of characters. Languages are redundant sequences, explains Stanley: You can fill in a typographical error by noting nearby characters. A random sequence, in contrast, has no redundancy. Applied to junk DNA, Shannon’s formula revealed a surprising amount of redundancy – another sign that something was written in these mysterious stretches.”
Yet another astonishing scientific fact comes in the form of a sequence of numbers discovered by an Italian mathematician named Leonardo of Pisa (known as Fibonacci) in 1202. This sequence, known under such names as Phi, the Golden Ratio, the Divine Proportion, etc., is found throughout nature. Fibonacci discovered Phi when studying the breeding of rabbits. The number of pairs of rabbits increased from 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, and so on. Each new number in the series is the sum of the two before it. The ratio of each pair equals Phi (1.618…)
This proportion of 1.618 can be seen in the architecture of the Parthenon of ancient Greece. Artists and architects have used the Golden Ratio for thousands of years to create visually pleasing works. Beyond this, Phi can also be found throughout nature, including the human body. For example, the human finger is divided into four sections (2,3,5,8), the ratio of which equals the Golden Ratio of 1.618. The human ear is also proportioned according to Phi.
Far above our heads, beyond planet Earth and our solar system, galaxies even follow the Golden Ratio. Hurricanes on earth also exhibit the Golden Ratio, which “…makes the Golden Ratio’s presence all the more remarkable,” because “Hurricanes are structures in the gravitational field of the Earth, while galaxies are self-gravitating objects in space,” writes Robert Roy Britt for Space.com.
One of the most profound discoveries related to the Golden Ratio came early this year. Even at the quantum level, the Golden Ratio of 1.618 has been discovered by researchers at Oxford and Bristol Universities. Professor Alan Tennant, one of the leading scientist involved in the research project remarked that, “Such discoveries are leading physicists to speculate that the quantum, atomic scale world may have its own underlying order.” Science Daily reports,
“By tuning the system and artificially introducing more quantum uncertainty the researchers observed that the chain of atoms acts like a nanoscale guitar string. Dr. Radu Coldea from Oxford University, who is the principal author of the paper and drove the international project from its inception a decade ago until the present, explains: “Here the tension comes from the interaction between spins causing them to magnetically resonate. For these interactions we found a series (scale) of resonant notes: The first two notes show a perfect relationship with each other. Their frequencies (pitch) are in the ratio of 1.618…, which is the golden ratio famous from art and architecture.”
What should we gather from all of this? Perhaps the undiscovered mysteries of the universe far exceed what we do know. Humanity is not a disease as the scientific dictatorship has branded us. Claims that man is a mere animal have provided part of the “moral” justification for crimes against humanity throughout history. Millions of lives were never lived and stories never told as the end result of these mass-murder campaigns. Alexis de Tocqueville, the French historian well known for his momentous work Democracy in America (1835), was appalled by the arrogance of the “materialists” of his day who he regarded as “natural enemies of the people.” Tocqueville wrote,
“…if you encounter among the opinions of a democratic people any of those wicked theories that intimate that everything perishes with the body, you must regard those who profess such theories as natural enemies of the people. There are many things about the materialists that offend me. Their doctrines seem to me pernicious, and their pride revolts me… When they have done enough to their estimation to prove that they are mere brutes, they strut about as proudly as if they had proven they were gods.”
When the Rockefeller Foundation began its central mission to discover the biological workings of man in order to better control him, some members of the scientific community spoke out. Chester Bernard served as president of the Rockefeller Foundation from 1948-1952. He saw what the Foundation and much of the scientific community was attempting to do at the time with eugenics and spoke out against it, but couched his criticism with the assumption of pure motives. Bernard writes in the Rockefeller Foundation’s 1948 Annual Report,
“Inherent in our systematic efforts to promote the welfare of mankind there may be an assumption that… by reason and science we may govern the future of unborn generations in ways that we know are right… Do we mean that because we have learned to navigate the tides we shall also control them? … We have already begun the attempts to regulate local weather. Where do we think we shall stop — with the control of the speed of rotation of the earth, of its revolution around the sun?… Pride goeth before a fall. All our efforts will promote only disaster if they are not done in the humility appropriate to our ignorance, never forgetting that we have not made the earth or the heavens above it.”
Romans 1:20
Mar
26
2011
Mar
3
2011