John Adam's REAL letter [much different than the one Michael has stumbled upon]

"The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not."

Didn't see the word Christianity, once.

It is funny how we both have quotes to back up our beliefs.

Remember when Jesus told Pilate that he was the truth and Pilate responded with

"what is the truth"

We will believe what we are led to I suppose.

Michael, I like your meaning but look what wikipedia says about John Adams religous views...

Adams was raised a Congregationalist, becoming a Unitarian at a time when most of the Congregational churches around Boston were turning to Unitarianism. Everett (1966) argues that Adams was not a deist, but he used deistic terms in his speeches and writing. He believed in the essential goodness of the creation, but did not believe in the divinity of Christ or that God intervened in the affairs of individuals. Although not anti-clerical, he advocated the separation of church and state. He also believed that regular church service was beneficial to man's moral sense. Everett concludes that "Adams strove for a religion based on a common sense sort of reasonableness" and maintained that religion must change and evolve toward perfection.[51]

Adams often railed against what he saw as overclaiming of authority by the Catholic church.[52]

In 1796, Adams denounced the deism of political opponent Thomas Paine, saying, "The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will."[53]

The Unitarian Universalist Historical Society sheds some light on Adams's religious beliefs.[54] They point out that Adams was clearly no atheist by quoting from his letter to Benjamin Rush, an early promoter of Universalist thought, "I have attended public worship in all countries and with all sects and believe them all much better than no religion, though I have not thought myself obliged to believe all I heard." The Society also relates how Rush reconciled Adams to his former friend Thomas Jefferson in 1812, after many bitter political battles. This resulted in correspondence between Adams and Jefferson about many topics, including philosophy and religion. In one of these communications, Adams told Jefferson, "The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion." In another letter, Adams reveals his sincere devotion to God, "My Adoration of the Author of the Universe is too profound and too sincere. The Love of God and his Creation; delight, Joy, Tryumph, Exaltation in my own existence, tho' but an Atom, a molecule Organique, in the Universe, are my religion." He continues by revealing his Universalist sympathies, rejection of orthodox Christian dogma, and his personal belief that he was a true Christian for not accepting such dogma, "Howl, Snarl, bite, Ye Calvinistick! Ye Athanasian Divines, if You will. Ye will say, I am no Christian: I say Ye are no Christians: and there the Account is ballanced. Yet I believe all the honest men among you, are Christians in my Sense of the Word." The Society also demonstrates that Adams rejected orthodox Christian doctrines of the trinity, predestination, yet equated human understanding and the human conscience to "celestial communication" or personal revelation from God. It is also shown that Adams held a strong conviction in life after death or otherwise, as he explained, "you might be ashamed of your Maker."[54]

Notes

I just find it ironic, how much smarter these men were than the leaders we have now? The words they use and the fact that they truly know the understandings is amazing. I can't get over how eloquently these men spoke --200 years ago--. I suppose that was when they still had British accents, etc. I just wished there was videotape then. It would actually be worth storing their important conventions/meetings for later viewing. We think we are so smart now, and truly we are a very advanced people, but the fact that these men had a knowledge/etiquette span miles long and essentially predicted today's environment is beyond me.

Being a history buff I have to make some clarifications. I wish I didn't have to, but you distort the truth, so I must...

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all. The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.

The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier? Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.

No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers. Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran ("one nation under God"), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course--neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.

The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.

Since, I have studied history vehemently for a decade, I believe you stand corrected. I, by no means am an expert, but you said it yourself, you "don't need facts, you just rely on faith"... well buddy, faith doesn't tell us anything about the history of our country.

Chester A. Arthur was the first to claim Baptist affiliation, here is a little something on him...

Publisher Alexander K. McClure wrote, "No man ever entered the Presidency so profoundly and widely distrusted, and no one ever retired… more generally respected." Author Mark Twain, deeply cynical about politicians, conceded, "It would be hard indeed to better President Arthur's administration."

I'll have to look up Ike again.

I thought he was a token member of a Plain sect (River Bretheren?) like his mother.

We do need to aspire to the eloquence,knowledge and wisdom ordinary people had back then-not just our leaders.

I know we have clever and informed people now.

(Just look at the blogs,alone.)

Back then,not everyone could acquire much academic skill but it is amazing how accomplished and erudite people could be with little or no formal education.

Many treasured what bit of the three R's they could get and most cherished the chance to be scholars of Nature and their elders.

Knowledge (from news,gossip or education) was one of the few forms of wealth that could not be left behind or lost to plunder or bad weather.

I love the FACT that no other name burns the souls of so many Athiests that the wonderful name of Jesus. There is truely something wonderful about that name.

