Just what do you want me to answer? Ask.

This:

 

Can't you say your prayer in private? Or does God only act if said over the PA system at a public school game?

Their use of God language was much more esoteric than many realize and their beliefs were far from 21st century Evangelicalism.

 

Are you speaking of Franklin, Adams & Jefferson specifically here? Or the country and its leaders as a whole?

Most of what I have read regarding the seal reverse indicates "providence approves." While many would equate and appoint this to mean that "God approves" many of the founding fathers (the three you mention included) were both deists and children of the Enlightenment. Their use of God language was much more esoteric than many realize and their beliefs were far from 21st century Evangelicalism.

 

Many equate it with "God Approves" because that is what it symbolizes. Do you not know what the Eye of Providence means? It literally is the All Seeing Eye of God. I don't know much more black and white it can be. Although Jefferson, Franklin and Adams were all deists, Franklin considered himself christian, Adams defended Christianity and told Jefferson that " The Ten Commandments and The Sermon on the Mount are my religion." and he often talked about his love for the "author of the universe." They didn't like organized religion but were all very spiritual.

Are you speaking of Franklin, Adams & Jefferson specifically here? Or the country and its leaders as a whole?

 

Both, and.

Many equate it with "God Approves" because that is what it symbolizes. Do you not know what the Eye of Providence means? It literally is the All Seeing Eye of God. I don't know much more black and white it can be. Although Jefferson, Franklin and Adams were all deists, Franklin considered himself christian, Adams defended Christianity and told Jefferson that " The Ten Commandments and The Sermon on the Mount are my religion." and he often talked about his love for the "author of the universe." They didn't like organized religion but were all very spiritual.

 

I understand it but to equate it with God as many today espouse in our culture it is not always the same concept.

 

 

http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/eye.html

 

 

A deist does not believe in the personal God that Evangelicalism often promotes. Your own descriptions of the three above reveal that. (BTW, I would disagree with Franklin as a deist in the traditional sense and Adams was a Congregationalist by birth and later was by his own writing more of a Unitarian. Certainly not traditional orthodoxy as we would know it today. )

 

http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/John_Adams.html

Both, and.

 

You don't think the content of the New England Primer, the primary textbook used in that era, in any way resembles the beliefs of modern-day evangelicals?

I understand it but to equate it with God as many today espouse in our culture it is not always the same concept.

 

 

http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/eye.html

 

 

A deist does not believe in the personal God that Evangelicalism often promotes. Your own descriptions of the three above reveal that. (BTW, I would disagree with Franklin as a deist in the traditional sense and Adams was a Congregationalist by birth and later was by his own writing more of a Unitarian. Certainly not traditional orthodoxy as we would know it today. )

 

http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/John_Adams.html

 

Actually a lot of people today equate the eye with Masonic symbolism or that of the Illuminati which both are false. Anyways we are focusing on to much of the creators and not the creation. I don't want to get in a debate of whether or not the founding fathers were christian or not. The Eye of Providence meant (according to 99.99999% of stuff I am researching) means the all seeing eye. Historians (such as the link I provided) have stated that

The "Eye of Providence" is a visual representation of the words Annuit Coeptis, and reinforces the founders' notion that God looked upon the endeavor of the new nation with favor. Many theorists mistakenly believe the symbolism of the eye is related to the Freemasons (a secret society whose members believed they were under the careful scrutiny of God), but the symbolism of the glowing eye is far older than any Freemason thinking. Scholars have traced versions of the symbol as far back as the ancient Egyptians.

You don't think the content of the New England Primer, the primary textbook used in that era, in any way resembles the beliefs of modern-day evangelicals?

 

Haven't read the whole thing but what I have read is a collection of pithy sayings. How does one draw theology from those?

 

Here's a site that discusses some of what Puritans believed.

 

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/getback/gbpuritan.htm

 

And still more on what Puritans believed in:

 

In the relation of churches to civil power, Puritans believed that secular governors are accountable to God to protect and reward virtue, including "true religion", and to punish wrongdoers.

