Fw: What made America better off as a nation?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Innovatia" <dennis@innovatia.com>
To: "ed babinski" <ed.babinski@furman.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: What made America better off as a nation?

> From: "ed babinski" <ed.babinski@furman.edu>
>
> > Innovatia <dennis@innovatia.com> writes:
> > >We are better off because of the past history of righteousness and
> > >upholding of Jesus as Lord in America
>
> > ED: What would a "righteous Jesus Lordly America" be like by the way?
>
> Excerpting from XLM:
> A major reason why many are still comfortable with the US State as
> Christians is historical. As a central government, the US was formed from
> the American colonies. They were among the few instances in history of
> societies organized around biblical authority. Although they recognized
the
> king of England as having jurisdiction, in the local governance of the
> colonies, Christ was king. He was recognized as having rightful authority.
> The Mayflower Compact, signed by the Pilgrims in the Mayflower off Cape
Cod,
> begins with the words:
>
> In ye name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyall
> subjects of our dred soveraigne Lord, King James, by ye grace of God, of
> Great Britaine, Franc, and Ireland king, defender of ye faith, &c.,
haveing
> undertaken, for ye glorie of God, and advancemente of ye Christian
> faith...doe by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ye presence of God,
and
> one of another, covenant & combine our selves togeather into a civill body
> politick, for our better ordering & preservation & furtherance of ye ends
> aforesaid....
>
> By the late 1700s, the Enlightenment had made its impact in America
through
> the British philosophers from whom the US founders drew their ideas, men
> such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Though their thinking was influenced
> by Christianity, they were heirs of the Enlightenment. The founders were
> influenced by the writings of these men and a mixture of Enlightenment and
> Christian worldviews blended in their thinking. This resulted in a
> government with Christian features but built on an Enlightenment base -
> superficially Christian but unbiblical at the core.
>
> Constitutional historian E. S. Corwin notes about the Compact that
"Whereas
> with Locke the ultimate basis of authority is supplied by natural law,
here
> it is supplied by God." The Preamble to the Fundamental Orders of
> Connecticut is also explicit in recognizing the governing authority of
> Christ:
>
> ...where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to
> maintain the peace and union of such people there should be an orderly and
> decent government established according to God, to order and dispose of
the
> affairs of the people ... enter into combination and confederation
together,
> to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord
> Jesus which we do profess...
>
>
> > How different from Calvin's Geneva at the height of it's intolerance?
>
> I gave you my "definition" of what is a Christian and although I would not
> necessarily ant to rule Calvin out of the faith, this is off-point.
>
> > Or how
> > different from an Early American Puritan town (the Puritans got to
> > American only to start anathematizing each other and splintering into
> > different denominations, banishing those with different views, and
hanging
> > others). Or how different from a Wahabist Muslim state like Iran?
>
> The above quotes give the flavor of colonial American spirituality. They
> stand as the basis for my response despite the fact that colonial America
> consisted of finite and fallible human beings and the corruption of
> non-Christian (Enlightenment) influences upon the colonies.
>
> > By the way, the Southern States in the U.S. were the more "Christian"
ones
> > during the Civil War, they even rewrote their Constitution to invoke
> > "God," and preachers declared the South the "new chosen nation of God,"
> > and they cried the loudest for secession. Apparently God couldn't hold
> > that new "God-invoking" nation together.
>
> Ed, this comment is packed with so much baggage that it would take a
> mini-course of discourse to unpack it! (And I am leaving for the States in
a
> few days.) I can see that you have not yet gotten the conception of the
> Church in the Wilderness - the Christianity I have offered you as
exemplary
> Xny as much as any - and you start holding warring powers up to me as
> examples of Christians! We'll never get anywhere unless you distinguish
> between the vast history of counterfeit or weak Christianity, starting
with
> the papal religion, and the Christian traditions I have given in my
> "definition."
>
> To better understand this Christianity, please read Ben Wilkinson's book
on
> the Church in the Wilderness, or at least skim it. A copy is at:
>
> http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/wilkerson/tttoc.htm
>
> > And if not for a host of scientists who happened to be either lapsed
> > churchgoers, unorthodox Christians, heretics, apostates, infidels,
> > freethinkers, agnostics, or atheists, and their successes in the fields
of
> > agricultural and medical science, hundreds of millions would have
starved
> > to death or suffered innumerable diseases this past century. Those
> > agricultural and medical scientists "multiplied more loaves of bread"
and
> > "prevented/healed more diseases" in the past hundred years than
> > Christianity has in the past two thousand.
>
> And they did not do it as atheists in Soviet Russia, but in God-dominated
> America. How coincidental. A reading of de Tocqueville will shed some
> further light on the difference America made over Enlightenment France.
> Those non-Christians you cite - many of them were rather inconsisent in
the
> extent to which they allowed themselves to be influenced by and pick up
> colonial-style Christian views and attitudes.
>
> > Also, it has not always been the most orthodox of Christians who have
> > changed the face of charity worldwide for the better. Florence
Nightingale
> > (the lady who helped make nursing a legitimate profession, and taught
that
> > no one should be refused admittance to a hospital based on their
religious
> > affiliation, and no patient should be proselytized in a hospital, but
> > instead they should be allowed to see whichever clergyperson they
> > preferred) was not an orthodox Christian, but instead a freethinking
> > universalist Christian. (Ms. Nightingale also wrote some steamy letters
> > that suggest she may have been bi-sexual or a lesbian.)
> >
> > The founder of the International Red Cross (now called the International
> > Red Cross and Red Crescent), Andre Dunant, was gay.
> >
> > Clara Barton, founder of the American Red Cross, was another
freethinking
> > universalist Christian.
> >
> > Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who spend years in Africa as a doctor and helped
to
> > publicize the plight of suffering Africans, was a liberal Christian and
> > author of the The Search of the Historical Jesus in which he concluded
> > that Jesus was a man who preached that the world was going to end soon.
> >
> > And, Helen Keller (the woman who lost her sight and hearing to a bout
with
> > Scarlet Fever when she was very young, but who learned how to
communicate
> > via touch, and who proved an inspiration to several generations of folks
> > suffering from severe disabilities) was both a Swedenborgian, and a
member
> > of the American Humanist Society.
> >
> > America also benefited from the shrewd insights of the founding fathers
> > who were well aware of the wars of religion in Europe, notably the
Thirty
> > Years' War, perhaps the worst war Europe ever saw, Christians killing
> > Christians, and they all believed in creationism, the Trinity, and
Jesus'
> > divinity.
>
> Rather selective list. It demonstrates that God gives gifts to humans, not
> only the spiritually regenerate, though the former do not acknowledge him
> for them. It is also really way beyond any main track I thought the
> discussion was on.
>
> Babinski, are you an atheist yourself (as Glenn Morton intimates)? What is
> your worldview anyway? Who am I trying to discuss this with?
>
> Dennis Feucht
>
Received on Mon Oct 11 12:43:02 2004