Posted on 06/20/2011 12:02:03 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell
Can a nation, conceived in liberty, protect and sustain that liberty without the beliefs of its founders? Clearly if the ensuing beliefs are superior it can. The beliefs of our current age, however, are profoundly inferior. We have sacrificed a national commitment to the principles of a God centered creation and replaced them with a muddled set of so called scientific ideas that do not translate into a behavioral code. The founders gave us as their heritage an ethical system based on ancient Biblical and cultural wisdom. We have replaced that philosophy of thought with whatever feels good and whoever screeches the loudest about their right to inflame the passions of the electorate. This is no way to run a country. Without a set of objective standards we are left with the idiocy of Sheila Lee Jackson and the labyrinthic manipulations of Obama. We are guided by the predominant standard designed by humans to be both murderous and incompetent, Marxist socialism. The solution is simple. We must return to a God given world view in which man is not the sum of his imagination but is a sinner in the hands of an angry yet curiously loving God. We are not the last best hope for mankind. We are fools who think ourselves superior to all of creation. A nation on its knees in supplication to the Father of Creation can be a safe harbor for the humble and a living hell for the wicked. Let it be so.
“Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is a sermon written by American theologian Jonathan Edwards, preached on July 8, 1741 in Enfield, Connecticut.
(Sorry about para. Here’s better. My bad.)
Can a nation, conceived in liberty, protect and sustain that liberty without the beliefs of its founders? Clearly if the ensuing beliefs are superior it can. The beliefs of our current age, however, are profoundly inferior.
We have sacrificed a national commitment to the principles of a God centered creation and replaced them with a muddled set of so called scientific ideas that do not translate into a behavioral code.
The founders gave us as their heritage an ethical system based on ancient Biblical and cultural wisdom. We have replaced that philosophy of thought with whatever feels good and whoever screeches the loudest about their right to inflame the passions of the electorate. This is no way to run a country.
Without a set of objective standards we are left with the idiocy of Sheila Lee Jackson and the labyrinthic manipulations of Obama. We are guided by the predominant standard designed by humans to be both murderous and incompetent, Marxist socialism.
The solution is simple. We must return to a God given world view in which man is not the sum of his imagination but is a sinner in the hands of an angry yet curiously loving God. We are not the last best hope for mankind. We are fools who think ourselves superior to all of creation.
A nation on its knees in supplication to the Father of Creation can be a safe harbor for the humble and a living hell for the wicked. Let it be so.
Edwards was My earliest mentor at Crane TS in Medford. He was the foundation of our American theology studies. Thanks for the heads up.
“Thanks for the heads up.”
You bet....remembered that from my high school American History class, taken in 1962!!!
ping for later/
I do not believe that God is angry What is meant by ‘curiously loving’?
Thank you, that makes it much easier to read. God/Christ bless you.
An Act for establishing religious Freedom.
Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,
that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;
that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;
that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;
that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,
that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,
that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;
that though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;
that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;
that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;
and finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.[3]
While the state of our country can certainly be traced to corrupted morals, we should recognize the Founders intended the practitioners of ALL religions, even those who have NO religion, to have their beliefs and rights protected.
Even those who are irreligious don't want their stuff stolen, or to be murdered or raped, etc. I'd suggest we get our elected "leaders" to start enforcing those laws. That would clean up a great deal.
I'd suggest further that religious folks show the irreligious what a great value their faith has in their lives, and how it makes them happier to be in accordance with God's laws.
Thank you....many years ago I read the sermon and have it in pamphlet form around here somewhere. :-)
But right now I’m reading “Heaven: A World of Love” by Jonathan Edwards
Banner of Truth says it is “Perhaps the most beautiful of all Edwards writings.”
Clearly you have not spoken to the Father recently. He is livid, I assure you.
The "curiously loving" is a sop to my warped sense of humor. Otherwise how can an angry God be loving or a loving God be angry?
I sense we will be struggling with this issue for a while. My use of J.Edwards's quote was deliberate. Read his sermon.
Try reading the WIKI comments at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinners_in_the_Hands_of_an_Angry_God
That's a pretty silly question, don't you think?
And you knw this how? Did he speak to you?
Nor is it by any stretch consistent with Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism or Confucius. Without the foundation of religion there can be no belief in any truth since truth without a singular reality is altogether relative. Freedom of religion should never be construed as freedom from religion. While individuals are free to espouse atheism, society and government are not.
You betcha.
Not when I talk to Him.
I am full of silly questions.
Must be nice to be you.
Must be nice to be you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.