1st Mulim Congressman Thrills Dearborn, MI Crowd

Latest prophecy related news.

1st Mulim Congressman Thrills Dearborn, MI Crowd

Postby Be still on Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:55 am

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061226/NEWS05/612260367

Speaking in Dearborn late Sunday night, the first Muslim elected to Congress told a cheering crowd of Muslims they should remain steadfast in their faith and push for justice.

"You can't back down. You can't chicken out. You can't be afraid. You got to have faith in Allah, and you've got to stand up and be a real Muslim," Detroit native Keith Ellison said to loud applause.

Many in the crowd replied "Allahu akbar" -- God is great.

Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat elected to the U.S. House in November, has been the center of a national debate in recent weeks over Islam and its role in politics. Ellison has said he would take his oath of office on the Quran, the Muslim holy book, igniting a storm of criticism from some commentators.

U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, a Republican from Virginia, said in a letter to constituents this month that the election of Ellison and other Muslims poses a danger to the country.

But Ellison, speaking at the annual convention of the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America, said that Muslims can help teach America about justice and equal protection.

"Muslims, you're up to bat right now," he said. "How do you know that you were not brought right here to this place to learn how to make this world better?"

The convention, which ended Monday, drew more than 3,000 Muslims from across the country for the event aimed at revival and reform.

Ellison, who converted to Islam during college, made his remarks at the Hyatt Regency, the site of the five-day convention.

Ellison said he'd use the Quran during his swearing-in ceremony next week.

"On Jan. 4, I will go swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I'll place my hand on the Quran," Ellison said while placing his hand on the lectern, to loud applause.

"This controversy has ... made people dust off their Constitution and actually read it ."

:eek:
YSIC, Karen
Image
User avatar
Be still
 
Posts: 11028
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:25 am
Location: Mid-Atlantic

Postby Kneeologian on Tue Dec 26, 2006 12:40 pm

What if we all started praying for Rep-elect Ellison and he got saved? Fat chance? How about each of us looking in the mirror and seeing if we looked "savable"? I'm not saying blanket acceptance is the answer, but lets think about what our (true believers) message to Muslim Americans is. Is it inherently un-American to be Muslim?
"This is the day which the Lord has made;
let us rejoice and be glad in it." Ps. 118:24
User avatar
Kneeologian
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin

Postby OneOfTheseDays on Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:51 pm

The Bible makes it clear that there are only two types of people: saved and unsaved. It doesn't matter whether you are Muslim, American, British, Hindu, or whatever label you can stick on someone. All it comes down to is whether you've repented and put your trust in the Savior. And, quite frankly, I want those people in government.

Is it realistically going to happen before the Lord returns, probably not, but I'm still going to pray about it and for the people who are in government right now.
Image
User avatar
OneOfTheseDays
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:45 am
Location: Southern California

Postby DneprCowboy on Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:59 pm

If you read what the founding fathers of this country had to say about citizenship, you would have to say that Muslims are inherently un-American. Their entire way of thinking is opposed to democracy. They are doing exactly what Adolf Hitler did. They are joining democracy in order to destroy it.
User avatar
DneprCowboy
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:57 am
Location: East Central New Mexico, USA

Postby Triton57 on Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:08 am

That might actually work pretty good for him to put his hand on the Koran since he's a politician now and the Koran and it's author gives the ok to lie, deceive, and mislead for Islam.
Prophet of Doom
Bukhari:V7B67N427
"The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.'"

Qur'an 9:3
"Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations."

Qur'an 66:1
"Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows."

Qur'an 4:142
"Surely the hypocrites strive to deceive Allah. He shall retaliate by deceiving them."

Ishaq:519
"Hajjaj said to the Apostle, ‘I have money scattered among the Meccan merchants, so give me permission to go and get it.' Having got Muhammad's permission, he said, ‘I must tell lies.' The Apostle said, ‘Tell them.'"

Bukhari:V6B60N662
"Allah's Apostle said, ‘Some eloquent speech is as effective as magic.'"

Bukhari:V6B60N8
"Umar said, ‘Our best Qur'an reciter is Ubai. And in spite of this, we leave out some of his statements because Allah's Apostle himself said, "Whatever verse or revelation We abrogate or cause to be forgotten We bring a better one."