 

Quite a stretch for the government to also impose punishment on those not practicing "true religion."

 

The idea of personal Biblical interpretation, while central to Puritan beliefs, was shared with Protestants in general. Puritans sought both individual and corporate conformity to the teaching of the Bible, with moral purity pursued both down to the smallest detail as well as ecclesiastical purity to the highest level. They believed that man existed for the glory of God; that his first concern in life was to do God's will and so to receive future happiness.[15]

 

Like some of Reformed churches on the European continent, Puritan reforms were typified by a minimum of ritual and decoration and by an unambiguous emphasis on preaching. Calvinists generally believed that the worship in the church ought to be strictly regulated by what is commanded in the Bible (the regulative principle of worship), and condemned as idolatry many current practices, regardless of antiquity or widespread adoption among Christians, against opponents who defended tradition. Simplicity in worship led to the exclusion of vestments, images, candles, etc. They did not celebrate traditional holidays which they believed to be in violation of the regulative principle.

 

While some of that sounds similar to current Evangelicals, the last bolded is a challenge on any front. Puritans did not celebrate Holy Days like Christmas (banned in Mass.) and Easter. They were vestiges of a fallen church. Even with most extreme of Evangelicals, I don't see that working out together.

 

I might add that Puritans were inconsistent on the mode of Baptism as to sprinkling vs. immersion. I think there is little indifference as such in the current Evangelical culture.

Actually a lot of people today equate the eye with Masonic symbolism or that of the Illuminati which both are false. Anyways we are focusing on to much of the creators and not the creation. I don't want to get in a debate of whether or not the founding fathers were christian or not. The Eye of Providence meant (according to 99.99999% of stuff I am researching) means the all seeing eye. Historians (such as the link I provided) have stated that

 

I must have miscommunicated and I'm sorry. I don't disagree with that definition at all. My difference is in what it meant to an 18th century student of the Enlightenment versus Today's Christian world. See my other posts.

 

My apologies for the miscommunication.

Haven't read the whole thing but what I have read is a collection of pithy sayings. How does one draw theology from those?

 

Here's a site that discusses some of what Puritans believed.

 

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/getback/gbpuritan.htm

 

And still more on what Puritans believed in:

 

In the relation of churches to civil power, Puritans believed that secular governors are accountable to God to protect and reward virtue, including "true religion", and to punish wrongdoers.

 

Quite a stretch for the government to also impose punishment on those not practicing "true religion."

 

The idea of personal Biblical interpretation, while central to Puritan beliefs, was shared with Protestants in general. Puritans sought both individual and corporate conformity to the teaching of the Bible, with moral purity pursued both down to the smallest detail as well as ecclesiastical purity to the highest level. They believed that man existed for the glory of God; that his first concern in life was to do God's will and so to receive future happiness.[15]

 

Like some of Reformed churches on the European continent, Puritan reforms were typified by a minimum of ritual and decoration and by an unambiguous emphasis on preaching. Calvinists generally believed that the worship in the church ought to be strictly regulated by what is commanded in the Bible (the regulative principle of worship), and condemned as idolatry many current practices, regardless of antiquity or widespread adoption among Christians, against opponents who defended tradition. Simplicity in worship led to the exclusion of vestments, images, candles, etc. They did not celebrate traditional holidays which they believed to be in violation of the regulative principle.

 

While some of that sounds similar to current Evangelicals, the last bolded is a challenge on any front. Puritans did not celebrate Holy Days like Christmas (banned in Mass.) and Easter. They were vestiges of a fallen church. Even with most extreme of Evangelicals, I don't see that working out together.

 

I might add that Puritans were inconsistent on the mode of Baptism as to sprinkling vs. immersion. I think there is little indifference as such in the current Evangelical culture.

 

 

Children were taught ABC's in the New England Primer using several Biblical references...In Adam's fall we sinned all...Thy life to mend this Book to attend... The "P" was about Peter denying "His Lord." The "Z" about Zacchaeus, "who did climb the tree His Lord to see."