I love the FACT that no other name burns the souls of so many Athiests that the wonderful name of Jesus. There is truely something wonderful about that name.

-- Posted by Double Exposure on Wed, Mar 12, 2008, at 9:00 PM

I sincerely hope you aren't referring to anyone on here as an atheist...because I know a few of these people and they are FAR from being atheist, they just don't worship a book.

Im still not seeing these errors. I still have to say that the Bible is Gods word. If it wasnt then why would he have allowed it to survive when at times it came very close to being gone forever, and then let man screw it up and leave our very salvation to be guessed at. Then documents are found 2000 years later that were written when the bible first came about and it is STILL THE SAME.I praise God he loved us enough to do that. Its not naive to love Jesus.

I praise God he loved us enough to do that. Its not naive to love Jesus.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Mar 12, 2008, at 10:58 PM

Hmm, I think my words were "not naive enough to believe a BOOK full of errors" not Jesus, nor God. Point blank the book is not perfect, after all HUMANS still print it, revise it, and preach out of it, so it is not perfect. However, God and Jesus are. That's the key difference that you misconstrued.

How do you learn about Jesus and God if not from the book they have given us? If God is powerful enough to have created the universe, then is He not also powerful enough to have ensured that his guide is a correct map to find Him?

One of the first accounts in the Bible is of the great deception wherein man's eyes were opened to right and wrong. The cunning of the adversary is no less sharp today. Perhaps some are tempted to discredit the source of the knowledge of God by doubting its authenticity. The adversary who makes someone doubt the veracity of the Word has won a subtle victory and gained an accomplice.

I would suppose some might worship the book, however, I've never seen that myself. I revere the Book, but do not worship it. It is the guide that tells me how to acceptably approach the most powerful being that has ever existed, or ever will exist. Jesus himself is equated therein as the Word of God, or the way to God.

If you were called to appear before the Queen of England, would you study the appropriate protocol or would you prefer being considered a rube and approaching Her Majesty with no knowledge of the appropriate behavior? God is much higher than any mortal being, how can anyone expect to be admitted into his Court without the proper behavior? How can you learn the proper behavior without a guide? I certainly am not smart enough to come to that knowledge on my own, as I for one, need the map to find my way.

I use a map(made by man) that usually gets me where I am going, what do you use? Lets see, you a guy, so you don't ask for directions.

I use a map(made by man) that usually gets me where I am going, what do you use? Lets see, you a guy, so you don't ask for directions.

-- Posted by Sharon22 on Thu, Mar 13, 2008, at 12:12 AM

OMG, a map? I use the nice little GPS thingy I got for Christmas, lol... By the way, if you'll notice a map of the world was never presented in the Bible, I don't quite get it. Did God know there was more out there than just the Middle East?

Well see, I looked in the Bible, and it just wasn't there... Was I surprised, no? Not because GOD left that part of history out, but because a few power-hungry corrupted leaders may have... After all, "America wasn't discovered until 1492", and a man discovered it.

And apparently, neither did God.

darrick,

I do hope and pray that you will live long enough to add some wisdom to your seemingly self-esteemed knowledge. Your youth is apparent in your quips. The map to which I referred is spiritual, and yes, it does guide me in my vacation plans as well as every other aspect of my existence.

Your comments on the "ignorance" of God's knowledge of the world actually only more accurately convey your own ignorance and egocentric view of history as confined to European superiority. Otherwise, Sharon22 would have not seen the need to point out the obvious.

All of the violence ordered by God before the birth of Jesus had a very specific purpose. Perhaps those who question the goodness of God based on His directions in past ages could benefit from studying the underlying motivations. We should all remember that the Maker has power over His creation.

Im still not seeing these errors. I still have to say that the Bible is Gods word. If it wasnt then why would he have allowed it to survive when at times it came very close to being gone forever, and then let man screw it up and leave our very salvation to be guessed at. Then documents are found 2000 years later that were written when the bible first came about and it is STILL THE SAME.I praise God he loved us enough to do that. Its not naive to love Jesus.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Mar 12, 2008, at 10:58 PM

Greasemonkey, I wish everyone would read your above quoted post at least once a day and take a minute to ponder on it. It is one of the most simple but settling I've read yet on here.

There has never been a fire like the gospel. Most fires react to an extinguishment and respond to it the same way but opposite of the gospel flame. It is the only fire known that will spread when attempts are made to put it out. Always has and always will. And that is the gospel.

If four witnesses to an simple accident or incident today were to give their account of what they witnessed and have it recorded in writing and allow it to be circulated for one week and lay them out on a table next to the four gospels I think you would be amazed that the consistency of the nearly 2000 year old four gospels would shame the inconsistencies that would be found in the week old accounts of what four people witnessed. I have heard police and trial lawyers comment on this phenomenon before.