Qur'an 8:30
"Remember how the unbelievers plotted against you (Muhammad). They plotted, and Allah too had arranged a plot; but Allah is the best schemer."

You get the point. Muslims who take their faith seriously are perfectly trustworthy :shark:
Phillip
2 Timothy 4:1-4
“About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition.” - Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
User avatar
Triton57
 
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:06 pm
Location: Washington

Postby InHim on Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:02 pm

What I was thinking Triton57.

...remain steadfast in their faith and push for justice


I understand justice and faith in Islam are exclusive of those of others. Great.
InHim
 
Posts: 591
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:14 am

Postby Matt 16:3 on Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:06 pm

Regardless if Mr. Ellison is Muslim we need to remember 1Timothy 2:2-'to pray for those in authority over us that we may live peacefully and quietly in the land in all godliness and holiness.' Even if I don't agree with his beliefs and the people right here in my district elected him, I should still feel obligated to pray for him to come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus and for him to vote for issues that will cause me to live a peaceful live in Minnesota.
You know how to interpret the
appearance of the sky
But you cannot interpret
the signs of the times.
Jesus of Nazareth
Matt 16:3
User avatar
Matt 16:3
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:26 pm
Location: Twin Cities MN

Postby Triton57 on Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:59 am

Matt 16:3 wrote:Regardless if Mr. Ellison is Muslim we need to remember 1Timothy 2:2-'to pray for those in authority over us that we may live peacefully and quietly in the land in all godliness and holiness.' Even if I don't agree with his beliefs and the people right here in my district elected him, I should still feel obligated to pray for him to come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus and for him to vote for issues that will cause me to live a peaceful live in Minnesota.

:a3:
Phillip
2 Timothy 4:1-4
“About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition.” - Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
User avatar
Triton57
 
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:06 pm
Location: Washington

the muslim thing

Postby redeemed1953 on Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:07 am

If you read what the founding fathers of this country had to say about citizenship, you would have to say that Muslims are inherently un-American. Their entire way of thinking is opposed to democracy. They are doing exactly what Adolf Hitler did. They are joining democracy in order to destroy it.



:armor:

I promise you that Thomas, John (adams) and John (Hancock) did not have Muslims in mind when they were writing out the Constitution.

PSALM 139:21-22

David, the King, said:

Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies.

I will say nothing more.

:a3:
I am a great sinner and Christ is a great Saviour...John Newton
redeemed1953
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:21 pm
Location: Mississippi Valley

Postby AndCanItBe on Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:11 am

Matthew 5

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Image
User avatar
AndCanItBe
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 18647
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:24 am

Postby Ford Dude on Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:06 am

The Founding Fathers of the United States were, for the most part, not Christians. Many of them were Deists and Masons.

There is no mention of Jesus Christ in the Declaration or Bill of Rights. The statues and monuments which adorn America are not those of Jesus and the Apostles, Moses or Abraham.

Rather, the ones that are extant are clearly pagan in origin, masonic in meaning.

Even the Statue of Liberty is a depiction of Semiramis, Queen of Babylon, erected after the Colossus of Rhodes, and not anything Christian.

The freedoms and rights granted under the Constitution were a very clever arrangement to free the American people from the sort of tyranny that the common man has classically been under, particularly in this case from the Crown.

The spiritual wealth of any nation is measured by its faith toward God in times of hardship.

The fact that this muslim has been elected fairly into office is more a reflection on the state of the union (We The People in particular) than in what the Founding Fathers thought or provided through the writing of the Constitution (Freedom of RELIGION in particular).

I'm sorry to say it, but America and Britain have had their time. Both nations are far too involved in massive moral decadence, hedonism, love of money, unbelief and debauchery, which is exported around the world by the tonne.

Now the mantle of the gospel is passing to others - the explosion of Christianity in China, under terrific persecution since 1949, shows us where.
Ford Dude
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:21 am

Re: the muslim thing

Postby jesusphreak on Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:12 pm

redeemed1953 wrote:
If you read what the founding fathers of this country had to say about citizenship, you would have to say that Muslims are inherently un-American. Their entire way of thinking is opposed to democracy. They are doing exactly what Adolf Hitler did. They are joining democracy in order to destroy it.



:armor:

I promise you that Thomas, John (adams) and John (Hancock) did not have Muslims in mind when they were writing out the Constitution.