 

I'm well aware that many of the founders were deists (Thomas Jefferson chief among them). But there were also many who were Christians & held beliefs very similar to believers throughout the ages (Patrick Henry chief among them). They weren't perfect, like some make them out to be; but many of the founders relied heavily on faith in Christ, and this is apparent in numerous writings.

I'd like to preface this reply with the disclaimer that I am in no way a Constitutional expert, or even any sort of history expert. I also want to acknowledge that my post will likely be picked apart like a buzzard on a carcass. :lol:

 

IN MY OPINION, much is made of the "facts" of history...those documented words and events...and of the Constitution and it's amendments. What's left out of the discussion at almost every turn is WHY this country was founded. By that I mean WHY people came to this country. WHY our Constitution addresses the specific points in its drafting and in its amendments.

 

We (the Nation) are a mish-mashed group of people. From the very beginning the fiercest held belief was that of inclusion. In the time of the founding of the country, exclusion experienced by many of the immigrants was based on a wide array of circmstances that we still struggle with today: Religious discrimination; birth order; class; wealth (or lack there of), among them. The country was founded by people who either were trying to escape oppression in some fashion, or opportunists looking to better thier lot in life. They were all idealists in some form or fashion.

 

What we don't need to do is to lose that idealism. Whether we agree on all the details or not, in the end it's what makes the United States of America the greatest nation, and what draws new immigrants (yes...both illegal and legal). Regardless of any economic issues, social issues, religious issues we face, we have the rare (among nations in this world) opportunity to live our lives in freedom. As much as any of us would like to play the persecution card, we enjoy the greatest number and breadth of freedoms of any nation on Earth. It's our RESPONSIBILITY to guard and protect those freedoms with all that is in us.

I'd like to preface this reply with the disclaimer that I am in no way a Constitutional expert, or even any sort of history expert. I also want to acknowledge that my post will likely be picked apart like a buzzard on a carcass. :lol:

 

IN MY OPINION, much is made of the "facts" of history...those documented words and events...and of the Constitution and it's amendments. What's left out of the discussion at almost every turn is WHY this country was founded. By that I mean WHY people came to this country. WHY our Constitution addresses the specific points in its drafting and in its amendments.

 

We (the Nation) are a mish-mashed group of people. From the very beginning the fiercest held belief was that of inclusion. In the time of the founding of the country, exclusion experienced by many of the immigrants was based on a wide array of circmstances that we still struggle with today: Religious discrimination; birth order; class; wealth (or lack there of), among them. The country was founded by people who either were trying to escape oppression in some fashion, or opportunists looking to better thier lot in life. They were all idealists in some form or fashion.

 

What we don't need to do is to lose that idealism. Whether we agree on all the details or not, in the end it's what makes the United States of America the greatest nation, and what draws new immigrants (yes...both illegal and legal). Regardless of any economic issues, social issues, religious issues we face, we have the rare (among nations in this world) opportunity to live our lives in freedom. As much as any of us would like to play the persecution card, we enjoy the greatest number and breadth of freedoms of any nation on Earth. It's our RESPONSIBILITY to guard and protect those freedoms with all that is in us.

 

Too late.

This:

 

I feel as if I say my prayer in private outside on the steps or kneeling at the bottom of my bed i seem to be closer to God and having a personal one on one talk. But I in no way would ever take the rights of a public prayer away form the ones who have always done it.

 

So yes you can pray in private to yourself at games, I do and I am sure make a scene when done outloud. but why should one atheist take away from a prayer asking to keep everyone safe.

I feel as if I say my prayer in private outside on the steps or kneeling at the bottom of my bed i seem to be closer to God and having a personal one on one talk. But I in no way would ever take the rights of a public prayer away form the ones who have always done it.

 

So yes you can pray in private to yourself at games, I do and I am sure make a scene when done outloud. but why should one atheist take away from a prayer asking to keep everyone safe.

 

No atheist has taken away anyone's ability to say a prayer to keep anyone safe.

We directly violate one clause the First Amendment to supposedly enable another clause of the very same amendment?