Even more convincing is what these early witnesses had to endure for their stated account of occurrences. Most all suffered a cruel death for refusing to change their account. If the four modern day witnesses of a simple accident were exposed to 1% of the pressures the early witnesses were you would really start seeing inconsistencies show up in their accounts. Their accounts would probably appear to be totally different stories on a weekly changing basis. Heck, a simple bribe would probably change their stories drastically, let alone a harsh punishment.

I feel for a people that can not see a light shining. Perhaps a bright light can blind some people.

Darrick,

I have written this before. All history has been written by man. The historian that wrote the most about Alexander the Great wrote it 250 years after he died. I guess I should not believe that or any of my history books either. I believe God knows lots more than what you want to give him credit for. I'll give you credit for your debate though. -- Posted by Sharon22 on Thu, Mar 13, 2008, at 12:41 AM

I will let Darrick respond later, butI want to say something. The difference is people weren't documenting anything in the time of Jesus, they were however documenting several things during the time of Alexander the Great.So going on pure word of mouth 200 years after someone died, and going on documented occurances is a big difference. The Aramic language is a dead language, that's what Jesus spoke... Who in the world could really understand him? It's like us listening to the Chinese dictators with no translators... Won't work.

So anyways, the point of this post is that this country was NOT founded on Christianity... I know a few folks tried to change the subject, nothing new [I took the bait as well] but the underlying fact is that if you truly knew your history you'd get it.

People didn't flee to this country to start their brand of religion, they fled here in opposition to ANY state forced belifes, including and not limited to Christianity. Just read the Treaty of Tripoli, it tells you all you need to know.

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries"

I will let Darrick respond later, butI want to say something. The difference is people weren't documenting anything in the time of Jesus, they were however documenting several things during the time of Alexander the Great.

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Thu, Mar 13, 2008, at 8:33 AM

Sharon did her research! Looks like other people need to do that before commenting. Remember your always reminding Michael to do that.

Parkerbrothers,

Why don't you ask him? I'm still waiting for an answer on my history question.

I kinda figured that. I'm missing EM on our discussions. He knows how to debate.

Grannyapple,

I am glad someone on here besides me had read some of Josephus works. I enjoy intelligent debate, but sometimes...

Parkerbros.,

Thank you for the kind words. I dont feel it came across as well as whats in my heart. These blogs are one of the most wonderful things I have found that has helped me rekindle a flame for the word. I have prayed that God would speak through me to debate in an educated (a stretch for me) and loving way (another stretch). I feel closer to the Word than ever because I have looked into these erronious acussations that the Bible is not the word of God. I have found the contrary on every point. Its a very humbling thing, to know we are loved by the very creator of the universe.

You are worshipping a book (an idol) not God.

Oh then the Hieroglyphics on the Pyramid walls must be true! Hail Ra!

I will have to disagree with you there. Hieroglyphics were reality for the Egyptians.

Egyptian hieroglyphs (pronounced /ˈhaɪroʊɡlɪf/; often called hieroglyphics; from Ancient Greek ἱερογλυφικός hierogluphikos) was a formal writing system used by the ancient Egyptians that contained a combination of logographic and alphabetic elements. Egyptians used cursive hieroglyphs for religious literature on papyrus and wood. Less formal variations of the script, called hieratic and demotic, are technically not hieroglyphs. This is from Wikipedia.

It was an early form of communication.

Sorry grannyapple, I think I was working on my reply at the same time you posted yours. I was talking to EM. I agree with what you posted.

greasemonkey,

The proof is there, it took me years and years to really believe what I do now about the bible. Because I once believed the same way as most did, but the more I looked, the more I found to see the bible is very small to all of the things that should have happened. Alot of questions left unanswered. Alot of time for something to be left unchanged... seems impossible.

I highly doubt it... It never stopped corrupt people from changing the meaning of words, and guessing at others in order to translate it.

Baffling how new words showed up in the Bible every generation, and the language has grown more and more extint since. Hmm...

greasemonkey,

The Non-Canonized Bible has alot more than the Bible you know of. It's easier to dispute something you have never read, but it adds alot more insight in alot of the areas of the bible that people question. If you really believe that current little book is really the true version of the bible so be it. But you are missing out on so much more.

I have read very little of them, and found that is was an entirely different animal than our Bible. I wouldnt mind reading more of them , because I would like to be better prepared to debate the issue.

I know you wont agree, but I just didnt feel like the holy spirit was in them, but I am not against studying them further. I sure havent ready very many of them though so I cant say for all of them.