PSALM 139:21-22

David, the King, said:

Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies.

I will say nothing more.

:a3:


Keep in mind just because something is recorded into the Bible doesn't mean it was okay. Just because David hated someone doesn't mean it was right. There is rape and murder recorded in the Bible, some by major Biblical figures, but that doesn't mean God approves of it.

As AndItCantBe has shown, Christ told us to love everyone, even our enemies.
jesusphreak
 
Posts: 1204
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:34 am

Postby crmann on Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:15 pm

Be Still's post about Mr Ellison:

Speaking in Dearborn late Sunday night, the first Muslim elected to Congress told a cheering crowd of Muslims they should remain steadfast in their faith and push for justice.


I suggest a search on what Muslim's consider justice. Justice to the Muslims who follow the faith of Islam is not what you and I would consider justice. Justice to the Muslim would be to see Muslim law incorporated into the American Justice system. Any attempt by western thought to interfere with Muslim affairs is viewed as an incrouchment on its religion. To remain steadfast in their faith is to replace the religions and government of America with that of the Muslim.

To the Muslim, there is no religion but Islam, and part of the Muslim religion is to subdue all other religions. In fact it is against the Muslim religion to even allow other religions to even exist.

"You can't back down. You can't chicken out. You can't be afraid. You got to have faith in Allah, and you've got to stand up and be a real Muslim," Detroit native Keith Ellison said to loud applause.


So what was Mr. Ellison actually telling the crowd of Muslims when he said: "You can't back down. You can't chicken out. You can't be afraid. You have got to have faith in Allah, and you've got to stand up and be a real Muslim,"?

When a Muslim leader talks to a large group of Muslims, telling them to be a real Muslim, he is telling them to not back down, to spread their faith and obey Allah. He is in so many words telling them to begin jihad, or "holy war." Or, more precisely, to begin the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.

The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.

Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad. (This is why Algerians, Egyptians and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and Israelis, so often the victims of jihadist aggression.) The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth.

Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That's how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632. It's how, a century later, Muslims had conquered the large region from Afghanistan to Spain. Subsequently, jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans.

Today, jihad is the world's foremost source of terrorism, inspiring a worldwide campaign of violence by self-proclaimed jihadist groups. So what was it that Ellison actually communicated to the large Muslim Crowd to cause many in the crowd to reply "Allahu akbar" -- God is great?

This will be a wait and see thing here. We will wait and see what the outcome will be of these words spoken by a Muslim to a large group of interested Muslims.
Image
User avatar
crmann
 
Posts: 10409
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Mountains, Western NC

From Redeemed 1953

Postby redeemed1953 on Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:50 pm

Hi: I thought it was very interesting today when I posted about the muslim issue (under the Keith Ellison stuff) the following:

PSALM 139:21-22

David, the King, said:

Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies.


I was counteractec with Jesus words regarding loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you.

I wonder if they would counter David's words in the same chapter, immediately following verse 22

Search me O God and know my heart....


Redeemed
I am a great sinner and Christ is a great Saviour...John Newton
redeemed1953
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:21 pm
Location: Mississippi Valley

Postby AndCanItBe on Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:11 pm

Psalm 139

23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.

24 See if there is any offensive way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting.

I'm not sure what you are getting at redeemed. I would say "Amen" to those verses. It was not my intent to attack, and I apologize if my lack of elaboration made you feel that way, but my intent was to point out the fulfillment of the law that Jesus issued in Matthew 5. The old law was fulfilled and He gave us a new command. David lived under the "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" law, we do not, because the old law has been fulfilled in Jesus. Righteous anger on God's behalf because you are offended for Him, is fine, worthy even, but Paul commands us not to sin in our anger. Hatred involves bitterness, bitterness involves sin.
Image
User avatar
AndCanItBe
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 18647
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:24 am

Postby crmann on Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:13 pm

Hi Redeemed...

I know we are to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, but that doesn't mean we have to trust them.

The word "peace" means one thing to the United States and something entirely different to the Muslim nations.

To the United States it means the absence of war, but to the Muslim nations it means a time to prepare for the next battle. There will be no peace with Islam until the entire world is ruled by a Muslim leader.

I am sincere about what I said pertaining to Keith Ellison's speech to the Muslim crowd. That crowd was spurred on by what Ellison said. Islam is not a religion of peace. It is 100% satanic.

I don't see Satan sitting around enjoying watching folk living together in peace. He is going to be stirring things up.

The Old Timer
Image
User avatar
crmann
 
Posts: 10409
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Mountains, Western NC

Postby AndCanItBe on Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:22 pm

I know we are to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, but that doesn't mean we have to trust them.


Yep, "wise as serpents, gentle as doves..."
Image
User avatar
AndCanItBe
MODERATOR
 
Posts: 18647
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:24 am

Postby crmann on Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:34 pm

I don't understand God's Love. But I know He loves all peoples.

The Muslims are a beautiful people! They are easy to love. The thing we hate is the presence of evil which has overtaken them as a people; the same as the way we hate the evil that has taken over the people of our own country.

We are to pray fervently without ceasing that God would gather many, many sheep from the multitude of the lost.
Image
User avatar
crmann
 
Posts: 10409
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Mountains, Western NC

Postby OBXBob on Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:11 am

:a3: Cleveland!

YBIC,

Bob
Image
User avatar
OBXBob
 
Posts: 15257
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:37 am

Postby FreeInHim on Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:27 pm

Ford Dude wrote:The Founding Fathers of the United States were, for the most part, not Christians. Many of them were Deists and Masons.


Ford Dude, I feel the need to correct you on this point. This statement is an Urban Legend that's been circulating some years now and that needs to be put to rest.

Of the 55 men who constitute the founding fathers, 28 were Episcopalians, 8 were Presbyterians, 7 were Congregationalists, 2 were Lutheran, 2 were Dutch Reformed, 2 were Methodist, 2 were Roman Catholic, one is unknown, and only 3 were deists; Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin. And from all appearances Franklin abandoned his deist position in favor of his Christian roots later in life.

Moreover, 45 of the 55 were Calvinists, meaning they were among the most doctrinally strict Christians around.

God Bless :a2:
User avatar
FreeInHim
 
Posts: 3315
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:51 pm

Postby Ford Dude on Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:59 pm

"In terms of religious affiliation, the men were mostly Protestants. Only three, C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics. Several were not particularly religious, and many of the more prominent Founding Fathers were opponents of traditional religion. Many of them considered themselves to be Deists or had strong Deist and anti-church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created "Jefferson's Bible"), Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine. However, a few of the more notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion.

Although not a religion, a significant number were Freemasons including John Blair, Benjamin Franklin, James Mchenry, George Washington, Abraham Baldwin, Gunning Bedford, William Blount, David Brearly, Daniel Carroll, Jonathan Dayton, Rufus King, John Langdon, George Read, Roger Sherman, James Madison, Robert Morris, William Paterson, and Charles Pinckney."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_F ... ted_States


"Mostly protestants" is a statement about their background and upbringing, as opposed to Catholicism, and not their active faith. Just as in this country, over 70% of the population on the 2001 census considered themselves Protestant Anglican, even though they do not have a faith in Christ, or are nominal.

And IMO, Freemasonry is incompatible with a Christ-centered faith, as it is clearly pagan in origin and practise, and this is why I will not count them as followers of Christ.

Hope this clears it up.
Ford Dude
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:21 am

Postby jesusphreak on Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:29 am

I don't mean to be contentious, I really don't, I just have a few questions.

Of the 55 men who constitute the founding fathers, 28 were Episcopalians, 8 were Presbyterians, 7 were Congregationalists, 2 were Lutheran, 2 were Dutch Reformed, 2 were Methodist, 2 were Roman Catholic, one is unknown, and only 3 were deists; Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin. And from all appearances Franklin abandoned his deist position in favor of his Christian roots later in life.


1. Who is among the founding fathers? Those who signed the Declaration of Independence?

2. Thomas Jefferson isn't mentioned among the deists, though he certainly was one.

I just don't know how true your statement is, as there were considerable numbers of men among the founding fathers whom either were anti-religion or were not Christians in the traditional sense.

Moreover, 45 of the 55 were Calvinists, meaning they were among the most doctrinally strict Christians around.


I would say that is an opinion. :wink: (and I say that not holding a strong opinion on either Calvinism or Arminianism)
jesusphreak
 
Posts: 1204
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:34 am

Postby 4givenmuch on Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:34 pm

David Barton at www.wallbuilders.com fully covers all of this. He has thousands of documents (even personal letters) that prove most of the men had a dependent relationship with Jesus. They had several hours of prayer on their knees before drafting the Consitution.

Check out the site. It is amazing!
Seek Humility!
User avatar
4givenmuch
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 3137
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:42 pm
Location: San Diego

Postby FreeInHim on Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:16 pm

Ford Dude, while Wikipedia is often referenced on a myriad of subjects, I wouldn’t place too much confidence in it, as anyone can add, alter, and delete content on the site as they see fit. Attacking the Christian faith grows more commonplace every day, including revising our history, and it’s disturbing to watch Christians simply accept these attacks instead of defending their faith. Wikipedia, I repeat, while informative to a point, can not be relied upon as a foundation for accurate information regarding our faith, including its history.

This myth regarding the religious inclinations of the founding fathers (JesusPhreak, those were the 55 delegates who participated in the four-month long Constitutional convention) was started back in ‘95, by a professor of physics at L.A. Harbor College named Steven Morris. He wrote an op-ed piece in the L.A. Times entitled, “America’s Unchristian Beginnings.” The subtitle read, “Founding Fathers: Despite preachings of our pious Right, most were deists who rejected the divinity of Jesus.” It should be of particular interest to any reader of this opinion piece that Steven Morris is also a member of the L.A.-based Atheists United.

It’s also interesting to note that Mr. Morris chose the word “most” to portray the number of founding fathers who were allegedly deists. A close scrutiny of the writings of these men, both public and personal, refutes that claim. To substantiate his claims, Morris lifted quotes from various selected writings of a few of the founding fathers. As you well know from studying the Bible, one can’t isolate a single passage and expect to understand the message intended. One needs to look at the entire column of scripture, at least, to get the gist of the message.

For example, concerning John Adams, Morris claimed, “Late in life, he wrote “Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been upon the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it!!!”

It’s true this statement did appear in a letter Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1817, in which Adams recounted a conversation between Joseph Cleverly and Lemuel Bryant; a schoomaster and a minister he had known. Fed up with the petty religious bickering that went on between the two, Adams declared to Jefferson (now please read carefully):

Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been upon the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it!!!” But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean h**l.

BTW, the following month Jefferson wrote back and said he agreed!

The revisionist effort is self-evident and should be of no surprise. Deliberately coloring the Christian beliefs of our founding fathers a darker hue, or painting over them altogether, is a tact any atheist worth his salt would attempt. To me, the really disturbing aspect of this ploy isn’t the action of the atheist, but the willingness of good Christians to swallow this diet of fraud without so much as a taste test.

Ford Dude, I also disagree with you on your assessment of what a Protestant is and was then. IMO, technically a Protestant is simply a non-Catholic Christian; it is not “a statement of someone’s background or upbringing.”

JP, Thomas Jefferson may have been attracted to deism for a lengthy period of his life, but it’s evident from his writings later on that he revised his earlier beliefs. For example, in a letter he wrote to Charles Thomson in 1816 he wrote, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”

Hope this helps, and God Bless :a2:
User avatar
FreeInHim
 
Posts: 3315
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:51 pm

Postby jesusphreak on Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:42 pm

Thanks for the post, Free, it was a good one.

JP, Thomas Jefferson may have been attracted to deism for a lengthy period of his life, but it’s evident from his writings later on that he revised his earlier beliefs. For example, in a letter he wrote to Charles Thomson in 1816 he wrote, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”


To me that honestly sounds like he is refuting other views of Christianity is false. IE, he has the 'real' view. And in reading that I get the idea that he meant he was a Christian in the aspect that he followed Christ's teachings, but didn't necessarily think him divine.

I think very much that Jefferson could have been a deist that rejected the divinity of Christ, yet still followed his teachings. After all, many deists too that view anyway.
jesusphreak
 
Posts: 1204
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:34 am

Postby Ford Dude on Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:58 pm

While I agree there were many Christians in the bunch, and that there has been an active effort to discredit the Founding Fathers of the United States, that Wikipedia page has no validity or neutrality dispute going on, and on the whole is accurate for what it says.

My original point was about the foundations of the United States (not America) which were built mostly upon Freemasonry.

A detailed study on this should be convincing to most.
Ford Dude
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:21 am


Return to What you think (About news)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests